A SHORT HISTORY OF UNITED CEMETERIES

by Jerome

The pyramid monument on the United Cemeteries property, showing the names of Arabella Mann and Mary Jane Whitehouse.

Note: there have already been two articles on this blog about the Rosemont United Cemeteries site where CTR is buried. The first was on the mystery box of books once inside the pyramid and the second was harmonising the discrepancies in the numbers of recorded graves on site. Strictly speaking, this article should have been the first – giving an overview of the site.

In June 1907 Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated to CTR) made his last will and testament. In it he wrote:

“I desire to be buried in the plot of ground owned by our Society, in the Rosemont United Cemetery, and all the details of arrangements respecting the funeral service I leave in the care of my sister, Mrs. M. M. Land, and her daughters, Alice and May, or such of them as may survive me, with the assistance and advice and cooperation of the brethren, as they may request the same.”

The cemetery was obviously a going concern by this time. It was founded two years earlier, in April 1905 with a board of trustees and subscribers. The full name was the Rosemont Mount Hope and Evergreen United Cemeteries. CTR was originally down as one of the trustees. (See post on this blog dated July 16 for a reproduction of the relevant part of the original documentation.)

The full story of how the Watch Tower Society came to own a cemetery can be found by examining the trial transcripts of the Brooklyn Eagle “miracle wheat” trial and the 1907 Russell v. Russell hearing. The former is because “miracle wheat” was actually grown by John Adam Bohnet on the farm by the cemetery, and the latter because the hearing was endeavouring to establish CTR’s personal assets, as opposed to those of the Watch Tower Society.

CTR had continued to use personal assets to generate income for his religious work from the very start of Zion’s Watch Tower. Some of these dealing he described in the 1894 publication “A Conspiracy Exposed” when answering critics. He also explained why he preferred to keep his personal name out of such dealings “to avoid any unnecessary notoriety.” Investments were necessary because many donations were conditional – the contributor could claim his donation back at any time in case of need.

One way of keeping CTR’s name out of things was through what he described as “a little holding company” – the United States Investment Company, which he personally organised with his own money. Ultimately, CTR donated all these assets to the Watch Tower Society in return for voting shares – one vote for each $10 donated.

The reason for this preamble is that the Watch Tower Society obtained a cemetery as an investment by providing William E Van Amburg with the money to purchase the land. It was next door to an existing parish cemetery established in 1888 and owned by the Roman Catholic St Philomena Church, so the change of use was logical, and it contained a farm. Plat maps of the 1890s show the farm and land belonging to a Margaret Wible, with the St Philomena Cemetery to the south – putting paid to wild conjecture that it was originally a Russell family inheritance.

So Van Amburg ‘bought’ the land and then ‘sold’ it to the United States Investment Company. They in turn organised the cemetery company. But in reality, as a holding company for the Society, it was the Watch Tower Society that provided the money and really owned it. The deal was that half of the income generated would be used for the preservation and upkeep of the cemetery, and the other half to go to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

A well-known Bible Student, Dr Walter E Spill, by profession an osteopath, was chairman of the cemetery company in 1913. As an amusing aside, in cross-examination during the Brooklyn Eagle trial he volunteered the comment that none of his patients had (as yet) been buried there.

There is conflicting testimony at different times as to how practical this investment really was and how successful a venture it proved to be, and in 1917 the Watch Tower Society decided to sell off most of the land, apart from sections kept back for their own use. What had by now been renamed the North Side Catholic Cemetery was the purchaser. Legal documents show the United States investment company transferred these assets to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society on January 10, 1916, and the Society then transferred the same to the North Side Catholic Cemetery on December 13, 1917, as recorded January 18, 1918 in Deed Book Volume 1914, pages 273-274.

The main plot retained by the Society was the area where CTR was buried in November 1916.

The January 15, 1918 St. Paul Enterprise (hereafter abbreviated as SPE) reported on the Annual Convention held at Pittsburgh, January 2-6, 1918, and noted that “the special monument which has been ordered by the Society [for the cemetery], is not yet completed, so none had the privilege of viewing it.”

The special monument would be the pyramid in the center of the Society’s plot. By the time of the 1919 convention report (covering January 2-5, 1919) a five foot deep concrete foundation was in place, and visitors were taken to the nearby marble works to see the work in progress. An artist’s impression of the finished production showed a pyramid with open books on its four sides, the pages designed to receive the names of those buried there. These would be headquarters staff (from “Bethel”) and traveling ministers (“Pilgrims”) along with their families. A space for J F Rutherford was already earmarked.  It was acknowledged that this was a design from J Adam Bohnet, who according to advertisements in the SPE (see for example Jan 30 1917) had been cemetery manager since around 1907. However, it was claimed in The New Era Enterprise for February 10, 1920 (the re-named SPE, hereafter abbreviated to NEE) that CTR had approved this plan from a sketch Bohnet showed him back in 1912. The 1919 convention report suggests they had been trying to obtain the right material for about five years (or since 1914) and the pink granite eventually used came all the way from Marble Falls City in Texas.

Some critics have queried Bohnet’s claim of CTR’s approval for his design. Personally, I have no reason to doubt Bohnet’s word as such – in his published writings over nearly 30 years he comes over as an honest, sincere man; although the actual size and scale of the project may have grown a bit since CTR’s demise. CTR had requested in his will that his funeral service be very simple and inexpensive; so the finished edifice, even if for all the Bethel family, may have evolved into something a little more elaborate than a passing rough sketch from 1912.

The idea of trying to source appropriate materials from back in 1914 has a ring of truth about it because the first Bible Student burial took place on site in December that year. The deceased, 25- year-old Grace Mundy, was buried in one of the four corners of the site. Subsequent burials (apart from CTR’s own) followed this pattern, almost as if they were marking out the extremities of the site and working from the outside inwards when using it.

The installation of the pyramid was completed in time to be given a full write-up in the February 20. 1920 issue of NEE. The front page article was entitled “The Pyramid Monument on the Bethel Burial Lots.” It concluded with a fanciful comment that probably reflected how many people felt at the time:

“The Bethel lot will be sacred in the future when other lots in the place will be forgotten. And who knows the Ancient Worthies may someday stand reverently before the monument with bowed heads and read the names traced thereon!”

Actually, the Ancient Worthies would have some difficulty. The years have not been kind to the pyramid. The weathering of the monument and the way the light hits it can make decipherment difficult. For example, a current internet search of memorial inscriptions for this cemetery only yields about three for the pyramid as recorded by volunteer transcribers. If you go back to 1967, George Swetnam’s article “A Man and His Monument” in the Family Magazine section of the Pittsburgh Press (June 25, 1967, page 7) lists eight. But he was obviously struggling. Grace Mundy, mentioned above, is transcribed by Swetnam as Grace Mound, and he mentions the name of Chester Ellidge. That can only be a drastic misreading of John Coolidge, which is surprising since a proper grave marker still survives on site for him.

If you go right back to the February 1920 NEE article, it also lists eight names, but with the expectation of many more to follow.

In reality, there were nine names in total, but that was all. Swetnam missed the name John Perry, and the NEE had an editorial glitch, because their missing name, Lorena Russell, was buried there back in December 1915.

Likely for reasons of space, some names on the pyramid sides were abbreviated with just surname and initials. However, the full names of the nine are:

North Face
Arabella Mann
Mary Jane Whitehouse

South Face
Charles Taze Russell
John Milton Coolidge
(name easily missed by visitors because it is nearly at ground level)

East Face

Grace Mundy
Laurena May Russell
John Perry
Henry Lawrence Addington
Flora Jane Cole

West Face

(no inscriptions)

A future article will discuss what is known about these people, and some have interesting histories and connections. For the moment though, perhaps we can dispel one potential for speculation - Laurena May Russell was no apparent relation of CTR.

But that was it. For all the hype in the 1919 convention report and the 1920 NEE article, all the names were of people who had actually died before the pyramid was erected. No further names were ever added; and apart from CTR’s sister, who owned the plot next to him, no further interments took place until the 1940s. The site basically was just left fallow. Bible Students who left the Watch Tower Society would hold memorial services at CTR’s grave in conjunction with annual reunion conventions in Pittsburgh, but other visitors would be few. As one dryly remarked in a 1929 convention report: “Either the friends have not been dying or the plan has been changed.”

The reason for the project’s abandonment is not difficult to see. When the construction of the monument really got underway, J F Rutherford was in prison. Once he was released, the headquarters that had temporarily transferred back to Pittsburgh returned to their proper home in Brooklyn. Pittsburgh may have been CTR’s original home, but it was no longer the Society’s home. Shipping bodies from Brooklyn all the way to Pittsburgh was expensive. Also, Pittsburgh was unlikely to be near surviving relatives. And in fact, apart from CTR’s sister, no surviving relatives were ever buried there. The Brooklyn Bethel family soon had another cemetery in New York on Staten Island, and it made far better sense for headquarters staff and their families who died to be buried there.

And the concept of a pyramid as a suitable symbol was to be dropped by the Society in 1928.

So, apart from Margaretta Land, the whole area remained unused for around 25 years. It may be that during this time some of the small headstones for others named on the pyramid disappeared – either through vandalism or wear and tear, or even just by having grass encroach over them. Whatever the reason, only one early stone (apart from CTR’s) survives today. As noted above, it was for John Coolidge. It is a curiosity, because the stated plan was for all the markers (apart from CTR’s) to be 12 inches across and 6 inch high, very close to the ground. Very early photographs of the markers for Arabella Mann and Mary Jane Whitehouse show this was done, whereas Coolidge’s marker is stuck upright in the ground. It stands out more, and maybe that is why it has survived.

Stones for Arabella Mann and Mary J Whitehouse

 

Stone for John Milton Coolidge

 

 

But then in the 1940s, it was decided to sell off the remaining graves and the plots were increased to a more realistic size of eight feet by four feet. Jehovah’s Witnesses in the greater Pittsburgh area had the opportunity to purchase plots. In my own visit to the area in 2014 I interviewed the descendants of several people who bought plots in the 1950s. Of course, most plots were not used until many years later, when the owners actually died. Some have still not been used, and others may never be used because ultimately the owners changed their minds and opted for cremation.
 

From interviews and a detailed examination of the site I was able to establish that, at this time of writing, 65 names are on stones. That is over half of those interred there. Just going by photographs or a casual quick visit, it might seem less than that, until you realise that some stones contain more than one name.

An earlier article established that there are a total of 123 plots sold on site. (The grand total was 128, but four were covered by the pyramid and one is so positioned as to make sale unwise). If we deduct the nine mentioned on the pyramid and Margaretta Land’s grave, that leaves 113 plots to be later sold off.

In my interviews with local people, I had confirmation that 94 plots out of 113 sold were to witnesses – or, families of witnesses. (To clarify the latter comment, a witness may have bought a couple of plots, but their wife or husband may not necessarily have shared their faith, even if sharing their final resting place.) There is no reason to believe that the remainder were not witnesses either; it is just that the people I interviewed didn’t know them – some having died before their time. Those known for certain to be witnesses included an old timer who it is claimed was a pallbearer at CTR’s funeral, and also a graduate of an early class of the Watchtower Missionary School called Gilead.

There is still another site higher up the hill over the roadway not far from the memorial obelisk to William Morris Wright where other witnesses are buried.

So it is perhaps fitting that all those buried in this special area have a connection of sorts with CTR who is buried there, and who of course was involved with the original establishment of the cemetery.
 

Addenda

In preparing this article I did a detailed search of available records to see if any other Bible Students were buried elsewhere in the United Cemeteries. This turned up the burial of William Morris Wright, with his impressive obelisk. You can read about Wright and see a photograph of his memorial on this blog if you scroll back to June 5 of this year. The only other Bible Student on site for certain is Edward Hollister.

According to FIND A GRAVE, Edward Hollister (1843-1920) was buried somewhere on the United Cemeteries site, but I have no grave number and there appears to be no headstone. Tracing forward through genealogical sites reveals Edward’s descendants, including one with the middle name McPhail (which should be a give-away) and connections with one of the groups who broke away from the Watch Tower Society after Rutherford became president.

 

There are quite a few Seiberts buried here, but I found Gertrude W Seibert buried elsewhere in the Mount Union, I.O.O.F. Cemetery in Huntingdon Country, PA, with her late husband.

 

!!!

So ... Roberto sent me a brief review of our book. It's nice. But who ever wrote it thinks I'm getting on in years. Becuase I'm vain or something, let me state for the record that 36 is not getting along in years quite yet. We can revisit this issue when I turn 40.

R

J. C. Sunderlin

We appreciate your help ...

And your interest. I reluctantly deleted a recent comment with a link. I'm familiar with the website in question. It is controversial and the posts there almost never contain historically accurate comments.

So while I appreciate your desire to help, I don't want to link to a web site that is full of inaccurate comments and thoughts. Our goal here is to be as accurate as possible. A comment linking to a web site that is more often filled with unfounded comments defeats our purpose.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

R. M. de Vienne

Contact

An enquiry came in through Bruce about how to make direct contact with information or questions. Rachael’s email address is often featured on this blog, and most queries would be better addressed to her as co-partner with Bruce for the project. And her personal blog is easily found which often gives more snippets of information – or tantalisingly, half-information. However, if anyone wishes to contact me with a comment or query or even a brickbat on anything I have written here or on Blog 2 over the years, I can be reached at:

john_h_paton (at) yahoo.co.uk

Letter and Answer

The Letter:

Greetings Rachael and Bruce,
 

I received and read carefully the Barbour book. Again, I found it very interesting and well researched. You both have worked hard at unearthing valuable information about Barbour and the origins of his ideas and his efforts on behalf of them. I think it is good how you show that there were others around him who supported his conclusions, as well as those who disagreed with some of them, but still held to his general thrust. Combined with some additional thoughts you bring out in Separate Identity, the reader gains a good picture of who he was and what he believed. His connections with Russell are clearly researched and made plain.
 

There is one area that needs more development, if you would allow me to enquire. Toward the end of the book you state that Barbour gave up on the invisible presence idea (p 130). And, if I recall, in one of your statements you may have said that he also forsook the 1873/74 chronology.
 

Either one of these teachings, and especially both together, are central to who Barbour was and what he stood for and did that radically affected Russell and millions of people in their wake through JW efforts to our day today.
 

Therefore, you leave the reader hanging with the minimalist comment that Barbour gave up on invisible presence. What! How could he give up such a creative radical idea that Jesus was “walking” on earth? This was an idea that he and others in his circle believed and defended from the core of their being in the face of great opposition! Did he toss also his 1873/74 conclusions?
 

Since he did as you state, then please narrate how such a “switcheroo” happened. That must have been an existential crisis for him. What triggered it? And how did he prove himself “wrong”? What were the flaws he found in his own interpretation? Did it leave him denying his premise of a two stage advent; or what?
 

This also makes me ask what in the world did Russell think when he heard that the father of these beliefs had “proved” them “wrong.” How did Russell avoid falling down when this rug was pulled out from under him? Did he for a moment wish he have never read that first article that Barbour mailed to him?

 

Well, you can see, that your narrative caught me up in this drama of clashing ideas! What happened to Barbour that he was a Judas to his and Russell’s faith?
 

Thank you for your help in resolving the final chapter of this dramatic story.
 

Best,

 

The Answer:

 

Thanks for your kind comments. It’s always pleasing to know one’s work is apreciated. Before I answer your questions let me note that Nelson Barbour and Separate Identity (vol 1) are the first two volumes of a larger work. When complete it will be three books for a total of five volumes. So the story as you’ve read it is just beginning. Your questions are answered in Separate Identity volume 2. If our outline doesn’t radically change we address them in chapters three and four.

            I’ll omit all the details and tell you the basics. When 1878 failed to bring translation to heaven, they extended their system of prophetic time parallels to 1881. While all of them looked forward to 1881, there were a variety of expectations. Barbour and A. D. Jones believed that translation would occur that year. Russell believed the year was prophetic, but lacked an exact expectation for it. He was comfortable publishing a lurid article from Jones’ pen and Jones’ Fall of Babylon tract. But he personally had no firmly fixed expectation.

            Watch Tower theology evolved apart from Barbour. A key development was the belief that an initially invisible presence followed by Christ’s visible manifestation was wrong. Hints of a new understanding appear in various Watch Tower articles, and it is clearly stated in the fall of 1881. By September 1881 the official position of Zion’s Watch Tower was that Christ, a spirit creature since his resurrection, would remain such and as such would continue invisible. His parousia was an unseen heavenly event.

            These parallel events created a crisis for Barbour. He reacted strongly to the idea of a totally invisible parousia. He called it spiritism and published a pamphlet to refute the idea. The pamphlet has been lost. In short order he published a longer booklet against the idea.

            Barbour made firm statements about the nature of 1881, and what few followers he had expected to see heaven that year. This disappointment coupled with the previous failures killed his group. Fewer than 1000 remained, probably only a few hundred. (Based on a later article in a resuscitated Herald, I would guess about 200 faithful followers remained.) Barbour retained his newly found Age to Come stance, but adopted Adventist speculation about 1885-6. He was desperate enough to borrow from Thurman, another failed prophet. Principals in the Christian and Missionary Alliance also looked to that date. He returned to his previous belief that Christ would come in glory, abandoning (for practical purposes) invisible presence doctrine. Barbour saw each failed prophetic scheme as a step further into light. Miller had adopted a similar strategy.  

            Russell was more flexible than Barbour. Barbour saw himself as God’s unique last-days voice. Russell, in this era, didn’t see himself in this exact light. He knew that nothing in Barbour’s scheme was truly his. Russell’s approach to parousia came not from Barbour but from Seiss. The idea of a totally invisible presence developed in conversations between Watch Tower adherents. It was a scripturally based discussion. This is important. Even if one believes their exegesis fails, they discussed the issue from the Bible. Barbour used the Bible to fit his ideas. The 1873-4 date came to Russell first through Wendell. Though Barbour was the primary advocate, there were many voices pointing to that date, and Russell knew nothing of Barbour. Russell did not see Barbour as his spiritual father. Russell saw God as his spiritual father and himself as led by God. Russell was sorrowed by Barbour’s deflection and troubled by it. But he wasn’t shaken by it because he believed the message come from God through Christ.

            Even when he came to see himself as the Faithful and Wise Servant, he only saw himself as the servant of a divine message, not the originator of it. Barbour “consulted” only to promote his new doctrines. Russell actively sought the light others might possess, discussing with anyone who would difficult scriptures.

            The fundamental issue was view of self and message. Russell was confident of divine leading. Barbour thought he was semi-divine.

More practice photos

I'm not very good at this yet. But you might like to see these.

Drama Script - Austria

Kingdom School Reunion Bookmark

 

"Public Talk" Invitation

Polish Awake! Published under Communist Ban

Post Card - 1912

 

All Items from Our Research Collection

We would consider selling the Post Card for the best offer over

three hundred dollars.

New Camera

I finally surrendered to need and bought a new camera. It’s harder to use than my old one, but my old one is now dead. I’ve been practicing, but my “aim” is still off. Here is a “crooked” photo of part of our research collection. Some of you will be able to identify these books.

Rutherford Era

If we’re to write a history of the Rutherford years we will need some significant support. I don’t mean money. I mean documentation. It may seem that there is a huge amount of that, but there are huge gaps in significant areas. And there are many wrong or simply misleading claims.

We would need personal letters of any Bible Student or Witness from the 1916-1942 era no matter how insignificant they may appear.

We have a very limited number of Rutherford’s letters. We would need many more.

We have one Witness diary from the Rutherford Era. There must be more.

Anything at all, no matter how insignificant it may seem is important.

If you want us to continue into the Rutherford Era, we will need to see what you have. Send us scans. Start now.

There are no guarantees. Mr. Schulz is oldish and infirm. I’ve outlived my “expiration date” by nearly 17 years. If you’ve read my personal blog, you already know that. So time and circumstance may end our writing. But we’re optimistic.

Send us stuff.

Update

Several have emailed concerns for our health. They see that we haven’t posted for a while, and they’re worried. Bruce suffers from old age issues. He hasn’t posted regularly for sometime, leaving that to me or Jerome. He continues to write, and he is teaching again this year. We’re both very busy with start of school meeting and planning.

I’ve been in and out of the hospital with my usual issues. But we’re working on volume two of Separate Identity at a steady pace. Current research issues are the most difficult we’ve faced. If you don’t see a comment here, it’s because we are following trails so faint that sometimes we despair. It is worth while though. If you want a peek, ponder how Henry George, the economist, William McKinley, an assassinated French politician and Presidents Grant and Lincoln fit into Watch Tower history. Have fun with that.

Following vague hints in Watch Tower articles to a factual story is challenging.

 

Someone asked Bruce if we would continue our histories into the Rutherford era. I don’t know. We have a developing archive. Time is the issue. People don’t live forever. Neither of us will continue if the something happens to the other. Time will tell.

 

I spend more time thinking about my classes than about Watch Tower history. That will continue for the next few weeks. When the new students settle down and my classes fall into a workable routine, I can refocus. The same is true for Mr. Schulz.

Because this blog isn’t about personalities or hobbies or private affairs, we seldom post personal comments. But I wish you could see Bruce’s students respond to him. He can’t walk down the main hall in his school without many greetings and occasional hugs from the lower grades students. It is interesting to watch this tough as nails, no-nonsense man generate this kind of affection from students and staff.

I’ll be up there and in his school for a seminar mid-week next. Afterward we’ll review the outline for volume 2 of Separate Identity. It needs to be reworked – again.

So be patient with our posts. Write your own. If it’s well supported by documentation and not a polemic, I’ll consider it. Make the writing stellar.

How Many Graves?

(Advance warning: this is an article written by Jerome - a pedant writing for pedants)

All readers of this blog will be familiar with the burial plot at United Cemeteries where CTR was buried, and where, in its center, is a pyramid monument erected in 1919-1920. The idea originally was to provide burial plots for Bethel workers and Pilgrims and their families.

When the site was first mooted, the total number of graves given was more than 275. The 1919 convention report on page 7, comments that: “the Watch Tower Society burial lots in Rosemont United Cemeteries...contain ample grave spaces for all the members of the Bethel family, and the Pilgrims and their wives – in all more than 275 adults graves.”

Perhaps the key word for this large number is lots (plural). There is more than one lot owned by the Watch Tower Society on the site, although most attention naturally focuses on the lot with the pyramid at its center.

However, if you examine modern cemetery records, the total number of graves surrounding the pyramid monument is only 128. They comprise four sections: T-33, 34, 46 and 47, with 48 grave spaces in each.

This article details some history of the site to explain the discrepancy.

Initially, when the Society owned the whole cemetery, any area assigned for Bible Student burials did not matter too much because it could likely be adjusted as necessary. But once they sold off the bulk of the cemetery lands it was necessary to specify which parts were to be retained for their own use.

Much of the land was sold off to the North Side Catholic Cemetery around 1917, which already owned adjoining property. The North Side Catholic Cemetery became part of the Catholic Cemeteries Association in 1952, and this body sold a large swathe of land to the Masonic Fund Society for the County of Allegheny in 1994. Credulous polemicists who see the grave of CTR and the pyramid with the Masonic building in the background should note this progression of sale which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Watchtower Society, ancient or modern. But for our purposes, when these transfers took place it was necessary to specify which bits of land were being held back and never belonged to either Catholics or Masons.

It appears there were three parcels of land retained by the Watch Tower Society. One small tract is a bit of a mystery and has never been used for burials, but the other two are grave sites today. These were mentioned when the pyramid monument was installed and the event marked with a front page article in The New Era Enterprise, published St Paul, Minnesota, Tuesday, February 10, 1920, and entitled: “The Pyramid Monument on the Bethel Burial Lots.”

The article mentioned that “the Society has the entire control of this plot of ground. It was not included in the sale of the farm and cemetery property.” Also “the Bethel lot has space for 192 graves, and in another lot just across the upper roadway the Society has a lot of 64 grave spaces.”

This would total 256 spaces – just a little under the original 275 figure – but is an accurate statement of intent for these sites. The upper site is quite near the obelisk for William Morris Wright, one of the original trustees of the original cemetery company back in 1905. (You can read about Wright and see a photograph of his memorial on this blog if you scroll back to June 5 of this year).

That the main Bethel site with its pyramid was intended for 192 burials is clearly shown by the pyramid itself. On each of its four sides there is an open book and marked spaces for 48 names. Although somewhat worn, on a day when the sun shines in the right direction, you can see these numbers clearly. They are divided up into lots, A, B, C, etc. (up to H) and each lot has six numbers, allowing for six graves per lot. That is 48 numbers per side – making the grand total of 192 for all four sides. The plan was to inscribe the names in the appropriate spaces as plots were used. In reality, all the names that do exist on the pyramid (there are nine in total) were of people who died before the pyramid was completed.

So why do modern cemetery records only note 128 grave spaces?

The original plan for the cemetery was abandoned almost before it had started. Once the pyramid was erected, with the exception of CTR’s sister, Margaretta Land, who died in 1934, no other interments took place until the 1940s. When burials restarted, the ground plans were redrawn. Modern cemetery records show the total number of plots was reduced by increasing the size of graves. Current records show each lot to now have only 4 plots, rather than 6. So A has 4, B has 4, and so on. The size of the plots has been increased to eight feet by four feet. This was wise, because the site is on a hill, and not only a hill but a slightly curved hill, and it became difficult over time to keep exact track of locations. Even with the larger sizes for plots, some graves have reportedly been disturbed when new ones have been dug.

This reduces each section to 32 graves and the total number of spaces to 128.

There is one a further reduction. Four grave spaces (Lot 33, H4: Lot 34, E3; Lot 46, D2; and Lot 47, A1) can never be used because there is a rather large pyramid monument on top of them, complete with a five foot depth of concrete foundation, courtesy of J Adam Bohnet’s labors in 1919.

So the total number of grave spaces is down to 124. I have it on good authority that there is just one remaining grave space unsold, where doubt as to what might be beneath makes sale unwise; but apart from that, the remaining 123 have been sold, although not all have been used.

As to how the site has been used over the last one hundred years, that will be dealt with in future articles.

 

A Letter

At the risk of upsetting some of our readers, I'm posting this. This is my half of an exchange between historians. I don't think there are any surprises here. Mr. Schulz is a Witness; I am sympathetic but not one. That's not news here. But we get an occasional personal question. This should answer what is usually asked. Feel free to rant. I won't be angry.

My mother was Austrian born and came to the US with her parents at the start of WW II. (I'm a late in life child.) They were Catholic. My dad is American born but his grandfather was a German. He was raised Lutheran, but does not seem to have ever taken religion seriously. He is a scientist, still actively writing in his extreme old age though otherwise retired. My mother met the Witnesses when I was ten and was baptized when I was twelve.

The Catholic Church was repellant, and mom thought she’d found something better.  I attended meetings with her until I was of age. It seemed the proper thing to do. From the start I read all the Witness literature I could borrow. It was intriguing. But I asked how they knew what the modern application of Scripture was: They found modern fulfillments for parts of the Bible that do not seem prophetic. The answer was, “They don’t know. They only believe.”

To my mother’s great distress and my father’s irritation (he discounted religion and saw it as a waste) I read widely from other religions. I am independent. For a while I associated with an Abrahamic Faith congregation. They are, as most of that fellowship is, Socinian. We parted ways agreeably and I sometimes still attend. I occasionally attend Witness meetings. My writing partner is a Witness. I am not one and was never baptized as one.

Most of my base beliefs are similar to or the same as Witness basic doctrine. But I reject the tinge of Christian Mysticism that colors their doctrines especially the extra Biblical sense of divine appointment and the prophetic scheme that takes them into fanciful and shifting prophetic applications. I am, however, very sympathetic to Witnesses and other millennialists. I continue to read widely of the literature and have accumulated a large collection of it. Some of it is excellent.

An unexplored influence is that of the German expositors from the 17^th Century onward. While I know that German influence returned in the 1960s with someone closely reading Lang’s Commentary (which I own and find very useful) and was evident in the 1950s with Watchtower writers dependent on Kiel and Delitzsch and Franz in regular conversation with someone he considered an adept Jewish scholar. But in the 19^th Century Russell was influenced second hand by German writers through Seiss and others who quoted them and referenced them. It is almost impossible to point to specifics. Russell didn’t read or speak German, though some of his associates did.

There was an English translation of Lang’s massive commentary (many authors under his editorship.), and Russell quoted from it once, in November 1907. Though there is the one quotation, I believe the influence of the work is more extensive than that. I haven’t pursued this yet. It’s more suitable for our third book, should we write it.

My personal opinion of Lang’s Commentary is that it should still be read. I’ve read it entire and returned to it several times. If I have a serious question, that’s where I start.

I hope you find Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet helpful. There is one error in the book. We misidentify his grandfather as his father, misled by a newspaper article. His father’s name was David.

If you’re interested, here is a photo of part of my research library: 

http://wardancingpixie.blogspot.com/ 

top photo

Paton

We need a clear photocopy or scan of Paton's Songs of Hope for All People. (1887)

Research Assistance

Mr. Schulz is having issues with blogger. I am posting this on his behalf. I appreciate his comments as found in the last two paragraphs.

In the 1970s Paton family members provided another researcher and myself with material now easily found on the Internet. Another family member, now deceased, refused to share some material fearing that it would ruin John Paton’s reputation. Beyond that, I don’t know what her specific concern was.

            The documents appear to be lost. Access to Paton’s letters and other papers would resolve several issues. If you have any of his papers, no matter how irrelevant they may seem, please share them. Without them, we’re left with speculation with little substance. Speculation provides us with research trails, but it isn’t evidence.

            One additional note:

            This blog once had an additional contributor. He was deleted for cause by Dr. de Vienne. This message is meant for him:

Her word is final. E-mailing her will not reverse the decision. Stop it. She doesn’t welcome your emails or your visits to her personal blog. Why would someone who claims Christianity as their faith insist on going where he is not welcome? Why would he send emails to a person he knows does not want to receive them. This is not Christian behavior, and it is not adult behavior.

Original to the 1928 Song Book, Heavely revised since

Answer to an email from another historian ...

If he gives me permission, I'll post his email too, but I don't have permission yet. So herewith is my answer sans the original email:

Update: I now have permision to post it. Here it is:

Just wanted to update you on my progress. I received your book last week. I have read it including almost all the footnotes. And have highlighted most every page with red pen so that I can go back and zero in on certain points, which I plan to do.
 

I very much appreciate your labor of love on this project. From my own areas of research, I understand how much work and tedious effort goes into such a production. As authors and researchers, you excel at this task.
 

Through your hard work I am beginning to perceive that the type of people interested in the issues and the various publications that dealt with them represented a broad Circle or “network” of truth seekers, rather than simply “Adventists” or “Age to Come” folk. It seems to me that several papers churned various doctrinal discussions back and forth, with replies and republications of articles shared between them all.
 

I would think that many of the readership(s) subscribed not to just one of the papers, but to two or more. Even though each paper “represented” a particular slant or interpretation, nevertheless subscribers not fully attached to that view read and often replied to articles appearing in various papers. In this way, it seems that there was a body of truth seekers spanning several “churches”/”parties”/”ministries”/”works” including those tending to One Faith, Age to Come, Bible Students, Church of God groups, or even Sabbatarian Age to Comers who were strongly opposed to SDA E. G. White’s control. 
 

Seems most of these shared a common belief in the literal Millennium with Israel restored at some point to lead the nations under the transformed Elect. Within this Circle there was intense interest in restoring Biblical truths concerning such areas as: restoration, restitution, probation, Lords Supper, feet washing, Passover, OT types, state of dead, fate of the wicked, role and fate of Satan, identity of Israel and return to Land, name of church, nature of Jesus, preexistence, trinity, holy Spirit, etc. The papers served to keep all these “hot” issues “popping” before the churches and scattered individuals within this network/Circle.
 

What is becoming apparent to me is that the borders between these participants were “soft” as members migrated from one part of the Circle and in some case back around again. Even when the groups themselves wanted harder boundaries, members within those closed groups would often find themselves moving on and around over time.
 

Thus, the labels we tend to use, such as Life and Advent, Church of God, One Faith, Christadelphian, Jehovah Witnesses, Age to Come, etc. may be rather artificial attempts to pigeon-hole members of the faithful Circle so as to forge some kind of device by which to fix them in place for examination. From what I read from your work, even the “leaders” and “founders” and publishers of these “groups” over time often developed new ideas and took new directions, within the larger Circle.
 

During this period of the nineteenth century, in order for truth seekers within this larger Circle to communicate their studies and ideas, they had recourse to attending church, conferences, guest speakers and receiving items by snail mail such as paper publications. This was there “connectivity.” This was their means to a “network.” Had they been here today, they would be using the internet and participating in “discussion groups” and “list servers.” Too, they would likely be meeting on the weekend with local people of like minds, but would hasten back to their internet connections at home to share ideas and debate with others within this broader, and often divergent Circle. During the period of the early Russell, this broader network functions similarly, but by means of the dozens of publications and itinerant teachers, instead of the internet and dozens of list servers.

The model that I am trying to describe may be contrasted to my previous view which did not see the connectivity between all these many groups, but saw each of them as sealed off from the others more tightly than they actually were. That wrong perception probably arose due to my reading about each of these groups, churches, sects in handbooks of denominations which would have each one located in its own chapter with its own doctrines categorized. This presented a static “cookie cutter” version of reality that hid the dynamic organic nature of these people whose lives were dedicated to searching and seeking the “kingdom of God” wherever there seemed to be a revelation of it.
 

Please feel free to correct or modify my current perceptions of these issues.
 

I will continue to reflect on your book and the material in it.

Best Regards,

Phil Arnold, Ph.D.

My reply:

Yes, there was drift between the two primary millennialist groups, Adventists and Literalist Age-to-Come believers. Age to come was in turn divided into smaller parties which included on one side the Christadelphians and on the other small independent congregations, sometimes the only representative of their unique doctrine. The Restitution represented the most active and committed and most numerous of the age to come bodies in this era.

They did read each other’s papers and magazines, often commenting on something found in other papers. This practice decreased some after 1880. Advent Christians and Church of Christ (age to come, not Campbellite) believers broke off association in that era. References to World’s Crisis, the main AC publication, decline in The Restitution after that. This would change again, somewhat by mid 20^th Century.

We find Watch Tower adherents reading a number of Adventist and Age to Come journals. Interest in Advent Christian and Life and Advent Union periodicals seems to die sometime near 1883-1885. They continued to read Restitution for several more years, to sometime near 1900. By 1882 Watch Tower readers usually also read Herald of the Morning, and J. H. Paton’s World’s Hope. The Herald suspended publication about 1885. A. P. Adams’ Spirit of the Word commenced about then, and saw a limited readership among Watch Tower readers. The number who read these three magazines was small in comparison to the total Watch Tower readership, but it was significant enough that Russell continued to address issues raised in these competing magazines until the mid 1890s.

Until about 1887, many of the congregations which drew Watch Tower interest also drew others with millenarian views, sometimes with opposing views. This was occasionally disastrous. The Newark, New Jersey, probably the second largest group in 1881, dwindled to nearly nothing after A. D. Jones defected. Morals issues, doctrinal division and personalities nearly killed the congregation.

Truly new congregations developed after 1882. This accelerated with the publication of Plan of the Ages in 1886. After 1886 we meet the first exclusively Watch Tower congregations. Where Paton’s followers were active, they often attended Watch Tower meetings because there were no others. Paton never had a large following. My best guess is that he had fewer than 1000 readers. The Watch Tower had about 10,000 or more by 1886. (Figures differ, but that’s close.)

If you read Day of Vengeance, you will note that Russell read widely. He cites a surprising number of religious periodicals. While this is true of him, it was becoming less common among Watch Tower readers. By 1903, when one of Paton’s sons picketed a convention in Denver, few delegates knew who he was. Fewer still cared that he was there.

Many who’ve written about millennialist movements suggest that those drawn to them were disaffected and alienated. This isn’t so. The suggestion that they were poor and uneducated is also false. The period in which the Watch Tower movement developed is sometimes called the Age of Optimism. The suggestion that God’s judgment impended seemed in contrast to be pessimistic, and we find Adventist and similar theologies described as “pessimistic sects.” This is false too. Though they had differing beliefs, they believed God intended ultimate Good for man. This was more clearly so of Age to Come believers, among whom we must class Watch Tower adherents. They believed in a sharp judgment, but a blessing to the bulk of mankind. So wide was their view of salvation that opponents called them Universal Salvationists, which is not at all accurate.

The first chapter of Clarke Garrett’s Respectable Folly (John Hopkins U. Press, 1975) has a useful review of historical perspectives. There is much to disagree with, but anyone interested in the broader history should read that.

May I post your letter and my reply on our history blog? Doing so may generate comments from others with insight into this history.

Wake Up!

We need a clear photocopy or scan of No. 3 and No. 5 of E. C. Henninges’ Wake Up! This newsletter style sheet was published in 1909-1910.  

Can you help?

Current work

I wrote this for my personal blog. Mr. Schulz asked me to post it here too. So, herewith, is my rambling post ...

            I continue to research our last chapter. (Don’t get all excited. We’re writing it out of order.) Our outline for it will change. Parts of it will be tucked into other chapters, and part of it may become a separate chapter. That’s not unusual. Since ours is original research, changes will come as we see persons and events more clearly.

            In volume one, we deconstructed a myth based on Russell’s Adventist associations, introducing our readers to Literalist belief and its influence. The last chapter of volume two discusses the place of Christian Mysticism in the broader movement and within the Watch Tower movement especially. We will not give this the space given to Literalists. Its influence, while distinctive, was narrow. We want to explain it in a few paragraphs without leaving our readers puzzled, outraged, or with many unanswered questions.

            Christian Mysticism is rooted in First Century sects. Paul speaks of them with disfavor. I believe one of the Seven Letters (in Revelation) does as well. But we start with the late 18^th Century. The 1790s were closer in time to our story than World War I is to us. We take this narrative up to Russell’s personal experience. Striking a balance between needed detail and equally needed brevity is difficult. I may need a double dose of hot coffee and chocolate!

            Christian Mystics invariable urged chiliastic belief. The principal actors in our story had first hand contact with mystical belief, rejecting most of it, but adopting its characteristic belief in specially appointed last-days messengers.

            So … we have a partial first draft of this section. It’s interesting but needs work –

both more research and clarification. This, more than most of our story, will need unquestionable clarity. It will make some uncomfortable and unhappy. (We seem to have that effect on some.) Because Christian Mysticism is often associated with “spirit manifestations” and prophecy, we want to clearly define the very narrow way it touched believers in the 1870-1890 period. I don’t want the point misused by polemicists or rejected by current adherents. I want a “just the facts, ma’am,” clearly stated, unequivocal explanation.

            Writing is hard work.

            Current historiographic practice is to rehash all the analysis done by others. This is a carry over from dissertation writing. A rehash proves that you consulted all the appropriate material. Unfortunately, (or conveniently, depending on your viewpoint) it allows writers to escape responsibility for their opinions. Reflexive, passive voice writing plagues academic writing. We avoid passive voice and third person reflexive writing. It’s poor work, even if it is the standard among British and UK influenced academics. We assume responsibility for our conclusions. We won’t blame others for them, and if we share them with those who preceded us we will credit them or note the similarity. But we avoid the long “he said, they said, it said” summaries characteristic of many writers.

            In this last chapter we are forced to review the research of others to a greater extent than usual. I wish there was an alternative. There isn’t. We confront opinions widely held by sociologists (who think of themselves as scientists because they love graphs and charts) and historians of the millennialist movements. When applied to the movements we consider, some of their theories are partially correct. Others are wholly false but accepted uncritically by four or five generations of writers. They are, what ever the quality of the theory, an issue we cannot avoid.

Faces from the Past

Most will be familiar with this picture of the first convention away from Pittsburgh, taken in Chicago in 1893. The picture comes from the brochure Our Temple published by the Chicago Bible Students in 1914 to highlight their building for Photodrama showings.

 

Have a closer look at the bottom right hand corner. There you will see a young Rose Ball and her future husband Ernest Henninges.

 

 

 (Originally published on Blog 2)

 

 

By Mary Cleveland Jewell

Jewell's poems were also published on postcards and in a book and at least two booklets.

Inside the Pyramid

The photographs that accompany this article may be somewhat disappointing if you were perhaps expecting the lost sarcophagus of Cheops.

However, the pyramid in question is one very applicable to this blog – namely the monument to the Watch Tower Society positioned quite close to the grave of Charles Taze Russell in the United Cemeteries, Pittsburgh.

These photographs were taken when the monument was vandalised and one whole section prized open. The structure is made up of four triangular sides, all balancing towards each other, with a capstone on top to hold it all together. It was therefore designed to be hollow, on a concrete base of about five feet in depth. The base is level, whereas the land on which it is built is sloping – hence part of the base can be seen at certain edges of the monument.

All readers should be familiar with this pyramid monument, with its open books on all four sides. It was designed to be in the center of the plot reserved for Bethel family members and WT Society pilgrims. Future articles will provide more detail of what was intended, and how thing ultimately worked out.

As originally planned, the monument was going to hold a special cache of WT Society publications relating to the era of Pastor Russell.

This was mentioned when the idea was first mooted in the 1919 convention report. The relevant paragraph was a statement of intent: “Within the structure, incased (sic) in a block of granite, will be a sealed metal box in which is a complete set of Karatol Scripture Studies, the Memorial Tower, and one of every tract, photographs of Pastor Russell, a copy of the Society’s charter, and many other things to interest the people who at some future date may open the pyramid and find them.”

When the monument was completed and the event covered in the New Era Enterprise for February 10, 1920, the plan had not changed. The Enterprise reported:  “Within the monument is a hollowed stone which contains a copy of all the Society’s literature, photographs of the Pastor, a copy of the Society’s charter and other data which some day in the not far distant future may perchance come to light, now effectually sealed up.”

Years later, when George Swetnam wrote an article A Man and His Monument for the Pittsburgh Press in its Family Magazine section for June 25, 1967, page 7, he wrote about this cache of material: “Near the top of the hill on Cemetery Lane, between Babcock Boulevard and U.S. 19 in Ross Township, is one of the strangest monuments to be seen in all the Pittsylvania County. It is a granite pyramid, perhaps ten feet square, and it is filled with books and magazines and other papers, hermetically sealed to await the end of time.”

For a certain type of person – and I must stress that I would not include either practicing JWs or Bible Students in this – it all proved to be a temptation too far.

The monument has had its share of difficulties, for example there are marks on one side which suggest a meeting of monument and sledgehammer at one point. But once someone worked out that it really was hollow, and that the four sides leaned in towards each other, it wasn’t rocket science to then prize open one side and topple it over, to reveal the hollow area and any contents.

The monument was very quickly repaired, but not before the above photographs were taken.

Shards of stonework were found in the area, suggesting that there had indeed been a container inside it, which had been broken open and the contents stolen.

Personally, in spite of all the accounts, I had always wondered whether or not the box of publications really had been placed inside the pyramid? Maybe at the last minute someone had thought better of it? Maybe they were entombed in the concrete base built by J Adam Bohnet originally? Having now visited the site in person, and seen the photographs of the interior, and also having spoken personally with those responsible for the pyramid’s repair and resealing, I am now convinced that, yes, there was a container of publications in there, and yes, they were stolen when the pyramid was vandalized.

What does this mean? Actually, on sober reflection, not a lot.

The cache of material was only added in 1920 when the monument was completed and sealed. It would therefore only contain material that could be obtained by conventional means at that time. Since the Society’s offices had moved to Brooklyn, then back to Pittsburgh, then back to Brooklyn in this era, and since attempts to complete the reprint volumes at this time involved pleading with the public to loan certain issues, it is unlikely that anything unique would have ended up entombed. In reality this means that any serious collector today would likely have all the material in duplicate form already. The only thing that made the material special was that it came from the pyramid. But you can’t exactly advertise that on eBay can you? You can imagine the advertisement - what will you bid for materials stolen by defacing and breaking into a cemetery monument? There are no doubt a couple of crimes there.

So someone somewhere may have a cache of materials. But nothing that couldn’t be obtained from elsewhere, with an illegal provenance – and even then, how do you prove that provenance? Of course, there may be some sad individual gloating over his hoard out there somewhere. If he is reading this, all I can suggest is that he might consider seeking medical help.

Mt. Vernon, New York, 1892

New York City.

DEAR BROTHER RUSSELL:--

 

I have been working in Mount Vernon during the past week: sold 160 DAWNS--making about 800 sold there in a little less than a month's time. Many of them, I trust, are in good hands, and will bring forth fruit to the Master's praise. I expect to deliver in Mount Vernon tomorrow and part of Tuesday, and desire to spend the remainder of the week in the interests of the meetings--calling on some of those to whom I sold the books last winter, giving out notices, etc. I have hopes that the meetings on the 27th will be quite well attended and that you will have large, intelligent and appreciative audiences. The package of Tracts has been received. They will, I think, come in very good.

Truly yours, S. D. ROGERS.

Allegheny Cemetery update

One of the problems of writing articles about historic sites from a distance is that you have to rely on photographic evidence, or statements given you by others who have actually visited the sites in question.

On both this blog and blog 2 I wrote articles about the Allegheny cemetery, where nine of CTR’s close relatives are buried, these include his parents, three siblings, and assorted uncles and aunts.

I stand by the information presented in the articles except for one point. I stated in good faith that there were only five grave markers lying flat on the ground on the site – those for CTR’s parents, two siblings, and then his Uncle Charles Tays Russell. Having finally been able to visit the site in person, I can now more accurately report that a total of eight grave markers exist. Likely many of them had been covered in part by grass and earth encroaching over them over the decades.

In the top row, next to Charles Tays Russell, are the graves of James and Sarah. James purchased the family plot originally, and his wife Sarah was the first to be buried there in 1846.

Sarah’s stone reads: Sarah, wife of Jas. G. Russell, died Dec 14, 1846. James’ stone next to her simply reads James G Russell. Both stones are much smaller than the later ones for CTR’s parents or his uncle Charles Tays.

There used to be a family tree of the Russells in circulation that made the assumption that Sarah was James’ sister. However, the grave stone plainly shows her to be his wife.

Then in the front row are the immediate family of CTR. They were buried as they died from right to left. First to die was Thomas, aged 5 years and 3 months. There is a small stone visible there. Sadly it is worn completely smooth, so it is not possible now to make out any inscription. Next are the two larger stones for Lucinda and Joseph Lytle Jr. – both very worn and indistinct now, and finally the stones for his parents. Joseph Lytle was the last to be buried here in 1897 and the site then became forgotten for nearly a century.

The only family member who appears to have never had a gravestone was Mary Russell, Joseph Lytle’s sister, who died in 1886.

 

 

One other feature of this site may be of interest and I am indebted to my Pittsburgh guide for the information. If you are on the road, facing the family plot which verges on the road, behind the site and a little to your left are two old monuments, both sadly somewhat vandalised today. One is of a pyramid shape – albeit a rather thin one. The other, behind it, is of books on which names were originally intended. A pyramid and open books for names should bring to mind the cemetery where CTR was buried in 1916 – in what became known as United Cemeteries. The monument to the WT Society (not CTR) was of course a pyramid, with open books on its sides. Installed several years after CTR’s death, it was reported that he had approved the design in 1914. If that is true, maybe the vista at his parents’ final resting place gave him the idea.

Maybe.

Pittsburgh Daily Gazette and Advertiser - July 5, 1870

M. F. Ackely - Certificate 660

Notice in The Pennsylvania School Journal

October 1870

Pittsburgh Central High School as it was when M. F. Ackley attended

 

Maria Russell was admited in 1864 with the class starting in the 1864-1865 school year.

Research assistance

If you’re so inclined, we have several areas of real need. We need help finding some things, and for others we do not have funds to pursue them.

We’ve located a run of A. D. Jones’ paper. It’s the last year of publication, and it’s oversized. The only way to duplicate it is by expensive microfilm. The cost is over three hundred dollars. The best approach would be for someone in the Washington, D. C. area to visit the library and turn pages seeking relevant material. Then only that would need duplication, some of which could be done by hand.       

Jones tried to duplicate Russell’s mass circulation of Food for Thinking Christians. We have very little record of that. We could use more detail. We have only one issue of Day Star earlier than 1886. We need the first two years. They seem not to exist. If you have them, tell us.

We have a solid, representative collection of World’s Hope, Paton’s magazine. We would like a complete run. If you have any issues, please let us know the dates.

Early evangelism is a key part of this story. Details and biographies are helpful. Even though Separate Identity focuses on the years up to 1887, workers who entered the field after that period are important too. If you want to pursue that and pass information to us, we would appreciate it greatly. This was Ton’s last project. I am still mourning Ton and miss his daily emails.

The Watch Tower message entered Norway, Germany, and (we think) Italy far earlier than the Yearbook histories suggest. We need details. These are hard for us to find, probably easier for someone in Europe to find. Anyone? This will require patient and inventive search. The message reached Australia in 1881, Singapore in 1882 at least. We have few details. The work entered Ireland in 1881. We have one real reference from outside the Watch Tower. We’d like more detail.

The message entered Liberia in 1884. We have one original document. There are many letters in a library of congress archival file. Finding pertinent letters requires a visit. We can’t afford that. If you live in the area, and want to take on some really intense research, contact me.

Pittsburgh clergy opposed Russell. Some of this is documented in Pittsburgh papers. We do not have access. This search would take patient page turning. The papers are on microfilm. This is best done by someone in the Pittsburgh area. We can offer some research guidance.

Tracts and pamphlets written to refute Russell are rare before 1910. We can use any anti-Russell tracts published before 1920, but especially need those from his first years.

We are seeking the location of Disciples of Christ archives for West Virginia and Virginia. There does not seem to be a central repository.

Never assume we know what you know. We might, but we might not. Tell us, if you have an interesting bit of detail.

A recent email

I don't have permission to publish this with the writer's name, but the content made me happy so I'm sharing it with you:

I have recently discovered your site on History of the Watchtower. You and your associates have a wonderful site. It evidences your commitment to discovering historical insights and understanding.

As a “church historian” I am interested in the various Adventist groups that followed in the wake of the Millerite disappointment. My main interest is in tracking some of the doctrinal beliefs that appeared in some of these groups. For example, the conditionalist understanding of the mortality of the soul as expressed by George Storrs. Although clearly not a Millerite or Adventist, Charles Russell shared some ideas with those circles as well as meetings with Storrs and others, as you document.

One of the most intriguing issues for me is brought out in the White/Russell debate of 1908 in which the subject of a first opportunity for salvation being offered during the Millennium to those living at that time as well as the resurrected dead who had had no first chance of salvation. I understand the arguments Russell presents.

But I am very much interested in knowing who else in his earlier circles advocated this understanding of a future chance for salvation, including the idea that the vast majority of the world is now blinded, until the predestined elect are gathered and prepared.

This understanding presented in such a detailed and careful way is rare in church history, but I have glimpsed it in some few “Adventist” circles; but not before Russell.

Would you be so kind as to shed some light on the origins of this teachings for Charles Russell; as to when did he come into this view and from whom or with whom was it first discussed/formulated for Russell?

I look forward to your comments, and I value your research very much; and certainly intend to purchase your book(s) soon.

Because a friend of our reserch asked ...

This is the original filing for United Cemeteries, or an extract of it showing the original trustees. Our friend asks if it were possible for a trustee to not know who was involved in the project. I think the list speaks for itself. C. T. Russell's name is on the list along with well known Bible Students. If another trustee failed to notice, he was dense and inattentive. The short answer is no.

Click on image to view

My thanks to Jerome for providing the copy.

Thanks to

Thanks to a friend of this research, we've located the original organizing doucments for the United Cemeteries. We are in the process of raising money to acquire them. I'll keep you posted.

R. M. de Vienne