A "Discussion" on another web site ... Comments, anyone?

I've updated this. Just so you know.

Listener:

It seems to me that there is a lot of discussion about what Russel was teaching but much of it is left out. In particular, what he was professing would soon occur and the dates he put forward. Much of the focus is on his teachings which do have a lot of Biblical backing for them but little or no discussion on his false teachings. For instance, what exactly was this upcoming 'gospel age' that he was advocating and did he set a date for this or for Armageddon?

As side issues, this presents us with interesting fare. The tracts were free, paid for primarily out of Russell’s pocket and secondarily by contributions to the Tract Fund. The modern Watchtower Society declined to allow us access to the ledger book from this period, which still exists. We do not know why.

Do you have any proof that the tracts were primarily paid for from Russell's pocket primarily? This is especially in view of the fact that you admit to not having access to the ledgers of that time.

It is possible that what was printed in publications about the funding at that time was deceptive, just as the current Watchtower is today. So much discussion is made about the free tracts and little on the publications/bibles he sold.

The tracts served the purpose of advertising and it was through them that individuals were encouraged to purchase more substantial publications.

But in terms of income levels in the 1880s, an immense amount of money was expended to provide evangelizers with free tracts. This gives the lie to the claims of some former-adherents that the Watch Tower was founded by Russell as a money making scheme. It was a money-losing proposition

The fact that the tracts were distributed at no cost in no way proves that Russell was not establishing a money making scheme. In many businesses you've got to create a market who is ready and willing to part with their money for more of your products. Many businessmen expect a loss in the initial years in order to reap profits in the following years. There are various methods that businesses use to encourage people to purchase their products. Providing free samples or advertising in brochures are just two, both methods being used by Russell and who knows what else because there is little discussion about this.

His venture into his Photo-Drama of Creation was another innovative project which he was prepared to gamble on.

The message of God’s Love contrasted with the message of fear preached in Christendom. In Russell’s view God would save the bulk of humanity, in what some call “near-universal salvation.”

I cannot see any substantiation regarding the claim that his message did not include a measure of fear, just as Christendom's does. If the idea is that more humans would be saved under Russell's idea's than under Christendom’s, this doesn't mean you can claim there was no fear being taught through his doctrines. To also claim that all of Christendom were preaching fear is not proven and may well be false.

His passion for individual and public testimony shows through despite his questionable punctuation and grammar. And to his readership it was the passion that mattered. They saw it as founded on Biblical “truth.”

I find this comment intriguing. It would have been more correct to claim "His passion for individual and public testimony shows through despite his questionable teachings of Biblical 'truth'." And then you follow on with a significant comment in saying that it was his passion that mattered to his readers. That seems to be very much the case because his teachings could not hold water on their own.

In conclusion, I find the blog very biased and it seems that the writer has been moved by his passion.

de vienne

Dear Listener, 

You misapprehend the nature of what you read. We do not write either a polemic or defense of the Watch Tower. We write history based on the original documents. What you read is a partial of a much larger work, not even a complete chapter. We deal with Russell’s predictive failure elsewhere. For instance in volume one of Separate Identity we included a chapter entitled Aftermath of Failure. That chapter discusses the 1878 failure. We have another that will appear in volume two [the extract you read is part of vol. 2] that discusses Russellite expectations for 1881. 

You ask about the Gospel Age, calling it “up-coming.” Our text makes it clear that in Russell’s dispensationalist view it was ending. He thought it would end at or near 1914. We deal with that in another chapter. 

Do we have proof that the tracts were primarily paid for by Russell? Yes, we do, and we include a chapter [vol. 2, nearing completion] entitled Organizing and Financing the Work. Put briefly, in the 1880s Russell’s readers were relatively poor due to a series of post-Civil War recessions and depressions. We have some pages from the Watch Tower ledger, sent to us by someone connected to the Watchtower’s writing department and by the Watchtower itself. Most of these list expenses. One lists the major contributors by name and amount. Russell leads the list by far. We include the full text of that page in a later chapter. Additionally, over his lifetime Russell contributed a quarter million dollars to the WTS. WT ‘shares’ were issued if requested for each ten dollars in contributions. The number of Russell’s shares reveals the amount he contributed. He was majority share-holder until his death, and outstanding shares did not pass his in number until near his death. 

Court testimony (Russell v. Russell and Russell v. Brooklyn Eagle] shows that Society publications were sold at a loss or simply given away. The partial chapter you read concentrates on the years 1879-1886. All publications were given away free except for a few remaining copies of Object and Manner which were available in large lots for ten cents. Colporteurs got everything for free, keeping money from subscriptions obtained to defray expenses. In this period there were no “more substantial publications.” Money for Paton’s Day Dawn went to Paton and A. D. Jones, his publisher; not to Russell. Russell paid for copies and gave them away at no cost to those who would circulate them. This was at a financial loss to Russell. 

He offered a few Bibles and concordances at a break-even discount. From 1881 when Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was founded until 1887, the cut off year for Separate Identity, our book, the Society was deeply in debt. A donation of Florida lands by the Russells reduced the debt but did not put the Society in the black. 

You write: “It is possible that what was printed ... about the funding at that time was deceptive.” Historians shouldn’t speculate. And that’s what this is. Ethically, we can’t make things up. We must be guided by available documentation – by that I mean original material, not secondary sources – unless there is a compelling reason to reject the original claims. If you can find proof that the WTS financial statements are deceptive, we will happily include it in this chapter. But ‘proof’ isn’t speculation; it is something in a trustworthy contemporary document. 

In the period on which we concentrate [to 1887] ZWT operated at a loss. Later when forced to open the books in the two court cases I mentioned earlier, it was demonstrated that even Studies in the Scriptures circulated at a net loss. The books did not pay their way. 

By message of “fear,” Russell meant Hell-Fire doctrine. We should clarify that. You wrote: “This doesn’t mean there was no fear being taught through his doctrine.” You mistake current Watchtower practice with Russell era practice. Your statement exemplifies a common logic fault. You presume something was true because you want it to be true. At this point you give us unfounded speculation. Speculation drives research, but alone it is unsound. If you can find in something Russell wrote some form of fear mongering, point me to it. We’ll happily use it in the next volume of Separate Identity.

Simply because the narrowly focused extract from this chapter leads to a conclusion differing from a commonly expressed opposition narrative is no reason to call us biased. We present in footnotes our sources. You have no sources except personal opinion. “Could be” and speculation are not a refutation. Evidence from original sources would be. 

I  should add that admission to the Photo Drama was free, at considerable expense to the Watch Tower Society. So, how does it contribute to your belief that Russell made money off of it?

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-21546337.html

https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401

TD 

“Put briefly, in the 1880s Russell’s readers were relatively poor due to a series of post-Civil War recessions and depressions.”

Were these the "Panics" of the latter 19th century? (Crop failures, financial speculation, unemployment, etc.)

de Vienne

Contributions were not as forthcoming as he wished. The January 1885 Zion’s Watch Tower reported on the state of the tract fund for the two previous years, starting with the deficit of $2571.34 that existed at the start of 1883. Expenditures for the period from January 1, 1882 – December 31, 1884, totaled $2,366.10. The fund remained in deficit nearly twenty-five hundred dollars. The loss of ‘two or more’ significant contributors unquestionably affected the work, as did an economic downturn that started in 1884 and continued into the next year. Russell commented on it and its effects:

The opening year finds the whole world in a state of financial depression which will doubtless be worse before improvement comes. Since we are advised in Scripture that the Day of the Lord’s presence will be a time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation, some may be inclined to anticipate too much, too speedily. This is a tendency which all need to guard against. We should not for a moment lose sight of the apostles striking illustration of the trouble of this day, as recorded in 1 Thes. 5:3. From this illustration we should expect spasmodic trouble and distress of nations: and that these will become more frequent and more serious until they reach the climax stated by the prophet, and result in the death of present systems and the delivery of the children of this world into the New and better, the ‘golden’ Millennial age, in which the King of righteousness shall rule and reign Lord of all, blessing all the families of earth.[1]

            The financial depression of 1885 was the culmination of several years of compounding problems in the United States, Canada and elsewhere. Edwin Earl Sparks, a contemporary historian, summarized the complex crisis this way:

The crops of 1883 although surpassing the unfortunate yield of 1881 were scarcely up to the average, and the corn crop fell nearly four hundred million bushels behind. Large quantities of stocks and bonds had been watered by extensions and consolidations which could not be expected to yield immediate dividends, and they declined steadily during the year. Northern Pacific threw on the market in October 1883 an issue of twenty million dollars and created a mild panic. More than ten thousand firms became bankrupt during 1882, a larger number than marked any year since 1873. Causes for the depression were found in over-production, financial troubles abroad, over-railroad building, and capital lying idle because rates of interest were unattractive.[2]

            This dry summary doesn’t contribute as much to our understanding as does Russell’s caution against seeing in the world’s financial travail a prophetic fulfillment. People were hurting financially. Many Watch Tower readers were not well off, and even those who were had to watch their pennies. The basics, food to eat and coal to heat with, were scarce and expensive. Jobs dissipated. A United States government report said:

Out of the total number of establishments, such as factories, mines, etc., existing in the country, about eight per cent were absolutely idle during the year ending July 1, 1885, and perhaps five per cent more were idle a part of such time; or, for a just estimate, seven and a half per cent of the whole number of such establishments were idle, or equivalent to idle, during the year named. . . . Making allowance for the persons engaged in other occupations, 998,839 constituted ‘the best estimate’ of the possibly unemployed in the United States during the year ending July 1, 1885 (many of the unemployed, those who under prosperous times would be fully employed, and who during the time mentioned were seeking employment), that it has been possible for the Bureau to make. ... A million people out of employment, crippling all dependent upon them, means a loss to the consumptive power of the country of at least $1,000,000 per day, or a crippling of the trade of the country of over $300,000,000 per annum.[3]

            If God supported the work, he supported it out of the pockets of believers who were in straightened circumstances. Contributions lagged. With the publication of The Plan of the Ages in 1886, Russell changed his approach to circulating Watch Tower publications. It soon became apparent that The Plan of the Ages would not pay its own way. The volumes of Millennial Dawn were sold at a loss through most of their printing life. This was a result of philosophy and practicality. Russell turned to a colportage to circulate Millennial Dawn and the Tract Society’s books and booklets. The booklets were often given away freely, and the agreement with the colporteurs allowed them as much support from the circulation of books as the Watch Tower Society could manage.

de Vienne:

Dear Eye,

Much of what is written about both men is not exactly true, sometimes blatantly false. But I'd never claim that their belief systems were Biblical or that their personal lives were without fault. Because there is so much written by both sides that is wrong, or incomplete, or misleading, we're taking extreme care to be accurate; to tell the story as bluntly and plainly as we can. We base our work on original sources, some of which have been buried for 100 years or more.

We've found and continue to find material hidden in archives leading us to places where Proclaimers will not take you. We've also found astounding misrepresentation in books some of which are seen as authoritative. And example is a book written in 1945 by a Presbyterian minister who wrote as a sociologist. He manufactured quotations. Following his work to the sources he cites shows him to be pretty much a bloody liar.

Then there is plain ignorance. Watchtower books mention people favorably who never were adherents or who left for other belief systems and they do not tell you that. I think they do not know it. Watchtower 'histories' are unfootnoted except for Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose; I have an instant distrust of something that presents itself as a history that fails to footnote. In fairness, I should observe that there are respected authors who've done the same.

We footnote everything because we want our readers to be able to follow our train. We think those who read our books have working minds. I am never disturbed by someone making a decision off available information.. We want the narrative to be refreshed and accurate. As I said earlier, most of what is out there on the Internet and in already published books is false or misleading. There are exceptions. Zoe Knox's new book is worth a read. It is very expensive, but you should be able to read it via interlibrary loan. The trend among historians now is to question everything. And to dig deeper. No history is without a least minor faults, but Besier and Stokosa's Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe Past and Present, a multi volume work with essays be 'experts' in their field is as close as one comes. If we make a decision based on a group's history, we should verify what we read.

---

[1]               View from the Tower, Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1885, page 1.

[2]               E. E. Sparks: The American Nation: A History. National Development, 1877-1885, Harper & Bros. New York, 1907, pages 328-329.

[3]               Report on Industrial Depression, United States Bureau of Labor, 1886, as quoted in David A. Wells: Recent Economic Changes and Their Effect on the Production and Distribution of Wealth and the Well Being of Society, D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1899, page 18.

 

Temporary Post

Restrain you excitement, I haven't improved much and I'm not back on a regular basis. I'm posting this for Bruce who is traveling and has an iffy wifi connection.

Usual rules. You can make a copy for yourself, but never rely on a temporary post. They change. As you will see if you retained the previous version of this, there are changes already. Do not share it off the blog. There is new matter in this post. It will not stay up for many days. Comment NOW. We post these things for comments, and a mere impression will do. Comments provide guidance. We do not always adopt suggestions, but sometimes we do. So your comments are important.

Bernard, I know I haven't answered your email. It makes me tear up and I don't really know what to say back, but I will answer soon.

Herewith:

Evangelical Voice

            Russell era evangelism is the foundation upon which the descendant religions – Jehovah’s Witnesses and Bible Student congregations – are built. Yet, its origins are left unexplored. Watchtower writers focus on a few key events: An article in the April 1881 Watch Tower, Rutherford’s Advertise the Kingdom speech; the circulation of Food for Thinking Christians. These events are related with minimal or no connection to their context. Secular and opposition writers do no better, drawing almost everything they say from Watchtower Society commentary. The exception, though a regrettable one, is found in A. T. Rogerson’s D.Phil. thesis. He discusses Russell era evangelism with the same carelessness that he demonstrated in his previously published book:

From Zion’s Watch Tower alone there is no evidence that the Bible students participated in evangelisation regularly or in an organised way prior to 1881. The emphasis in the magazine articles was firmly on the doctrinal and devotional aspect of Bible student life. It appears that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower preferred this emphasis, and their articles showed more of an inward-looking concern with the group itself. Paton’s book was designed for an Adventist audience and there is little indication of a strong desire on his part (or on Babour’s before him) to propagate their message, or evangelise for converts – the initiative for their preaching tours appears to have come from Russell. This ‘inactivity’ was consistent with their deterministic world-view and their elitist conception of the ‘little flock’. Russell did tentatively suggest that his readers might distribute tracts, but it was only in 1881 that Russell’s emphasis on selling came to the fore. [His British spelling and punctuation retained, as is his grammar fault.][1]

            As is most of what Rogerson wrote either in his book or his D.Phil thesis, this is tainted with misstatements, wrong conclusions and simple error. He suggests here that neither Barbour nor Paton were evangelizers. He based this on what he did not find in Zion’s Watch Tower. We can, to a small degree, excuse him for missing key statements in ZWT because he was dependent on the 1920 reprints which omit many of the earliest readers’ letters, but any excuse for his ignorance is moderated by clear statements of evangelical intent found in the reprinted volumes.[2] Some of this we previously described.

            Paton evangelized near his Michigan home, preaching in nearby churches to whoever would have him. He never gave up his self-identity as a clergyman, collecting fees for his ministry. This limited his ministry to congregations willing to host him and pay for the privilege, but he did evangelize. Day Dawn is an edited collection of his sermons. That this is so demonstrates a regular, evangelical ministry. We should observe too – as we did in the Introductory Essay – that Rogerson misidentifies Adventism. We doubt that Rogerson read Day Dawn; if he did he was totally unaware of American Literalism and how it differed from Millerite Adventism. Paton’s book addressed some Adventist issues, but in a critical way. The book’s content is Literalist. [Readers may want to refresh their memories by reviewing appropriate sections of volume one.] It is noteworthy that Paton’s magazine and theology are discussed in the Age-to-Come/Literalist paper The Restitution but not, as far as we could discover, in the Adventist press.[3]

The remainder of this temporary post has been deleted. 

Thanks

Bruce and Rachael: thank you for all the time you have so far dedicated to this immense work, taking it from your life and your loved ones. And for the energy you have lavished, drawing on resources unknown to us, or that we do not have, or that we do not know how to find. Thank you for the constancy and patience you have maintained, even when the vicissitudes of your personal life would discourage anyone else. Thank you for not being discouraged when some have unjustly criticized your work. Thank you for appreciating the encouragement of most readers.
Thanks also to you Jerome, for your articles, never crafty, always instructive.
Thanks Bruce!
Thanks Rachael!
Thanks Jerome!

Bruce e Rachael: grazie per tutto il tempo che finora avete dedicato a quest'opera immane, togliendolo alla vostra vita e ai vostri cari. E per l'energia che avete profuso, attingendo a risorse a noi sconosciute, o che non abbiamo, o che non sappiamo trovare. Grazie per la costanza e pazienza che avete mantenuto, anche quando le vicissitudini della vostra vita personale avrebbero scoraggiato chiunque altro. Grazie per non esservi scoraggiati quando alcuni hanno ingiustamente criticato il vostro lavoro. Grazie per aver apprezzato l'incoraggiamento della maggior parte dei lettori.  
Grazie anche a te Jerome, per tuoi articoli, mai leziosi, sempre istruttivi.
Grazie Bruce! 
Grazie Rachael! 
Grazie Jerome!

William Carlton Irish

All we know so far is that he was born in Ontario, Canada, in January 1846. Can you help build his biography?

Rachael sent me this:

Nelson Barbour

            Fragments, snippets of things continue to come our way. Some of them add to the story. [cut ...]

1878

            Barbour, Russell and Paton were not the only active evangelists among readers of the Herald of the Morning. William Carlton Irish, “a kind of traveling evangelist or itinerate exhorter,”[1] was born in Ontario, Canada, January 5, 1846. We first meet him, date uncertain, preaching in Canada across the border from Detroit. Late in 1875 or early in 1876 he crossed into the United States preaching southward from Detroit into the American Mid-West. The Emporia, Kansas, News of January 23, 1876, reported his name and message: “The long-haired street preacher who was here recently, is named Wm. Carlton Irish, and he fixes the end of the world in 1878. We are glad it’s so near, for we always had a desire to live to see that event.”

            The 1878 message is, as far as our research informs us, unique to the Barbourite movement. Before 1876 ended Irish had switched faiths, accepting baptism into the Reorganized Latter-day Saints, and was ordained a priest in that faith in October 1876. Subsequently, he left the Reorganized church and moved Westward. He is one of a number who flirted with, even preached, Barbourite or Watch Tower faith who did not persist. Included in this list are Feltwell, who drifted into Christian Science, S. I. Hickey, Presbyterian clergyman turned Watch Tower evangelist but who turned to Universalism, and others.

            We lose track of Irish after 1876, except for a notice in The San Francisco, California, Morning Call of October 3, 1893. Under the headline “An Insane Street Preacher” we read: “William Carlton Irish, a street preacher, was arrested yesterday morning and locked up in the City Prison. It was evident that he was suffering from religious mania and will be taken before the experts on Insanity for examination.” As Hickey was later, he was arrested and thought insane or senile because of his street preaching. California law enforcement might have found better things to do than harass street preachers.

---

[1]               J. Smith III: The Memoirs of Joseph Smith III, Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missoury, 1979.

 

Evening Prayer

Separate Identity volume 1 contains a full page facsimile of the cover of this sheet music, which is of interest to us because it was published in 1872 by J. L. Russell and Son of Pittsburgh. 

The full words and music can be accessed from the Library of Congress website if you really want to see what it is like.

The words were written by Rev. Dr. I. C. Pershing of the Methodist Episcopal Church and President of the Pittsburgh Female College. The music was by G. Blessner.

It was dedicated to the Rev. Bishop M. Simpson (1811-1884) who was president at one time of the M.E. Church Missionary Society.

The Pittsburgh Female College was founded in 1854.

Although it was described above as a sectarian institution under the control of the Methodist Episcopal Church, their charter stipulated that students were to be accepted from all religious denominations.

The Rev. Israel C. Pershing (1826-1898) became principal of the college around 1860 and remained so until 1886 when he was accused of fraud.

Gustave Blessner (1808-1888) was head of music in the 1870s, and the college had a choir and put on musical concerts.

Blessner was a highly prolific composer and a lot of his music can still be accessed today. It covered a wide spectrum, from the Sacred (To Thee We Pray – 1879) to the less than sacred (Silly Dilly Dally Dolly – 1872). One of the latter oeuvre, Nanny’s Mammy (1850) starts off…

    A spinster of uncertain age

    (But somewhat past the middle stage)

    Who thought herself extremely sage…

You get the picture. There are shades of Gilbert and Sullivan here.

Blessner’s modern claim to fame is that he wrote the music for the first known song to have the word “Blues” in the title: “I have got the blues today” (1850). The chorus goes:

    I was the gayest of the gay

    But I have got the blues today.

It’s about a singer who gets drunk.

Of course in these instances Blessner wrote the music but was not the lyricist.

However, one wonders if his music lessons at the straight-laced-ladies-only M.E. College were sometimes rather fun.

Anyhow, although a great amount of Blessner’s music was published and can be found online, the Evening Prayer is the only composition I can find that was published by the Russells, and then only in tandem with other music publishers. It appears to be the only item they did publish, maybe because this was a local item sung by the college choir for one of their concerts.

Pittsburgh Daily Post (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)  16 Dec 1872

Joseph Lytle Russell in Pittsburgh

Joseph Lytle Russell stated in his application for naturalization in 1848 that he had been in America for at least five years. It now appears that he had been in the Pittsburgh area since at least 1843. The Pittsburgh Daily Post for Monday, October 16, 1843 (repeated in the following two daily issues) listed those who needed to go the post office to collect mail.

James Russell, also with mail awaiting, was likely Joseph L's older brother.

Intro Essay

I've had several queries about this essay. This is the introductory essay in current form but in rough draft. For the usual reasons this will not stay up many days. Assume it will change. Never rely on the rough drafts we post. Do not share it off the blog. You may save a copy for your own use. As always, we post material from vol 2 for comments.

Also, Rachael wants me to tell Bernard that she has his email and was deeply affected by it. She will answer it when she can.

I've kept this up longer than I should. It will come down soon. IF you intend to comment, now is the time to do it.

Introductory Essay – B. W. Schulz

            In this volume of Separate Identity you will find much that is unfamiliar to you. Some of what we present changes the narrative – call it the story line – usually presented by those who write about the Russell years. But more often we simply elaborate where others have abbreviated. A more complete narrative gifts readers with a better understanding of Russell era history. This occasionally makes us myth-busters. Occasionally a reviewer criticized our impatience with the poor work of some who’ve written on similar topics. Perhaps we should have lowered the sound level when we expressed our distaste. But ultimately, we have no apology for having noted partisan, misleading, and false statements. Writers owe readers their best efforts. Not lies or sloppy research.

            Criticisms have been few. Some continue to believe that Russell was a Mason, part of a conspiracy seeking world domination. If he was, he was very ineffective. Though this conspiracy theory is dying a slow death on Internet boards, we readdress this in appendix one. Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, some continue to assert that Russell was an Adventist. We think the evidence presented in volume one is plain. Watch Tower adherents and other Literalist believers rejected that identity. If it was wrong to identify them as Adventist then, it remains so today. Those who identify Rusellites as Adventists should do so on the basis of some evidence other than speculation about what ‘might have been.’

            Among those who continue to present Russell era believers and descendant religions as Adventist is Zoe Knox. This is disappointing. We expected better from her, given her history of thoughtful and careful research. Her most recent book, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Secular World, continues the myth of Russellite and Watch Tower Adventism, which she supports by citing Rogerson: “In 1969, Alan Rogerson observed that most of Russell’s interpretations were not new and that many or them originated with various Adventists of his day.”[1] Rogerson did not support his claim; a critical eye would wonder why he failed to do so. The reason, of course, is his claim is insupportable. Using unsupported claims as the basis for your own work – without a minimal amount of verification – is not best work. Nothing in Rogerson’s claim can be sustained from contemporary documentation. What can be sustained is that Russell derived his doctrine from Literalist belief. Much of what we wrote in volume one of this work proves that. 

The remainder of this post has been deleted.

Food for Thinking Christians

Food for Thinking Christians was issued in more than one edition. The original was a special issue of ZWT for September 1881. Below is the cover of one of those originals.

The owner commented that this original was not in the best of condition “but it has been lovingly read many times over in the past.”

When the publication was reprinted in large numbers to be used in evangelising work, the cover was changed in one respect. Here are two copies of the revised cover.

The special issue for September 1881 ZWT has now become a Free Supplement to Zion’s Watch Tower, 1881.

Any readers who have access to Tower Archives can see this cover in a greenish-blue color. I don’t have permission to copy that, but the design is the same as above.

The copy of the Food on the left in the picture has an extra paper strip and holes near the spine, because this was originally bound with a copy of Tabernacle Teachings as described in a recent blog post.

This copy had a brief inscription on the front end papers.

Homing in for an enhanced close-up we can see this is from Sunderlin to McCormack.

This would be the McCormack who went to Chicago in 1882 as described in another recent post.

(With grateful thanks to Mike C and Brian K who supplied the images)

G. L. McCormick

The last name is also spelled McCormack. All we have are his initials. We know he moved to Chicago [with his wife] in 1882. We need full name and as much biography as we can find. We need your help with this. We're swamped with other things, and Rachael is too sick to undertake this.

We're not making real progress with this. But if one presumes that the McCormacks moved from Pittsburgh to Chicago, city directories point to George L. McCormack and his wife Charlotte.

Tabernacle Teachings

Tabernacle Teachings was an early work of CTR first published as a special supplement to ZWT for February 1882. It was later expanded into the more well-known work Tabernacle Shadows.

It followed on quite soon after the publication of Food for Thinking Christians which was issued as a special issue of ZWT for September 1881.

There was certain logic in the two small books being presented together, and in fact, the second from last page of the original Tabernacle Teachings presented them as companions.

It is not surprising that there are reports of the two being actually bound together into one volume. However, the one copy that has been seen shows the two publications being printed separately and just being bound together without any additional title page. So the second title page comes after the end of the first book. There were just extra end sheets added to the combined item. On the inside end sheet of the one example that is known is an inscription to the effect: “J C Sunderlin to G L McCormick.” So it may be that Sunderlin had this particular example hard bound or it may be that there are other examples out there still to be found.

The very end page of Tabernacle Teachings advertises Zion’s Watch Tower magazine.

There is no mention of price on Tabernacle Teachings, the booklet was free. The only mention of cost was in the advertisement for ZWT on the final page. The subscription price for ZWT was 50 cents per year in the United States and sixty-five cents in Britain. The Lord’s Poor could have it free on request.

(With grateful thanks to Mike C who supplied the images)

Temporary Post

As usual, do not expect this post to remain up more than two or three days. You may copy it for your own use. Do not share it off the blog. I am posting this for comments. We post material from volume 2 as rough drafts. Do not rely on anything. The final version may change. Without comments, posts like this one have no rational for existence. We read your comments, and though we may not  reply we do note them. And sometimes they change our approach.

Evangelical Voice

            Russell era evangelism is the foundation upon which the descendant religions – Jehovah’s Witnesses and Bible Student congregations – are built. Yet, its origins are left unexplored. Watchtower writers focus on a few key events: An article in the April 1881 Watch Tower, Rutherford’s Advertise the Kingdom speech; the circulation of Food for Thinking Christians. These events are related with minimal or no connection to their context. Secular and opposition writers do no better, drawing almost everything they say from Watchtower Society commentary. The exception, though a regrettable one, is found in A. T. Rogerson’s D.Phil. thesis. He discusses Russell era evangelism with the same carelessness that he demonstrated in his previously published book:

From Zion’s Watch Tower alone there is no evidence that the Bible students participated in evangelisation regularly or in an organised way prior to 1881. The emphasis in the magazine articles was firmly on the doctrinal and devotional aspect of Bible student life. It appears that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower preferred this emphasis, and their articles showed more of an inward-looking concern with the group itself. Paton’s book was designed for an Adventist audience and there is little indication of a strong desire on his part (or on Babour’s before him) to propagate their message, or evangelise for converts – the initiative for their preaching tours appears to have come from Russell. This ‘inactivity’ was consistent with their deterministic world-view and their elitist conception of the ‘little flock’. Russell did tentatively suggest that his readers might distribute tracts, but it was only in 1881 that Russell’s emphasis on selling came to the fore. [His British spelling and punctuation retained, as is his grammar fault.][1]

            As is most of what Rogerson wrote either in his book or his D.Phil thesis, this is tainted with misstatements, wrong conclusions and simple error. He suggests here that neither Barbour nor Paton were evangelizers. He based this on what he did not find in Zion’s Watch Tower. We can, to a small degree, excuse him for missing key statements in ZWT because he was dependent on the 1920 reprints which omit many of the earliest readers’ letters, but any excuse for his ignorance is moderated by clear statements of evangelical intent found in the reprinted volumes.[2] Some of this we previously described.

            Paton evangelized near his Michigan home, preaching in nearby churches to whoever would have him. He never gave up his self-identity as a clergyman, collecting fees for his ministry. This limited his ministry to congregations willing to host him and pay for the privilege, but he did evangelize. Day Dawn is an edited collection of his sermons. That this is so demonstrates a regular, evangelical ministry. We should observe too – as we did in the Introductory Essay – that Rogerson misidentifies Adventism. We doubt that Rogerson read Day Dawn; if he did he was totally unaware of American Literalism and how it differed from Millerite Adventism. Paton’s book addressed some Adventist issues, but in a critical way. The book’s content is Literalist. [Readers may want to refresh their memories by reviewing appropriate sections of volume one.] It is noteworthy that Paton’s magazine and theology are discussed in the Age-to-Come/Literalist paper The Restitution but not, as far as we could discover, in the Adventist press.[3]

            We addressed Barbour, Russell and Paton’s evangelism in volume one and in chapter two of this volume. There is no need to revisit that, except to say Rogerson got it wrong. But he also tells us that: “It appears that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower ... more of an inward-looking concern with the group itself.” This ignores half the evidence found in The Watch Tower. Until his defection, Jones regularly evangelized. He was part of a group of speakers willing to respond to requests for preaching, and he arranged his own venues as well. [See chapter 2, this volume.] Enough of this can be found in The Watch Tower reprints that Rogerson’s folly is inexcusable. Before we pass on to what stimulated evangelism among Watch Tower adherent groups, we should note that Rogerson’s claim that, “it was only in 1881 that Russell’s emphasis on selling came to the fore.” is wrong, which at this point should surprise no-one. None of the Bible Students Tracts and certainly not the two small books Tabernacle Teachings and Food for Thinking Christians were sold to anyone. They were freely given, Russell bearing the expense. Only over a decade later was Tabernacle Teachings retitled as Tabernacle Shadows sold at a nominal price.

            Also, we reject Rogerson’s description of Watch Tower theology as deterministic. Determinism suggests that events unfold beyond human control. Watch Tower belief was that each was responsible for the decisions they made. Russell and his associates rejected Presbyterian fatalism. Rogerson’s description of Watch Tower belief as elitist is meant to be inflammatory. Watch Tower belief was that God would ultimately save and bring to heavenly or earthly paradise nearly every human who ever lived. To us, this is not elitism.

Watch Tower Evangelism

            The Barbourite movement was narrowly focused, drawing almost entirely from non-Seventh-day Adventists, Age-to-Come believers and other Millenarians. Barbour saw those without millennialist belief as worldly and lost. He saw himself as God’s appointed voice for the Last Days. Paton believed he was divinely chosen, and he saw “advances” in spiritual insight as God’s special revelation to him. Both published tracts, Paton many more than Barbour who relied on the Herald of the Morning to further his ideology. Their focus was narrow.          

            Russell’s view was more expansive. He believed God’s people were scattered in all of Christendom, and some were as yet unfound in non-Christian religions. Connecting good-hearted Christians with ‘truth’ was urgent because they were in the time of final judgment, the harvest time of Jesus’ parables. To explain Zion’s Watch Tower’s mission, he quoted from the Millerite hymn Alarm:

"We are living, we are dwelling

In a grand and awful time;

In an age on ages telling

To be living is sublime."

The rest of this post has been deleted.

Extract #3

From a much later chapter, our work in progress. POSTED FOR COMMENTS. And a reminder: Do not link to this blog through FACEBOOK. Ever.

From Zion’s Watch Tower alone there is no evidence that the Bible students participated in evangelisation regularly or in an organised way prior to 1881. The emphasis in the magazine articles was firmly on the doctrinal and devotional aspect of Bible student life. It appears that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower preferred this emphasis, and their articles showed more of an inward-looking concern with the group itself. Paton’s book was designed for an Adventist audience and there is little indication of a strong desire on his part (or on Babour’s before him) to propagate their message, or evangelise for converts – the initiative for their preaching tours appears to have come from Russell. This ‘inactivity’ was consistent with their deterministic world-view and their elitist conception of the ‘little flock’. Russell did tentatively suggest that his readers might distribute tracts, but it was only in 1881 that Russell’s emphasis on selling came to the fore. [His British spelling and punctuation retained.][1]

            As is most of what Rogerson wrote either in his book or his D.Phil thesis, this is tainted with misstatements, wrong conclusions and simple error. He suggests here that neither Barbour nor Paton were evangelizers. He based this on what he did not find in Zion’s Watch Tower. We can, to a small degree, excuse him for missing key statements in ZWT because he was dependent on the 1920 reprints which omit many of the earliest readers’ letters, but any excuse for his ignorance is moderated by clear statements of evangelical intent found in the reprinted volumes.[2] Some of this we previously described.

            Paton evangelized near his Michigan home, preaching in nearby churches to whoever would have him. He never gave up his self-identity as a clergyman, collecting fees for his ministry. This limited his ministry to congregations willing to host him and pay for the privilege, but he did evangelize. Day Dawn is an edited collection of his sermons. That this is so demonstrates a regular, evangelical ministry. We should observe too – as we did in the Introductory Essay – that Rogerson misidentifies Adventism. We doubt that Rogerson read Day Dawn; if he did he was totally unaware of American Literalism and how it differed from Millerite Adventism. Paton’s book addressed some Adventist issues, but in a critical way. The book’s content is Literalist. [Readers may want to refresh their memories by reviewing appropriate sections of volume one.]

            There are grammar issues in this paragraph and in the remainder of Rogeron’s thesis. [Note the misplaced modifier.] Typically, students who struggle with grammar have reading comprehension problems. But we have no certain way of knowing why Rogerson’s work is defective. Perhaps we owe some of its problems to his reliance on R. Rawe who provided him with documentation he did not have when he wrote his book.[3] We don’t know.

            We addressed Barbour, Russell and Paton’s evangelism in volume one and in chapter two of this volume. There is no need to revisit that, except to say Rogerson got it wrong. But he also tells us that: “It appears that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower preferred this emphasis, and their articles showed more of an inward-looking concern with the group itself.” This ignores half the evidence found in The Watch Tower. Until his defection, Jones regularly evangelized. He was part of a group of speakers willing to respond to requests for preaching, and he arranged his own venues as well. [See chapter 2, this volume.] Enough of this can be found in The Watch Tower reprints that Rogerson’s folly is inexcusable. Before we pass on to what stimulated evangelism among Watch Tower adherent groups, we should note that Rogerson’s claim that “it was only in 1881 that Russell’s emphasis on selling came to the fore.” is wrong, which at this point should surprise no-one. None of the Bible Students Tracts and certainly not the two small books Tabernacle Teachings and Food for Thinking Christians were sold to anyone. They were freely given, Russell bearing the expense. Only over a decade later was Tabernacle Teachings retitled as Tabernacle Shadows sold at a nominal price.

            Also, we reject Rogerson’s description of Watch Tower theology as deterministic. Determinism suggests that events unfold beyond human control Watch Tower belief was that each was responsible for the decisions they made. Russell and his associates rejected Presbyterian fatalism. Rogerson’s description of Watch Tower belief as elitist is meant to be inflammatory. Watch Tower belief was that God would ultimately save and bring to heavenly or earthly paradise nearly every human who ever lived. To us, this is not elitism.

Watch Tower Evangelism

---

[1]               A. T. Rogerson: A Sociological Analysis of the Origin and Development of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Schismatic Groups, D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1972, page 51.

[2]               The Watchtower of December 15, 1990, page 28, pointed to the Reprints indices are “To this day ... the principal means of finding material presented in early issues of the Watch Tower magazine.” That is, of course, no longer true.

[3]               Rogerson does not mention Rawe’s assistance, but he cites material which in 1972 was available only to Rawe and one of our authors. We did not provide it to Rogerson.

An extract #2

New material for my introductory essay. Comments please.

            I promised earlier a more detailed commentary on Alan Rogerson’s Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It saw print in 1969 and is another book written by someone with academic credentials. He is still seen as authoritative enough to quote. Constable, his publisher, described his book as a “fascinating and unbiased study [that] presents a full account of the history and beliefs of the movement. He has consulted the original records dating back to its founding in 1871, and brought to light numerous intriguing and previously unknown facts.”[1] However, Rogerson, a former adherent, was anything but unbiased. Much of his material was derived from secondary sources, often factually incorrect and sometimes pure fable. If he carefully read the early issues of Zion’s Watch Tower and the volumes of Studies in the Scriptures his work shows severe reading comprehension problems, or at least inattention to detail. Anyone even moderately familiar with the material he was supposed to have consulted would note this book’s fatal flaws.

            Before we dissect Rogerson’s work in some detail, we should note that there are insightful, well thought out observations in it. Quoting them and maintaining one’s intellectual honesty is perilous. A sociologist or historian may find something in Rogerson that represents their beliefs. Quoting him without a qualifying warning is the same as an endorsement. And, because the book is seriously flawed, even dishonest, using any of Rogerson’s claims without first independently researching the material is poor work. Would you accept that from a student you’re advising? Why should your readers accept it from you?

            Defects permeate his book, but I will focus only on those touching the Russell era. The material Rogerson claimed to have consulted was easily available to him; he had a treasure of early material at his disposal. But we find him relying on secondary, and often enough on opposition sources. Contemporary opposition material is a valid resource, but not if contrary evidence is ignored. Rogerson ignored contrary evidence because it invalidated his anti-Witness stance. His approach is spotty, and we find him occasionally rebuking anti-cult nonsense. Echoing his publisher’s claims, Rogerson wrote:

I have consulted all the original records available – especially the books and Watchtowers printed since 1874 onwards ... and when possible I have cited and quoted my sources of information. I have tried to make my viewpoint unbiased as I have no strong personal feelings for or against the Witness movement. My aim throughout has been to present a complete account of the Witnesses incorporating all the significant incidents and facts; where I have discussed certain events or ideas the factual basis for the discussion is also presented so that readers are free to draw their own conclusions.[2]

            It is impolite, I suppose, to call Rogerson a liar, but bluntness is sometimes called for, and this is one of those times. Let’s start with his claim to have read in their entirety the Watchtower adherent books published from 1874 onward. He obviously did not. The implication is that he read Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, which was generally supposed to have been printed that year. It was not impossible to find in 1969. Several researchers including myself obtained a photocopy from an American university. If he read it, he failed to note the 1877 printing date. If he read Studies in the Scriptures as he claimed, then he would have found Russell noting the 1877 printing date. If he read The Watch Tower as carefully as he suggests, he would have found that date verified there as well. He didn’t read it. He lied. Never lie to your readers. Eventually someone will follow your trail, only to find it a false one. His claim to neutrality is also false. His anti-Witness feelings shine through. They are as easily detectable as his misrepresentation of his research skill and thoroughness. More on that shortly.

            We can forgive inexperienced students for accepting Rogerson’s work. He is supposed to know his subject matter. An experienced historian, unless her intellect is clouded by prejudice or by a quest for a preferred result, would look at the unfootnoted assertions found within his book with an adult skepticism. Accepting something because ‘everyone knows it’s true,’ is a major logic flaw. A writer with depth of research into Watch Tower history behind her should be able to recognize typical research flaws. If one has coached students through thesis and dissertation writing, one knows the shortcuts some students take. An example in Rogerson’s case is presenting a lengthy quotation from Zion’s Watch Tower and footnoting it to the original issue. This quotation is found on page eleven:

Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see also that if anyone lays the 'Scripture Studies' aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years – if he lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the 'Scripture Studies' and had not read n page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.

            Rogerson did not consult the Watch Tower article where one finds the original. He lifted this entire and without alteration from opposition literature. Judging by his bibliography he found this in Martin and Kahn’s Jehovah of the Watch Tower. He leads us through his footnote not to the secondary source from which he drew this but to a specific page in Zion’s Watch Tower. Even his footnote is uncharacteristic, citing a specific page when he otherwise cited a date of publication without noting a page number. Even his footnote is ‘borrowed.’

            Ethically, he should have consulted the original article. Instead, he chose to pretend that he had. In context, the original says something different. Russell’s full message was that to have confidence in Studies of the Scriptures on must test it against scripture:

The six volumes of Scripture Studies are not intended to supplant the Bible. There are various methods to be pursued in the study of the Bible and these aids to Bible study are in such form that they, of themselves, contain the important elements of the Bible as well as the comments or elucidations of those that our Lord and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament ... .

Our thought, therefore, is that these Scripture Studies are a great assistance, a very valuable help, in the understanding of God’s Word. If these books are to be of any value to us it must be because we see in them loyalty to the Word of God, and as far as our judgment goes, see them to be in full harmony with the Word and not antagonistic to it. Therefore, in reading them the first time, and perhaps the second time, and before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction, we should say, “I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says.” And so we would  ... prove every point or disprove it, as the case may be. We would be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this standpoint.

            Rogerson despite his claim to have done so did not read the original article, and if he did he misrepresented its content. He accused the modern Watchtower Society of conscious misrepresentation of Russell and his claims using this out of context quotation to do so.

            This is not the only bit of faked research found in Rogerson’s book. When writing about the J. J. Ross’ ‘trial,’ Rogerson is fairly accurate, the sole misrepresentation resting in the claim that Russell was “forced to admit” that he did not know Greek. Russell never claimed competence in Biblical languages. But the exchange between Lynch-Staunton, Ross’ attorney, and Russell is largely accurate. It’s the accompanying footnote that is questionable. There Rogerson wrote: “In Jehovah’s Witnesses – The New World Society Marley Cole misinterprets the facts by quoting only part of the court record and manages to conclude that Russell came well out of the trial.” [p. 195, ft nt 47] This suggests that Rogerson had seen the transcript. The only original copy is in the hands of the Watchtower Society, which periodically misfiles it and then launches a usually frustrated search to recapture it. Rogerson never saw it. He had no proof, other than wishful thinking, that Cole misrepresented anything. The intellectual dishonesty behind this footnote is astounding. Any researcher using Rogerson who had even moderate knowledge of Russell era Watch Tower history would see this for the fakery it is.

            There are less egregious issues in Rogerson’s work, but they mark him as a very amateurish scholar, one willing to foist on his readers unverified and un-footnoted claims. He was heavily dependent on Stroup, borrowing from him without fact checking. [Fact checking is the life blood of well written history.] He repeated Stroup’s Time Clock fable, without making a meaningful attempt to trace it to its original source. We dispensed with that earlier. He repeated the fable that Russell was drawn into Wendell’s Quincy Hall meeting by hearing hymn singing. Familiarity with the most basic of Russell material would have told him otherwise. Russell went in response to a report about the meetings.

            In a footnote [Ch 1; note 3] he wrote: “The title ‘Pastor’ was purely honorary as far as Russell was concerned, he never graduated from any theological school.” [Comma fault is his.] This is a commonly made claim, and indeed Russell was not educated in any theological school. In the United States it was common for ordination to be by congregation election. Many ‘Pastors’ especially among Methodists and Baptists were marginally educated, called to preach by licensure and election rather than by graduation from a religious college, some of which met no real academic standard. While this was changing, especially among Methodists, this practice persisted into the 20^th Century. Distinguishing between Russell’s election as pastor by Bible Student congregations and a country Baptist’s ordination by the same means is stupid.

            Rogerson characterized Russell’s spiritual quest prior to 1876 as a “spiritual hobby.” He enclosed the phrase in quotation marks, apparently to shift responsibility for the phrase onto someone else. Who that might have been he does not say. It’s very much like a dog owner telling an irate home owner, “My dog didn’t do that.”

            There is no indication that Rogerson knew anything about what Russell and his associates did, what subjects they studied or how they proceeded. He had no basis for calling their work a hobby. Yet, and immense amount can be known from material available to Rogerson, and we considered it at length in volume one. When you read that chapter, did either the subject matter or depth of research impress you as being hobby-like?

            Rogerson misrepresents the degree of Russell’s contacts with Adventist, discounting easily available contrary evidence to do so. There is too much of misrepresentation, faked scholarship, bad, misleading or no footnoting to discuss it all, even if we limit it to the Russell era. His book is so badly flawed as to make it worthless. The exceptions are found in a few paragraphs; but why would you wish to quote a book so seriously flawed that even new students moderately aware of basic resources can spot the flaws? Apparently some find it convenient to do so, even though it makes readers, me for instance, squint at what ever author’s work I’m perusing and view it with skepticism.

---

[1]               Found on the front fold down of the original dust jacket.

[2]               Rogerson, pages 2-3.

A Reminder

Addressing a question or comment to Rachael via this blog does you no good. She does not currently participate in this blog. See my earlier comment on her health and on contact.

Also, she asked me to say that she has some unanswered emails. Do not feel bad if you do not hear back from her soon. She will return your mail as she can.