Also on Ebay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/222295724545?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

Jonas Wendell's nephew

For sale on ebay for cheap:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/302103825104?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

We have a copy. I see it as moderately interesting.

We need ...

We need a better example of this ... Do you have one?

The Golden Link - Published by Paton

https://archive.org/details/TheGoldenLink

Recent Visitors Map

So you know ...

            We’ve added a new chapter to our outline. While this may frustrate some of you who wish for a speedy release of the next volume, we think it is a key and necessary addition. We will present an overview of American and ‘other’ religious and social history. Almost without exception, histories of the Watch Tower movement are disconnected from their social setting. It is impossible to evaluate it without understanding its connection to contemporary events and attitudes.

         This requires fresh research into frequently covered topics. American religious history as commonly presented is revisionist and disconnected from reality. This is particularly true of the interplay between Catholics and Protestants in the United States. The usual presentation of American anti-Catholicism excuses Catholic excesses and blames narrow-minded Protestants. It ignores Catholic machinations, which were quite real and not Protestant myth making. An example of this sort of revisionist history is a lecture by Ryan Reeves, professor at Gordon-Conwell, inserted here.

            
           Reeves is articulate, presenting an engaging lecture, but his lecture is a white-wash. In key areas what he says is not true, not even close to truth. We have to remedy this fault which is common to recent writers and lecturers, and do it in a clearly documented way.

            Social issues that influenced Russell and Watch Tower readers are ignored by recent writers. This is especially true of Watchtower Society produced ‘histories’, but true of almost every consideration of the Watch Tower movement. We must present these issues in a clear and concise way so that our readers come away from this chapter understanding these issues without being overwhelmed or bored by detail. This is not easy.

            So ... you know where we are.

            You should know that this is a busy time of year for Mr. Schulz and me. I’m in the middle of course work leading to certification. Mr. Schulz is involved with a school district committee that affects his area of expertise. So, while we may wish to be fully engaged in research and writing, we cannot be at this time.

The Magnificent Seven

     Well, perhaps not all quite so magnificent, but I couldn’t resist the title.

     When Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was incorporated in late 1884, there were seven directors. This article is just a brief overview of the original seven. As such, most of the material has appeared in some form before, and for details of the lives of these people you will need to consult the Separate Identity series. Grateful thanks are due to Bernhard who has supplied much of the information here. And in line with a series of past articles based on the indispensible Find a Grave site, as well as giving their dates, this article shows where all these people ended up. Literally.

     But first, here is the list of names from Zion’s Watch Tower for January 1885.

     There are, of course, only six names listed here. However, the original handwritten record of the charter lists a seventh, Simon O Blunden. When the original articles of incorporation were reproduced in the Watch Tower for November 1, 1917, all original seven names were listed.

     We will take them in the order in which they appeared in the 1885 ZWT (adding Blunden at the end) and simply document their births and deaths and when they ceased to be Society directors. In many cases, ceasing to be directors coincided with ceasing active association with Charles T Russell and Zion’s Watch Tower. To illustrate, we will show their final resting places.

Charles Taze Russell (February 6, 1852 – October 31, 1916)

     CTR remained president until his death. He is buried in the plot owned by the Watchtower Society in United Cemeteries, Pittsburgh. Visitors often photograph the pyramid on the site, but this is not CTR’s grave marker. The pyramid was originally designed to list all the names of those buried on site. Only nine names were recorded before the idea was abandoned. For a full history including the history of the “pyramid nine” check back on this blog to a series of articles written in 2014.

William Imrie Mann (January 4, 1844 - December 12, 1930)

     Mann, the original vice-president, ceased to be a Society director on April 11, 1892. He is buried in Grove Cemetery, Trumansburg, Tomkins County, New York.

Maria Frances Russell (April 10, 1850 – March 12, 1938) 

     Maria (née Ackley), the original secretary-treasurer ceased to be a director on February 12, 1900, although she actually parted from CTR back in 1897. After leaving CTR she made her home with her sister, Emma, until Emma’s death, and lived the last years of her life in Florida. She is buried in the Royal Palm South Cemetery, St Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida.

John Bartlet Adamson (1837 - January 22, 1904)

     Adamson ceased to be a director on January 5, 1895. He is buried in Mount Olive Cemetery, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. There is no marker, he is buried in a garden lot which is just an area of grassland.

William Cook McMillan (October 10, 1849 - 1898)

     McMillan ceased to be a director on May 13, 1898. He resigned because he was serious ill and died shortly afterwards. He is buried in the Mechesneytown Cemetery, Mechesneytown, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. (The spelling McMillan occurs in the January 1885 ZWT, but MacMillan in the reprint of the association’s articles in the November 1, 1917 WT, whereas the family memorial spells the name MacMillen. All three forms can be found for him in the pages of ZWT.)

Joseph Firth Smith (October 28, 1849 – December 7, 1924) 

     Smith ceased to be a director on April 11, 1892, the same date as William Imrie Mann. He is buried in the Allegheny Cemetery, the same location where CTR’s parents and other family members were buried. For a history of this cemetery and the Russell family’s connection with it, check back on this blog to an article from November 2013.

Simon Osborne Blunden (September 1840 - November 13, 1915) 

     Blunden ceased to be a director on June 6, 1908. He is buried in the family grave in Glendale Cemetery, Bloomfield, Essex County, New Jersey - not to be confused with the more famous Glendale Cemetery of California (Forest Lawn). The headstone reads Samuel Buchanan, who was Blunden’s son-in-law and who died in 1906. Two other family members who died before Buchanan also had their names on the marker. However, when Blunden died later, he was buried in this family plot, but the headstone was never updated.

Italian Work - Article by Roberto with English Language Help by Rachael

1924-5 Conventions.

Italian Watch Tower believers between America and Italy

            An international convention was held at Columbus, Ohio, July, 20 to 27, 1924. It was international in two senses: First, in that it was a convention of Watch Tower believers who spoke various languages; and secondly, people were expected to attend from various countries throughout the earth [1]. The Watch Tower expected that it should be the largest convention of Bible Students ever held on earth [2].

About the foreign-speaking people we read:

In the United States and Canada there is a number of foreign-speaking brethren, Germans, Greeks, Lithuanians, Poles. Ukrainians, Slovaks, Hungarians, Italians, etc. It will be expected that the brethren of these foreign languages will attend, and that all the Pilgrim brethren who serve the foreign-speaking brethren will also attend. Meetings of the brethren speaking each of the languages will be conducted regularly. There will be no distinction in race, color or language, but all will be one in Christ. [3]

            In June, Richard A. Johnson and Rutherford toured Great Britain and parts of continental Europe to advertise the International Convention at Columbus. They hoped that the Bible Students would come from the four corners of the earth. [4]

            Columbus was chosen because of its location, being the most accessible to the largest number of people; because of the transportation facilities and street-car accommodations; because of the number and size of the available auditoriums. They rented the largest stadium for the public witness.

            The Ohio State Journal carried a four-page report daily of the Convention. [5].

            A detailed report of that convention appeared in The Watch Tower of September 1, 1924, pp. 259-264. Three months later the same article appeared in the Italian edition of the magazine, [6] but with a little difference: at page 165 we find a picture of Rutherford together with De Cecca and a group of Italian-American Bible Students. [7]

 

            The first Convention held in Italy was at Pinerolo, Piedmont, April 23 to 26, 1925. About sixty people attended the convention, five men and eight women were baptized; the speakers were Remigio Cuminetti, G. Maurelli, M. Martinelli and A. H. Macmillan.

A later report reads:

The work continued to expand in spite of many difficulties, and the first assembly was held at Pinerolo April 23 to 26, 1925. Since Brother A. H. Macmillan from the Society’s headquarters was making a series of visits abroad, he was able to be present. The assembly was held in a large room at the Corona Grossa hotel.

It would have been ridiculous to expect the Fascist authorities to give their permission for this assembly. So the brothers disguised the gathering as a wedding celebration. During the assembly Brother Remigio Cuminetti married Sister Albina Protti, one of the Swiss colporteurs. At that historic assembly there were 70 in attendance and 10 of these were baptized.

“Our days were full of blessings, rejoicing and happiness,” wrote Sister Brun, who was present at the assembly. She adds: “The hotel owner brought his other guests and clients into the hall saying: ‘Come and see everybody, we have the primitive church under our roof!’ . . . Everything was well organized and we usually managed to clear the floor and set the chairs out in a flash. Afterward we would put them away again and leave everything in order. We were all happy and willing to lend a hand. It was a great witness.”

Nevertheless, during that first assembly there was a curious inconvenience. “Although we were very different in many ways, we managed to get on well together. However, we did not manage to agree on the singing of the songs. The brothers from the north sang with a lively rhythm, while those from the south sang slowly and with such feeling that it was a pity to make them change. So the presiding brother decided to have those from the south of Italy sing first, followed by those from the north.” [8]

            The presence of Macmillan is confirmed in the original Italian Watch Tower, even though, in the picture taken after the convention we can’t see him; probably he had only just left. [9]

Footnotes:

[1]  WT May 1 1924, p. 138, “International Convention”, paragraph 2

[2] WT May 15 1924, p. 147, “International Convention” at Columbus”

[3] WT June 1 1924, p. 164, “Foreign Languages”

[4] WT June 1 1924, p. 171, “The International Convention at Columbus”

[5] WT August 1 1924, p. 226, “Convention Report”

[6] La Torre di Guardia, November 1924, p. 163, “La Convenzione internazionale”

[7] La Torre di Guardia, November 1924, p.165

[8] Yearbook 1982, pp. 133-4

[9] La Torre di Guardia, August 1 1925, p. 121.

Self Exlanatory

Rachael de Vienne ‏@RMdeVienne
 

#historyteacher The best history teachers are story tellers whose narrative engages the mind as much as good fiction does.

Recent Visits Map

Now if only each visitor would leave a brief comment and make Rachael happy:

Hart or Ling

The last post raised some questions when attention was drawn to a 2000 Yearbook that captioned a picture as Tom Hart. Tom Hart and Jonathan Ling are usually mentioned together as early Bible Students in the London area in the 1880s.

The photograph on the left is Jonathan Ling and was supplied by his great granddaughter from family archives. If you check back in the blog you can see that the original is captioned with some family history details. The photograph on the right was sent to me as a picture of a much older Jonathan Ling from a German publication, but the above mentioned Yearbook says this is Tom Hart.

You can examine both pictures side by side here. Personally, looking at features like mouth and ears, they appear to be the same man but several decades apart. It would be all too easy to have material about Hart and Ling in a file and assume a photograph is one of them without corroborating evidence.

I could of course be wrong. Maybe Hart and Ling just looked alike. What do you think?

Jonathan Ling

In June this year the blog ran a short article on Jonathan Ling, an early Watch Tower adherent in Britain, publishing a photograph of him supplied by one of his great-granddaughters.

Courtesy of Bernhard another photograph of Jonathan has now come to light, as a much older man. I had actually seen this photograph before, but cannot remember where. If any readers also recognises it and can give a source (other than Bernhard), I would be interested to hear.

Contact.

Our emails are attached to our blogger profiles. I'm on twitter. Mr. Schulz does not use any social media.

There are some rules. We do not debate theology. Our work is all about history and only about history. Do not email us to promote your beliefs. Do email us if you have something to contribute to our historical research.

We usually do not have time to assist you with your personal research, but if you have a question that concerns the era we research, we will consider it. Direct  your questions and comments first to me. I'll pass them on to those most likely to answer in an informed way.

Most of what appears on the internet as 'Watch Tower History' is nonsense. We do not have time to correct every wild speculation and fabrication floating on the internet. But if you have a specific question, we will do our best to direct you to the facts as we know them.

We accept blog article submissions. Submissions must be in Word format with indented paragraphs, preferably fully justified. Articles must be footnoted to original sources. While you may reference secondary sources, your facts should be derived from primary sources. Submit photos in .gif format. Blogger loves .gif best.

Expect your article to be edited. Expect it to be rejected without explanation. We may return your article for a rewrite, a revision, or further research. If this will damage your ego (You'd be surprised how many find the editing and submission processes ego wounding.) don't submit to us. We will consider articles covering the  Russell years and sometimes the early Rutherford years. Send submissions to Mr. Schulz. I'm busy with a handful of things and no longer manage blog issues.

A bit more on Basil

by Jerome

Rachael mentioned in a recent post that I had several articles in the planning stage for the blog. This is true and they will eventually cover what I hope others may find profitable lines of research.

However, this is not one of them. This is just an incidental post covering some material uncovered when researching Basil Stephanoff. It will not have a place in the forthcoming book, because it is irrelevant to the religious history. But still - I, at least, found some of it fun.

Many early associates of CTR, like people in general today, had what can only be called “feet of clay.” Lapses from moral grace don’t have to be the exclusive preserve of religious people, but the contrast between theory and practice is often fodder for the tabloid press. And this is history - these people aren’t our relatives to cause us any embarrassment today, so that is Okay.

Quoting from an earlier post by Rachael, “Basil Stephanoff gets short mention in Proclaimers. He was active in Macedonia (European Turkey and Bulgaria in the late 1880s. He was imprisoned because (he claimed) false testimony at the hands of false brethren. He escaped to America, settling in Michigan. He was still a Watch Tower adherent in 1894.”

The 1894 reference is to a letter of support he sent CTR as published in the special Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings Watch Tower extra.

Basil’s personal history has its mysteries. At one point in researching this article, I rather gleefully assumed we had a case of bigamy here, but alas, a discovery of not one but two divorces settled that in Basil’s favor - if that is the right expression to use. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The fuller chronicle of Basil that makes the history book explains he was in the United States in the 1880s, although on census returns he only ever admits to entering the country in 1891 or 1892. We know from passenger lists that he travelled from England to the States in January 1892, giving his occupation as laborer.

Within a short space of time Basil gets married to Annie Brook, on April 12, 1892, in the Children of Zion Church, and his marriage certificate (registered in Kent County, Michigan) gives his occupation as minister of the gospel. The officiating minister at his wedding is H A Olmstead, Pastor Children of Zion Church.  Annie is a dress maker and comes from England. A 1900 census return says she came to America in 1886, six years before Basil, and a 1920 census return says she became a US citizen in 1892.

At the time of the marriage Basil is 31 and Annie is 28. His father’s name is down as Stephan Boginoff, which suggests the registrar had a silly moment, since the correct name in all other documents is Bogin Stephanoff. Basil’s mother’s name is Mona. Annie conceives almost immediately and their only son, John Basil Stephanoff is born on January 26, 1893 (information from John B’s WW1 draft card). John B becomes a judo instructor during WW2 and lives until 1976. John B married and had one daughter, whose married name was Jean Schmit, and who died in 1980, but there the trail ran cold for this researcher.

In trade directories for the late 1890s through to 1901 the family are in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Basil is listed under Boots and Shoes, or shoe dealer in the 1900 census.

But all is not well in the Stephanoff household. On November 5, 1900, Annie files for divorce on the grounds of Basil’s cruelty and the uncontested divorce is granted on June 18, 1901. Annie will stay in Grand Rapids. In quite short order, and while still giving his residence in Grand Rapids, Basil ties the knot again, this time marrying Alvesta S Nagle of Bellevue, Ohio, on October 8, 1902. The marriage is registered in Kent County, Michigan. Basil is still a shoe dealer, Alvesta has no profession, and Basil’s parents are down as Stephanoff and Mona. But just four months later there are divorce proceedings again. This time the uncontested charge is cruelty plus fraud, and the decree absolute is granted on June 30, 1903.

Alvesta disappears from the record, but first wife Annie with son John B continue to appear in Grand Rapids directories, she as a dress maker and John B when he leaves education as a salesman.

Basil then reappears in Marion County, Indiana, in the 1910 census. The age, place of origin, and year of immigration show it is our man. He has now become a lawyer. And the census specifically asks him whether he is single, married, widowed or divorced. His answer is plain - SINGLE.

Whereas Annie in the Grand Rapids trade directories for 1915 and surrounding years puts herself down as the widow of Basil.

Basil dies of nephritis in Marion County, Indianapolis, on May 19, 1925. He must have kept certain documents with him because his death certificate lists his parents as Bogin and Mona. But he is now listed as a widower, with the name of his former partner unknown.

Basically Basil dies alone, and out of touch with his son.

I suppose I was looking for a “bad boy” in Basil, and these snippets from records show someone who could bend the truth at times, along with two failed marriages and the accusation of cruelty.

It makes me think of another “bad boy” who lived at the same time and who also associated for a while with the Bible Student movement. That was Albert Royal Delmont Jones, who was the editor of Zion’s Day Star before his fall from grace. Jones deserted his first wife, the mother of his children, and married a society beauty. She in turn dumped him when he lost his fortune, and his third attempt at matrimony was to someone later convicted of bigamy, who featured in the Fatty Arbuckle scandal. If that wasn’t enough excitement for one life, somewhere along the line there is a possible fourth marriage, which if true, suggests a less than truthful response to the registrar. All of this can be read by newer readers if you track back on this blog to when Albert was dissected a few years back.

There are some similarities in the stories of former Watch Tower adherents, Albert and Basil, although Albert wins the prize for major league “bad boy”. But with their tangled personal histories, there is one thing they do both have in common. Both had family who survived them. Both died alone. Maybe they deserved it, but I still find that rather sad.

An overview

            Clearly, Separate Identity will see a third volume. While we are sometimes disappointed by lack of detail or an inability to find documentation, the amount of detail we have is unexpected and pleasing. The story, as you’ve been told it, doesn’t always change much, but it is more meaningful for the details.

            Let me tell you about volume two as we see it. Unwritten yet is a chapter about starting Zion’s Watch Tower and the continuing controversies over the Ransom -Atonement doctrine. It exists only as notes. It is probably the last chapter we’ll write. We consider the evolution of a lay-preaching ministry and of the publishing ministry. Usually, all that is said about this is that Russell called for ten thousand preachers. There is a more complex story. And as usually told this is out of social context. We restore that, making the story conform to what really happened. The circulation of Food for Thinking Christians gets its own chapter. This was first written sometime ago, but needs a re-write to accommodate new information. The circulation of Food led to an enlarged international work. We tell in separate chapters about the work in Canada and the United Kingdom. China, various other lands, and Liberia are documented in a single chapter. The foreign language work in the United States led to international mission work. That gets its own chapter. Appended to the discussion of early evangelism in the UK is a short section profiling one of the key, but overlooked, exponents of Watch Tower doctrine in the UK. We discuss the organization and financing of the work from the unincorporated tract society to its incorporation, profiling the early directors.  As with many of these chapters, the story takes us places no-one else has gone.

            We tell in some detail the work of the earliest Watch Tower evangelists. Some of that has appeared as temporary posts on this blog. New Workers in the Field tells of somewhat later evangelists. Out of Babylon tells of efforts to separate from doctrines and churches they believed failed Christ. We tell the story of clergy who took up the new faith. One of the faults of more favorable ‘histories’ of the Watch Tower movement is a tendency to ignore those who left the faith. We do not do that, believing it distorts history.

            We know there was some sort of evangelism in France. Beyond a name and a letter or two, we cannot document it. This is true of Norway and Denmark. The effort was so small I do not believe any of that is recoverable. We have a single mention of Ireland. Again, I do not believe we will find more.

            Currently, we’re researching and writing a chapter entitled “Approach to 1881.” Adherents saw that as a year of prophetic fulfillments. We put their prophetic expectation in historical context. If considered at all, most researchers say Watch Tower adherents expected the end of the world in 1881. This is uniformed at best and a purposeful misrepresentation at its worst. But much that followed swung off the hinges of 1881. This will be a very blunt chapter and probably upsetting to some of our readers. We managed to displease some with volume one and others with our biography of N. Barbour. Why should volume two be different?

            As it is now, volume three will consider the divisions that followed; the writing and circulation of Millennial Dawn, a chapter on the Watch Tower movement in historical context; a chapter on Historical Idealism; a chapter on the Watch Tower movement’s connection to other, unexpected movements.

            We only cite contemporary documents except when we consider some key comments by later writers. Do not expect us to cite secondary sources. While this may play into your desire to lead readers to opposition sources, it is not good practice. A sociologist might do that; a historian should never do it.

           We restore as nearly as possible the warts, bumps, unlovely and lovely of the personalities who appear in this history. We do not write sanitized history. If you want a paean to Russell, this is not the book for you.

           

Catholic End of the Age Predictions

We are aware of Charles Arminjon's book. We need other Catholic produced end of the age books written in the 1860-1890 period.

I'm returning ...

I'm returning editorship of this blog to Mr. Schulz. I'm not leaving the project, but this blog is a total waste of time. It exists to elicit comments and suggestions. We receive almost no meaningful comments. As far as that goes, we receive almost no comments. I spend time on this blog best spent on other aspects of this project.

More Barbour

Cambridge Chronicle, Volume XXVII, Number 8, 24 February 1872 — SUNDAY SERVICES. FEBRUARY 25.

Canada

While I'm not posting any of the chapter on early work in Canada (It's a waste of time), we need the names of Canadian adherents from before 1890. Don't presume we know what you know.

Last Ditch Effort

Other than rewrites and edits, we're saying our chapter on the early work in Canada is finished. We're unsatisfied with the results, but out best efforts have produced limited results. If you can find relevant material from before 1890, please pass it on.

John Henry Paton

We need a volunteer to

We need a volunteer to transcribe the short article by J. H. Paton found in this newspaper

http://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042400/1908-01-12/ed-1/seq-7/

We need

We need an extract of every reference to prophetic events in 1881 appearing in  Herald of the Morning and in Zion's Watch Tower.

Can you help?

Your task, should you accept it,

Okay ... These six articles exemplify issues that arise when writing history. Analyze them. Tell us the story they tell. Submit your comments. If I get an exceptionally good one or two or seven, I'll pull them out of the comment trail and make them a main post.

More newish stuff - Barbour

Newish Stuff - Barbour

Writing History II

Writing History II

            Those who write about controversialist movements are often partisan or swayed by partisan statements. Having a point of view is ethical and acceptable. It is unethical to slant your writing to fit your point of view while ignoring contrary evidence.

            I see this most often in the thesis or dissertations written by wannabe sociologists and historians. They cite secondary sources without verifying accuracy. They do not weigh the merits of their sources. They are willing to uncritically accept the word of former adherents. Or they presume their conclusions are factual without verification.

            There are numbers of examples, but one that makes me frown is the attribution to the Adventists of every End-Times view. Adventism, especially original Millerite Adventism, has a very narrow doctrinal set. Belief in the return of Christ is First Century Doctrine, and seldom falls within the “Second Adventist” world view. In Zygumnt’s dissertation, individuals are called Millerites and old-time Millerites who weren’t born until decades later.

            Another example is the ready and uncritical acceptance of a ‘voice’ that supports a defamatory view. Many writers do this. The Brooklyn Eagle was in the early 20^th Century little more than a yellow-journalism rag. It was unreliable, partisan and as willing to lie as any other newspaper. It was Catholic in outlook, and willing to trash without grounds any other point of view. Because its articles support a point of view, they’re repeated, quoted and referenced as if they were the first-hand observations of participants. They aren’t. They’re slanted and inaccurate.

            Quotations from New York State newspapers about the arrest of Jonas Wendell are quoted on the Internet without critical comment. All of them are derive from one source, and all of them are false. None of those citing these articles tried to find an original arrest record. (You can’t find one, because it didn’t happen.) None of them report Wendell’s denials, and none of them identify Miss Terry, the daughter of a Second Adventist family living in Connecticut. The story is there, maybe without enough original documentation to satisfy the very curious (who as I do, always want to know more), but with enough detail to tell an accurate story.

            One well-known historian and former adherent called Russell a plagiarist because he believed similarly to someone else. This is, as we point out in Separate Identity Vol. 1, a misuse of the word. If you write history, do not borrow other’s mistakes. Word definitions matter. You must know the definition of the words you use. And you must know connotation of words. It is unethical to use a word that implies a bad act without clear evidentiary warrant.

            Some writers begin with the assumption that the characters whose history they present were bad people. They don’t like the doctrine or philosophy of someone, so they portray them in the worst light possible. Ethically, a historian should presume that the least offensive cause for an act or belief is the correct one unless there is clear, first-hand evidence to the contrary. One of the Wesleys was accused of adultery, apparently without any grounds. And in his lifetime that was repeated but without evidence.

            Yes, some have bad motives. No-one is a true saint totally without blame in their life. A historian should not accept accusations at face value. An example we deal with in one of our books is the claim that Russell ‘stole’ the Herald of the Morning subscription list. Russell was co-owner. He paid to restart the magazine, purchasing the type for it and financing it when it did not pay its way. There are contemporary notices of his ownership. So this is a lie, fabricated by a former adherent who paints everything in the worst possible light – totally without evidence. This is a moral failing. It is wrong. And it is very poor work.

            The opposite problem exists. Some writers alter the facts to fit a prophetic scheme or set of religious doctrines. This is called Historical Idealism. It is as wrong to claim positive events and views that did not happen as it is to frame someone in a bad light without clear, valid, verifiable evidence.

            We will not stop this by what we write. People are not willing to abandoned narratives in which they’re personally invested ... that validate personal decisions they’ve made. But we can present an accurate history and let it contrast with the false narratives that circulate so widely.

On Writing History

Writing History

by R. M. de Vienne

            There are two kinds of history: What the British call Public History and Americans tend to call ‘popular history’; and academic history. Unwarranted snobbery finds a home among those who write academic history. But finding original documents and writing footnotes doesn’t elevate academic history above its cousin.

            Though it colors your style, the audience one writes for does not matter. What matters is an honest, rational approach to the subject. Dr. Schulz and I write about controversial religions. Those who read our books have preconceived notions, often wrong. Not every reader is willing to accept new evidence. Some want to write your book for you. One of our readers believed we should cite former adherents’ books and pamphlets. Almost none of them are relevant. They do not cover the era accurately if at all. They are all secondary, sometimes tertiary sources. They do not present an accurate picture. Often they lie.

            Which brings me to my first point. If you write history, don’t lie to your readers. Some historians misrepresent their subject because their research lacks depth. Want an example? Of course you do. How many of you think that Juan Ponce de León went looking for the fountain of youth? It’s a common myth in American history books. But ... buster, it ain’t so. So ... this is what I wrote in a limited circulation school history:

As a result of political moves by Columbus’ son, he lost his governorship in 1512, but the Spanish king found ways to help him. King Ferdinand sent him out to explore new lands. Ponce de León heard of an island called Bimini. The story as it’s often told says he heard that the fabled Fountain of Youth was there. Drinking its miraculous waters would restore health and youth.  Many writers say that seeking this fountain was the reason for his exploration northward. But this story was invented by a man who wanted to discredit Ponce de León. None of the original records mention a quest for a miracle fountain. Many years after de León’s death Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, a partisan follower of Diego Columbus, wrote that Ponce was gullible, egocentric and dull-witted. Oviedo told the fountain of youth tale in his book Historia General y Natural de las Indias. It was a literary device meant to make Ponce appear foolish. de León’s real motive was wealth. The king promised that he would hold exclusive rights to the lands he discovered and that he would become their governor.

            Do not lie to your readers by repeating a story you did not verify from original sources. ... Ever.

            When sources conflict, the tendency of some writers is to accept what the majority say, even in preference to an eyewitness. This is argumentum ad populum, one of the major logic flaws. Sometimes the majority view is wrong. Never reject the opposition account without solid reason. And never discount opposition views on an unfounded basis. Age, status in life, and similar things do not, without strong evidence, account for an alternative view. Never adopt a speculation as firm evidence.

            If a character says something different from others, and you do not know why, do not rush into a Non Causa Pro Causa argument. Do not adopt as a reason your speculation. If you cannot find in the original documents a supportable reason for the difference, simply note it. It is fair to balance that person’s testimony against that of others. If you do, only contrast it with eyewitnesses. False testimony comes from repeated use of the comments of one or two people. An example is the endless repetition of J. J. Ross’s claims against Russell. If you take only Ross against Russell and others who attended the trial, Ross is not sustained. However, the bulk of what has been written is derived from Ross because he represented what opposition writers wish the events to be.

            Do not use every document as if it were valid, accurate and the rock-foundation of truth. This is especially so of contemporary newspaper and magazine articles. Give them appropriate weight. If they contradict known facts, reject their testimony. Pay attention! This is important. If you accept a newspaper or magazine article, even contemporary with the event, merely because it supports your point of view, you’re a ‘dork.’ Stop it. Check further. Check your facts to ‘the bitter end.’ Bad writers don’t. Good historians do.

            Historians should be ‘truth detectors.’ If the story develops in a way that differs from your pre-conceived belief, you are ethically bound to follow the facts. You are prohibited by ethics from making it up, casting someone in a bad light because you oppose what they believed or coloring the story to justify your own acts and beliefs.