Margaretta

Margaretta Russell Land, to give her the usual full married name was the natural sister of Charles Taze Russell, two years his junior. As such she played a role in his history, and ultimately was buried next to him in United Cemeteries, Ross Township, Pittsburgh.

Below is an extract from the official cemetery register as supplied by the current owner. A number of names are deliberately obscured because many of these are more recent burials and not our concern. But on this sheet for Section T, Lot 34, you can see that CTR was buried in Plot A, Grave 1. At the bottom of the page, below the name of John Coolidge, who was buried at the end of the row and whose name is inscribed on the famous pyramid memorial, is the name Margaretta R Land. She is buried in Plot A, Grave 2, and the register states she was buried on November 26, 1934. In reality her death certificate states this was the day she died in New York City, and the interment took place in Pittsburgh on November 29.            

 This article, a revision of a chapter for a forthcoming book, will discuss her history. In the record she left she is sometimes Margaret, sometimes Mae, but later (with variations) settled down as Margaretta. For consistency we will stay with the latter for this article, unless reproducing something that uses a variation.

           

According to the 1900 census, she was born in March 1854. She gave her testimony and spiritual life story at the Niagara Falls convention in 1907 which readers can easily check in the convention report. At the Praise and Testimony meeting led by John A Bohnet on Sunday morning, November 1, she outlined her brother, CTR’s story.

She dated her own coming to a knowledge of the truth to “about thirty three years” before, which would take us back to 1874, the year they would focus on for the beginning of Christ’s presence (parousia). She also stated that Charles, his father and herself were baptized that year, after coming to understand the true import of baptism. She outlined how Charles at the age of 17 requested a letter of dismissal from the Congregational church, which would be around 1869, the year CTR was drawn to the “dusty and dingy” Quincy Hall in Lacock Street and heard Jonas Wendell speak. She goes on with her lengthy testimony, well expressed, and it is perhaps surprising that this is the only statement to be preserved from her. As such, it is the only record we have for certain events, so we have to depend on the memory of the single witness for the information.

At some point in the mid-1870s she married Benjamin Franklyn Land, a cabinet maker who worked in the Pittsburgh firm, Getchell and Land. Benjamin appears to have shared the Russells’ religious beliefs at this time. George Storrs, editor of The Bible Examiner visited a “small but noble band of friends” in Pittsburgh in May 1874. In the June issue of his magazine he listed the names of those who had requested literature, probably for distribution.. From The Bible Examiner, June 1874, page 288.

Familiar names from Pittsburgh were Wm H Conley (2 parcels), G D Clowes Sen., and J L Russell and Son (by Express). But slotted in between Clowes and Russell is B F Land. We must assume that this was Margaretta’s husband or soon-to-be husband.

By the 1880 census the Lands have two children, Ada (born November 1875) and Alice (born November 1878). Another, Joseph Russell Land (born June 1880) was on the way. A fourth child, May (sometimes called Thelma), would be born in February 1886, the year The Plan of the Ages came out. The 1900 census clearly shows that Margaretta and the children were living in Pittsburgh when May was born. A Benjamin F Land is still in Pittsburgh trade directories as a carpenter up to 1888, although this may have been his father.

At some point disaster hit the family. Around 1954 an elderly Joseph Russell Land gave a testimony at a Bible Students’ gathering, which was recorded. His personal memories included living at CTR’s home and also the breakup of his parents’ marriage. He didn’t take any real interest in Bible Student matters until he was an adult when, more out of curiosity than anything else, he went to hear his uncle speak after seeing an advertisement. But as to his childhood years, he made these comments:

“I only lived with Pastor Russell for one year, and that was with my sisters and my mother from 1887 to 1888, that was when I was passing from 7 to 8 years old, and all I can remember of that was that we were told not to go around – it was in a large house on a hill then - the Pastor didn’t have the Bible House then – we children were told not go around on that side of the house where Pastor Russell had his study, probably writing the volumes…We didn’t go around on that side to bother him any.

“My dear mother being Pastor Russell’s sister, was one of the first to come into the truth…My mother had just left my father in Colorado Springs in 1887, and come to Allegheny with we four young children, and we stopped with Pastor Russell for about a year and he took care of us.”

Reading between the lines, Joseph painted a picture of Margaretta as a forceful character, somewhat obsessed with the great time of trouble “just around the corner,” that he believed had a deterimental affect on him as a child. But he conceded that her situation may have had a bearing on that:

“It was a great time of trouble for a woman to have four children, and no husband, to raise back in those days.”

We do not know why Margaretta’s marriage failed. Taking her son’s words literally it was Margaretta who left Benjamin. It has not been possible to trace what happened to him, but by the 1900 census Margaretta is listed as a widow.

Living in the expanded Russell household would have been a difficult time for everyone. Two forceful women in the same household, Margaretta and Maria, would not be easy. Years later Maria Russell would make accusations against her sister-in-law in the Russell vs Russell court case of 1907. These were put to CTR and quoting from page 229 of the transcript, his cross-examination by Maria’s counsel went as follows:

Q:  You know that Mrs Land was more or less offensive to Mrs Russell?

A:  I did not, sir, and do not know any reason why she should be.

Q:  Mrs Land had lived with you before, when you and Mrs Russell had lived together?

A:  Yes, sir.

Q:  And there was a constant source of trouble between you and Mrs Russell about your sister?

A:  No, sir.

Q:  And did not Mrs Russell finally insist that Mrs Land should leave the house?

A:  No, sir, not that I remember of.

Q:  Well, she did leave the house.

A:  Of course, she left the house, and Mrs Russell left the house too; Mrs Land moved down to her father’s, down in Florida, she moved at that time.

Margaretta and her children moved to Florida to be with her father, Joseph Lytle Russell. Referring to this time in Florida Joseph Russell Land also testified that when she was “up against it” CTR was “always ready to send her help.” We assume that Charles Ball and then his sister Rose moved into the Russell household after Margaretta and the children had left, although there could have been overlap. But then in due course CTR and Maria moved into the Bible House. According to the history marker at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Hall this was in 1894.

Joseph Lytle ultimately came back from Florida to Pittsburgh and died in a Cedar Avenue property in December 1897.

Prior to his death Joseph Lytle wrote a new will in July 1896 (witnessed by E C Henninges, J A Bohnet and Mrs O A Koetitz) which made a bequest to Margaretta (a house, three lots and 25 acres of land in Florida) as well as providing for his wife and daughter, Emma and Mabel. Emma was to inherit two houses, another lot and various stocks and notes that she later claimed were worthless and Mabel inherited a house and another lot. CTR was named as executor. This became a bone of contention as perhaps evidenced by the three witnesses having to sign another statement in October 1897 that Joseph Lytle was of “sound mind and memory” when they witnessed the will. Joseph Lytle left certain unspecified debts, and Emma argued later that her Cedar Avenue property could not be sold to pay these debts before all the other bequests had been used up.

It did not make for a very happy extended family.

In the 1900 census Margaretta was still in Florida and now listed as a widow. Her eldest daughter Ada had gone, having married a Thomas Wells in 1895. The marriage would end in divorce and she later married a C H White. However, the other three of her children were still at home, Alice was a school teacher, Joseph a cigar maker, and May was still at school.

She soon returned to Pittsburgh and worked at the Bible House. She is featured in various events over the first decade of the twentieth century. We will review these in date order.

In testimony for the above quoted Russell vs. Russell hearing of 1907 (transcript page 90), daughter Alice Land testified that she had both lived in and worked at the Bible House for about six years. We can assume from this that Margaretta and the two daughters went back to Pittsburgh to be part of the Bible House family from about 1901. Unlike some of the other workers they lived on the premises for some of the time, although the Russell vs Russell 1907 transcript states they had one room for the three of them (second floor front) in the house Maria occupied on Cedar Avenue (see transcript page 225).

Maria and the Cedar Avenue property came to the fore in 1903, when Margaretta was mentioned in connection with CTR’s domestic troubles. In that year, CTR reclaimed the house that his estranged wife, Maria was living in at 79 Cedar Avenue, Pittsburgh (now renumbered as 1004). Maria had left Charles in 1897, first going to her brother Lemuel in Chicago, and then on return to Pittsburgh to her sister Emma’s home. Emma had inherited 80 Cedar Avenue (now renumbered as 1006) from her late husband, Joseph Lytle Russell. Today there is a history plaque on the property, acknowledging his original ownership. It should be noted that the two houses were a duplex, two homes that shared a middle wall. It was one of a long series of ornate 19^th century row houses, all connected together along Cedar Avenue with a beautiful park on the opposite side of the street. All of the homes as well as the park appear today almost as they did 150 years ago.

As noted above, Maria lived first with Emma at number 80, but when the tenants at number 79 moved out, Maria took it over and lived there with her mother for several years. This is where her mother Selena Ackley died in 1901. The paper trail on the property is unclear, and it may be that it technically belonged to the Watch Tower Society by this time, but as far as Maria was concerned it belonged to her husband and his actions showed he believed that too. The three story home was large so Maria also generated income by renting out rooms. When she used her extra money to publish a tract highly critical of CTR he took the house back in 1903, and put Margaretta in charge of the property. A room was offered Maria on a legal footing, but perhaps not surprisingly she simply chose to move back in with her sister Emma next door on the left side of the duplex.

In 1907 CTR wrote his last will and testament, signed and witnessed on June 29, 1907. It was printed in full in the December 1, 1916, Watch Tower, and also in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper for November 29, 1916. Margaretta was mentioned in connection with the funeral arrangements.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUNERAL

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

                                                                                         

Mrs. M. M. probably stands for Margaret Mae or may even be a misprint; other records at this time give her full name as Margaret (or Margaretta) Russell Land. Daughter May (as Mae F Land) was one of the witnesses. Margaretta, Alice and May were all still working at the Bible House at the time.

During this time, she appeared in photographs taken at the Bible House. Below are two that date from around 1907. The one on the left is part of a group photograph taken in the Bible House Chapel, and on the right she is in the Bible House dining room.

     

In November 1907 she gave her detailed testimony at the Niagara Falls convention that we have discussed earlier.

In December 1908 the Watch Tower carried an advertisement for a booklet, The Wonderful Story of God’s Love. Written by Margaret Russell Land this was an illustrated poem, not to be confused with a similarly titled work by Maria Russell published in booklet form back in 1890.

But then she disappears from the regular narrative.

There are two possible explanations for this. One is that in 1909 a rift occurred over a change made by CTR over the understanding of the New Covenant. This caused some to separate from the Watch Tower. It resulted in two new groups of Bible Students, although they were separated by geography more than belief. The better known one was in Australia with Ernest Henninges and his wife, the former Rose Ball. But the American one resulted in several well known names leaving association with Watch Tower. They included M L McPhail, the hymn writer, and also Albert E Williamson. Albert had been a Watch Tower Society director and his twin brother Fredrick was Margaretta’s son in law, having married her daughter Alice.

Some have suggested that Margaretta may have supported this breakaway movement with other family members, although we lack documentary proof of this. Or it may simply be that the 1909 move from Pittsburgh to Brooklyn caused her to relocate back to the warmer climate of Florida to be near family members.

When CTR died she was featured in a news item intending to travel to the funeral. From the Tampa Bay Tribune (Florida) for November 2, 1916:

This is a typical effort of a junior reporter of the day. She may have intended to go to Brooklyn rather than Pittsburgh for the first part of the funeral arrangements – we just don’t know because she’s not mentioned in the actual reports – but it is a revelation that CTR died on a ranch rather than a train!

Margaretta was supposed to be responsible for CTR’s funeral arrangements according to his last will and testament, but that was back in 1907 and much water had gone under the bridge since then. For example, editorial committee nominee John Edgar had been dead for six years. There is anecdotal testimony that she may have wanted funds for her expenses to attend the funeral, but since she had inherited a house, three lots, and 25 acres of land in Florida from her late father, and also had a family of four adult children who could have helped her, that doesn’t seem realistic. Whatever happened, it is assumed that she did attend the funeral, although the newspaper reports (including the St Paul Enterprise) do not mention her. They do, however indicate that Maria and Emma attended.

There is, however, a photograph that long tradition identifies as her at the side of her brother’s grave prior to interment. She is supposed to be the female figure on the right, standing on her own rather than with other women higher up the hill.

Without corroborating evidence this just remains an unverified possibility.

After CTR’s death, Margaretta lived out her life in Florida near daughters Ada (Mrs Ada F White) and May (Mrs C Rea Kendall) until the year of her death, at which point she moved to New York where daughter Alice Williamson looked after her. But then at death she returned to Pittsburgh and was buried beside CTR. There was no notice of her passing or funeral in the Pittsburgh papers, but she did get an obituary in the Tampa Bay Times for November 29, 1934.

Again we appear to have the less than accurate efforts of a junior reporter. Her age is wrong, she was 80, she hadn’t been there for a continuous 40 years, and Mrs Williamson was not the sister of CTR, but Margaretta was. All par for the course.

So Margaretta obviously had a long standing claim to the grave space beside her brother. This was the only burial on the Society’s site throughout the 1930s. The grave remains unmarked. It may be that no-one really remembered her in Society history by then, or perhaps her family in Florida and New York did not see the need, especially if they were never going to visit.

George Swetnam

George Swetnam (1904-1999) was a writer who led a full and eventful life. His obituary in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (April 7, 1999) outlined how he was an author of a dozen books, mainly on history, and was also a Presbyterian minister. He had been a newspaper editor, a member of various historical societies, and for two years of his life, a hobo. His obituary states “he claimed to have ridden more freight trains than any other Ph.D alive.” He is probably best remembered today for co-authoring A Guidebook to Historic Western Pennsylvania.

He is of interest on this blog because he wrote about Charles Taze Russell from time to time.

In 1958 he wrote Where Else but Pittsburgh, and part of one chapter has six pages on CTR. It is written in popularist style, and while one can easily nitpick some of the erroneous details, it could be called a tribute and a sympathetic portrait.

Swetnam became a columnist and feature writer for the Pittsburgh Press. At least two of his pieces featured CTR. The first in the Pittsburgh Press Sunday magazine for October 6, 1963, was about the demolition of the old Bible House as part of the North Side redevelopment scheme.

The second was an article, again in the Sunday magazine section of the Pittsburgh Press for January 25, 1967. This was about the burial site and the pyramid monument.

Swetnam lists the names found on the pyramid, but was obviously struggling. The weathering of the stone and the way the light hits the monument can make decipherment difficult. He lists eight names, CTR himself and then seven others.

There were actually nine names inscribed. He misses out the name John Perry, and some of the names he records have glitches. Grace Mound was actually Grace Mundy, who died in a fire in 1914. Chester Elledge can only be a drastic misreading of John Coolidge, which is strange because his grave marker is the only one (other than CTR’s) to still survive of those named. Swetnam says that the oldest who died was Miss Cole, aged 78. Flora Cole actually died aged 70, but it IS hard to decipher the lettering. But she wasn’t “Miss” she was “Mrs” – her son James Cole was the inventor of the Dawn-Mobile featured in a fairly recent Watchtower article – February 15, 2012.

The other thing this article did was to remind the public that there was a treasure trove of old publications buried in the pyramid. They appear to have survived until 1993 when the pyramid was finally broken into and the contents stolen.

Not by any reader of this blog I would hope.

It Does Help if You Get the Basic Facts Right

In the Golden Age magazine for September 13, 1922, three films were advertised for purchase by the Kinemo Film Corporation. Back in 2016 there was a series of articles on this blog about them, the most detailed one being found at:

https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/08/kinemo.html                                                                               

The three films were made over 1920-1921. There was one on Palestine, one on the Great Pyramid and one on Imperial Valley, California. The latter was seen as an example of what could be done to cultivate land and make an area into a paradise.

There is quite an amazing review of the Imperial Valley one by Paul Johnson in his paper for September 1925.

"BRO. RUTHERFORD TAKING A TRIP THROUGH IMPERIAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA"

"The picture shows Bro. R. and party in an automobile, ready for the tour. Then it shows them driving to some of his friends, to ask them if they would allow their son to go with him through Imperial Valley to take pictures. The boy's parents readily consented to let him go with the judge, though they were all prepared to start on a trip of their own through the mountains. The boy kisses his family good-bye, jumps into Bro. R.'s car, and away they go. Then the pictures go on to show Bro. R. passing through the valley on foot, examining fruit, vegetables and many other things grown there. According to the pictures, everything certainly was in good condition. Of course, the picture shows Bro. R. walking through these gardens, which takes up quite a time. On one occasion he is pictured as looking around and laughing as he turns over a very large pumpkin, saying: `It reminds me of the pumpkin pies mother used to make.'

Then the picture changes. It shows Bro. Rutherford's party with a newspaper giving the picture of a terrible automobile accident. Then the auto is shown falling down the side of a steep mountain, the occupants falling out and all being killed—they were the boy's family. Thereupon Bro. R. is seen trying to comfort the boy. It also shows Bro. R. writing a letter and handing it to the boy, telling him not to open it until when in 1925 he would hear of Abraham being resurrected. Later, the pictures show the boy in 1925 reading a morning paper with large head lines: 'ABRAHAM RESURRECTED IN PALESTINE.' Suddenly it dawns on the boy to read the letter the judge had given him. He looks at the calendar, which shows 1925; then he opens the letter, which tells him to telegraph Abraham and ask him that his famliy might be resurrected and restored to him. Finally, the boy is shown very happy as he telegraphs Abraham in Palestine in 1925."

This would be a fascinating film to see with JFR in such a prominent acting role. It’s a shame the Oscars didn’t start until 1929. There is only one slight problem with all of this – the description and review is FALSE FROM START TO FINISH.

                                                                                                             

We can see the actual film today because a copy has survived, although missing a little footage at the end of the reel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zIClU8TQtM&feature=youtu.be           

The Imperial Valley film is just a travelog, taking you around the area, showing roads being built, ditches beng dug and produce being harvested, as an illustration of what could be possible for the earth in the future. That is about it. JFR appears briefly in long shot looking over a field, a bit like an Alfred Hitchcock cameo.

When you read the small print Johnson tries to excuse himself:

“The Editor never saw these moving pictures, but sometime ago one of the brethren sent him a brief description of them.”

So that’s all right then. It’s someone else’s responsibility. 

Taking his words at face value, one of the brethren must have been just  “messing around.”                                                        

And none of his readers apparently noticed.

With grateful thanks to Zion’s Herald for bringing this amusing item to our attention.

For a revised series of articles on the ill-fated Kinemo project you can also use the search term: Kinemo, at:    https://jeromehistory.blogspot.com/

The Search for Charles Buehler

(This is a considerable re-write of an article published here about six years ago. I have outlined in detail the research paths followed which may be of help to newer researchers looking for trails in their own research.)

One of my projects is to do a book on the various cemeteries in Pittsburgh that feature in Watch Tower history, particularly for the benefit of visitors/tourists to the area. A title like “Grave Matters” or “Grave Affairs” is likely. (Insert groan.)

Much of the research was done when I visited the area myself in 2014, and various articles appeared on this blog at the time, which will form the basis for the “new” work. But of course, everything needs re-researching in case there is more that can still be found.

This brings us to the strange case of Charles Buehler. A transcript of a death certificate, but alas not the original, has now become available on Ancestry. You would need to visit a record office in person to obtain the original, and since I live 3325 miles away from Brooklyn (give or take), that is a little impractical. (Any readers who can literally make the trip please contact me back-channel.) But the transcript does provide more information to help with identification – or muddy the waters.

But first, why is the death and burial of Charles Buehler of interest? In 1905 the Watch Tower Society through a holding company, The United States Investment Company, purchased farm land for a cemetery. In his last will and testament CTR asked that he be buried there, and in 1916 he was. The whole area was sold off at the end of 1917, apart from a couple of small sections just reserved for the Bible Students. The most famous one had a pyramid monument erected in its center, and this is the magnet for visitors to see.

The pyramid was designed as a family monument for Bethelites and Pilgrims with sufficient spaces for all their names on its sides. As it happened, only nine names were ever recorded, and were on three of the sides, leaving one side blank. The engravings were all done before the pyramid was installed and related to burials between 1914 and 1919.

The whole project was abandoned until burials restarted in 1943, with two exceptions. One was CTR’s sister, Margaretta Russell Land, who was buried next to him in 1934. The other was our mystery man, Charles Buehler, who was buried on this site on March 27, 1925. This is the one solitary burial throughout the whole of the 1920s, but there was no name added to the pyramid inscriptions.

The location of the grave is interesting. Below is a plan of the site, and the grave plots as they exist now including the four taken out by the pyramid. (Originally they hoped to cram in more burials, but a curved hillside site presented logistical problems, and the original plan that you can make out on the sides of the pyramid monument was soon rejected.)

The plan is looking across the site – to the left is in the bottom of the hill and to the right is the top. You can see where the named Bible Students on the pyramid sides were buried – apart from CTR himself, they were in little clusters at the corners of the site. In the top right hand corner were John Perry, Grace Mundy, Henry Addington, Lorena Russell (no relation to CTR) and Flora Cole. In the top left hand corner were Arabella Mann and Mary Whitehouse. In the bottom right hand corner was John Coolidge, whose stone still survives. But the bottom left hand corner was unused. However, it was obviously the plan to start at the four extremities of the Society’s site and work their way inwards. There were going to be problems when they met in the middle, but that was someone else’s headache in the future.

The one unused quadrant of the whole site, section T-47, is where the grave of Charles Buehler is found, in the far corner again, in plot H4. That fits the pattern, but then as noted above there were no further interments (apart from Margaretta Land) until the 1940s when the policy was to now sell off all the remaining plots.

So who was Charles Buehler? It is not an uncommon name in historical records, which makes the search more difficult. It is usually attached to families who came from Switzerland to the United States.

There are three known references to Charles Buehler in Bible Student materials. The first is the 1909 Convention Report. The 1909 Denver Colorado Convention program contained a symposium on The Fruits of the Spirit. C G Buehler gave the segment on Long-Suffering at the St Joseph convention, and his photograph was attached and reproduced below.

When I wrote originally I thought this might be our man, except that the newly discovered death certificate shows that the Charles buried in United Cemeteries was only about 22 in 1909. I think we must accept the above photograph as being of an older man, although as noted below likely related. Then (as far as this researcher’s labors are concerned) there is silence until 1922. In that year the Bible Students’ unofficial newspaper, The New Era Enterprise (formerly the St Paul Enterprise – named after the place, not the apostle) mentioned the Buehler name twice in connection with funeral reports.

The January 24, 1922, issue had a funeral report for one R Fritz who had died in an accident. The report, written by the widow, then residing in Kansas, reported “we secured the use of the community hall seating over 600 for the services and sent to St Joseph, Mo., for Brother M.E. Riemer, who sent Brother C.G. Buehler in his stead. The discourse was grand...giving the divine plan as briefly as possible and the people were very attentive. We have heard many favorable comments, some saying it was the best they had ever heard.”

Key points to hold onto are the reference to St Joseph and the family name Riemer. Two months later, the March 21, 1922, issue had a funeral report for Amy C Merrett, of Kearney, Mo., who “had had present truth since 1883.” The brief report noted that “Brother Charles Buehler of Kansas City, conducted her funeral.” (Kansas City and St Joseph, Mo., are only 55 miles away from each other).

Unfortunately the file for the New Era Enterprise for 1925 is incomplete, which is a pity because an obituary for Charles himself would probably have removed all mystery.

This Charles G Buehler from 1922 could have been the older man from the 1909 convention report, or the younger man who died in 1925 and was buried in United Cemeteries. Our Charles’ death certificate transcript says he died in the Brooklyn hospital, and his given address was 124 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn. His occupation, obviously in Brooklyn Bethel, was bookbinder. He was born c. 1887 as worked out from his age of 38 at death. He was single. Cause of death is given as septicaemia and osteomyelitis. His “executor” was given as Mr Hugo H Riem, friend (which is likely a truncated transcript for H H Riemer).

Normally Bethelites who died at this time were buried in the Society’s new plot on Staten Island near the radio station WBBR. But, for whatever reason, Charles B was taken to be buried in the otherwise abandoned cemetery in Pittsburgh. There may have been a family reason, the name Charles Buehler also occurs in Pittsburgh records, although as noted above it was not an uncommon name at the time. There are three Charles Buehlers in Pittsburgh directories - for 1884 (a baker), 1902 (a brewmaster), and 1909 (a machinist). Whether different people or relatives of the Charles in United Cemeteries it has not been possible to determine.

It seems most likely that Charles came originally from Missouri. His friend H H Riemer had a connecton there. When the Watch Tower listed names of those who had taken “The Vow,” the class at St Joseph signed from, amongst others, Hugo H Riemer and also a Clara L Buehler. There were actually six Riemer family members including M E Riemer, who was likely featured in the New Era Enterprise quote above. From the August 15, 1908 Watch Tower magazine:

The 1908 street directory for St Joseph lists a Mrs Clara L Buehler and also not one but two different men named Charles Buehler. There is a Charles who is a book agent, and another Charles G for whom no occupation is given. One could have been the older Charles whose picture was in the 1909 convention report (note that his talk was given at the St Joseph convention) and other could have been OUR Charles Buehler.

By the 1910 census the extended Buehler family was grown and scattered and difficult to piece together, but the 1900 census for St Joseph gives the likely branch that included Charles.

We have parents, and then in the full return a total of six children. The parents are the head (indecipherable but sometimes transcribed as Gustave) Buehler and wife, Katherine Buehler. Their eldest child is named Gottfried and was born in Switzerland. The father came to America in 1884, and his wife and first child in 1885. After Gottfried there was Charles, aged 14, who was the first to be born in America. There is a shared gravestone in the Ashland Cemetery, St Joseph, that is for Gottfried Buehler (1857-1926) and Katherine Buehler (1861- 1923) which helps clarify the father’s first name. 

Our Charles’ death certificate gives his parents as Gottfried and Katherine, so it is reasonable to assume that this is the right family and therefore the right Charles. This particular Charles in St Joseph received a life-threatening injury in a gun accident as a teenager, which may have contributed to health issues later on. 

Family records are a headache but those from the Ashland Cemetery suggest that the older Charles G Buehler of the convention report was a relative, maybe an uncle, or cousin once removed, as was Clara L Buehler by marriage to a Samuel Buehler. The older Charles lived on until 1940 but his obituary showed he had severed contact with the IBSA. His funeral was taken by J A Meggison.

So – a chain of possible evidence, conjecture, joining the dots maybe – such is the case of Charles Buehler. Such is the stuff of conjectural research. But the question still remains – why United Cemeteries?

Some of you might find this useful.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/A-Miracle-In-Stone-Or-The-Great-Pyramid-Of-Egyp-J-A-Seiss-1111-ID-50150/383072147838?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3Ddf4bb2cce42249198f3c560748382030%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D15%26mehot%3Dnone%26sd%3D273817345167%26itm%3D383072147838%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2380057&_trksid=p2380057.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3Acd8498a4-3d6d-11ea-848d-74dbd180c6b7%7Cparentrq%3Acf8ecbc316f0ad4a6ba8af0cff77f9ae%7Ciid%3A1

Some you win... Some you - don't...

This is a brief tale of a search that in some ways led to disappointment. Being based in the UK I was asked if I could find the last resting place of the Edgar family. As well as their speciality of pyramidology three of the Edgars, John, Morton and Minna (two brothers and a sister) also wrote a series of little booklets. One of them by John “Where Are The Dead?” was instrumental in attracting the interest of a young man named Fred Franz before the First World War.

We knew from printed accounts that they were buried in a family plot in the Eastwood Cemetery, Glasgow. There are two cemeteries of this name, an Old and a New, but the date of the first interment identified the site as being in the Old.

Were there memorial headstones? Would there even be a pyramid? That is not as fanciful as it sounds. Here is the grave for Piazzi Smyth.

And here from a Bible Student publication is a grave marker in Yeovil, Somerset, for a Bible Student, William Hallett, who died in 1921.

The cemetery records in Glasgow had not been transcribed, let alone posted on the internet. But I was able to make contact with a Family History Society in Glasgow and a member very kindly did a search for me. Almost immediately the burial registers for the family were found.

John bought three adjoining plots and later a fourth was added, totalling plots numbered A-950-953. Sixteen members of the extended family were eventually buried here. The last interment was in 1968. Any modern generations of the family, if they still exist, obviously moved elsewhere.

The next step was a visit to the area and again a willing volunteer from the area visited the site and took the following photograph. The graves numbered A-950-953 are both sides of the tree in the foreground. One wonders what size the tree was when these plots were sold originally.

There are a few memorials standing, which at least enable one to fix the correct site, but alas, none for the Edgar family. In UK cemeteries vandalism and sheep with itchy bottoms have eliminated a lot of memorials, but it would appear from the photographs that the Edgars never did have a lasting memorial installed.

Realistically, had there been anything like a pyramid there, it would have been found and publicised long before now.

So this is a non-story really. But you never know until you follow everything up what may or may not be discovered.

Afterword in Rough Draft

A temporary post. Usual rules. Never rely on a temp. post. They may change in final version. Do not circulate off the blog; this creates copyright issues for me. Comments. This is posted for comments.

Afterword

Doctrinal Evolution and Prophetic Failure

            Through 1880 and 1881 Russell grew in confidence as a writer, or at least as an outliner of articles he left for his wife to put in final form. It was a period of doctrinal restatement, and occasionally one of refinement. In one of his dialogue-format articles he wrote:

God’s word is “new every morning and fresh every evening.” In this respect it differs from all other books and, undoubtedly it is a fountain of living waters (truths) from the fact that it contains special dispensational truths, as well as general truth. Thus it is a great storehouse from which the Lord’s servants are to bring forth “things new and old,” that the household of faith may have meat in due season.” I seem to see in a clearer light than ever before, the present condition of the nominal church and its future.[1]

            Russell defined himself – and Watch Tower adherents – as dispensationalists. [We demonstrated in one of the introductory essays, Dispensationalism did not originate with Darby but significantly predates him.] For Russell, this meant that scriptural understanding appropriate to the Last Times was due. However, none of Russell’s ‘clearer’ understanding was new or original to him, but it was long established doctrine among millennialists. He did not attribute his “clearer light” to anyone else because he saw it as Biblical truth, derived from that source alone. This is not exceptional; we find this in the work of many others.

            When he and Barbour separated, his theology was not set in stone. He did not remain a Barbourite at heart. And he read widely. The “clearer light” he saw was adopted from standard prophetic expositions. In the article quoted above he identified the great red dragon as the Roman Catholic Church. This wasn’t ‘new’ to anyone, but had been Protestant doctrine for centuries.

            In volume one of Separate Identity we pointed to the prevalence of prophetic interest in Pittsburgh, naming Russell’s Congregationalist pastor as one who promoted this. Also within Russell’s religious circle was William James Reid, pastor of the United Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh. We do not know that Russell read Reid’s lectures on The Revelation, but he certainly read something similar. Most Watch Tower adherents were familiar with commentaries on the prophecies. The Allegheny Study Group spent considerable time reading them, especially when they considered Restitution [Restored Paradise] doctrine. Russell selected from existing commentaries those thoughts which he believed most closely represented the Bible’s meaning.

            Russell suggested that his understanding of the prophecies was incomplete. Reporting on his visit to Lynn, Massachusetts, he wrote:

I spoke on the subject of this same chapter to the name-less little company of “this way,” in Lynn, Mass., and concluded my remarks by telling them that I had never seen a satisfactory explanation of the 666. And, though I thought I had given a correct analysis of the symbols of the chapter, yet I could not claim it to be wisdom, since I could not interpret the number. I suggested, however, that if ours be the correct understanding of the time in which we are living – the “harvest” of the age – and if our general application of these symbols be correct, the number should soon be understood. I urged examination on the subject by all, for the Lord is sometimes pleased to give wisdom through the weakest of his children. “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained praise.”[2]

           

            In 1916, when asked about one of the prophetic figures found in The Revelation, he declined to answer, quipping: “About the vials of wrath: I have not yet read the [as yet unwritten] seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures, and therefore have nothing to say about that.”[3] If we can accept a statement found in the August 1, 1917, Watch Tower, he remained dissatisfied with his research up to near his death: “Brother Russell often spoke about writing the Seventh Volume [of Studies in the Scriptures], and one of his last utterances about it was to the effect: ‘Whenever I find the key, I will write the Seventh Volume; and if the Lord gives the key to someone else, he can write it’ – or words to that effect.”[4] The problem here – at least for a historian – is that this testimony lacks other support. The Watch Tower’s comment appears to be derived from Menta Sturgeon’s funeral discourse, wherein he reported that Russell said, “Some one else can write that.”[5] This is sole-source testimony, but no-one seems to have questioned this even though many were opposed to the Finished Mystery, as compiled by Fisher and Woodworth.[6]

            Before proceeding we should note that Rod Durost misrepresents Russell’s view of unfolding ‘truth.’ He quoted Russell as writing: “The opening of the books of the divine revelation will soon be completed,” suggesting that by this Russell claimed “divine revelation.” Durost references Studies in the Scriptures: The Time is at Hand, page 189. This isn’t found there. Instead it appears in Volume Three, Thy Kingdom Come. And as found there, it is a claim that Christ grants understanding to his servants. Russell did not make the claim Durost suggests. This is typical of anti-Witness, anti-Bible Student polemicists.[7]

[add comment on Crompton’s assertion]

Parousia (παρουσία)

            Doctrinal developments in the 1880s were diverse, but always connected to their understanding of prophecy. Three major doctrinal changes, and a few minor ones, come from this period. Two of the major changes came before 1881 and the other after. Each change caused controversy.

            That Christ would return invisibly was believed by many before Russell and Barbour adopted the idea. We’ve detailed that elsewhere in this series. Russell came to the idea through Seiss’ Last Times. Barbour was already familiar with the idea, but didn’t adopt it until Benjamin Keith promoted it. All of this we’ve documented before. As did many, they believed in a two-stage Second Advent. Christ would come invisibly, necessitating a ‘sign’ to detect it. In time he would become visible for ‘judgments.’ Russell’s explanation as found in Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return was: “We believe the scriptures to teach, that, at His coming and for a time after He has come, He will remain invisible; afterward manifesting or showing Himself in judgments and various forms, so that ‘every eye shall see him.’” The ‘every eye’ quotation comes from Revelation 1:7. Russell footnoted that text, explaining that the verse “does not necessarily teach that that every eye will see Him at the same moment.”[8]

            They expected Christ to become visible at least to some in or near 1881, but constant and considerable discussion among Watch Tower adherents modified that belief. Barbourites were tending to discount their shared παρουσία doctrine, drifting back to expecting a visible presence only.

           

image here

First Printing of Object and Manner

            The movement’s principals discussed it among themselves, and discussion became public through an article by Lizzie Allen appearing in the May 1880 issue. Written in response to Barbour’s claims to have uncovered a “clean” theology, his term for his ventures into esoteric belief systems, Allen focused on the sign of Christ’s presence, and the difference in viewpoint between Watch Tower adherents and Barbourites.  She referenced Matthew 24:3, presenting a bastarized quotation based on the Emphatic Diaglott, a Greek-English interlinear: “What shall be the sign of Thy parousia, and of the end of the world?” Jesus answer showed, she wrote, “the need of a sign.”   Jesus warned (Verses 4-5) that many would claim to be the messiah, deceiving many. Allen claimed that “a sign will enable those who obey ... to discern between the false and the true.”

            This point was preliminary to other, more important thoughts. A “sign” was needed because “of the obscurity which marks the period of his return.” Christ’s presence was not to generate,

... physical demonstrations as shall make all aware of it. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the presence of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were  before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall also the presence of the Son of man be, (Vers. 37-39.) all things will indeed continue as from the beginning. How then will the church be aware of His presence, except by a sign?

            The sign was given only to those who obeyed Christ’s commands, “and these cannot show it to the unfaithful.” Christ’s presence would be known to those outside the faith when he performed might acts. Allen paraphrased Matthew 24:23-28, which reads according to the Authorized Version:

At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.  For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. ”So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

            In her view the ‘lightning” was not, and could not be, natural light, “else His presence would not be likened to the days that were before the flood.” She saw it as spiritual light, “divine truth.”  A “great and wonderful unfolding of truth is all that the bible gives us a right to expect during the presence of the Son of man, and before translation,” she wrote.[9] This was meant as a refutation of the assertion of some Barbourites that Jesus would appear to his servants before heavenly resurrection. It was not a rejection of a two-stage parousia, but it planted the seeds for that. If one accepted her arguments, then one understood that Christ’s presence was totally invisible.

            She rejected Barbourite belief based on 1 John 3:2: “It  doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” If ‘the saints’ do not understand Jesus’ nature until they are resurrected, then Christ would not appear to humans in advance. She appealed to Colossians 3:4, writing:

Again, when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory. (Col. 3:4). Hence, we urge on those who are “looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” the Savior's command, “Take heed let no man deceive you.” The light of truth made plain by the Spirit, is the only promised guide, while here we wait. And this to us, is far more convincing than any physical manifestation could be.

            The fuller implications of this article are apparent. It set off discussions that did not immediately make it to The Watch Tower. Two of the movement’s principals and some of its new clergy adherents had some familiarity with Koiné Greek [1^st Century commonly-spoken Greek]. The dust started to settle after a behind-scenes discussion of the Greek text of Revelation 1:7 which says of Christ’s return that “Every eye shall see him.” Russell summarized their conclusions in the September 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower. Entitled “Optomai,” a common transliteration of the Greek verb to see, the article said:

The Greek word Optomai rendered, shall see, in Rev. 1:7. – “Every eye shall see him,” and rendered, shall appear, in Heb. 9:28 “To them that look for Him shall he appear a second time,” does not always mean to see with the eye. It rather signifies attend and recognize. Illustrations of its meaning attend: The priests and elders answered Judas; “See (Optomai – attend) thou to that.” Matt. 27:4. Again, Pilate said, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see (optomai – attend) ye to it.” Vs. 24. Also the word look in Acts 18:15. The general signification of the word however, is recognize ...

Again, Jesus said to Mary concerning Lazarus' resurrection, “Said I not that thou shouldst see (optomai) the glory of God? John 11:40. Mary's eyes saw no glory but she did see Lazarus raised, and in the power thus displayed she recognized the glory of God.

Again “All flesh shall see (optomai – recognize) the salvation of God.” Luke 3:6. In the light of these illustrations of the use of the word we can realize that there may be but little seeing of The Christ on the part of the world with the eye. See how similar is the last illustration with the first text quoted – “every eye” and “all flesh” shall recognize Him as the salvation of God.[10]

            This was not a novel interpretation. Others asserted this. And it is all within the word’s definition. Walter Roy Goff [1877-1953], a post-millennialist Lutheran clergyman, used the same points to support his views, writing:

[T]he four main passages which are supposed by many people to mean that we shall see with corporeal eyes the Lord's return have about them abundant reason for any careful interpreter to say they do not contain such literal meaning. And if this is so, then the disciples did not expect a visible return of their Lord after the statement of the men in white apparel (Acts 1:11), as some assert ... . And those today, who build up their argument for a visible return on these four passages and others like them, must be wrong, especially since there are definite passages denying a visible coming, (Luke 17:22), “Ye shall desire, _{* * * *} but ye shall not see,” (John 16:10), “I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more,”[11]

            This discussion became settled doctrine with the publication of Food for Thinking Christians. If there was indefiniteness in Allen’s article, Russell’s article was much more pointed, and it became a clear doctrinal statement. Quoting or paraphrasing Hebrews 12:14; 1 John 3:2; and Ephesians 1:17 but without citing them, Russell wrote:

How will He come again? Briefly stated, we believe the Scriptures to teach that our Lord will never again appear as a man; that at his second coming he will be invisible to mankind; that none will ever see him except the Church: “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord;” that the Church will not see him until changed from natural to spiritual bodies; that then “we shall see him as he is” [not as he was], for “we shall be like him” [not he like us, as at the first advent]. But while none are to see him with their natural eyes, all are to recognize his presence and his power (“the eyes of their understanding being opened”). Hence we read: “Every eye shall see (optomai – recognize) him”[12]

            This doctrinal transition brought controversial comments from Barbour, but that conflict is subject matter for volume three of Separate Identity. As clergy outrage intensified after 1895, the Watch Tower parousia doctrine was interminably criticized and often misrepresented. This continued through the 20^th Century and into the present century. Consider Walter Martin’s comment:

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim scholarship for this blanket translation of parousia, yet not one great scholar in the history of Greek exegesis and translation has ever held this view. Since 1871, when “Pastor” Russell produced this concept, it has been denounced by every competent scholar upon examination.

The reason this Russellite rendering is so dangerous is that it attempts to prove that parousia in regard to Christ’s second advent really means that His return or “presence” was to be invisible, and unknown to all but “the faithful.”[13]

            This is a polemicist’s poor research and a misrepresentation. His misstatements vary from minor to significant. The 1871 date is wildly wrong, something he could easily have known when he wrote. Russell did not originate the concept, but as we’ve shown elsewhere, it has a long history. He suggests that no “great” Greek-language scholar ever accepted a uniform translation of παρουσία as presence. One supposes that any scholar that disagreed with Martin would not have been ‘great’ in his eyes, including Joseph Rotherham, who noted in the appendix to his translation: “In this edition the word parousia is uniformly rendered ‘presence’ (‘coming,’ as a representative of this word, being set aside). The original term occurs twenty four times in the N. T. [He lists all the verses which we omit from this quotation] ... The sense of ‘presence’ is so plainly shewn by the contrast with ‘absence’ (implied in 2 Co. x. 10, and expressed in Ph. ii. 12) that the question naturally arises, –  Why not always so render it?”[14] Martin failed to cite or quote any of the “great” scholars who rejected Watch Tower exposition of παρουσία. When one only writes polemics, it is convenient to avoid citing sources.

            Martin misrepresents Russell and modern Watchtower belief, claiming that their view is that only “the faithful” would be aware of it. He puts ‘the faithful’ in quotes, but the phrase is lacking on the pages he sites as is the belief he attributes to Watch Tower adherents. Russell, the modern Watchtower, and Bible Student groups all believe that in time Christ’s presence will become apparent to everyone, at least when Christ executes God’s judgment. Martin’s real objection was that Russell and modern descendent religions present an understanding of prophecy different from his own. The same is true for Russell’s contemporaries who wrote similarly. Many who wrote anti-Russell tracts simply mentioned the teaching without refuting it, relying on shock value to accomplish their purpose.[15]

The Narrow Way to Life

            Russell dates their discussion of Matthew 7:13-14[16] to the Allegheny Study Group’s early days, but it became a matter for general discussion with the October 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower. He does not with exactitude date when they reached their conclusions, but he puts it in an event order that lets us date it to 1874 or before.[17] He summarized their findings in the February 1881 issue of  the Watch Tower:

“the narrow way to life” opened up before us and we saw that the life here referred to, is immortal life – or the perfection of life; and this brought to our attention the fact that God has many different orders of beings, all of whom, when in harmony with Him are perfect, though each is perfect on his own plane of being, as for instance, perfect angels are one order and perfect men (when restored to perfection) are another order. These orders, one on the human plane and the other on the spiritual, would each be supplied with life forever from the great fountain – God – and thus supplied enjoy ever-lasting life. But this showed us that the great prize for which we are running, is not merely continued existence, but if we are over-comers the promise is immortal life (or life in ourselves) a quality or perfection of life, said to be possessed only by Father and Son and promised only to “the little flock” who walk the narrow way – “The way our Leader trod.” “And few there be that find it.” As scripture began to narrow down to the overcomers, as those upon whom the prize, for which we are running should be bestowed it had the effect on many of stirring up to greater activity that “no man take our crown” – a feeling akin to that of Paul when he said: “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection,” (the first resurrection which includes Jesus our head and all the members of His body who “live and reign with Him a thousand years” – only over-comers are to reign). Therefore we seek to walk separate from the world.[18]

            In some respects the Allegheny Group’s conclusions mirrored well-respected expositors. In 1885, Russell wrote:

“The narrow way to life” (Immortality) was not opened up until Jesus came. He was the first to walk in it. He “brought life and immortality to light.” (2 Tim. 1:10.) And though all believers (Levites) shall become possessors of everlasting life, and the world (Israel) also, if they will accept it – during the Millennial age; yet, only the priesthood, who overcome and follow their Leader in the narrow way to life – sacrificing the human – thus seeking Glory, Honor and Immortality, will ever become the possessors of that unlimited degree of life called Immortality, as yet possessed only by Jehovah and our Lord Jesus.[19]

            Russell’s thought was that the narrow way of Matthew chapter seven is a pattern of behavior that copies Christ. This was and is the standard view of most Christians. But Russell’s view added additional thoughts, additions that in the view of most expositors have no place as commentary on Matthew Chapter Seven.

            The belief that the path to everlasting life does not open to the vast majority of mankind until the Millennial age is derived from a very narrow set of expositors, among them Dunbar Isidore Heath, whom we discussed briefly in an earlier chapter. Angelography became a specialized field, leaving us a rich and varied literature. Discussions of spirit nature and human nature in the resurrection extend back at least to the Second Century. Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus [c. 160 – c. 240] tells us that similar discussions were prevalent in his day. Tertullian suggested that those who held views similar to later Watch Tower belief were heretics who derived their teachings from Greek philosophies: “The doctrine that the soul dies is derived from the Epicureans. And the denial of the resurrection of the body is taken from the united school of all the philosophers ... and the allegation that God consists of fire is derived from Heraclitus.”[20]

            Those Second and Third Century Christians who believed the soul was mortal, (Ezekiel 18:4) who believed that Christ was a “life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45) and that they would be spirits in the resurrection, (1 John 3:2) and those who believed God is a Spirit, (John 4:24; 2 Corinthians 3:17, 18) and that spirits are “flames of fire” (Hebrew 1:7) would have disputed Tertullian’s claims. They would have pointed to Scripture as the basis of their belief system.

            That aside, we note that the Allegheny Group’s conclusions were not a new revelation. We do not know how they came to them. It may have been by simply reading and rereading the relevant Bible verses. Or it may have been through exposure to angelography written by clergy from main-stream churches, many of whose writers presented Angels as having spirit bodies with the capabilities and characteristics noted by Russell in his The Narrow Way to Life tract and the later versions of it found in Food for Thinking Christians and the chapter of the same name found in Plan of the Ages.

            Given the approximate date that Russell attached to the development of this doctrine, we can suggest that the similarly made statements found in Barbour’s Three Worlds were one of the ‘thoughts’ presented by Russell that were incorporated into the book.[21] Barbour later called the Watch Tower’s developing views “spiritualism.” Clergy did as well, most of them believing that Christ retained his fleshly body after resurrection. The Watch Tower belief system, as noted here, became an enduring point of contention.

Approach to 1881

America with much of the Christian world was religious. Faith was serious business. If churches differed in doctrine, sometimes condemning each other to a fiery Hell, Protestants listened to the Scripture’s prophetic voice. Historians who write about this period tend to focus on extremist and Adventist movements. But interest in prophecy was not limited to fringe movements. It was a main-stream phenomenon. Baptists of various stripe, Anglicans, Presbyterians and nearly everyone else had well-defined interest in prophetic fulfillment.

Some few Catholic writers believed Christ’s return impended. Worldwide, people expected key events, prophetic fulfillments for 1881. An Australian newspaper reported that peasants in Russia were convinced that the world would end November 11, 1881.[22] The craze wasn’t confined to Russian peasants, but found believers elsewhere. An Australian columnist who wrote as “Wandering Minstrel” poked fun at the predictions, writing that he heard “a great deal of the millennium just now, and prophets are predicting the end of the world.”[23] The press always found a place for the odd, and “an old gentleman” from Lincolnshire, England, drew press attention. Convinced that end would come in 1881, he had a balloon made that would carry him aloft and out of harm’s way, furnishing it with three years of supplies, or so the press said. He planned on taking tinned provisions, brandy, soda-water, claret and other creature comforts.” Versions of this story were widely printed in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom.[24]

The development of Watch Tower time-related belief was an outgrowth of Present Truth doctrine. The phrase is taken from 2 Peter 1:12 which reads according to the Authorized Version: “I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.” Greek scholars suggest that the phrase “present truth” means an indwelling of truth, a personal commitment to and understanding of revealed truth.[25] And the New World Translation, produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses, adopts that understanding, reading: “For this reason I intend always to remind you of these things, although you know them and are well-established in the truth that is present in you.” Peter’s comments addressed the need for reminders to reinforce already understood doctrine, the essential doctrines of Salvation.

However, in Russell’s lifetime and for years before, religious writers, even fairly-well educated authors, saw it differently. The Christian Intelligencer of 1829 published with approval an article extracted from another religious magazine. Instead of defining Present Truth as cherished, previously-learned ‘truth,’ it suggested that it was newly understood doctrine arrived at through crisis:

Let it also be observed, that particular truths are not at all times and in all places of the same importance. Whether men will attend to it or not, there is such a thing as the present truth. A gospel truth may derive a kind of adventitious importance from the very circumstance of its being assailed, despised, or over looked; just as a particular fact in the testimony of a witness may derive a great importance from its being opposed or denied by other witnesses. The present truth, then, (that is, those parts of the truth which claim the principal attention of Gods people,) is not always and in all places the same; but varies with the state of the Church. Nor is it always to be determined by its own native magnitude in the scale; but by its being overlooked, neglected, or opposed. Accordingly, it is promised that when Zion’s glory shall shine in the latter days, particular regard shall be paid by her sons to matters which have formerly been despised or overlooked.[26]

            As early as 1674, commentators suggested that ‘present truth’ was connected to predictive prophecy. William Bates published his Harmony of the Divine Attributes that year, connecting the concept of ‘present truth’ with the prophetic figures found in the Old Testament. Bates suggested that “no created understanding could frame so various representations of Christ, all exactly agreeing with him at such a distance.” He meant that Old Testament figures foreshadowed Christ exactly, giving irrefutable evidence to Gospel Truth. “We have,” he wrote, “an irrefragable argument of the truth and divinity of the gospel: for it is evident .by comparing the ancient figures with the present truth.”[27] Bates did not extend this view to as yet unfulfilled prophecies.

            Bates’ conservative approach did not stop others from connecting the ‘present truth’ concept with unfulfilled prophecy. At the front door of the 19^th Century we find Christian writers referring it to future events. William Moseley Holland, a fellow worker with Henry Grew in the Peace Society movement, wrote:

There may be those among the present audience, to whom these predictions do not come home with the force of present truth. Others may, also, so far postpone the period of their fulfillment, as to feel themselves exonerated from instant exertion. To these, I would remark, that if universal peace be clearly for the interest and happiness of our race, the individual duty of every member of the community, plainly requires his assistance in its diffusion, however remote may be the period when his labors bid fair to become effectual.[28]

Holland spoke (this was first a speech) of the Bible’s predictions of future peace and paradise, especially those found in Isaiah. Understanding future fulfillments was part of Present Truth. Holland believed that Christians should assist God in such fulfillments. His theology took maters beyond mere obedience to political action, as if God lacked both the will and power to fulfill his prophecies.

            Harriet Livermore, a largely forgotten but once influential female evangelist, connected “Present Truth” to belief in the near return of Christ.[29] Livermore was one of about 100 female evangelists preaching in the early 19^th Century, but, unlike some of them, she preached a conservative doctrine to which few objected, preaching to the United States Congress on occasion.[30] Her message was bibliocentric. She defended female preaching on Biblical grounds, not on the grounds of “natural philosophy.” Preaching was a divine obligation, not derived from natural rights, but from Jesus’ words.  She was Literalist in doctrine; because of that she was drawn to millennialist preaching and ridiculed by clergy for it. Ridiculed she may have been, but millennialist belief was still a potent force in American religious belief. Livermore’s definition of Present Truth as the truth about Christ’s near return was adopted by others, both Literalist and Adventist in outlook.

In the hands of Millennilists, Age-to-Come believers, and Adventists, “present truth” always meant their end-times teachings. Russell first met the concept through Jonas Wendell’s booklet The Present Truth, or Meat in Due Season. And there after he saw it in publications we know he read. Among these was the Literalist/Age-to-Come paper, The Restitution. An article appearing in its February 27, 1878, issue said “present truth ... represents or embodies the true scriptural relation of our times to the near future.” Individuals and groups used the phrase of their own, peculiar interpretations and predictions to stamp themselves as in the Truth and others out of it. Russell and his associates adopted this practice, occasionally capitalizing Present Truth and using it as a descriptor of their faith.[31] In 1880, Russell defined Present Truth as “the knowledge of the bridegroom's presence.”[32] This was Watch Tower doctrine but not a universal church teaching.

Russell and his fellow believers’ views of the approaching year are almost always misstated. Brown, Bell, and Carson’s Marketing Apocalypse says: “Jehovah’s Witnesses ... have rescheduled the end of the world on nine separate occasions,” and cites the 1881 date.[33] None of the dates they cite were the focus of end of the world predictions. That they claimed such indicates a profound misunderstanding of Watch Tower theology. Watch Tower adherents did not believe the world would end. They expected other things for 1881. L. L. Dawson and B. C. Whitsel claimed that “Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted Christ’s second coming in ... 1881.”[34] They derived this from a misreading of an article by Zygmunt; they failed to read any of the original material. Russell and his associates did not believe Christ would return in 1881. They believed he was already present. There is little excuse for errors of this nature. Others with some pretension to academic credentials have made similar claims. One can safely consign their research to the trash bin of poorly researched history. 

Both Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of the Morning pointed to 1881 as a significant date. Readers expected a variety of events, some of them conflicting. They were a small, hardly noticed detail in a larger picture. A contemporary newspaper noted:

It would be difficult to describe all the sinister predictions that have, as by common consent, been concentrated upon the coming year. The soothsayers, divines, oracle makers, astrologers, and wizards seem to have combined to cast their spell upon it. Superstitious people of every sort, and some who are not willing to admit that they are superstitious, regard the year 1881 with more or less anxious expectation and dread. …

Timid persons first began to look forward with some alarm to the year that is about to open, when, several years ago, the key to the so-called prophetic symbolism of the Great Pyramid of Egypt was made public, backed by the name and reputation of the British astronomer, Piazzi Smyth. Others using Mr. Smyth’s observations and measurements, have gone much further than he did in drawing startling inferences; but no one can read his book without perceiving how powerfully it must affect those who have the slightest leaning toward superstition or credulity. …. So the belief, or at least the suspicion, spread that the secret chambers of the Great Pyramid, under Divine guidance by the most mystical character in all history, Melchisedek, King of Salem, foretell … that the Christian era will end in 1881.[35]

The Barbourite Stance

            Eighteen eighty-one entered Barbourite discussions in June 1875. Writing for the September 1875 Herald, Barbour said that “though the gospel dispensation will end in 1878, the Jews will not be restored to Palestine, until 1881.”[36] However, when Barbour pointed to 1878 as the end of the harvest of wheat-like Christians, he saw “no semblance of an argument which can place the end of Zion’s warfare beyond 1878; while there is just a possibility that it may end next spring.”[37] His predictions failed, and he extended affairs to 1881. Russell endorsed the new belief.[38]

            Between August 1878 and June 1879, little was written about 1881; space was filled with the Atonement controversy. In the June Herald, the first issue after Russell’s withdrawal, Barbour wrote:

The spring of 1878 should, in some sense, mark the end of this age; while the autumn of 1881, is parallel with the termination of the last half of the seventieth week determined on the Jews. Hence we look with much interest to the autumn of 1881, and believe the gathering of the wheat of the gospel church will then be consummated; after which the tears will be burned.[39]

            Barbour believed the period from 1878 to the fall of 1881 was the last part of the seventy weeks prophecy. (Daniel 9:24-27) It was “the time in which ‘the bride, the Lamb’s wife,’ is to ‘make herself ready.’” He believed the Bride of Christ was to put on “the wedding garment,” a cleansed, restored theology.[40] This was Barbour’s test doctrine. If one did not believe what he taught, then one was not part of the Bride of Christ. He claimed that Christ would appear in the flesh to the faithful in 1881, and that only those who believed his new theology would see him.

            The most significant of Paton’s comments on expectations for 1881 were made in response to Barbour’s claims. They also reveal some difference between Paton and Russell. Paton reasoned on the time parallels they believed existed between Israel and the end times, using arguments that are meaningless to most of our readers, but one comment stands out:

The advocates of the 1881 point have never claimed any more in favor of that date than a parallel to the last half of the 70th week of Dan. 9. They know as well as we that there is no prophetic period that ends in 1881. We do not say that the covenant week will not have a parallel here. As the gospel began to go to the Gentiles at the end of the 70th week or three and one-half years after the cross, so the advanced truth here may begin to reach Israel in 1881. There was no coming of Christ three and one-half years after the cross; why should we expect such an event in 1881 admitting the force of the parallelism? There was no change in the condition of believers three and one-half years after the cross; why then, on such ground, expect a change in the condition of believers here? The only change we can see as taking place three and one half years after the cross, was in the condition of the nominal Jewish church and the gospel turning to the Gentiles. A corresponding change in 1881 would affect the condition of the nominal Christian church and the gospel turning in some special sense to the Jews again.[41]

            This reveals considerable ambivalence. If 1881 is significant, it is only so as it indicates that their message reached the Jews and an impending change in “the condition of the nominal church.” It did not predict translation. There was no reason to expect a visible Christ in 1881.

            Russell’s expectations for 1881 remained unchanged. In the August 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower, he restated them, explaining that the years from 1878 to 1881 were parallel to the three and a half years of continued favor to the Jews after Christ’s death: “As the Jewish house was shown some special favor for 3-1/2 years, the latter half of their covenant week so we expect some favor to continue with the Nominal Gospel Church for 3-1/2 years, or until the autumn of 1881.” After 1881 the nominal Church would be cast off and enter a time of trouble similar to that experienced by the Jews culminating in the sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE.  

            Russell believed that they were in “the day of the Lord.” They were in “the harvest of the gospel age.” Christ, “the chief reaper” was present, and the work of separating wheat-like Christians from the false was progressing. “Soon,” he wrote, “probably by, possibly before, the fall of 1881, we shall be changed – born of the spirit [of which we are now begotten] into the glorious likeness of our Head.” He restated Barbourite belief that they were in a seven year harvest dating from 1874 to 1881. During that time all those who would make up God’s symbolic spiritual temple, the Bride of Christ, would be brought into a “perfect spiritual condition,” He expected translation to heavenly life in 1881.[42]

An article by A. D. Jones in December 1880 Watch Tower suggested that after 1881 there would “be wonderful spiritual manifestations,” demonic manifestations designed to confuse and mislead.”[43] The Devil and wicked spirits would make “a last great effort previous to their binding” when they would be subdued in fulfillment of Revelation 20:2. The “spirit manifestations” would further the Satan’s original lie, “You shall surely not die,” and distract people from God’s truth. His speculation rests against a significant and prevalent interest in spiritism. Trances, spirit knocking, séances were reported in the press; people took these reports seriously. Spiritualistic periodicals proliferated, and Christian Science rode into public notice on this phenomena.

Edward Cornelius Towne, a well-known clergyman and skeptic, reported widely differing enumerations of Spiritualists:

The popular Spiritism of this country [USA] has a numerical strength of perhaps half a million. An English Spiritist who recently traveled through the country, and made a careful estimate, would count only 600,000. He doubtless included many who would refuse to confess a true Spiritist rule of faith. Judge [John Worth] Edmonds counts 16,000,000, and Mr. [George Vale] Owen 7,500,000. They of course enumerate all who are, in the non-spiritist sense, Spiritualists; and very naturally Judge Edmonds thinks that he might well throw in 5,000,000 more, as unconscious or unavowed Spiritualists. There is nothing veracious or legitimate in such a count as this. Of true Spiritists, persons who deal with manifestations, the number may be fairly estimated at about half a million in this country.[44]

            Despite disagreements over the numeration of American Spiritists, we come away from this with the sense that it was a significant movement, vocal and though not reflected in Towne’s article, gullible. Jones took spirit manifestations seriously.

            Russell’s view of 1881, appears in the same Watch Tower [December 1880] as did Jones’ article. He believed that the world situation proved their expectations to be correct. Radical politics – He pointed to Communists and Socialists in Europe, Nihilists in Russia, Land-Leaguers and Liberals in the United Kingdom, and oppressive Capitalists – corroborated their prophetic interpretation, “that ‘the day of the Lord is a day of trouble and that we are now in the ‘harvest’ of the gospel age.” He believed that “soon, probably by, possibly before, the fall of 1881, we shall be changed – born of spirit ... into the glorious likeness of our head.”[45] This left some wiggle-room. Events expected for 1881 were possible, even probable, but his comments allowed for failure.

            He was less cautious in the January 1881, paper. He was confident that prophetic time-parallels they believed existed between First Century events and the Last Days were accurate. On that basis he believed “that the gathering of the Bride into the place of safety will occupy a parallel seven years of time, ending in 1881.” They believed that nominal Christianity was represented by the prophetic figure of Babylon the Great. Through a system of date parallels and on no other basis, they determined that Babylon was cast down, spewed out, in 1878. “We ... expect that all who constitute part of the bride [of Christ] will be separated before the Autumn of 1881,” he wrote. This made evangelism especially important. What harvesting of wheat-like Christians (Matthew 13:24-29) remained must take place before the fall of 1881.[46]

            The January 1881, Watch Tower focused on 1881. Borrowing his title from Revelation 6:10, Jones’ article was entitled “How Long, O Lord?” He reminded his readers that an article by him published the month previously expressed the opinion that ‘change’ to spirit bodies (resurrection to heaven) “was nearer then many supposed.” In the December article he did “not attempt to prove our change at any particular time,” but now he wrote that evidence suggested that “the translation or change from the natural to the spiritual condition” was “due this side or by the fall of ... 1881.” He felt recent doctrinal changes increased the evidence. He believed scriptural evidence seemed “to indicate the translation of the saints and the closing of the door to the high calling by 1881. He derived the closed-door image from Jesus parable of the wedding feast.” – Matthew 25:10.

            His argument was built off time parallels built off a shaky application of Jeremiah sixteen. Jeremiah 16:18 expressed divine judgment on Judah: “I will repay them double for their wickedness and their sin, because they have defiled my land with the lifeless forms of their vile images and have filled my inheritance with their detestable idols.” Instead of seeing this as a promise of full retribution, Watch Tower adherents saw it as time predictive. When Russell explained this he observed that the word translated ‘double’ meant two fold, leaping from there to a doubling or paralleling of time. “What could be plainer than this?” he asked, asserting: “The prophet declares that from the time of Israel's casting off from all favor until the time of their return to favor would be a repetition or duplication in time of their previous history, during which they enjoyed Divine favor.”[47]

            Watch Tower adherents accepted the Israel’s Double speculation because it was clever, but it was irrational, a combination of several common logic flaws. It also ignored scriptural context and basic Hebrew language meanings. Works offering access to Hebrew were easily accessible, and some of them were known to Russell, Barbour and their adherents. Uniformly they defined the “double” punishment of Jeremiah sixteen as meaning ‘to the full,’ a complete recompense for sin. Some descendent Bible Student groups continue to believe the doctrine, but the Witnesses Bible translation reads: “the full amount due” in conformity to modern translation practice.

            Jones asserted that “Gospel ages seemed to teach that the wise of the virgins” (a reference to Matthew chapter 25) must all come to “a knowledge of the bridegroom’s presence by the fall of 1881 when the door – opportunity to become a member of the bride – will close.” He ended his article with a summary of evidence: “We ... have taken prophetic measurements and allegories together, five different points seeming to teach the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the change of the living between the fall of 1874 and 1881. Two or more witnesses are enough to prove any case, as a rule, and certainly God has given us abundant evidence.”

            Russell left no doubt that they expected translation [change to life as heaven-dwelling spirit creatures] in 1881. His words were without Jones’ equivocation. He expected translation and the time of trouble on the nominal church to being that year:

We have seen that the trouble upon the world begins by the overthrow of the nominal church, and indeed every day since 1878 where we believe the nominal church as given up to her travail [It, however, will not fully commence until the “first born” – “little flock” are born, (He means raised to heaven.) an event expected during 1881.] seems to witness the uprising of new elements for her overthrow. Spiritualism is misleading thousand and infidelity tens of thousands.[48]

            In February 1881, Russell told his readers that while he knew “not the day or hour,” he expected that “during 1881, possibly near the autumn ... the favor to Zion [nominal Christianity] complete and due to end, the door to the marriage to shut, and the high calling to be the bride of Christ to cease.” He abandoned his firm hold on Literalist principles, finding symbolisms in I Thessalonians 4:16-17 where no clear application exists. Russell’s exegetical dictum was that scripture should be interpreted by scripture, but he abandoned that too. Verse seventeen says the living Saints will meet will be caught away in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Acts 1:9 is an obviously parallel verse. Speaking of Christ’s ascension, it reads: “When he had said these words he was lifted up before their eyes till a cloud hid him from their sight.” [J. B. Phillips] Christ was raised to heaven, and according to Acts passed out of their view concealed in clouds to return to his father.  He became invisible to them.

            This can be made to fit Russell’s parousia doctrine, but he did not see the connection.  Instead he interpreted the clouds in the light of his expectations for the near future. The clouds symbolized the time of trouble “in or during which, we shall be caught away to meet the lord in the air.” The air represented “the spiritual – supernatural – control of earth’s affairs now possessed by Satan.” He saw these and other fancies as increasing light. And his expectations for 1881 were clearly stated, firmly fixed.^[49]

            Russell saw the story of Isaac and Rebecca as part of the Bible’s typology. Concluding an article on the subject found in the November 1881 Watch Tower, he wrote:

The Spirit is ... now telling us of Him who comes by way of unseen presence that He is here present. Some members of “the bride” have already heard, others are hearing daily. When all have been instructed, the next step in order will be our leaving the second company – disappearing from their sight – going beyond the vail of the flesh – entering the perfect spiritual condition; changed in a moment from mortal to immortal; from natural to spiritual; made like unto Christ's glorious body. Then “we shall see Him as He is,” for “we shall be like Him.” Glorious hope, joyous moment. Soon the new nature will be freed entirely from the restraints of the fleshly body and have “a body as it hath pleased Him.” Soon we shall alight from the camels, and leave the servant's guidance when we pass under the vail. When that which is perfect is come, we will have no further need of the sustaining and helping promises of the word, nor of the guidance of the comforter, for “we shall know as we are known,” and “see as we are seen.”

We seem to be very near the time of our change. Seek to keep it ever in mind. It will help you over the hard places of life, cheer your heart, and help you “to keep your body under.” See, also, to be as much as possible used as the mouthpiece of the Spirit to inform the “espoused virgin” church of the Lord's presence.[50]

Signs in the Heavens

           

Most of those who discuss Watch Tower expectations divorce them from contemporary history, but there is significant context, and we should examine it. As 1881 progressed toward its terminus, pretend and real heavenly events panicked those who looked for signs in the sun, moon and stars. (Luke 21:11; Matthew 24:29-31) On September 6, 1881, the skies over New England, Vermont and New Hampshire – over two hundred thousand square miles – turned yellow. The cause was uncertain, though probably a forest fire in the wilds of Northern Canada. This was a startling event. Yellow haze hung in the upper atmosphere undisturbed by a steady breeze. In some areas the haze reached the ground. Schools were dismissed and workers sent home or worked using candle light. Chickens roosted, night insects chirped, birds slept. While some saw it as an interesting phenomenon needing a good, scientific explanation, many panicked. The Friends Intelligencer said: “Among those who apprehended that the weird prophecies of the seers of Israel concerning the earth’s destruction are to find literal fulfillment in our day there was general apprehension that the last day of the human race had come.”[51]

            Abraham Brown of East Kingston, New Hampshire, wrote to the Springfield, Massachusetts, Republican, suggesting that it was a last-days sign:

‘The sky was draped in a kind of fog, a little too light for smoke, and a little too dark for steam.’ As all our wise men have failed to give a scientific reply to the question of your correspondent, allow me to suggest that a ‘fog which is a little too light for smoke, and a little too dark for steam’ may properly be called a ‘vapour of smoke’ – and whether it be from a supernatural cause or from unexplained or unknown natural causes – it looks, and I have no doubt is one of the wonders of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, as declared by the apostle Peter in Acts 11, 19 and 20: ‘I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come.’[52]

            Brown was serious. So were a multitude of others struck by the similarity between the event and Bible prophecy. Watch Tower adherents were not persuaded. They expected other events that year.

            As we noted in a previous chapter, Albert Jones focused on the perihelion of planets on June 19, 1881, mentioning it in Bible Students Tract number six. He believed Thomas Wilson’s booklet and other similar predictions supported his expectations. He was not alone. Many outside the Watch Tower movement did as well, including Barbour and his followers. Aged Barton Speak, who billed himself as “an old Jacksonian Democrat,” wrote:

It is now midnight, and I am just in from the Stars. You know this is the night of the conjunction of the big stars, that is, the planets, and to-morrow – Sunday – is to be the end of the world; that is certain so called wise men have said so. I ope this will prove a blessed Saturday night for you if it is the last one. How little the beaux that sit in conjunction with their lasses to-night know what is going on overhead. They don’t know that the big stars of the solar system move up into a straight line with the sun, to-night. That is so. … If there isn’t a big disturbance to-morrow, I don’t want to be told … that when the earth gets out on a dress parade with the sun and other big bodies in the sky there must of necessity be a big disturbance …. The fact is, I don’t’ believe that a disturbance will take place.[53]

            Speak was right, of course, or I wouldn’t be writing this and you wouldn’t be reading it. Writers from The Restitution speculated on the supposed perihelion of planets, taking the mater seriously. In May 1879, a F. W. Haskell of Lynn, Massachusetts, wrote to Barbour asking:

Have you seen an article in the papers on the conjunction of the four planets with the sun, which is supposed to explain the pestilence and miasmatic pressure brought to bear on the earth, and which is to vibrate with convulsions and thus scatter disease and death to its inhabitants? There was an article in a Boston paper last week, warning the people to take care of their health, as they will soon be called upon to face a season of pestilence such as has not visited our earth since the christian era. [sic] They ignore the ending of the gospel age, and yet are looking for the very things foretold.[54]

            Barbour didn’t append an answer to Haskell’s letter, but in the next issue recommended the booklet published by Thomas Wilson which we discussed on chapter six. Published under two titles, the one noted by Barbour was Star Prophecies, or a View of Coming Disasters on the Earth from1881 to 1885, as Viewed from an Astronomical and Astrological Standpoint. Its ideas persuaded readers of both magazines. Wilson also published John Collom’s The Prophetic Numbers of Daniel and the Revelation which focused on pyramid measurements and planetary perihelia. Other books and pamphlets, almost without number, did as well.

illustration: C’ book here

Mother Shipton and the Great Pyramid

            As the end of 1881 approached, Russell felt compelled to confront other beliefs, some of them nonsensical:

“The Second Advent Church” people, and many in other denominations, interested in the Lord's coming and expecting him in the flesh, have turned their attention to 1881, and feel confident that they will see Jesus with their natural eyes this year. Their hopes are based partly upon an old rhyme called “Mother Shipton's prophecy,” which concludes thus:

The world unto an end will come,

In eighteen hundred and eighty-one.

and partly upon the teachings of “The Great Pyramid” of Egypt, whose “Grand gallery” measures 1881 pyramid inches. This “Grand gallery” is supposed to symbolize the gospel dispensation, and its 1881 inches are supposed to teach that the gospel dispensation will be 1881 years long, and a further reason for belief in 1881, is that so many other people are expecting something. (Not a prophetic period, can be claimed, as they are all past.) Now to us, these things seem a poor and weak foundation for the hopes built upon them. Our belief that the Lord is present, is based on the “more sure word of prophecy” to which Peter said, we would do well to take heed.^[55]

Russell’s comments do not convey the full story. The Barbourite and Russellite expectations were a minor part of a wide spread expectation of doom. The 1881 religious panic washed over America, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, leaving many in expectation. The Kapunda Herald, an Australian newspaper, reported that the mother of one of the miners to come home because she believed a prophecy attributed to Mother Shipton:

It seems we have – or had – “one believer”' in Dame Shipton's prophecies re the end of the world in 1881! A party, who had a son away working in the north, sent a letter to him telling him to come home before the end of the present year, as they would very much like to die altogether. Oh! for a faith like this![56]

Smyth’s Pyramidology found a place in Australia too. H. J. Lambert, a Baptist clergyman, told the Hill Street Baptist Church that the Great Pyramid pointed unmistakably to 1881, it wouldn’t mark the end of the world, but a “great change would take place in that year.”[57] As far as we can determin, the Watch Tower message entered Australia in1881, but there is little record of the activity of the lone seaman who carried the message, and none at all concerning any prior interest in Zion’s Watch Tower

            Canadians looked to June 19^th. The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Inquirer reported:

A great many people may not be aware of the fact that a great many other people are somewhat astonished this morning to find the world revolving steadily on its axis, and everything going on about as usual. Yesterday, June 19, 1881, was the day fixed for the end of the world, or at least for its reorganization, by a cataclysm so great as to destroy all forms of life. The belief had its greatest hold in Canada, where many farmers refused to put in their crops this year, asserting that it would be labor lost as the world be destroyed before the crops could mature.[58]

           

            Though the paper’s comment about crop planting may be accurate, we should note that it is suspect as an oft repeated story found in similar reports back to 1843.

Belief reached beyond the English speaking world. A Queensland, Australia, newspaper noted end-of-the-age excitement in Paris:

Great excitement is caused by the number of pamphlets now published prophesying the near approach of the end of the world. In Paris some thousands of brochures are sold every day. The credulity of mankind has ever been agape to swallow the dire foreboding of self-constituted prophets. Seasons like the present make the fortunes of the Zadkeils, and, in a higher sense, play into the hands of well-meaning divines.[59]

Great Pyramid

            In volume one, we asserted considerable interest in the Great Pyramid as a prophetic witness to “God’s Plan.” Interest reached its peak as 1881 approached with lectures and booklets proliferating. A detailed history of pyramidology is inappropriate here. A few examples will do. James French, a Baptist clergyman, presented two lectures on the pyramid’s significance to the Baptist Ministers’ Conference. The first lecture, delivered in New York City. Baptist clergy listened attentively for an hour and a quarter, thanking him and arranging for part two. French turned his lecture into a series of articles for Baptist Family Magazine.[60]

            French was far from unique. Dr. Rufus W. Clark, a Reformed clergyman, also advocated pyramidology.[61] J. A. Seiss lectured with some regularity through 1883. Edson Rogers, a Congregational clergyman from Cincinnatus, New York, did as well.[62] Newspapers of the period note numerous lectures on the topic by clergymen, self-anointed and real professors and “experts,” all of whom saw the pyramid as a prophetic witness and many of whom pointed to 1881 as a year of destiny. Watch Tower and Barbourite belief may seem strange from out vantage point, but compared with contemporary belief, it was tame.

            As late as August 1881, S. A Chaplin, editor of The Restitution, suggested that “the Great Pyramid indicates some great political event in 1881-2. A great change in human affairs is impending and at the door.”[63] Barbour gave his readers a summary of Charles Piazzi Smyth’s pyramid measurements, concluding that this was “an interesting coincidence ... as the floor measure points to 1881, for, as we believe, the commencement of the return of literal Israel; the 6 years, ‘impending,’ is the exact measure of the time from the spring of 1875, where according to the jubilee cycles, the ‘times of restitution,’ should have begun. Again: The mouth of the well, the type of Christ's death, is 33 inches from the Grand Gallery; and this 33 inches added to the measure of the Grand Gallery floor 1881, make 1914, the date of the end of ‘The Times of the Gentiles.’”[64]

photo

James French

            Though the Mother Shipton prophecy was an admitted contemporary fake, it panicked some in Brittan.  Calling the rural poor “the simple,” one writer asserted: “Great excitement was aroused among the simple in England, and a large crowd assembled on a high hill to get a good view of the proceedings; they went away greatly disappointed.” We could not verify this and doubt this. It is like many other contrived end-of-the-age stories.^[65] The closest we’ve come to verifying this is a claim that near Brighton “many people spend the nights praying in an open field.”^[66] Both Daniel Cohen and Russell Chandler assert that there was little panic because the hoax had been exposed. We see no reason to pursue this in depth; it’s not relevant to this history. The fact of belief is.

            When Russell wrote that “Second Advent people” were persuaded by the Shipton prophecy, he was only partially correct. Someone accused Samuel Snow (then calling himself Bishop Snow) of predicting the end for June 19, 1881. When interviewed by a reporter for The New York Evening Telegram he indignantly denied it. The same reporter interviewed William Roworth, Jr., the son of a one-time associate of Storrs. He said none of the preachers he knew were fixing an exact date for Christ’s return and the translation of the saints.^[67]

            A New York Herald reporter was present for the same interview, reporting with little difference the Roworths and Snow’s comments, but he prefaced his article with these comments: “The Second Adventists have brought the world again to its great crisis … in announcing the crash of worlds to take place to-day.” He said they had promoted the view “in halls and churches in different parts of this city and Brooklyn.” If he can be believed (something not always possible with a reporter), there were some in the New York City area pointing to 1881.

Failure and Aftermath

            Russell spent a small fortune for that era to circulate Food for Thinking Christians and secondarily Tabernacle Teachings. Both were meant to call as many of the Bride of Christ as possible before translation, change to spirit beings living in heaven. Eighteen eighty-one passed and nothing they expected occurred. Russell was reluctant to give up what he saw as a date settled by a reliable understanding of Bible dates and numbers. He proposed new doctrine: “When that did not occur, they concluded that since Jesus’ anointed followers were to share with him in the Kingdom, the resurrection to spirit life of those already sleeping in death began then. He reasoned that the end of God’s special favor to natural Israel down to 36 C.E. might point to 1881 as the time when the special opportunity to become part of spiritual Israel would close.”[68]

            These new concepts caused significant controversy. It came from all quarters. Other factors added to chaos. Paton reached a faith-crisis and left the fellowship, starting his own magazine. Adherents in Canada rejected the idea, causing a crisis there. Conley, whose adopted daughter died in this period and who did not fully accept Watch Tower beliefs, transitioned into Faith Cure and attached himself to another belief system. Albert Jones sank into fornication and theft, no longer seeing the Watch Tower system as ‘truth.’ Barbourites, already small in numbers, declined, suffering an equal disappointment. Barbour abandoned almost every previous date speculation pointing to 1885. Difficulties with Age-to-Come believers, Paton’s followers, Barbourites and others centered on Ransom/Atonement doctrine, reaching a peak in 1885, but continuing well into the Twentieth Century.

            Well publicized expectations based on the fake Mother Shipton prophecy and the Great Pyramid’s measurements became the object of ridicule. Some of this spilled onto Zion’s Watch Tower, though Russell expect other events and on a different basis. This led him to make statements that would return to him. In some respects we find Russell as his most ‘unlovely’ with this failure.

            The fragmentation that occurred in 1881-1882 and continuing preexisting controversy defined the movement. These events are the heart of volume three of this book. We promised things in the afterword of volume one that we must shove off to the next volume. I’ve learned a lesson from that, so beyond this, I will not elaborate on expectations. My experience is that we encounter details we did not expect to find, and these often shift the story.

Index

            We promised an index at the end of volume two. When we did that, it was with the expectation that this would be the final volume. It isn’t. It makes no sense to prepare one now, when I would have to repeat some very hard work when volume three is finished.

---

[1]               C. T. Russell: Dialogue. Rev. 13., Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1880, page 1.

[2]               C. T. Russell: “The Name of the Beast, Or the Number of his Name”, Zion’s Watch Tower, January/February 1882, page 7-8.

[3]               L. Jones, Editor: What Pastor Russell Said: His Answers to Hundreds of Questions, Chicago, 1917, page 627.

[4]               Long-Looked-For Seventh Volume, The Watch Tower, August 1, 1917, page 226.

[5]               M. Sturgeon, Pastor Russell’s Last Days, The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, page 363.

[6]               The title was derived from Revelation 10:7: “But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” – Authorized Version.

[7]               R. Durost: The Churches of the Broad Way (the Cults), Lulu, 2007, page 38.

[8]               C. T. Russell: Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, Herald of the Morning, First Edition, 1877, page 39.

[9]               The Watchtower publication Aid to Bible Understanding [1971] and its revision as Insight on the Scriptures comment on Jesus words: “There would be nothing to hide about Jesus’ having come as King, at the beginning of his royal presence.” [Insight, volume 2, page 255] Though this sentence is somewhat convoluted, it suggests only that Jesus’ parousia would become widely known. However, The Watchtower [May 1, 1995, page 12] returned to Allen’s exposition, saying: “As Jesus foretold, in a global way, lightnings of Bible truth continue to flash over broad areas from eastern parts to western parts. Truly, as modern light bearers, Jehovah’s Witnesses prove to be ‘a light of the nations, that [Jehovah’s] salvation may come to be to the extremity of the earth.’—Isaiah 49:6.”

[10]             C.T. Russell: Optamai, Zion’s Watch Tower, September 1880, page 8.

[11]             W. R. Goff: The Handbook of Eschatology, Or, A Consistent Biblical View of the Lord’s Return,  Keystone Publishing House, Blairsville, Pennsylvania, 1917, page 34.

[12]             C. T. Russell: Food for Thinking Christians, Watch Tower Supplement, 1881, page 63.

[13]             W. Martin and R. Zarcharias: The Kingdom of the Cults, “updated edition,” 2003, page 101.

[14]             J. B. Rotherham: Emphasized Bible, 1897 edition, appendix, page 271.

[15]             An example is George Whitefield Ridout’s The Deadly Fallacy of Russellism or Millennial Dawnism.

[16]             “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

[17]             He puts the group’s development of this doctrine before their understanding of Baptism which we can date with assurance to 1874.

[18]             C. T. Russell: “Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence,” Zion’s Watch Tower, February 1881, pages 3-4.

[19]             C. T. Russell: The Typical Tabernacle and Its Teachings, Zion’s Watch Tower, July 1885, page 4.

[20]             Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum.

[21]             “The little book of 196 pages thus prepared was entitled The Three Worlds; and as I was enabled to give some time and thought to its preparation it was issued by us both jointly, both names appearing on its title page – though it was mainly written by Mr. Barbour.” – C. T. Russell: Harvest Gatherings and Siftings, Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, page 231.

[22]             News and Notes, The Goulburn, New South Wales, Southern Argus, October 1, 1881.

[23]             Round About Notes, The Cootamundra, New South Wales, Herald, October 19, 1881.

[24]             See for example: The Toowomba, Queensland, Western Star and Roma Advertiser, September 21, 1881, and Refuge in a Balloon, The Hawaiian Gazette, September 28, 1881.

[25]             A. T. Robertson: Word Pictures in the New Testament: “‘In the present truth’ (the truth present in you), Parousei ... to be inside one.” See his comments on 2 Pet. 1:12.

[26]             The article, entitled False Maxims, was extracted from The Religious Monitor and published in the January 1829 issue of The Christian Intelligencer. There is another similarly named periodical published in New York. This magazine was published in Ohio for the Dutch Reformed Church.

[27]             W. Bates: The Harmony of the Divine Attributes, London edition of 1815, page 365.

[28]             W. M. Holland: An Address Before the Hartford County Peace Society, Hartford, Connecticut, 1831, page 8.

[29]             H. Livermore: Millennial Tidings No. 3, Philadelphia, 1838, page 56.

[30]             Some writers connect a significant rejection of Calvinism with post-Revolutionary War rejection of all things British. Catherine Brekus perceptively wrote:  “After vanquishing the British and creating the first modern republic, many Americans refused to accept the Calvinist message that they were utterly helpless to influence whether they were saved or damned. Like many other Protestants, Livermore soon abandoned the Calvinism of her youth for a new Arminian faith in God’s free grace and individual liberty.” Livermore believed that Divine grace “is as free for the drunkard, the adulterer, the liar and prophane, [sic] the fierce and cruel, the wrathful and the murders, as for me; and if they will come to Christ ... they shall be justified and sanctified.” – C. A. Brekus: Harriet Livermore, the Pilgrim Stranger: Female Preaching and Biblical Feminism in Early-Nineteenth-Century America, Church History, September 1996, pages 389-404.

[31]             e.g. L. W. Jones [editor]: What Pastor Russell Said: His Answers to Hundreds of Questions, Chicago, 1917, page 396.

[32]             C. T. Russell: The Temple Building Type, Zion’s Watch Tower, December 1880, page 8.

[33]          Stephen Brown, Jim Bell, David Carson (editors): Marketing Apocalypse¸ Rutledge, New York, 1998 edition, page 1.

[34]          Their article appears in D. G. Tumminia and W. H. Swatos, Jr.: How Prophecy Lives, Brill, Netherlands, 2011, page 119.

[35]          The Terrible Year at Hand, The Sliver Creek, New York, Local¸ January 14, 1881. The same article appeared in many other newspapers. Author’s name is not given.

[36]          N. H. Barbour: Our Faith, Herald of the Morning, September 1875, page 52.

[37]             N. H. Barbour: Where Are We? Herald of the Morning¸ June 1875, page 6; Elijah the Prophet, Herald of the Morning, July 1879, page 9. The phrase “Zion’s Warfare” did not, of course, originate with either the Barbourite or Watch Tower movements. It is derived from Isaiah 40:2, and as a phrase applied to Christian trials and probation appears regularly after the publication of they John Kent’s hymn Zion’s Warfare is Accomplished in 1826.

[38]             C. T. Russell: The Prospect, Herald of the Morning, July 1878, page 11ff.

[39]             N. H. Barbour: Times and Seasons, Herald of the Morning, June 1879, page 95.

[40]             N. H. Barbour: Where are We; And What is the Duty of the Hour, Herald of the Morning, August 1879, page 19.

[41]             J. H. Paton: Expedient for You, Zion’s Watch Tower, May 1880, page 8.

[42]             C. T. Russell: Restored Dominion, Zion’s Watch Tower, December 1880, page 7; Temple Building Types, same issue, page 8.

[43]             A. D. Jones: “False Christs,” Zion’s Watch Tower, December 1880, page 5.

[44]             E. C. Towne: Spiritualism and Spiritism, New York, New York, Tribune¸ March 7, 1872. Towne was addicted to misunderstood and quack science and to quack religion. See his Headlights of New Knowledge, New Science, New Religion, New Education, Boston, 1910.

[45]             C. T. Russell: The Restored Dominion, Zion’s Watch Tower¸ December 1880, page 7.

[46]             C. T. Russell: “A Stone of Stumbling,” Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1881, page 1, 2

[47]             C. T. Russell: God’s Chosen People, Part III, Israel’s “Double,” A Fact and a Theory, Overland Monthly¸ April 1910, pages 418-419.

[48]             C. T. Russell: Zion’s Travail, Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1881, page 6.

[49]             C. T. Russell: “Cast not Away, Therefore, Your Confidence,” Zion’s Watch Tower, February 1881, page 5.

[50]             C. T. Russell: Isaac and Rebecca, Zion’s Watch Tower, November 1880, page 8.

[51]             Yellow Day: Friends Intelligencer, September 17, 1881, page 489.

[52]             Quoted in Historic Magazine and Notes and Querries¸ October/November 1882, page  66.

[53]             Letter from an Old Jacksonian Democrat, Mifflintown, Pennsylvania, Sentinel and Republican, June 22, 1881.

[54]             F. W. Haskell to Barbour in the May 1879 Herald of the Morning, page 56.

[55]             C. T. Russell: The Year 1881, Zion’s Watch Tower, May 1881, page 5.

[56]             Moonta Mines, The Kapunda, South Australia, Herald¸ May 25, 1880.

[57]             Church Anniversary – Lecture on the Great Pyramid, The Kapunda, South Australia, Herald¸ May 22, 1879.

[58]             We Still Live, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Inquirer, June 20, 1881.

[59]             English Extracts: End of the World, The Toowoomba, Queensland, Western Star and Roma Advertiser, October 1, 1881. Zadkeils is in Rabbinical literature the angel of mercy, but the reference here is to Richard James Morrison, (1794-1874), an English astrologer who adopted the name as a pseudonym.

[60]             Kane Weekly Blade, August 18, 1881; The Baptist Conference, The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 15, 1881; The Earth’s Center, The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 7, 1881;

[61]             Albany Affairs, The Troy, New York, Daily Times, October 16, 1883.

[62]             From Cincinnatus, The Homer, New York, Republican, January 12, 1882

[63]             S. A. Chaplin: The Last Spasm, The Restitution, August 3, 1881.

[64]             The Great Pyramid, Herald of the Morning, September 1875, page 76.  See Barbour’s appended comments.

[65]             J. C. Ryan: The End of the World, The Theosophical Path, July 1920, page 8.

[66]             J. Westwood and J. Simpson: Lore of the Land, Penguin, 2005, page 833.

[67]             “The Last Day.” Opinions of Leading Second Adventists Concerning Tomorrow, The New York Evening Telegram, June 18, 1881.

[68]             Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, page 632.