The afterword to volume 2, complete in rough draft is here https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ Impressions?
Separate Identity vol 2
It’s pretty deep for an afterward.
I am looking forward to Volume 2.
Very interesting read, and I’m curious to see the reference to Crompton when it’s added.
I have been wondering about Watchtower use of the term “spiritism” and whether this is a neutral term or not. Because from my observation spiritualists tend to talk about “spiritualism” rather than “spiritism” to describe their practice. So I wonder if “spiritism” may be a term that JWs use in a distinctive negative way, as with their distinctive use of the word “Christendom”.
Very interesting discussion of “Present Truth” and its complicated background, and very interesting, if I picked it up correctly, that early Bible Students sometimes described themselves as belonging to the “Present Truth” almost as a group designation. I have not heard that before.
Christadelphians have a phrase, that to be in line for salvation you need to accept “the saving truth”, as in you need to accept the correct Bible doctrines, as taught by Christadelphians.
I enjoyed the details regarding pyramidology and speculation around 1881. It is particularly useful to understand what was going on in the prophetic milieu of the time.
I appreciate this is a rough draft, but as an earnest pedant I hope these suggested corrections will assist:
Martin misrepresents Russell ... He puts ‘the faithful’ in quotes, but the phrase is lacking on the pages he sites [should be cites] as is the belief...
Holland believed that Christians should assist God in such fulfillments. His theology took maters [should be matters] beyond mere obedience to political action,...
In the hands of Millennilists [should be Millennialists], Age-to-Come believers, and Adventists, “present truth” always meant their end-times teachings.
This left some wiggle-room. [You might mean wiggle-room, but in the context I think you probably mean wriggle-room].
Verse seventeen says the living Saints will meet [omit] will be caught away in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
Writers from The Restitution speculated on the supposed perihelion of planets, taking the mater [should be matter] seriously.
Published under two titles, the one noted by Barbour was Star Prophecies, or a View of Coming Disasters on the Earth from1881 [should be from 1881] to 1885,
As far as we can determin [should be determine], the Watch Tower message entered Australia in1881 [should be in 1881]...
Newspapers of the period note numerous lectures on the topic by clergymen, self-anointed [should this not be self-appointed ?] and real professors...
Watch Tower and Barbourite belief may seem strange from out [should be our] vantage point...
Though the Mother Shipton prophecy was an admitted contemporary fake, it panicked some in Brittan [should be Britain].
Some of this spilled onto Zion’s Watch Tower, though Russell expect [should be expected] other events and on a different basis.
In some respects we find Russell as [should be at] his most ‘unlovely’ with this failure.
Well spotted. I noticed the Britain one and forgot to mention it.
I wonder about the use of the word Britain in general. Strictly speaking the word Britain refers to the geographical island that is the largest island in the British archipelago, which comprises England, Scotland and Wales, and excludes Ireland, the Isle of Man, and other smaller islands. Yet I get the impression that Americans sometimes use Britain when either England or the United Kingdom may be more precisely what they mean.
The Watchtower of course is a main culprit in this. At one point they confusingly used the term “British Isles” in the Yearbook and excluded the island of Ireland, despite it being in the geographical British Isles. They changed it to “Britain”, which is more acurate, but still an eccentric way of dividing the “lands”, from a UK perspective. I wonder if Watchtower will list Scotland separately when it becomes independent. Probably not, if they still publish statistics by then.
Thanks, Earnest. I've passed your notes onto Dr. Schulz for his consideration. He and my mom wrote this book, though the afterword is all his. Mom died and did not contribute to this essay.
Thanks, always followed your publications and blog.