Stev:
Thanks for posting that TKC excerpt. I'm not sure how you intended the contents to reflect on my assertions, so please post such. I'm often wrong as often as I am correct on early Russell and Watchtower history, since Russell did not print anymore of the history than he had to, and even then, you better not take it at face value.
This excerpt does now allow one to compare "tract pages" circulated in 1881 with the "record" which Russell reported in the 1894 Annual Report. Russell stated that 1894's 23,321,000 tract pages was ZWT Tract Society's most successful year ever. However, when you multipy 1,400,000 copies of FOOD by 166 pages, that equals 232,400,000 tract pages, if my calculator got the zeros right. Assuming so, 1894's "record" was only 10% of 1881's circulation. Is that right?
Also, the $42,000. which Russell reports spent on FOOD does not match the $35,XXX. which ZWTTS reported as receipts for 1881, nor does it match it if you include 1882's reported receipts of $3XXX.
Do you suppose Russell was saying that an additional $42,000 was spent on "distribution alone"? If so, then I definitely know why Conley was peeved.
I can't really see how the excerpt changes my other assertions, so please help me if I am in "brain-lock".
Thanks.
To: Barbara Anderson -- Re: First WatchTower President
by West70 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
West70
-
stev
West70
I posted the TKC quote because it was pertinent to "Food" and its cost., and not to make a point.
The quote states that "Food" "pointed out the date of the close of that high-calling as October, 1881." I searched it but could not find where it clearly is stated. The expectations that Russell had for 1881 surely motivated the publication and distribution of "Food" . One of the headings mentions the "rapture of the church." Russell rarely used this word to mean the saints being taken to heaven, but it thus used here. He changed his views on the rapture after "Food".
Here is the pdf file for "Food for Thinking Christians"
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/russell/z81sep.pdf
Steve
-
stev
Here is a quote from Watch Tower, May 1883. Russell mentions Peters as an old acquaintance and friend, which implies that he had known him for some time. How did the two become acquainted? Peters was a Lutheran minister. If Conley was still the president at that time, and also financed Peters' book, it is possible that Conley introduced Russell to Peters. Russell's endorsement of the book is lukewarm, and perhaps he endorsed it at Conley's request.THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. Brother G. N. H. Peters, of Springfield, Ohio, is an old acquaintance and friend. He is a believer in the redemptive work of Christ, and hence a Christian brother. He is a believer in the future reign of Christ and the saints, for which cause sake he has suffered the loss of some things--some of the esteem of the nominal church. We regret to have it to state, however, that he is not free from Babylon's shackles, being yet identified with the Lutheran sect--hence has been hindered from a fuller development in grace and knowledge of the word and plan of God than if he stood in the full liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.
Eschatology, entitled --"THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM." It treats of the kingdom of God to be established, from the standpoint known as "Pre-millenarian." It gives voluminous reports of the hundreds of views entertained on this subject--advocating in the main the so-called "Pre-millenarian" view. While the author does not ignore the teachings of the Apostles, he lays greater stress and value on the opinions of the "Fathers" (the Christian teachers of the first five centuries) than we could acknowledge as proper.
in advance to justify, then that will be the price.
recommend it to you more than as above, to briefly state the facts and circumstances, yet if you should conclude to order it or a prospectus of it you should address our brother and friend as above. -
stev
Here are several links to Peters' book. Peters was a great researcher, and cites and critiques many views on prophecy, even though obscure. He intended to be encyclopedic in scope. He refers to Barbour and Russell, Storrs, Wendell, and other Adventist writers. He critiques Barbour and Russell, and quotes from Barbour's Herald, and The Three Worlds. Perhaps Russell was lukewarm in his endorsement of the book in The Watch Tower, because he was acquainted with the criticisms. Did Conley provide him an advance copy of the book? Was Russell aware of the criticisms before he endorsed it?A reading of the book will show that, although Barbour and Russell had their idiosyncratic views, especially that the presence had occurred in 1874, which Peters denied (because the rapture had not taken place, and their dogmatic prophetic chronology) , nevertheless they had much in common with the expectations of others. Peters agreed with them that Christ would return invisibly and secretly to rapture the saints, followed by a visible manifestation later (Russell later gave up the idea of a visible manifestation) . Peters expected an interval of time between the two events.
Although it is recognized that Barbour and Russell drew from the views of William Miller, they were also influenced by the dispensationalists of the time. They combined Millerism with Dispensationalism.
Peters also contributed to the Prophetic Times, of which Joseph Seiss was editor.
Steve
http://www.swrc.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_26_41&products_id=242
Author: George N. H. Peters
The Theocratic Kingdom may well be called the most exhaustive, thoroughly annotated and logically arranged study of Biblical prophecy that appeared during the 19th century. A 3 volume set with nearly 2000 pages, it stands as a testament to the thorough research and exhaustive commentary presented by George Peters.thetheocratickingdom.lbgo.com
The Theocratic Kingdom
This WebSite is specifically dedicated to George Peters work, The Theocratic
Kingdom and includes the only critique of his work that I am aware of. -
stev
We have little information from Conley on what his beliefs were, so there might not be enough information on Conley to determine what his role was in the history. I seem to recall that his name occurs in the Adventist papers, like the Advent Christian Times, and the World's Crisis, in connection with the Adventist church in the Pittsburgh area in the 1870's.
So these questions about Conley could be extended to that Bible study Class of Conley and the Russells.
What did they study? (Storrs' Bible Examiner?)
What was the relationship between that Advent Christian church, and their Bible class?
Were they the same? (Not likely)
Did the Russells and Conley attend both meetings? ( I think this is likely).
How long?
Did the Russells ever join that Advent Christian Church in Pittsburgh? (probably not).
Was Conley an Advent Christian?Russell very early rejected the burning of the world view of the Second Adventists. The Age-to-Come Adventists also rejected the burning of the world. So it is likely that Russell came in contact with Age-to-Come Adventists, perhaps in Allegheny. Conley might have been this contact.
There are references to J.L. Russell in the Adventist papers as early as 1869, which is before the date 1870 that C. T. Russell gave for meeting Jonas Wendell.
Was Russell's father first acquainted with Adventism?
In another place, Russell gives the year 1869 when came to the view that Christ, Head and Body, would bless the world. This also is before 1870.
This seems to hint at a very early personal influence on Russell who believed similarly, perhaps Conley.
Storrs had been editor of the Herald of Life, the paper of the Life and Advent Union until 1871. Many years ago, I had the issues of the pertinent years, and recall that there was a reader in the Pittsburgh area whose letters were appeared in the paper.
I vaguely recall that there was also a series of articles on Christ, Head and Body blessing the world.
Was Russell's Bible class at first associated with Storrs' Life and Advent Union?
The Adventist church in the Pittsburgh area advertised themselves as the Church of God. This might indicate that there were Age-to-Come influences in that church. Stetson's church in Ohio was also called the Church of God. Both Stetson and Storrs had Age-to-Come views.
Russell played down the influence that the Second Adventists (the Advent Christian Church) had in his views. He acknowledged Jonas Wendell, and told the story of how he came to that hall and heard him. But he does not mention any continuing relationship with that church though, and the reader could get the impression that this was a one-time occurrence, but this is not likely because Stetson was the pastor of the church in the early 1870s. Stetson requested that Russell preach his funeral sermon.
It appears that in the 1870s the boundary lines between the different Adventist groups were not yet clearly drawn.Steve
-
stev
Russell denied he was ever an Adventist
From the Question Book, page 607
RUSSELL, PASTOR--Re Membership in Nominal Churches. ::Q607:1:: QUESTION (1911)--l--Did you ever belong to the Adventist church? Some say you did, and some say you left for a reason. If so, please say what.
ANSWER. --I never belonged to any church except the Lord's and the Congregationalists. I was a Congregationalist, and in my endeavor to be faithful I was trying to convert an infidel, and I did not convert him, but while trying to do so, I got enough new thoughts into my head to give me a lot of trouble; and finally, I became an infidel, and was about a year in that condition. I still worshiped God, but not recognizing the Bible, and not knowing if Christ were my redeemer. I still, nevertheless, continually went to God in prayer and asked for guidance and finally, in God's providence I came to see clearer light on the divine Word. I never was an Adventist--excepting that I believe in the advent of our Lord- -very glad to believe our Lord is to come again to receive the church to himself. But I never believed that about the world being burned up, nor any other things of that kind that constitute special features of the Adventist belief. -
stev
I am posting this because it gives the year 1869, which is earlier than 1870 ( which might have been only approximate), when Russell claimed that he heard Jonas Wendell, the Adventist preacher. These views are Age-to-Come views, and as far as I know were NOT teachings of the Advent Christian Church (or Second Adventists). He would have been only 17 years old in 1869, and it is likely that someone that young had a mentor that personally was acquainted with him who influenced him. Could this have been Conley? I do seem to remember a series of articles in the Herald of Life on this subject in 1869.
Anyway, it hints that Russell had a continuing relationship from early on after hearing Wendell with individual(s) who had Adventist connections. Stetson did not appear in Pittsburgh until 1871. I think the members of that early Bible class are the likely candidates. Was Conley a early source of Adventist contacts for the Russells?
Steve
From What Pastor Russell Taught, page 327.
This light was lost sight of during the Gospel
age, and now this is the particular thought brought to your
attention, namely: That Christ the head and the Church
his body, is the great anti-typical Moses, the great Prophet
God has been raising up, through which the blessing is to
come to Israel, and through Israel to all the nations (Acts
3:22,23.) Christ is the head, and through the members of
his Elect is to bless Israel and all the nations. When did
this feature of light come to our attention? It came to my
attention in 1869. I was thinking along these lines, seeing
that our friends in the churches were wrong, and seeing
the second coming of Christ was the thing to be expected,
and along about 1873 I got so far as to see that there was
restitution coming to the world, but I did not understand
what restitution meant. I supposed that when the world
was blessed it would come to be in the same sort of
spiritual condition as the Church, and not until 1878 did
the light of that feature come, in respect to the fact that the
Church is to be of a separate and distinct nature, and is to
be used by the Lord in blessing Israel and through them
blessing all the nations. -
West70
Steve:
Thanks so much for posting all this additional info. I didn't want to say anything in my last post, but yes, I had seen the TKC excerpt before, just as I have seen Russell's ZWT article about Peters and Theocratic Kingdom. However, quite frankly, I had forgotten both. I'm not that old, but I do have a bad case of CRS. If you had not posted these, I don't know when or if I would have remembered them. I'm sure there are also some readers who have not seen these excerpts.
With regard to Theocratic Kingdom, I need to wade through my boxes, dig them out, and refresh my memory as to what they say about Barbour, Storrs, etc. Do you happen to have a list of the volumes and page numbers for all the people you listed?
I'm not sure that I am clear in my previous posts. Yes, I agree that the founding of ZWTTS, and the publishing and distribution of FOOD and TAB were initially motivated by Russell's expectations for 1881. However, by the time that the tracts actually were distributed, it is my recollection (correct me if I'm wrong) that Russell was already revising some things.
Also, as indicated above, I don't believe Conley was disappointed or disillusioned in 1881, but that such occurred sometime thereafter between 1882-4.
With regard to comparing Barbour's and Russell's belief in a "secret" and "invisible" parousia with the beliefs of other theologians of that period and even today, I would advise "caution". Although B&R's interpretations seem at glance to be similar to some other's interpretations, I don't beleive they really are. Pre-trib rapture views that Christ returns for Xians at the beginning of a 7 year or a 3.5/3.5 years Tribulation period do not necessarily equate to the "return" that B&R thought occurred in 1874. Is not their "invisibly present in the vicinity of the earth" (my wording) unique to B&R? There are also the differences in the timing of the resurrection and "rapture", as well eventually after 1878 and 1881 as to definition of the Trib period(s), and what occurrs at the end of such. I don't claim to be up to date on any of the previous -- either B&R or other's interpretations.
With regard to Russell's acquaintance with Peters, such could have been through Conley, or even possibly Joseph Russell. Joseph Russell and family apparently lived in Philadelphia during some of the same periods of time as did George Storrs, Henry Grew, and of course Joseph Seiss.
One of my major suspicions is that Joseph Russell was at least acquaited with some of these characters and/or their writings, and that he had introduced such to Charles Taze.
As for Joseph Seiss, he was known to just about any Lutheran who was not living in a cave. Seiss visited the Pittsburgh area Lutheran churches during his travels, and was even offered a Pastorage (or whatever) in a Pittsburgh church in the late 1850s.
I can't recall their name right now, but the Millenarian sect of Lutherans who somewhat paralleled the Second Adventists were headquartered in Economy, Pennsylvania in the 1860s. Economy is only 25-30 miles NW of Allegheny, thus these folks would have exercised some influence amongst Pitt Lutherans and others. Interestingly, they taught NO MARRIAGE. They also believed the Second Advent would occur around 1868-8, or soon thereafter.
I would enjoy your corrections or comments. Thanks. -
stev
West70I don't have the book Theocratic Kingdom. But the index is very thorough, and if you look at it, under Barbour, Russell, Storrs, etc, you will find the page numbers.
My understanding is that, yes, Barbour and Russell's early views are similar to the rapturists of that time, and were likely derived from them. In Russell's initial explanation of why he was starting the WatchTower, he quoted Seiss on his views of the invisible presence to show that there were others than Barbour who taught these things. Carl Olaf Jonsson, in one of his books, goes into detail, on the origin of the secret presence doctrine. He thought that perhaps Russell had read the Oct. 1874 issue of the Prophetic Times, edited by Seiss, and had read an article there on the two-stage coming, the first invisible, the second visible. Jonsson based this on a statement made by Paul S. L. Johnson that Russell had told him that he first learned of the invisible coming in Oct. 1874. Johnson also related that Russell told him that he personally met Seiss (when in Philadelphia in 1876, I believe), and discussed this point with Seiss, but they did not communicate well, it seems.
Barbour, and later Russell, revised their opinions based upon the non-fulfillment of their prophetic predictions, so Russell's later views bore less similarity.
In the "Food" tract, there is a Chart of the Ages, and in the explanation, it is said there is a 7-year tribulation period and the church would be raptured after that period. Then the remaining 33 years would a tribulation period for the world. (I think this statement remained in the Millenial Dawn book).
According to the rapturists, Jesus would return invisibly to the earth's atmosphere, in order to rapture the saints, who would be bodily taken up to heaven to meet the Lord. This is what Barbour and Russell believed as well, and that there would be two stages of his coming (this is in the Three Worlds), the first invisible, and the second visible when the Lord would return with the saints to earth. Peters denied that Christ was then present because the rapture had not taken place, so this is a disagreement that he had with them. Eventually, Russell gave up the idea of a rapture, and replaced it with the thought that each member of the church would die. He also gave up the idea that Christ would visibly manifest himself to the world ( when he gave it up I don't know, but this is expressed by Russell in the Object of Manner, The Three Worlds, Food, and early Watch towers, and by the Vol. 2 it was rejected.) However, then the invisible presence no longer makes sense, because the whole reason why Jesus would be invisibly present was to rapture the saints and then later with them come down physically to the earth. But Russell stuck to the invisible presence but gave up the reason why Jesus would be invisibly present in the first place.
The views of Peters and Seiss and many who wrote in the Prophetic Times are not the same as today's Pre-Tribulation rapturists. Both Peters and Seiss taught what is termed the partial rapture view. This is what Russell initially taught in Food. This meant that only a few would be raptured at first, and those remaining would be raptured later. Russell termed these two groups the Little Flock and the Great Company, both spiritual classes. In the Prophetic Times, there were different speculations on how the rapture would take place, how many groups, and in what stages, and what would be the order of events.
Yes, Joseph Seiss was likely the most prominent American Lutheran of the 19th century, and highly respected. He was the pastor of a large Lutheran church in Phila. He wrote a book on the Great Pyramid called A Miracle in Stone. By the way, I have never heard anyone accuse him of being a Mason!
This early history of Barbour, Russell, Seiss, the Adventists is so foreign to present-day JWs, and even Bible Students, and today's Adventists. Russell fit into the world of Adventists and Christian prophetic students of his period, although the combination of his ideas he had might have been unusual.
Steve
-
West70
Thanks Steve for your excellent info. I'm tired, so I'll wait until tomorrow to comment or ask questions.