Zeb, do you have the actual reference for that? Was it a WT letter? Which date? Can you post it?
Posts by vienne
-
19The Society is Blocking Research On their Web Site
by new boy init seems, you can not research many of the older publications on society's web site anymore.
for the obvious reasons, that they don't want people to go back and read about all the false prophecies, changing guide lines (new light that became old light that became new light once again) and the just plain stupid stuff they have said over the years.
i not quit sure what publications they have blocked.
-
-
-
57
WT Study October 2018....spinning ''layoffs'' into ''reassigning'' ex-Bethelites ''to the field''
by RULES & REGULATIONS inwt study october 2018. maintain inner peace despite changing circumstances.
lloyd and alexandra learn that they have been reassigned to the field, they at first felt sad.
after all, they had been serving at bethel for over 25 years.
-
-
-
12
Printed vs Produced
by Rattigan350 inin the january 1, 2015 watchtower it says printing each issue 52,946,000 in 228 languages semimonthly.
in that 2016 #1 issue watchtower it says produced each issue 58,987,000 in 254 languages monthly.
what is the difference between printed and produced?.
-
-
-
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
vienne
Phiz,
Thanks for your kind words. They’re really appreciated.
Slim,
Those are the ‘facts’ usually presented, but that’s not what the record shows. Here is what Russell and his contemporaries tell us:
Russell was familiar with preaching on prophecies before he met Jonas Wendell, a “Second Adventist” preacher in 1869. Henry Moore, the pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church, the church Russell joined as a lad, was a student of the prophecies and preached on them. He left behind at least one printed sermon. Others within Russell’s early acquaintance in the Calvinist community also promoted prophetic speculation. Calvinists in Pittsburgh republished Archibald Mason’s speculations and date setting and remained interested long after Mason’s predictions failed. So Wendell’s preaching was not totally surprising to him. Wendell’s initial sermons were summarized in the Pittsburgh newspapers. And on that basis Russell would not be surprised by their content.
But what did Russell actually hear from Wendell in 1869? A careful reading of what Russell wrote on the matter suggests that he was most impressed with Wendell’s comments on predestination and hell-fire doctrine. Russell does not mention prophetic content, except in one later reference. But we know what Wendell preached in 1869. Though Wendell started preaching about 1873 early the next year, in 1869 he was pointing to that year as the probably end ‘to all things mundane.’ He tells us this in a World’s Crisis article. The 1869 speculation derived from Aaron Kinne, a Congregationalist clergyman who wrote in the 1830s. W. C. Thruman resurrected it, claiming originality for the ‘research,’ but reading his “Sealed Book Opened,” it becomes evident that he borrowed from Kinne. Thurman, a Brethren clergyman, became the darling of Second Adventists, particularly Advent Christians, and many of them adopted the 1869 speculation. What Russell first heard from Wendell was the last gasp of this belief. Then the next year he heard Wendell’s proofs that 1873 was the end of the age when the world would be consumed in fire.
We do not know how Russell received this. But there is enough evidence to suggest a reaction. By 1871 Russell was reading widely in prophetic literature. He was introduced to Storrs, Blaine, Dunn, Smith-Warleigh and a host of other Age-to-Come non-Adventist writers and to Seiss and to Richard Shimeall, a Presbyterian writer. From them he came to restitution doctrine, the belief that Christ came to restore paradise to the earth, not burn it up. And he came to believe in a two-stage, initially invisible parousia. This meant that speculation about world burning was, in his view, false doctrine. He writes about regretting the predictions of Wendell and Thurman and others. Who were the others? He does not say, but someone predicted the end for every year from 1869 to 2000. Among those who were or became his associates and acquaintances some pointed to 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1879 and 1881. Some of these predictions were on questionable basis, even from Russell’s later viewpoints. Some were based on a faked Mother Shipton prophecy and one on a supposed measurement from the great pyramid, and one on a predicted conjunction of planets. Though much is made of Russell’s beliefs regarding the pyramid, he wrote that it was a poor basis for establishing Bible chronology, that it should only be used to support what can be derived from scripture. But that’s something said past the period we’re considering.
Did Russell oppose chronological speculation. It is often said that he did. What he wrote, however, is that because he believed in an initially invisible presence, the only way to know when it occurred was through Bible chronology. In this period his belief was: “It seemed, to say the least, a reasonable, very reasonable thing, to expect that the Lord would inform his people on the subject – especially as he had promised that the faithful should not be left in darkness with the world, and that though the day of the Lord would come upon all others as a thief in the night (stealthily, unawares), it should not be so to the watching, earnest saints.”
So it’s not a reliable chronology he rejected, but Adventist speculation that included world burning and seemed unreliable. He was looking for a reliable chronological framework. When he received Barbour’s Herald of the Morning in December 1875 (Not Jan 1876 as usually said) he thought he might have found one. He also saw that Barbour et. al. had adopted age to come belief, his belief system and thought they might have progressed beyond Adventism into ‘truth’ – enlightenment. He wrote to Barbour who wrote back that he and Paton had been Adventists but no longer were. That they had pursued other doctrine. The other doctrine was age to come, doctrine Russell had learned from Storrs, Stetson and a variety of others, some of whom he mentions directly and some we can surmise from available evidence. What made Barbour’s chronology different was that it was expressed not in Adventist terms that Russell would reject out of hand but in Age to Come/ Literalist / One Faith terms that matched Russell’s theology.
Did Adventism have an effect on Russell. He says it did, that it helped him to unlearn certain thing we can readily identify as Calvinist predestination and hell-fire. Did Russell believe he was adopting some form of Adventism by accepting Barbour’s redefinition of the events of 1873-1874? No. Instead he saw it as a step forward in his Age to Come belief in restored paradise. Should we see it as an Adventist influence? I think not. Russell did not adopt Adventist doctrine, and Barbour's chronology was not expressed in Second Adventist terms. The origin of the 1873-4 date was primarily in Anglican writings. Barbour even acknowledges this.
Link +3 / -0 -
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
vienne
Chronological speculation is a long standing protestant hobby extending back at least to the 15th Century. It was not a peculiarity of Adventism. Even after the Adventist failure of the 1840s both Adventists and non-Adventist millennialists remained addicted to the practice.
You would find Froom's Prophetic Faith helpful. He profiles many expositors, none of whom were before Miller any sort of Adventist, but they were Millennarians.
Link +3 / -1 -
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
vienne
Among the Anglican and Church of Scotland clergy upon whose work Barbour based his chronology were these: [Paragraph taken from our bio. of N. Barbour]
John Fry in Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies pointed to 1873.[1] Fry ended the 1260 days in 1872/73, writing that “the arrival of the years 1844, 1872, and 1889 must be expected with feelings of the deepest interest by all who are looking for ‘this great day of the Lord.’” W. Snell Chauncy also pointed to 1873 in his 1839 publication Dissertations on Unaccomplished Prophecy.[2] In 1835 Thomas Brown suggested that the 1335 prophetic days might end in 1873, and he felt the way was opening up for “the full triumph of the Gospel kingdom and the final restoration and conversion of Israel.”[3] Matthew Habershon counted the 1290 days from 583 to 1873-74 C.E. (A.D.).[4] At least one advocate of 1873 was mentioned in The Literalist, printed by Orrin Rogers in Philadelphia between 1840 and 1842.[5] Closer to Barbour’s time, the anonymous British writer “S. A.” suggested in his Apocalyptic History that at least one prophetic period might end in 1873.[6] Though the basis for fixing on 1873 varied, there were a number who believed it a prophetically significant date.[7]
[1] Fry, John: Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture: Which are yet to Have Their Accomplishment Before the Coming of the Lord in Glory or at the Establishment of His Everlasting Kingdom, Printed for James Duncan and T. Combe, London, 1835, page 380. This book is in the British Library.
[2] Published by James Nisbet & Co.; J. Johnstone, 1838, page 387. This book is in the British Library.
[3] Brown, Thomas: A Key to the Prophetical Books of the Old Testament, Published by the Author, London, 1858, page 103.
[4] Habershon, Matthew: A Dissertation on the Prophetic Scriptures Chiefly Those of a Chronological Character: Shewing Their Aspect on the Present Times, and on the Destinies of the Jewish Nation, James Nisbet and Co, 1834, page 452.
[5] The Literalist: Elements of Prophetical Interpretation, etc., Orin Rogers, 1840, page 333.
[6] S. A.: Apocalyptic History, S. W. Partridge and Company, Second Edition, London, 1871, page 21.
[7] Peters mentions a Balfour who looked to 1873. This seems to be a misprint for Barbour. — Peters, G. N. H.: The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, Volume 3, 1884, page 99.
Link +3 / -0 -
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
vienne
Giordano,
None of Russell's doctrine derives from Adventism. It derives from Age to Come belief, called literalism by many in that era. We examine this in great detail in chapter four of Separate Identity.
https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401
Russell read Adventist literature, writing to some periodicals. This ended in 1872 or 1873. It is claimed that Barbour was an Adventist and such he was up to 1875. When Russell met him he had switched to Church of the Blessed Hope, a Literalist (non-Adventist) faith. Russell reports that Barbour and Paton had left the Adventists. Barbour names the faith to which he switched. Barbour did not teach Russell Adventism. They shared Age to Come belief as expressed in the religious newspaper The Restitution. Barbour and Russell are (Russell more than Barbour) both called "brother" by that non-Adventist periodical.
Some suggest that Russell's chronology is Adventist. It is not. In 1859 Barbour returned to a study of prophetic figures. He found a satisfying chronology in Elliott's Horae where a chart by Christoper Bowen is found. Neither Elliott nor Bowen were Adventists. They were Church of England Clergy. There are other books, some of which we know Barbour consulted, that present the 1873-4 date as a fixed predictive date. They are all written by Anglican or Church of Scotland clergy. You will find much of this in our Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. Barbour also derived the date 1914 from non-Adventist sources. None of the chronology believed by Russell and Barbour came from Adventism.
Russell mentions both Storrs and Stetson. George Storrs left Adventism amongst great controversy in 1844. Thereafter he promoted Literalist belief. Storrs when Russell met him was long removed from Adventism. Stetson adopted Literalist (non-Adventist) belief starting in 1864-5. He was banned from some Adventist congregations because he taught contrary doctrine. He was recognized by the Restitution, again not Adventist but antagonistic to Adventism, as an authorized preacher. He was not, when Russell met him, an Adventist, but was writing for The Restitution and for the British journal The Rainbow.
The claim of Adventist influence is greatly exaggerated. He did not adopt any doctrine that was uniquely Adventist. ALL of his doctrines can be found within the Age-to-Come/Literalist/Church of God movement of the late 19th century.
Link +3 / -1 -
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
-
59
Joke Sharing Thread
by Vanderhoven7 ingot a good joke or two?
why not share them.
here is a fun one.. retirement can be fun.
-
-
-
20
Connections between Christadelphians and Russell´s Biblestudents
by oppostate inthe bible students and the christadelphians have a lot in common.. i searched on facebook... .
and look what i found:https://www.facebook.com/christadelphianbiblestudents/.
there´s even a group named like that..
-
-
vienne
From Separate Identity, vol 1 [ https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401 ]
Christadelphian Connections
A number of writers postulate a Christadelphian connection. Among more modern writers one finds repeated references to Benjamin Wilson as a Christadelphian. Russell, they say, got his ideas from Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott, and Wilson was a Christadelphian. This is a fable. Wilson, son of an Oxford professor of Greek and an immigrant to North America, was associated first with the Campbellites. He was attracted to John Thomas’ teachings but he and Thomas quickly parted company. Thomas was bitter and vituperative. Newell Bond addressed the issue in a letter to Thomas dated October 29, 1866, pointing to Thomas’ “sarcasm and [the] sport made of others who have believed and obeyed the same Gospel.” Such “go not very far with candid, thinking men as arguments in defense of the truth,” Bond wrote. Thomas’ reply was that Wilson was “of that class I am commanded to avoid.” He called Wilson a “rabid politician” and one of “the world’s own.” “I repudiate in toto the idea of such having like precious faith with the Apostles.” Thomas did not see Wilson as a Christadelphian. Wilson repudiated the association. Not at all ashamed of his repeated ad hominem attacks, Thomas published the letters for all to read.[1]
Because One Faith believers and Christadelphians draw from the same Literalist roots, Christadelphians speculated about a connection with Russell. Without confirming it, Christadelphian writers asserted that Russell was once “connected with the truth.”[2] When “The Photo Drama of Creation” was released, The Christadelphian described it as a “piece of apostasy from the truth from which we understand Pastor Russell was in some way connected many years ago.”[3] The editors of The Berean Christadelphain went further:
About 50 years ago a man named Russell attended meetings of Christadelphians in Glasgow. He picked up part of the Truth and then went to America. There he started a new sect, which he called The International Bible Students' Association. Popularly its members were soon known as “Russellites” and he himself as “Pastor Russell.” We heard him on two occasions expound his ideas of religion.[4]
These claims constitute a self-serving myth. Still, Russell was acquainted with Christadelphian theology. He used their descriptors, calling Watch Tower congregations Ecclesias and traveling evangelists Pilgrims. His topic during a speaking tour in late June 1880 was “Things Pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” a characteristically Christadelphian topic and phrasing.[5] We shouldn’t read too much into that. The topic is derived from Acts 1:3 and was used by many who were not Christadelphians. As we shall see in the next chapter, his theology was not derived from that source. It came from the Age-to-Come movement centered on The Restitution. Because the doctrines are somewhat similar and Christadelphians saw the One Faith movement as “vile,” they preferred to see themselves as the source. “He was once in touch with Christadelphains, and is much indebted to their writings for what good his system may contain,” one editor wrote.[6]
We cannot date with any assurance Russell’s first encounter with Christadelphianism. An “old brother Cattelle” claimed to have known him “many years ago” in Allegheny or Pittsburgh. We cannot date this, nor can we identify which Cattelle this was. That leaves us with an interesting claim but no way to evaluate it. It is probable that Russell’s introduction to Christadelphian teaching came early. Adherents were often isolated and attended meetings sponsored by others with similar faith, trying to persuade them to Christadelphian belief. A. E. Williamson, a Watch Tower evangelist, recalled an example of this. He reported that he had to contend with “a Christadelphian, who seemed much incensed because the discourse was so lengthy that he could not have a good opportunity to express himself.”[7]
John H. Thomas, a physician, moved to Pittsburgh toward the end of 1879.[8] The Christadelphian noted him as a subscriber resident in Canada in 1867. By his advent in Pittsburgh he was straddling the line between One Faith and Christadelphianism. Letters and articles from him appear in The Restitution, one of which Russell reprinted in abridged form.[9] Some of Thomas’ lectures were reissued in tract form and sold through The Restitution.
If Russell and Thomas associated on any sort of friendly basis, that ended in 1882 with the publication of Food for Thinking Christians. A brief notice found in The Christadelphian of 1882 says that “Dr. Thomas lectured twice at Berwick, Pa., and once at Bloomsburg, Pa., at which places he did much to neutralize the influence of that subtle enemy of God’s truth, called Russellism, which is a mottled mixture of truth and Universalism.”[10] He was tarring Watch Tower belief in a fair chance for all with the brush of Universalism. There is no Universalism in “Russellism.” To The Restitution he wrote: “I am sorry to say that the believers here are tinctured a little with Russellism, which is subversive of the truth as it is in Jesus.”[11] It is interesting to note that Berwick, Pennsylvania, believers were on Russell’s speaking itinerary in June 1880.
Thomas drew the small remnant of the original Church of God (Age-to-Come) congregation to himself, acting as its pastor. A letter from a Restitution reader noted that a “body of believers has been called out in Pittsburgh, and that they meet regularly every week” in Thomas’ home.[12] The congregation continued to have mixed views, and Thomas was willing to tolerate these. This caused controversy among his Christadelphian associates. A “brother Gunn” wrote to the editor of The Christadelphian complaining about Thomas. The main complaint seems to have been about his less than pure associates: “I had hoped that some of the brethren in the United States would have cautioned you long ago against Dr J. H. Thomas, who certainly is not sound in doctrine, and is striving to hold a position in which he can do great damage to the truth – passing as a Christadelphian and fraternizing with the vile Restitution.” A letter to the editor of The Christadelphian appearing in the April 1883 issue suggested that he seemed “to hold the truth himself, but is unprepared to exact it in every particular as the basis for fellowship with others.” R. K. Bowles, a fairly prominent One Faith adherent and contributor to The Restitution, commented on this, writing: “I think his remarks are uncharitable and I read them with regret. I do not know that I have seen all that Dr. T. has written, but what I have seen I highly commend, and hope he may prove himself worthy as a good soldier ever to the end.”[13]
Thomas left Pittsburgh for Rochester, New York, about 1883 and the small congregation dwindled. He circulated a broadside announcing his removal to Rochester. “Read and be Wise,” it said. “Dr. J. H. Thomas & Wife (late of Pittsburg, Pa.) at the Earnest Solicitation of Friends Have Removed to this City ... They Have Established for Themselves a Widespread Reputation in the Treatment of Chronic Diseases of Every Description by Electricity.” Thomas continued to lecture on Christadelpian topics and to promote quack medicines.[14] He was as positive about his unfailing cures as he was about his religion.
Lucius C. Thomas, John’s brother, left Pittsburgh sometime in 1882, returning in 1888 for his son’s funeral. He does not seem to have been a Christadelphian or even sympathetic to them. He was an American-born Electro-Medical Physician but a resident of Canada in 1870. The 1871 Census lists their church affiliation as “Church of God,” which would mark them as Age-to-Come (One Faith). His repeated contacts with The Restitution verify this. When his son Irving died in September 1888, G. D. Clowes preached the funeral sermon and The Restitution printed his obituary as written by his father:
He had been an obedient and constant believer of “the gospel of Christ …” for many years. … Elder Cloughs [sic] of Allegheny City … talked to the people about ‘the hope and resurrection of the dead,’ very appropriately and ably; showing that while Atheism, Infidelity, Skepticism, Philosophy and Science can afford no comfort in the time of such bereavements and heart-rending grief, the Scriptures present us with ‘a strong consolation’ – a ‘blessed hope.’”[15]
We do not know what connection Lucius had with Clowes or Russell. It is interesting, however, that he sought out Clowes instead of any of the Christadelphian adherents.
The Pittsburgh Age-to-Come congregation shifted to Christadelphianism by 1893. Henry Cornman wrote to The Christadelphian in late 1893 describing a series of lectures held in Pittsburgh. They added two to their number, he explained, but numbers remained small. What interest there was in Christadelphianism was undercut by Watch Tower evangelism. Cornman wrote that, “being myself acquainted with many who have been drawn to the Russell Party, of Zion Watch Tower fame, our giving up the hall at this time would be very much deplored.” He saw the loss in numbers and worried.[16] Similar complaints continued up to Russell’s death. In 1916 The Christadelphian described “Russellism” as “the system … that has beguiled some among us.”
One must remember that both groups were very small, and though they saw their teachings as of major consequence, they were only marginally influential as religious movements. A continuing Christadelphian complaint was that The Watch Tower drew away “the faithful.” Louis B. Welch, most often called ‘Dr. Welch,’ a dentist in Shire Oaks, Pennsylvania, bemoaned this: “There are many of the faithful who read Russell’s works, and some have allowed their minds to be bewitched by his spiritual sorceries. He is very plausible to those who do not look deeply into the truth.” The difference between Welch and Russell was Christadelphian willingness to find types and symbolisms where Russell saw only the Bible’s plain statements.[17]
Welch wrote to Russell, trying to convert him to Christadelphian belief. He didn’t like the result:
I know the man. I have corresponded with him. I know he is immovably fixed in his beliefs. I cannot therefore be “charitable” to his work, a work so deadly to the truth. He is the bitter, relentless enemy of the truth, though professing friendship for it. He must be treated as an enemy of the truth, and his teaching must be antagonised with all the power of truth at one’s command, regardless of how it may hurt his feelings or wound his vanity, or how it may affect those who, in any way, sympathise with his teachings.[18]
Welch presented Russell’s teaching, which he called Watch-Towerism, as denying “the very foundation of future life and being to us” and as a deadly insult to God and His truth.” Watch-Towerism was worse than Catholicism, worse than Adventism. Welch was disturbed at the significant sympathy for Russell he found among Christadelphian believers, writing:
And you, a brother, a Christadelphian, ask me to be charitable towards such teaching “because of the great work done” by the chief apostle of “Watch-Towerism!” Ah, brother, brother, do you know what you are asking at my hands and at the hands of others who know the length and breadth and depth of “Watch-Towerism?” God forbid that I or you or others should ever subject His truth to such a kiss of charity.
Sympathetic voices continued to be raised among Christadelphian adherents up to Russell’s death. In 1915 The Christadelphian released two “cheap” pamphlets to counter sympathies for “Russellism, some of the tenants of which have found favour here and there in the brotherhood.” The magazine “commended” them to “those who may be inclined to be smitten with ‘charitableness’ of this plausible ‘heresy.’” Russellism was, the editor said, “a greatly perverted” system.[19]
Russell was unquestionably familiar with Christadelphian belief. He rejected major portions of it, especially their “narrow” view of salvation. None of his doctrine is traceable to that source. Instead it comes from the One Faith movement with its similar, sometimes overlapping doctrine.
[1] N. Bond and J. Thomas: Important Correspondence Between a Member of the Self-Styled “Church of God,” Cleveland, Ohio, and John Thomas, M. D., Christadelphian Association, Detroit, Michigan, 1867. Wilson repudiated Christadelphian connections in an interview with J. Bohnet published in the April 4, 1916, issue of The Saint Paul, Minnesota, Enterprise.
[2] The Christadelphian, Digital Edition, 1913, 50:359.
[3] The Christadelphian, Digital Edition, 1915, 52:324.
[4] C. G. Denny and B. J. Dowling: “Turned Unto Fables,” The Berean Christadelphian, December 1940, page 417.
[5] C. T. Russell: The Editor’s Eastern Trip, Zion’s Watch Tower, June 1880, page 8.
[6] The Christadelphian, Digital Edition, 1918, 55:450-455.
[7] Williamson in 1907 Convention Report, part 2.
[8] Because there is no date associated with J. H. Thomas’ article as it appeared in Zion’s Watch Tower, some have confused him with the similarly named founder of the Christadelphians who died in 1871.
[9] J. H. Thomas: The Creditability of Scripture – Extracts from an Address by Dr. J. H. Thomas before the “Liberal League” (an Infidel Society) of this City, Zion’s Watch Tower, June 1881, page 3. The full lecture appears in the May 18, 1881, issue of The Restitution. See the June 1, 1881, issue for an advertisement for the lecture in pamphlet form. We could not locate a copy of the pamphlet,
[10] The Christadelphian¸ Digital Edition, 1882 19:192-193.
[11] J. H. Thomas to Editor of The Restitution in the February 22, 1882, issue.
[12] Samuel Wilson to Editor of The Restitution in the November 8, 1882, issue. S. Wilson attributed the information to L. C. Thomas, a Pittsburgh physician and John H. Thomas’ brother.
[13] Gunn’s complaint is found in the January 1882 issue of The Christadelphian. Bowles’ letter is found in the May 23, 1883, issue of The Restitution.
[14] The only copy of the broadside known to us is in the medical library of the University of Rochester, New York. Thomas claimed to be able to unfailingly cure asthma with a formula of Nitrite of Amyl, lobelia, skunk cabbage and blood root. [Claims to Cure Asthma, The Medical World, June 1906, page 219.] Sermon notices appear in various New York state newspapers.
[15] L. C. Thomas: Death of Irving O. Thomas, The Restitution¸ September 19, 1888.
[16] The Christadelphian, Digital Edition, 1894, 31:208.
[17] The Christadelphian, Digital Edition, 1891, 28:130-131. Welch wrote at least one pamphlet, The Recovered Truth in the Latter Days. He patented several inventions, including a carriage break. He was an explorer of sorts and a fossil find was named after him. Before moving to Pennsylvania, he lived in Wilmington, Ohio, where he and his son had a dental practice. – Dr. Chas. Welch, The Dental Cosmos, November 1900. page 1236.
[18] The Christadelphian, Digital Edition, 1894, 31:428-431.
[19] The Christadelphian, Digital Edition, 1915, 52:324.
Link +3 / -0