Dwayne, I am really confused about our ancestor Isham's letter.  At the 1820 meeting, it was decided to wash feet between supper and communion. But then one guy said if he produced evidence that feet were washed before supper, would they not then comply,to which they agreed. Then they sent testimony which settled the question.  !!??? So, first they decided to wash feet between. Then Roland asked his question, and they agreed. But it did not say that he did produce evidence, and I cannot imagine what it could have been.But it sounds like he did, and they agreed, which means to me that they changed their minds and went for washing before supper and communion. Is this the case? Does the testimony they sent then say they agreed to the before-supper idea? It settled the question, for whom?  Then between 1820 and 26, the big cutoff! Was it Because of their answer? If their "testimony" settled the question, then why were they cut off?    I find it almost incomprehensible that poor hardworking pioneers would pull up stakes and move with great difficulty, over a  minuscule question of the order of activities at their service. Or is this just one of many reasons they move?  After "cutting off" what did they do, religiously, besides moving away? Then in your later message you amaze me when you say that our ancestor Isham himself was cut off much later! Why? for what terrible horrible earthshaking heresy? And what followed that excommunication? This is the first I had heard of my grandfather's grandfather's letter, most curious indeed. Hal Gibson

Hal, Isham Gibson wrote two letters to the Brethren historian and archivist, Abraham Harley Cassel, during the month of April 1869, the year that Isham was "cut off" (you would call it excommunicated) describing his experience in Kentucky and Illinois dealing with rulings of church practices and individual behavior from Annual Meeting authorities to the individual congregations and the general membership. In Gibson's case, he was eventually disfellowshipped or banned for how Communion was conducted in the congregations over which he was in charge. Usually it was a long process. He was an elder in charge in Kentucky from 1826 to 1830, and in Illinois from 1830-1869. Entire memberships of congregations of the Brethren were sometimes cut off by decisions made at the Annual Meeting. This happened to the North Carolina Brethren in 1798 for their beliefs in Universal Restoration. It happened to the Kentucky Brethren in the 1820s for practicing an unacceptable mode of Communion. The mode of Baptism was another big issue in Kentucky. Some of the issues may seem petty/trivial/miniscule to you and me, but they were considered as big doctrinal issues at that time in history. The Brethren were democratic in certain ways, but if there were an unresolved issue, the resolution was handed down by rulings of the central governing body of the Annual Meeting. Members would either have to conform, or go elsewhere. Elsewhere meant join some other denomination near where you live, or pull up your congregation and move and do things your own way out of sight of the authorities. Isham Gibson seems to have been the one to coin the term Far Western Brethren, based on what we read from his letters to Cassel, and in that sense, Far Western meant distancing yourself geographically from the source of authority (concentrated in the Eastern states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and later Ohio). When Isham Gibson was personally banned in 1869, he responded by moving farther west into Missouri and also by joining the Congregational Brethren sect, made up of former Brethren opposed to the authority of Annual Meeting. I would not worry about making sense of the wording of the Isham Gibson letters. He was not a very good writer, especially in his non-use of punctuation, and in his leaving out words that would have brought much fuller meaning to what he was trying to say. Remember, the Annual Meeting Eastern Brethren had the final say, and it was not in favor of the beliefs and practices of Gibson's Far Western Brethren. Dwayne Wrightsman -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harald S. Gibson Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 2:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BRE] "Somewhere between 1820 and 1826 there was cut off about 1, 500 Brethren and sisters in Kentucky" Dwayne, I am really confused about our ancestor Isham's letter.  At the 1820 meeting, it was decided to wash feet between supper and communion. But then one guy said if he produced evidence that feet were washed before supper, would they not then comply,to which they agreed. Then they sent testimony which settled the question.  !!??? So, first they decided to wash feet between. Then Roland asked his question, and they agreed. But it did not say that he did produce evidence, and I cannot imagine what it could have been.But it sounds like he did, and they agreed, which means to me that they changed their minds and went for washing before supper and communion. Is this the case? Does the testimony they sent then say they agreed to the before-supper idea? It settled the question, for whom?  Then between 1820 and 26, the big cutoff! Was it Because of their answer? If their "testimony" settled the question, then why were they cut off?    I find it almost incomprehensible that poor hardworking pioneers would pull up stakes and move with great difficulty, over a  minuscule question of the order of activities at their service. Or is this just one of many reasons they move?  After "cutting off" what did they do, religiously, besides moving away? Then in your later message you amaze me when you say that our ancestor Isham himself was cut off much later! Why? for what terrible horrible earthshaking heresy? And what followed that excommunication? This is the first I had heard of my grandfather's grandfather's letter, most curious indeed. Hal Gibson