This is a long e-mail so if you want to "tune out" than I recommend you do so. Thank you one and all for your responses. Each and every point about how things were done in compiling The Brethren Encyclopedia of 1983 were all applicable and valid. It was not that the original editorial staff were incompetent nor that the material they were pulling from was in error that I was commenting on. It was that they did not check the sources right in front of them. As many of you are aware one of the projects which I undertook was to digitally archive the various almanacs and annuals of the church. The annuals were begun by the German Baptist Brethren and continued thus by what we term today the Church of the Brethren after the splits of the early 1880s. It was this publication that continued until 1918 when it became The Yearbook of the Church of the Brethren. The Progressive Brethren, Ashland, began their own similar publication, The Annual, in 1884. I don't recall, and it is not germane to the discussion at hand, if perhaps I am off by a year in that regard and they in fact started their publication in 1883. I have to date digitally archived the various almanacs and at present have in excess of 80 of them processed with others I could do if there were more hours in a day. I am missing some of the earlier ones as well as some of the pre-1900 volumes. My point was that at least in regard to the almanacs, that these resources were utilized in an ad hoc fashion. As I stated earlier, they would pick up John Smith in 1918 and disregard earlier issues which had him living in a different town and state. While at the same time, in the printings of the early 1910s or so, it might list John Smith as being the minister at a particular congregation. When compiling this information, five different residences and the Podunk congregation, they would miss the target let alone the bull's eye. And if it a hundred such I would have understood, but it is far more than just that number. And as I pointed out in my earlier e-mail, how in tarnation could John Smith be shown in the BE as living in Podunk when he actually lived in Smithville as reported in the almanac. Here is how I would have handled it. Have one individual be in charge of the almanacs who would report directly to the editorial bigwigs. That almanac editor would gather together a small group of people who would work under him or her. The almanac editor would compile a list of the almanacs and annuals and have their staff compile a list of such publications at the local repository. This individual would dole out a particular set of publications to each person. They would go through the almanacs available at their local repository and pull each minister or elder and record them on index cards. Once an almanac was so completed, either on paper or on cards, the information would be passed up stream and compiled appropriately. Without the aid of a computer the almanac editor would compile the information into ledgers like we used to do our accounting on. Managing the project in such a manner could easily have been completed in a year. If the almanac editor had half a brain that individual would have picked up the errors in name usage within the almanac and referenced it against other material to rectify the usage of initials versus full names. They would seemingly have picked up the times within the almanacs that an individual was listed in two locations within a year, it did happen, while at a same time those individuals were list as J. Smith for several years while being listed as John Smith in others. And this happened as well. How to rectify John Smith of the almanacs with John Smythe in a district history would have been another matter. Case in point if the Meyer(s) family of Somerset county. Within the Western Pennsylvania district history the Meyers family is listed invariably as Myers. Meanwhile within the Northern Illinois book they are listed as, if I recall correctly, as Meyers which also applies to the Kansas history. To repair this would have been a different matter and would have required differing techniques. And it would not have required access to anything other than a selection of histories which the editor would have required a small regional collection with ad hoc access to other material. Again, it could have been done. Many of you commented on errors within your particular family. And yes you are correct there are errors that have crept into your family, especially with the advent of the Internet. Many, many people on the Internet are using the Brethren Encyclopedia as primary source material which any dedicated historian and researcher is aware should not be treated as such. You are quite correct in that this worthy volume, errors or not, is not a primary source but should be treated as referencing other secondary resources. Yes, some of the material so referenced by the BE can be treated as primary material as pertaining to secular data, but when it comes to family information the references should not be treated as such. It all depends on what the BE referenced source is and a case-by-case instance. The Internet has been great for gaining access to others, but has been a curse in spreading errors. A true double edged sword by all accounts! Unfortunately I cannot comment on how your articles so submitted to the Brethren Encyclopedia were handled. I think, and this is my observation only, that the editorial staff figured that they were the judge and jury on what would be included and what would not and that there was no discussion. If they wanted to merge data from other sources and exclude other information then it was their choice and option with no discussion on the matter. This is how a likely good portion of the errors now spread across the Internet came into existence. Any of you who worked with me while I was editor of Brethren Roots are well aware that I could at times be a tyrant, but in the matter of discussing an article and its merits and editorial consideration I was at all times considerate of the author's requests. My phone bills can account for this. I am constantly amazed at what is available in the various district histories that did not make it into the BE. Whomever was responsible, and I ponder the question of whether any one was assigned it, for Winger's Indiana history struck out each time they came up to bat. There are huge gaps in the BE in regard to Winger's worthy book. Did Winger get it right, no he did not, but we must give a nod to his monumental undertaking and recognize it for what it is; an invaluable secondary or tertiary reference book. We are not hear to discuss the errors within its pages, but that there are huge gaps in the BE in regard to Winger's book. There are ministers and elders within it that never made it into the BE. The Brethren Church, perhaps Ashland to some of you, is by and large a totally different matter. Some of the ministers made it into the BE while some did not. I will not go into any detail other than what my just made statement alludes to, but there is more out there. We have discovered quite a few congregations just from the meager resources we have. One or two of you commented on updates to the BE and I would be remiss if I did not state that my reception with the present editorial staff was similar. Years ago when I started getting really hot and heavy into my German Baptist Brethren research I was dutifully passing along new-found information to Bridgewater, to remain unnamed, in the hopes that it would be recorded as such. After over a hundred, documented by Brethren sources, bits of information were passed along I came to the realization that the present staff have no method in place to record such information. Nether are their plans to release an addendum such as we are discussing. I planned on purchasing the fourth volume, if for no reason other than to complete the set, but decided to pass after caught of its contents. I stopped passing this information along and to be honest I had no method in place to record it myself. Once I turned it over to Bridgewater the "buck got passed." Fortunately I passed along to that great repository, Gale Honeyman, as well. <g> I know just in the short time I have been involved in my efforts I and several others have come up with enough information to rewrite some historical aspects of the BE. Just how you would go about incorporating it I cannot say as I will wholeheartedly agree that it would be a monumental undertaking. I am having enough trouble doing the research and recording it for posterity. I am trying to say that yes, efforts are underway to recompile the ministers. Will it be correct? Unlikely! But does that mean that it should not be attempted. Assuredly not! And as one naysayer said to me recently, what happens when I leave this 'Ol World. I don't know. But yet again, that does not mean I should not try. The thought was recently discussed that once we got near the end of our project, likely to take another two years, to publish a book with our findings. It is unlikely that the newer stuff, ministers after the 1940s or so would be correct and complete, but to not to do so would be a travesty. All I can state about the errors that you may have found within the BE is that if you like you may wish to pass them along to either myself or one of my two compatriots. We will try to accommodate your wishes. I must forewarn you though that if it is not to be found in a documented source special considerations might be needed. Since we are trying to adhere to the same typesetting and documentation standards used for the original BE due credit for the originator is difficult to put in place when appertaining to the ministers and elders. If you have a set of the Brethren Encyclopedias then you know what I am referring to and will recognize that using Mrs. Smith's name within each entry is not usable. So, is the BE infallible? No it is not! But that does not mean that we should not give a nod of thanks to the staff!!! They understood that history was becoming lost and that due honor had not been properly paid to those who came before. This does not mean the effort should have stopped in 1983. Someone else needs to take up the mantle, and so what if it comes from outside of a society. If you as a society are not willing to accept history as it was written because the material is not originated from a differing class, then you are missing the value of what you are shunning and are dying as a society. And I am sure that in thirty years or so someone will be iterating the same comments I have made in regard to the work I have done or hope to do in the future. I have a "little treat" for you. If you would like to read a little article I wrote that never made into the BE send me a PRIVATE e-mail and I will direct you to a little article discussing the White Shoals congregation of south-western Virginia. It differs from the available history. IF the article had appeared in the BE it is likely that it would have been truncated to something totally unrecognizable, but I am writing it to historical standards without regard to how many words it should contain. Lastly, I apologize if one of my phrases within my previous e-mail contained words offensive to some. Perhaps, upon reflection and discussion, the phrase should have been something along the lines of; "Upon Heaven High, What did they do?" Even then perhaps that is a cuss word also. <g> My apologies to those whom this e-mail may be too lengthy, but there was a lot to discuss. Cordially, A. Wayne Webb P.S. And I am of that differing class of society. Yes, I descend from some of the earliest elders, one of the very earliest, but my particular branch of the family went another way. When there is no Brethren church in the region, but there is another with similar religious beliefs, you go that way. Religion of Opportunity! Though there were quite a few Brethren in western German township, Montgomery county, Ohio, they were never formed into a congregation we know of today. The physical congregation I am alluding to appears to at its founding to perhaps have been a Christian church or perhaps a union congregation. We know of several Brethren families, the Frantzes, Murrays, Arnolds, Moyers, and a lot of families from the Carolinas, who were Brethren who lived very close to the house of worship built in 1825. Later these families moved into more recognizable Brethren communities except for my Moyer family. And yes, I agree it was a slap in the face.

I would love to read the article you wrote about the Brethren in SW Virginia. Thank you, Marcia Salvatore ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Wayne Webb" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 8:30 AM Subject: [BRE] The Brethren Encyclopedia of 1982 - #2 > This is a long e-mail so if you want to "tune out" than I recommend you do > so. > > > > Thank you one and all for your responses. Each and every point about how > things were done in compiling The Brethren Encyclopedia of 1983 were all > applicable and valid. It was not that the original editorial staff were > incompetent nor that the material they were pulling from was in error that > I > was commenting on. It was that they did not check the sources right in > front of them. > > > > As many of you are aware one of the projects which I undertook was to > digitally archive the various almanacs and annuals of the church. The > annuals were begun by the German Baptist Brethren and continued thus by > what > we term today the Church of the Brethren after the splits of the early > 1880s. It was this publication that continued until 1918 when it became > The > Yearbook of the Church of the Brethren. The Progressive Brethren, > Ashland, > began their own similar publication, The Annual, in 1884. I don't recall, > and it is not germane to the discussion at hand, if perhaps I am off by a > year in that regard and they in fact started their publication in 1883. I > have to date digitally archived the various almanacs and at present have > in > excess of 80 of them processed with others I could do if there were more > hours in a day. I am missing some of the earlier ones as well as some of > the pre-1900 volumes. > > > > My point was that at least in regard to the almanacs, that these resources > were utilized in an ad hoc fashion. As I stated earlier, they would pick > up > John Smith in 1918 and disregard earlier issues which had him living in a > different town and state. While at the same time, in the printings of the > early 1910s or so, it might list John Smith as being the minister at a > particular congregation. When compiling this information, five different > residences and the Podunk congregation, they would miss the target let > alone > the bull's eye. And if it a hundred such I would have understood, but it > is > far more than just that number. And as I pointed out in my earlier > e-mail, > how in tarnation could John Smith be shown in the BE as living in Podunk > when he actually lived in Smithville as reported in the almanac. > > > > Here is how I would have handled it. Have one individual be in charge of > the almanacs who would report directly to the editorial bigwigs. That > almanac editor would gather together a small group of people who would > work > under him or her. The almanac editor would compile a list of the almanacs > and annuals and have their staff compile a list of such publications at > the > local repository. This individual would dole out a particular set of > publications to each person. They would go through the almanacs available > at their local repository and pull each minister or elder and record them > on > index cards. Once an almanac was so completed, either on paper or on > cards, > the information would be passed up stream and compiled appropriately. > Without the aid of a computer the almanac editor would compile the > information into ledgers like we used to do our accounting on. > > > > Managing the project in such a manner could easily have been completed in > a > year. If the almanac editor had half a brain that individual would have > picked up the errors in name usage within the almanac and referenced it > against other material to rectify the usage of initials versus full names. > They would seemingly have picked up the times within the almanacs that an > individual was listed in two locations within a year, it did happen, while > at a same time those individuals were list as J. Smith for several years > while being listed as John Smith in others. And this happened as well. > > > > How to rectify John Smith of the almanacs with John Smythe in a district > history would have been another matter. Case in point if the Meyer(s) > family of Somerset county. Within the Western Pennsylvania district > history > the Meyers family is listed invariably as Myers. Meanwhile within the > Northern Illinois book they are listed as, if I recall correctly, as > Meyers > which also applies to the Kansas history. To repair this would have been > a > different matter and would have required differing techniques. And it > would > not have required access to anything other than a selection of histories > which the editor would have required a small regional collection with ad > hoc > access to other material. Again, it could have been done. > > > > Many of you commented on errors within your particular family. And yes > you > are correct there are errors that have crept into your family, especially > with the advent of the Internet. Many, many people on the Internet are > using the Brethren Encyclopedia as primary source material which any > dedicated historian and researcher is aware should not be treated as such. > You are quite correct in that this worthy volume, errors or not, is not a > primary source but should be treated as referencing other secondary > resources. Yes, some of the material so referenced by the BE can be > treated > as primary material as pertaining to secular data, but when it comes to > family information the references should not be treated as such. It all > depends on what the BE referenced source is and a case-by-case instance. > The Internet has been great for gaining access to others, but has been a > curse in spreading errors. A true double edged sword by all accounts! > > > > Unfortunately I cannot comment on how your articles so submitted to the > Brethren Encyclopedia were handled. I think, and this is my observation > only, that the editorial staff figured that they were the judge and jury > on > what would be included and what would not and that there was no > discussion. > If they wanted to merge data from other sources and exclude other > information then it was their choice and option with no discussion on the > matter. This is how a likely good portion of the errors now spread across > the Internet came into existence. Any of you who worked with me while I > was > editor of Brethren Roots are well aware that I could at times be a tyrant, > but in the matter of discussing an article and its merits and editorial > consideration I was at all times considerate of the author's requests. My > phone bills can account for this. > > > > I am constantly amazed at what is available in the various district > histories that did not make it into the BE. Whomever was responsible, and > I > ponder the question of whether any one was assigned it, for Winger's > Indiana > history struck out each time they came up to bat. There are huge gaps in > the > BE in regard to Winger's worthy book. Did Winger get it right, no he did > not, but we must give a nod to his monumental undertaking and recognize it > for what it is; an invaluable secondary or tertiary reference book. We > are > not hear to discuss the errors within its pages, but that there are huge > gaps in the BE in regard to Winger's book. There are ministers and elders > within it that never made it into the BE. > > > > The Brethren Church, perhaps Ashland to some of you, is by and large a > totally different matter. Some of the ministers made it into the BE while > some did not. I will not go into any detail other than what my just made > statement alludes to, but there is more out there. We have discovered > quite > a few congregations just from the meager resources we have. > > > > One or two of you commented on updates to the BE and I would be remiss if > I > did not state that my reception with the present editorial staff was > similar. Years ago when I started getting really hot and heavy into my > German Baptist Brethren research I was dutifully passing along new-found > information to Bridgewater, to remain unnamed, in the hopes that it would > be > recorded as such. After over a hundred, documented by Brethren sources, > bits of information were passed along I came to the realization that the > present staff have no method in place to record such information. Nether > are their plans to release an addendum such as we are discussing. I > planned > on purchasing the fourth volume, if for no reason other than to complete > the > set, but decided to pass after caught of its contents. I stopped passing > this information along and to be honest I had no method in place to record > it myself. Once I turned it over to Bridgewater the "buck got passed." > Fortunately I passed along to that great repository, Gale Honeyman, as > well. > <g> > > > > I know just in the short time I have been involved in my efforts I and > several others have come up with enough information to rewrite some > historical aspects of the BE. Just how you would go about incorporating > it > I cannot say as I will wholeheartedly agree that it would be a monumental > undertaking. I am having enough trouble doing the research and recording > it > for posterity. I am trying to say that yes, efforts are underway to > recompile the ministers. Will it be correct? Unlikely! But does that > mean > that it should not be attempted. Assuredly not! And as one naysayer said > to me recently, what happens when I leave this 'Ol World. I don't know. > But yet again, that does not mean I should not try. The thought was > recently discussed that once we got near the end of our project, likely to > take another two years, to publish a book with our findings. It is > unlikely > that the newer stuff, ministers after the 1940s or so would be correct and > complete, but to not to do so would be a travesty. > > > > All I can state about the errors that you may have found within the BE is > that if you like you may wish to pass them along to either myself or one > of > my two compatriots. We will try to accommodate your wishes. I must > forewarn you though that if it is not to be found in a documented source > special considerations might be needed. Since we are trying to adhere to > the same typesetting and documentation standards used for the original BE > due credit for the originator is difficult to put in place when > appertaining > to the ministers and elders. If you have a set of the Brethren > Encyclopedias then you know what I am referring to and will recognize that > using Mrs. Smith's name within each entry is not usable. > > > > So, is the BE infallible? No it is not! But that does not mean that we > should not give a nod of thanks to the staff!!! They understood that > history was becoming lost and that due honor had not been properly paid to > those who came before. This does not mean the effort should have stopped > in > 1983. Someone else needs to take up the mantle, and so what if it comes > from outside of a society. If you as a society are not willing to accept > history as it was written because the material is not originated from a > differing class, then you are missing the value of what you are shunning > and > are dying as a society. And I am sure that in thirty years or so someone > will be iterating the same comments I have made in regard to the work I > have > done or hope to do in the future. > > > > I have a "little treat" for you. If you would like to read a little > article > I wrote that never made into the BE send me a PRIVATE e-mail and I will > direct you to a little article discussing the White Shoals congregation of > south-western Virginia. It differs from the available history. IF the > article had appeared in the BE it is likely that it would have been > truncated to something totally unrecognizable, but I am writing it to > historical standards without regard to how many words it should contain. > > > > Lastly, I apologize if one of my phrases within my previous e-mail > contained > words offensive to some. Perhaps, upon reflection and discussion, the > phrase should have been something along the lines of; "Upon Heaven High, > What did they do?" Even then perhaps that is a cuss word also. <g> My > apologies to those whom this e-mail may be too lengthy, but there was a > lot > to discuss. > > > > Cordially, > > A. Wayne Webb > > > > P.S. And I am of that differing class of society. Yes, I descend from > some > of the earliest elders, one of the very earliest, but my particular branch > of the family went another way. When there is no Brethren church in the > region, but there is another with similar religious beliefs, you go that > way. Religion of Opportunity! Though there were quite a few Brethren in > western German township, Montgomery county, Ohio, they were never formed > into a congregation we know of today. The physical congregation I am > alluding to appears to at its founding to perhaps have been a Christian > church or perhaps a union congregation. We know of several Brethren > families, the Frantzes, Murrays, Arnolds, Moyers, and a lot of families > from > the Carolinas, who were Brethren who lived very close to the house of > worship built in 1825. Later these families moved into more recognizable > Brethren communities except for my Moyer family. > > > > And yes, I agree it was a slap in the face. > > > > > ------------------------ > Search the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/BRETHREN > ------------------------ > Support Our Sponsoring Agency > The Fellowship Of Brethren Genealogists (FOBG) > For further information contact Ron McAdams mailto:[email protected] > ------------------------ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I don't comment a whole lot on this board, just gather information...intelligence! When I found my birth family in 1993, I was adopted in 1960, I turned to the BE as a resource for my genealogy. I was not raised Brethren, knew no one who was Brethren, and had no Brethren church closely available to answer my questions. The BE was it. Yes, I found quite a few mistakes, but, with further research I was able to reconcile those errors and cite them as well. To me, this compendium of information was invaluable. If there is time and resources available to correct this massive research before the next printing, I would like to see it done. However, it will be a monumental task for any group of volunteers to do. I wish whomever does it many blessings in this task. I have but two wishes for the BE: 1) that it continue in publication (hopefully with errors corrected), and 2) that it go digital (CD format). Although I love to have a book in my hand, a CD format would be so much more practical, and more portable, for some of us (especially at reunions). Just my quarter's worth, Blessings all, Janet Rogers