On this day August 16, 2025, I John Presco, found…
The New Puritan Church of America
On August 16, Putin recited American History, in regards to Russia coming here and exploiting furs. Putin mentioned Russian Orthodox churches being built in the land that became the home of Puritan Pioneers. One of them was my tenth grandfather, John Wilson who was the head of the Massachusetts Bay Company. Upon landing, a Religious Oath was made.
“Wilson was an early member of the Massachusetts Bay Company, and accompanied John Winthrop and the Winthrop Fleet to New England in 1630. As soon as they arrived, he, with Governor Winthrop, Thomas Dudley, and Isaac Johnson, entered into a formal and solemn covenant with each other to walk together in the fellowship of the gospel.[7] “
Zionist Jews in Israel hate Reformed Judaism that was founded in America. They slander these Jews by calling them “Christians”. These same Zionists are silent about our President going after Harvard, that was founded by the Puritans that surrounded John Wilson. Below is an article written by a Jew that compares the Puritan religion to Judaism. The Jews wanted to colonize Baja California, and have no interest in colonizing Palestine. Here is my point…..
Russia and Isrel are at war with their neighbors, and are MURDERING CHILDREN AND UNARMED WOMEN. Most ot the world want this
TO STOP…………………TODAY!
Yesterday I made another amazing discovery about the Knights Templar – that I am reluctant to post on, because some people are not honoring my SPECIAL COPYRIGHT that is given to Ministers so their sermons, and religious papers and notes can be protected.
In the wholesale slaughter and starvation of citizens, we see Religious People have found permission from God/Allah to do this. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have always gone after the
EASY UNDERDOG
Today, the Gays, and Freed Slaves are EASY TARGETS, and are used as Human Ladders for the Self-Righteous to climb on, in their murderous need to go the heaven – or wherever! To see elected leaders of this Democracy, gleefully subscribing to this Pure Evil, let me point out the Evil Book written by Martin Luther the founder of the Reformed Church, that waged hundreds of years worth of warfare with the Catholics, in order to decide who was..
THE TRUE HERETIC!
Enough!
John Presco
‘Founder of the New Puritan Church’
In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare to Protestants and Protestant Christianity. Following the exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Protestants to carry out seven remedial actions, namely:[12]
- to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them
- to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians
- to take away Jewish religious writings
- to forbid rabbis from preaching
- to offer no protection to Jews on highways
- for usury to be prohibited and for all Jews’ silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping, and given back to Jews who truly convert
- to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, and spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow
At times the book gives the impression that except for a mistaken assessment of its agricultural potentialities by certain Territor-ialist leaders (i.e., that it was too arid), Baja California might well have become a New World Israel. Stern quotes David Lubin, a Sacramento merchant: “Why could not some arrangements be made with the Mexican Government for the sale of Lower California, so as to form there an autonomous Jewish State under the joint protectorate of the United States and Mexico?”
There are other aspects of Puritan theology that should be of interest to Jews. Like Protestants, Puritans believed in sola scriptura, that scripture is the sole basis of all truth. This belief constitutes a rejection of Catholic papal hierarchies, ceremonies and traditions that have no basis in scripture. Sola scriptura also rejects the Catholic Church’s interpretive authority and instead advocates for understanding the biblical text on the simple, literal level. If this sounds familiar, you’re probably thinking of a similar phenomenon in Jewish history: the medieval Karaim (Karaites), or the earlier Tzedukim (Sadducees) who rejected the Torah she-b’al peh (Oral Law) of traditional rabbis, often referred to as the Perushim (Pharisees).
In Open Letter, More Than 360 Academics Blast Cancellation of Harvard Educational Review Issue on Palestine
The Harvard Education Publishign Group is affiliated with the Harvard Gradaute School of Education. By Sarah G. Erickson
By William C. Mao and Veronica H. Paulus, Crimson Staff Writers
Yesterday
More than 360 academics from universities worldwide signed an open letter blasting a Harvard publishing group for abruptly canceling a special issue about Palestine and education — and urged the publisher to publicly acknowledge the decision as “anti-Palestinian discrimination.”
The letter landed two months after the Harvard Education Publishing Group canceled the journal issue, citing “copy-editing issues” and disagreements between editors and the publisher. But editors at the journal, the Harvard Educational Review, and the letter’s signatories alleged that HEPG rejected the issue because of its focus on Palestine and that the move amounted to censorship.
From 1732 to 1867, the Russian Empire laid claim to northern Pacific Coast territories in the Americas. Russian colonial possessions in the Americas were collectively known as Russian America from 1799 to 1867. It consisted mostly of present-day Alaska in the United States, but also included the outpost of Fort Ross in California. Russian Creole settlements were concentrated in Alaska, including the capital, New Archangel (Novo-Arkhangelsk), which is now Sitka.
Russian expansion eastward began in 1552, and Russian explorers reached the Pacific Ocean in 1639. In 1725, Emperor Peter the Great ordered navigator Vitus Bering to explore the North Pacific for potential colonization. The Russians were primarily interested in the abundance of fur-bearing mammals on Alaska’s coast, as stocks had been depleted by overhunting in Siberia. Bering’s first voyage was foiled by thick fog and ice, but in 1741 a second voyage by Bering and Aleksei Chirikov discovered part of the North American mainland. Bering claimed the Alaskan country for the Russian Empire.[1] Russia later confirmed its rule over the territory with the Ukase of 1799 which established the southern border of Russian America along the 55th parallel north.[2] The decree also provided monopolistic privileges to the state-sponsored Russian-American Company (RAC) and established the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska.
Russian promyshlenniki (trappers and hunters) quickly developed the maritime fur trade, which instigated several conflicts between the Aleuts and Russians in the 1760s. The fur trade proved to be a lucrative enterprise, capturing the attention of other European nations. In response to potential competitors, the Russians extended their claims eastward from the Commander Islands to the shores of Alaska. In 1784, with encouragement from Empress Catherine the Great, explorer Grigory Shelekhov founded Russia’s first permanent settlement in Alaska at Three Saints Bay. Ten years later, the first group of Orthodox Christian missionaries arrived, evangelizing thousands of Native Americans, many of whose descendants continue to maintain the religion.[3] By the late 1780s, trade relations had opened with the Tlingits, and in 1799 the RAC was formed to monopolize the fur trade, also serving as an imperialist vehicle for the Russification of Alaska Natives.
Angered by encroachment on their land and other grievances, the indigenous peoples’ relations with the Russians deteriorated. In 1802, Tlingit warriors destroyed several Russian settlements, most notably Redoubt Saint Michael (Old Sitka), leaving New Russia as the only remaining outpost on mainland Alaska. This failed to expel the Russians, who re-established their presence two years later following the Battle of Sitka. Peace negotiations between the Russians and Native Americans would later establish a modus vivendi, a situation that, with few interruptions, lasted for the duration of Russian presence in Alaska. In 1808, Redoubt Saint Michael was rebuilt as New Archangel and became the capital of Russian America after the previous colonial headquarters were moved from Kodiak. A year later, the RAC began expanding its operations to more abundant sea otter grounds in Northern California, where Fort Ross was built in 1812.
By the middle of the 19th century, profits from Russia’s North American colonies were in steep decline. Competition with the British Hudson’s Bay Company had brought the sea otter to near extinction, while the population of bears, wolves, and foxes on land was also nearing depletion. Faced with the reality of periodic Native American revolts, the political ramifications of the Crimean War, and the inability to fully colonize the Americas to their satisfaction, the Russians concluded that their North American colonies were too expensive to retain. Eager to release themselves of the burden, the Russians sold Fort Ross in 1841, and in 1867, after less than a month of negotiations, the United States accepted Emperor Alexander II‘s offer to sell Alaska. The Alaska Purchase for $7.2 million (equivalent to $162 million in 2024) ended Imperial Russia’s colonial presence in the Americas.
John Wilson (c. 1588 – 1667) was a Puritan clergyman in Boston in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the minister of the First Church of Boston from its beginnings in Charlestown in 1630 until his death in 1667. He is most noted for being a minister at odds with Anne Hutchinson during the Antinomian Controversy from 1636 to 1638, and for being an attending minister during the execution of Mary Dyer in 1660.
Born into a prominent English family from Sudbury in Suffolk, his father was the chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and thus held a high position in the Anglican Church. Young Wilson was sent to school at Eton for four years, and then attended the university at King’s College, Cambridge, where he received his B.A. in 1610. From there he studied law briefly, and then studied at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he received an M.A. in 1613. Following his ordination, he was the chaplain for some prominent families for a few years, before being installed as pastor in his home town of Sudbury. Over the next ten years, he was dismissed and then reinstated on several occasions, because of his strong Puritan sentiments which contradicted the practices of the established church.
As with many other Puritan divines, Wilson came to New England, and sailed with his friend John Winthrop and the Winthrop Fleet in 1630. He was the first minister of the settlers, who established themselves in Charlestown, but soon crossed the Charles River into Boston. Wilson was an encouragement to the early settlers during the very trying initial years of colonization. He made two return trips to England during his early days in Boston, the first time to persuade his wife to come, after she initially refused to make the trip, and the second time to transact some business. Upon his second return to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635, Anne Hutchinson was first exposed to his preaching, and found an unhappy difference between his theology and that of her mentor, John Cotton, who was the other Boston minister. The theologically astute, sharp-minded, and outspoken Hutchinson, who had been hosting large groups of followers in her home, began to criticize Wilson, and the divide erupted into the Antinomian Controversy. Hutchinson was eventually tried and banished from the colony, as was her brother-in-law, Reverend John Wheelwright.
Following the controversy, Wilson and Cotton were able to work together to heal the divisions within the Boston church, but after Cotton’s death, more controversy befell Boston as the Quakers began to infiltrate the orthodox colony with their evangelists. Greatly opposed to their theology, Wilson supported the actions taken against them, and supervised the execution of his former parishioner, Mary Dyer in 1660. He died in 1667.
Early life
John Wilson was born in Windsor, Berkshire, England about 1588,[1] the son of the Reverend William Wilson (1542–1615). John’s father, originally of Sudbury in Suffolk,[2][3] was a chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Edmund Grindal.[4] His father was also a prebend of St Paul’s in London, a minister in Rochester, Kent, and a rector of the parish of Cliffe, Kent.[3] Wilson’s mother was Isabel Woodhull, the daughter of John Woodhull and Elizabeth Grindal, and a niece of Archbishop Grindal.[5][6] According to Wilson’s biographer, A. W. M’Clure, Archbishop Grindal favored the Puritans to the extent of his power, to the displeasure of Queen Elizabeth.[3]
Wilson was first formally educated at Eton College, where he spent four years, and at one time was chosen to speak a Latin oration during the visit of the duc de Biron, ambassador from the court of Henry IV of France.[7] The duke then gave him a special gift of a gold coin called “three angels”, worth about ten shillings.[6][1] On 23 August 1605, at the age of 14, Wilson was admitted to King’s College, Cambridge.[2] While there he was initially prejudiced against the Puritans, but changed his stance after reading Richard Rogers’ Seven Treatises (1604), and he subsequently traveled to Dedham to hear Rogers preach.[4][6] He and other like-minded students frequently met to discuss theology, and he also regularly visited prisons to minister to the inmates.[8] He received his B.A. from King’s College in 1609/10,[2] then studied law for a year at the Inns of Court in London.[9] He next attended Emmanuel College, Cambridge, noted for its Puritan advocacy, where he received his M.A. in 1613.[2][9] While at Emmanuel, he likely formed a friendship with future New England divines, John Cotton and Thomas Hooker.[9] He was probably soon ordained as a minister in the Anglican Church, but records of this event are not extant.[2]
In 1615 Wilson visited his dying father, who had these parting words for his son: “while thou wast at the university, because thou wouldst not conform, I fain would have brought thee to some higher preferment; but I see thy conscience is very scrupulous about somethings imposed in the church. Nevertheless, I have rejoiced to see the grace and fear of God in thy heart; and seeing thou hast hitherto maintained a good conscience, and walked according to thy light, do so still. Go by the rule of God’s holy word, and the Lord bless thee.”[10]
Wilson preached for three years as the chaplain to several respectful families in Suffolk, one of them being the family of the Countess of Leicester. It was to her that he later dedicated his only book, Some Helps to Faith…, published in 1630.[11] In time he was offered, and accepted, the position of minister at Sudbury, from where his family had originated.[7] While there he met John Winthrop, and likely supported Winthrop’s unsuccessful 1626 bid to become a member of Parliament.[9] Wilson was suspended and then restored several times as minister, the issue being nonconformity (Puritan leanings) with the established practices of the Anglican Church.[7] Like many Puritans, he began turning his thoughts toward New England.
Massachusetts
Wilson was an early member of the Massachusetts Bay Company, and accompanied John Winthrop and the Winthrop Fleet to New England in 1630. As soon as they arrived, he, with Governor Winthrop, Thomas Dudley, and Isaac Johnson, entered into a formal and solemn covenant with each other to walk together in the fellowship of the gospel.[7] Life was harsh in the new wilderness, and Plymouth historian Nathaniel Morton said that Wilson “bare a great share of the difficulties of these new beginnings with great cheerfulness and alacrity of spirit.”[12] Wilson was chosen the pastor of their first church in Charlestown, being installed as teacher there on 27 August 1630,[6] and in the same month the General Court ordered that a dwelling-house should be built for him at the public expense, and the governor and Sir Richard Saltonstall were appointed to put this into effect. By the same authority it was also ordered, that Wilson’s salary, until the arrival of his wife, should be 20 pounds a year.[7] After the Charlestown church was established, most of its members moved across the Charles River to Boston, after which services were held alternately on each side of the river, and then later only in Boston.[13]
Well before leaving England, Wilson was married to Elizabeth Mansfield, the daughter of Sir John Mansfield, and had at least two children born in England, but his wife had initially refused to come to New England with him.[2] Her refusal was the subject of several letters sent from John Winthrop’s wife, Margaret, to her son John Winthrop Jr., in May 1631.[14] Wilson then made a trip back to England from 1631 to 1632. Though his biographer, in 1870, stated that she still did not come back to New England with Wilson until 1635, Anderson in 1995 pointed out that the couple had a child baptized in Boston in 1633; therefore she had to have come with Wilson during this earlier trip.[14][15]
On 2 July 1632 Wilson was admitted as a freeman of the colony, and later the same month the first meeting house was built in Boston. For this and Wilson’s parsonage, the congregation made a voluntary contribution of 120 pounds.[16] On 25 October 1632 Wilson, with Governor Winthrop and a few other men, set out on a friendly visit to Plymouth where they were hospitably received. They held a worship service on the Sabbath, and that same afternoon they met again, and engaged in a discussion centered around a question posed by the Plymouth teacher, Roger Williams. William Bradford, the Plymouth governor, and William Brewster, the ruling elder, spoke, after which Governor Winthrop and Wilson were invited to speak. The Boston men returned the following Wednesday, with Winthrop riding Governor Bradford’s horse.[17]
On 23 November, Wilson, who had previously been ordained teacher, was installed as minister of the First Church of Boston.[2][17] In 1633 the church at Boston received another minister, when John Cotton arrived and was installed as teacher.[18] In November 1633 Wilson made one of his many visits outside Boston, and went to Agawam (later Ipswich), since the settlers there did not yet have a minister.[19] He also visited the natives, tending to their sick, and instructing others who were capable of understanding him. In this regard he became the first Protestant missionary to the North American native people, a work later to be carried on with much success by Reverend John Eliot.[19] Closer to home, Wilson sometimes led groups of Christians, including magistrates and other ministers, to the church lectures in nearby towns, sharing his “heavenly discourse” during the trip.[20]
In late 1634, Wilson made his final trip to England, leaving the ministry of the Boston Church in the hands of his co-pastor, John Cotton, and traveling with John Winthrop Jr.[21] While returning to England he had a harrowing experience off the coast of Ireland during some violent winter weather, and though other ships perished, his landed. During his journey across Ireland and England, Wilson was able to minister to many people, and tell them about New England. In his journal, John Winthrop noted that while in Ireland, Wilson “gave much satisfaction to the Christians there about New England.”[22] Leaving England for the final time on 10 August 1635, Wilson arrived back in New England on the third of October.[23] Soon after his return, M’Clure writes, “the Antinomian Controversy broke out and raged for two…years and with a fury that threatened the destruction of his church.”[24]
Antinomian Controversy
Main article: Antinomian Controversy
Wilson first became acquainted with Anne Hutchinson when in 1634, as the minister of the Boston Church, he was notified of some heterodox views that she revealed while en route to New England on the ship Griffin. A minister aboard the ship was questioned by her in such a way as to cause him some alarm, and word was sent to Wilson. In conference with his co-minister in Boston, the Reverend John Cotton, Hutchinson was examined, and deemed suitable for church membership, though admitted a week later than her husband because of initial uncertainty.[25]
When Wilson returned from his England trip in 1635, he was accompanied aboard the ship Abigail by two other people who would play a role in the religious controversy to come. One of these was the Reverend Hugh Peter, who became the minister in Salem, and the other was a young aristocrat, Henry Vane, who soon became the governor of the colony.[26]
In the pulpit, Wilson was said to have a voice that was harsh and indistinct and his demeanor was directed at strict discipline, but he had a penchant for rhymes, and would frequently engage in word play.[27] He was unpopular during his early days of preaching in Boston, partly attributable to his strictness in teaching, and partly from his violent and arbitrary manner.[28] His gruff style was further highlighted by the mild qualities of John Cotton, with whom he shared the church’s ministry. When Wilson returned to Boston in 1635, Hutchinson was exposed to his teaching for the first time, and immediately saw a big difference between her own doctrines and his.[28] She found his emphasis on morality, and his doctrine of “evidencing justification by sanctification” (a covenant of works) to be repugnant, and she told her followers that Wilson lacked “the seal of the Spirit.”[28] Wilson’s doctrines were shared with all of the other ministers in the colony, except for Cotton, and the Boston congregation had grown accustomed to Cotton’s lack of emphasis on preparation “in favor of stressing the inevitability of God’s will.”[29] The positions of Cotton and Wilson were matters of emphasis, and neither minister believed that works could help to save a person.[29] It is likely that most members of the Boston church could not see much difference between the doctrines of the two men, but the astute Hutchinson could, prompting her to criticize Wilson at her home gatherings.[29] Probably in early 1636 he became aware of divisions within his own Boston congregation, and soon came to realize that Hutchinson’s views were widely divergent from those of the orthodox clergy in the colony.[30]
Wilson said nothing of his discovery, but instead preached his covenant of works even more vehemently.[31] As soon as Winthrop became aware of what was happening, he made an entry in his journal about Hutchinson, who did “meddle in such things as are proper for men, whose minds are stronger.”[32] He also noted the 1636 arrival in the colony of Hutchinson’s in-law who became an ally in religious opinion: “There joined with her in these opinions a brother of hers, one Mr. Wheelwright, a silenced minister sometimes in England.”[33]
Meetings of the ministers
In October 1636 the ministers, realizing that a theological tempest was forming in the colony, decided to get to the heart of the issue, and held a series of meetings, which also included Hutchinson and some of the magistrates.[34] In order to deal with the theological errors of the Hutchinson group, the ministers first had to come to a consensus about their own positions, and this they were unable to do. Hutchinson’s followers used this impasse to attempt to have Wheelwright appointed as another minister to the Boston church, an expression of their dissatisfaction with Wilson. Winthrop came to Wilson’s rescue, as an elder in the church, by invoking a ruling requiring unanimity in a church vote, and was thus able to forestall Wheelwright’s appointment there. Instead, Wheelwright was sent about ten miles south to Mount Wollaston to preach.[35]
As the meetings continued into December 1636, the theological debate escalated. Wilson delivered “a very sad speech of the condition of our churches,” insinuating that Cotton, his fellow Boston minister, was partly responsible for the dissension.[36] Wilson’s speech was moved to represent the sense of the meeting, and was approved by all of the ministers and magistrates present with the notable exceptions of Governor Vane, Reverend Cotton, Reverend Wheelwright, and two strong supporters of Hutchinson, William Coddington and Richard Dummer.[37]
Cotton, normally of a very placid disposition, was indignant over the proceedings and lead a delegation to admonish Wilson for his uncharitable insinuations.[37] On Saturday, 31 December 1636, the Boston congregants met to prefer charges against Wilson. Governor Vane launched the attack, and was joined by other members of the congregation.[37] Wilson met the onslaught with a quiet dignity, and responded soberly to each of the accusations brought against him.[38] The crowd refused to accept his excuses, and demanded a vote of censure. At this point Cotton intervened, and with more restraint than his parishioners, offered that without unanimity a vote of censure was out of order.[38] While the ultimate indignity of censure was averted, Cotton nevertheless gave a grave exhortation to his colleague to allay the temper of the congregants.[38] The next day Wilson preached such a conciliatory sermon that even Governor Vane rose and voiced his approval.[38]
“Dung cast on their faces”
The Boston congregants, followers of Hutchinson, were now emboldened to seize the offensive and discredit the orthodox doctrines at services throughout the colony. The saddened Winthrop lamented, “Now the faithfull Ministers of Christ must have dung cast on their faces, and be not better than legall Preachers.”[39] As Hutchinson’s followers attacked ministers with questions calculated to diminish confidence in their teachings, Winthrop continued his lament, “so many objections made by the opinionists…against our doctrine delivered, if it suited not their new fancies.”[38] When Wilson rose to preach or pray, the Hutchinsonians boldly rose and walked out of the meeting house. While Wilson was the favorite butt of this abuse, it was not restricted just to the Boston church, and similar gestures were being made toward the other ministers who preached a covenant of works.[40]
In hopes of bringing the mounting crisis under control, the General Court called for a day of fasting and repentance to be held on Thursday, 19 January 1637. During the Boston church service held that day, Cotton invited Wheelwright to come forward and deliver a sermon. Instead of the hoped-for peace, the opposite transpired. In the sermon Wheelwright stated that those who taught a covenant of works were Antichrists, and all the ministers besides Cotton saw this as being directed at them, though Wheelwright later denied this.[41] During a meeting of the General Court in March Wheelwright was questioned at length, and ultimately charged with sedition, though not sentenced.[42]
Election of May 1637
The religious division had by now become a political issue, resulting in great excitement during the elections of May 1637. The orthodox party of the majority of magistrates and ministers maneuvered to have the elections moved from Boston to Newtown (later Cambridge) where the Hutchinsonians would have less support. The Boston supporters of Hutchinson wanted a petition to be read before the election, but the orthodox party insisted on holding the election first. Tempers flared, and bitter words gave way to blows as zealots on both sides clamored to have their opinions heard.[43] During the excitement, Reverend Wilson was lifted up into a tree, and he bellowed to the crowd below, imploring them to look at their charter, to which a cry went out for the election to take place.[43] The crowd then divided, with a majority going to one end of the common to hold the election, leaving the Boston faction in the minority by themselves. Seeing the futility of resisting further, the Boston group joined in the election.[44]
The election was a sweeping victory for the orthodox party, with Henry Vane replaced by Winthrop as governor, and Hutchinson supporters William Coddington and Richard Dummer losing their positions as magistrates.[45] Soon after the election, Wilson volunteered to be the minister of a military unit that went to Connecticut to settle the conflict with the Pequot Indians. When he returned to Boston on 5 August, two days after Vane boarded a ship for England, never to return, Wilson was summoned to take part in a synod of all the colony’s ministers.[46] Many theological issues needed to be put to rest, and new issues that arose during the course of the controversy had to be dealt with.[47]
Trials of Hutchinson
By late 1637, the conclusion of the controversy was beginning to take shape. During the court held in early November, Wheelwright was finally sentenced to banishment, the delay caused by the hopes that he would, at some point, recant. On 7 November the trial of Anne Hutchinson began, and Wilson was there with most of the other ministers in the colony, though his role was somewhat restrained.[48] During the second day of the trial, when things seemed to be going in her favor, Hutchinson insisted on making a statement, admitting that her knowledge of things had come from a divine inspiration, prophesying her deliverance from the proceedings, and announcing that a curse would befall the colony. This was all that her judges needed to hear, and she was accused of heresy and sentenced to banishment, though she would be held in detention for four months, awaiting a trial by the clergy.[49] While no statements made by Wilson were recorded in either existing transcript of this trial, Wilson did make a speech against Hutchinson at the end of the proceedings, to which Hutchinson responded with anger four months later during her church trial.[50]
Her church trial took place at the Boston meeting house on two consecutive Thursdays in March 1638. Hutchinson was accused of numerous theological errors of which only four were covered during the first day, so the trial was scheduled to continue the following week, when Wilson took an active part in the proceedings. During this second day of interrogation a week later, Hutchinson read a carefully written recantation of her theological errors. Had the trial ended there, she would have likely remained in communion with the church, with the possibility of even returning there some day.[51] Wilson, however, did not accept this recantation, and he re-opened a line of questioning from the previous week. With this, a new onslaught began, and when later given the opportunity, Wilson said, “[The root of]… your errors…is the slightinge of Gods faythfull Ministers and contenminge and cryinge down them as Nobodies.”[52] Hugh Peter chimed in, followed by Thomas Shepard, and then Wilson spoke again, “I cannot but reverence and adore the wise hand of God…in leavinge our sister to pride and Lyinge.”[52] Then John Eliot made his statement, and Wilson resumed, “Consider how we cane…longer suffer her to goe on still in seducinge to seduce, and in deacevinge to deaceve, and in lyinge to lye!”[52]
As the battering continued, even Cotton chided her, and while concerns from the congregation brought pause to the ministers, the momentum still remained with them. When the final points of order were addressed, it was left to Wilson to deliver the final blow: “The Church consentinge to it we will proced to excommunication.”[53] He then continued, “Forasmuch as you, Mrs. Hutchinson, have highly transgressed and offended…and troubled the Church with your Errors and have drawen away many a poor soule, and have upheld your Revelations; and forasmuch as you have made a Lye…Therefor in the name of our Lord Je[sus] Ch[rist]…I doe cast you out and…deliver you up to Sathan…and account you from this time forth to be a Hethen and a Publican…I command you in the name of Ch[rist] Je[sus] and of this Church as a Leper to withdraw your selfe out of the Congregation.”[53]
Later years
Hutchinson left the colony within a week of her excommunication, and following this conclusion of the Antinomian Controversy, Wilson worked with Cotton to reunite the Boston church.[9] Following Cotton’s death in 1652, his position was filled, following four years of campaigning, by John Norton from Ipswich. Norton held this position until his death in 1663.[54]
Wilson was an early advocate of the conversion of Indians to Christianity, and acted on this belief by taking the orphaned son of Wonohaquaham, a local sagamore into his home to educate.[9] In 1647 he visited the “praying Indians” of Nonantum, and noticed that they had built a house of worship that Wilson described as appearing “like the workmanship of an English housewright.”[55] During the 1650s and 1660s, in order to boost declining membership in the Boston church, Wilson supported a ruling known as the Half-Way Covenant, allowing parishioners to be brought into the church without having had a conversion experience.[9]
In 1656, Wilson and John Norton were the two ministers of the Boston church when the widow Ann Hibbins was convicted of witchcraft by the General Court and executed in Boston. Hibbins’ husband died in 1654, and the unhappy widow was first tried the next year following complaints of her neighbors about her behavior. Details of the event are lacking, because the great Boston journalist, John Winthrop was dead, and the next generations of note takers, Increase Mather and Cotton Mather had not yet emerged. A 1684 letter, however, survives, written by a Reverend Beach in Jamaica to Increase Mather in New England. In the letter Beach stated that he, Wilson and others were guests at Norton’s table when Norton made the statement that the only reason Hibbins was executed was because she had more wit than her neighbors, thus implying her innocence. The sentiments of Wilson are not specifically expressed in the letter, though several writers have inferred that his sentiments were the same as Norton’s.[56]
Execution of Mary Dyer
Main articles: Mary Dyer and Boston martyrs
In the 1650s Quaker missionaries began filtering into the Massachusetts Bay Colony, mostly from Rhode Island, creating alarm among the colony’s magistrates and ministers, including Wilson.[9] In 1870, M’Clure wrote that Wilson “blended an intense love of truth with as intense a hatred of error”, referring to the Quakers’ marked diversion from Puritan orthodoxy.[57]
On 27 October 1659 three Quakers—Marmaduke Stevenson, William Robinson and Mary Dyer—were led to the Boston gallows from the prison where they had been recently held for their Quaker evangelism, against which Massachusetts had enacted very strict laws. Wilson, now nearly 70, as pastor of the Boston church was on hand as the supervising minister. As the two Quaker men first approached the gallows, wearing hats, Wilson said to Robinson, “Shall such jacks as you come in before authority with your hats on?”[58] Ignoring the barb, Robinson then let forth a barrage of words, to which Wilson angrily responded, “Hold thy tongue, be silent; thou art going to die with a lie in your mouth.”[59] The two Quaker men were then hanged, after which it was Dyer’s turn to ascend the ladder. As the noose was fastened about her neck, and her face covered, a young man came running and shouting, wielding a document which he waved before the authorities. Governor Endecott had stayed her execution.[60] After the two executions had taken place, Wilson was said to have written a ballad about the event, which was sung by young men around Boston.[61]
Not willing to let public sentiment over the executions subside, Dyer knew that she had to go through with her martyrdom. After the winter she returned to the Bay Colony in May 1660, and was immediately arrested. On the 31st of the month she was brought before Endecott, who questioned her briefly, and then pronounced her execution for the following day. On 1 June, Dyer was once again led to the gallows, and while standing at the hanging tree for the final time, Wilson, who had received her into the Boston church 24 years earlier and had baptized her son Samuel, called to her. His words were, “Mary Dyer, O repent, O repent, and be not so deluded and carried away by deceit of the devil.”[62] Her reply was, “Nay, man, I am not now to repent.”[62] With these final words, the ladder was kicked away, and she died when her neck snapped.[62]
Death and legacy
Wilson’s final years were marked by a prolonged illness.[63] In his will, dated 31 May 1667, Wilson remembered a large number of people, among them being several of the local ministers, including Richard Mather of Dorchester and Thomas Shepard Jr. of Charlestown.[64] He died on 7 August 1667, and his son-in-law Samuel Danforth wrote, “About two of the clock in the morning, my honored Father, Mr. John Wilson, Pastor to the church of Boston, aged about 78 years and an half, a man eminent in faith, love, humility, self-denial, prayer, sound[n]ess of mind, zeal for God, liberality to all men, esp[ecial]ly to the s[ain]ts & ministers of Christ, rested from his labors & sorrows, beloved & lamented of all, and very honorably interred the day following.”[14] His funeral sermon was preached by local divine, Increase Mather.[6]
Wilson was notable for making anagrams based on the names of his friends and acquaintances. M’Clure described them as numerous and nimble, and if not exact, they were always instructive, and he would rather force a poor match than lose the moral.[65] An anecdote given by Wilson biographer M’Clure, whether true or not, points to the character of Wilson: a person met Wilson returning from a journey and remarked, “Sir, I have sad news for you: while you have been abroad, your house is burnt.” To this Wilson is reputed to have replied, “Blessed be God! He has burnt this house, because he intends to give me a better.”[66]
In 1809 historian John Eliot called Wilson affable in speech, but condescending in his deportment.[6] An early mentor of his, Dr. William Ames, wrote, “that if he might have his option of the best condition this side of heaven, it would be [to be] the teacher of a congregational church of which Mr. Wilson was pastor.”[6] Plymouth historian Nathaniel Morton called him “eminent for love and zeal” and M’Clure wrote that his unfeigning modesty was excessive.[12] In this vein, M’Clure wrote that Wilson refused to ever sit for a portrait and his response to those who suggested he do so was “What! Such a poor vile creature as I am! Shall my picture be drawn? I say No; it never shall.”[67] M’Clure then suggested that the line drawing of Wilson in the Massachusetts Historical Society was made after his death.[67] Cotton Mather, the noted Puritan who was a grandson of both Richard Mather and John Cotton wrote of Wilson, “If the picture of this good, and therein great man, were to be exactly given, great zeal, with great love, would be the two principal strokes that, joined with orthodoxy, should make up his portraiture.”[67]
Family
Wilson’s wife, Elizabeth, was a sister of Anne Mansfield, the wife of the wealthy Captain Robert Keayne of Boston, who made a bequest to Elizabeth in his 1656 will.[22] With his wife, Wilson had four known children, the oldest of whom, Edmund, returned to England, married, and had children. Their next child, John Jr., attended Harvard College in 1642 and married Sarah Hooker, the daughter of the Reverend Thomas Hooker. The Wilsons then had two daughters, the older of whom, Elizabeth, married Reverend Ezekiel Rogers of Rowley, and then died while pregnant with their first child.[22] The younger daughter, Mary, who was born in Boston on 12 September 1633, married first Reverend Samuel Danforth, and following his death she married Joseph Rock.[22]
Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, relations between the two nuclear powers collapsed entirely; the United Kingdom imposed economic sanctions on Russian outlets, seized the assets of Russian oligarchs, recalled its citizens and severed all business ties with Russia.[5] Russia retaliated with its own sanctions against the UK and accused it of involvement in attacks against Sevastopol Naval Base, the Nord Stream gas pipeline and the Crimean Bridge.[6][7] The UK is one of the largest donors of financial and military aid to Ukraine and was the first country in Europe to donate lethal military aid.[8][9]
Before 1830, Kahal Kodesh Beth Elohim (KKBE) was a place of worship in Charleston, South Carolina for Spanish and Portuguese Jews using Portuguese rituals as done in Portugal before the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions. Commenced as an Orthodox Sephardic congregation,[3] it later adopted a reformed religious ritual after reabsorbing a splinter group originally led by Isaac Harby. In 1824 the Reformed Society of the Israelites was founded by Portuguese Jews. It adopted ideas from the European Reform movement, and itself contributed ideas to the later, widespread American Reform movement, but was also quite different form either of them, with its own unique Reform prayer-book, the first in America.[7]
The founding members of the KKBE were Sephardi Jews of Spanish and Portuguese origin, who arrived into Charleston from London, England to work in mercantile freight and the slave trade.[8] While the congregation is sometimes considered to be the originator of Reform Judaism in the United States, that movement was established by European immigrants mostly from Germany later on.
By Jordie GersonJanuary 9, 2017
There is a widespread but little-mentioned problem in Judaism today: namely, the derisive dismissal of Reform Jews by the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox. This often takes the form of slurs and insults. One of the most noxious and oft-repeated of these is the assertion that Reform Jews are not really Jews, but Christians.
As a Reform rabbi with a master’s degree in Christianity, I could argue for hours about why this is wrong, with basic, objective facts. Reform Jews do not, for example, subscribe to the basic tenets of Christianity: that Jesus was the incarnate son of God, come to save sinners from their innate sinfulness, resurrected after his death on the cross. We do not believe that Mary was a virgin, or that she gave birth to the Messiah in the form of Jesus Christ. In short, we do not subscribe to any of the basic tenets of Christian theology. Especially in Israel, where this insult is most prevalent, such facts don’t seem to stem the abuse.
Given the vagaries of Jewish history, it’s not surprising that the term “Christian” became an intrafaith Jewish slur; Jews have a fraught and painful history with Christianity and the church. The Catholic Church was behind the Inquisition and drove the Crusades; Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was viciously anti-Semitic, and supersessionism (the belief that Christianity has fulfilled and replaced Judaism) along with anti-Judaism has been at the root of acts of anti-Semitic violence throughout ancient — and modern — history. In such contexts, calling other Jews “Christians” became a melodramatic way of saying that they were traitors, had abandoned (in action, deed or thought) the Jewish community and had crossed a bright line. People called Spinoza a Christian, along with Isaac Mayer Wise and various Reform rabbis throughout history.
Forwarding the News
Thoughtful, balanced reporting from the Forward and around the web, bringing you updated news and analysis each day.Terms(Required)I agree to the Forward’sTerms of Service and Privacy PolicyEmail(Required)
about:blank
But today, in a world where 50% of American Jews are married to non-Jews (many of whom were raised at least nominally Christian), a world where Vatican II has repudiated the theological bases for anti-Judaism and supersessionism, and a world in which honest (and often difficult) interfaith dialogue is increasingly dynamic and vibrant, calling another Jew a Christian to discredit or demean him is not just wrong — it’s also disingenuous, intellectually irresponsible and theologically lazy. It’s a way of ignoring the beauty — and diversity — of America’s religious landscape (not to mention the whole world), and retreating into an insular, guarded and mean-spirited understanding of what it means to be a Jew, an American or a citizen of a multicultural world.
In the Tosefta, (Sanhedrin 13:2) there’s a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua on whether the World To Come is only for Jews or also for non-Jews. Ultimately, Rabbi Joshua argues that “the righteous of all peoples have a share in the World To Come” — a revolutionary statement that would come to inform how many Jews, regardless of level of observance, saw their non-Jewish neighbors.
One thousand years later, in a world in which anti-Semitism is on the rise and the word “Jew” is being used as a slur, it’s critical that we not fall prey to the old trope of Us vs. Them. When we use language, jokingly or not, about “the goyim” or about “shiksas,” or when we use the word “Christian” as a slur, our language separates us from our friends and neighbors. None of us, as people of faith, can afford that.
Jordie Gerson is a former Hillel campus rabbi who has worked at the Hillels of Yale University and the University of Vermont. Her work has been featured in The Huffington Post, the Harvard Divinity Bulletin, MyJewishLearning.com, Boston Magazine, the magazine Delicious Living and on the website Jewcy.com. Follow her on Facebook
By Rabbi Will Kramer
(December 24, 1971)
Not long ago, we reviewed Sam J. Lee’s Moses of the New World the story of the life and work of Baron de Hirsch. It made us de Hirsch-conscious.
In 1896, Rabbi Jacob Voorsanger of San Francisco admired Hirsch’s success in South America and hoped that Baja California might become a new Israel with Hirsch-like help. Voorsanger wrote:
“It is encouraging to learn that the De Hirsch colonies in Argentina are
no failures. In California, we have not been successful with colonization.
Our means were too limited, our lands too rich and expensive. Isolated as we are, locked in between the sea and the mountains, we could not command the attention of the world.
“And yet, there are opportunities here, which, in their extent and character,
are larger than those offered in the sub-equatorial republic.
“Right across from San Diego, in Lower California, an empire is still awaiting fostering hands. The time will come when the inevitable migration of large numbers of colonists must be directed to these sunny slopes, which are Mexican in name only and which have a welcome for all honest men.
“These slopes, coasting a princely area of uncultivated, rich lands, need the exploring power of modern commerce and enterprise, and the impetus of population.
“It is still a comfort to know that whilst governments are restricting the right of admission, and nations cry out against the wanderers from abroad, there is still room elsewhere to make a new cradle forgrowing nations.
“The earth is still large enough to hold the children made of its dust.
Where to send them is often the question.
“But, like the mariners of old, when we go far enough, we are sure to
find land. We are always hopeful for lsrael, particularly now when
its hopes are enlarging.”
http://pages.uoregon.edu/mgall/vita.htm
http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/74spring/br-baja.htm
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/69526-we-should-give-baja-california-jews.html
Book Reviews
David J. Weber, Book Review Editor
Baja California: Jewish Refuge and Homeland. By Norton B. Stern. Baja California Travels Series, No. 32. Los Angeles: Dawson’s Book Shop, 1973. Notes. Illustrations. 69 Pages. $10.00.
Reviewed by William O. Hendricks, director of the Sherman Foundation Library in Corona del Mar. Dr. Hendricks is editor-translator of David Goldbaum, Towns of Baja California, and co-president of the Asociación Cultural de las Californias, sponsor of the annual Baja California Symposium.
Nationalism, one of the strongest forces at large in the world during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and often carrying racist overtones, caught Europe’s Jews in an ugly predicament. On the one hand they found themselves the victims of a new and particularly virulent brand of anti-semitism, while on the other hand they had no nation of their own to which they could turn for sanctuary. This dilemma, plus the growth of their own nationalistic sentiment, resulted during the late 1890s in the birth of the Zionist movement. The movement was aimed at colonizing Jews in their ancient homeland of Palestine, where it was hoped they would eventually constitute a majority and obtain the protection of public law and at least a measure of political autonomy. But there was a question in the minds of some Zionists as to whether or not this goal was feasible with regard to Palestine (then under Turkish rule), and a difference of opinion on this point led to a split in the movement and to the birth, in 1905, of the Territorialist faction. While the main body of Zionists insisted that only Palestine could provide a true Jewish homeland, the Territorialists argued that a more important and pressing consideration was that some suitable place in the world be found. According to Dr. Stern, though it has never appeared in Zionist histories, “Evidence now at hand indicates that the first area which the Territorialists considered was Baja California.”
Stern’s book actually treats several related but somewhat different topics. The first chapter, which covers a period from 1891 to 1905, deals primarily with the interest shown in Baja California by Alta California Jews, especially as an area for settling refugees of the Russlan pogroms. The second chapter, which is as long as the other two combined, is concerned mainly with the lives of three of northern Baja California’s early jewish settlers: Luis Mendelson, Maximiliano Bernstein, and David Goldbaum. Mendelson arrived on the Peninsula in 1871 and the other two men during the 1880s, but each of them came on an individual basis, for strictly personal reasons, and not as part of any organized movement. The third chapter focuses on the interest shown in Baja California by the leadership (in London) of the Territorialist organization, and which occurred in late 1905 or early 1906. Though the leadership’s decision was negative and their interest short-lived, the subject continued to excite a few Alta California Territorialists for some years afterward. The chapter then concludes with Baja California once again under consideration as an area for settling Jewish refugees—this time the German-jewish refugees of the 1930s. But since the idea was announced before first being discussed with Mexican authorities, the latter gave it a decidedly cold reception, one of them referring to it as a “fantastic dream.”
At times the book gives the impression that except for a mistaken assessment of its agricultural potentialities by certain Territor-ialist leaders (i.e., that it was too arid), Baja California might well have become a New World Israel. Stern quotes David Lubin, a Sacramento merchant: “Why could not some arrangements be made with the Mexican Government for the sale of Lower California, so as to form there an autonomous Jewish State under the joint protectorate of the United States and Mexico?” Although certain Jewish figures may have thought of this as a distinct possibility, is there any evidence that Mexico ever considered going along with the idea? The answer, I think, is a definite “no.” It is true that throughout his long tenure as Mexico’s president, Porfirio Díaz welcomed Jewish colonists (as he did colonists in general), making him in this respect almost unique among heads of government. However, there is no evidence to show that he entertained for one moment the notion of their obtaining political autonomy at his nation’s expense. Other considerations aside, Baja California bears too strategic a geographical relationship to the northwestern coast of the Mexican mainland for that country to have willingly agreed to its alienation. Surely little short of United States force could have wrenched it away; yet if this had occurred, can anyone seriously imagine that it would then have been turned over to the Territorialists?
A Santa Monica optometrist, Dr. Stern is the founder-editor of the Western States Jewish Historical Quarterly and has previously published, among other items, California Jewish History, A Descriptive Bibliography. His present book, though relatively short, not only contains a good deal of interesting information but it discloses a noteworthy and hitherto unrevealed facet of Baja California history. And like all the volumes in this series, it is handsomely printed and put together.
Jews and the Knights Templar – a complex relationship
Tony McMahon167 mins
Thousands of Jewish people around the world are taking up an invitation from the Portuguese government to return to Portugal. Their ancestors were forced out of the country by the Inquisition from the 15th century onwards. And it seems a good moment to look back at the relationship between Portuguese Jews and the Knights Templar in Portugal.
I’m half Portuguese. There’s a joke in my family: we’re either Jews or Templars. It sounds better in Portuguese. But basically, the region of Portugal where my family come from – Tras-os-Montes in the north east – was an area that historically saw both Templar activity and Jewish Sephardic families fleeing persecution.
Some of the customs and diet in that part of the world still bear the hallmark of the Jewish influence – as does one of the local dialects, which some argue has traces of Hebrew.
There’s even a story in Portugal that Jewish families in Tras-os-Montes developed a sausage called “Alheira” which they chomped on when the Inquisition rode by in the hope they’d think it was pork.
Every Christian family had pork sausages hanging up through the winter – smoked meat that kept them going through the cold months. A Jewish family would have been very conspicuous to the authorities if it was sausage-less. Hence the Alheira!
Tomar – from Templar tolerance to the Inquisition
The place in Portugal that most evokes the Knights Templar is the city of Tomar. It’s basically Templar town. Up on the hill is a 12th century Templar tower called the ‘charola’ surrounded by a later convent occupied by the Order of Christ (the successor organisation to the Templars).
Down below in the valley, near the river Nabao, is a small house you’d easily walk straight by. But pause and enter – and there is a medieval synagogue. It’s now a museum but was once a functioning place of worship.
I’ve visited several times and there’s a very nice lady who shows you round and then details the sad history of the place. For centuries, the Jewish families of Tomar worshipped there and enjoyed the protection of the local Knights Templar – who basically dominated Tomar.
But then came the Inquisition. In a horrible twist of fate, the synagogue became a prison for those Jewish families. By then, the Templars had been crushed and the last Grand Master burnt at the stake. Appallingly, the same fate now befell some of those imprisoned Jews – executed as heretics.
This was the new intolerance of the 16th and 17th centuries which saw Spain and Portugal expel their remaining Jews and Muslims. If they wanted to stay – they had to convert becoming “new Christians”. Though that was no guarantee of safety as even converts ended up falling foul of the relentless Inquisition.
Basis for Templar-Jewish good relations
There’s a lot of commentary online about the Templars being tolerant of and even protecting Jewish people. Why would this be the case? One argument is that the Knights Templar were forever in the business of raising funds for their crusades in the Holy Land. To do this they operated medieval agri-businesses all over Europe and being commercially minded meant they had no wish to antagonise Jewish people.
For their part, the Jews were subject to all manner of prohibitions and one area they took to operating in was money lending. At this time, Christians weren’t allowed to earn interest on capital – something many Muslims still object to today.
Interestingly two of the most powerful Jewish money lenders in the Middle Ages in England were women. One gave considerable financial support to the king to build Westminster Abbey. Clearly the hope of currying favour was a factor but so was just doing good business.
Aaron, a Jewish man living in the English city of Lincoln, was one of the biggest money lenders in the twelfth century. King Henry II, father of Richard the Lionheart, is estimated to have owed him £616 12s 8d. When he died, the monarchy seized all his assets and this came to somewhere around fifteen thousand pounds – a vast amount in the Middle Ages.
So could it be that the Knights Templar – who operated an early system of banking with cashable cheques – and the Jewish communities had a down to earth mutual appreciation of their respective commercial activities?
Prelude to The World Holy Word War
Posted on October 7, 2023 by Royal Rosamond Press
Yesterday, on October 6, 2023, I went to the Knight Library to look for a book I found twenty years ago, that proves Jesus was a Priest overturning rulings by the Sanhedrin. He was not a prophet, or a Zealot, though I believe his judgements were the PRELUDE to the War of the Jews against Rome. When his revolt was defeated, his history was altered to keep the suppression of his followers – going – as long as it takes. The suppression of Jesus ‘The Freedom Fighter’ led to the attack on Israel – on the Sabbat. I did not find that book, but took this pic of me amongst a wall of books about the Jews. I knew my prophecies were about to come true. I am for Reformed Judaism which is being demonized by Israelis.
When I left the library, I thought about my ex-friend, Mark Gall, who was the head of the Department of Education at the University of Oregon. I could see the building he worked in when we first met. I was going to send him this article about Christians being attacked by Orthodox Jews. For years we had arguments about ‘The Israeli Right to Exist’. Mark still knows nothing about comparative religion – or just plain religion. I sent him articles on how orthodox Jews are attacking Christians. Mark declared me a Nazi in a e-mail, and recently toned that down to me “acting odd”. I suggested he and his wife write a book together – then included myself! NO REPLY. I am now convinced the Galls are writing a biography – behind my back – knowing I have been working on my autobiography for years. I have asked Mark Gall to help me. He authored many books. I suspect he showed one of my e-mails to the Corbin brothers, and is why I was un-invited to a wake for their father. Mark wants his book out before mine, wherein I am demonized, and their son Jonny Gall, glorified in the name of the Jewish Nation. This is one of the reasons I declared The World Holy War has begun! Its a WAR OF HOLY WORDS!
Below is a video of me and Classy, making Love not War – with war in the background. I heard a Republican’ Lawmaker Congress needs to get it act together so they can come to the aid if Israel – and not the Ukraine, because it was the most corrupt Nation on earth, and thus it deserved to be invaded. This is why Congress was investigating the Bidens. This is the SHOT heard around the world. Israel has not condemned Putin for invading Ukraine, nor has Saudi Arabia – who was going to make a peace deal.
That deal – is gone with the wind. Everyone is getting what they really want A World Holy War. Consider my last post. Even the Mormons want in on the Holy fight!
I will be making videos on Youtube.
John ‘The Nazarite’
EXTRA! I didn’t realize I included my eulogy to Ed Corbin, and Ed Fadely in this post. I was not invited to Ed’s funeral. Why is Mark Gall pretending to be my friend – when he is not? I demand ans answer! Israel will still be divided three days from now.
OMG! The Dead have been giving me dictation! We are in Prophetic Times!
The cemetery was founded in 1872 by the Spencer Butte Lodge No. 9 of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. The cemetery is located adjacent to the campus of the University of Oregon but is not affiliated with the college. It is situated across University street from McArthur Court and is behind the Knight Library. In at least three sessions of the Oregon State Legislature, bills were introduced which would have allowed the University of Oregon to condemn the property, remove graves, and build on the land; the last attempt was in January 1963 with the submission of studies presented to the University of Oregon by the Springfield architecture firm of Lutes and Amundson. All of the legislative bills died in committee. The cemetery was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1997.[1]
Rosamond Press 
Leave a comment