"Angels and Women" - Problems from beyond?

Guest post by Chris G.

Published in 1924 this book was purported to be a favorite read of Charles Taze Russell.  The book was not published in any official capacity by the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society but was endorsed in the pages of the “Golden Age” magazine (see g24 7/30; g24 12/3).  The Golden Age articles also gave the contact information of how to attain this book if one desired. 

Among archivists of Watchtower publications, this work has found itself among the list of books that contribute to a complete library.   It has a kind of honorary place among the well known “Studies in the Scriptures” and the early writing of Judge J.F. Rutherford such as the “Harp of God” and perhaps “Deliverance”. 

Due to this quasi official status, it has come under fire for having confusing statements in its “forward” as written by the books publisher.  We will discuss this and why these words are controversial to some, and how we can understand them more clearly through the clarity of time.

A brief history!

Angels and Women was a reprint of a much earlier work named “Seola” published in 1878 and written by Ann Eliza Smith, or as known by many, Mrs. J. Gregory Smith of St. Albans, VT. 

Seola tells the story of the pre flood world and the struggles that may have been present based on the limited story as outlined in the Holy Bible’s account of Genesis chapter 6.  In Seola, it dramatically portrays the difficulty of navigating a world where supermen have appeared from the heavens and demanded power, wealth and wives, as many as they wanted, from among pitiable humans at that time.  All based loosely on the flood account of Genesis, it’s a fascinating read, and it’s no wonder that bible students of the day were impressed by its contents.  After reading the book I found it encouraging and enlightening to imagine what “might have” happened in those days.  I never thought of the book as being controversial, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Fast forward to the mid 1920s and the original work of Seola was likely becoming hard to find as it had long been out of print.  No doubt some talk of it had spread among the early bible students associated with Russell and a desire to read it was likely a fact of the few thousand bible students at that time.  It seemed like a good idea when, a somewhat well known bible student by the name of E.W. Brenneisen (misspelled Brenisen frequently) decided to republish the original novel with some minor updates that would include footnotes including those from current and previous Watchtower publications.

In order to publish this revision, a book company by the name of the A. B. ABAC Company of NY appears to have been created.  I’ve never been able to find any other titles published by this specific company in twenty years of looking so it appears this company was created with the sole purpose of bringing Seola back to life.

All the facts that are about to follow are simply taken from the forward of this book and used to explain what would become a drama of sorts for the readers of that time that has continued down to this day.

…by way of explanation

The three page foreword of Angels and Women appears to have caused all the concerns and seems to be the source of the controversy.  I’ll quote a few of the thoughts below and you’ll see what I mean.

“Since the flood these evil angels have had no power to materialize, yet they have had the power and exercised it, of communicating with human beings through willing dupes known as spirit mediums.”,

And then comes the smoking gun comment that’s caused so much interest among critics of this book.

“The reviser of this book is of the opinion (italics mine) that the original manuscript was dictated to the woman who wrote it by one of the fallen angels who desired to return to divine favor.”   (https://archive.org/details/angelswomenrevis0000jgre/page/4/mode/2up)

What in the world?

So the “reviser” was of the opinion, yes opinion that the original author was handed/transmitted this information from “fallen angels” or “good” fallen angels that were somehow trying to assist good hearted humans into winning the battle against the dark forces that would become so effective and prevalent in the last days.  The battle would be difficult and this book was made to help the reader see the tactics of Satan and his cohorts.  As the book’s forward concludes it clarifies its purpose, “Spiritism, otherwise named demonism, is working great evil amongst men.  It should be studiously avoided.  To be forewarned is to be forearmed.  Hence this publication”

What in the world was the publisher thinking?  Well, it’s easy from our current vantage point to think negatively of the perspective of E.W. Brenneisen who at the time was reflecting a fairly accepted theology of his day.  The belief among some Protestants of that time was that there were good angels and there were bad fallen angels but in the second category there were two classes of fallen angels.  Those who were dead set against the will of their creator and those that were repentant and trying to find their way back to the good graces of Jehovah.

This thought was believed commonly among early bible students of the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society and the following references can be checked to confirm this belief through the mid 1940s as far as my research was able to reveal.  (see w23 p133 par 56; w43 4/15 p123 par 9; g44 6/21 p17 par 2; w45 8/1 p229 par 13)

The “two classes” of fallen angels appears to have been a belief based on a scriptural passage found at 1 Peter 3:19-20 that at first glance appears to fully support this.  However in the Watchtower of 1951, November 15 issue, a Question from Readers was expounded on that began the foundation of the current theology that expresses no room for a change of circumstance for any fallen Angels or demons as we commonly refer to them.  The “two classes” way of thinking as applied to these demons was expunged and logically explained to be a faulty way of looking at that passage.  From this point forward it’s been hard to imagine any place of acceptance for the Publishers words in the foreword of Angels and Women, and yet, there they were.

A Closer look!

Let’s simply examine one word of the publisher above in italics.  He states, “The reviser of this book is of the opinion that the original manuscript was dictated to the woman who wrote it by one of the fallen angels…”  He was simply of the “opinion” that this was the case.  That is very different than saying something is a verifiable fact or truth of some kind that can never be reversed or disagreed with.  I think that point stands all on its own.  We all have opinions and our opinions are subject to change at any point based on more facts coming to light.  If the reviser quoted above had republished Angels and Women in the mid 1950’s after reading the Question from Readers article of November 15, 1951 he may have subsequently changed his “opinion” and the foreword itself may have been revised if any future editions of Angels and Women were made. 

So it may be a little easier to understand why the Golden Age magazine, an official magazine published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society at the time, would have advertised this outside work for Christian study at the time.  However the question remains, was this book actually believed by the original author to have been transmitted to her by a good fallen angel?

Mrs. J. G. Smith in her own words!

Much of the controversy surrounding Angels and Women appears to have begun likely sometime in the last 30-40 years.  Some strong opinions denouncing the book admit that there were no original copies of “Seola” to reference or use as a comparison when reviewing Angels and Women and forming their own negative opinions of it.

This is unfortunately a grave error on the part of those who chose to speak so harshly of a revision of a book some 45 or more years removed from the original work.  If the critics would have taken the time to review the original author’s own words in regards to the Seola novel, much, or all, of the controversy sparked would have been extinguished.

Seola was masterfully written!  I am of the opinion that it’s close to being riveting as a book.  Like many movies, dramas or books, it begins with a bang.  The novel starts and sets the stage by making the reader think they are possibly reading something of fact.  The author takes creative license here to absorb the reader into her created world.  If you read from the beginning of the book it’s a little bit confusing as to whether the author believes the material as fact or not.  It’s part of the journey of reading the work that makes it so compelling and enjoyable. 

However, and likely out of a sense of professional responsibility, she makes clear in the Appendix of the original Seola some points that put the whole issue here at rest.  Let’s take a look.  (https://archive.org/details/seolaxxx00smitiala/page/246/mode/2up)

Starting on page 238 the “Appendix to Seola” begins the testimony of the authoress on her creative process.  So as not to ruin the novel itself and show perhaps what’s behind the curtain, it’s reasonable to see why this is at the back of the book.  I’ve included screen shots below so you can see for yourself her explanation, but her opening words say much of what needs to be said.  “SEOLA is a fantasy”.

 

I don’t typically place entire Appendixes in articles but in this case I think it’s of the utmost importance for the discriminating reader to determine logically and reasonably what the author’s true intent was in writing this book.  Mrs. Smith appears to have been a keen student of the Bible as many were in those days when a study of the Holy Bible was as important as reading your hometown newspaper everyday may have been.  Her other novels, or at least one of them, appears to have basis on a deep understanding of the scriptures also.  I’m referring to “From Dawn to Sunrise”, see below, but that’s a subject for another article.

The first paragraph states clearly that, “Seola is a fantasy, revealed to the writer while listening to the performance of an extraordinary musical composition”.  She was simply inspired while listening to music.  Does that sound familiar to you?  It probably should because many creative people get their inspiration from many things, but music is an ingredient for many to open their minds in an innocent way.  She says nothing about hearing voices or speaking with the “angels” in any way.  To interpolate that thinking is to be deceitful in the light of facts.  I’ve highlighted a couple points but suffice it to say I think Mrs. J. G. Smith does a good job of explaining away any mystery that she may have created in her well written novel.  And that’s simply all it is, a novel.  It’s good reading, hopefully of the encouraging type, that leaves one smiling after enjoying the ride.

So is Angels and Women a “Problem from beyond?” like a black sheep of our literary past we should shun and not talk about?  An embarrassment to be ignored?  I don’t think so, but like many complex arguments or opposing opinions to our theocratic heritage, it takes a closer look to reveal the facts.  And by doing that our thoughts are made more sure and we hopefully learn something along the way.  Thank you Mrs. J. G. Smith, for your creative effort all those years ago. 

Addenda by Jerome

When Julia Smith died in January 1905, her obituary was carried by more than half a dozen Vermont newspapers. The wording was nearly identical in all of them, and mentioned her literary endeavors including “Seola.” The cutting below comes from The Richford Journal and Gazette for 13 January 1905.

The Vertical Phonograph

While outside of the regular time frame for this blog, the information below might be of interest to some.

In the 1930s and early 1940s Jehovah’s witnesses were well known for taking portable phonographs on their house to house calls and playing recordings of J F Rutherford. A whole series of door step introductions were prepared, and longer recordings of convention talks were used for follow-up visits. These recordings were covered in an old article that was republished on this blog.

https://jeromehistory.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-watchtower-ibsa-recordings.html

To assist with “quick off the draw” doorstep presentations, a special phonograph was invented, which could be played closed and upright. Here are a couple of scans from the patent document. The original runs to six pages.

The inventor was John G Kurzen JUNIOR and the patent was filed in 1940, and the model was released at conventions in 1940.

The Kurzen family had a long history with the Watch Tower Society. John G Kurzen SENIOR was John Gottleib Kurzen (1868-1963). He and his wife Ida were full time volunteer workers for the Watch Tower Society for decades. When they died, within months of each other in 1963, their grave marker had both their names and the words JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES in large full capitals on it. It also contained an extract of Revelation 20 v.6, crediting the New World translation.

The grave marker can be viewed here:

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/84157906/john_gottleib_kurzen

The site also contains a very positive obituary for John and Ida as Pioneer ministers from a local newspaper.

John Senior and Ida had three children, a girl and two boys. The two boys, John G Junior (John Godfrey Kurzen) and Russell Kurzen both worked at the Society’s Brooklyn headquarters for decades.

When John G Jr. (the inventor of this special phonograph) died in 1980 he was buried at the Watchtower Farms Cemetery at Walkill.

Another chapter from a new book

This is the second and final extract to appear here from a recently published book called GRAVE MATTERS about the United Cemeteries in Ross Township, Pittsburgh. Details of the book are given in the previous two posts on this blog. Some readers, while not being interested in a book, may still be interested in the focus of this second sample chapter which can be viewed as a stand-alone subject.

5. MIRACLE WHEAT 

A somewhat bizarre part of the United Cemeteries story is Miracle Wheat which was actually grown on the property.

This was a type of wheat first promoted by a farmer named Kenton Ballard Stoner (1839-1924) in Virginia in 1904. He claimed he found a special strain of wheat growing in his garden. Allegedly it had an unusually high number of stalks producing fully matured wheat.

Stoner cared for it and two years later in 1906 it was dubbed “Miracle Wheat.” If the story in the Perry County Democrat for 31 August 1910 is to be believed, it was Stoner who named it as an answer to prayer.

Stoner’s tale was that after finding the wheat in his garden he nurtured it; it then produced a wonderful crop, which allowed him to make lots of money to look after his family. In the newspaper account, Stoner was backed up by a government report. We will come to that shortly. However, it should be noted that in examination and cross-examination in court in 1913, Stoner denied ever making it a matter of prayer. He also denied naming it “Miracle Wheat,” although he couldn’t remember who did.

Miracle Wheat received a considerable amount of publicity.

Even critics admitted it was a great producer, but questioned its capacity to make decent flour. Supporters countered with tales of blending the wheat to come up with – what we might call in modern parlance – the best thing since sliced bread.

A key selling point in most accounts was the government report that Stoner mentioned. It was made by one H. A. Miller. Some have questioned who he really was. What we can say is that Miller really did exist, he really was a government official and he really did visit the Stoner farm.

Miller was an Agricultural Economist. He had a particular interest in tales of high yielding crops, as shown in this Farmers’ Bulletin from February 1916.

His visit to the Stoner farm was widely reported. A typical example is from The Hutchinson News for 26 September 1908.

Numerous newspapers published these positive comments on the wheat, and continued to do so for the next eight years, up until 1915.

That cut-off date is significant, because in 1916 the U.S. Department of Agriculture finally published a 28-page report entitled Alaska and Stoner, or “Miracle” Wheats. This cast serious doubt on Miller’s report as presented. The publication dealt with claims made for two strains of wheat and devoted over half its length to the Miracle Wheat story thus far. What follows is taken from this official government publication.

One of the first things the paper established was that Kent Stoner was not quite just a folksy farmer who found a new strain of wheat. Stoner was a businessman who worked hard to market his wheat. In 1907 he made a deal with a company in Philadelphia to promote “Miracle Wheat.” The next year he also made a deal with a seed company in Indiana but this time called it “Marvelous Wheat.” It was also named “Eden” and “Forty-to-One.” The Department of Agriculture preferred to go back to basics and called it “Stoner Wheat.”

In fairness to all concerned, comparing varieties of wheat was not always an exact science. Depending on soil, climate, location, time of year and seeding techniques employed, the results could be variable. MY “miracle” could be YOUR “problem.” After extensive trials their considered judgment on page 27 was: “It is not as good as some and is somewhat better than others.”

However, under the subheading “Exploitation in Philadelphia” on page 17 the report had this to say:

“In the early spring of 1908 the promoter organized a company to exploit the wheat and a 20-page illustrated circular was issued. Plausible in most of its language, the circular contained several erroneous statements. For instance, it contained what was said to be the report of the Government agent who inspected the fields of Stoner (Miracle) wheat. The language was so changed, however, as to alter entirely the meaning of the report. The statement that in one field the Miracle wheat had yielded from 3 to 5 bushels more than other varieties on the same farm was made to read “two to three times the yield of other varieties.” In like manner, the figures for the average number of heads to each plant in the field and in the breeding nursery were greatly exaggerated.”

They did not go as far as accusing Stoner of dishonesty; for one thing, he was still very much around at the time. Nonetheless, somewhere along the line and quite early on, Miller’s words had been changed. It seems strange that no-one noticed before (including Miller) and the glowing testimonial was just accepted and repeated at face value from then on.

When the Watch Tower Society became involved, no-one could accuse them of dishonesty; they simply reprinted what everyone else had been saying for some time.

The wheat appears to have come to CTR’s attention in early 1908. The word “Miracle” probably caught someone’s eye. In line with hopes of restitution of mankind and the earth being transformed into a paradise he made a brief comment in The Watch Tower for 15 March 1908. In the opening “Views from the Watch Tower” section he commented on a current news item:

The short article had a few extracted newspaper comments, all positive, along with Miller’s report, which in the version then in circulation used such expressions as “its quality seems to be as good as, if not superior to, other varieties of winter wheat,” and “excellent results.”

Apart from the “earmarks of truth” comment in the opening paragraph (was that an unconscious pun?), the only other personal comment CTR made was in the final wrap-up.

That was it. Under normal circumstances, it would have been an end to the subject, a passing paragraph in a magazine article. Enter United Cemeteries and the Cemetery Superintendent, John Adam Bohnet.

The land the Cemetery Company owned totalled ninety acres and only about eighteen of them were ever used for the cemetery. This meant that there was a large swathe of adjoining farmland that could be used for other purposes. Bohnet had farming experience because he had worked on a farm until the age of twenty-four. According to Bohnet’s own account (which we will come to later) an agent for Kent Stoner called on CTR after hearing about The Watch Tower reference. It wasn’t Stoner himself; CTR and Stoner only met for the first time at a subsequent trial. The agent showed CTR a sample of the wheat in the hope that he might give it more publicity. At that time, CTR didn’t. When the agent shut the sample case, some chaff blew out and apparently two grains of wheat with it, which fell onto the carpet. CTR had no known farming experience, but he picked up the seeds and later, at Bohnet’s request, gave them to him. Bohnet then sought permission from Cemetery Manager, Walter Spill, which must just have been a formality, and attempted to grow it there. From his personal experience, as he saw it, the yield was exceptionally good. So he purchased more seed and donated some of the new crop to the Watch Tower Society.

This is where the problems arose. Three years after the initial reference, Bohnet suggested a fund-raising exercise. Many Watch Tower readers were small-scale farmers. They could buy the seed on the understanding that they were really making a donation to the Watch Tower fund. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Bohnet announced that he had bought more seed at one dollar twenty-five cents a pound, so he proposed offering it at one dollar a pound. Other Bible Student farmers including a Samuel J Fleming of Wabash, Indiana, joined him in this. It was claimed that the same wheat seed was then being sold by others at this figure or higher.

This announcement was made inside the front cover of the 1 June 1911, Watch Tower magazine.

There was another brief announcement about shipping inside the cover of the August 1 issue of the magazine, and that was it. There were no further references to it in any magazine throughout 1911. It was hardly a big campaign and a casual reader of the paper could easily have missed it.

Unfortunately, three months after the above announcement was made, the price dropped elsewhere. In September of that year Stoner and his business partners found they had a glut of seed, so drastically reduced the price to five dollars a bushel. (For wheat calculations, a bushel is sixty pounds). However, in a sense this was irrelevant; the original Watch Tower deal was simply adherents buying the seed but understanding that in so doing they were really making a donation to the cause. As The Watch Tower notice commented, Bohnet would give “the entire proceeds to our Society.”

Then the accusations started.

The basic charge was that CTR had claimed that a strain of wheat was miraculous, had marketed it at inflated prices to a credulous public, and then had personally pocketed the proceeds. This had to be fraud. It was hedged a little more subtly than that; the lawyers had gone over it first, but that was the general drift.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper had a history of attacking CTR. They attacked the idea of United Cemeteries and suggested that respected Pittsburgh clergy were “conned” into supporting it. This has been dealt with in chapter one: these clergymen were never asked for money and frankly must have been rather obtuse if they didn’t notice who they had signed up with. But The Eagle’s agenda was quite plain.

The best policy might have been to ignore the newspaper. Yesterday’s news tends to be ephemeral by nature. People, then as now, read a newspaper that panders to their prejudices, and generally forget the details when the next issue appears. The problem with “Miracle Wheat” was that CTR and his associates didn’t ignore it. The story might have faded into obscurity had they done so.

The catalyst was a satirical cartoon in 1911. The Brooklyn Union Bank had recently gone bankrupt, and The Brooklyn Daily Eagle had conducted a campaign against it accusing the directors of fraud. They published a cartoon, satirising the Union Bank as the Onion Bank, and making a reference to Pastor Russell and the sale of “miracle wheat.”

Below is from The Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper for 23 September 1911. The image is taken from the Google books trial transcript exhibits of C T Russell vs. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from January 1913.

 

CTR sued. The testimony is fascinating and we have the transcript of this trial to thank for much of the information covered in chapter one. But he lost the case.

 

As noted, the case came to court in January 1913. The trial soon got bogged down on testimony on how good the wheat was. It was a case of you call your experts and I’ll call mine. Dozens of satisfied farmers waxed lyrical about it, a government official was more neutral. The testimony veered off into other attacks on CTR. His estranged wife Maria came to Brooklyn and turned up in court, appearing for The Eagle. All she supplied was that CTR held the majority of voting shares in the Society, which was a matter of public record anyway.

On its own it was a non-event, but maybe it had a bearing on why CTR, who was present in court, did not give evidence personally. One can just picture him and Maria watching each other across the courtroom. As his counsel J F Rutherford would later note in his booklet A Great Battle in Ecclesiastical Heavens, it wasn’t CTR’s wheat. He had no first-hand information on it. He didn’t discover it, didn’t name it, and received no personal benefit from it. The Society received the donations, and CTR had a controlling interest in the Society, but these donations were for its religious work.

It was also argued by The Eagle’s lawyers that the Watch Tower Society’s reputation had not suffered by the newspaper’s attacks because its receipts, provided by W E Van Amburgh, had consistently risen over the previous three years. All in all, the argument that CTR had sustained loss as a result of a cartoon did not go well.

After the Canadian Ross libel trial, CTR commented in The Watch Tower for 1 October 1915: "We are not certain that we did the wisest and best thing – the thing most pleasing to the Lord in the matter mentioned." On reflection, CTR might have said much the same for the Miracle Wheat case.

The aftermath was that all who had bought wheat were advised they could have a full refund, and the total proceeds, about $1,800, were kept in a special account for that purpose. No-one charged CTR with fraud and no-one asked for their money back. They had been happy to donate in the same way that John Adam Bohnet had originally been happy to donate the seed.

A few years later, Bohnet wrote up his experiences in an article in The Golden Age magazine for 9 April 1924. Some of his article is a polemic against clergymen who had chosen to attack CTR, not on doctrine, but on a sideline like “Miracle Wheat.” However, by extracting the relevant paragraphs, this is how he told the story in his own words:

“Facts about Miracle Wheat

Much has been said and written about Miracle Wheat and its superiority over the more common strains of wheat; and people in general were thought to be quite well informed on the subject. And not only are they neglecting to preach the gospel, but they are engaged in evil speaking.

It seems, however, that some ministers are not informed and are given to misleading utterances to their congregations instead of adhering to the delivery of the gospel message.

Pastor Russell Had No Wheat

In the first place, Pastor Russell never sold a pound of Miracle Wheat, and never even had a pound of it to sell. Here are the exact facts:

Pastor Russell learned that a Mr. Stoner of Fincastle, Virginia, had some Miracle Wheat, that the original stool had 214 stalks, and that Mr. Stoner was raising this strain of wheat with a view to selling it for $1.00 per pound. Pastor Russell therefore made mention of it in his journal, The Watch Tower. When some time later the agent of Mr. Stoner out of courtesy for the Watch Tower article, called upon Pastor Russell and showed him a sample of the wheat, two grains of the wheat fell upon the carpet in Pastor Russell’s study. These grains were picked up by him and on request were handed to the writer.

I planted the two grains in my garden, and raised from them 1,312 grains of wheat. These I planted in turn, and raised five and one-third pounds. I in turn planted the same and raised eight and one-half bushels. Then I wrote to Pastor Russell, telling him that I wanted interested Watch Tower readers to have each pound of this wheat for their planting, and suggested that $1.00 per pound should be charged for it, and that every Watch Tower reader who had ground space would gladly pay this price to get a start. “For,” said I, “they will send in a dollar or more, anyhow, for the spread of the gospel; and thus the wheat will be broadcast fairly well; and whatever money may be received for these eight and one-half bushels of wheat I want placed in the general fund of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society for the spread of the truth.”

To this Pastor Russell readily agreed, and placed in his journal a notice of Miracle Wheat securable at $1.00 per pound. The wheat was mine; I, J. A. Bohnet, set the price at $1.00 per pound; Pastor Russell had nothing to do neither with the price-making, nor with the sale of the wheat, except at my suggestion to make mention of it in his journal.

I then purchased a peck of this wheat myself and planted it for other sales which I made; and I paid $1.00 per pound. So I was not charging others any more than I myself was willing to pay.

The Yield from One Pound

The lowest yield from one pound sown that was reported to me was eighty pounds, and the highest reported was two hundred and twenty pounds from one pound sown. Therefore the wheat was miracle sure enough.

Wheat Testimony in Court

When nine of the thirty Miracle Wheat growers at the court trial had given testimony in favor of this wheat, the presiding judge stated in substance that the superiority of Miracle Wheat over all other strains of wheat had been so thoroughly demonstrated that any further testimony in favor of Miracle Wheat would be superfluous. The other twenty-one Miracle Wheat growers were therefore not called upon to give testimony.

People do not like the name "Miracle,” Therefore in various parts of the country this same wheat goes by the name of the man who introduced it there; as for instance, in Tennessee it is called ''Hobbs wheat"; in Maryland, "Weber wheat"; and in some places "Stoner wheat." Nobody has called it "Russell wheat" that I know of; nor has it been called ''Bohnet wheat." But the preachers delight in slapping at Pastor Russell about Miracle wheat, when in reality he had no connection whatever therewith.

Miracle Wheat of Superior Quality

Wherever Miracle Wheat has been shown in competition with other strains of wheat at the state and county fairs, it has always taken first prize and the sweepstake prize. The Webers of .Maryland hold the silver cup of three successive years of prize winnings with this wheat over all other wheats.

The chief difficulty with Miracle Wheat growing is that the farmer sows it too thick. In this case it will not stool. The wheat must be sown very sparsely. When rightly sown, it stools out wonderfully. I have frequently found thirty straws from one grain sown. I have found often fifty straws, all of good heading, from a single grain. I have seen as many as ninety stalks from one grain, and the same six feet tall.

Mr. McKnight, the wheat expert, who traversed every wheat district in Europe, testified under oath that in all his life he had never seen as many as four stalks from one sown grain of wheat, excepting Miracle Wheat. This testimony the writer personally heard in the court room.

Miracle Wheat is all that Pastor Russell proclaimed it to be. If anyone is at fault for charging $1.00 per pound for the Miracle Wheat, it is the writer. Those who paid a dollar for one pound never made a "kick"; they paid it gladly.”

Bohnet’s reference to the wheat being renamed by other growers ties in with a news item in The New Era Enterprise for October 19, 1920. Here the reference is to prize-winning “Weber Wheat” as grown by the H. Weber and Sons Company of Maryland. The company had been founded by Henry Weber, a former vice-president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (although not the first vice-president as the article suggests). This Enterprise article was also written by John Adam Bohnet.

Looking back, CTR probably wished that Bohnet had kept his bright ideas to himself. It would have been better if Bohnet had just sold the wheat direct and then made his own personal donation to the Society and its work.