Truth Magazine

By Luther W. Martin

The King James Version of the English Scriptures was translated over a period of seven years, being published in the year 1611. Fifty-four scholars were invited to participate in this work, but only forty-seven took part in the actual translating.

The English Revised Version was translated over a period of ten and one-half years, with a total of sixty-seven men taking part in the project. The Old Testament Company was composed of thirty-seven members, and the New Testament Company made up of thirty men. The English Revised New Testament was published in 1881, and the English Revised Old Testament in 1885.

The American Revised Version, more commonly called the American Standard Version, was published in 1901. In addition to the English Revisers mentioned above, thirty-four additional American scholars worked on the American Revision of the English Version . . . making a total of fifty-two in the combined Old Testament Companies, and forty-nine in the combined New Testament Companies; making a complete total of one hundred and one scholars whose abilities were utilized in the translating of the American Standard Version of 1901.

These translators came from various sectarian persuasions which may well have influenced each of them to some extent. However, there would be a great tendency for the more extreme views and/or positions to be counter-acted or neutralized between them. The following religious groups were represented: Anglican (Episcopal), Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, Baptist, Unitarian, Methodist, Congregational, and possibly others.

These translators were all well educated and could be properly termed scholars. Any one of them might possibly have rendered a “one man” version. But with the “balance of power” arrangement described above, their tendency to equalize each other’s views was no doubt beneficial. A “one man” version would not have the protection that a plurality of views might produce. Whatever particular or peculiar view the lone translator may have . . . being only human, he may well inject his peculiar views and preferences into his translation.

Examples of “One Man” Abuses of Scripture.

(1) Westminster Version, By S. J. Lattey, a Jesuit, a Roman Catholic. Acts 20:17 – “From Miletus, however, he sent to Ephesus to summon the priests of the church. . . .” The word “priest” is simply inserted here. It has no equivalent in the Greek. Instead, the Greek word, presbuterous, is there and should be rendered “elders.” Some have Anglicized it, and coined the term “presbyters.” Lattey’s religious bias colored his translating.

(2) F.A. Spencer Translation, a Roman Catholic. Matt. 13:55-56 – “. . . Is not His mother called Mary, and His kinsmen James, Joseph, Simon and Jude? And His kinswomen – are they not all with us?” Spencer uses the terms “kinsmen” and “kinswomen,” in order to avoid admitting the obvious; that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters. Roman Catholic teaching asserts that Mary bore no other children. The Greek words here are adelphoi, (brothers, plural), and adelphai, (sisters plural). Philadelphia is the “city of brotherly love.” In this translation, religious bias won!

(3) Ronald Knox Translation, a Roman Catholic. 1 Cor. 9:5 – “. . . Have we not the right to travel about with a woman who is a sister, as the other apostles do, as the Lord’s brethren do, and Cephas?” Here Knox seemingly seeks to inject the idea that a Catholic “sister” was traveling with the other apostles. True, the word adelphen, (sister) is in the Greek, but the next word is gunaika, which means wife. Knox ignored the word gunaika in his translation . . . you, see he believes in an unmarried (celibate) clergy. It must be added, to Knox’s credit, that in his footnote he suggest that the term “sister” may not have implied any physical or spiritual relationship . . . only that she was a Christian. (This would be a spiritual relationship. LWM.) Knox further states in his footnote: “Woman may also be translated ‘wife’; and that may be the sense intended.”

(4) The Living Bible-Paraphrased, by Kenneth Taylor, a Baptist. Psalms 51:5 – “. . . But I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.”

Rom. 6:4 – “Your old sin-loving nature was buried with him by baptism. . . .”

Eph. 2:3 – “. . . We started out bad, being born with evil natures. . . .

Col. 2:12 – “For in baptism you see how your old, evil nature died with him. . . .”

Note that in each of the four passages given above, Taylor has worded them to teach the false doctrine that babies are born into the world in a sinful, depraved, condition. These passages have been mis-translated in order to teach Baptist doctrine. Jesus on the contrary taught: “Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3).

(5) The Living Bible-Paraphrased, by Kenneth Taylor, a Baptist. 1 Timothy 3:1 – “It is a true saying that if a man wants to be, a pastor. . . . ” Here, Taylor is trying to make a “Baptist pastor” out of the Greek word episkopos, which should be rendered “bishop” or “overseer.” I repeat, “The Living Bible” is, in my estimation, the most sectarian version available in the English language.

(6) The Concordant Version, Copyrighted, 1927, by A. E. Knoch. Luke 23:43 – “And Jesus said to him, ‘Verily to you I am saying today, with Me you shall be in paradise.'” The punctuation is changed in order to avoid the statement that Jesus would be in paradise that day, after his death. The publishers of this version are “soul sleepers;” i.e., such as Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., who teach that there is no consciousness after death; that the soul is unconscious or “asleep” after death.

I have been unable to secure accurate information as to the background of this Concordant Version. If any readers of Truth Magazine have any information concerning this version, I would appreciate receiving the background concerning it.

(7) The Expanded Translation, by Kenneth S. Wuest. 1 John 2:16 – “Because everything which is in the world, the passionate desire of the flesh (the totally depraved nature), and the passionate desire of the eyes, and the insolent and empty assurance which trusts in the things that serve the creature life, is not from the Father as a source but is from the world as a source.” The King James Version, in this verse, lists “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. . . .” However, there is no textual basis whatsoever, to justify Dr. Wuest’s having inserted “the totally depraved nature” into this passage, except his own sectarian bias.

Conclusion

A “one-man” translation would compare with a one man-football team, or a one-man-regiment. Where only one person is involved in translating the Scriptures, personal feelings, and individual religious persuasion or bias will make themselves known. The writers of the books of the Bible were inspired of God! This insured the accuracy and correctness of God’s message to the world. No prophecy of Scripture exists from private interpretation. . . . “But his holy men of God spoke as they were impelled by the Holy Spirit.” The persons who translate the original language into English, French, German, Spanish, etc., are NOT inspired of God. They must depend upon their own learning . . . their own knowledge of the original language as well as the receptor language, into which the Scripture is being translated. When such a task is intrusted to a group … several persons with differing viewpoints, but hopefully with a reverence and respect for the Bible as the Word of God, the result will be a version that has avoided as much as possible, the influence of sectarian bias.

However, Bible students also need to be alert to the product of a group, which consists in the majority of translators who have no real respect nor reverence for the Bible and its contents . . . those who reject the Deity of Christ, etc.

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 11-12
February 19, 1976

By John McCort

The Mormons have deceived many people into believing that archaeological finds in Central and South America have verified the Book of Mormon as being the word of God. To the average Christian the claims of the Mormon “elders” about recent archaeological finds are very difficult to deal with since the average Christian has little or no background to dispute the claims of these self-styled experts. The truth of the matter is that archaeology has produced nothing of any consequence that verifies the Mormon claims.

The Mormons need to listen to their own archaeologists. The few qualified archaeologists that the Mormons have within their ranks violently disagree with the popular Mormon notion that archaeology has verified the Book of Mormon. Dr. Ross T. Christensen, a leading Mormon archaeologist from Brigham Young University, stated,

“The statement that the Book of Mormon has already been proved by archaeology is misleading. The truth of the matter is that we are only now beginning to see even the outlines of the archaeological time-periods which could compare with those of the Book of Mormon. How, then, can the matter have been settled once and for all? That such an idea could exist indicates the ignorance of many of our, people with regard to what is going on in the historical and anthropological sciences” (Dr. Ross T. Christensen, “University Archaeological Society Newsletter”, No. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3).

Many of these zealous Mormon missionaries have boastfully claimed that many non-Mormon archaeologists are now using the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide to help them find ancient civilizations in Central and South America. M. Wells Jakeman, another prominent Mormon archaeologist, had this to say about that claim,

“It must be confessed that some members of the ‘Mormon’ or ‘Latter-Day Saint Church’ are prone, in their enthusiasm for the Book of Mormon, to make claims for it that cannot be supported. So far as is known to the writer, no non-Mormon archaeologist at the present time is using the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. Nor does he know of any non-Mormon archaeologist who. holds that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews, or that Christianity was known in America in the first century of our era. This in itself, of course, does not disprove the Book of Mormon; for not enough is yet known of the actual period of that record in ancient America, or of the origin of the American Indians, for a final judgment at this time, scientifically speaking” (M. Wells Jakeman, “University Archaeological Society Newsletter”, No. 57, March 25, 1959, p. 4).

Many of the archaeological proofs that these overzealous Mormon missionaries present to verify their claims are unreliable. Many colorful highly illustrated books have been published by the Mormons to try to verify their assertions. Again, their own scholars reject the evidence that has thus far been presented,

“. . . however, we must not overlook the fact that some Mormons have popularized equally mistaken ideas, which they have held, about the book and have thus helped retard the development of Book of Mormon archaeology. For example, some popular ‘Mormon’ ‘books show pictures of classic Maya, Inca, and Aztec ruins and attribute them to the Nephites. Scholars are aware that these civilizations postdate Book of Mormon times. Other gross errors include the use of outdated or other wise unreliable source materials and the tendency to make every piece fit neatly into the Book of Mormon picture, whether it is there or not” (University Archaeological Society Newsletter, No. 54, November 19, 1958, p. 2. The statement was made by Dee F. Green, M.A., Latter Day Saints archaeologist, editor of the U.A. A. Newsletter )

Again,

“The publication of magnificent volumes of photographs of the ruins of buildings and cities located in the area of high civilizations in the Americas is another example. These lavishly illustrated books are frequently written and published in an endeavor to prove that complex civilizations existed in the Book of Mormon period. Unfortunately, their photographs for the most part are of cities that were built after the Book of Mormon period” (Papers of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium On The Archaeology Of The Scriptures, Delivered on April l, 1961).

According to their own admission the Mormons have very few men who are qualified. to speak with authority in the field of archaeology or related fields.

“Latter-Day. Saints who have had any formal training in archaeology are exceedingly few. In other words, the interest which they have in this field has been up to the present largely on an amateur rather than professional level. I am convinced that this sort of archaeology in the church will be no more effective in solving the problems which face us than folk medicine would be in protecting the health of the people” (Christensen, “U. A. S. Newsletter,” No. ’64, January 30, 1960, PP. 5-6).

The Mormons, are, by their own admission, alone in their claims and interpretation of archaeology. They have taken the proverbial attitude, “The rest of the world is crazy except me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee.” For years the Mormons claimed that the Smithsonian Institute used the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. The Smithsonian Institute finally published a letter disclaiming any confidence in the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide. This letter can be obtained by writing a letter to the Institute and requesting a copy.

The Christian public should not be fooled by the confident assertions of over-zealous Mormon missionaries about archaeological finds. Even their own scholars won’t and can’t back them up. The evidence is not there:

Truth Magazine, XX:9, p. 9-10
February 19, 1976

By William V. Beasley 

“Take heed therefore how ye hear. . .” (Luke 8:18). Not only is man responsible before God for what he hears (Mark 4:24), but also for the manner in which he hears. Some people have prejudiced ears that filter out all that they do not wish to hear. At least fifteen times (seven in the Gospels, and eight in Revelation) Jesus used the expression, or a similar one, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. . :”

It has been well said, “It requires great listening as well as great preaching to make a great sermon.” Generally speaking, preachers are better at preaching than the congregation is at hearing. Why? Because preachers have been trained, studied how to preach. We would all be wise to study, train ourselves how to listen (hear).

“Ten Guides To Effective Listening” are given by Ralph G. Nichols in his work “Do We Know How to Listen? Practical Helps in a Modern Age” (The Speech Teacher, X (1961), 118-124). We are grateful’ to Dr. Nichols and to the Speech Communication Association for their permission to quote from this work.

Ten Guides To Effective Listening

1. “Find areas of interest

“All studies point to the advantage in being interested in the topic under discussion. Bad listeners usually declare the subject dry after the first few sentences. Once this decision is made, it serves to rationalize any and all inattention. . . .

“The key to the whole matter of interest in a topic is the word use. Whenever we wish to listen efficiently, we ought to say to ourselves: ‘What’s he saying that I can use? What worthwhile ideas has he? Is he reporting any workable procedures? Anything that I can cash in, or with which I can make myself happier?’ Such questions lead us to screen what we are hearing in a continual effort to sort out the elements of personal value. G. K. Chesterton spoke wisely indeed when he said, ‘There is no such thing as an uninteresting subject; there are only uninterested people.’

There should be no major problem here. All Christians should be interested in, and able to use the truths presented from God’s word. If a lesson is not interesting to us, perhaps we need to consider a revision in our area of interest.

2. “Judge content, not delivery

“Many listeners alibi inattention to a speaker by thinking to themselves: ‘Who could listen to such a character? What an awful voice! Will he ever stop reading from his notes?’

“The good listener reacts differently. He may well look at the speaker and think; ‘This man is inept. Seems: like almost anyone ought to be able to talk better than that.’ But from this initial similarity he moves on to a different conclusion, thinking ‘But wait a minute … I’m not interested in his personality or delivery. I want to. find out what he knows. Does this man know some things that I need to know?’

“Essentially we ‘listen with our own experience.’ Is the conveyor to be held responsible because we are poorly equipped to decode his message? We cannot understand everything we hear, but one sure way to raise the level of our understanding is to assume the responsibility which is inherently ours.”

The last paragraph reminds us of the one who upon saying, “I didn’t get anything out of that sermon,” was told, “Well, perhaps that is because you didn’t bring anything to put it in.”

It is a shame but congregations have been known to seek a new preacher because the old one was “not eloquent in the pulpit.”

3. “Hold your fire . . .

“The aroused person usually becomes preoccupied by trying to do three things simultaneously: calculate what hurt is being done to his own pet ideas; plot an embarrassing question to ask the speaker; enjoy mentally all the discomfiture visualized for the speaker once the devastating reply to him is launched. With these things going on, subsequent passages go unheard.

“We must learn not to get too excited about a speaker’s point until we are certain we thoroughly. understand it. The secret is contained in the principle, that we must always withhold evaluation until comprehension is complete.”

How many times have so “fired from the hip” when we should have “buttoned our lip.” “But let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak. . .” (James 1:19).

“Good listeners focus on central ideas; they tend to recognize the characteristic language in which central ideas are usually stated, and they are able to discriminate between fact and principle, idea and’ example, evidence and argument. Poor listeners are inclined to listen for the facts in every presentation.

“It is a significant fact that only about 25 per cent of persons listening to a formal talk are able to grasp the speaker’s central idea. To develop this skill requires an ability to recognize conventional organizational patterns,. transitional language, and the speaker’s use of recapitulation. Fortunately, all of these items can be readily mastered with, a bit of effort.”

Preacher, you can test this by asking your midweek class what the sermons were about the Sunday before. Be prepared for an ego shattering experience. Will even 25% know the central idea?

5. “Be flexible

“Our research has shown that our 100 worst listeners thought that note-taking and outlining were synonyms. They believed there was but one way to take notes – by making an outline.

“The 100 best listeners had apparently learned early in life that if they wanted to be efficient note-takers they had to have more than one system of taking notes. They equipped themselves with four or five systems, and learned to adjust their system to the organizational pattern, or the absence of one, in each talk they heard. If we want to be good listeners, we must be flexible and adaptable note takers.”

6. “Work at listening

“One of the most striking characteristics of poor listeners is their disinclination to spend any energy in a listening situation. College students, by their own testimony, frequently enter classes all worn out physically; assume postures which only seem to give attention to the speaker; and then proceed to catch up on needed rest or to reflect upon purely personal matters. This faking of attention is one of the worst habits afflicting us as a people.

“Listening is hard work. It is characterized by faster heart action, quicker circulation of the blood, a small rise in bodily temperature. The over relaxed listener is merely appearing to tune in, and then feeling conscience-free to pursue any of a thousand mental tangents.

7. “Resist distractions

“The good listeners tend to adjust quickly to any. kind of abnormal situation; poor listeners tend to tolerate bad conditions and, in some instances, even to create distractions themselves….

“‘A good listener instinctively fights distraction. Sometimes the fight is easily won – by closing a door, shutting off the radio, moving closer to the person talking (emphasis mind, wvb), or asking him to speak louder. If the distractions cannot be met that easily, then it becomes a matter of concentration.”

Babies in services will squirm, fuss and fret, and ill mannered teenagers will write notes and giggle, but we should be able to concentrate on something as important as God’s word. If we cannot perhaps the real babies are not the ones fussing and fretting, and ill manners may not be confined to teenagers.

8. “Exercise your mind

“Poor listeners are inexperienced in hearing difficult, expository material. Good listeners apparently develop an appetite for hearing a variety of presentations difficult enough to challenge their mental capacities . . .”

Even if a sermon is not on your pet interest it is still needed if it is Truth. Once you learn something about the subject you might even learn to enjoy the “meat” of the word.

“For selfish reasons alone one of the best investments we can make is to give each speaker our conscious attention. We ought to establish eye contact and maintain it; to indicate by posture and facial expression that the occasion and the speaker’s efforts are a matter of real concern to us. When we do these things we help the speaker to express himself more clearly, and we in turn profit by better understanding of the improved communication we have helped him to achieve. None of this necessarily implies acceptance of his point of view or favorable action upon his appeals. It is, rather, an expression of interest.”

What is said of college students is all too true of church members. Get plenty of rest Saturday night so you will be rested and ready to work at listening.

9. “Keep your mind open

“Parallel to the blind spots which afflict human beings are certain psychological deaf spots which impair our ability to perceive and understand. These deaf, spots are the dwelling place of our most cherished notions, convictions, and complexes. Often, when a speaker invades one of these areas with a word of phrase, we turn our mind to re-traveling familiar mental pathways crisscrossing our invaded area of sensitivity.

“It is hard to believe in moments of cold detachment that just a word or phrase can cause such emotional eruption. Yet with poor listeners it is frequently the case; and even with very good listeners it is occasionally the case, when such emotional deafness transpires, communicative efficiency drops rapidly to zero.

“Among the word known thus to serve as red flags to some listeners are: mother-in-law, landlord, red neck, sharecropper, sissy, pervert, automation, clerk, income tax, hack…

Effective listeners try to identify and to rationalize the words or phrases, most upsetting emotionally. Often the emotional impact of such words can be decreased through a free and open discussion of them with friends or associates.”

Could this explain why some of our denominational friends say, “All you ever preach on is baptism; baptism, baptism?”

What are some of your “red flag” words? Do we mentally turn off those who mention giving; studying, attendance, drinking, etc.?

10. “Capitalize on thought speed

“Most persons talk at a speed of about 125 words a minute. There is good evidence that if thought were measured in words per minute, most of us could think easily at about four times that rate. It is difficult – almost painful – to try to slow down our thinking speed. Thus we normally have about 400 words of thinking time to spare during every minute a person talks to us.

“What do we do with our excess thinking time whiles someone is speaking? If we are poor listeners, we soon become impatient with the slow progress the speaker seems to be making. So our thoughts turn to something else for a moment, then dart back to the speaker. These brief side excursions of thought continue until our mind tarries too long on some enticing but irrelevant subject. Then, when our thoughts return to the person talking, we find he’s far ahead of us. Now it’s harder to follow him and increasingly easy to take off on side excursions. Finally we give up; the person is still talking, but our mind is in another world.

“The good listener used his thought speed to advantage; he constantly applies his spare thinking time to what is being said. It is not difficult once one has a definite pattern of thought to follow. To develop such a pattern we should:

“l. Try to anticipate what a person is going to talk about. On the basis of what he’s already said, ask yourself, “What’s he trying to get at? What point is he going to make?”

“2. Mentally summarize what the person has been saying. What point has he made already, if any?

“3. Weigh the speaker’s evidence by mentally questioning it. As he presents facts, illustrative stories and statistics, continually ask yourself: ‘Are they accurate? Do they come from an unprejudiced source? Am I getting the full picture, or is he telling me only what will prove his point?”

“4. Listen between the lines. The speaker doesn’t always put everything that’s important into words. The changing tones and volume of his voice may have a meaning. So may his facial expressions, the gestures he makes with his hands, the movements of his body.

“Not capitalizing on thought speed is our greatest single handicap. The differential between thought speed and speech speed breeds false feelings of security and mental tangents. Yet, through listening training, this same differential can be readily converted into our greatest single asset.”

“Take heed how you hear. . .” (Luke 8:18). “He that hath an ear to hear let him hear” (Matt. 11:15; etc.).

Truth Magazine XX:8, p. 7-9
February 19, 1976

By Keith Clayton

Vermont is a very dark area of the world in terms of the gospel and the truth about the church being very widely known. Vermont is largely a rural area. There are only approximately 500,000 people ,in the entire state. Until the 1960 census, cows out-numbered people and it was not until the 1970 census that people finally surpassed chickens in total population. Unfortunately, the average non-Christian has heard about as much about the church as the chickens and cows. Let me explain. Maybe it is my youth in Christ that causes me to expect too much too soon. I apologize if this article sounds like a testimonial or if it appears that I think these problems are unique to Vermont. I am just trying to portray, as accurately as I can, the state of the Lord’s church in Vermont, and a little bit of what the work is like here.

Of the seven or eight congregations I know about in this tiny state, there is only one sound congregation that I know of. That one happens to be the one I worship with regularly, Milton. The fact that this faithful congregation of the Lord’s children has remained strong in the face of the issues is incredible in itself. Brothers Gene Dumas and Gordon Gaynon have had a great deal to do with it. We have no “located” preacher, so these two men have done a commendable work here for the Lord. Unlike some other congregations in the state, we do not take contributions from other congregations. We are a small and struggling congregation financially. We are in the process of buying some land and building a structure to worship in. We are now meeting in the school at an exorbitant rental fee. Our treasury registers nearly zero for a sum total, except for the land that we now hold full title to. Back to the cows and chickens for a minute. Such ignorance is not the situation in Milton. The people of the community that will listen are being reached slowly but surely. We only wish there were made available to us a full time personal worker to expedite the work.

The rest of Vermont is quite a different story. The erring brethren from the other congregations may as well have been teaching the livestock of Vermont’s farms for the amount of truth they have been teaching in regards to the churches’ responsibilities. I have talked with some new converts in these congregations. Here is a very partial list of some of the things these babes in Christ have been taught that are good, wholesome, and necessary (scriptural) for the church to participate in: (1) Potluck suppers in the church building. (2) The Herald of Truth is a part of the gospel itself. (3) If a certain congregation of the Lord’s people do not support human institutions with the Lord’s money, the members of that congregation are “anti-Christs.” (4) Smoking is not a sin. (5) Television is a sin. In talking with one of these erring brothers, he said he thought the problem went much deeper than the issues, and I agreed with him. The problem, I told him, was a general decline in respect for the authority of God’s word and a lack of knowledge of it by a great number of people. He would not agree, but he would not say what he thought the problem was either. I think you can gather from some of the attitudes and teaching that it is no wonder the cows and chickens are in the running as far as a genuine knowledge of God’s word. It is rather hard at times to tell the liberal churches in Vermont, and elsewhere, from a social club or worldly denomination. It would not be quite so bad if some of these imported “Herald of Truthers” would stay where they belong. (Wherever that is!) For example, we have had, in the past, permission to use the baptistry of a near-by congregation. A young lady wanted to obey the gospel one evening, so we went to this congregation’s building. Unfortunately, they were having a gospel meeting and a preacher from Arab, Alabama was there. This guest preacher and a single member, who knows nothing about the issues, but knows that “anti’s” are “antiChrists,” tried to block this young lady from being baptized into Christ. After they had created a scene, the men of the two congregations got together to hash it out. And “hash” it was. The men of Milton listened, without interrupting, to a 45 minute monologue from the Arab, Alabama visitor that sounded like something out of a book entitled, “How to Persuade People Without Telling the Truth” (fictional title, mine). In the final analysis it came down to either we accepted the unscriptural practices of the church supporting human institutions or stay out of the building and especially the baptistry. Suffice it to say the men of Milton offered to study the issues out of God’s word with them, of course, as usual that was out of the question. (They could not do that without their debaters present.)

Back to the work in Milton. The Lord has blessed the efforts of the saints in Milton many times. Evangelists such as Jay Guyer, Ralph Smart, Tom Moody, and Kent Persall have been a great help to the brethren in Milton. It was with the help of these dedicated people that the church in Milton has grown. Just a short time ago, the church in Milton consisted of Brother Gene Dumas and his wife around their kitchen table. Today the congregation’s number is up to around 35 souls. By the way, that is our attendance figure Wednesday and Lord’s day, if we do not have any visitors. We just finished a gospel meeting July 28th. Brothers Kent Persall and Tom Moody from Alabama did an excellent job in working with us. We have been averaging two or three baptisms per meeting. In some cases the meeting only played a minor part in the conversions, but none the less contributed. In closing, if there are preachers (mainly personal workers) looking for a hard but rewarding work, and you can bring support with you, come to Milton, Vermont. You do not need passports to get to this mission field.

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 5-6
February 12, 1976