Video of Virginia Mennonites from 1980

[Wesleyb]

I’m reading that book now and have a lot of thoughts. The feeling I get though, like when I read Franconia’s history is one of sadness and loss and what might have been if the conferences had gone a different direction so many decades ago.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts if you care to share. My 91 year old dad made some comment like the farther he read the worse it got.

[HondurasKeiser]

I’m reading that book now and have a lot of thoughts. The feeling I get though, like when I read Franconia’s history is one of sadness and loss and what might have been if the conferences had gone a different direction so many decades ago.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts if you care to share. My 91 year old dad made some comment like the farther he read the worse it got.

We could do a book discussion if you’d like. I thought it was a little odd to start off the book with what essentially amounted to a land acknowledgment and the odd shoehorning of the modern idea of “empire” and then to forget about those ideas almost as quickly and oddly as they were introduced. I also thought it was curious that only the surnames of Heatwole, Rhodes, Burkholder and Geil were repeatedly mentioned as though they were the only families in the valley in the 1800’s. Finally, I’m 100 pages in and already I’m passed the Civil War. I feel like a lot of interesting material, folkways, vignettes and disputes have been given short shrift. I’d like to read more in-depth about church life and personal stories from that time period à la John Ruth’s narrative style.

[barnhart]

I’m 100 pages in and already I’m passed the Civil War...

Chronological that is the mid point. I'm guessing pre-war history is documented less or is glossed over.

[HondurasKeiser]

I’m 100 pages in and already I’m passed the Civil War...

Chronological that is the mid point. I'm guessing pre-war history is documented less or is glossed over.

Yes there was much that seemed to be glossed over. Likewise, I just got to the mention of the Old Order split and it was given about a page in all.

[Wesleyb]

We could do a book discussion if you’d like. I thought it was a little odd to start off the book with what essentially amounted to a land acknowledgment and the odd shoehorning of the modern idea of “empire” and then to forget about those ideas almost as quickly and oddly as they were introduced. I also thought it was curious that only the surnames of Heatwole, Rhodes, Burkholder and Geil were repeatedly mentioned as though they were the only families in the valley in the 1800’s. Finally, I’m 100 pages in and already I’m passed the Civil War. I feel like a lot of interesting material, folkways, vignettes and disputes have been given short shrift. I’d like to read more in-depth about church life and personal stories from that time period à la John Ruth’s narrative style.

I’m not sure I can do much of a discussion. It’s been several months now since I read it. The pre-1900 part was better written than the rest. It got pretty tedious but I slogged through it because I knew so many of the people and places. If you want a better feel for that time period here in the Valley you need to check out this book https://peggyswar.com/. It is fictionalized, but very thoroughly researched and footnoted. The main characters were my great-great-great grandparents.

Yes, the last names were pretty limited. There were a few others, Hartmans, Brunks, Wengers but the names in my family tree do repeat quite a bit. One thing I noticed in the book is that in the 1900s there were suddenly a lot more last names, Yoders, Millers, etc. A lot of that was due to EMS/EMC bringing Mennonites in from other areas. My grandmother was one of those. She came from PA for a short term and met my grandfather while she was here. That was in the 1920s.

[barnhart]

How much in the book is pre-war. I know for a time they didn't build meeting houses. Is that period covered?

[Wesleyb]

Yes there was much that seemed to be glossed over. Likewise, I just got to the mention of the Old Order split and it was given about a page in all.

Harry Brunk's book covers that split in great detail. These authors may have felt there was no need to repeat all that.

There is a thought that has been bouncing around my head. The tone of the book is definitely biased toward the liberal perspective, through the language he uses and the way he frames things. He certainly tries his best to give a voice to the conservative perspective but it feels like he is a fish out of water when doing that. That's understandable of course, and having grown up hearing the conservative side it was good for me to read something biased the other way. The ironic thing is that as we know victors write the history, but by the end of the book it's clear that his side is not the victor. The conference seems to be disintegrating and the conservative groups that left are stable or growing. . . maybe they should have written the history? ?

[barnhart]

Maybe they will write the next one.

[barnhart]

... The feeling I get though, like when I read Franconia’s history is one of sadness and loss and what might have been if the conferences had gone a different direction so many decades ago.

What practical suggestions would you give if you could go back in time.

[cmbl]

Can anyone make out the hymn text at 12:50? The tune seems to be the one in Hymns of the Church set to "How Happy is the Man Who Hears."