← Research LibraryExact extracted unit
Indexed source
THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911
Available for full-text research. Open the source to inspect original-language passages and page references.
VerificationThe full text is searchable; full source verification is not yet recorded.
Citation checksNo verified references are recorded yet
Research profileNot current yet
Text fragment 396 (not an original page number)
Unit 396 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
hts, must be regarded with great
astonishment by the authorities. And that the Area Administrative
Office and the church council, blinded by their ill-will, only seek to harm
us, and disguise all conferences, resolutions and orders with a veneer of
goodwill and [good] intentions, is evident. At the October 11, 1862,
conference in the Area Administrative Office attended by the church
council [cf. document of November 12, 1862, #108a], Area Administrator
Friesen presented the case of our secession from the decadent Mennonite
churches in such a way that there were only two alternatives. Either we
would have to be stricken from the colonial register (and thereby lose our
civil rights and be exiled from the colonies) or we would be recognized as
an independent church. After their return to the churches, the elders
most assiduously incited their members against us [with reservation cf.
#108c above], so that we would be stricken from the colonial register.
The churches, however, with the exception of a few members, feared God
and disregarded the goading of the elders. God thereby brought their
premeditated plan to nought, so that now, according to the declaration of
Area Administrator Friesen, we should be an independent church. The
Area Administrative Office, nevertheless, publicizes us in the colonies as
a newly founded sect, thereby clearly showing that the Area
Administrative Office does not keep its promises, and is determined to
harm us. This is in complete disagreement with the promise of the Area
Administrative Office to J. Claassen on November 30 of this year, to
assist us, etc. Furthermore, there is proof that even the elders, when they
wanted to confirm our exclusion from the colonist status, were not
united— for two elders did not give their consent from the very
beginning— one of them [Friesen of the Kleine Gemeinde] declaring it
orally, and the Ohrloff-Halbstadt elder writing it in a declaration of
November 12, 1862. k) From all this one can see the boundless,
unrestrained and lawless rule of the Area Administrative Office against
us. This is not the will of our dear Tsar, but rather, that righteousness
and justice be done. Therefore the Area Administrative Office does not
have the right to take revenge on us, but to maintain and not suppress
the rights which individuals have been accorded by that government.
1) Our entire present situation has been presented simultaneously to the
410
THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH
§176
Supervisory Commission for foreign settlers and the highest Ministry of
Crown Lands, m) Nevertheless, we again request the Molotschna
Mennonite Area Administrative Office to petition the Supervisory
Commission and seek permission for us: 1) to settle at the stated place
at the Kuban; 2) that our settlement there be founded on the same basis
that exists in the New-Russian provinces; namely that we may enjoy the
privileges granted to our fathers and us by the gracious monarc
Source excerpts
[THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911. Книга представляет документальную историю Меннонитской братской общины в России (1789-1910), основанную на архивных материалах, собранных автором за 25 лет. Автор, П. М. Фризен, со] P. M. FRIESEN OTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA ( 1789 - 1910 ) P. M. Friesen THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA ( 1789 - 1910 ) How do you write the history of a movement when you are still a part of that movement? Whom do you believe when leading participants in those historical events disagree strongly not only on why things happened, but also on what happen- ed? What imparts the ring of truth to a denominational history? For P. M. Friesen the answer was a documentary history, letting the record speak for itself. Gathering historical docu- ments ov…