Sunday April 1, 2012

Continuing with the 1919 Bible Conference comments.

Washburn heard Daniells present the “new view” at the 1910 Southern Union Conference meetings. In an all-night conversation shortly thereafter, Daniells raised some questions that to Washburn, indicated that the president of the General Conference was seeking to destroy the spirit of prophecy. Washburn asserted that he was “simply horrified,” to hear Daniells assert that Ellen White’s statement on the “daily,” was an “imperfect statement,” and also that she had made other statements that were accepted as testimonies that likewise were “imperfect.”

Let’s be clear. Attributing the work of God to Satan, is blasphemy. That is the position Daniels took; one of total rebellion against God. That Ellen was the mouthpiece of God, is established by much first-hand testimony. To reject this testimony is worse than Thomas, for we have Christ’s warning to him, and all doubters.

    Daniells also stated, according to Washburn, that Mrs. White had erred in sending letters encouraging J. E. White to accept tithe funds for his work in the South.

So often it comes down to following the money. Why? Because that is “worldliness” in a nutshell.

    Washburn also bristled that Daniells allegedly considered A. T. Jones’ attack on the “Sunday Labor” section of Volume 9 of the Testimonies as an attack that was the “hardest thing to answer” that the GC had to respond to. To Washburn, that assertion seemed to indicate that perhaps Mrs. White was in error. Washburn claimed that Daniells took the preceding positions specifically to avoid the need to accept the plain statement in Early Writings, concerning the “daily.” He stated: p. 30, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].

I want to point out the use of the word “allegedly” and “claimed” in the above. When we quote from a trustworthy source, would say “testified,” or similar, for such words carry import. The words used are designed to denigrate and marginalize Washburn to something less than “trustworthy.” With Washburn’s experience of years, and the study of God’s words, he was well qualified to define Daniels’ actions.

     “I say brother White, in all sincerity, that the view which leads any one of our brethren to take such a position on the Testimonies is condemned by this attitude, if for no other reasons whatever, and is entirely unsafe to be held by the leaders of our work. To defend the “new view” of the “daily,” he must destroy the spirit of prophecy.” [60] p. 31, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

Not only is this the case with the “daily,” but with a great many other subjects as well! Name one, and I’ll guess there is testimony in the authenticated Spirit of Prophecy to prove the church’s position today to be wrong.

     J. S. Washburn saw the 1919 Bible Conference as the continuation of a “terrible controversy.” In 1921 Washburn wrote F. M. Wilcox that he had lately feared that the latter was losing faith. He noted, “You were in that secret Bible Council which I believe was the most unfortunate thing out people ever did, and it seemed to me you were losing the simplicity of your faith.” He also noted that Wilcox defended the three WMC representatives at the Conference when their teachings were brought into question before the College Board. He brought the issues of the “daily,” Washington Missionary College teachers, and 1919 Bible Conference together in a 16-page open letter to Claude Holmes dated April 18, 1920. He implied that the consensus from the Conference considered that the spirit of prophecy was not inspired on history, while some considered the writings uninspired regarding theology and health reform. He alleged that the position led “inevitably to infidelity, as was demonstrated by Dr. Albertsworth, recently dismissed summarily from the faculty by the College Board of Washington College.” p. 31, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

Here the shaking is manifested. The voice of truth crying out to be heard and the many warring against that voice. I submit to you that Obadiah 1:1 is an indictment of the GCSDA church; in that they are the rightful inheritors of great spiritual blessings associated with obedience to the Spirit of Prophecy, but like Esau they despise it, and sold it, for a mess of pottage.

     Washburn published the information that the Columbia Union president, a year previous attempted to rid the college of the three “infidel” teachers, but that the General Conference came to their assistance and instead “forced out of office,” that president. He noted that, although the three teachers differed in other beliefs, all three united in advocating “the new doctrine of the daily as taught by professor Prescott” and others. Washburn identified the denominational origins of the “new view” with E. J. Waggoner, A. T. Jones, and J. H. Kellogg, and thence to W. W. Prescott. He additionally attributed the decline in enrollment at WMC to the teaching of the “new view” there. He pictured that view as — “besieging and threatening to desolate and destroy the work of God’s last message at its headquarters, at its very heart…. Here is a remnant of the new phase of the world-old apostasy at our headquarters and in our principal Bible School.” p. 32, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].

Today the church lives out that apostasy. Countless ways are members shocked through the years, at evil unchecked.

God Bless your study

Sabbath March 31.2, 2012

Early this morning while studying I found an astonishing sentence. Here it is.

“Sister White is not the originator of these books.” Review & Herald, January 20, 1903.

The article is titled, “An Open Letter From Mrs. E. G. White to All Who Love the Blessed Hope.”

I immediately called Verne Bates and told him. He then reported it first thing on his church phone conference call, as he had never read it before.

The article discusses the books, “Christ’s Object Lessons,” “Patriarchs and Prophets,” “Great Controversy,” and “Desire of Ages,” and goes on to state in one sentence, “Sister White is not the originator of these books.”

No doubt a thousand explanations exist for this, but we think it is pretty accurate!! No true prophet ever will contradict the Bible. These books were created by Willie and his team.

Never stop proving all things

Sabbath March 31, 2012

NOTE: I failed to click the button to publish this last night! I apologize.

Happy Sabbath to all!

 

Continuing the 1919 Bible Conference comments.

     J. S. WASHBURN p. 29, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     J. S. Washburn, 1863-1955, wrote A. G. Daniells in 1912: p. 29, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

     “Truly I have reason to regard you as one of the best friends I have on earth…. May God grant that nothing may ever sever the bonds of brotherly trust and confidence between us. An old friendship wrecked is worse than a funeral.” p. 29, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     Daniells responded: p. 29, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     “All you say strikes a responsive chord in my heart. I have known you from a boy on the farm, and have always felt a sort of a brotherly feeling for you.” p. 29, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].

Sin is an insane, inexcusable, unexplainable thing. It is interesting to note it’s affect on one’s life relationships. I had a “friend” once. I thought he was a good guy. I loaned him $2,500.00. He never paid back one cent. Why? Sin. Satan had him, and used him to take funds from me that I should have used for God’s work.

Daniels is no different. We have very clear direction from the New Testament on Gospel Order, but Daniels was, for some reason, determined to grasp the top roll. He was not to be trusted. There is much more to come out about church organization.

     In 1922, in an open letter to the General Conference session in San Francisco, Washburn wrote the following to A. G. Daniells: p. 29, Para. 7, [1919BIBL].  

     ‘For years my confidence in you has been slowly dying until now it is dead beyond recall, beyond the hope of a resurrection. I am sadly forced to acknowledge that the astounding change in your attitude toward the spirit of prophecy and the message, and toward your most loyal friends and workers has so completely destroyed the trust I once had in you that it can never be restored, except by a direct miracle of God.” [57] p. 29, Para. 8, [1919BIBL].

Here is the testimony to the betrayal of the trust of another. It is clear to me that some sin in the life of Daniels was cherished till truth was dried up and blown away. Self became his all in all and Christ was forgotten; except, of course, when it was time for another sermon.

     Washburn claimed a rich SDA heritage. He was converted by J. N. Andrews at 11, baptized by James White at 12 and began preaching Adventism at 21. In a state of confusion and dismay after the 1888 General Conference session that he attended,

It is my settled opinion that the focus on “the 1888 message,” was, and still is, nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the details of church organizational change that was happening. Maybe a book will have to be written on that subject alone.

    Washburn, who was a nephew of George Butler, had an interview with Mrs. White at Ottawa, Kansas. Washburn considered that interview a turning point in his life. From that time onward he maintained complete confidence in the inspiration of Mrs. White. He wrote Mrs. White in early 1915: p. 29, Para. 9, [1919BIBL].  

I wonder what the date of that interview was?

     “I truly believe it is the complete faith in the spirit of prophecy and the study and obedience to the Testimonies that will bring the latter rain. I believe the complete acceptance of the gifts of the spirit of prophecy is the key to the situation in the last great crisis, and I do pray God that the brethren in Washington and all over the world may be faithful to the great light that God has sent to His people through [the testimony] of Jesus Christ.” p. 30, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

Interesting that Washburn should come to the same conclusion that a few others have reached; that the, now, authenticated, Spirit of Prophecy is, in fact, the Testimony of Jesus. We do not, however, believe that the latter rain waits for the items Washburn has listed. No. 6, page 22, very clearly states that it is after Sunday is made a test that the “fearful warning” sounds.

     In addition to his intense study of the spirit of prophecy and desire to obtain “everything that Sister White wrote,” Washburn’s amazing memory enabled him to memorize much of the Bible and spirit of prophecy writings. By 1918 he claimed to have memorized Revelation, Romans, James and Second Peter. He noted that his memory improved “with the study of the Bible and spirit of prophecy.” By 1948 he claimed to have memorized the New Testament and was working toward committing Isaiah to memory. [58] p. 30, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].

Quite a testimony on the power of God to give wisdom to man; even to the improvement of his memory!

     Although Washburn entered the debate on the “daily” somewhat humorously by writing S. N. Haskell that he was thinking of the “daily” “continually,” in actuality he did not consider the “new view” at all amusing. He believed that it was ushering in the “greatest shaking our people have ever had,” by causing doubt and disbelief in the spirit of prophecy and by moving the firm “prophetic framework” upon which the message was constructed. [59] p. 30, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].

At the time, I probably would have agreed also, but now, I see the counterfeit SOP as that “strong delusion” sent by God on the church, because they will not receive a love of the truth, that they might be saved. They love their sins more, and want to be saved IN their sins. But the banqueting table in Heaven, is not spread with cake and ice cream.

God Bless your study

Friday March 30.2, 2012

Huge venting of ? gases from old volcanic areas.

UpDate: I am going to place this in Newton county. Hot Springs is way south of there, too far. On the one map I am looking at, there was one quake there some time past.

Here is that page: http://quake.ualr.edu/public/epicenters.htm

From the size of this thing, and the fact that the .gov is not going to tell the truth about anything it seems these days, I would say that something big is going on.

Check out Dutch’s page, see his link on the links page.

Just be careful out there.

~~~

 

I have posted a screenshot of some venting in Arkansas. Late today it was massive. For those who might be inclined to think it was a forest fire, you really should check it out, well, before you say something.

Start to finish, I put it right at three hours. No forest fire that big only flashes for three hours and is gone. I believe we are seeing a fulfillment of this passage from Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1.

“These wonderful exhibitions [volcanoes] will be more numerous and terrible just before the second coming of Christ and the end of the world, as signs of its speedy destruction.” p. 81, Para. 3, [1SP].

If you check this out now, you should be able to see it all, just before dark.
Here is the link.
http://weather.cod.edu/satrad/index.php

Choose “Visible Satellite”
Then, from the pull-down menu at the top left of the view, choose “48 image loop.”

You will need to hurry to see it. I do not know how to get the older images.

I am going to put this up and then the picture.

~~~

 

Friday March 30, 2012

Continuing the 1919 Bible Conference.

     CLAUDE HOLMES p. 26, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

     Claude E. Holmes, 1881-1953, linotype operator and Washington correspondent of Southern Watchman, was among the informal attendants at the 1919 Bible and History Teachers’ Conference. Raised as an Adventist, Holmes grew up in the West Union, Iowa, church, most of whose congregation consisted of “pioneer” Adventists. Holmes declared that the spirit of prophecy “was the word of God to them.” p. 26, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

Just what you would expect from a properly educated SDA. But this problem is now, most all outside the church. All such believers have either removed themselves or been removed by the church; the separation is palatable.

 He noted: p. 26, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     “As I associated with these staunch old patriarchs Sabbath after Sabbath I imbibed some of their love and zeal for the truth…. Such an environment was not conducive to theoretical jangling over the authority and necessity for the spirit of prophecy; for to those brethren and sisters the testimony of Jesus was to be implicitly followed without question…. I spent whole winters studying the testimonies and studying Daniel and Revelation by Smith until I could almost repeat them by heart…. When I see men coming in who seek to discredit the sacred teachings of the spirit of prophecy my righteous indignation arises and I feel stirred to contend for the faith once given to the saints.” [52] p. 26, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].  

This is the exact operation of the Shaking, which God told us January 26, 1850, The Present Truth, No. 9, p. 72, had started. You might like to review the chapter titled “The Shaking” from the 1858 Great Controversy.

 Holmes’ extensive knowledge of the spirit of prophecy writings, gave him a reputation, in the days prior to available indexing, of being an authority on the writings. Review editors frequently called upon him to provide references and quotations from the writings. In addition to his memory and intense study of the writings, Holmes acquired probably the largest private collection of Ellen White writings, published and unpublished, within the denomination. Holmes’ skill as a linotype operator enabled him to prepare a multitude of private spirit of prophecy compilations in type form and then pull proofs of the galleyed type at practically no expense. After W. A. Colcord left the church in 1914, Holmes borrowed and copied over 300 typewritten pages of unpublished testimonies from him. As A. G. Daniells’ was travelling in the Far East in 1917, Homes convinced someone that he had Daniells’ permission to copy bound volumes of unpublished Ellen White testimonies housed in the General Conference vault. Although it resulted in his dismissal from the Review, he thereby attained possession of hundreds of personal testimonies. This access to some of the personal testimonies sent to Prescott and Daniells greatly inflamed relationships. [53] p. 27, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].

Quite the story; I wonder just what happened to that private collection. Verne Bates tells me, that after the church discovered that he was the recipient of the Farnsworth collection, they send someone to his front door demanding he turn over all that material to the church. In God’s providence Verne told the man NO! and so today we have available the original, authenticated Spirit of Prophecy materials. For which we are VERY grateful to God!

  One of the reactions of Claude Holmes to the 1919 Bible Conference consisted of his publishing an open letter in pamphlet form. Holmes decried the statements he heard at the Conference, “again and again by a number of our Bible and history teachers that Sister White is not an authority on history.” He considered that position as the ultimate evil since those views would be “poured into the receptive minds of our young people to undermine their faith in the spirit of prophecy.”

Using education as a strong tool has been foundational to the Jesuit’s work. It takes time, but, in this case, time really takes it’s toll. Death sweeps the faithful into the grave, “and also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.” Judges 2:10 And because all too often parents do not bind the hearts of the children to themselves and right, the evil grows, till today, we are far removed from the path, and it appears that a Laodicean church, clinging to the world will not be present in Heaven.

    Holmes interpreted the positions taken in 1919 to mean that the Conference concluded that Mrs. White selected relevant historical materials just as any researcher would.

This view is promoted by the church, by it’s claim of a list of books found in Ellen’s personal library, which includes such history books. But this lie, is just that. This claim was put forth by Satan before, and James met it with these words, “In her published works there are many things set forth which cannot be found in other books, and yet they are so clear and beautiful that the unprejudiced mind grasps them at once as truth. … as Mrs. W. has written and spoken a hundred things, as truthful as they are beautiful and harmonious, which cannot be found in the writings of others, they are new to the most intelligent readers and hearers. And if they are not to be found in print, and are not brought out in sermons from the pulpit, where did Mrs. W. find them? From what source has she received the new and right thoughts which are to be found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do net contain such thoughts. &c.” Life Sketches, page 328-329.

I would here submit to you the many claims of plagiarism that occurred, after the death of James; when Willie took over. We think many of them are valid, not against Ellen, but against Willie and his counterfeit SOP.

    If the facts selected happened to be erroneous, they should be rejected. Holmes’ view of the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy totally rejected that concept. He believed that Mrs. White selected from divergent historical sources those items that she recognized as truth and thereby those items became authoritatively and infallibly true. According to Holmes, everything dealt with by a prophet became authoritative. He believed that as much inspiration was required to distinguish truth from error as was required to present original truth. He continued: p. 27, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

While the above has the ring of truth, it is clear that Holmes was ignorant of Willie’s work. This testifies to the degree of secrecy about the operation.

 “If her historical writings are to be discredited because she is not an “authority on history,” then the logic of the situation forces us to the conclusion that all her writings must be thrown overboard, for historical facts are inextricably interwoven in all her messages…. One tells me her books are not in harmony with facts historically, another that she is wrong scientifically, still another disputes her claims theologically, and another questions her authorship, and others discredit her writings grammatically and rhetorically. Is there anything left? If these claims are all true, how much spirit of prophecy does the remnant church possess?” p. 28, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     Holmes concluded this 11-page open letter to J. S. Washburn by emphasizing his uncompromising stance on the absolute inspiration of the spirit of prophecy. He affirmed that he drew no line “between the so-called human and divine; they are all Scripture to me.” [54] p. 28, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

While we understand Holmes stance, and sympathize with them, a caution is again repeated. “Bro. B—- would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the Word of God. But in this he presents it in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of his people to his Word, to give them a more clear understanding of it.” p. 153, Para. 1, [27OT].

But, repetition of this caution in no way diminishes the fact that God is the true author of the authenticated Spirit of Prophecy.

 Years later, Holmes again referred to the Conference in a protest he registered to the president of Emmanuel Missionary College, A. W. Johnson, and to E. R. Thiele, chairman of the Bible department. In his capacity as local elder of the West Central Church of Chicago, Holmes, in a round-table discussion in Berrien Springs in 1948, opposed the “strange and conflicting views of the prophesies,” that he believed were being taught to some of the members of that church.

Notice the use of the word, “believed,” in the above. As used, it denigrates Holmes, as if the man can not, or, perhaps should not, think on his own. Yes, it is his belief, but no, the man is not any less than a policeman or soldier reporting facts, nor is he less than any one of the “leaders” of the church.

 He asserted that “when Bible teachers present views contrary to, established positions, students and preachers are encouraged to do the ‘same.” He stated that the door that permitted such new views to be presented was opened during the 1919 Bible Conferences. [55] p. 28, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

Exactly, we agree with Holmes. And, we believe this document goes a long way to prove it.

     An additional response of Holmes to the Conference consisted of his issuing a protest against the teachings of H. F. Albertsworth and H. C. Lacey, two of the three teachers from Washington Missionary College who attended the Conference. Besides issuing his own protest, Holmes advised certain students to do the same. Although the student protests initially involved only Professor Albertsworth, because of the alleged “light esteem” that he exhibited toward the spirit of prophecy, the upshot of the episode resulted in the severance, by mid-1920, of all three of the WMC representatives at the 1919 Conference and further problems between the General Conference and the Columbia Union. [56] p. 29, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

 
Oh, how sweet it would be if everyone would just “follow the leader!” Of course, when that “leader” is not Christ, they have no room to complain.

God Bless your study

Thursday March 29, 2012

Continuing with the 1919 Bible Conference.

     Haskell had the firm conviction that the years of labor he and other pioneers wrought in the work gave them a special mission as the “latter days” approached. He thus placed emphasis upon the position of the living pioneers on the subject of the “daily.” He seemed to sense a certain estrangement between himself and the General Conference leadership because he did not endorse their position on the “daily,” and he believed it relevant, he pointed out to Mrs. White, that “not a single old Sabbath-keeper that has had experience in getting out the foundation principles of our faith … believes in this ‘new light.'” He again wrote her: p. 21, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

I take umbrage with Mr. Bert over his decided bent of blind loyalty to the church, rather than being truly objective. In the writing of this article, he himself should have done some due diligence on the other side of the fence. But, when one is protecting his bread and butter, most anything goes.

Of course there would be some estrangement between the two sides. Again, it would be interesting to know just how many Jesuits were involved in GCSDA church matters, then and now.

     “I see quite clearly there are breakers ahead. I also see there must be some who will give the Testimonies that you have given no uncertain sound. If not so, then the cause will be undermined by errors creeping in. They are coming in from all sides…. someone must be more familiar with your writings so, from the Bible, and from your testimonies, be prepared to defend the truth.” p. 22, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     The next year he wrote Mrs. White concerning the “daily” debate: p. 22, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     “Every person who had an experience in the early days of the message do (sic) not wish to discuss this question. They feel that it is an insult to the Spirit of the Lord, to go to the Lord and pray for light on a matter that He has settled…. There is no hope of these old people who lived back in the early days of the Message being converted to this new light; even if (others) bring volumes of histories to prove it. Because they give more for one expression in your testimony than for all the histories you could stack between here and Calcutta.” p. 22, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

Haskell had it right at this point. There are far too many who have “a supposed hope,” (No. 4, p. 81) and nothing more. Me thinks that after the close of probation there will be many more than commonly supposed, who will be searching out truth, from the north, even to the east; doomed not to find it, because of careless inattention to the voice of mercy.

     Haskell saw hope, he wrote Mrs. White, because such younger leaders as G. Irwin, I. H. Evans, Dr. Kress, F. C. Gilbert, O. A. Johnson, and Leon Smith, did not accept the “new view.” He believed that the main thrust of Satan’s attack during the contemporary period was his attack upon the spirit of prophecy. He wrote W. C. White, “Your mother alone cannot give the straight testimony. There must be some raised up that will stand by what your mother has written. [43] p. 22, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

I do not know what to think of those deceived ones, especially in the early days of the creation of the counterfeit SOP. It would have been extremely hard to have put the pieces together; God knows, he will judge righteous judgment.

     In addition to his position of refusing to divide the spirit of prophecy into inspired and uninspired parts, Haskell expressed himself upon other questions relating to the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy. While he did not believe Mrs. White was infallible, Haskell considered the writings inspired on the same basis as the Biblical writings. He considered Mrs. White as much a prophet as Biblical prophets and that the writings should be interpreted as would Biblical writings. Indeed, Haskell seemed to consider the spirit of prophecy as an extension of the Biblical writings. He wrote to Daniells in 1910 that he considered the “testimonies as the spirit of prophecy, precisely the same as is the book of Daniel, Revelation, or other books of the Bible.” He also considers the Bible “as being so plain that, if a person will read it, and adhere to the reading, they will find the truth.” He believed, that, just as the New Testament magnified the Old, so did the spirit of prophecy magnify the Bible. [44] p. 22, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

We will issue a reminder here, in the form of a passage from No. 27, page 153.  “Bro. B—- would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the Word of God. But in this he presents it in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of his people to his Word, to give them a more clear understanding of it.” So we see that we must stop short of any claim that the authenticated Spirit of Prophecy is any part of the Bible; but, God is the author of it, just as he is the author of the Bible.

     Given this position, Haskell believed that a study of the spirit of prophecy writings would “settle nearly every point that people question at the present time concerning the message.” While he believed that the foundation were established by Bible study, he also believed that those pillars were confirmed by the spirit of prophecy. He alleged that there was no question of interpreting the “daily” amongst the early SDA’S “for they took it for granted that the Early Writings settled it.” Since Haskell believed that the “old view” of the “daily” had been established by a vision given to Mrs. White, he could not endorse a position that would, according to him, revise “a sentence, or paragraph” from those writings. [45] p. 23, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].

It has now been almost one-hundred years since the Bible Conference, and yet, Haskell’s position of firm faith in the (authentic) Spirit of Prophecy still holds true today. “I was shown like this. The truth once got out now, will stand; for it is the truth for the last days, and it will live, and less need to be said upon the truth after it is out.” Supplement to CEV, page 14. What is interesting about all this is, that the subjects have not changed in the least; they are the same since William Miller’s day.

     Just as Haskell believed that only another prophet would be qualified to distinguish between inspired and uninspired writings, so he emphasized that “none but inspiration can single out a clause and say it means different (sic) from the words used.” He would thus accept no other evidence on the question of the “daily” than the words of Mrs. White stating that she did not mean to use the term “daily” in her statement in Early Writings. affirmed: p. 23, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     “If the whole United States, and Europe, Australia, and Africa should rise up and proclaim that view correct, it would make no difference to me, unless the testimony of Sister White should say so. There is no use in being like a leaf in the wind, swayed to and fro.” [46] p. 23, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

Brothers and Sisters, steel yourselves, for the day is coming, and may even be upon us, that we will have to stand like the three Hebrews, and get thrown into the fire. Just like Haskell, make a decision, and stand by it.

     Although Haskell opposed revising and even editing of the spirit of prophecy writings, he did so from the standpoint of the credibility of the writings, not on the basis of their supposed verbal inspiration. He wrote Mrs. White in 1909 and expressed his hope that her words might be available “as they were written,” since he believed that much of the “power and vitality,” was removed by her assistants in making them “readable and” adapted to the “present condition of things and the people.”

This might be a good place to wake up and take some notes. We have here, first-hand testimony as to just what the excuses were that W. C. White was using to create the counterfeit. And let us remember, “This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan.”(or his agents) p. 129, Para. 1,[27OT]. Small wonder then that the Holy Spirit is not present to teach through the counterfeit SOP.

 

     He reacted similarly, he said, to the revised version of the Bible. Haskell considered that James White, in his editing of the writings had a special ability in “editing them without taking you out of them.” He reacted very negatively to substantive changes that seemed to be called for by those who believed the writings needed to be harmonized with history or made to accommodate new believers or varying conditions. He opposed L. M. Conradi’s “modifications.” He wrote W. C. White: p. 23, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

This is a new one on me. I know nothing of “Conradi’s ‘modifications.’” I’ll have to keep my eyes open for more information on this point.

     “If you have had the experience that I have had in meeting this matter of dropping out and of changing your mother’s writings, you never would allow one sentence to be dropped out, or changed, in her writings that have gone before the public. We have enemies of our faith that are watching just such points, and when they find one they make big capital of it.” p. 24, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     Obviously referring to the Kellogg-Jones situation, Haskell continued: p. 24, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].

“Obviously?” I think not. This is an assumption, based on a biased viewpoint. If Bert were committed to the original, authentic writing, he would doubtless be thinking in different terms as to who the “best brethren” really were.

     “It is the dropping out of some of these things from what had been published in your mother’s writings, and the changing of some things, that has (sic) been taken advantage of by the enemies of truth and today is the cause of some of our best brethren losing confidence in you; because they think you change your mother’s writings and call it ‘editing.'” [47] p. 24, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

Evidently the flack flying, in those days, toward Willie over his “work” was substantial. Which is why he felt he had to defend against “rubber stamp testimonies,” as many called them.

     Haskell affirmed that he could respond to every criticism he ever heard raised against the spirit of prophecy except the one woman who publicly asked, “Can you prove from the Bible that a prophet ever had sons that changed the prophet’s testimony, and called it ‘editing?'” His only response, Haskell stated, was that he could prove from the Bible “that prophets had sons that did not always do right, and their not doing right tested the people.” He hoped that White would excuse his bluntness but, he said, it was a point upon which he was sensitive. [48] p. 24, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

It is my contention that Willie was used by God, to fulfill his words, in No. 20, page 47, that the Testimonies would be removed “away from the people.”

     In 1918 Stephen Haskell recalled a conversation with Mrs. White some 40 years previous. According to Haskell, Mrs. White predicted there would be a time when the testimonies would be in demand “just as they were originally given in order to meet objections before we got through.’ Two years later Haskell wrote that such a demand was called for “almost everywhere I go.” The demand was based upon the attacks charging that the writings had been altered to suit circumstances. [49] p. 24, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

While there may have been a demand in his day, it would pale in comparison to today, in proportion to how much nearer we are to the end.

     Haskell seemed to be working toward a methodology that would satisfy this need and also to deal with the concept of progressive revelation, for he realized that the health question “like every other point of truth has developed,” and Mrs. White “wrote more fully as the people were prepared to receive the light.” He recalled that Mrs. White said that there was a time when it was right to eat flesh, but there would also be a time in the future when it would be unsafe. Haskell believed that science indicated that that time had “about come,” in 1920. He thus believed that, while the earlier writings should not be altered, later spirit of prophecy statements that indicated how that truth had been magnified and developed should be included with the original statements. [50] p. 25, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

Unfortunately Haskell never understood the real effect of Willie’s tampering with the words of God, spoken through Ellen. Later, in this document, we will come to a focus on this very question of meat eating, and grease, or, oil for cooking. The bottom line, after rejecting the word of God, “‘Eat all the flesh you desire,’” as long as it was not pork.” And so the murmuring for flesh was resolved.
“… the divided heart will plead indulgence rather than denial.” p. 144, Para. 1, [28OT].

     Some three months before his death, S. N. Haskell sent to F. M. Wilcox his parting statement “in favor of the fundamental principles of present truth.” The five-page statement reiterated his belief-in the nature of the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy. He believed that “every inspired writer points to God as its author, but it is written by human hands in the words of men.” He recognized the fallibility of a prophet, but considered his testimony to be infallible. If God speaks through a prophet, “then his testimony is on par with that of every other prophet.” He recognized that change in the individual or group to whom a testimony was directed could cause a change in the application of the testimony. The messages of a prophet might not be explained by human reasoning, but still were to be followed. No one was authorized to “sit in judgment” to determine what was inspired and uninspired “or in any way dissect any prophet’s testimony.” [51] p. 25, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

Divided hearts will plead, “degrees!,” “critical thinking!,” and “leadership!,” forgetting that Christ declared that “all ye are brethren.” And leaders are to be the servants of all; not striving for some top position not endorsed by New Testament Gospel Order.

     While space limitations prevent such analysis here, a remarkable harmony of viewpoint could also be shown in two other major “pioneer” disputants on the question of the “daily,” J. N. Loughborough and G. I. Butler. Both rejected the concept of verbal inspiration as well as the concept that certain of the spirit of prophecy were more authoritative than others, and both considered that the “new view” of the “daily” would be destructive to the spirit of prophecy. p. 26, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

I’ll give Bert credit for bringing this point out, but it also points out the foundation upon which this faith was built, a foundation then being targeted for destruction by Daniels and Prescott.

     That harmony of viewpoint likewise extended to a newer generation of Seventh-day Adventists that also claimed a rich heritage relative to the spirit of prophecy. Such participants in the debate as F. C. Gilbert, L. A. Smith, G. A. Irwin, and G. B. Starr all considered the spirit of prophecy to be under attack.

Because of the new form of church organization (Another whole topic, but one God is bringing out information on. Witness an article, just arrived on my desk, in the Battle Creek Daily, March 12, 1907, discussing the Adventist’s of West End and their troubles, and the forming of a new corporation and bylaws.) these voices of truth were sidelined, quieted, and made of none effect.

    A sense of strident urgency seemed to become prevalent with the presentations of some of these defenders of the “old view.” The tendency to share the contents of personal testimonies, to publicly question the orthodoxy of church leaders, and to castigate opponents for past errors began to become a prominent feature of the debate on the “daily.” p. 26, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

Things reached this crisis because of a neglect of the testimonies long before. Remember, in 1859 the Laodicean message was applied to the church, which meant that Christ was outside . . . .

God Bless your study

Wednesday March 28, 2012

The 1919 Bible Conference continued.

     THE “DAILY” p. 18, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     As the “daily” controversy erupted within the denomination the intensity of the Battle Creek crisis and the consequences of the attacks of other apostasies, served to solidify the contending views into two camps relative to the question of the nature of the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy. p. 18, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     Positions solidified according to interpretations of Dan. 8:11-13 and a statement made in Early Writings: p. 18, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

More and more you can expect this open warfare against the revealed will of God. This is why none of the wicked will be allowed into Heaven. Even after Satan repented, he was not allowed back; because he had learned genuine rebellion and was not safe to save. Many of the wicked have really learned the same from their master, Satan.

     “Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” (Dan. 8:11-13). p. 18, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     “Then I saw in relation to the “daily” (Dan. 8:12), that the word “sacrifice”. was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the “daily,” but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.” [36] p. 18, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

The above can be found first published in “The Present Truth,” No. 11, page 86. Yes, they, or, Willie, made some changes to the text and you might want to check it for yourself. Notably, the last sentence got butchered. Originally it starts out, “The Lord showed me…”

     The “old view” or “pioneer position” of the “daily” interpreted it, as did almost all the Millerites, to refer to ancient Roman paganism, while the “new view” interpreted the term to refer to the taking away of the knowledge of Christ’s priestly mediation in the heavenly sanctuary by instituting a false sanctuary system. One view depended primarily upon the literal reading of the Early Writings statement, while the other emphasized the contextual background to the statement. p. 18, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].  

Some want to study this out for themselves. Here is some good advise: 1.) Decide if you believe that there is a God. 2.) Decide if you believe in the Bible as God’s word. 3.) Decide if you are going to believe that Ellen was God’s prophet. If the answer is NO to any of the three decisions, then you really should go and enjoy this life. Live out your “religion” and don’t fake it any more. If the answer is YES to the three decisions, then you should ASK, SEEK and KNOCK, until you get the evidence God has prepared for you. It’s most all here on this site.

And, I have one recommendation for you. Limit your study to the things you know are proven by others and you can prove yourself. You will be glad you did. If you have some questions, ask, ask me, I’ll help you to understand. Be bold, just drop me a email.

     STEPHEN HASKELL p. 19, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     In May of 1920, Stephen Haskell, at age 87, reflected upon the denominational events of the previous 15 years. By 1920 he saw within the church “two classes of critics of the sharpest kind.” He observed that one-side criticized everything that did not seem in complete harmony with the spirit of prophecy, while the other exhibited a disposition “to show in some way [it] cannot be relied upon.” He was amazed that certain people within these groups were so familiar with and had access to the unpublished letters of Ellen White. Haskell saw the camps preparing “for a battle of the fiercest kind.” One group was preparing to “defend the old position” at all costs and the other seemed to be preparing, at all costs, to “improve” the positions to conform to the “present status of society.” Haskell concluded: p. 19, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].

This conforming “to the ‘present status of society’ is nothing more than conforming to the world. But that is what the church is about, even more so in these last days.

     “One might think that the Controversy will in the end, be among Seventh-day Adventists whether [the spirit of prophecy] writings as given in the past will stand the test or not.” p. 19, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

     He informed W. C. White, “Of course you know where I stand.” [37] p. 19, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     Fourteen years earlier Haskell noted a crisis within the church and reacted to it by publishing an article in the Review designed to deal with the Kellogg-Jones issues. In relating himself to the question of human influence over the testimonies, he used the example of Paul’s writings and questions raised during Bible times that intimated that Paul sometimes was influenced by others, and thus, whether there should be distinctions drawn within his writings. Haskell ‘pointed out’ that it was the letters Paul received from the household of Chloe that informed him “that the state of things existed which he had seen in vision would exist.” This brought Haskell to his conclusion: p. 19, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     “God shows his prophets what will be, and then when circumstances arise, or the prophet has his attention called to it by private letters, he writes what he has seen. It is the same among the people of God today who have drifted away from the old landmarks, and who follow their own understanding…. It is thus demonstrated by the Bible alone that Testimonies, letters, symbolic actions, and verbal statements of a prophet are all of the same force.” p. 19, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].  

     Haskell pointed out that he was not implying that everything a prophet stated was necessarily inspired of God, but he did fear that “the severest conflict … that the people of God will pass through … will be over the Testimonies of the spirit of prophecy.” [38] p. 20, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

Too bad Haskell could not see this site today! He certainly would have an instant opinion I am sure.

     Stephen Haskell, as did many who supported the “pioneer position” of the “daily,” claimed a rich heritage and intense feeling because of the guidance of the spirit of prophecy in his experience. As a young minister in the 1860’s, Stephen Haskell was given instruction by James White that called for him to his faith directly in God for guidance in his ministry and not to depend upon others to instruct him. James White told Haskell that God could instruct him by His spirit. From that time onward, Haskell understood and lived believing that God gave him his ministerial instructions by the spirit of prophecy. From that time onward, he wrote Mrs. White in 1909, “your testimonies as far as I have understood them have been my counsellors.” [39] p. 20, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     In his discussions of the issues involved in the “daily” debate, Haskell frequently relegated the theological questions to an extremely minor position. Nevertheless, he pursued the subject with all the vigor at his disposal, believing that it was necessary “to save the cause of God and those who believe the old views on the teachings of the spirit of prophecy.” Haskell stated that the question of the “daily” itself did not “amount to a hill of beans” and caused him shame that it consumed any of his time. He noted that he never had preached on the subject since embracing the truth in 1852-53. He alleged that if it was merely the question of the “daily” he would not have published anything on the subject. He wrote to C. C. Crisler: p. 20, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

We will note here that Haskell was not in all the messages, therefore he does not qualify as a true pioneer, one designated by God to set Present Truth. See “The Present Truth,” No. 11, page 86.

     “If God will forgive me for hating this correspondence over this daily I think I will never be caught in such a trap again. I will simply give the testimonies and let the issue go on that. And, if Sister White says that she does not mean what she said, when she said what she did on the daily, then I will say no more.” [40] p. 20, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     Haskell believed that the vital question was the proper position for the spirit of prophecy to occupy within the church. He believed the question was not between him and the “daily,” but rather between him “and the Early Writings.” p. 21, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

At this time I don’t know of those who may have stood up to defend the original writings in the early days when Willie started producing the counterfeit. I am sure some names will come to the surface one day.

 He continued: p. 21, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     “It is the Early Writings that I would defend and as long as I believe they teach the view I take, and there are many others that believe the same, and if Sister White does not give any explanation in harmony with Prescott’s idea to defend the Testimony for the sake of others I shall defend them. (sic) Must I be made to believe the testimonies teach a certain thing, contrary to my own judgment and the reading of the Writings, when Sister White herself does not so explain it.” [41] p. 21, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

The bottom line to all this, is the church will teach, and so will learn the sheep. We are right back to the Catholic form, everyone else is too stupid to understand, we, the learned, will just tell you what you need to know, just do what we say. I suppose that is why the .govs of the world hate the internet. It’s a principle in action. It’s freedom in vogue. Satan is soon to have his day, then the wicked will know who they have chosen.

     Haskell believed that the “new view” lent support to those who claimed that the spirit of prophecy was manipulated to mean differently than what it read and also that it could be changed because of differing circumstances or varying influences upon Mrs. White. He believed that concept would destroy the credibility of the spirit of prophecy. “And right here is the worst affect of these new views on our people,” wrote Haskell to Mrs. White. He believed that once the leadership of the church accepted the position that the testimonies “do not mean what they say,” the church would compromise away the spirit of prophecy. [42] p. 21, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

And so it has. Haskell probably never had a clue that Ellen likely never even saw that letter. You can read all about that in Spalding and Magan, pages 466-476, where Willie, himself, admits he held back things from Ellen. Many do not understand these things because they have not studied them out in depth. That is my purpose here, to show to the world, whosoever will, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

God Bless your study

Tuesday March 27, 2012

Continuing with the 1919 Bible Conference

     Another tendency present in both Jones and Kellogg was their tendency to state their conclusions in a rather absolute manner. Because Jones believed that the 1907 Sabbath School lessons on the covenants directly contradicted the conclusions resulting from the message of justification by faith that he was so completely involved with during the decade of the 1890’s, he asserted: p. 15, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

God’s true church is, every one, eternally grateful that God is “rather absolute.” As stated by another, “Did you notice he didn’t call them the ten suggestions?” Present Truth for the Advent people is an anchor for the soul; one that can not be moved; because it is “rather absolute.” More on this can be found on page 166, at the top, in the 1858 Great Controversy.

     “In these Sabbath School lessons regularly produced by “the denomination,” and used by the denomination for the religious and doctrinal instruction of the denomination, it stands indisputable that the Seventh-day Adventist “denomination” stands so committed to sheer legalism that they have involved in it the very universe of God…. So far as in their power lies, (the denomination) have actually committed the created universe and even the Creator Himself to that same covenant of bondage of selfrighteousness.” p. 15, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     Jones’ absolutism did not permit him to accept explanation that the judgment of the Sabbath School Department in publishing the lessons or the author in writing them, did not commit the denomination to that position. He asserted that, if the Kellogg book, Living Temple, had been published by the Sabbath School Department and studied as quarterly lessons, “then it would be as certain as any thing can be, that the denomination would have been committed to the “LIVING TEMPLE” as a denominational book, and its teachings as denominational doctrine.” [32] p. 15, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].  

By the church’s own admission, everything published by the church, with their imprint on it, is, in fact, an approved part of the church’s position.     “Seventh-Day Adventist publishing houses, built by denominational investment, were instituted not to publish whatever a worker may elect, but to produce the finest literature possible to give our basic message the widest consistent circulation in the most representative fashion.
“Our houses … are partners in a threefold compact — they serve and protect the denomination itself, the denominational publisher, and the denominational author. They have both a denominational name to safeguard, and a publisher’s name and reputation to protect. They, therefore, have book committees to read, evaluate, and recommend specific action and improvements on manuscripts. They have boards to make final decision, skilled staffs to check, edit, and correct the copy, and put it into acceptable form….
“When the finished product carries the stamp of a standard publishing house, it bears denominational approval. It is then a denominational, not a private, publication. It has a measure of authority and dignity not otherwise possible.” Ministry, December, 1948, page 23, Review and Herald Publishing Association.

In further evidence, we remind you of the following item. Celeste Perrino-Walker, an editor employed by the church, wrote a book titled, “The Third Coming,” published by the church in 2006, and copyrighted by the church; meaning it is, in fact, a official church approved publication. But this book, publishes many gross errors, the worst of which is that probation will be granted after the second coming of Christ. We have written about this book before, here, here, here, and here.

     The same type of position seemed to be taken by Jones when the ninth volume of the Testimonies was published in 1909. Because of the intensity of his belief that the article “Sunday Labor” in that volume contradicted earlier Ellen White statements on the Sunday question, Jones issued a pamphlet entitled “The Ten Commandments for Sunday Observance,” asserting that the “SDA Denomination and ‘organized work’ stands publicly committed to Sunday observance.” He wrote Daniells: p. 16, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

Jones was right. In the authenticated Spirit of Prophecy we find these words, “And those who will not receive the mark of the beast and his image, when the decree goes forth, must have decision now to say, nay, we will not regard the institution of the beast. p. 29, Para. 2, [CEV].

     “I cannot imagine what “the denomination’ or “organized work” could now possibly do that would cause me to write or address anything more to Seventh-day Adventists or concerning them as distinct from any other Sunday keepers or worshippers of the beast and his image. Therefore from now on you can safely count that the Seventh-day Adventist “denomination” and “organized work,” as distinct from any other church factions or Sunday keepers will be perfectly free from any “attacks” or “opposition” from me.” [33] p. 16, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     The Jones and Kellogg position on the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy that minimized context and interpretation seemed to place them in a situation where a choice between only two alternatives was possible. They could totally reject the messages that they had been following for years or they could find some explanation that could deal with seemingly inconsistent messages. They followed the latter route and concluded that some of Mrs. White’s testimonies were influenced by others. Thus not all that she wrote was to be considered inspired. Once they placed themselves into the position of having to decide which of the writings were inspired and which were not, it seemed merely a question of time before they no longer would feel comfortable in the church. When Daniells reminded Jones of his stance on the testimonies in the 1890’s when Jones “used them with great force to wheel men and policies into line,” Jones into line,” Jones agreed that that was the case but continued: p. 16, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

This is a particularly telling paragraph. Bert has quite accurately delineated the game. To day, we believe the forensic evidence implicates both Uriah Smith and W. C. White. The only other, logical conclusion is to say that Willie was faithful and Ellen gave herself over to Satan; not a realistic assumption to make for one with her experience.

     “Every soul knows that I never was partial in them, that I never used some with pile-driver force, while utterly ignoring or explaining away others just as plain and definite. The brethren, and the people, know well that whenever I was advocating a matter and some one produced a Testimony to the contrary, instead of explaining it away, I stopped instantly and changed my course accordingly. And that was because of my loyalty to the Testimonies. And that loyalty to the Testimonies was because I believed — honestly and truly believed — that everything that was written and sent out as Testimony was Testimony from the Lord. To that belief and that confidence I was as true as it is possible for a man to be. But that trust and that confidence have been betrayed. And by that betrayal I have been compelled–most reluctantly compelled, I assure you– yet literally compelled to yield that position.” [34] p. 17, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

Unfortunately, today, too many have the same loyalty — to the church, instead of to the truth. During their lifetime, opportunity will be given to the honest in heart to find the truth.

     Ellen White considered that the Kellogg-Jones crisis was undermining the foundation pillars of the faith.” She noticed the “misrepresentations and falsehoods” regarding the testimonies and warned that: p. 17, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     “Very adroitly some have been working to make of no effect the Testimonies of warning and reproof that have stood the test for half a century. At the same time, they deny doing any such thing.” p. 17, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

We believe Bert has wrongly attributed the above to Ellen. It should have been Willie. But we would also place here, testimony from one who knows, “Here is a work that has been subjected to the rigid criticisms, and the most violent persecutions for the long period of twenty years, and yet remains unchanged.” James W., Introduction to No. 26, 1876.

     In considering the “undermining,” Mrs. White frequently alluded to the question of the alleged human influence on the testimonies. She noted that many had gone into infidelity through the position “somebody has told Sister White.” She pointed out: p. 17, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     “Unless there is a breaking away from the influence that Satan has prepared, and a reviving of the testimonies that God has given, souls will perish in their delusion. They will accept fallacy after fallacy, and will thus keep us a disunion that will always exist until those who have been deceived take their stand on the right platform.” [35] p. 17, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

We see all such comments as coming from a Willie, seeking to fortify his position, which was becoming more and more threatened by the wider audience of readers, each seeking knowledge, but, finding confusion. This confusion just does not exist within the body of the authenticated Spirit of Prophecy.

     The Kellogg-Jones crisis was only the beginning of the disunion over the spirit of prophecy that was to plague the denomination in the early years of the century. Other apostasies sprang from and operated in conjunction with or independently of the Battle Creek faction. The element that most had in common was their conclusion that portions of the spirit of prophecy writings could be taken as uninspired. p. 17, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].  

 

Today, we pretty much draw that line at August 6, 1881. The date of James’ death. Let’s just say that it is a convenient peg.

God Bless your Study

Monday March 26, 2012

The 1919 Bible Conference continued.

    KELLOGG-JONES CRISIS p. 13, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

At this point in our journey, of research into church matters, we believe enough evidence has come out that indicates Kellogg was framed. That, at some point, Kellogg lost control of his book, and others put the material about pantheism in the book, probably just before publishing. If this is correct, I take it as indication that W. C. White was also laboring in harmony with the same parties, and was responsible for statements published in the name of Ellen against Kellogg. The dirt is deep.

     As the Kellogg-Jones crisis was approaching a peak of intensity, George Butler, former president of the General Conference wrote the current president, A. G. Daniells, his reaction: “It is a terrible, terrible thing! and are we going into the conflict before us … the great and closing conflict, with two camps wrangling with each other, Arthur? I do not believe it is possible, unless we get this thing fixed up in some way, and union restored, to go on without being terribly crippled for years, and the loss of many souls.” p. 13, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     A fundamental element of the wrangling mentioned by Butler concerned conflicting interpretations of the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy. [27] p. 13, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

This theme is the real motivation for the Conference in the first place. It is a strong undercurrent in every discussion. Something had to be done, for, it was hindering “progress;” which has to be defined in terms of what certain people wanted to do.

     The attitude that both John Harvey Kellogg and Alonzo T. Jones had toward the spirit of prophecy seemed to preclude or at least to sharply minimize the possibility of considering the context of the message given or of “interpreting” it. When urged, in 1905, to explain or have A. T. Jones explain a pre-1900 testimony relating to medical work Kellogg stated, “I don’t know that it needs explanation. There is just the statement there.” Jones commented, “I never explain the Testimonies. I believe them.” Kellogg agreed with that position and affirmed: p. 13, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].  

     “What is the use of trying to explain what the Lord is doing, what the Lord says. The Lord says it as he wants to say it.” p. 14, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

It is difficult to deal with people who will not question God. It’s kinda like the three Hebrews facing off with the king and the fiery furnace; they are willing to be thrown in, and others are willing to do the throwing.

     A little later during this same meeting Kellogg reiterated this attitude: p. 14, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     “I am not going to explain what the Lord says. I am not going to try to. When I read my Bible I believe the Bible – – the word the Lord has sent to me, and I will just get out of it all I can. I will ask the Lord to interpret that to me so I can understand it. I read the Testimonies in just the same way.” [28] p. 14, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

A big part of what is happening here is a Jesuit oriented approach to course and direction, or, leadership. In short, the leadership will take the lead and others will follow. In the point under examination here, it is the leadership that will tell the members how to interpret the SOP; same with the Bible. But, God’s true people are called to follow him, not man. While we are to strive for unity, each must understand the position they take, intelligently so. Blindly following the leadership, leads directly to problems. As Christ has clearly shown, those who strive for leadership, are to be servants of all. This the church is not willing to do.

     Jones affirmed that his understanding of the inspiration of the testimonies was undercut when he could not explain a seeming inconsistency. Like Kellogg he refused to explain or consider the changing circumstances when he related to the spirit of prophecy, Jones told the congregation at the Battle Creek Tabernacle: p. 14, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

Unfortunately, Jones did not know about the deception of Satan on the whole church, the creation of the counterfeit SOP.

     “I have not a cent’s worth of respect for any such plea as is made too often and especially of late years on ‘Testimonies up-to-date’; as if a Testimony up-to-date is to take the place of all that ever went before it. Mahomet taught that doctrine as to his revelations — that the last revelation took the place of all that went before it. But God’s revelation is not that way. God’s revelation is truth, and is just as good today as it was a thousand years ago. It never gets out of date; and the last one that comes is not going to contradict, or vitiate, or set aside, or annihilate any that wen before it…. No sir, the Bible is the Word of God. It is the same today as it was when Isaiah wrote it, when Amos wrote it, when Hosea wrote it, when Paul wrote it, and will be the same after the world is ended and gone. It is so with the Testimonies, too, as certainly as they are the truth of God.” [29] p. 14, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     Jones thus reacted strongly against those who he believed “explained away,” or took a “broad view” of the testimonies, and he considered that they were violating the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy. He likewise continued to believe that the testimony applying to the presidency of the General Conference in 1897 continued to have relevance in 1906, and thus Daniells was not loyal to the testimonies since the testimony stated that it was not wise to have one man as president. He rejected all explanations of that testimony, noting that “whenever it has been quoted it has been explained, instead of obeyed, and doubtless will be so to the end.” He noted that everyone agreed that the testimony stated that there should not be one president, but it was always explained to mean something “different from what it says.” He concluded: p. 14, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].  

Here we have direct testimony from a competent man, bearing directly to the point, those who do not want to obey, want to explain away.

     “Why must we be required to accept all these explanations of what the Testimonies mean, instead of being left free to believe them for just what they say? Can not we be allowed to believe what is said in plain words? Shall we not be allowed to know what we know? Must we accept the General Conference explanation of everything? If that be so, then what need have we of the Testimonies, the Bible, our own faculties and senses, or anything else than just the “General Conference” explanation?” [30] p. 15, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     Jones was so firmly tried to his concept of inspiration that when word came to him that Mrs. White asked him among others to write to her their perplexities concerning her writings so that she might explain them, Jones wrote her that upon that consideration he would not write because: p. 15, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     “Such a proposition in itself surrenders at once the whole ground of the claim in behalf of your writings as the word of God, or as given by inspiration of God. For if the writings were really the word of God — a. They need no explanation. b. If the writings to be explained were not the word of God, then I would not want any explanation of them; for I would not care any more for them than for any other writings that were not the word of God.” [31] p. 15, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].

There are two points we want to touch on about the above; first, W. C. White was quite possibly fully informed about Jones’ position, and would have created the letter alleged to be from Ellen; second, Jones makes this statement of faith, clearly making his point, and by so doing, exposes Daniels, Prescott and others, for just what they are.

We live amid the perils of the last days.

God Bless your study

Sunday March 24, 2012

Continuing with the 1919 Bible Conference.

     The next three pages of transcript depict Daniells applying the question of verbal inspiration to such questions as salt, eggs, butter, and book revision. How, he asks, could the writings be revised, if they were verbally inspired. [20] p. 10, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

We think this is a very good question! We do know the answer now. Arthur White himself tells us, on page 217 of the book, “The Lonely Years,” that it was right after James’ death, “in late 1881.” And it was W. C. White leading the van on that one.

     Several attempts were made to arrive at a practical way to deal with the concept of inspiration. B. L. House considered the problem not to be the question of verbal inspiration but rather the methodology used in preparing the books. Because he believed the Testimonies were prepared differently than other works containing historical extracts, he implied that the Testimonies were more inspired. F. M. Wilcox again stressed his over-all Concept of inspiration that would allow for the possibility of fallibility in a specific detail. “It seems to me I would have to accept what she says on some of those general policies or I would have to sweep away the whole thing,” he stated. [21] p. 10, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].

These men are trying to justify holding the SOP high while totally undermining the real import of their teachings. This leads me to think that at least some of these men were actually part of the problem, that of putting the original SOP away and the creation of the counterfeit. God knows.

     The discussion closed, however, with most questions unresolved. Perhaps the most basic was that posed by C. L. Benson, dean and history teacher at Pacific Union College: p. 10, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     “If there are such uncertainties with reference to our historical position, and if the Testimonies are not to be relied on to throw a great deal of light upon our historical positions, and if the same is true with reference to our theological interpretation of texts, then how can we consistently place implicit confidence in the direction that is given with references to our educational problem, and our medical school, and even our denominational organization? If there is a definite spiritual leadership in these things, then how can we consistently lay aside the Testimonies or partially lay them aside when it comes to the prophetic and historical side of the message and place these things on the basis of research work.” [22] p. 11, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     B. L. Taylor, Bible instructor at Canadian Junior College, restated the Benson question by noting that if Ellen White’s statements concerning history and possibly certain expositions of scripture were considered unreliable: p. 11, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     “The only natural conclusion for me, and probably for a great many others, would be that the same authorship is unreliable regarding organization, regarding pantheism, and every other subject that she ever treated on — that she may have told the truth, but we had better get all the historical data we can to see whether she told the truth or not. That is something I would like to hear discussed. I do not believe we shall get to the foundation of the question unless we answer Professor Benson’s question.” [23] p. 11, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

Notice this struggle. Logic has to have a home. Here it is to be created.

     M. E. Kern, Secretary of the GC Youth Department, likewise touched on that question when he wondered how the same individual (probably referring to Prescott) could consider the historical data in the spirit of prophecy as unreliable “and then assert his absolute confidence in the spirit of prophecy.” He likewise wondered how an individual (obviously meaning Daniells) could ignore the definite testimony concerning butter and still claim absolute confidence in the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy. The question is, stated Kern, “What is the nature of inspiration?” Kern emphasized the twin problems of explaining such a philosophy of inspiration to young people and also the problem of avoiding rationalizing away the entire spirit of prophecy. Kern continued: p. 11, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     “Can we, either in the Bible or the Testimonies, play upon a word instead of the general view of the whole scope of interpretation? I do not believe a man can believe in the general inspiration of the spirit of prophecy and still not believe that vegetarianism is the thing for mankind. I can understand how that testimony was written for individuals, and there are exceptions to it, and how Sister White question is how to present these matters to the people.” [24] p. 11, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     Prescott likewise, considered the question of “inaccuracies” within the spirit of prophecy as a dilemma regarding the question of inspiration. He recalled his experience relating to the revision of Great Controversy. His problem was, he stated, to “retain faith” in those areas of the spirit of prophecy that he had no possibility of verifying as he did the historical revisions that were accepted. He noted that he had not given up the spirit of prophecy despite this difficulty, but “had to adjust” his “view of things.” He alluded to his poor reputation concerning his stance upon the spirit of prophecy and sympathized with the question posed by Benson noting: p. 12, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

It’s obvious here that he did not understand that Willie felt very free to change the Great Controversy, because the 1884GC was his own creation!

     “I have gone through the personal experience myself over that very thing that you speak of. If we correct it here and correct it there, how are we going to stand with it in the other places?” p. 12, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     His solution seemed to be to distinguish between the books that he judged were prepared largely by Mrs. White and those “prepared by others for sale to the public,” while at the same time asserting, inconsistently, that he would not draw a line “between what was authoritative and what was not.” [25] p. 12, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

Look at the double-talk! Apparently one has to have a college degree to come up with this trash. One thing we do have, is an admission that they KNEW that many of the books were “created.” Now, the only one doing this was W. C. White; he was the point man, the man in charge of the whole operation. This testimony leads one to believe that the accusations of the help, of no credit being given for their work, is in fact, correct.

     The Conference concluded without answering this basic question. Perhaps it was not equipped to do so. Perhaps the range of alternatives was not given a wide enough hearing. Perhaps a varying view of the nature of the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy needed to be combined with the views represented at the Conference. p. 12, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     During his last discussion on the spirit of prophecy at the Conference, Daniells alluded to his in-depth exposure to the workings of that gift within the church. Indeed, very few were alive by 1919 who had a more thorough exposure to the spirit of prophecy than A. G. Daniells. Note this statement made to the Conference delegates: p. 12, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     “All these years since the Battle Creek controversy began I have been face to face with this question of the testimonies. I have met all doubters, the chief ones, and have dealt with it in ministerial institutes, and have talked it over and over until I am thoroughly familiar with it, whether I am straight or not. I do not know that there is a crook or a kink in it that I have not heard brought up by these men that have fallen away from us.” [26] p. 13, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

“Fallen away from us,” is obviously an aspersion cast upon those not willing to compromise. But this is the purpose of the Shaking, which, you will remember, started back in January 26, 1850! And, don’t forget the voice of the 1858 Great Controversy, on page 184-185, that these very ones who are “fallen away from us,” are such because of the anger of the leaders, who will not be reproved. So they kick out the “trouble-makers.” You know whereof I speak.

     A glimpse at some of the questions raised during the controversy with J. H. Kellogg and A. T. Jones in Battle Creek might be helpful in gaining a perspective of Daniells’ and others’ attitudes toward the inspiration of the spirit of prophecy. p. 13, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

God Bless your study