Tuesday April 17, 2012

Continuing the 1919 Bible Conference comments.

 W. C. White considered two other questions of even greater importance, however. He wrote Daniells in March of 1910: p. 55, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

     “I have told some of our brethren that I thought there were two questions connected with this [“daily”] matter that were of more importance than the decision which shall be made as to which is most nearly correct, the old or the new view regarding the “daily.” The first is, How shall we deal with one another when there is difference of opinion? Second, How shall we deal with Mother’s writings in our effort to settle doctrinal questions?” p. 55, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     White hoped that a meeting between the main disputants on the “daily” might resolve not only the “daily” question, but also work toward resolving the larger questions. [107] p. 56, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     Although the meeting proposed by White never occurred, two significant testimonies were sent four months after his proposal to the central figures in the debate: Butler, Loughborough, Haskell, Smith, Gilbert, Prescott, and Daniells. Mrs. White requested that her writings “not be used as the leading argument to settle questions over which there is now so much controversy.” In noting that she had no specific instruction from the Lord on the “point under discussion,” she again urged that her writings not be used in the debate.

I find these lies just ridiculous. No. 20, pages 42-49, specifically state exactly the opposite. Especially is this true regarding the subject at hand, for God has already made the meaning very clear, in The Present Truth, No.11, p. 86. It is the explicit purpose of the testimony of Jesus to bring a clear understanding of the Bible to his church. What we have here are rebellious Israel, fighting against God. These agents of Satan would ruin the unwary. Study, study, study, “to show thyself approved unto God.”

    The testimony, dated July 31, 1910, was significantly entitled “Our Attitude Toward Doctrinal Controversy.” Since Mrs. White ordinarily placed no titles upon testimonies, it seems quite possible that W. C. White placed that significant title on the testimony.

How convenient; a testimony with just the right title. I believe Bert got this one right; at least about the title, Willie did it. It looks like the name of the author was wrong, Ellen wrote much more consistently, Willie should have had a stamp with his signature on it.

    The same testimony urged that “important books that have been in print for years” and that had been influential in bringing others into the church, should not be discredited over relatively minor matters. Questions of correction and revision should be referred to those ordinarily in charge of such matters. [108] p. 56, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

We have a perfect example, here, of a created testimony used to back up and support a W. C. White opinion and counsel. And the last sentence endorsing his position as chief of “corrections and revisions.”

     The second testimony, dated August 3, 1910, contained the following relevant statement: p. 56, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

     “We must blend together in the bonds of Christlike unity; then our labors will not be in vain. Draw in even cords, and let no contentions be brought in. Reveal the unifying power of truth, and this will make a powerful impression on human minds. In unity there is strength.” p. 56, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

What is implied is that one must be in harmony with the church leadership, or else! And make no mistake, that “or else” was made use of. When M. L. Andreasen published his “Letters to the Churches,” the GCSDA leadership cut off his retirement. But in God’s providence, worldly powers stepped in and the funds were restored. This is serious business to deal with the wicked in the church.

     This counsel, unfortunately was not applied in the controversy over the “daily.” [109] p. 56, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     It seems apparent that W. C. White during the controversy over the “daily” hoped to find some way of harmonizing the divergent positions. Indeed, he believed that the consequences of a failure could be disastrous to the influence of the spirit of prophecy writings. He urged his brothers: p. 56, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].

More posturing, trying to appear to protect the SOP, while at the same time destroying it in the creating of the counterfeit.

     “Let us avoid taking such a position as to encourage men in urging upon their brethren personal views of the meaning of certain passages in the Testimonies in a way to cast censure and reproach upon their brethren who do not fully agree with them, and in a way that seems to obstruct the search for truth.” p. 57, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

     “If we fail to stand firmly for correct principles, we may soon be plunged into a condition of things wherein many earnest and radical minds will feel free to select a passage here and a passage there from the Testimonies, and without proper regard to the context and to the teaching of the Bible and other passages in the Testimonies, proceed to teach a mixture of truth and error that is unprofitable to the truth.” p. 57, Para. 2, [1919BIBL].  

     “Let us avoid giving sanction to any man, or group of men, who take a disputed passage in the Testimonies, and putting their view of what it means in the strongest possible light, say that “persons of influence in the denomination” who do not agree with them, “contend that it does not mean what it says,” and that their view squarely contradicts the spirit of prophecy. Surely we can not give our approval to such methods of dealing with the Testimonies, and with the brethren.” p. 57, Para. 3, [1919BIBL].  

Notice the “air time” given to the views that agree with the church’s position. It’s clear Bert has an agenda to work from.

     White deeply regretted that O. A. Johnson, L. A. Smith, Haskell and Gilbert were engaged so actively in “promulgating the doctrine that confidence in the Testimonies must rise or fall, according to the belief of our brethren in the old or the new “view” of the “daily.” [110] p. 57, Para. 4, [1919BIBL].  

This paragraph tells the tale. Here is Willie’s true position. Something in Willie just hated the original Spirit of Prophecy. There had to have been some idol sin he was cherishing; something gave Satan all the foothold he needed, and Willie was his willing servant. “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Romans 6:16

     White made several unsuccessful attempts to have a “brotherly meeting” to deal with the questions. He observed to J. S. Washburn that he believed God permitted such differences to occur to enable a more thorough investigation of truth, and that if such occurred “and if we treat our brethren in Christ’s own way, we shall get great good where the enemy hoped to bring in bitterness and division.” White, unfortunately, had to inform Stephen Haskell in late 1910: p. 57, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     “To this, as to former appeals for our brethren to get together for study and prayer over this matter, there was no favorable response, and the controversy although less open than formerly, has gone steadily forward.” [111] p. 57, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].

Not being acknowledged here, is the response of a like spirit of rebellion against a like spirit of rebellion. Willie would certainly deny this, as would church leadership, even today; but it is nevertheless true, for we have the evidence; first in the letter, Ellen Dreams of James, other things as well, and now, notably, this paper.

     “One might inquire whether we still live in the shadow of the ‘daily.'” p. 57, Para. 7, [1919BIBL].

No contest there! The church has left the strait and narrow path to the city, long ago. About the only work left, is to rescue the few honest in heart, the Rahabs, found trembling at the gates.

God Bless your Study

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment