The Interview with Dr. Kellogg

[rainbowinthesky]

Part 7 of AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Judges In Their Own Case

Nor yet is this all. I cited the requirement of the Mosaic order, according to which it is professed that you are "organized," that in "all manner of trespass" or of "controversy between men," "the cause of both parties shall come before the judges." In this connection there appears in this case another egregious feature; that is, that the accusing party, which alone was present, was itself the judge; and thus judge in their own case.

See this in plain facts. Who were the "both parties" in this matter? None other than the General Conference Committee and myself. For, when upon the second call, I had told the people where I stand, the General Conference Committee as such, entered the case by an official "Statement" to refute what I had said. In this the General Conference Committee as such made itself one of the parties to the matter. To the demand of the committee for "proofs" and "how" I knew, etc. I replied. If they desired that the controversy should go further, it was then their turn to disprove my proof, etc. Instead of doing this by publishing another statement, of refutation, or explanation, the committee met four thousand miles away and took judicial cognizance of my "public utterances and published statements," and replied to them by this action, process, and procedure, of trying and condemning me without any hearing or any possible opportunity to be heard; but wholly in my absence in every respect.

Therefore it stands demonstrated that the General Conference Committee, as one of the parties in this controversy of their own seeking, did make themselves not only judges in their own case, but also made themselves accusers and prosecutors and judges--all three in one.

How such action, process and procedure as this of judging a man without his having a chance to be heard, and of men making their own case and judging in it, would be looked at in a civil court and under a civil constitution, is well shown in the words and decision of a United States Court not long ago. Here are the words:

"We live under a guaranty that reaches back to the beginnings of our law and is securely planted in every constitution of civilized government--that not one shall be punished until he has been heard; and above this fundamental guaranty can be set no higher prerogatives...

Can an American judge without abuse of judicial discretion condemn any one who has not had his day in court?

"That to our minds is strange doctrine in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Can it rightfully be done here on no other basis than the Judge's personal belief that the party marked by him for punishment deserves punishment? If so, it is because the man happens to be Judge and is above the law."

That says that the guaranty that "no one shall be punished until he has been heard" "is securely planted in every constitution of civilized government." That is the truth. Now, you have a "constitution," and by this, professedly General Conference and denominational government. Is that guaranty "securely planted" in the constitution of your General Conference and denominational government?

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

PART 8

According to the action, the process and the procedure of your Executive Committee in this case, the guaranty that a man shall not be punished until he has been heard, that is "securely planted in the constitution of every civilized government," is not planted at all in the constitution of your denominational government. I say "denominational government," beause this process and procedure of the gereral committee is extended clear through to the local churches; and even the unwilling local church is pressed into it in the name of the General Conference, and by General Conference men.

In late General Conference the impression was conveyed, and it appeared in print as "authorized" by a committee, that what the General Committee had done or what the General Conference might do, would not affect my church membership, but only my relations to the General Conference: that "the General Conference leaves to the local churches entirely the matter of receiving and dropping the names of those who are not considered as in fellowship."

Now, all of that talk and impression conveyed amounts to just nothing at all, in the presence of the well-known fact that the president of a union conference, H.W. Cottrell; the president of a local conference, S.N. Haskell; and another man, W.C. White;--all three of them leading members of the General Conference Committee--by personal presence and pressure tried hard and did their best, in August and September, 1908, to get the "local church," of which I am still a member in good standing, to put me under "the censure of the church." And they did it in the name of "the General Conference;" they tried it in the same old way too--without any hearing, or any chance to be heard. They told the church that if they did not do it, they would be "ignoring the General Conference;" I have the records of it. But they failed.

Since it is a guaranty that is "securely planted in every constitution of civilized government," that "no one shall be punished until he has been heard," and since, in this case, one was punished without his having been heard, and without any kind of a chance to be heard, then plainly, upon your course as to this matter now there depends the decision by yourselves as to whether the Seventh-day Adventist denominational government is to be classed with the civilized or with the uncivilized, of the earth. As the denomination stands committed by your General Conference Committee (and now by the General Conference itself in session) in this case, you are clearly excluded from the ranks of the civilized. And however they may boast of the perfection of their "organization," it is certain that it would not be easy to find any uncivilized tribe on earth so utterly beyond all law and every principle of justice, human or divine, as is manifested in the process, the procedure and the action of the committee in this case. Is it the special prerogative of religious "organizations" or governments to be uncivil or "above the law"?

 

[Castaway57]

Part 7 of AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones


Therefore it stands demonstrated that the General Conference Committee, as one of the parties in this controversy of their own seeking, did make themselves not only judges in their own case, but also made themselves accusers and prosecutors and judges--all three in one.

Unfortunately; it is not "demonstrated at all; it is only claimed by people who have left the Church; and has yet to be proven, by you, or any one of them.

All of these writings are only one man's claim; and what was that you keep saying about following that kind of "high-handed power of one man?"

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

PART 9

But my appeal is not only from the action of your committee; it is from their action "as that action was worded" in the communication to me by the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists dated June 17, 1907, and published in the Review and Herald of June 27, 1907.

What, then, is this wording? The first sentence runs thus: "In the matter of the ministerial credentials held by A.T. Jones, declaring him to be 'an ordained minister of good standing in the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.' etc."

While that sentence does not specifically say in words that I was not "of good standing," the clear implication is just that. What, then, constitutes a "minister of good standing in the General Conference?" Is it moral character? Then, while I do not state it to appear at all as in any wise good, but only as the fact is, it is the truth simply as a fact pertinent, that when that statement was written and the action taken I had been for thirty years an ordained minister of such standing morally that no charge or suggestion of any immoral conduct had ever been made against me. Since that action was taken there has been a lot of it by report and rumour, and it is probable that there may yet be a lot more; but when the action was taken, there was no such charge and never had been any; so that absolutely nothing of that kind entered into the case. Morally, then, I was at that time, "of good standing."

Is it doctrinal integrity that constitutes a "minister of good standing in the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists?" What constitutes doctrinal integrity? It has always been the boast of Seventh-day Adventists that they have no creed but that "the Bible and the Bible only" as "the religion of Protestants" is the sole and sufficient standard of truth, of faith, and of teaching. When I became connected with the Seventh-day Adventists it was preached, and it was the only preaching that was offered, that Seventh-day Adventists claimed to have only the truth of the Bible; that while what they had was the truth of the Bible, there was yet more truth to come forth from the Bible, and that they held themselves open and perfectly free to go on in the Bible, in the "path of the just that shines more and more unto the perfect day," unto this more and more truth, until all of the truth in the Bible and all of its fullness should be found in that perfect day. And I never expected anything else than that this people would allow themselves to be led into all of the truth of the Bible in the matter of organization, as in everything else.

That, I repeat, is the only preaching and the only basis upon which I became of the Seventh-day Adentist connection. And just there I have always stood. There I stand now; and there I shall ever stand. According to the only proposition or principle upon which I entered the Seventh-day Adventist connection, the holding and preaching of the truth of the Bible, as it is in the Bible, whatever that truth may be, would be the only fair standard or test of doctrinal integrity. And nobody has attempted to show anything that I preach or teach, whether by voice or in writing is not the truth of the Bible as it is plainly in the Bible.

Yet, while Seventh-day Adventists proclaim that they have no creed, there has for many years been in print an accepted statement of "fundamental beliefs" which "they hold to" as "certain well defined points of faith." If it should be held that belief of these "fundamental principles" as "well defined points of faith" is the standard of doctrinal integrity that decides whether a man is a "minister of good standing," then I say that I hold fully and truly, without any interpretation or qualification every one of these "fundamental principles" and "well defined points of faith" exactly as I always did, and exactly as they stand printed in the Seventh-day Adventist Year Book of 1907--the very year in which this action was taken by the General Conference Committee upon the implication that I was not a "minister in good standing."

Again: In that 1908 Thanksgiving-week-campaign number of the Review and Herald that was especially a commendation of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination to the other people of the world, as a basis of those other people's making donations to this denomination--in that paper of which nearly 800,000 copies were printed and supposed to have been circulated, there was published a series of statements of what "We believe." And each and every one of these things I do believe.

Thus to this day I am not only in perfect harmony with the proposition, the preaching and the principles of doctrinal integrity upon which I enered the Seventh-day Adventist connection, but I am also in perfect harmony with every item that has been officially published as a statement of the "fundamental principles" or "the defined points of faith" of Seventh-day Adventists.

Therefore not upon any published or known denominational statement of "fundamental principles" or "defined points of faith" was there any possible ground for the implication, written and published by the General Conference Committee in this case, that I was not a "minister of good standing in the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists."

 

[Castaway57]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Thus to this day I am not only in perfect harmony with the proposition, the preaching and the principles of doctrinal integrity upon which I enered the Seventh-day Adventist connection, but I am also in perfect harmony with every item that has been officially published as a statement of the "fundamental principles" or "the defined points of faith" of Seventh-day Adventists.

Therefore not upon any published or known denominational statement of "fundamental principles" or "defined points of faith" was there any possible ground for the implication, written and published by the General Conference Committee in this case, that I was not a "minister of good standing in the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists."

Had Jones been in such "perfect harmony" he would not have had this tiff in the first place. Our leaders of the time labored long and diligently with him, and he made his choices by his own actions.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEALè by A.T. Jones

PART 10

It is plain, therefore, that their implication and their action upon the implication, that I was not a "minister of good standing," was based upon something else than any commonly known or recognized definition or embodiment, of fundamental principle or "well defined point of faith" of Seventh-day Adventists.

Where, then, did they get this something else? Where did they get this new and unknown thing which they of themselves erected into a standard of faith and practice, and a test of fellowship, and upon which they would proclaim against a man who is in full harmony with every principle of morals and with every stated or known or recognized "fundamental principle" or "defined point of faith" of Seventh-day Adventists, the implication that he is not a minister of good standing?

Where did they get this something else, this formely unknown thing which they erected into such a test? Wherever they got it, or however they got it, it demands the question, What right have a few men, a mere committee, to set up new and formerly unknown tests of ministerial standing, and without any publication of it, or notification or information to anybody--not even to the one most concerned--apply those tests as far as the power of the committee lies, to the total destruction of the ministerial and denominational standing of any man?

I appeal from it. Does the General Conference assembled in session propose to sanction a procedure that puts the ministerial and denominational standing of every Seventh-day Adventist minister in such subjection as that to the arbitrary will, the official caprice, or the personal resentment, of a few men of a mere committee sitting four thousand miles away or anywhere at all? Does the General Conference in session assembled sanction this self-erected, fountain of faith and tribunal of ministerial standing?

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

PART 11

But, what is this new thing that so far as the General Conference Committee can go has thus been established as the one transcendent test of ministerial standing in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination--a test in the presence of which thirty or even fifty years of consistent character and doctrinal integrity count for absolutely nothing? Here it is exactly as officially stated and adopted and published by themselves:

1. "That Alonzo T. Jones's work and influence have ceased to be helpful to the denomination from which he received his credentials, that his public and published statements, which have been widely circulated, show his attitude to be antagonistic to the organized work of the denomination which granted him his credentials."

There it is. And when found, what is it? Oh! it is "the denomination," and the "organized work of the denomination"! Now the profession is that "the denomination" is a Christian church; yes, even the very Christian church itself. If that be so, then the denomination is in the world to help men, and not be helped by men. That is the Christian order. But by this formerly unknown and transcendent standard the Christian order is reversed; and lo! "denomination" is here to be helped by men, instead of to help men. Men exist for the denomination, and not the denomination for men. Is the sermon on the Mount good for anything any more? If so, then please read Matt.5:43-48; Luke 6:32-36.

Now as a matter of truth and fact Christ never sent me nor anybody else to preach a denomination, nor to build up a denomination; but to preach the Gospel, and to build up Christians. And that is all that I shall ever do. The religion of Christ is neither inter-national, nor national, nor denominational. It is individual and universal. And in every denomination and in no denomination, as well as "in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him." Acts 10:35.

2. "His public utterances and published statements which have been widely circulated, show his attitude to be antagonistic to the organized work."

That does not specify just what "public utterances and published statements" of mine are meant. But it is only fair to suppose that the reference is to the particular ones that are of record in this case. And the truth is that these utterances and statements were not published, nor written, nor even spoken, until I had been called upon the second time by those of the General Conference standing and connection to let "the people" know where I stand. It is also the truth that unto this hour those utterances and statements would not have been made by me either publicly or privately if those men had not called upon me as they did to let "the people" know where I stand. If they did not want it, why did they call for it? And when they did so much want it that they called the second time for it, then when they got it, why were they not content with it? But no; the committee as such must rush into print with a "refutation" that was more a confession, and a demand that I should give "proofs" and tell "how" I know. In response I did give proof, and did tell just "how" I knew. And that this was to them sufficient proof, and sufficient information as to "how", is sufficiently indicated by the fact that their only answer ever offered was this one of force, this uncivilized action, taken at Gland, Switzerland. Is it for that that they wanted to know where I stand? If they wanted this for other reasons, then why didn't they make other use of it? It is the very spirit of the Inquisition to demand of a man and press him to tell where he stand, and then punish him for it.

Next: Is It Antagonistic?

 

[Castaway57]

It is the very spirit of the Inquisition to demand of a man and press him to tell where he stand, and then punish him for it.

Next: Is It Antagonistic?

They all say this - Kellog was a man who would have complained when asked to do or not do anything he didn't want to. He, like those who adamantly follow him need to realize there is no such thing as "independance" all by itself. Independance, independant thinking must also be in context with responsibility, and inter-dependance. God built His Church on just such a model, and you can post till the cows come home about the great sins of the church over a hundred years ago; or you can decide to recognize the lines of both authority and responibility which God Himself has set in the Church.

If we accept what you post here, then we, like you, will still be following just one man. Jones. Kellog. Waggoner. Yup. From what you are saying it's potluck time. Just pick one of these to follow instead of the General Conference. (as if we actually "follow" them).

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

PART 12

But now, as to fact and denominational truth, is it true that my attitude is antagonistic to the denomination or to the organized work of the denomination? Is this true according to your own standard publications--not any publications that I have written, but to those that you claim, and I admit, are written through the Spirit of Prophecy? Should not the standard and authoritative writings of the denomination be a proper and sufficient standard by which to decide this? To test this, allow me to cite only a few brief passages from Desire of Ages. First, page 324:

"The soul that is yielded to Christ becomes His own fortress, which He holds in a revolted world, and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own."

That plainly says all that I have ever claimed: that in the soul that is yielded to Christ He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. That is the everlasting truth. I know it, and I will everlastingly preach it everywhere and to every soul. And this, in order that, so far as in me lies, the divine intent of the Lord Jesus shall be met.

Next is page 414:

"'The head of every man is Christ.' 'God who put all things under the Saviour's feet, gave Him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.' The church is built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its Head. It is not to depend upon man, or to be controlled by man."

That is the truth. There is where I stand, and that is just what I preach: that the church is not to depend upon man nor to be controlled by man. Further I read, the very next sentence:

"Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction."

That is where I stand, and that is what I preach from the Bible: that a position of trust in the church never gives to any man or to any company of men, any authority to dictate what any man shall believe or what he shall do. And when men in position in a church do make the claim, or when they act as if they made the claim, that they have authority to dictate or to decide what other men shall believe or what they shall do, then I am ready to say to all people just as this book says, "This claim God does not sanction." It is eternally right; and I will hold it and preach it.

Further I read, the next sentence:

"The Saviour declares, 'All ye are brethren.' All are exposed to temptation and are liable to error. Upon no finite beings can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church."

It is the perfect truth of God that "upon no finite beings can we depend for guidance." And I am not going to depend upon any finite being, but only upon the infinite Spirit of the infinite Being, for guidance. That is what I hold, and just what I preach. And I will do everything I possibly can by preaching the word, by prayer, and by instruction in every way, to have every soul to receive that infinite Spirit, and to depend, and how to depend, fully and only upon Him for guidance.

It is the truth of God that "the Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church." And all that I am asking of any person, or of any denomination, is that the place that belongs to the living presence of the living Christ in the church shall be given to Him in His own living Person.

Again I read, on page 668:

"We are not to place the responsibility or our duty upon others and wait for them to tell us what to do. We can not depend for counsel upon humanity."

It is the truth of God that "we cannot depend for counsel upon humanity." The Lord Jesus is the divine, the God-given "Counsellor." By His divine Spirit He comes and dwells personally with each believer as his head. That is Christianity and I will preach it and teach it everywhere. And why should that be antagonistic to any organized work? Again I read the next sentence:

"The Lord will teach us our duty just as willingly as he will teach somebody else. If we come to Him in faith, He will speak His mysteries to us personally."

That is the truth. That is Christianity. The Lord will teach you your duty just as willingly as He will teach any other one his duty. And He will teach you your duty far more willingly than He will teach somebody else your duty. Believe Him, believe in Him. Live with Him. Talk with Him. Trust Him. Believe that He will; expect that He will, and then let Him "speak His mysteries to you personally." That is what I preach and that is what I teach, everywhere and to everybody. It is the truth of Christianity, and I will teach it.

 

[Castaway57]

By going only with what Jones, Kellog or Waggoner may say, you disobey your rule about "obeying the high handed powers" in the church. You are the one following that "high-handed power" by preaching such stoic support of their message; even after you have been told a number of times you are breaking forum rules by coming here and doing this. Our church does not support your's or Jone's theology of authority in the church. Out of all your posts here, you present only claims, and no evidence; you wont even tell us what website, or book, pg no etc that you are getting this stuff from.

Adventists do not claim, or teach, as you keep saying that the church gets to be boss over what a man believes, but we do teach that our leaders and our church, as a result of cooperative study together, have not only the God-given right, but also the authority to state and uphold the beliefs of the Adventist Church. You do not have the right to tell us what to believe, you are not an authority on our beliefs just because you used to attend our church; and your harassment here is unwanted.

But what we can do is to say what the official beliefs of our church are all about and we are under no obligation to change them just because you want us to. There is no dictating of our beliefs - they are arrived at by the cooperative efforts and study of many people.

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

"'The head of every man is Christ.' 'God who put all things under the Saviour's feet, gave Him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.' The church is built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its Head. It is not to depend upon man, or to be controlled by man."

That is the truth. There is where I stand, and that is just what I preach: that the church is not to depend upon man nor to be controlled by man. Further I read, the very next sentence:

"Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction."

Since all you seem to want to do is to quote Jones or Kellog as "evidence against the Adventist church and her Biblical organization of its members, including leaders, you are breaking forum rules by coming here and trying to tell people what we believe or should believe. There are other forums here at CF to preach your negative and stormy gospel message. The way you keep mixing truth and error is completely unacceptable, and you need to go to the correct forums where they allow this. Showing such contempt and disregard for forum rules here of the various faith communities is just plain wrong; and you know it. It's time for you to find another sandbox to play in.

Neither yourself or Kellog or Jones or Waggoner want to accept that Adventists actually do follow the Biblical standards for authority in the Church; and thats OK but this forum is not for dealing with the controversies you keep raising.

Here is what we officially teach on church authority. There is nothing we teach about the subject that is not in the Bible

VII.Church Authority

If the primary duty of the church is to worship and glorify God (cf. Eph. 1:3, 5, 11–14), the first task it was given by the risen Christ is that of evangelism (Mark 16:15; Luke 24:45–47; Acts 1:8). The church is not merely a gathering of people who come together to celebrate Jesus Christ and His teachings, but a people called together by God to witness, to bear Christ’s name and to proclaim it (cf. 1 Peter 2:9). In the implementation of this commission the church is constantly confronted by the issue of authority. To what degree is it fulfilling Christ’s intention? How, for instance, will the church make sure that in its teaching and proclamation it has not yielded to the cultural and philosophical assumptions of the various contexts in which it fulfills its mandate? Where shall it find the unfailing authority to resolve such issues?

A.The Ultimate Authority

​

As Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer, Lord and King of all creation (see Creation III), God alone is the source and ground of authority for the church. Yet our knowledge of God must be a knowledge from God, for only as He reveals Himself can He be known to His people. In revelation God discloses Himself to human beings and shares His will with them. This divine speaking reached a remarkable expression in the prophets who shared God’s mind with His people (Heb. 1:1; see Revelation/Inspiration IV. D). Even so, the supreme expression of God’s self-revelation is Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1–3, 14; 1 Tim. 3:16), at once the locus and the content of divine revelation (John 1:18; 3:31). In Him, as Saviour and Lord, divine revelation and authority find focus and finality.​

In brief, the Word of God who holds authority over Christians and the church is known first and foremost as a person, Jesus Christ, who came to reveal the Father and proclaim the gospel of salvation. He also chose a handful of apostles so that His word and testimony might be faithfully proclaimed and interpreted after His death (Mark 3:13, 14). They were not merely witnesses to the crucified and risen Christ, but also commissioned and empowered by Him (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 2:1–4; Rom. 1:1; Acts 13:2–4; 22:21) to preach the gospel (Acts 14:7, 21; 16:10; 1 Peter 1:12) and to share Christ with Jews and Gentiles (Acts 17:3; Rom. 10:17; 16:25; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; 2 Cor. 1:19; etc.). They were the strongest authoritative human voices among the churches.​

B.Aptostolic Authority​

Their authority, however, was not their own, for the gospel, Paul insists, enjoyed antecedent authority. Any apostle tampering with it was none of Christ’s apostles (Gal. 1:8, 9). Whether “by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15), in obedience to Christ the apostles announced the “word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13), which they expected believers to accept as a command of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). Speaking with the authority which “the Lord gave” them (2 Cor. 10:8) they occupied a crucial and unique position in the transmission of the word of God and the edification of the church (Eph. 2:20).

C.The Authority of Scripture​

When their message found embodiment in the Scriptures, the Word that held authority over the Christian community and was known primarily as a Person came to be known secondarily in the form of the spoken and now written language of the NT. The latter found its place and function next to the OT writings, which from the very start had been the Bible of Christ and of the NT church. God was still the source and ground of authority, for the Scriptures, both OT and NT, are not merely a testimony to revelation but revelation itself. They are not an intrusion upon God’s revelation in Christ but very much part of it, for Christ is their supreme content. Therein lies the authority of the Scriptures, since the only authoritative Christ Christians know is the Christ of the Bible.

D.Authority in the Local Church​

At the level of the local congregation, the elders/bishops seem to have consistently enjoyed the greatest authority (see V. B). One of their main functions was general pastoral care and oversight (Acts 20:17–28; 1 Peter 5:1–3), with special tasks such as giving instruction in sound doctrine and refuting those who contradicted it (1 Tim. 3:1, 2; Titus 1:5, 9). Those who “[ruled] well” were to be “considered worthy of double honor,” more particularly so if they labored in “preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17).

While the elders and deacons helped the apostles in the exercise of their ministry, much of government of the local churches rested in the hands of the churches themselves. It is evident that local congregations exercised authority with respect to the selection of local leaders (Acts 6:1–6; cf. 14:23). They appointed messengers to be sent to other churches (Acts 11:22) or to accompany apostles (2 Cor. 8:19), sometimes accrediting them by letter (1 Cor. 16:3). The local congregations also bore responsibility for purity in doctrine and practice. They were to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1) or, in Paul’s terms, to “test everything” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).​

The same is true regarding the exercise of church discipline (Matt. 18:15–17). The Lord Himself noted that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (verse 18). The terminology was all too familiar to the disciples who heard Christ on that occasion. In synagogal and rabbinic usage it meant primarily the authority to prohibit and to allow something, to impose penalties on someone, or to acquit someone. The exercise of discipline ranged all the way from private and caring admonition (cf. Matt. 18:16; Gal. 6:1) to disfellowshipping (Matt. 18:18; 1 Cor. 5:11, 13). Evidently the local congregation is to settle the conditions of membership and the rules of the house.​

E.Authority of the Universal Church​

Yet, according to the same Scriptures, it is evident that in the exercise of authority the local congregation does not live in isolation or independence from other local churches. Any theory of church authority, and therefore of church government, that fails to recognize the reality and unity of the universal church falls short of the biblical testimony. The relevance of the oneness of the church does not proceed, however, from its practical desirability or the need for amicable cooperation. Its basis lies in the very nature of the local church, which is not merely a section of the universal church but the church itself fully present in that particular locality, the church in local expression. Nor is the church universal the sum total of all local congregations. The church is one and indivisible, a unity expressed in a visible manner. This is clearly reflected in the way the word ekklēsia is often used in the NT (see II. A, B). The NT “body” metaphor reaffirms it. Christ does not have several bodies, but one, and that one body manifests itself in the unity and closeness of the whole church. This is of vital significance for the concept of church authority and its exercise.

If indeed Jesus intended His church to proclaim and share the gospel, one can hardly deny it the right to exercise a measure of administrative authority. In the realm of determining truths of revelation the role of the universal church is more particularly difficult and important. As “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) the church is called not only to teach the truth of the gospel but also to preserve and defend it. While “the faith … once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) has been fixed by the last apostolic witness, it needs interpretation and application to new circumstances and emergencies.​

The means by which this is done, in dependence on the Lord’s promised guidance (John 14:15–17; 16:12, 13), is strikingly illustrated in Acts 15. This chapter tells of the gathering in Jerusalem of a large assembly of representatives from various churches (verses 2, 3) and the local apostles and elders (verse 4) to consider a divisive issue, the role of circumcision in salvation. After “much debate” (verse 7) Peter’s reference to the Spirit’s activity (verse 8) and James’ final appeal to the Scriptures (verses 13–18), a decision was reached and sent forth to the believers elsewhere.

The letter-decree sent out in the name of the apostles and elders (verse 23) was no mere recommendation, since soon afterward, on his second missionary journey, Paul and Silas, passing through various cities on their way to the region of Phrygia and Galacia (Acts 16:6) “delivered to them for observance the decisions [Gr. dogma] which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (verse 4). “Delivered to them for observance.” The voice of the Spirit (Acts 15:28) speaking in the Scriptures and in the work of the gospel among Gentiles was distinctly heard by those assembled “to consider this matter” (verse 6). They were assured that their decision, reached after considerable difference of opinion and by means open to the church in all ages, was in harmony with Christ’s will. They were confident that Christ’s presence had been “in the midst of them” when thus “gathered in [His] name” (Matt. 18:20).

Major assemblies that address matters pertaining to the church in general and that concern the preservation of unity, therefore exercising authority on a broader and more extended scale than a local congregation, are unquestionably warranted by Scripture.​

Dederen, R. (2001, c2000). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series (559). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 13

I read from Desire of Ages, p.450. It is about Jesus and the church leaders of His day:

"To avoid useless conflict with the leaders in Jerusalem, He had restricted His labors to Galilee. His apparent neglect of the great religious assemblies and the enmity manifested toward Him by the priests and rabbis, were a CAUSE OF PERPLEXITY to the people about Him, and even to His own disciples and His kindred. In His teachings He had dwelt upon the blessings of obedience to the law of God and yet He Himself seemed to be indifferent to the service which had been divinely established: His mingling with publicans and others of ill-repute, His disregard of the rabbinical observances, and the freedom with which He set aside the traditional requirements concerning the Sabbath, all seeming to place Him in antagonism to the religious authorities, excited much questioning. His brothers thought it a mistake for Him to alienate the great and learned men of the nation. They felt that these men must be in the right and that Jesus was at fault in placing Himself in antagonism to them."

Was it a mistake for Him to alienate the great and learned men of the nation? It was not. Was Jesus at fault in placing Himself in antagonism to them? He was not. But there were those who thought that He was. And why did they think so?--Oh, just because "they felt that these men were in the right." And why did they feel that these men must be in the right?--Oh, just because these men occupied position and place, they "must be in the right;" and, of course, just because of this, Jesus must be "at fault" in placing Himself in antagonism to them.

But in all this Jesus was not at fault in any sense whatever. He was eternally right all the time; and the real antagonism was not at all on His part.

Therefore disagreement with church leaders, to dissent from "religious authorities," even to occupy an attitude of antagonism to them, is never, in itself, any evidence of error or fault. No man, no association or combination of men, ever has any authority because of any official position or place in the church of Christ, or in any church professing to be the church of Christ. And when any man or set of men ever does have it in any church it is because that church is of men only and not of Christ. "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you." Matt.20:25.

Among Christians it is not so. And wherever it is so in any church, then just so far that is a heathen church; for it is only among "the Gentiles" that such things are done, and allowed to be done.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 14

Again I read, page 550:

"In the kingdoms of the world, position meant self-aggrandizement. The people were supposed to exist for the benefit of the ruling classes. Influence, wealth, education, were so many means of gaining control of the masses for the use of the leaders. The higher classes were to think, decide, enjoy, and rule; the lower were to obey and serve. Religion, like all things else, was a matter of authority. The people were expected to believe and practice as their superiors dictated. The right of man as man, to think and act for himself, was wholly unrecognized...

"Christ was establishing a kingdom on different principles. He called men, not to authority, but to service, the strong to bear the infirmities of the weak. Power, position, talent, education, placed their possessor under greater obligation to serve his fellows. To even the lowliest of Christ's disciples it is said, 'All things are for your sakes.'...

"In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. 'Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.' (Romans 14:12) No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.' (Romans 14:5) In Christ's kingdom there is no lordly oppression: no compulsion of manner. The angels of Heaven do not come to earth to rule, and to exact homage, but as messengers of mercy, to co-operate with men in uplifting humanity."

That is precisely where I stand; and that is only what I preach from the Bible; the kingdom of God as it is in itself 'righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.' (Rom.14:17) The kingdom of God as Christ brought it to the world: the kingdom of God as it is in the individual soul: the kingdom of God as it is in the church of God: the kingdom of God as it is presently to be; covering the earth as the waters cover the sea: the kingdom of God in which on the part of the Governor the only principle is Government with the consent of the governed; and in which, on the part of the governed the only principle is, self-government in God and with God according to the will of God: that kingdom in which, accordingly, there being no place for any one to rule another, the only field of activity is loving service to one another: that kingdom in which the soul is left untrammeled: that kingdom of God in which no one seeks to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty; that kingdom in which every soul enjoys his God-given freedom to think and to follow his own convictions: that kingdom in which everyone gives account of himself to God: that kingdom where there is no lordly oppression, nor any compulsion of manner. That is what I preach. Just that is what I have been preaching, and that is what I shall continue to preach; for it is the kingdom of God and the Gospel of that Kingdom which is to be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, then the end will come.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

PART 15

The next passage is on page 826:

"In the commission to His disciples, Christ not only outlined their work, but gave them their message: Teach the people, He said, 'to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' The disciples were to teach what Christ had taught. That which He had spoken, not only in person, but through all the prophets and teachers of the Old Testament is here included. Human teaching is shut out. There is no place for tradition, for men's theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission. None of these are Christ's servants to teach. 'The law and the prophets,' with the record of His own words and deeds, are the treasure committed to the disciples to be given to the world. Christ's name is their watchword, their badge of distinction, their bond of union, the authority for their course of action, and the source of their success. Nothing that does not bear His superscription is to be recognized in His kingdom."

In the teaching that Christ commissioned me to teach there is no place for tradition, there is no place for men's theories and conclusions, no place for any church legislation, no place for any "laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority." "None of these are Christ's servants to teach." Then what is the good, and what is the use, of your "church legistation," of constitutions, laws, resolutions, and or all of your "laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority?" "None of these are Christ's servants to teach." Then by what right do you require that I shall teach such things?

Now, all of this in the Desire of Ages, without any explanation or qualification, is precisely my attitude in all of my publications and published statements, and in all my preaching. Is that "antagonistic to the organized work?" If so, why? And even if it is how can I help that? It is the truth, as the truth is in the Bible and in Jesus.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 16

Yet even that is not all, from your own standard publications. Here is Special Testimony, Series B. No.10, (1909) "Jehovah is our King." (Testimonies to Ministers, p.481) I have told the President of the General Conference, and others, and now I tell to you, that I stand in full agreement with this in just what it says and that if you will stand there, then there can not possibly be any difference, much less antagonism between us as to organization.

This message says these words:

"God declares, 'I will be glorified in My people;' but the self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue your faith will soon become extinct." Pages 16,17.

I never said anything as strong as that. I never said anything more "antagonistic to the organized work" than that. Is that Testimony antagonistic to the organized work? Or is it antagonistic to the organized work to teach from the Bible that which will effectually prevent that which this Testimony says "has resulted," that is, "putting God aside, and accepting the devisings of men"? When God has been put aside by men in the church, and the devisings of men are accepted instead, then I know what that means. Don't you? And I do not want it. Do you?

The Kingship of Jehovah, and that each one shall find God to be his King, in the Kingdom of God, instead of any kingdom of men in the place of God--this is only what I am preaching everywhere, and what I shall continue to preach.

This Testimony says in so many words:

"This message is spoken to our churches in every place" and that these words ... "are needed in every place where a church is established." Pages 19,33-34.

And yet is is the plain truth that hardly any churches in any place have ever had a chance to even know that it is in existence. Why? And though it has been in print a year and a half, the Tract Society haven't it and never had it for supply and the only way to get it was to send directly to Pacific Press for it at five cents a copy. Why? Is it because that this Testimony, too, is held by these same ones to be "antagonistic to the organized work"?

Further this says:

"For years there has been a growing tendency for men placed in positions of responsibility to lord it over God's heritage, thus removing from Church-members their keen sense of the need of divine instruction and an appreciation of the privilege of counsel with God regarding this duty. This order of things must be changed. There must be a reform." Testimonies to Ministers,477.

That this order of things shall be changed, and there be a reform, is all that I have ever asked for. And why is that antagonistic to the organized work?

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL bu A.T. Jones

Part 17

Further I read:

"In my earlier experiences in the message, I was called to meet this evil. During my labors in Europe and Australia, and more recently at the San Jose Meeting in 1905, I had to bear my Testimony of warning against it, because souls were being led to look to man for wisdom instead of to God who is our wisdom, our sanctification, and our righteousness. And now (1907) the same message has again been given me, more definite and decisive, because there has been a deeper offense to the Spirit of God." Testimonies to Ministers,478.

And I read:

"I write thus fully because I have been shown that ministers and teachers are tempted more and more to trust in finite men for wisdom, and to make flesh their arm. To Conference Presidents and men in responsible places, I bear this message: Break the bands and fetters that have been placed upon God's people. To you the word is spoken: 'Break every yoke.' Unless you cease the work of making man amenable to man, unless you become humble in heart, and yourselves learn the way of the Lord as little children, the Lord will divorce you from His work." T.M.480-481.

Is it true that "bands and fetters" "have been placed upon God's people"? I didn't say that there had. But this Testimony says that there has, and that as late as October, 1907; and you profess to believe that this is instruction from God. Is that antagonistic to the organized work? Without telling the people that bands and fetters had been placed upon them, I have been and shall continue to be, teaching the people how to be free from all such things as bands and fetters and yokes. Is that antagonistic to the organized work? If so, how can I help it?

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 18

After thus telling to Conference Presidents and men in responsible positions what they shall do; after telling to all the churches that the self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men; after telling to all that Christ "wants no power set over them that will restrict their freedom in His service;" that He "has never placed man as a ruler over His heritage;" and that "true Bible religion will lead to self-control, not to control of one another;" then it turns and tells to the individual what he shall do. Here is only one of these:

"Let me tell you, if your heart is in the work, and you have faith in God, you need not depend upon the sanction of any minister or any people; if you go right to work in the name of the Lord, in a humble way doing what you can to teach the truth, God will vindicate you. If the work had not been so restricted by an impediment here, and an impediment there, and on the other side an impediment, it would have gone forward in its majesty." E.G. White, 1901 General Conference Bulletin, p.26.

"Every church member should understand that God is the one to whom to look for an understanding of individual duty. It is right that brethren should counsel together, but when men arrange just what their brethren shall do, let them answer that they have chosen the Lord as their counsellor. Those who will humbly seek Him will find His grace sufficient. (2 Cor.12:9) But when one man allows another to step in between him and the duty that God has pointed out to him, giving to man his confidence and accepting him as guide, then he steps from the true platform to a false and dangerous one... Such a man, instead of growing and developing will lose his spirituality. There is no power in any man to remedy the defective character. Individually our hope and trust must be in One who is more than human."

Now please bear in mind that I have not read this matter from Desire of Ages and Jehovah is our King as proof or evidence that what I hold and teach is the truth. I know it from the Bible, and I teach it from the Bible. What I have read these passages for from these two authoritative publications from the denomination, is solely to show that by your own authoritative publications there is ground for serious question as to whether my attitude is "antagonistic" to the "organized work" in any other way than that in which the attitude of Jesus was antagonistic to the "religious authorities" and the "leaders in Jerusalem"-- "the organized work" of His day.

So then--Moral character is not the standard of good standing here; it is something else.

Doctrinal integrity is not the standard of good standing; it is something else.

Harmony with the standard and authoritative publications of the denomination is not the standard of good standing; it is still something else.

But when you are carried beyond all these, still to something else as the standard, then that something else cannot be anything else than the arbitrary will and "authority" of men passing themselves off as the church. And one of the very first of Protestant principles is "opposition to the arbitrary authority of the church."

But now, and in view of this situation, I am disposed to waive all demurrer, and answer on the merits that charge that I am "antagonistic to the organized work."

tbc

 

[Castaway57]

Therefore disagreement with church leaders, to dissent from "religious authorities," even to occupy an attitude of antagonism to them, is never, in itself, any evidence of error or fault. No man, no association or combination of men, ever has any authority because of any official position or place in the church of Christ, or in any church professing to be the church of Christ. And when any man or set of men ever does have it in any church it is because that church is of men only and not of Christ. "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you." Matt.20:25.

This is just an excuse for what you are doing - it has no basis in reality. Everyone who wants to take pot shots at the church uses this kind of quote now, and it has essentially, no meaning in terms of what we are talking about.

Infact, a closer examination of the quote you used, in it's context, would show that Ellen White was not talking about simple disagreement with the church.

One of the Adventist Churches official teachings involve "unity in diversity," and this is something our church does take great pains to practice.

Kellogg, or Jones or Waggoner were not just in some sort of disagreement; like your own postings here, they have gone far beyond that so as to attack & harass at every opportunity to protest whatever their pet theology was. People like this simply claim the right to say or do what they want and still say they are Adventists.

Jesus did not separate Himself from all church leaders either. if you would quote in context, and use your Bible like Ellen White would advise, this would come out into plain view.

Have some respect for the forum rules and go to the forums where this kind of debate and attacking is allowed. You are not an Adventist, you are openly against many of our beliefs, and according to forum rules you have no right to come here and teach others what Adventists believe, or tell us what to believe.

We do not go by Kellog, Jones, or Waggoner, or any one else. We go by the Bible here, which is something you seem quite adverse to.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

To get a better appreciation of what has been posted so far, please take note of these solemn warnings:

"The spirit of domination is extending to the presidents of our conferences... This disposition to lord it over God's heritage will cause a reaction unless these men change their course... They are following in the track of Romanism.... In their own judgment they devise RULES and RESOLUTIONS to force the will of others. The devisings for forcing men to follow the prescriptions of other men are instituting an ORDER OF THINGS that overrides sympathy and tender compassion, that blinds the eyes to mercy, justice, and the love of God. Moral influence and personal responsibility are trodden underfoot...

"Men have taken unfair advantage of those whom they suppose to be under their jurisdiction. They are determined to bring the individuals to their terms. They would RULE or RUIN. There will be no material change until a decided movement is made to bring in a different ORDER OF THINGS...

"God declares, 'I will be glorified in My people,' but the self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this (order of things) to continue, your faith will soon become extinct...

"The high-handed power that has been developed, as though position has made men gods, makes me afraid and ought to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. This lording it over God's heritage will create such a disgust of man's jurisdiction that a state of insubordination will result... Rule, rule, has been their course of action... Humanity is hailed as God. But the Lord will raise up laborers who realize their own nothingness without special help from God...

"At the time of the first advent of Christ to our world, the men who composed the Sanhedrin exercised their authority in controlling men according to their will. Thus the souls whom Christ had given His life to free from the bondage of Satan were brought into bondage to him in another form." Testimonies to Ministers, 362,363,365,481,360.

We are repeating their history.

"It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the papacy." Signs of the Times, Feb.19,1894.

There is also a dream Mrs. White had in which she saw the leading brethren walking two and two toward the Battle Creek College. Mrs. White was inside the building and she was about to open the door to let them in but just before she opened the door she looked again and the scene had changed. The company now presented the appearance of a Catholic procession. One bore in his hand a cross, another a reed. And as they approached, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times: "This house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order." Testimonies, Vol.1,578.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 19

In 1901 the denomination was brought to the very threshold of the Christian and New Testament order. But instead of going on through the open door fully into Evangelical Christianity, in 1902, the whole order was reversed. And that it was reversed, here is the sure evidence:

In the report presented to this Conference by your president, in the section on "organization" the impression is conveyed that what you have now and here in the way of "organization" is the direct and consistent continuation of that which was begun in and by the General Conference of 1901. But by his own words, spoken in May, 1902, in explanation of what had been begun in 1901, anybody can see and know that such impression is not correct.

It will not be necessary to enter into this extendedly. All that is needed is to cite just eight lines. For in these eight lines he stated a principle that is the pivot of this whole matter, and that itself tells the whole story of then and now. As printed in the Bulletin of the European Union Conference held in London, England, in May, 1902, he who is now your president said on "organization" these words:

"As to representation, nobody can represent anybody except himself. All should be the Lord's representatives, but nobody can represent some other person, or a church. A church is 'fully represented' in a conference when all its members are present; but nobody can delegate his mind or his conscience to another. If a person is present at any meeting, he does not require somebody to speak for him." page 2.

That is the truth. It is a splendid statement of a fundamental Christian principle. And in May, 1902, that was stated by him in council as the principle of organization of 1901, and then. And that is the truth. It is the principle of 1901. And in the presence of that principle the present system of 1903 can not stand for a moment. Are you three hundred and twenty-eight delegates, now assembled and sitting here on the principle that 'nobody can represent some other person or a church'? This great assembly of the people present at every session of the Conference--are these all proceeding on the principle that "if a person is present at any meeting, he does not require somebody else to speak for him"? Is this Conference, or is any other conference of Seventh-day Adventists, conducted in any sense on that principle? On the open face of things the present system is the direct reversal of that principle of 1901.

Now your president, equally with all other men, has full and perfect right to change his mind and reverse his principles whenever he chooses. But when he has changed his mind and reversed his principles, then he has no right to insist that the reversal of principle is the direct and consistent continuance of the original principle. Such a course is the utter confusion of all principle. And for any person to insist on its correctness is only the demonstration that he has lost all use of the faculty of direction.

Also in that Report the impression is conveyed that the chief fault which made necessary the re-organization that was begun in 1901 was the particular size of "the circle of administration"--"the circle was too small." This is also incorrect. The size of the circle was not at all the chief feature; it was what was in the circle. The word that was given is that in that circle "a king is enthroned." Where "a king is enthroned" whether the circle contain five hundred or only five, the principle is the same.

The word then given is, "The Lord wants the Holy Ghost to be King." That is what He wants now, and always, and forever. Will you let the Lord have what He wants? Will you let the Holy Ghost be King? On the principle of 1901, as stated by him who is now your president, the Holy Ghost could easily be King. But the system of 1903 and now, of representation and delegation, carries in itself the whole principle of papal infallibility. And on that principle there is never any place nor any chance for "the Holy Ghost to be King."

That is all that I ask anywhere--simply that the Holy Ghost shall be allowed to be King. And that is now the one great issue of the Third Angel's message. For here stands the great and mighty movement of Federation of churches and religion of and for all the world, passing itself off as "the Kingdom of God." That movement of Church Federation is only the kingdom of man in the place of God. And Sunday observance is the sign and badge of it--while the Sabbath of the Lord is the sign and badge of the Kingdom of God in His own place as God.

The true Kingdom of God or the false kingdom of God--that is now the one and chief issue of the Third Angel's message. (Revelation 14:9ff)

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 20

The Kingdom of God, is God in His own place as God, all in all. The false kingdom of God, of Federation of churches and religion is man in the place of God showing himself that he is God.

The Sabbath of the Lord is the sign of the Kingdom of God, and of God as true King in that true Kingdom of God. Sunday observance is the sign of the false kingdom of God, and of man as false king in the place of God. And everybody who does not know and have, God to be his King in the true Kingdom of God, will compromise and will observe Sunday to satisfy the law and authority of man. In other words, everybody who recognizes man in the place of God anywhere, will receive the sign of man in the place of God, and will wear that sign either in his forehead or in his hand.

That is now the great central issue, and the fast hastening final issue, of the Third Angel's message and the whole world. Who shall be King--God, or man in the place of God? Which kingdom and which sign will you have? You can't have both.

I know that, with an air of horror, it is exclaimed, "Why, according to what you advocate, the whole thing would be only a rope of sand." I answer No. In all that I have advocated the Holy Spirit is sole Sovereign, King, Guide, and all in all. And when that is allowed to be so, then by the mighty energy of that divine Spirit the sand is molten into a sea of glass reflecting the image and glory of God, and upon which stand the ransomed of the Lord singing the song of redemption.

Without the Holy Spirit human nature and all combinations of human nature in the church, OUGHT TO BE only a rope of sand. God forbid that it should ever be a rope of hemp or of American steel to bind God's people in bands and fetters and yokes.

I repeat: In 1901 the denomination was brought to the very threshold of the Christian and New Testament order. But instead of going on through the open door, fully into evangelical Christianity, in 1902 that whole order was reversed. In 1903 this reversal was confirmed in General Conference. And now, as officially written and published, the denomination is openly and positively committed professedly to the Mosaic order but in fact to the first steps of the papal order.

In this same General Conference of 1909, at Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. on May 26, in the Twenty-second meeting of the Conference, the proceedings as officially published confirm all that I have here said as to this papistical tendency. The subject before the Conference was Resolutions 10 and 11 providing that "a book editor be appointed by the General Conference Committee;" and warning the people against reading any literature that has not on it the S.D.A. denominational imprint. The minutes contain the following: