I am aware of it because the quote is referenced by Spicer in a response to him, quoted in Des Ford's manuscript and partially in Cottrell's. Ford's Manuscript was reviewed by many and they did not object the history presented.
In the letter Spicer went on to say:
After a long discussion of the sanctuary, the Trinity and other questions you ask whether I felt you should resign seeing you were out of harmony with the church. I replied that I was not competent to give advice but was sure that if you taught the things in your classes which you had talked to me the brethren would ask you to resign. You assured me you were not teaching them but talked of them confidentially only to leading men.
Further info from Des' Manuscript.
Present at the trials of Ballenger and Conradi was our veteran educator and administrator,W.W. Prescott (1844-1944). He was president of Union, Walla Walla, and Avondale, and head of the theology department of EMC. He served as field secretary of the GC, and editor of the Review (for seven years). He was the author of The Spade and the Bible, published by Revell. Hundreds of preachers and officers of the denomination received their Bible training from Prescott. The Doctrine of Christ, written by him in the twenties, summarizes his doctrinal presentations in the classroom.
In the Officer‘s Minutes of March 2,1934, we find allusion to the need to save the denomination from ―drifting into theories like Ballenger s.‖
The Officer‘s Minutes of Jan. 22, 1934, record that:W.W. Prescott, who is teaching Bible at Emmanuel Missionary College had certain questions concerning our theology. When these had been considered by a small group it had been agreed that W.W. Prescott continue at EMC for the rest of this school year, and that he not teach in the classroom any of these matters upon which he differs with the denomination. It had also been agreed that at the end of the school year he would not be continued longer at EMC. A letter had been received by W.H. Branson from K.H. Holden asking that the General Conference call W.W. Prescott back to Washington to relieve them of the necessity of asking him to discontinue work.
It was finally Voted, That I.H. Evans and W.H. Branson draw up a statement to W.W. Prescott explaining to him that on the basis of conversations which have been had with him by members of the official staff, that we understand he is not in full harmony with the denominational beliefs, and that we believe that he cannot go on teaching in a Bible Department while his views are not in harmony with the denomination, and suggest to him that he cooperate with the Officers and with the Emmanuel Missionary College Board by withdrawing at the end of the school year; that we further suggest to him in the statement that if he wishes, he may have a hearing on his religious views with the Officers of the General Conference.31
February 2,1934, W.W. Prescott wrote to Elders Branson and Evans. We quote the first two paragraphs.
Dear Brethren:
In your letter of Jan. 29, received yesterday, you advise me to withdraw voluntarily from my place as a worker in this movement on the ground that I am ―somewhat out of harmony with the established faith of the denomination on certain vital points, especially the doctrine of the sanctuary.‖ You do this without having had any conference with me over the serious question involved, and without expressing any regret that I have taken such a course as to forfeit your confidence in me as a proper representative of this work after having devoted about fifty years of my life to its advancement. Not only so, but you plainly imply that if I do not thus withdraw, the matter will be taken up with the Board of Trustees of this college with the purpose, of course, of preventing me from being invited by them to continue my work here. Now it is an axiom in any court of justice that an accused person should have the opportunity of facing his accusers in court and be given a fair chance of disproving the charges against him, but it seems as if you had already decided the case against me, and were now advising me to avoid a public condemnation by quietly accepting your decision. It is true that you offer me the opportunity of coming to Washington to confer with you, but are the accusers the proper jury to consider the case? Is it not a fair procedure that the charge which you make against me should be considered by those who have not made the charge? It seems that way to me.
).
