The Interview with Dr. Kellogg

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 21

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:

"D.W. Farnsworth: How extensive would be the power of the book editor? Would he simply attend to the grammatical errors and the style, or would he make practically a new book of it?"

"W.C. White: I understand that a servant is to do that which he is instructed and employed to do, and if he does not do it satisfactorily, his employer gives him proper instruction. This man, who would be employed by the General Conference, would work under the direction of the General Conference Committee, principally through the Publishing Department. He would naturally do those things which he was asked to do; and his work would be submitted to the members who direct his labor, for approval. It would be impossible for this congregation to instruct a book editor as to how far he should go in literary criticism or in criticism of theology, but the members who stand close to him would need to give instruction and his work would be, I understand, advisory, and would be directed by the General Conference.

"W.C. White: "Isn't it time that we say to our people that the imprint of one of our houses means something? The imprint of one of our school printing houses means something. The imprint of one of our conferences means something. In our 'Year Book' there are twenty-two publishing houses recognized. Should not our people take time to look to the 'Year Book' and see what that imprint is? Otherwise how are we to carry into this publishing work the same principles that we stand for in the doctrine of the laying on of hands, as it applies to church officers, to conference officers, to teachers in our schools? It is that sort of work that this resolution is aimed at, and I am sure that your sympathies are with it... It is intended to instruct our people to watch the imprint of the literature which they receive, and to have some test as to whether it is Seventh-day Adventist literature or not, before they eat it or began to pass it out for other people to eat."

I could myself characterize the foregoing and show just what it is like, but this has been so well done by the Review and Herald itself that I will only quote what that paper says just one week following the day when the foregoing statements were made in General Conference. In the Review and Herald of June 3, 1909, on the first editorial page there is the following editorial article entitled, "Subjugating the Mind."

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 22

In the Review and Herald of June 3, 1909, on the first editorial page there is the following editorial article entitled, "Subjugating the Mind."

"The conquest of the human mind has been one of the prime objects of man's enemy during the entire campaign of unrighteousness. There have been many methods employed in bringing it about; but one object runs through them all. To subjugate the mind is to conquer the individual who possesses it. Lucifer has had that in view in the inauguration of every system of false worship, as well as in some other movements not rated as religious.

"In hypnotism, or mesmerism, the operator can do nothing until the subject yields his intellect to the control of another. In Spiritualism the 'spirits' can do nothing until the medium is in a 'receptive' mood. In Christian Science, in the Emmanuel Movement this same campaign against the conscious self is waged, while the subliminal self, or some other being's self is set over the thoughts and actions of the individual.

"In the same category stands the Roman Church, anathematizing private opinion and liberty of conscience, and seeking to compel men to think and speak only as the church dictates. Dr. O.R. Brownson, in the preface to his great defense of the Catholic Church Essays and Reviews, page VI, says:

"The articles (which comprise the book) before being printed in the Quaterly Review were submitted to the revision of a competent theologian, and I have no reason to suppose that they contain anything not in accordance with Catholic faith and morals; but they are as a matter of course republished with submission to the proper authority, and I shall be most happy to correct any error of any sort they may contain the moment it is brought authoritatively to my notice. It is not my province to teach; all that I am free to do is to reproduce with scrupulous fidelity what I am taught."

"This is the position that must be taken by every loyal Catholic writer. Otherwise his book is placed upon the Index Expurgatorius, and he is anathematized if he persists in holding his opinion. Every book that bears the 'Imprimatur' of an archbishop stands for an individual whose mind is subjected to the dominance of some authority outside himself; and every time such dominance is permitted, God is robbed of the allegiance that is His due. When the whole world bows down to one earthly ruler, although he is arrayed in the insignia of the vicegerent of Christ, it will have declared its intellectual and religious capitulation to the powers of darkness, and the time for the Sun of Righteousness to shine forth in the glory of the Father will have come."

I do not know that this editorial in the Review and Herald of June 3, 1909, was aimed at that papalistic procedure of the General Conference one week before. I hope that it was. But whether it was or not it certainly could not have hit straighter that procedure in General Conference, if it had been positively aimed at it.

For what can be the difference in principle or in practice between the "Imprimatur" of a Catholic archbishop and the "Imprimatur" of a Seventh-day Adventist Publishing House or Conference when this "Imprint" can come only from the General Conference through its editor, who, as a "servant," is to do only that which he is instructed and employed to do by the General Conference Committee or "the members who stand close to him" "to give him instruction."

What can be the difference in principle, in practice, or in consequences, between the people of the Catholic Church being instructed to watch for the "Imprimatur" of literature which they receive, and have this test as to whether it is Catholic literature or not, before they can eat it or begin to pass it out for other people to eat--what can be the difference between that and this instruction to Seventh-day Adventists to "watch for the Imprint of literature which they receive, and have this test as to whether it is Seventh-day Adventist literature or not, before they can eat it or begin to pass it out for other people to eat"?

What is the difference between the position, and the condition, too, of that Catholic writer whose province is only to reproduce what he is taught by his ecclesiastical superiors--what is the difference between that man and this proposed General Conference editor who is expected to be "a servant to do that which he is instructed" by the General Conference Committee to do, and whose "work should be submitted to the members who directed his labor, for approval"?

And note: "It would be impossible for this congregation to instruct a book editor as to how far he should go in literary criticism or in criticism of theology, BUT the members who stand close to him would need to give him instruction!"--Yes, of course! It would be impossible for you to do anything of that kind. But we, lo! we the superior few, "who stand close to him"--WE can do all this in perfection!

I shall not follow analysis further. I will only say that never in all the Middle Ages was there a more papalistic thing proposed than this that was put through by the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference May 26, 1909. Read the full proceedings on pages 173-175, General Conference Bulletin, and then read many times again the editorial here quoted from the Review and Herald, June 3, 1909.

And will the Seventh-day Adventist people submit to this subjugating and enslaving thing as the Catholic people do? Will they? Will you? The Seventh-day Adventist officialdom will, of course, just as the Catholic officialdom does, for it was they who put this thing through. And indeed they have already submitted to it, for all the three hundred and twenty-eight delegates, in the whole discussion covering large pages there was not a single dissenting vote. They have done it; now will the people submit to it?
___________

Note: "While engaged in earnest prayer, I was lost to everything around me; the room was filled with light, and I was hearing a message to an assembly that seemed to be the General Conference. I was moved by the Spirit of God to make a most earnest appeal; for I was impressed that great danger was before us at the heart of the work. I had been, and still was, bowed down with distress of mind and body, burdened with the thought that I must bear a message to our people at Battle Creek to warn them against a line of action that would separate God from the publishing house." T.M.461.

"If you lay your hand upon the publishing work, this great instrumentality of God, to place your mold and superscription upon it, you will find that it will be dangerous to your own souls, and disastrous to the work of God. It will be as great a sin in the sight of God as was the sin of Uzzah when he put forth his hand to steady the ark." T.M.462.

She wrote, "You cannot do this." T.M.462.

But they did it anyway.

"In the weakness of human judgment, men were gathering into their finite hands the lines of control, while God's will, God's way and counsel, were not sought as indispensable. Men of stubborn, ironlike will, both in and out of the office, were confederating together, determined to drive certain measures through in accordance with their own judgment." T.M.461,462.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 23

"A servant is to do that which he is instructed and employed to do." W. C. White.

Yes, he is. But whose servant is he? Every Christian is to be the servant of Christ, to do that which he is instructed and employed by Christ to do. And Christ has spoken it, "Be not ye the servants of men."

Whose servant are you?

By this action of the General Conference in session every Seventh-day Adventist is definitely put upon the issue, to decide it himself for himself. Whose servant is he? Is he the servant of Christ to do what he is instructed and employed by Christ to do? Or is he the servant of men to do what he is instructed and employed to do by some committee or some specially superior few who stand close to him to give him instruction?

Also by this General Conference action every Seventh-day Adventist is brought to the issue to decide it himself, for himself,--what is the test of truth? Is it "the Spirit of Truth"--who is given to "guide you into all truth" or is it certain "Imprint" fixed by men?

And in view of this double issue let there be rung out everywhere clear and distinct the Divine Word, "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." 1 Cor.7:23.

In the General Conference of 1903, I said in this connection that though Israel several times started back to Egypt, they never got there. But now it must be said that if this order of things (man being made amenable to man) shall be confirmed by this General Conference, then you will have got there; you will be back to Egypt; and the bands and fetters and yokes "that have been put upon God's people" will be confirmed instead of broken. And as certainly as this shall be,--then there will go forth again from God the mighty word, "Let My people go, that they may serve ME."

In this General Conference now going to confirm that? Nay; will not this General Conference and every Seventh-day Adventist in the world espouse Christ and the Christian order only and forever?

Next: It is not Protestant in truth.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 24

This professed "organized work" is not Protestant in truth. The first of all Protestant principle is "the right of private judgment" in religion, and thus perfect individuality in religion. But this first of all protestant principle is neither recognized nor allowed in the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work." The principle is recognized, as relates to the State,--but it is not allowed at all as relates to the church, nor is it allowed in the S.D.A. denomination.

"The organized work" will spend much time and effort and money, and will travel long distances to many places, to maintain and defend the full and perfect right of every individual to believe for himself, without any dictation or interference by the State. And all of this is perfectly right. But this is not Protestant, in truth.

The Protestant principle as such applies first of all to the church. It must never be forgotten that this principle as originally espoused, primarily had no reference whatever to the State, but only to the church and its "organized work." Secondarily it related to the State, because the State was only the tool of the church. And when by the Constitution of the United States, church and State became separated, the principle applies, of course, equally to the State as to the church.

But primarily and through all Protestant history the principle applies to the church. And now for Seventh-day Adventists, or anybody else, to confine it exclusively or even primarily to the State, and deny it as to the church, is a total perversion of it, and exactly repeats the same perverse course of every denomination before.

Therefore, when the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and "organized work" apply this first of all Protestant principles to the State, as they do, and then refuse it as to the church, as they do, it is absolutely inconsistent in itself, and unprotestant as to the principle; it is not fairly Protestant to protest against Rome, and then follow Rome's very course. It is not fairly Protestant to protest even against false Protestantism only in some things, while repeating other things that are just as falsely Protestant and more Romish. For who ever heard of any other Protestant teaching that "In Peter... believers are united in the Holy Ghost"? Review & Herald, May 2, 1907, p.10.

Further: You maintain that when the State holds strictly to this principle of perfect freedom of conscience and individuality in religion, that is according to Christian principle. But you will not allow that your own church, shall hold this attitude, which you insist that the State must hold. In this, then, you require that the State shall be more Christian than your own church. Any abridgement or interference whatever with this full and perfect right of the individual by the State, the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" will vigorously deny over yonder on Capitol Hill. But you positively affirm it for your owh church over here on Takoma Park Hill.

You insist that your church shall hold and exercise this very power that you deny to the State. Then it is certain that, as the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" stands, all of the people are better off only as citizens of the United States, than they would be as members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. For so long as they are only citizens of the United States, your "organized work" will spend time and money and energy strongly and continuously to maintain their perfect right in the exercise of private judgment and their own individuality, in religion. But the moment they become members of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, that right is absolutely denied; and if they attempt to exercise it, then the "organized work" will spend time and money and energy in vigorously denying the right and denouncing them, and casting them out, even without any notice or hearing.

And all this as to this Protestant principle is witnessed by your own acknowledged authoritative writings. In Great Controversy, page 293, there is mentioned "that great principle, the outgrowth of the New Testament, which acknowledges God as the SOLE JUDGE of human faith;" and then there follow these weighty and most pertinent words:

"The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors."

Is that papal error so deeply rooted in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and "organized work" that it can not be rooted up? Is it so deeply rooted there that it must remain and grow into another great papal tree of religious despotism in the church? Even if this be so, there must not be forgotten the Divine Word that "Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." My brethren, far better will it be to allow that papal error to be rooted up now by the gentle grace of the Holy Spirit, than to refuse this now, and then have it rooted up by the awful hand of the mighty God in that great and hastening day. O! choose now, to have it rooted up now.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

AN APPEAL by A.T. Jones

Part 25

The "organized work" of Seventh-day Adventists as it now stands can never oppose on principle nor by the Scripture the now great and sweeping movement of the Church Federation for the Seventh-day Adventist organization is more of a federation and confederation now than that other will be five years from now. No Seventh-day Adventist of the "organized work" can ever oppose Church Federation on principle and as it now is without exposing the same thing in his own federation.

This is confirmed by the report of the proceedings of the "Religious Liberty Department," "Tenth Meeting, May 25, 8:00 a.m." This report says that "Prof. W.W. Prescott occupied the first half hour of the meeting with an address on the subject of 'The Inter-Church Federation Movement and Our Relation to it.' Then the report says:

"The Catholic church, he said, needed no such movement; for they were already federated."

Now, the Catholic church is a single church with only a single organization of its own self and its own work alone, separate from all other churches. Therefore, as certainly as the Catholic church is a federation, then just so certainly the Seventh-day Adventist church, being only a single church, itself, and its own work organized as a single organization separate from all other churches, is likewise a Federation. It is simply impossible to count the Catholic church a federation and logically escape counting the Seventh-day Adventist church equally a federation.

It is the truth. The Catholic church is a federation. And so is every other church that is "organized" on the plan or on the principle of the Catholic church.

If any of you do not believe that to oppose Church Federation on principle will only expose your own federation, then just try it and see how soon you will find out that your "attitude is antagonistic to the organized work." And in this you need not mention, nor even refer to, the Seventh-day Adventists or their "organized work." Yet to oppose and expose on principle and by the Scripture that great movement of Church Federation is the very Third Angel's Message as that Message is now due in warning against the Beast and his image. As for me, I will preach this Message.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISTORY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 1

Battle Creek, Mich., Jan. 26, 1906.

to: A.G. Daniells, President of General Conference

Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C.

Dear Brother:--Your letter of the 17th in answer to mine of the 6th goes so far afield from anything expected or, as I think, called for by my letter, that I am disposed to follow you there, and do all that I can to take away all ground for your having any perplexity about me or my course. Indeed, if you had remembered things that at the beginning I said to you, you need not to have been perplexed at all concerning me, if you expected me to be consistent at all.

First as to the General Conference matters, and my relations to the Committee. Before the General Conference of 1897, at College View, the conditions were such that in that Conference things came to a deadlock. By the Committee and presidents in council, I, in my absence was appointed to read the Testimonies to find the way out. God did lead us out gloriously. A change was made: Brother Irwin being elected president. And I was made a member of the Committee.

It was not very long, however, before the same influences that had produced the situation at College View, were again at work. I saw it plainly enough to satisfy me, and by the time of the General Conference of 1899, at South Lancaster, things were in a bad shape again in some respects--though not near so far along as at College View. In the South Lancaster Conference one day, all unexpectedly, and unintentionally on the part of anybody in the Conference, the power of God came in in a special manner, bringing the whole Conference to its knees at once, and working a great deliverance again.

Brother Irwin stated openly in the Conference that he had "been a coward." The whole matter can be read in the Bulletin of that Conference for that day. On another day in that Conference, the power of God came in specially and carried the deliverance further.

By action of that Conference, I was continued on the Committee. It was not long before the same old influences were at work; and in about a year they had got such a hold again, that, rather than be compromised, I resigned from the Committee.

Then came the General Conference of 1901, in Battle Creek. According to the arrangements I was to report the proceedings of the Conference: and according to the arrangements, Brother Prescott and Brother Waggoner were not expecting, and evidently were not expected, to have even that much to do. But before the Conference actually assembled in session there occurred that meeting in the Library Room of the College Building, in which Sister White spoke on General Conference matters and organization, declaring that there must be "an entire new organization, and to have a Committee that shall take in not merely half a dozen that is to be a ruling and controlling power, but it is to have representatives of those that are placed in responsibility in our educational interests, in our sanitariums, etc., that there should be a renovation without any delay. To have this Conference pass on and close up as the Conferences have done with the same manipulating, with the very same tone, and the same order--God forbid! God forbid, brethren... And until this shall come we might just as well close up the Conference today as any other day. . . This thing has been continued and renewed for the last fifteen years or more, (1901 minus 15 years takes us back to 1886), and God calls for a change."

tbc

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISTORY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 2

"From the light that I have, as it was presented to me in figures, there was a narrow compass here; there within that narrow compass, is a king-like, a kingly ruling power. God means what he says and He says, 'I want a change here.' Will it be the same thing? going over and over the same ideas, the same committees--and here is the little throne--the king is in there, and these others are all secondary. God wants that those committees that have been handling things for so long should be relieved of their command and have a chance for their life and see if they can not get out of this rut that they are in--which I have no hope of their getting out of, because the Spirit of God has been working and working, and yet the king is in there still. Now the Lord wants His Spirit to come in. He wants the Holy Ghost King.

"And the work all over our field demands an entirely different course of action than we have had; that there needs the laying of a foundation that is different from what we have had... In all these countries, far and near, He wants to be an arousing, broadening, enlarging power. And a management which is getting confused in itself--not that any one is wrong or means to be wrong, but the principle is wrong; and the principles have become so mixed and so fallen from what God's principles are.

"These things have been told, and this standstill has got to come to an end. But yet every Conference has woven after the same pattern, it is the very same loom that carries it, and finally, it will come to naught."

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISTORY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 3

God means what He says and He says, "I want a change here."

Upon that instruction and much more to the same effect in that talk, you and Brother Prescott and others took hold of the matters pertaining to the then pending General Conference, set aside entirely the old order of things, and started it new. At the opening of the General Conference, April 2, Sister White spoke briefly to the same effect as in the College Building the day before. Brother Irwin followed with a few words; and then you, brother Daniells, spoke a few words and introduced a motion that the usual rules and precedents for arranging and transacting the business of the Conference be suspended, and a General Committee be hereby appointed... to constitute a general or central committee, which shall do such work as necessarily must be done in providing the work of the Conference, and preparing the business to bring before the delegates. Thus the new order of things was started.

The night of that very first day of the Conference I was appointed to preach the sermon. Since I had been appointed to report the proceedings, I expected to have no preaching or other work to do. Therefore when I was called to preach, I supposed that it was designed to have me preach that one time during the conference, and have me do it at the beginning so that I could go on afterward unmolested with the reporting. I spoke on Church Organization. When that meeting was over, I supposed that my preaching during the Conference was done. Therefore I was surprised when only two days afterward--April 4, you came to me at the reporter's table and said, we want you to preach tonight. I said I supposed that my preaching was over, since I have the reporting to do. I can not do this and preach often. You said to me, "You have light for the people, and we want them to have it." I consented and preached again on the subject of Church Organization, developing the subject further, and on the same principles precisely as on the night of April 2.

STARTED THE CALLED-FOR RE-ORGANIZATION

In that Conference (1901) the General Conference was started toward the called-for reorganization. All understood that the call was away from a centralized order of things in which "one man or two men or three or four men or a few men" held the ruling and directing power, to an organization in which "all the people" as individuals should have a part, with God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit as the unifying, guiding, and directing power. Indeed, the day before my second sermon on organization, Sister White had said, April 3--"We want to understand that there are no gods in our Conference. There are to be no kings here, and no kings in any conference that is formed. 'All ye are brethren.'"

"The Lord wants to bind those at this Conference heart to heart. No man is to say, 'I am a god, and you must do as I say.' From the beginning to the end this is wrong. There is to be an individual work. God says, 'Let him take hold of my strength that he may make peace with me, and he shall make peace with me.'

"Remember that God can give wisdom to those who handle His work. It is not necessary to send thousands of miles to Battle Creek for advice, and then have to wait weeks before an answer can be received. Those who are right on the ground are to decide what shall be done. You know what you have to wrestle with, but those who are thousands of miles away do not know."-- Bulletin, 1901, pp. 69, 70.

And on the very day of my second sermon, April 4, she said in a talk at 9:00 a.m., "This meeting will determine the character of our work in the future. How important that every step shall be taken under the supervision of God. This work must be carried in a very different manner to what it has been in the past years." 1901 General Conference, p. 83.

In this understanding an entire new Constitution was adopted; and that such was the understanding in adopting this Constitution is plainly shown in the discussions. Under this constitution the General Conference Committee was composed of a large number of men, with power to organize itself by choosing a chairman, etc. No president of the General Conference was chosen; nor was any provided for. The presidency of the General Conference was eliminated to escape a centralized power, a one-man power, a kingship, a monarchy. The Constitution was framed and adopted to that end in accordance with the whole guiding thought in the Conference from the beginning in that room in the College Building.

Shortly after the Conference ended, you suggested during the meeting at Indianapolis that my sermon on organization ought to be printed in a leaflet so that our people everywhere could have it for study in the work of reorganization. Your suggestion was agreed to and I was directed to prepare it for printing. I did so, and it was printed at General Conference direction, in "Words of Truth" Series, No. 31, extra, May, 1901."

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISTORY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 4

AFFAIRS BEGAN TO BE REVERSED

Now after all this, it was not long before this whole spirit and principle of General Conference organization and affairs began to be reversed again. This spirit of reaction became so rife and so rank that some time before the General Conference of 1903 at Oakland, Cal., two men, or three men, or four men, or a few men, I should say, being together in Battle Creek or somewhere else, and without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain words of the Constitution, took it absolutely upon themselves to elect you, brother Daniells, president, and brother Prescott vice-president of the General Conference. And than that there never was in this universe a clearer piece of usurpation of position, power, and authority. You two were then, of right, just as much president and vice-president of Timbuktoo as you were of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference.

But this spirit did not stop even there. The thing done was directly against the Constitution. This was too plain to be escaped. And it was just as plain that with that Constitution (of 1901) still perpetuated in the coming General Conference, this usurpation of position, power, and authority could not be perpetuated. What could be done to preserve the usurpation?-- Oh, that was just as easy as the other. A new Constitution was framed to fit and to uphold the usurpation. This Constitution was carried to the General Conference of 1903 at Oakland, Cal., and in every unconstitutional way was there jammed through. I say in every unconstitutional way, because in every truly constitutional government the Constitution comes in some way from the people, not from the monarch. Thus the people make and establish a Constitution. The monarch grants a Constitution. When the people make a Constitution the people govern. When a monarch grants a Constitution, he seeks to please the people with a toy and keeps the government himself. This difference is the sole difficulty in Russia today; and the difference is simply the difference between monarchy and government of the people; and between oppression and freedom. The people want to make a Constitution. The czar wants to grant them a Constitution and have them endorse anew his autocracy and bureaucracy by adopting the Constitution that he grants.

And this is just the difference between the General Conference and its Constitution of 1901, and the General Conference and its Constitution of 1903. In 1901 the monarchy was swept aside completely, and the Conference itself as such and as a whole made a new Constitution. In the General Conference of 1903, the usurpers of monarchical position and authority came with a Constitution that fitted and maintained their usurpation, and succeeded in getting it adopted. And how?--None of the people had asked for any new Constitution. The General Conference delegation had not asked for it. Not even the Committee on Constitution asked for it. In behalf of the usurpation it was brought before that committee and advocated there because, in very words, "The church must have a visible head." It was not, even then, nor was it ever, favored by that committee. It was put through the committee, and reported to the Conference, only by permanently dividing the committee--a minority of the committee opposing it all the time, and--a thing almost unheard of in Seventh-day Adventist Conference--bringing into the Conference a minority report against it.

And when at last it was adopted by the final vote, it was by the slim majority of just five. And it was only by the carelessness of some of the delegates that it got through even that way; for there were just then downstairs in the Oakland church enough delegates who were opposed to it, to have defeated it if they had been present. They told this themselves afterward. But they did not know that the vote was being taken, and by their not being in their places the usurpation was sanctioned; the reactionary spirit that had been so long working for absolute control had got it; the principles and intent of the General Conference of 1901 were reversed; and a czardom was enthroned which has since gone steadily onward in the same way and has with perfect consistency built up a thoroughly bureaucratic government, by which it reaches and meddles with, and manipulates, the affairs of all, not only of union and local conferences, but of local churches, and even of individual persons. So that some of the oldest men in active service today, and who by their life experience are best qualified to know, have freely said that in the whole history of the denomination there has never been such a one-man power, such a centralized despotism, so much of papacy as there has been since the Oakland Conference. And as a part of this bureaucracy there is, of all the incongruous things ever heard of, a "Religious Liberty Bureau," a contradiction in terms.

tbc

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISOTRY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 5

DISLOYAL TO THE ORGANIZED WORK

Now when I was opposed to this thing before and in the General Conference of 1897, and before and in the General Conference of 1899, and before and in the General Conference of 1901, and before and in the General Conference of 1903, why should you be perplexed that I have not fallen in with it and helped to make it a success since 1903? Why should I, in 1903, abandon all the principles and teaching by which I was right in opposing it until and including 1903? When I was in the right all these years in opposing it, and in doing all that I could to keep it from succeeding, why and upon what principles should I have swung in and favored it just because at last in a most arbitrary, unconstitutional and usurping way it did at last succeed?

Again, in the General Conference of 1901 you yourself said that in the principles of organization that I preached I had "light for the people." Those principles were the ones that prevailed in that Conference; and at your own suggestion these principles as preached in my first sermon, were published for the help of the denomination in the work or reorganization. But the principles and the form of organization of 1903 are directly the opposite of those that in 1901 you said were "light for the people." If my second sermon in the General Conference of 1901 had been printed along with the first, the people would have been able to see more plainly how entirely the course of things in 1903 was the reverse of that of 1901. And any one can see it now by reading General Conference Bulletin of 1901, pages 37-42 and 101-105.

Now, brother, were those principles light in 1901? If so, then what did you do when you espoused the opposite of them in 1902-1903? Or, were those principles light in 1901, and darkness in 1903? Or were those principles really darkness in 1901, when you said that they were light? Or are they still light today as they were in 1901? And if in the General Conference of 1901 you were not able to distinguish between light and darkness, what surety has anybody that you were any more able to do so in 1902-3? Or is it possible that in 1902-3 you were not, and now are not, able to see that the principles and the course of action of 1902-3 are not the same as those of the General Conference of 1901? In other words, is it possible that you can think that certain principles with their course of action, and the reverse of them are one and the same? I know that the principles that in 1901 you said were "light for the people" were then really light, and that they are now light, and forevermore will be light. They are only plain principles of the word of God. I hold these principles today exactly as I did in 1901 and long before, and shall hold them forever. For this cause I was opposed to the usurpation and unconstitutional action of 1902-3 that were the opposite of these principles; and shall always be opposed to them.

In view of all these facts, again I ask, Why should you think that I should abandon all, just because you and some others did? I think that it was enough for me to keep still these three years. It is true that I have had no disposition to do anything but to keep still about it. For when the General Conference of 1903 made their choice that way, I have no objection their having what they have chosen. I have no disposition to oppose it in any other way than by preaching the gospel. Indeed, the strongest possible opposition that can be made to it is the plain, simple preaching of the plain gospel. There is this about that, however, that now the plain simple preaching of the plain gospel will be considered "disloyal to the General Conference ," etc. Nevertheless, I am going to continue to preach the plain gospel, as that gospel is in the Word of God. For when the General Conference and the "organized work" put themselves in such a position that the plain preaching of the gospel as in the Word of God is disloyalty to the General Conference and the "organized work," then the thing to do is to preach the gospel as it is in the Word of God.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISOTRY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 6

Second, as to the campaign against Dr. Kellogg:

I told you in the very beginning of it, that I would never take any part in it. You can remember that in the month of November, 1902, in Battle Creek, in the same room where you and Brother Irwin met the Church Board and others of us when you were here last month --as you and I and several others of the General Conference Committee were sitting around a table, I told you all, that, admitting all to be the truth that was then being said about Dr. Kellogg, I would take no part in pursuing him, nor in making any kind of war upon him --not even with the Testimonies.

I told you of the experience of a previous General Conference Committee when I was a member of it --that Testimonies had come reproving Brother A. R. Henry; that the Committee had used the Testimonies in a way, and had taken such a course toward him, that he was offended: that then, Testimonies came reproving the Committee for treating him so, and telling the Committee to go and confess to Brother Henry. "Shall the soul of A. R. Henry be lost?"--And upon this I told you that I never would take any course toward Dr. Kellogg or any other man that would make it possible for any Testimony to tell me to go and confess to him the wrong way that I had treated him, even with the Testimonies; and, because of anything that I had done, appeal to me "shall the soul of" that man be lost?

I told you then that whatever Dr. Kellogg's wrong-doing might be, I never would treat him, nor take any part with others in treating him in any other way than the way that I would choose to be treated if I were in a like situation. All that, I told you then, and I tell it to you now. That is where I stood then, that is where I have stood ever since, and that is where I shall stand forever with respect to Dr. Kellogg and everybody else in the world.

I was at that time ready to stand with you, and did stand with you, in working for him, to get him to see where mistakes had been made, and to correct them. On the eighteenth day of that same month of November, 1902, in the General Conference Committee room in Battle Creek, with Dr. Kellogg and a number of other brethren present, I, on the part of the General Conference Committee, and at your request, read some Testimonies concerning kingship in the medical work and a "species" of bondage or slavery of minds in the matter of written contracts for the medical missionary workers. And even while I was reading it, Dr. Kellogg spoke out and said: "I see that. I see it now: I never saw it before. I could not see how that was; but I see it now. And I will stop it immediately. We will abolish all those contracts."

In the same meeting he also made other changes and concessions; so that the only thing that I expected to see, was that you would reach out your hand to him and say: All right, Brother, here is my hand. Let us go on together, working to find out whatever else may be wrong, and to put it away.

But lo! instead of that or anything of that nature, I was surprised and humiliated and hurt, at your standing up, and planting yourself on your heels, and, in a decisive tone, saying "I'm not satisfied. Dr. Kellogg has an imperious will, that's got to be broken--with God."

From that moment I have not had any sympathy with you, nor any support for you, in that campaign. The thing there said, and tone and manner of saying it, all showed that there was such an element of personal domination, of personal triumph, of a man ruling man, that I would have no part in it. I know that you have since explained that you meant only what is always meant when it is said that a man's will is to be surrendered to God, etc.

Whatever you meant, the words as given above are what you said. And said in the tone and manner in which you said it, and said openly in a company of men, in a time of tension; the only possible effect of the words was certain to be just what the words said. Surely the effect, or at least the danger of the effect, of such a statement would be bad enough if spoken only to a man in perfect privacy.

How much more when spoken about a man, openly to a company of other men, with the man himself present. To this day I feel the impression that the words made upon me. And I know that if in such circumstances such a thing were said about me, I have not the meekness to take it in any way near as quietly as Dr. Kellogg did at that moment. Surely, Brother Daniells, if you had thought only as far as a b c, you would have known that God never breaks any man's will; nor does he ask that any man's will shall be broken; and you would not have said what you did.

Next: Loyalty to the Testimonies

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISOTRY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 7


LOYALTY TO THE TESTIMONIES

Thirdly, the Testimonies:--

I know that you (brother Daniells) and others with you are making much of "loyalty to the Testimonies" and are not slow to convey the impression that any who do not openly endorse your course in the use of some of the Testimonies is not loyal to the Testimonies, does not believe the Testimonies, etc., etc., but all of that proves nothing at all as to anybody's loyalty or disloyalty to the Testimonies.

Besides, facts within my personal knowledge demonstrate that the loyalty to the Testimonies that is just now being made so conspicuous, is a very uncertain thing; it is merely "loyalty to some of the Testimonies"-- that can be used to special advantage for a purpose.

For instance: During the General Conference council in Washington in October, 1903, a Testimony came concerning the Battle Creek College debt, and the Acre Fund to pay that debt. That Testimony said:

"How pleasing to God it would be for all our people--led and encouraged by the General Conference Committee--to share in lifting this obligation of the old Battle Creek College!"

"The creditors of Battle Creek College must be paid. The officers of the General Conference should lend a hand in this work."

I was in a position to know full well that the General Conference Committee neither led nor encouraged the people in that thing at all. Indeed, their leading and encouraging was against it rather than for it. Also I personally know that the officers of the General Conference did not lend any hand in that work. Indeed they were not at all ready even to print that Testimony in the Review.

They did by special request, if not persuasion, promise in the Review of October 29, to publish it next week; but in fact did not publish it till five weeks afterward, December 3; and then with changes, showing that it had either been sent to California for these changes and back again, or else another copy was received from California to be published in place of the one that they promised October 29 to publish next week; any or all of which shows that loyalty to that Testimony was not at all conspicuous (easily seen or noticed) on the part of the General Conference officers.

Again: At Berrien springs in May, 1904, a written testimony was given to you personally in which were the following words:--

"Last night I saw a hand stretched out to clasp his [Dr. Kellogg's] hand, and the words were spoken: 'Let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with Me, and he shall make peace with Me.' Satan is striving for the victory. I will help Dr. Kellogg to stand on vantage ground, and every soul who loves Me must work with Me as he sees Me do, so he must do."

You received that Testimony on Friday. Yet as late as Monday following, Dr. Kellogg knew nothing of it--at least so far as you were concerned--and he was there the most of the time. And when on Monday morning I read the Testimony openly in the morning meeting, you said that you had received it on Friday, but did not know what to do with it.

It would seem that loyalty to the Testimonies would have given you plainly to know what to do yourself whether you knew what to do with it or not. It would seem that loyalty to the Testimonies would have caused you to go straight to Dr. Kellogg and stretch out your hand to him, as the Testimony told you to do. But you did not do it then: And when I asked you in Battle Creek last month whether you had ever done it, you were obliged to say "No." Is that loyalty to the Testimonies, or is it merely loyalty to some of the Testimonies?

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISOTRY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 8

Loyalty to the Testimonies (continuation)

Again: In the time of the General Conference of 1905, at Takoma Park, Washington, Mrs. White was shown in the night the needs of the South and that 5,000 dollars must be given immediately to the brethren--Butler and Haskell--for it. So plain was this and so urgent, that she said to Brother Haskell the next morning, "Have faith in God. You will carry five thousand dollars from this meeting for the work in the South."

Then the Testimony proceeds. But Willie said that Brother Daniells was very much perplexed with the conditions in Battle Creek, and the money could not be sent just then. And, I said no more about it. This Testimony you have there in Washington.

Now, did she see, that night, as she says that she did, the needs of the South, and so urgent that 5,000 dollars should be carried from that very meeting for it? If she did, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies was there in Willie, setting it all aside so effectually that for full two months nothing at all was done in that direction and when after full two months something was done, it was only because Testimonies were sent to the South as well as to Washington, that would brook no more delay. And one of these said:--

"This matter has been presented to me three times, and I was instructed that 5,000 dollars ought to have been placed in Elder Haskell's hands before he left the Conference grounds."

That is exactly the instruction that she says that she had on the Conference grounds, in the time of the Conference. She gave the instructions at least to Brother Haskell and to Willie, but Willie simply and promptly set it aside. Now was that instruction from the Lord, or was it not? If it was, how much did Willie care for it? Allowing what he said about conditions in Battle Creek, is it not possible that the Lord knew of this, and knew as much of it as Willie did? Or is it true that Willie is the supreme source of knowledge and understanding in the work of the Lord--even above and against the instruction of the Lord? Or did Willie believe a particle in the instructions having come from the Lord? If it was from the Lord, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies had Willie when he set it aside? If it was from the Lord, and yet he did not believe that it was from the Lord, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies was there in what he did? Or shall it be said that it was not from the Lord, and was not Testimony, till it came out in writing on July 19, 20, full two months afterward?

But if it was from the Lord when it was written out two months afterward, then was it not equally from the Lord when it was spoken to Willie at the time? And in any case where in Willie's course in that matter does there appear any faintest suggestion of any real loyalty to the Testimonies?

By the way, brother, why haven't you printed those two Testimonies of July 19, 20, 1905, in full, full names and all, in the Review and Herald or in some Series A, B, or Z? Number something, for all the people to have those Testimonies, just as they are, would do a lot of good to the work in the South; why not print them?

Now please, brother Daniells, I am not involving you in Willie's course in the foregoing matter. I am perfectly willing to believe that he did not allow that word to get to you, as to the 5,000 dollars going with Brother Haskell from that General Conference. The point that I make upon it is this: That is the course which Willie took on that. The Testimony says so. Now since he can do such things as that, and at the same time is heartily and companionably fellowshipped by you as loyal to the Testimonies, how is it that you can not just as heartily fellowship men who have far more respect for the Testimonies than that; but who possibly can not near as loudly urge upon other people loyalty to the Testimonies?

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISOTRY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 9

Again: At the time of your late visit to Battle Creek, after urging upon the Battle Creek church for about two weeks or more loyalty to the Testimonies, there was brought about the annual election in the church, two weeks before the regular time. In the proceedings there were read Testimonies that were strictly pertinent and applicable to the matter before the meeting: and were plainly against what was being put through. Yet these Testimonies were deliberately explained away, with a broad view and other like things; and you yourself took part in explaining them away. After what you had been for two weeks or more saying and doing as to loyalty to the Testimonies, this was rather a sweeping, but in truth, in view of the many facts of the matter, a very fitting, anticlimax.

And in view of all these facts, and many others of the same sort, you seem actually to be perplexed that I have taken no part with you in your campaign with the Testimonies, and of this kind of loyalty to the Testimonies!

Why, brother Daniells, I never did, I never can, and I never will, use the Testimonies that way; nor will I take part in it with those who use them that way. The long straightforward series of facts in the case make it so plain to me that this conspicuous loyalty to the Testimonies is for campaign purposes only, that I simply will not take part in it. I can afford to be suspected of heresy, and of other things that are now so trippingly told; but I will not run a false issue, nor will I make a false pretense.

You speak of a time when I took a strong position regarding the Testimonies, and used them with great force to wheel men and policies into line. Yes, that is so; but with it, 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.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISOTRY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 10

In the original address in the chapel, additional remarks and illustrations were interspersed as the foregoing matter was read. In printing it, it seems best to print the letter unbroken and then insert here the additional remarks and illustrations.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY BUREAU

In 1901 the General Conference was turned away from a centralized power, a one-man or two men, or three men, or four men, or a few men power, a kingship, a monarchy; because the instruction was, in very words, "the principle is wrong." It will not do to say that in 1902-1903 circumstances had changed. For whatever change may ever occur in circumstances, principles never change.

I stated that the present order of General Conference affairs is a thoroughly bureaucratic government. Not every section of it is called a bureau; but that is what in practice every section is, whatever it may be called; and the title of the Religious Liberty Bureau is expressive of the whole.

I stated that the phrase "Religious Liberty Bureau" is a contradiction in terms. On every principle that is the truth. There are many words of our language that are the result and expression of invariable human experience through ages. The result of human experience through ages has in certain things been so invariable that a word tells it, and tells it so truly when that word is used, that a certain order of things is described; and when that word is espoused you have there in certainty the situation and order of things which the word expresses. Bureaucracy--government by bureaus--is one of these words: and the definition, which is but the expression of ages of invariable experience, is as follows:--

Bureaucracy: Government by bureaus; specifically, excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus. The principle of bureaucracy tends to official interference in many of the properly private affairs of life, and to the inefficient and obtrusive performance of duty through minute subdivision of function, inflexible formality, and pride of place.-- Century Dictionary.

A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to augment official power, official business, or official numbers, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind.-- Standard Dictionary.

"Republicanism and bureaucracy are incompatible existences."-- Century Dictionary.

All that is what bureaucracy has been found by ages of invariable experience to be. All that is what it is, and what it does. And when bureaucracy and republicanism are incompatible existences, how much more are bureaucracy and Christianity incompatible existences! Therefore, a Religious Liberty Bureau is a palpably impossible thing. Indeed, any true liberty is impossible in a bureau or a bureaucracy, and this is why it is that, as I said in the letter, the plain simple preaching of the plain gospel as it is in the Bible, will be considered disloyal to the General Conference, disloyal to the organized work, etc.

The gospel and bureaucracy, Christianity and bureaucracy, are incompatible existences. I knew this at the time of the Oakland Conference in 1903. I knew then what would be at least some of the results of the action there taken, and spoke of it at the time; and when that action was finally taken by the Conference, I knew that it would stop my preaching under General Conference auspices the truth that I had been preaching all these years.

Before that action was taken in that Conference, even three months before the conference met, I had decided to come to the Sanitarium to teach. And when that action was taken in and by that conference, I was glad that there was thus a place where in comparative retirement, I could teach and preach the same truths that I have all these years been teaching, without interfering with, or embarrassing, in any way, any conference or General Conference management or administration. I have no disposition to interfere with or to embarrass any conference or General Conference management or administration.

I have no objection to the General Conference, or any conference, or any persons, having a bureaucracy or whatever else they may choose. I only object to having it myself. I object also to being required to have it, and compelled to take it, when I do not want it. I have no disposition to take away from anybody what he chooses to have, nor have I any disposition to break down anything. My commission is to build up Christianity and Christians, and Christianity in Christians in the world; and whatsoever is not Christian will fall of itself.

tbc

 

[rainbowinthesky]

Some History, Some Experience, and Some facts

by A.T. Jones

Part 11

THE REVIEW AND HERALD WON'T PRINT

There is another thing that illustrates the truth of what I have said as to what I have always taught not being acceptable to General Conference administration; and which at the same time answers a question that is in the minds of many people. I have received letters from people in many parts of the land, asking why they can not read anything from me any more in the Review and Herald. I will now tell to you, and to all the others, why this is: It is only because the Review and Herald will not print anything from me. And for me that is sufficient why the people can not read anything from me in that paper.

When I went to Washington a year ago, I went with good heart to help in the Religious Liberty work there. And I did help, with good heart. And yet all the people know that not a line of anything that I preached there, ever got into print in any Seventh-day Adventist publication issued from Washington. And the Religious Liberty truth that I preached there was the same that I have been preaching all these years; only intensified by study and by the fulfillment of prophecy in the development of the things which all these years we have been expecting.

Afterward I sent to the Southern Watchman some of what I preached in Washington at that time. The Watchman published it; and both the editors and readers said that it was the best that I had ever given on the subject. One sermon which I preached in Washington at that time was so plain, so straight, and so clear on the subject that Brother Colcord, Brother George B. Thompson, and Brother Kit Russell, who all read it, all three asked that I write it out for the Review, so that all our people might have it.

I had had some experience before, so I said to them, I can write it out, brethren; but its getting into the Review will be another thing. Of course they could not think that; and still asked that I should write it out, so that it could be published in the Review.

Accordingly, I wrote it out. Brother Colcord, I believe, handed it in. It got as far as the type, and then the middle of last summer it was returned to me without any of the people ever having a chance to get it. When it was returned, the reason stated for not printing it was, having been so crowded with special matter of the General Conference, and the special issue which called it out is now so far in the past.

But the fact is that the matter was handed in nearly if not quite a full month before the General Conference began; and the truth is that the issue which called out that sermon will never be to any degree or in any sense in the past, until probation itself shall be in the past.

Today the issue that called out that sermon is even more urgent than it was the day the sermon was preached. In one way or another the issue is being urged everywhere throughout the land. But in one special way it is being so urged, and in such words, that if that sermon had been published in the Review & Herald a year ago, when it was handed in, our people everywhere would be far better prepared than they are to meet that which is being more and more urged upon the people in our very presence.

I have the manuscrïpt yet. It ought indeed to be published so that all our people could have it. I may have to publish it myself. But in that case, I may be charged with "starting a new work", with "creating divisions", etc. But how long shall it be right to let the people go without matter that they greatly need, that they ought to have just now, and that the cause of the Third Angel's Message needs just now, simply because the denominational people will not print it? How much longer shall things go on thus before it will be right for the people to have what is now urgently needed, and what the cause of the Third Angel's Message itself greatly needs, even if I must print it myself?

I said that it was some experience that caused me to say when the brethren asked me to write out that sermon for the Review that "I could write it out, but its getting into the Review would be another thing."

That experience was this:

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISOTRY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 12

ORDERS NOT TO PUBLISH

In the summer of 1903, I was regularly a member of the educational convention that was held at College View in the month of June.

By the program I was appointed to preach on Christian Education. On Sabbath I preached the sermon. The editor of the Review said that he would print it. I prepared it and sent it in about the first of July, 1903. It is there yet, if it has not been destroyed. I have been told that that matter also got so far as to be set up in type. And I know that it never got into print. These facts tell why it is that nothing has been read from me in the Review & Herald for the past three years. Those who have had a chance to read the Signs of the Times or the Southern Watchman have been able to read considerably from me.

However, please bear in mind that I am not in any sense laying any complaint against the Review and Herald or its editor. Every editor has always the unquestionable right to exclude anything. I am stating these things as illustration of the truth that the very same truths which I have been teaching all these years, and which are vital truths to the people and to our message as the issues of that message now are, are not acceptable to the General Conference administration; and secondly, in order that the many inquiring people may know truly and exactly why they do not read anything from me in the Review & Herald.

C. L. Taylor: Brother Jones, may I say just a word. I received a letter from one of our leading editors stating that he had received orders not to publish anything from you and some others whose names were given.

Voice: Louder. We didn't hear that.

C. L. Taylor: I say that I received a letter from one of our leading editors stating that he had received orders not to publish any articles received from Dr. Paulson, Dr. Kellogg, or A. T. Jones.

A. T. Jones: Possibly these "orders" have now been given to all of the denominational papers.

Also now as in 1901 "the conferences are weaving after the same pattern." Here is an instance that actually occurred not a great while ago. A certain Seventh-day Adventist is only a private individual in every respect. He has his private individual business, strictly legitimate and honorable, that he has built up wholly by his own efforts. And yet the president of the conference in which he is, gave that brother to understand that if he does not quit that business in the place where he is and leave the place where he is, the denomination will withdraw its support from him.

But not in any sense is the denomination supporting him. Therefore, the kernel of this procedure is that that conference president proposes to dominate that private individual in his private business, or else work a denominational boycott against him.

And when denominational management has reached that point, it is time that somebody was speaking in behalf of the common liberty as well as the religious liberty of the people; and in behalf of the common liberty as well as the religious liberty of the individual. And that is why I am speaking openly tonight. I owe it to this brother, and to every other Seventh-day Adventist in the world to stand in behalf of his right to be himself, and to conduct his own private and honorable business in his own way wherever he pleases, without any reference to conference, General Conference, or any other thing under heaven.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

SOME HISTORY, SOME EXPERIENCE, AND SOME FACTS

by A.T. Jones

Part 13

TWO ABUSES OF MAN IN MATTERS OF FAITH

The Sabbath-school lesson for March 17, 1906, present D'Aubigne's excellent statement of the vital principle of the protest of Spires as follows:--

"This protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith: the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate; and the second, the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these abuses Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate; and the authority of the Word of God above the visible church."

This denomination has most rightly and nobly spent a great deal of time the past fifteen or more years in opposing intrusion of the civil magistrate in the realm of religion. It is high time that at least somebody in this denomination should be Protestant enough to oppose the arbitrary authority of the church.

For please, bear in mind that the arbitrary authority of the church has always been only the arbitrary authority of a few, in place of authority in the church. And if some of the things that are today being done in the name of this denomination are not the exercise of arbitrary authority, then both the dictionary and history may well be revised.

For more than twenty years I have been preaching the same truths that I am now preaching. I preached them all over the United States and Europe, and in Canada. They were everywhere accepted by the denomination as the truth; and were published by the denomination as the truth. And when I have not changed in a single item of principle or of the truth, and yet I can not now preach these same things without being counted "disloyal to the General Conference", and "disloyal to the organized work", then is it not perfectly plain that the change has been somewhere else than in me or in my teaching?

But I am not the only one. There are other men, who are just as good Christians and just as true Seventh-day Adventists as they know how to be, men whom God has plainly called to the work in which they are engaged, but who have been driven out, and today can not do inside the organized work or under the General Conference administration, the work that God has given them to do. When certain ones of these were compelled to go, when I was present, I publicly protested, and asked this question:

"When men are just as true Seventh-day Adventists as anybody can be, and yet they can not do in the denomination the work that God has given them to do, but must do it outside the 'organized work', then is it not plain enough that there is something wrong with the administration and the so-called 'organized work'? And is there not enough that is wrong to justify some study and inquiry as to why men who are called of God to their work, can not do it inside, but are forced to do it outside the ranks of that which stands as the work of God to the world? I ask that question yet. And if things must go on in this way till all who are called of God to the work that they are doing, shall be forced to do it outside of the 'organized work', then how much of the real vital work of God will be found inside the "organized work"?

Is it possible that anybody is expecting me to abandon all these principles, and change or modify all my teaching, just to be loyal to the General Conference, and loyal to the organized work? If so, all such expectation might as well be abandoned at once and forever; for I simply will never do it. Those principles and truths I shall hold forever, and will preach forever. They are the principles and the truths of the Bible. And I will never be loyal to any person or any thing but God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit through the Bible.

I will never believe that "the church must have a visible head." I will never conform to any system of things that makes it possible for the church to have anything that corresponds to a visible head.

The Seventh-day Adventist denomination is the only Protestant church in the world that has one man at the head and center of its organization. And in this one thing the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is more like the Catholic Church than is any other Protestant church in the world.

And this, too, is in spite of the Testimony that has been published and quoted over and over ever since the month of March, 1897, saying, "It is not wise to have one man president of the General Conference." However, as often as it has been quoted it has been "explained" instead of obeyed; and it will doubtless be so till the end. But Christ did not leave one man at the head and center of His organized work, when He ascended on high. He occupied and was allowed to occupy that place Himself as Head of His Church, and "Head over all things to the Church." Col.1:18; 1 Cor.3:11.

Christ, Christ alone, is the only Head of the Church; and He is the Head of each individual in the Church: as it is written, "I would have you know that the Head of every man is Christ." 1 Cor.11:3. And instead of going back to 1844 and a creed "let us go on unto perfection" in Christ Jesus by the glorious truth that He has given us in 1844 and since, that we may be prepared to meet Him in His soon-coming glory. Instead of either defining or defending the faith of men, let us preach the faith of Christ.

 

[Stan Tei]

I have this to say:

rainbowinthesky... You have spoken fairly and accurately. I have also seen the entire Kellogg inerview with Amadon before this, and I have a copy of Kellogg's book; Living Temple. I have read it. There is no such truth to the allegations that it is book teaching pantheism. Castaway has been arguing against the testimony as presented in the interview. It was recorded accurately and took place as it was quoted. Castaway would like everyone to believe that everything that comes from the pen of Ellen White is gospel truth. It is not. She was duped and deceived by her own son, and it does not end with Kellogg and Jones. Uriah Smith also, as the editor of the Review, also penned several passages of the Great Controversy. Chapter 15 concerning the French Revolution is self-contradictory. What Ellen White did write, directly conflicts with what Uriah added to it. The French Revolution is not the fulfilment of the 11th chapter of Revelation. The alleged points of fulfillment are not even in the same order as it is in the Scriptures. It is a carbon copy of Uriah Smith's interpretation. It was an overblown sentiment of the anti-French attitude following 1798. Revelation 11 has yet to be fulfilled. The beast has not yet risen from the bottomless pit... See Rev 17 for the same part of that prophecy.

Castaway has no discernment. Gullible. Unwarranted vitriol.

I trust rainbowinthesky's conclusion.

 

[rainbowinthesky]

Stan, thank you for your input. In regard to chapter 11 of Revelation and the chapter The French Revolution from The Great Controversy, I will have to disagree with you. All I will say right now is that 1798 in unimpeachable as far as the year the Papal Power received its deadly wound at the hand of Atheistic France. This event marked the beginning of the time of the end. Since then the Papacy has lost her temporal power. This was the deadly wound which is to be healed in these last days.

Since 1798, Atheism, represented by the goddess of "reason" has been taking the ascendancy. It has been pushing at the king of the north (organized religion) but the time will come when the king of the north (organized religion) wielding the power of the Sate shall come at him, the king of the south, like a whirlwind and will completely subdue him. Then the whole world will be in admiration and will "worship" the king of the north (the beast and its image).

sky