What do you make of it?

[skyblue888]

AN ASTOUNDING PROPOSITION

And what is the reason given by "the General Conference Committee," that at the head of this denomination there must be this fixture of a president of the whole world, instead of a chairman of the committee? Here it is, on page 17 and 18 of the Statement: It is because--

"The chairman could be changed at the will and caprice of the committee." And this was "the sensible thing to do in order to save the cause from sudden changes and erratic movements."

"The will and caprice"! "At the will and caprice" and "erratic movements" "of the committee"! Just look at that! Just consider that, will you? The twenty-four substantial men, chosen by the deliberation of the General Conference in session, could not be trusted for two years because of the enormity of the danger that they would act by "will and caprice"! But lo! one man must be fixed for four years at the head of affairs for the whole world --of course because there is no danger at all that he will ever act by will or caprice! Twenty-four of the most trustworthy men in the whole field could not be trusted for only two years, because of the certainty of their acting "by will and caprice" and making "erratic movements."

But one man must be trusted for twice as long--inevitably because of the absolute certainty that he will never act by will or caprice.

No more monarchical argument was ever written in human language than lies in these two lines of that "Statement." Nor does that argument stop with only monarchy: it openly approaches a far more serious thing. See:

Why is it that the twenty-four most trustworthy men of the denomination could not be trusted for two years with the charge of affairs?-- because of the certainty that they would act "by will and caprice." Then why is it that at the head of affairs in the whole world, one man can be trusted for four years? Manifestly because there is no danger that he will ever act by "will" or "caprice."

Twenty-four trustworthy men are so certain to act "by will and caprice" that they cannot be rusted for even two years. But one man is so certain never to act by will or caprice that he must be trusted more than the twenty-four, and for twice as long.

But when twenty-four sober and trustworthy men are so certain to act "by will and caprice," what is the surety that one man will not act by will and caprice? Just where does that surety lie? It could not be in the man himself, for he was one of the twenty-four, and was the chairman. Then does it come to him through the title? Or from the position? Or from the chair? And does this surety of exemption from his acting by will or caprice attach to him everywhere, and in every capacity? Or does it attach to him only when he speaks officially under the title, and ex-cathedra--from the chair?

Wherever may lie this surety of exemption from will or caprice, of one man over twenty-four men, or in whatever capacity it may attach to him, there is one thing certain, and that is that the claim of it is nothing else than identical with the claim of the infallibility of the pope. In argument and in essence, it is just that.

And that is why I said above that their argument for a one-man power does not stop with only monarchy; but openly approaches a far more serious thing. And that far more serious thing than monarchy, is the infallibility of the monarch. And that awful statement, containing that astounding argument, is issued by "the General Conference Committee" of the Seventh-day Adventists and bears the imprint of "the General Conference Committee"! All this too in the face of the patent fact that the one man already there did act by sheer will, if not also caprice, in assuming in 1902, that very title and office.

A.T. Jones

[aldona]

Quote:

"The will and caprice"! "At the will and caprice" and "erratic movements" "of the committee"!

I thought this was quite a good description of the process of electing a new GC President.

Truly, if you blinked, you missed it.

The reaction of us (the observing public) was definitely one of "Huh??!!! What just happened then??"

As one of the delegates so eloquently put it on another Adventist website, "I had put more care and thought into choosing my breakfast that morning than went into deciding our next GC President." (my paraphrase - having trouble finding the actual article.)

AJ

[pnattmbtc]

A. T. Jones is great. Too bad he isn't alive to participate in the forum.

[Guest]

He would like it here....

[skyblue888]

Yes I too wish he was here but his writings do follow after him.

Now what do you also make of this:

As to the presidency of the General Conference without the constitution:

On page 19 of my leaflet I stated that "without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain words of the constitution" "two men or three men, or four men or a few men I should say," "took it absolutely upon themselves to elect you (A.G. Daniells) President, and Brother Prescott Vice-President of the General Conference."

Now, what is the refutation of this? Here it is:

"How does Elder Jones know that this was done? What proof does he give that it was done? The only document that contains evidence on this point is the record of the proceedings of the General Conference Committee meetings... There is not a single line of evidence in the minutes to show that he [Elder Daniells] was ever elected President of the General Conference until the Oakland Conference(1903)."

I freely admit that there is not a single line of evidence in the minutes or in the record of the proceedings of the General Conference Committee meetings to show this. Upon the words of this "Statement" I will even go so far as to admit that he was not actually "elected" by two or three or four men. For the word "elect" does, of course, imply some sort of a motion and vote. And as this word "elected" and what it implies is in such strong words "refuted" I will accept the refutation as to that particular word, and in the place of it will say:

Without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain words of the constitution, and without even the form of election, the Presidency of the General Conference was assumed by Elder A.G. Daniells some time before the General Conference of 1903.

And to the question in the "Statement," "How does Elder Jones know that this was done? What proof does he give that it was done?" I reply: I know it by the words of Brother Daniells himself. If he has forgotten it, I will so remind him of the occasion that he can remember it:

Between the Pacific Press main building and the meeting house in Oakland, California, there was in 1903 a dwelling house. The rear part of the first floor of this dwelling house at that time composed the Pacific Press chapel. One day, before the opening of the General Conference of 1903, Brother Daniells called, in this chapel, a meeting of the members of the General Conference Committee who were that day in Oakland.

And in that meeting of the General Conference Committee, as we were gathered at the right hand of the pulpit, or southwest corner, in that chapel, he surely can remember that he told us of his having become president of the General Conference. Surely, Brother Daniells, you cannot have so far forgotten that, as that this will not enable you to recall it. And now, you can also surely recall that just then, in the presence of the brethren assembled, I said to you: "You had no kind of right to do it."

That is "how" I originally knew it. But now I know it by additional evidence, thus: In the Review & Herald of December 30, 1902, beginning on page 6, and ending on page 7, there is a statement written and signed by Brother Daniells. The heading of this statement is, "The Next Session of the General Conference." In the statement it is said, "It is now definitely settled that the next session of the General Conference will be held in California, March 27 to April 13, 1903."

It closes with the quotation of the parts of the then General Conference Constitution regarding "membership, voters, and delegates." And at the end of that statement wholly concerning the General Conference, there stands the following name and title, in exactly the following form and words:--

"A. G. Daniells, President of the General Conference."

Again: in the Review & Herald of February 17, 1903, in the middle column of the last page, there is a twelve-line "formal notice to all our people that the session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists will convene in the city of Oakland, Cal., March 27, 1903." This "formal notice" is headed "The General Conference." And it is signed as follows:--

"A. G. Daniells, President."

That is just "how" I "know," and that is the "proof" that I "give," that before the General Conference of 1903 at Oakland, California, Elder Daniells held the position and title of "President of the General Conference."

THE PRESIDENCY ASSUMED

Now, however, the General Conference Committee solemnly assert that he was not "elected" by even "two men" being together. By their own "Statement," therefore, this shuts up the matter to the one only conclusion that he became president by the action of just one man. And when that is so, that one man could have been only himself.

Now I, knowing by his own words, voluntarily spoken, that he had become president of the General Conference--yet, even I had not the heart to think that he could have done it all of himself, without at least some kind of a vote, of at least some of the brethren. But since he told us before the assembling of the Oakland Conference in 1903 that some time before that he had become president of the General Conference; and since in the Review & Herald before the Oakland Conference, he twice published himself "President of the General Conference"; and now he and the General Conference Committee, in this statement, insist that he was not "elected" even by "two" or three or four men being together, then this compels everybody to see that without any kind of authority, and directly against the plain words of the Constitution, he took it upon himself to assume the title and office of "President of the General Conference."

But that is worse than to have been elected without authority. And that he should have been "elected" even by the fewest number of men, was as bad as even I had dared to think. In view of his own words, told us in the Pacific Press chapel that day, and especially in view of his own published words twice in the Review & Herald, this refutation is a confession of a more questionable thing than I could ever have thought of saying of him.

When he told it to us that day in Pacific Press chapel, though I told him at the time that he had no right to do it, I could not think but that some men, or at least some man, must have been with him in it, and had some part in persuading or advising him to it; and that therefore, in some way, by a few men, he must have been elected to it.

But behold, this my charitable consideration is "refuted" with strongest words of disclaimer "that he was never elected president of the General Conference until the Oakland Conference, and then he was elected by the Conference itself in session." And thus all who heard his statement that day in Pacific Press chapel, before the assembling of the General Conference in Oakland, and all who knew of the facts before that, and all who ever read his own published words in the Review & Herald, are now compelled to recognize that entirely of himself, of his own will, without any kind of authority, and directly against the plain words of the constitution, he assumed the title and office of President of the General Conference.

Therefore, their refutation of what I said amounts to just this: "He never was elected President of the General Conference"--he assumed it. "There is not a single line of evidence in the minutes to show that before the Oakland Conference he was ever elected President"--he assumed it himself. That bad thing that Elder Jones says was done, was never done--a worse thing was done!

And that is their refutation! And if the "General Conference Committee," or anybody else, can get any comfort out of such a refutation as that, they are welcome to it.

A SERIOUS DILEMMA

There is another thing in this: The General Conference Committee's "Statement" of strong and positive refutation is evidently intended to make upon the mind of the reader the distinct impression that what I had said in reference to that, was absolutely "groundless assertion."

Now is it possible that Brother Daniells and the General Conference Committee really knew nothing of the fact of his having assumed the Presidency of the General Conference at least three months before the General Conference at Oakland?

Of the present General Conference Committee there are some men who were at that time directly associated with him on the Committee. Were these brethren, and was Brother Daniells, in May, 1906, indeed wholly ignorant in that matter? or remembering it, were they on the mere technical term of the word "elected," willing to make their strong and positive statement of "refutation," and so leave upon the minds of the people an impression that they knew was not true?

It is difficult to believe what is plainly involved in either horn of this dilemma. But one or the other simply has to be believed. If Brother Daniells and all his associates had absolutely forgotten that whole matter, then that fact does not at all commend them as men of clear minds and steady thinking. And if they had not so absolutely forgotten it all, that to their minds the whole matter was a dead blank, then the thing stands as far worse.

A.T. Jones

[skyblue888]

No comment?