The Doctrines of Babylon...

[John317]

Actually I think all of you have made some very good points, and I agree with much that all of you are saying on the subject of Christ's nature. Gerry is right that Christ's human nature was not exactly like our nature.

But I agree with Mark that we don't want to hijack the thread to concentrate on that one topic. If anyone wants to take up this subject further, let them continue one of the discussions of it that has already been started or start a new one.

There's already a lot of valid, important things said on this thread about it from both sides of the issue.

[Twilight]

Sorry, I won't add another comment.

If it is relevant I do not mind Gerry.

I just did not want the thread to go off on a tangent.

But if you feel it relevant, please explain why and carry on. :-)

[John317]

Isn't the human nature of Christ one of the Doctrines of Babylon that many believe has entered the SDA church?

I believe you're right, sky, but let's leave it here for now. The question that needs to be settled is what teaching of Christ's human nature is biblical and what teaching is influenced by Babylon. We all have our own thoughts on this, and I would like to see them all, but we will need to do it on a separate thread.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I got to thinking about what you said while I was on an errand. I may have misunderstood it. If you mean that I was arguing against absolute sinless perfection before the parousia, you are correct. I don't believe that's possible. And I don't believe Christ had our nature in EVERY particular. But if you mean I'm now arguing against a position that I previously held, no, I'm not.

Mum's the word until I get the OK from Mark.

If it relates to the discussion, no problem.

But if it is going to be a huge topic in itself (which I suspect this might well be), then its own thread would probably be best. :-)

[John317]

If it is relevant I do not mind Gerry.

I just did not want the thread to go off on a tangent.

But if you feel it relevant, please explain why and carry on. :-)

I agree, Mark. If people want to make a few more posts about it to summarize their beliefs or reasons, it's fine; but as you say, we don't want the thread to go off on a tangent.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I am not arguing that some "individuals" have apostacised Sky.

What I am saying, is unless those individuals have caused the doctrines of the church as expressed in the 28 fundamentals to change, then the "church" hasn't apostacised.

Do you see the difference?

Mark :-)

What I have shared had nothing to do with "individuals" per se but with the denomination itself. The warning given was that through compromising the pillars of our faith the leaders of this denomination would have our religion changed. 1 S.M.204. As to the members of this denomination, of course the leaders of this denomination have maintained the appearance that nothing has been changed but the fact that in secret meetings the pillars of our faith were repudiated in order that this denomination be recognized as Christian, is in itself the apostasy.

But this is only scratching the surface.

There is much more to be revealed.

In 1909 the Lord sent this testimony: "The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men." T.M.481.

What took place during these meetings between 1955 and 1957 was the result of rejecting the 1888 message of the righteousness of Christ by faith in His all-sufficient merits and rejecting the principles of reorganization as presented in the General Conferences until 1901, and thus maintaining the rule of men over men in the church in the place of Christ.

sky

And that would be why the Lord sent this testimony to us as another warming as to what is to take place in the very near future. "When light goes forth to lighten the earth, instead of coming up to the help of the Lord, they will want to bind about His work to meet their narrow ideas. Let me tell you that the Lord will work in this last work in a manner very much out of the common order of things and in a way that will be contrary to any human planning." T.M.300.

That says it all, does it not?

"Organizations, institutions, unless kept by the power of God wil work under Satan's dictation to bring men under the control of men; and fraud and guile will bear the semblance of zeal for truth and for the advancement of the kingdom of God." T.M.366.

Are the 28 fundamentals that the church holds currently pagan in any form Sky?

That members have apostacised, is not in question.

That some leaders have apostacised, is not in question.

But have the 28 fundamental doctrines been corrupted?

That is what it would need for the church to have apostacised in my own personal view.

Because it is only when the church "expresses itself" through its defining beliefs, that this can happen.

[Twilight]

I have started a new thread on this as it should be interesting.

I think that Christ's nature is an important discussion:

http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/408455.html#Post408455

[doug yowell]

If it relates to the discussion, no problem.

But if it is going to be a huge topic in itself (which I suspect this might well be), then its own thread would probably be best. :-)

My lips,uh,fingers,are sealed.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

If it relates to the discussion, no problem.

But if it is going to be a huge topic in itself (which I suspect this might well be), then its own thread would probably be best. :-)

My lips,uh,fingers,are sealed.

There is a thread here for it Doug:

http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/408455.html#Post408455

Of course, it is welcome here, but not as the sole subject of the thread, hopefully you can understand why?

[Musicman1228]

Jasd said, "Wouldn’t there have to be a substantiating text showing that Gd divorced the House of Judah before their return as exiles?—and wouldn’t that have gone directly against the Mosaic laws should Gd have remarried the one whom He had already divorced?"

Hosea was a contemporary of Isaiah and prophecied just before the Captivity in Babylon. You can read his prophecy in a few minutes, and when you do please note chapter 1 and the names of his children as directed by God. Here is what he said regarding the status of Israel at that time:

When she had weaned No Mercy, she conceived and bore a son. And the LORD said, “Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.” Hosea 1:8-9.

If that doesn't indicate divorce I don't know what does.

She shall pursue her lovers but not overtake them, and she shall seek them but shall not find them. Then she shall say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better for me then than now.’ Hosea 2:7.

Surely, as a treacherous wife leaves her husband, so have you been treacherous to me, O house of Israel, declares the LORD.’” Jer.3:20.

Therefore say to them, Thus declares the LORD of hosts: Return to me, says the LORD of hosts, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.’ But they did not hear or pay attention to me, declares the LORD. Zech. 1:3-4.

This is an offer to return to God. If Israel as the Kingdom of Heaven had never been divorced from God then why the offer from God to have her return? Would not returning to God require a marriage? Israel REFUSED to marry her suitor after returning from captivity in Babylon, which is why God needed to raise up a group of people that would get His Bride ready for the wedding. That is the purpose of the SDA church. We are the Bridesmaids (not the Bride) that Jesus needs to prepare the Bride (people from ever kindred, tongue and nation) for the coming of the Bridegroom. Unfortunately, the Bridesmaids are ALL sound asleep and unable to do anything (Matt.25:1-13).

[skyblue888]

Mark, it is not about individuals apostatizing or even about some of the leaders apostatizing but about a general movement that would take place among us:

"The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be counted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. the Sabbath of course, would be lighty regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of this new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence upon human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure." 1 S.M.204,205.

God had said, "What we want now is a reorganization and we want to begin at the foundation and to build upon a different principle," (1901 G.C. Bulletin, p.25) 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." T.M.481, 1909.

Like we are told in the General Conference Bulletin of 1903, reformatory steps were taken at the 1901 General Conference to bring about reorganization according to God's idea but these steps were not long lived. At the 1903 General conference the self-confident management of men put God aside and adopted the devisings of men and thus the leadership was brought under Satan's dictation to bring men under the control of men. (T.M.366)

And lo and behold it was Satan's plan of reformation or of rorganization that was adopted by the leaders just as we have been warned. Instead of adopting the principles of Gospel Order as presented to us by the Lord at the 1901 General Conference, we adopted Satan's methods and this is why we have been wandering in this wilderness of sin and sorrow ever since. (T.M.361,366)

This was even prophesied in chapter 28 of Ezekiel.

"I ask our people to study the 28th chapter of Ezekiel. The representation here made, while it refers primarily to Lucifer, the fallen angel, has yet a broader significance. Not one being, but a general movement is described, and one that we shall witness. A faithful study of this chapter should lead those who are seeking for truth to walk in all the light that God has given to His people, lest they be deceived by the deceptions of these last days." Special Testimonies, Series B, No.17, p.30.

sky

[John317]

Are you very sure of this? I have seen the case made that we took our trinity doctrine from the Roman church.

Yes, that case has been made, and is still being made by some. The idea that we should go back to the anti-Trinitarianism of most of our pioneers is gaining some ground among SDAs.

However, I believe that both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy do teach that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Fundamentally, the Trinity doctrine is simply the teaching that One God is manifested in three Co-equal, Co-eternal Persons.

The view of the Trinity by SDAs is different from the view of the Roman Catholic Church. The CAtholic Church doesn't have the right to define the doctrine of the Godhead, or the Trinity. Many protestant churches don't accept the same view as the Roman Catholic Church takes of the Trinity, yet their doctrines are just as genuinely Trinitarian as the Catholic Church.

[Twilight]

But what exactly are the principles of Gospel Order that was put forward in 1901 Sky?

[skyblue888]

But what exactly are the principles of Gospel Order that was put forward in 1901 Sky?

Thanks for asking Mark. First, let me share with you a very important letter brother Jones wrote to brother A.G. Daniels. I will break it into small posts. This letter gives us great insights as to what really took place in those crucial years and what the principles of the 1901 constitution were. God bless you as you read the following.

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

A.G. Daniells,

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."

to be continued

Please tell me when you are ready for the next post. Thank you.

sky

[Twilight]

I don't see Ellen White saying there should not be a president here Sky?

More the fact that the committee should have a broader input and representation.

Does she speak against having a president later on?

[skyblue888]

This is only the beginning of the letter. Please be patient and keep reading okay?

sky

[skyblue888]

Part 2 of Jones' letter to brother Daniels.

Mrs. White adds:

"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.

"From the light that I have had for some time, and has been expressed over and over again, not to all that are here, but has been expressed to individuals--the plan, that God would have all to work from, that never should one mind or two minds or three minds, nor four minds, or a few minds I should say, be considered of sufficient wisdom and power to control and mark out plans and let it rest upon the minds of one or two or three in regard to this broad, broad field that we have.

"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."

to be continued

[Twilight]

Still reading my friend. :-)

[skyblue888]

Part 3 of brother Jones' letter to brother Daniels.

She declared that God wants us to take hold of this work, every human agency. Each one is to act in their capacity in such a way that the confidence of the whole people will be established in them and that they will not be afraid, but see everything just as light as day until they are in connection with the work of God and the whole people... All the provision was made in heaven, all the facilities, all the riches of the grace of God was imparted to every worker that was connected with the cause, and every one of these are wholly dependent upon God. And when we leave God out of the question, and allow hereditary and cultivated traits of character to come in, let me tell you, we are on very slippery ground.

God hath His servants--His Church, established in the earth, composed of many members, but of one body; that in every part of the work one part must work as connected with another part, and that with another part, and with another part, and these are joined together by the golden links of heaven, and there is to be no kings here in the midst at all. There is to be no man that has the right to put his hand out and say: No, you can not go there. We won't support you if you go there. Why, what have you to do with the supporting? Did you create the means? The means comes from the people. And those who are in destitute fields-- the voice of God has told me to instruct them to go to the people and tell them their necessities; and to draw all the people to work just where they can find a place to work, to build up the work in every place they can.

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 in 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 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.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Part 4 of brother Jones' letter to brother Daniels

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 Bulletin, 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."

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Part 5 of brother Jones' letter to brother Daniels.

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 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 Timbuktu 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 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.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Part 6 of brother Jones' letter to brother Daniels.

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," "disloyal to the organization," 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.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Mar, still there? Before I post the rest of the letter, it would be good for us to read the following by brother Jones.

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 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 he 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 say, 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.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

THE READY-MADE CONSTITUTION

Their refutation of my statement as to that "ready-made constitution" is of the same sort as this concerning the presidency of the General Conference without the constitution. That is to say, the refutation is made to turn on mere technicalities.

I said that that constitution was framed and carried to the General Conference in Oakland in 1903. I did not say that it was carried clear across the continent to the General Conference, nor words to that effect. I merely said that it was carried to the General Conference at Oakland.

I said that none of the people nor the delegation, nor even the Committee on Constitution, had asked for it. I said that it was brought before the Committee on Constitution and was advocated there: that is, they did not bring it in any regular or constitutional way to that committee.

And that is the truth. That constitution, ready framed, and in carbon copies, was carried to that committee, and thus to that Conference, ready made. It was not first framed, nor first made, by the committee itself, in session, even from the former one as a basis. It was carried to the committee in carbon copies, and so distributed to the committee, and the committee made the new constitution that was afterward presented to the Conference, by considering item by item that ready-made thing that was carried to them.

If the General Conference Committee or any others want proof in addition to this, let them ask the individuals who composed that Committee on Constitution; and they will learn that the first that the committee knew of the constitution was when, ready-made, in carbon copies, it was distributed to them in committee for their consideration. And if the brethren whom they should happen to ask, shall have forgotten it, there are those who were members of that committee who so distinctly remember it that they will testify to it in any presence.

I said that none of the people or any of the delegation had asked for it. What some people or some members of the delegation may have said or asked for before the Conference convened, or outside of Conference, or outside of regular order, in a private way -- as to that I cannot say.

But what I was writing about, was plainly the "constitutional" way of doing things. And I repeat that not in any constitutional way did any people ever ask for it. No petition nor any request was brought before the conference by any delegate in behalf of any people, asking for a new constitution. No delegate ever made any motion in Conference, nor gave any notice in Conference, with reference to any new constitution.

All of which is the truth. And excluding all technicalities, in its plain reference to the simple statements of the facts, my original statement still stands unrefuted; and by the plain facts, it is only the sober truth to say, and it ought to be said, that the original and only basis of the present General Conference organization is usurpation.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

ONE MAN PRESIDENT

It is the same again as to the Testimony to which I refer, that declares, "It is not wise to choose one man as President of the General Conference." I said in my leaflet that ever since that word was originally published in 1897, whenever it has been quoted it has been explained, instead of obeyed, and doubtless will be so to the end. It is so in this "Statement." But I was not calling attention to the explanations. I called attention to what the Testimony says.

They acknowledge that that is what it says, and then go on to explain what it means, and this, of course, is different from what it says.

I know that in the General Conference of 1897, when it was first read, it was understood as meaning what it said, and through much deliberation and prayer there was an endeavor to conform to it by electing three presidents, instead of one. Success in this was not very marked, it is true; but it shows that that Conference to which it first came, understood that it meant what it said, and took it for what it said, instead of explaining it all away as has been done ever since.

But why must we be required to accept all these explanations of what the Testimonies mean, instead of being left free to believe them for just what they say? Can not we be allowed to believe what is said in plain words? Shall we not be allowed to know what we know? Must we accept the General Conference explanations of everything? If that be so, then what need have we of the Testimonies, the Bible, our own faculties and senses, or any else than just the "General Conference" explanation?

IT IS NOT WISE

And just what that statement says is the certain truth. "It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference," when the General Conference embraces the whole world. So far as this cause is concerned, that makes one man president of the whole world; and no such thing ever can be wise. Whether any Testimony ever said it or not, it is truth.

Jesus did not leave one man president, or at the head, of His cause when he left His disciples and twelve apostles in the world to carry His gospel to all the world in that generation. In so doing did Jesus do a wise thing, or did he do an unwise thing? In that, did he do a thing sufficiently wise to be followed? Or was it so lacking in wisdom that it is not wise to follow it?

Of course, the papacy argues that such a thing was so unwise that Jesus did not do it; but that He made Peter the "prince of the apostles," and left him the one man at the head of His church and of its affairs. And this because, as argued by the papacy, without such recognized authority, all would be disorganization, confusion and anarchy!

This is exactly the argument that was made also by Israel of old, when they insisted that they must have one man at their head (see Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 59). But Israel had to reject God in order to have one man at the head of the cause; and the papacy had to reject God in order to make her claim hold as to the one man Peter's having been set at the head of the church.

And on papal principles, it is true that without one man at the head of the church, anarchy will be the result. This for the reason that papal principles reject God; and when God is left out, then only anarchy remains. And even though the anarchy be not openly manifested the first day, it is inevitably manifested in the end.

This is true also of Israel in the days of Samuel, when they demanded that one man be at their head. They had gotten so far away from God that He had so little power in their lives that they could see nothing but anarchy coming. And this was correct; for anarchy was all that there was to it, in the course which they were pursuing.

But if all the people of Israel had sought God in earnestness and devotion, and each one individually had found God to be his Head, and his one Ruler, they would have found God to be the Head of the whole people, and the organizer of the whole cause and people. And there would have been such organization as is the only true organization; and there would have been no ground for any possible suggestion of disorganization, confusion or anarchy.

And if those who made the papacy and who required the invention of Peter's supremacy amongst the apostles and in the Church of Christ, and had each kept himself, and had taught all the people to be, devoted to God alone, in Christ alone, as his own personal Master and Head of the Church, no such invention could ever have had any place.

Had each officer of the Church found for himself and had taught faithfully each one of the people to find God in Christ to be his personal and individual Head, and thus to give to Christ the place in their lives and in the Church that belongs to Him--the One sole person who has the right to be at the Head of the Church; then there never would have been such a thing as the papacy, nor any such thing as one man at the Head and center of the Church in the whole world.

to be continued