Adventist Online

Today, I would like to re-visit a letter brother A.T. Jones

wrote to brother A.G. Daniells in 1906.  I believe it

contains more than valuable information as to what was

really going on in those days. So we need to put aside

our prejudices (if there are any) and read the following

letter with a receptive mind so that if brother Jones was

speaking the truth, nothing will stand in the way of our

accepting it. May the Spirit of the Lord be with you as

you follow through to the end of this letter. Thank you

for your attention. God bless!

 

sky

 

 

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

 

 

Views: 197

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Clark, A.G. Daniells himself assumed the presidency

in 1902 before he was officially elected. He did this

in the face of the 1901 Constitution which had eliminated

the presidency and the men who were responsible

for his election in 1903 were the very men Mrs. White

 said should be removed.

 

I will post the statement again even though I have

posted it before.

 

"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be

as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed

the General Conference to be,--that is past. What we want

now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the

foundation, and to build upon a different principle... The men

that have long stood in positions of trust while disregarding

the light that God has given, are not to be depended upon.

God wants them removed." E.G. White, 1901 General Conference

Bulletin, pp.25,26.

 

These men were not removed simply because A.G. Daniels

explained this testimony away by saying that Mrs. White did

not mean that the men themselves should be removed.

 

sky

 

"In the Review and Herald on this subject, by General Conference officials, there has been set down in substance and almost in very words the arguments of Ignatius and Cyprian, and even of the full-fledged papacy. Even such a statement as that  'In Peter, as in leading brethren now whom God is using, these companies of believers were united in the Holy Ghost.'"--Review and Herald, May 2, 1907, p.10 , first column, the Home Secretary.

 

This was published by General Conference officials.

Is this true? Who believe this? How about you Clark?

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?  Is it out of context?  I truly cannot understand how it applies or the point you are trying to make.

Out of context!!! The officers of the General Conference declared that "in Peter, as in leading brethren now whom God is using, these companies of believers were united in the Holy Ghost," and we fail to see the connection? Clark, this was the very argument of Ignatius and Cyprian and of the fullfledged papacy to establish a visible head of the church!

 

sky

And Ellen White never once spoke about any illegitimacy of A.G. Daniells leadership?  Even though she lived over a dozen years more?  I honestly can't believe that she would say nothing if the problem was not dealt with.  There was a turnover in leadership after she wrote these words.  How do you know that did not address the issue?  If it did not address the issue I'm sure she would have written about it.

Samuel the prophet had to go along with the Israelites when

they chose to have a man for their king and the Lord told him

to heed their voice in spite of the fact that they had rejected

Him. 1 Sam. 8:7.

 

Mrs. White said that in this we are

repeating the follies of Israel.

 

sky

Clark, in 1 Sam.8:7 we read, "And the Lord said to Samuel,

'Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you

for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me,

that I should not reign over them. Now therefore,

heed their voice.'"

 

In the same manner, Mrs. White heeded the voice of the people

who, after 1901, had not rejected her but had rejected the Lord,

for they were determined to continue the same order of things.

They would not have Christ reign over them.  This is clearly

confirmed by these words: "The self-confident management of men

has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men."

T.M.481 (1909)

 

So the fact that Mrs. White continued to heed the voice of the people

after 1901 is not to be interpreted as that God was in agreement with

what the people had chosen. How could He? They had rejected Him!

But  He was willing to wait until a change be made. But that change never

came even until this day. 

 

As for the Israelites, the same order of things was continued

until the first advent of Christ to our world. Herod was king then.

Herod attempted to have Him killed when He was born and later

he had John the Baptist killed. Then the Sanhedrin had Jesus crucified.

 

sky

I have seen nothing that indicates the early 1900's church was wicked in the same way that Israel was in the time of Samuel.  So I have a hard time accepting this as a parallel.

 

The second concern I have is that God treated the wickedness in individuals.  He did not throw out the baby with the bathwater.  He did not say "This king of Israel is wicked!  We will not have any more kings!"  No, he dealt with the wickedness and did not eliminate the leadership structure.  As you know, that happened many times.  When Moses was wicked, God did not do away with the leadership structure, he brought in Joshua as the new leader.

 

All the calls for reform that I see from Ellen White in this time period seem to mirror this pattern.  God spoke through her to remove the sinful leadership.  Reform was needed.  And from what I see, it was accomplished.  Was it needed again?  Yes.  Time and again.  And we are always striving to be better to this day.  So did our church leaders in the past (and present) sin?  YES!  Every one of them.  But I see no basis in Scripture or SOP for this dramatic destruction of the remnant church that you are calling for.  I just really don't see the counsel to dismantle our church leadership structure.

 

The only two people that I have seen call for it are A.T. Jones and you.  Both people who have actively been part of church leadership, both were hurt by the church, and then both subsequently went on a crusade to dismantle the church leadership.  Isn't that odd?  Why do so few see this call to change our leadership?

 

Blessings and prayers,

Clark

"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... The workers will be surprised by the simple

means that He will use to bring about  and perfect His

work of righteousness." T.M.300.

 

 

Amen Clark

This topic is very interesting.I am advising that you better read first all what sky had posted here. Read it over and over again and you may know one day what he is really trying to say.

I am personally got confused when I read about this but I know God has a purpose why He gave me this message.Until now, I still don't know what to do. I will only let the Holy Spirit to guide me.

 

Lhei

from Philippines

Thank you Lhei for your courage, the courage to

express your convictions. I thank God for that.

Just before I read your post, I was reading

the comments of another brother from the

Philippines, someone I didn't know. I read

all his posts but now they are gone! He must

have decided to delete them all. They were

very encouraging as yours is. I don't know

why he chose to delete them all!

 

You said it, the secret is to read the material

over and over with a prayerful attitude. Personnally

I have gone over this material many times and every

time I did, I would get a better understanding of what

brother Jones was saying and I began to really

appreciate what the Lord was trying to tell me until

it all became clear to me what happened between

1888 and 1903.

 

Again, thank you so much for your encouraging

comment and I myself encourage you to continue

to study and the Lord will give you light.

 

Also many thanks to brother jr from the Philippines

as well. I am very thankful I had the time to read

his comments before they were deleted.

 

Very encouraging. I had to hold back the

tears when I read some of his comments.

 

May God bless you and keep you in the Philippines.

 

To God be the glory!

 

sky  :)

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service