Book: General Conference Committee, A Statement Refuting Charges Made by A. T. Jones Against the Spirit of Prophecy and the Plan of Organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination (Washington, DC: General Conference Committee, 1906). HTML, Scan.
Contents: Refutes charges made by A. T. Jones after he had united with J. H. Kellogg in undermining the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Chapter 1: Some Grave Charges Answered
Pages 2 to 11 of the leaflet under review are devoted to a consideration of the statement read by Elder Jones to three members of the General Conference Committee who were in Battle Creek. In this statement, though disclaiming any “purpose to attack anybody,” he accuses some of his fellow laborers in the Sanitarium with practising a “secret, underhanded, treacherous, and dishonest course,” and that “they spend their time just as far as they can, and make opportunity day and night, to create dissatisfaction in others of the family, and even in the patients; to attend secret meetings off the premises, or to hold secret meetings on the premises; to show disrespect to their teachers, to those in responsibility, and in fact to everybody who does not fall in with their own spirit; to despise the Bible, prayer, and meetings, whether for religious service, or for the benefit and improvement of the Sanitarium and its work; to be careless, if not reckless, of the property of the Sanitarium; to betray confidence; in short to do any unchristian thing, and no Christian thing if they can help it.”
Referring to the General Conference brethren who had been in Battle Creek laboring earnestly in behalf of the people, he says: “And, sorry as we all are that it is so, it is the plain, sober truth that you brethren have sanctioned it, you have promoted it, you have fired it and kept it alive. You have set the example of holding the secret meetings.”
The members of the General Conference Committee who had been laboring in Battle Creek, and against whom these grave charges are preferred, are Elders A. G. Daniells, G. A. Irwin, E. W. Farnsworth, and G. B. Thompson. Those who were present, and to whom Elder Jones read his statement, were Elders A. G. Daniells, [p. 7] E. W. Farnsworth, and G. B. Thompson. The two latter brethren had been in Battle Creek for some time, and had recently been joined, for a few days, by Elder Daniells.
Concerning the charges here preferred, Elder Jones says the brethren “demurred.” They did much more than demur. They repudiated his charges entirely, emphatically denying having done any of the things charged, and asked for proof. This he was unable to furnish.
The simple facts are these: Testimonies were sent to members of the General Conference Committee, with instruction that they be read to the Battle Creek church. In harmony with this instruction, some members of the Committee went to Battle Creek, and read these Testimonies, first to the church board, and then in the Tabernacle to the people. Other Testimonies followed, with instruction that they also be read. Great interest was manifested by the church, and by the nurses and helpers at the Sanitarium, in these meetings, as was seen by the large audiences present.
As soon as these brethren began reading the Testimonies in the Tabernacle, many in the congregation came forward and requested the privilege of personal visits. Among these were many nurses and helpers from the Sanitarium. They stated that they were in great perplexity. Because of reports which had been circulated, and things which they had been taught concerning the Testimonies, their confidence in these messages had been terribly shaken. In many cases it was completely destroyed. Scores of these were young people whose parents had sent them to the Sanitarium to receive a training for the work. Among those who were in this perilous condition were nurses, medical students, and the heads of a number of departments.
But the Lord greatly blessed the reading of the Testimonies, and a new hope was kindled in many hearts. Many earnestly desired an explanation of the things which [p. 8] had been told them by leading men at the Sanitarium, which, if true, practically destroyed the foundation of their faith. In their perplexity they asked that they might have an interview with those who they had reason to believe would be able to give them some light on the reports and rumors concerning the unreliability of the Testimonies. What could be done? Must these perplexed souls, be refused help? Would this have been the Christian method to pursue? But the effort made to help these conscientious souls is the basis of the charges referred to above.
So far as possible their requests for interviews were granted. They made their own appointments as to time and place of meeting. There were no star chamber gatherings; everything was as open as the day. Some of the meetings were held in the vestry of the Tabernacle, and some in the office of the Battle Creek Tract Society. Others were held in the homes of those who desired help, either with these persons alone, or with such other persons as they saw fit to invite to be present. Not in a single instance, however, did any of the brethren against whom the above charges are made, seek any appointment, request a private interview, or go where they were not invited. And the sole object of each meeting was to render help by answering the questions asked by those who sought these interviews, regarding the reports they had heard concerning the mistakes and contradictions of the Testimonies. A few meetings were held with the medical students in the home of one of the students. In the most gentlemanly, dignified, Christian manner they stated what had been told them concerning the Testimonies, which had filled their minds with doubts, and asked if the things were true. There was no attempt at secrecy; one was excluded. At one of these meetings two Sanitarium physicians were present, and with the full approval of the speaker, took stenographic notes of what was said.
[p. 9]
We had always supposed that it was a proper thing for those in trouble concerning some point of faith to seek help of others, and that it was certainly within the bounds of propriety, as well as a duty, for those appealed to for help, to respond. Nothing more than this was done. No one was urged to leave the Sanitarium. The messages sent were read, and each was left to follow his own personal convictions.
Concerning the charges preferred against some employees of the Sanitarium, that they sought day and night to “create dissatisfaction,” to attend and hold “secret meetings,” to be disrespectful to teachers and those in responsibility, to despise the Bible and prayer, betray confidence, and “do any unchristian thing, and no Christian thing if they can help it,” our observation does not lead us to believe this. Some of those who responded to the reading of the Testimonies, and left the Sanitarium, were heads of important departments in the work of the Sanitarium, and among the most conscientious and devoted persons employed in the institution; and we do not believe that they are in any sense guilty of the shocking charges brought against them. The real seat of the difficulty lies in the fact that, when the Testimonies were read, some believed them, and they simply exercised their religious liberty, not only to believe them themselves, but to endeavor to restore in their fellow-laborers the confidence of which they had been robbed by the subtle, covert teaching to which they had listened.
On several occasions, we understand, they manifested their disapprobation regarding such teaching as was calculated to destroy their confidence, not only in the spirit of prophecy, but in the message itself. It is possible that some may not have shown their disapproval of the efforts made to disparage the message, and the organized work of God in the earth, in the wisest way. But they had the right to disbelieve what was said, and to protest against it in a proper way. This they did in some instances; [p. 10] but this exercise of religious liberty seems to have been misunderstood. Their courage to remonstrate against error, and exercise religious liberty, is what is here called a spirit of “boycott,” “disrespect,” a “dishonest course,” and an “unchristian thing.” No stronger evidence is needed of the complete departure of the Sanitarium management from some of the fundamental principles of this message, than the fact that the simple reading of Testimonies from the Spirit of God in the Tabernacle, and the effort to lead persons back into a belief of them, should call forth such grave charges as are here made. Had not the management of the Sanitarium given up their belief in the spirit of prophecy, which is a fundamental part of this message, the effort of nurses and others to restore to their fellow-workers faith in the Testimonies, would not have been termed an effort to “poison the minds of others,” and there would have been no occasion for such an effort. But since they had lost faith themselves in the Testimonies, and had committed themselves to a course which the Testimonies utterly condemn, for any one to teach and practise in the institution the instruction received, could only create division.
We very much regret the injustice done some of the helpers in the Sanitarium in consequence of these charges. To be sure, we are told that not the “whole family” is guilty of the charges preferred; but as we are not told who are guilty, the whole Sanitarium family is thereby laid under suspicion.
Furthermore, we deplore seeing such unsubstantiated statements published and sent broadcast. The conduct here described is the most reprehensible possible. After mature deliberation, and after at least some of his brethren had entered a protest against his indictment, Elder Jones charges some of the helpers with being treacherous, dishonorable, insubordinate, despisers of the Bible and of prayer, betrayers of confidence, and then [p. 11] sums up by saying, “in short, to do any unchristian thing, and no Christian thing if they can help it.”
In our opinion these charges are simply shocking in the extreme. “Do any unchristian thing”! This statement is so broad that it covers everything that is wicked. It would take in, not only the lesser sins, but sins of the greatest turpitude, as arson, adultery, murder, and such like; in fact any crime in the whole catalogue of villainy could come within the range of this sweeping statement. It is true that he does not say that they have committed these awful deeds, but he does say that their disposition and character are such that they will “do any unchristian thing;” while on the other hand he says that, unless forced to do so, they will do “no Christian thing.” Every desire to perform the duties of a Christian is represented as being utterly abandoned. This, let it be noted, is not intended to be the description of some of the inmates of a penitentiary, but of some of the leading helpers in a professed Christian institution where missionaries are supposed to be trained. If we had read such language in some diatribe written by an infidel against Christians, we would not have been so greatly shocked. But for a Christian minister, the Bible teacher in a college, to thus dip his pen in gall and defame persons who have been receiving spiritual instruction from him, those who are his fellow-workers, brethren of the same faith, and members of the same church, seems incredible! And this, let it be remembered, is after the solemn declaration, that nowhere in this statement will there be “any purpose to attack anybody; nor any attempt to discredit any one, or to put any one in the wrong”!! What stronger charges would any one need to make in order to become an “accuser of the brethren”? We greatly deplore these uncharitable statements, and refuse to believe that any of the Seventh-day Adventist nurses and helpers who responded to the instruction of the Testimonies read, were guilty of any such gross and unchristian conduct.
[p. 12]
The charge is further made that “liberal offers of money” were made to some “to leave the Sanitarium.” This conveys, intentionally or otherwise, the impression that some were paid to leave. This is a false impression. Nobody was hired to go. Some felt that they could not conscientiously remain longer connected with an institution which, while professing loyalty to the message, was in reality working against it. They desired, therefore, to connect with some of our denominational institutions. Not having the money to defray their traveling expenses, the matter was fully explained to the Battle Creek church, and a collection was taken for this purpose. They certainly had a right to go elsewhere if they desired, and the church had the right to contribute something to assist them to a place where they would be educated into the truth rather than out of it. And we see no reason why this should be questioned, especially since it is claimed that “the Sanitarium management has not objected to anybody’s going away.”