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 13: Alleged Overdraft of $300 by the President of an Institution
Elder Jones cites the following as an instance in support of his claim that some at least of the Testimonies can not be accepted as Testimonies from the Lord because of the false statements and serious misrepresentations they contain:—
[p. 63]
“I was a member of the Board of a certain institution. Upon due consideration that Board had arranged that the president of the Board should do certain work in the field. A communication from Sister White came to the Board, through the president of the Board, saying that a member of the Board had told her that this brother, the president of the Board, had ‘overdrawn his account’ with the institution ‘three hundred dollars; ’ that in the night things were ‘opened’ to her; and that the action which the Board had taken with reference to the work of the president of the Board should not be carried out; with much more to the same effect. The members of the Board were scattered; the president of the Board was in the field in the work which the Board had arranged for him to do; and it was some weeks—two or possibly three—before a meeting of the Board could be held. But before this meeting of the Board was held, there came another communication referring to the main point in the previous one, saying that the matter had ‘not been repeated ’ and that there was no reason why the action of the Board should not be carried out as originally planned. When the Board met, the president of the Board laid before it the first communication. When that part was read as to his having ‘overdrawn his account three hundred dollars,’ the secretary of the Board and bookkeeper of the institution spoke out with the words: ‘Why, Brother —— has no account with the institution. The institution does not even pay his wages.’ And this was literally true. And it was just as literally true that the president of the Board had not ‘overdrawn his account three hundred dollars.’ It was literally true that he had not even drawn a cent, much less ‘overdrawn three hundred dollars.’
“Now was that communication a Testimony? It came as a Testimony; it spoke authoritatively as a Testimony; was it a Testimony? The material statement and basis of the communication was not true and never had been true. Could that Board receive that communication as a [p. 64] Testimony from the Lord? Should they have received it so? If so, how could it be done?
“Possibly it may be argued that since, before it reached the Board it was practically reversed by the one that followed, of course it was not a Testimony then. But if it were not a Testimony then, was it ever a Testimony? Besides, the one that followed had not yet been read to the Board; they were read in the order given. The Board did not yet know that the second one existed. And more than this, the second one, even when it was issued, was not issued for a considerable time—days, or a week, possibly more—after the first one had been sent; and the president of the Board in the field had it for the Board this considerable time before the second one came. And during this time what was he to do? Must he receive it as a Testimony, knowing it was not true; and then when the second one came, let the first one pass as not Testimony? And then again, If the first one was not Testimony after the second one came, was it ever Testimony ? And since it was mistaken and wrong in its very basis, then why was it ever issued as a Testimony?
“Will it be said: ‘But did she not have the word of a member of the Board?’ Yes, she did; but is that, and such as that, a sufficient source and basis of the Testimonies ? Is that, and such as that, a sufficient source of a ‘Testimony from the Lord,’ ‘every word of it given by the Spirit of God,’ and ‘If I did not believe that, I would give up the whole thing!’? etc., etc. Yes, she did have the word—the prejudiced gossip—of that member of the Board. It was not true, but she believed it. And believing it, and her mind being agitated by her believing it, the communication said that in the night things ‘were opened’ to her, and the instruction of the communication followed, that a considerable time afterward was reversed because it had not been ‘repeated.’ And the unquestionable facts in the case make it certain that on the mere prejudiced report of a man, a communication [p. 65] was issued as a Testimony, because of that report of ‘a member of the Board’ and of things ‘opened’ to her in the night seasons,—a communication as a Testimony, whose basic premise was not in any sense nor on any ground true; and which itself was afterward reversed, by another communication. The man’s story was made up from a willing jumping to premise and conclusion, from the following circumstances:—
“The institution had engaged to print a book for the president of the Board. The paper to print the book had cost three hundred dollars. In making up the inventory for the annual report to show the actual standing, that paper was invoiced to the account of the president’s book that was to be printed on it. But by no possibility could the president himself have any account in that connection, until the books should be printed and ready for delivery. Yet out of that perfectly innocent thing, and merely hearing the sound of the words in the annual report or in some other way, that newly elected ‘member of the Board’ told her that ‘Brother ——, the president of the Board, had overdrawn his account three hundred dollars.’ And then the communication followed and the train of circumstances as given above, which absolutely demonstrate two things—(a) that not everything is Testimony that is issued as Testimony; and, (b) that a communication purporting to be a Testimony has been issued on the mere gossip of a man.”
Closing his letter addressed to Elder Daniells (page 69), Elder Jones says: “You are at liberty to make this whole letter public in any way that you please, provided that you make the whole letter public at the same time arid in the same way. I want that it shall not be used partially. I want that it or parts of it shall not be reported in snatches or by word of mouth.”
But how differently he treats the Testimonies to the manner in which he wishes his communication assailing the Testimonies treated! As in the previous case, it will [p. 66] be noticed that in this long, labored argument to disprove the reliability and truthfulness of the Testimonies, he does not quote the communications to which he refers, and upon which he bases his argument, and from which he draws his conclusion. For what the communications actually say, the reader is left to depend almost wholly upon what Elder Jones, in his own words, says they say. He does not even quote, nor does he pretend to quote, a single complete sentence from either of them. In all his long, drawn-out argument, he does not profess to give verbatim even a dozen words from them, but reports them in the most infinitesimal “parts” and “snatches.” And, more astounding still, the one statement of six words which he does profess to quote,—the one he iterates and reiterates over and over again, and upon which he bases his entire argument,—is not to be found in either of the communications he is reviewing. It would seem that he has not only quoted from memory, but has manufactured a quotation which was never in the communications, and upon this reared his argument and staked his conclusion.
That he did not have the communications before him when he wrote, is evident; for he neither gives their dates, nor seems to know exactly the time intervening between the writing of the two, but days it was “a considerable time—days, or a week, possibly more.”
In view of all this, we wish to ask if that, and such as that, is a fair way to deal with the Testimonies; and if that, and such as that, is a “sufficient basis” for giving up the Testimonies, and renouncing faith in them.
As the facts show, Elder Jones has “made up” his whole argument here “from a willing jumping to premise and conclusion,” and has made the grave mistake of confounding conversation and “the mere gossip of a man” with the Testimonies. That he was conscious of not being absolutely certain as to the correctness of all the statements he has made in this leaflet, is apparent from the note he attached at the end of it, found, on page 71, in [p. 67] which he says: “There is a possibility that in some minor point or item of detail some statement in this leaflet may not be perfectly exact.” This throws the shadow of indefiniteness, inaccuracy, and uncertainty over everything in the leaflet. It would have been well if this statement had been placed at the beginning of the document. But, knowing as he does the frailty of the memory and mind of man, it is surprising that Elder Jones should attempt to deal with so serious and important a subject as faith in the gift of the Spirit known in Scripture as “the testimony of Jesus,” and “the spirit of prophecy,” without being absolutely certain as to the correctness and truthfulness of his statements.
After reading his severe arraignment of the communications referred to, and these observations respecting it, it will doubtless be of interest and a matter of satisfaction to the reader to read the communications themselves, and compare them with the statements made concerning them. They are here reproduced as originally written, with the exception of the omission of names.
“‘Elmshaven,’ Sanitarium, Cal.,
“Sept. 2, 1903.
“Dear Brother ——
“I wrote something in regard to you, the night after you left ——. Matters were opened before me, and I was instructed that you were correct in your statement to me that it would not be best to have two families serving in the same office of responsibility in the students’ home. If Brother —— and his wife should come in to serve in the place formerly occupied by yourself and wife, while you remained as an adviser, confusion would be liable to result.
“It might have been appropriate for you to accept the position of adviser, as recommended, if you had kept humble and very near the Lord. But, as I have stated, [p. 68] such a plan is liable to result in confusion and unpleasantness.
“There are some things connected with financial matters that must be made perfectly straight before the Board, so that they can act intelligently. When I learned this, I could not see how the plan I proposed could be carried out successfully. You have not stood as you should have done in every respect. At twelve o’clock of the night after you left, I was up writing out some things to you. My heart aches; I feel sad that because of these things, matters can not be adjusted as I suggested in our conversation at ——.
“I have not had the matter opened before me again as it was opened that night. I had almost decided not to write you anything more before there was a thorough investigation. Everything should: be clearly and plainly defined. I supposed I had sent to you, at ——, the letter that I wrote to you in ——; but yesterday I found that the letter had not been copied. Immediately on my return from the school, I had to do much writing in order to warn our people to guard against making mistakes, and to encourage them to strengthen themselves in right principles.
“When I found this letter that I wrote in ——, I thought that it might be best to wait until my son, W. C. W., could see you at ——. I thought perhaps he might be there, although he did not write me that he would. I did not want to throw you into perplexity by telling you of the things that had been opened to me in the night season; namely, that it would be best to leave matters just as you proposed, because of the difficulties that would naturally arise if Brother —— should serve in the position assigned him, while you were also occupying the position of adviser in the same place.
“These other matters, in regard to your course of action in managing financial matters, I knew nothing of when we talked together. These things will have to be [p. 69] settled in some way satisfactory to all concerned. After the representations passed before me in the night season, I was troubled, and decided to send you a letter at once. Then I thought that nothing should be done hastily. I feared that unless these things were clearly understood, confusion would result from sending you a communication. I desired to carry no unnecessary burden. But now, since receiving your letter written from ——, I feel as if I must speak.
“Inquiring of members of the Board, while in ——, in regard to the future of the school, I was told that there are some, matters concerning your disposition of college funds, that are not explained. Inquiries have come to me concerning similar matters, elsewhere, and I have Written out considerable instruction on this point. What I have written may possibly help you. I will send you this soon. It is not yet copied. Treat it not as personal, but as general matter. These principles that have been opened before me concern all who have any connection with our schools.
“Has everything in regard to yourself been made clear and straight? Some things may be made plain by the matter I have written in response to others whose minds were perplexed. Just at present I can not tax my mind further on this question, as I am carrying other burdens that demand immediate attention. I will try to write to you again tomorrow. I hope to be able to speak by my pen, so that matters will be understood.
“I am very, very sorry that all things are not satisfactory to our brethren. Make everything clear and straight. You can not afford to make any mistakes. At the present time I can not counsel you to take the position of influence suggested during our interview in ——; for this would not be doing justice to Brother —— and his wife. You thought so, I know; but I was fearful of making changes. Is am not fearful now. I think a change should be made, and that unless it be made, unhappy results [p. 70] will follow. This much I can say. I must have clear light before I can say more.
“W. C. W. has telegraphed that he can not be here before September 10.
“May the Lord help and strengthen and bless you and your wife, is my prayer.
“(Signed) Ellen G. White.”
“‘Elmshaven,’ Sanitarium, Cal.,
“Sept. 7, 1903.
“Elder ——,
“My, dear Brother,—
“I am sorry that I could not see you. For some days I have been afflicted, and I hardly know how far I dare tax my strength by venturing to add to the perplexing burdens I am now carrying. My mind has been severely taxed of late.
“I believe that the position that the Board requested you to occupy, as the president of the Board, counselor in the school, and educational field worker, is the position that you should fill. You looked at this matter in the correct light when you talked with me before leaving ——. But it would not be best for you and Brother —— to live together in the students’ home.
“Afterward, while I was speaking in reference to Brother and Sister —— coming into the students’ home and occupying there the position that you formerly occupied, I inquired in regard to the capabilities of Brother ——, and learned that it was thought by the brethren that he would be capable of filling this place and meeting the responsibilities devolving upon the head of a school. Then some remarks were made by those who were talking to me, in regard to several matters connected with the past year’s work. They said that you, Brother ——, had overdrawn your account; and also that the Conference [p. 71] had been paying the traveling expenses of the canvassers who were selling ‘Christ’s Object Lessons,’ which expenses were so great that almost as much was consumed as was produced. Statements were made, too, in regard to the use of funds to pay the debts of the school.
“In reply to these statements, I said that I did not know in regard to these particular things, but that I had received light on some points connected with the financial management of our schools. I did know that there should be no carelessness in the expenditure of means, but that everything connected with the finances of our schools should be perfectly straight.
“Some reflection was cast upon you, Brother ——, by brethren interested in the —— school. As I understand the matter, I can not see that they were justified in making such broad statements as were made.
“To the members of the Board I would say: I have no word of censure to speak against Brother ——. Until these matters in question are closely and critically examined, let no reflection be suffered to rest upon him. Let him speak for himself.
“I have had matters presented to me in reference to the use of school funds at —— college prior to the time that Brother —— took the position of president of this school. But the misuse of funds in former years, before his administration, should not be regarded as casting a reflection upon him. If the Conference sanctioned those matters, and sanctioned paying from the tithe the expenses of those who were working in the interests of the ‘Object Lessons’ campaign, Brother —— should not be blamed for mismanagement in these matters, whether the college received little or much from the efforts put forth.
“I write this statement, to be read to whomsoever it may concern. And I would say to my dear brethren, Do not call any council meetings of condemnation until you [p. 72] know what, you are about. I am sure that in all our management of institutional work, we need more of the Holy Spirit of God than we now have.
“I will try to write a few more lines soon.
“(Signed) Ellen G. White.”
Five times Elder Jones repeats the statement that the first of these communications sets forth, an alleged charge that the president of the board had “overdrawn his account three hundred dollars;” four times, in addition, he refers to the statement, and four times declares it to be false. Upon this he bases his argument.
But what are the facts? They are these: The first communication contains no such statement whatever. Elder Jones says “when that part was read as to his having overdrawn his account three hundred dollars,” the bookkeeper made certain remarks. But no such statement was read from the first communication, for it contains no such statement. And yet Elder Jones claims that this is the “main point” of the first communication, dated September 2. Clearly, it is Elder Jones’s statement, and not Sister White’s, that, to use his own language, “in its very material statement,” is “not true, and never was true.”
As to the words “three hundred dollars,” they can not be found in either communication. The expression “overdrawn your account” is found in the third paragraph of the second communication, the one dated September 7. But who said the words? Ans.—“They said,”—“those who were talking with me;” i. e., certain members of the Board. And what, in this same communication, did Sister White say she said in reply? Ans.—“I said that I did not know in regard to these particular things. . . . As I understand the matter, I can not see that they were justified in making such broad statements as were made. . . . To the members of the Board I would say: I have no word of censure to speak [p. 73] against Brother ——. Until these matters in question are closely and critically examined, let no reflection be suffered to rest upon him.”
If words can be taken to mean anything, these words show that Sister White did not either, make or confirm the charge of an overdraft on the funds of the institution.
That there was a question on the part of some members of the Board regarding the use of the funds of the institution, is plain; and that there was need of the matter being explained and made clear and straight before all, is also apparent. And just this is what is expressed in the communications sent by Sister White to the president of the Board.
Regarding the prejudiced gossip which he claims Sister White believed, Elder Jones asks: “Is that, and such as that, a sufficient source and basis of the Testimonies?” The Testimonies already quoted clearly show that that and such as that, was not the source of the Testimonies; but instead of Sister White believing that, and such as that, the Testimonies quoted above show that that, and such as that, was NOT believed. What, then, can be thought of that, and such as that, as a method of misrepresentation? The exact opposite of what the Testimonies say is assumed; upon that assumption a premise is based; upon that premise the proposition is stated; and from that the conclusion is drawn; and the conclusion is that “the unquestionable facts in the case make it certain that on the mere prejudiced report of a man, a communication was issued as a Testimony, because of that report of ‘a member of the Board’ and of things ‘opened’ to her in the night seasons,—a communication as a Testimony, whose basic premise was not in any sense nor on any ground true.” But the premise could not be assumed if the Testimonies were quoted. The difficulty with Elder Jones, as well as with others who oppose the Testimonies, is that he does not quote the exact statement of the Testimonies, but says that they state thus and so. This is stated [p. 74] with all positiveness, and with the assurance of a personal, intimate acquaintance with the matters involved.
Elder Jones states positively that Sister White believed the prejudiced gossip of a member of the Board regarding the overdraft of three hundred dollars by the president of the institution. But how does he know what she believed? That may be a pleasing assumption to him; but he is supposed to be stating facts; and the fact is that the communication itself, in referring, to this charge by the member, says: “I said I did not know in regard to these particular things:” “I can not see how they were justified in making such broad statements as were made;” “I have no word of censure to speak against Brother ——.”
Before making such sweeping charges against the reliability of the Testimonies, would it not be fair for Elder Jones to at least allow the Testimonies to speak for themselves, or if reference is made to them, to give the exact words which they contain? But were this done, his argument, founded on assumption and reared by forceful but false reasoning, would be impossible. Therefore, instead of giving the Testimonies themselves an opportunity to speak for themselves, or even to give a fair, truthful statement of what they do say, he assumes a false premise, and upon that erects a structure, only to be torn down at the first instant when the Testimonies are allowed to speak in their own defense.
Elder Jones makes frequent use of the term “opened” in the night season. The question arises, what are the matters referred to as having been opened in the night season? Here they are: “I did not want to throw you into perplexity by telling you of the things that had been opened to me in the night season,—namely, that it would be best to leave matters just as you proposed, because of the difficulties that would naturally arise if Brother —— should serve in the position assigned him, while you were also occupying the position of adviser in the same place.” Not a word about overdrawing his account “three hundred [p. 75] dollars.” Strange, indeed, when that is said to be the “main point” in this, the first communication.
The very work outlined for the brother in this communication of September 2 is referred to again in the second communication, as follows: I believe that the position that the Board requested you to occupy, as the president of the Board, counselor in the school, and educational field worker, is the position that you should fill.” The two communications agree exactly in this and every other respect. They are practically one communication.
Elder Jones further states that the first communication was itself “afterward reversed by another communication.” The communications are before the reader, and he will look in vain for the reversal.
This reference is made to these communications: “But before this meeting of the Board was held, there came another communication referring to the main point in the previous one; saying that the matter had ‘not been repeated,’ and that there was no reason why the action of the Board should not be carried out as originally planned.”
The fact is that the first communication, the one dated September 2, 1903, is the one containing the statement to which reference is made above, and the statement is this: “I had not had the matter opened before me again as it was opened that night.” No such statement can be found in the second communication, dated September 7. The statement which Elder Jones makes, as quoted above, is therefore incorrect.