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 14: “Suppression” of Matter for Vol. VII
A further example cited by Elder Jones as proof of the unreliability of the Testimonies, is given in the following words:—
“Relative to your talk with Sister White in her house in the autumn of 1902, concerning the Southern Publishing [p. 76] Company, when I and other General Conference men were present, you said in the Tabernacle when you were lately in Battle Creek that what she then said which was taken down in shorthand and run off and revised and approved by her and carried by you away from there for your use in the South—you said that that ‘was not Testimony.’ Very good. Let it be so. But I personally know, possibly you do not, that that is not all there is to that matter. Just at that time Volume VII of the Testimonies was being set up in type at the Pacific Press to be printed. In it there is a section on the Southern field and work. And the substance of at least a portion of that matter that you carried over here concerning the Southern Publishing Company, was sent to the Pacific Press as manuscript Testimony with the rest of the manuscript. But when the matter that you had carried over here was reversed, that substance of at least a portion of it that had been sent to the Pacific Press to be set up as Testimony was also reversed—a whole galley of it—after it had been put in type and was ready for making into pages.
“Now, if that which you carried over here had not been reversed, would not you have used it in the South as Testimony? When it was reversed, of course you could not. But was it Testimony till it was reversed and not afterward? And does a writing’s being a Testimony or not, depend upon whether it is reversed or not? If that be so, I can understand your special emphasis on ‘Testimonies up to the latest date.’
“At any rate you say now that the matter that you carried over here to be used in the South ‘was not Testimony.’ Very good. But what about the substance of a portion of the same conversation, if not of the same matter, that was sent to the Pacific Press as manuscript Testimony to be set up and published with the other as Testimony Vol. VII? What about that? Was that Testimony, till the matter and the situation were reversed? Was it Testimony when it was sent to the Pacific Press [p. 77] as Testimony? Was it Testimony when the Pacific Press hands were putting it through as Testimony with the rest? Was it Testimony till it got clear through to the galley, ready for paging, and then did it suddenly cease to be Testimony before it got out of the galley, so that it never did get beyond the galley except to the melting-pot?
“That galley of reversed and suppressed matter I myself saw and read after Volume VII was issued. It was showed to me by a brother in prominent position, who knew the circumstances. And when I had read it and handed it back to him, he said: ‘Brother Jones, that did not help the Pacific Press hands to have confidence in the Testimonies.’
“These and many other like things, are facts which unquestionably vitiate the claim that ‘everything that she writes is from the Lord.’ Yet these facts have been so forced upon my experience that I simply can not hide my eyes to them and be honest with myself and with the people, and at the same time hold before the people and urge upon them that everything that comes in writing from Sister White is Testimony from the Lord. Nor can I honestly stand with those who do that and allow my influence to be swung in urging, upon the people that everything from that source is Testimony and the word of the Lord and the people thereby be rallied on ‘loyalty to the Testimonies,’ and thus drawn to the support of policies that otherwise they would not countenance at all, when I personally and reluctantly know by compulsory facts and experience that such statement or any such claim is simply not true.”
Statement by Elder Daniells
The following explanation regarding this matter is given by Elder Daniells:—
“In the fall of 1902 I was called to Nashville, Tenn., to counsel with the brethren regarding various interests. [p. 78] Some of the questions with which we had to deal were too perplexing for us to settle, and as I was expecting to go to the Pacific Coast to attend the California camp-meeting, the brethren requested me to counsel with Sister White regarding some of these difficult problems. When I had my interview with her, there were present. W. T. Knox, J. O. Corliss, A. T. Jones, W. C. White, and E. R. Palmer. In order to be able to convey to the brethren in the Southern field the exact counsel given by Sister White, the conversation was taken in shorthand, transcribed, and examined by Sister White. A copy was placed in my hands to read to the brethren in the South. Shortly after returning to Battle Creek, and before going South, I received a Testimony from Sister White, stating that the matters we had talked over in our personal interview had been presented to her in the night visions, and that it had been revealed to her that we had not taken a correct view of all the questions we had considered. She then outlined the situation as it was revealed to her. Of course I laid aside the document containing our conversation and the verbal counsel she gave, and took the Testimony containing the revelation that was given after our interview.
“This reminded me of David’s experience with Nathan, as given to us in these words: ‘David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo I dwell in a house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of the Lord remaineth under curtains. Then Nathan said unto David, Do all that is in thine heart; for God is with thee. And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying, Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not build me a house to dwell in.’
“Now Elder Jones claims that either the document containing the account of our interview or the substance of the same was sent to the Pacific Press Publishing Company as Testimony to be printed in Volume VII. This matter he says was put in type, but before appearing in [p. 79] the book it was set aside, and replaced by other matter. This, he claims, is all stated upon personal knowledge; for he says: ‘That galley of reversed and suppressed matter I myself saw and read after Volume VII was issued. It was showed to me by a brother in prominent position who knew the circumstances.’ These, he claims, are facts which unquestionably vitiate the claim that ‘everything that she writes is from the Lord.’ These, he affirms, are facts which are forced upon his experience, so that he can not hide his eyes to them and be honest with himself and with the people.
“Possibly there are some facts which have not come within his personal knowledge, and these may have some bearing upon the question. The transcript of the conversation which I had with Sister White covers, seventeen typewritten pages, or a little more than 5,500 words. Elder Jones’s claim is that ‘a portion of that matter that you carried over here concerning the Southern Publishing Company, was sent to Pacific Press as manuscript Testimony with the rest of the manuscript,’ was set up, and after it had been put into type ready for making into pages, was reversed upon the reversal of the matter, as he claims.
“The documents themselves are too lengthy to be printed in this connection; I will therefore state the facts just as they are. I have before me as I write, a copy of what Sister White said to me at the interview above referred to; I also have a copy of the galley-proof which Elder Jones says was reversed and suppressed. In this copy there,are shown just the sentences that were omitted, and the words inserted to make proper connections. As the matter originally stood when first submitted to the Pacific Press for publication in Volume VII, there were 196 lines of typewritten matter, 118 of which were retained without a particle of change. Seventy-eight lines were rewritten or abbreviated. These changes were made by Sister White because she thought that with the [p. 80] omission of certain statements commendatory and condemnatory regarding certain actions over which there was already too much dispute, the article would do more good in its abbreviated form.
“Elder Jones’s contention is this: That ‘a whole galley’ was reversed and suppressed. But this is not true. The galley was neither reversed nor suppressed; it was revised. Of the 196 lines which it contained, 118 were printed without change; while the matter contained in seventy-eight lines was rewritten and abbreviated, for the reason stated.
“The crucial point of Elder Jones’s claim is this: That because of the reversal and suppression of the matter contained in the interview, the matter that had been sent to the Pacific Press must also be suppressed; but a careful comparison of the report of the interview with Sister White, with the matter sent to the Pacific Press for publication in Volume VII, shows that there is nothing in it that appears like a compilation, a rewriting, an abbreviation, or the substance of the report of the interview with Sister White. Neither the portion abbreviated nor the part retained without change contains a single sentence, nor a clause, nor a phrase, nor even three words in consecutive order that are the same in the two manuscripts. To those who have carefully examined and compared these manuscripts such a claim is positively absurd.
“Thus it is shown that the report of my interview with Sister White regarding the Southern field was not used in the preparation of matter for Volume VII; that no part of it appears at any place in any article as originally prepared for publication in Volume VII, either in statement, form, substance, or compilation of any kind or manner whatsoever.
measured two different words.“(Signed) A. G. Daniells.”
[p. 81]