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 4: Should the General Conference Have a President?
Elder Jones attempts to sustain his contention that there should be no president of the General Conference by the following quotation from the Testimonies: “It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference.”
Taken alone and away from the statements with which it is connected, this statement appears to convey the idea that there should be no General Conference presidency. But when read with what precedes and follows it, a very different idea will be gained.
This statement is made in a Testimony written in Australia, August, 1896, and addressed to “Conference Presidents and Counselors.” The Testimony opens as follows:—
“God gave to Moses special direction for the management of his work. He directed Moses to associate men with him as counselors, that his burdens might be lightened.”
Then there is quoted the advice of Jethro to Moses as recorded in Exodus 18:19-23. Following this, it is said:—
“This counsel is for us. It should be heeded by our responsible men. The president of our General Conference has been left to gather to himself burdens which God has not laid upon him, and the things that he has tried to do could not be done wisely and well.”
Under the subhead “Study God’s Methods,” the following counsel is given:—
“As a people we should study God’s plans for conducting his work. Wherever he has given directions in regard to any point, we should carefully consider how to regard his expressed will. This work should have special attention. [p. 30] It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference. The work of the General Conference has extended, and some things have been made unnecessarily complicated. A want of discernment has been shown. There should be a division of the field, or some other plan should be devised to change the present order of things.”
“The president of the General Conference should have the privilege of deciding who shall stand by his side as counselors.”
“Counselors of the character that God chose for Moses are needed by the president of the General Conference. It was his privilege at least to express his preference as to the men who should be his counselors.”
The facts set forth in these statements are these: Moses was carrying too many cares and burdens; through Jethro the Lord gave him special direction for the management of his work; he was instructed to associate good, able men with himself as counselors. This, we are told, is counsel for us; for the president of the General Conference was carrying too many burdens.
At this point occurs the statement that it is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference, which is followed by the statements that the work of the General Conference has extended, has become unnecessarily complicated, and that there should be a division of the field, or some other plan devised to change the situation.
Now is this counsel intended to convey the idea that the General Conference should have no president, or that one man should not stand alone in bearing the many great burdens of the General Conference? The counsel that follows this statement makes the question plain. It is this: “The president of the General Conference should have the privilege of deciding who shall stand by his side as counselors.” “Counselors of the character that God chose for Moses are needed by the president of the [p. 31] General Conference. It was his privilege at least to express his preference as to the men who should be his counselors.”
Taking all these statements together, the counsel is harmonious and consistent all the way through. And it makes the case of Moses a pertinent example.
The fact that following the statement which Elder Jones quotes to prove that there should be no president of the General Conference, instruction is given as to how the “president of the General Conference” is to secure his counselors, and what should be the character of the counselors of the “president of the General Conference,” shows very clearly that the writer did not understand that there should be no president of the General Conference.
Taken all together, this Testimony, instead of proving that there should be no president of the General Conference, proves that there should be a president of the General Conference, who should have associated with him a committee for counsel. And yet, in the face of this plain statement of the Testimony itself, Elder Jones detaches a single sentence, and uses it to prove just the opposite of that which the instruction really conveys.
The Testimony from which the extract under consideration is made was written ten years ago, and during all this time communications have been coming to the president of the General Conference to guide him in the discharge of his duties. And of one who has filled the position of president during a portion of this time, a Testimony expressly says that he is “the right man in the right place.” No such statement as this would have been made if the theory were true that there should be no such “place” to be filled by anybody.
[p. 32]