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 7: The Testimonies
We come now to the most important as well as the most serious part of the document under review. What follows is a review and a refutation of what are probably the most subtle and dangerous statements ever put before our people regarding the Testimonies. Whatever may have been the real purpose of the writer, the argument is well calculated utterly to destroy the confidence of our people in the divine source of the messages which for more than half a century have been coming to us through one who has been recognized by us as one to whom has been imparted the prophetic gift.
At the close of his argument Elder Jones says: “Possibly some may say that what I have written does of itself repudiate the Testimonies. With me it does not.” To [p. 41] us this statement seems utterly inconsistent with the arguments he has made; but it is a complete fulfillment of the statement made by the Testimonies: “Very adroitly some have been working to make of no effect the Testimonies of warning and reproof that have stood the test for half a century. At the same time, they deny doing any such thing.”—“Testimonies for the Church,” Series B, No. 7, page 31.
The question is dealt with under two phases: First, the disloyalty of the General Conference Committee—at least a part of the Committee—to the Testimonies; second, the unreliability of the Testimonies—at least of some of them. This argument demands a more lengthy reply than can possibly be given in a small tract; but we shall give it enough attention to throw some light on the dark picture presented to us.
The writer’s position will be stated in his own language; the points reviewed will be taken in the order in which they occur. The subject is introduced as follows:—
“I know that you and others with you are making much of ‘loyalty to the Testimonies,’ and are not slow to convey the impression that any who do not openly endorse your course in the use of some of the Testimonies is not ‘loyal to the Testimonies,’ ‘does not believe the Testimonies,’ etc., etc. But all of that proves nothing at all as to anybody’s loyalty or disloyalty to the Testimonies. Besides, facts within my personal knowledge demonstrate that the ‘loyalty to the Testimonies’ that is just now being made so conspicuous, is a very uncertain thing: it is merely ‘loyalty’ to some of the Testimonies—that can be used to special advantage for a purpose.”
[p. 42]