Kingly Power by A.T. Jones (The Same Kingly Power Jones and Ellen White Protested is Still Alive in the SDA Church)Click to go to our Home PageKINGLY
POWER By A.T. Jones: As to the presidency of the General
Conference without the constitution: On page 19 of my leaflet I stated
that "without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain
words of the constitution" "two men or three men, or four
men or a few men I should say," "took it absolutely upon themselves
to elect you President, and Brother Prescott Vice-President of the General
Conference." Now, what is the refutation of
this? Here it is: "How does Elder Jones know
that this was done? What proof does he give that it was done? The only
document that contains evidence on this point is the record of the
proceedings of the General Conference Committee meetings. . . . There is not
a single line of evidence in the minutes to show that he [Elder Daniells] was ever elected President
of the General Conference until the Oakland Conference." I freely admit that there is not a
single line of evidence in the minutes or in the record of the
proceedings of the General Conference Committee meetings to show this. Upon
the words of this "Statement" I will even go so far as to admit
that he was not actually "elected" by two or three or
four men. For the word "elect" does, of course, imply some sort of
a motion and vote. And as this word "elected" and what it
implies is in such strong words "refuted" I will accept the
refutation as to that particular word, and in the place of it will
say: Without any kind of authority, but
directly against he plain words of the constitution, and without even the
form of election, the Presidency of the General Conference was assumed
by Elder A. G. Daniells
some time before the General Conference of 1903. And to the question in the
"Statement," "How does Elder Jones know that this was done?
What proof does he give that it was done?" I reply: I know it by the
words of Brother Daniells
himself. If he has forgotten it, I will so remind him of the occasion that he
can remember it: Between the Pacific Press main
building and the meeting house in Oakland, California, there was in 1903 a
dwelling house. The rear part of the first floor of this dwelling house at
that time composed the Pacific Press chapel. One day, before the opening of
the General Conference of 1903, Brother Daniells called, in this chapel, a meeting of the
members of the General Conference Committee who were that day in Oakland. And in that meeting of the General
Conference Committee, as we were gathered at the right hand of the pulpit, or
southwest corner, in that chapel, he surely can remember that he told us of
his having become president of the General Conference. Surely, Brother Daniells, you cannot have so
far forgotten that, as that this will not enable you to recall it. And now,
you can also surely recall that just then, in the presence of the
brethren assembled, I said to you: "You had no kind of right to do it." That is "how" I originally
knew it. But now I know it by additional evidence, thus: In the Review
& Herald of December 30, 1902, beginning on page 6, and ending on
page 7, there is a statement written and signed by Brother Daniells. The heading of this
statement is, "The Next Session of the General Conference." In the
statement it is said, "It is now definitely settled that the next
session of the General Conference will be held in California, March 27 to
April 13, 1903." It closes with the quotation of the
parts of the then General Conference Constitution regarding "membership,
voters, and delegates." And at the end of that statement wholly
concerning the General Conference, there stands the following name and
title, in exactly the following form and words: -- "A. G. Daniells,"President
of the General Conference." Again: in the Review &
Herald of February 17, 1903, in the middle column of the last page, there
is a twelve-line "formal notice to all our people that the session of
the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists will convene in the city of
Oakland, Cal., March 27, 1903." This "formal notice" is headed
"The General Conference." And it is signed as follows: -- "A. G. Daniells,"President."
THE PRESIDENCY ASSUMED Now, however, the General
Conference Committee solemnly assert
that he was not "elected" by even "two men"
being together. By their own "Statement," therefore, this shuts up
the matter to the one only conclusion that he became president by the action
of just one man. And when that is so, that one man could have
been only himself. Now I, knowing by his own words,
voluntarily spoken, that he had become president of the General Conference --
yet, even I had not the heart to think that he could have done it all
of himself, without at least some kind of a vote, of at least some of
the brethren. But since he told us before the assembling of the Oakland
Conference in 1903 that some time before that he had become president of the
General Conference; and since in the Review & Herald before the
Oakland Conference, he twice published himself "President of the General
Conference"; and now he and the General Conference Committee, in this
statement, insist that he was not "elected" even by "two"
or three or four men being together, then this compels everybody to
see that without any kind of authority, and directly against the plain words
of the Constitution, he took it upon himself to assume the title and
office of "President of the General Conference." But that is worse than to have been
elected without authority. And that he should have been "elected"
even by the fewest number of men, was as bad as even I had dared to think. In
view of his own words, told us in the Pacific Press chapel that day, and especially
in view of his own published words twice in the Review &
Herald, this refutation is a confession of a more
questionable thing than I could ever have thought of saying of him. When he told it to us that day in
Pacific Press chapel, though I told him at the time that he had no right to
do it, I could not think but that some men, or at least some man, must
have been with him in it, and had some part in persuading or advising him to
it; and that therefore, in some say, by a few men, he must have been elected
to it. But behold, this my charitable consideration is
"refuted" with strongest words of disclaimer "that he was
never elected president of the General Conference until the Oakland
Conference, and then he was elected by the Conference itself in
session." And thus all who heard his statement that day in Pacific Press
chapel, before the assembling of the General Conference in Oakland, and all
who knew of the facts before that, and all who ever read his own published
words in the Review & Herald, are now compelled to recognize that
entirely of himself, of his own will, without any kind of authority, and
directly against the plain words of the constitution, he assumed the
title and office of President of the General Conference. Therefore, their refutation of what
I said amounts to just this: "He never was elected President of
the General Conference" -- he assumed it. "There is
not a single line of evidence in the minutes to show that before the
Oakland Conference he was ever elected President" -- he
assumed it himself. That bad thing that Elder Jones says was done, was never done -- a worse
thing was done! And that is their refutation!
And if the "General Conference Committee," or anybody else, can get
any comfort out of such a refutation as that, they are welcome to it. A SERIOUS DILEMMA There is another thing in this: The
General Conference Committee's "Statement" of strong and positive
refutation is evidently intended to make upon the mind of the reader the
distinct impression that what I had said in reference to that, was absolutely "groundless assertion." Now is it possible that Brother Daniells and the General
Conference Committee really knew nothing of the fact of his having assumed
the Presidency of the General Conference at least three months before the
General Conference at Oakland? Of the present General Conference
Committee there are some men who were at that time directly associated with
him on the Committee. Were these brethren, and was Brother Daniells, in May, 1906, indeed
wholly ignorant in that matter? or
remembering it, were they on the mere technical term of the word "elected,"
willing to make their strong and positive statement of
"refutation," and so leave upon the minds of the people an
impression that they knew was not true? It is difficult to believe what is
plainly involved in either horn of this dilemma. But one or the other simply has
to be believed. If Brother Daniells
and all his associates had absolutely forgotten that whole matter, then that
fact does not at all commend them as men of clear minds and steady thinking.
And if they had not so absolutely forgotten it all, that to their minds the
whole matter was a dead blank, then the thing stands as far worse. THE READY-MADE CONSTITUTION Their refutation of my statement as
to that ready-made constitution is of the same sort as this concerning the
presidency of the General Conference without the constitution. That is to
say, the refutation is made to turn on mere technicalities. I said that that constitution was
framed and carried to the General Conference in Oakland in 1903. I did not
say that it was carried clear across the continent to the General
Conference, nor words to that effect. I merely said that it was carried to
the General Conference at Oakland. I said that none of the people nor the delegation, nor even the Committee on Constitution, had asked for it. I said that it was brought before the Committee on Constitution and was advocated there: that is, they did not bring it in any regular or constitutional way to that committee. And that is the truth. That constitution, ready framed, and in carbon copies, was
carried to that committee, and thus to that Conference, ready made.
It was not first framed, nor first made, by the committee itself, in session,
even from the former one as a basis. It was carried to the committee in
carbon copies, and so distributed to the committee: and the committee made
the new constitution that was afterward presented to the Conference, by
considering item by item that ready-made thing that was carried to them. If the General Conference Committee
or any others want proof in addition to this, let them ask the individuals
who composed that Committee on Constitution; and they will learn that the
first that the committee knew of the constitution was when, ready-made,
in carbon copies, it was distributed to them in committee for their
consideration. And if the brethren whom they should happen to ask, shall have
forgotten it, there are those who were members of that committee who so
distinctly remember it that they will testify to it in any presence. I said that none of the people or
any of the delegation had asked for it. What some people or some members of
the delegation may have said or asked for before the Conference convened,
or outside of Conference, or outside of regular order, in a private
way -- as to that I cannot say. But what I was writing about, was plainly the
"constitutional" way of doing things. And I repeat that not in any
constitutional way did any people ever ask for it. No petition nor any request was brought before the
conference by any delegate in behalf of any people, asking for a
new constitution. No delegate ever made any motion in Conference, nor gave any
notice in Conference, with reference to any new constitution. All of which is the truth. And
excluding all technicalities, in its plain reference to the simple statements
of the facts, my original statement still stands unrefuted; and by the plain facts, it is only the
sober truth to say, and it ought to be said, that the original and only basis
of the present General Conference organization is usurpation. ONE MAN PRESIDENT It is the same again as to the
Testimony to which I refer, that
declares, "It is not wise to choose one man as President of the
General Conference." I said in my leaflet that ever since that word
was originally published in 1897, whenever it has been quoted it has been
explained, instead of obeyed, and doubtless will be so to the end. It is so
in this "Statement." But I was not calling attention to the explanations.
I called attention to what the Testimony says. They acknowledge that that is what
it says, and then go on to explain what it means, and
this, of course, is different from what it says. I know that in the General
Conference of 1897, when it was first read, it was understood as meaning what
it said: and through much deliberation and prayer there was an endeavor to
conform to it by electing three presidents, instead of one.
Success in this was not very marked, it is true; but it shows that that
Conference to which it first came, understood that it meant what it said, and
took it for what it said, instead of explaining it all away as has been done
ever since. But why must we be required to
accept all these explanations of what the Testimonies mean,
instead of being left free to believe them for just what they say? Can
not we be allowed to believe what is said in plain words? Shall we not be
allowed to know what we know? Must we accept the General Conference explanations
of everything? If that be so, then what need have we of the Testimonies, the
Bible, our own faculties and senses, or any else than just the "General
Conference" explanation? IT IS NOT WISE And just what that statement says
is the certain truth. "It is not wise to choose one man as
president of the General Conference," when the General Conference
embraces the whole world. So far as this cause is concerned, that makes one
man president of the whole world; and no such thing ever can be wise. Whether
any Testimony ever said it or not, it is truth. Jesus did not leave one man
president, or at the head, of His cause when he left his disciples and twelve
apostles in the world to carry His gospel to all the world in that generation. In so doing did
Jesus do a wise thing, or did he do an unwise thing? In that, did he do a
thing sufficiently wise to be followed? Or was it so lacking in wisdom that
it is not wise to follow it? Of course, the papacy argues that
such a thing was so unwise that Jesus did not do it; but that He made
Peter the "prince of the apostles," and left him the one
man at the head of His church and of its affairs. And this because, as
argued by the papacy, without such recognized authority, all would be
disorganization, confusion and anarchy! This is exactly the argument that
was made also by Israel of old, when they insisted that they must have
one man at their head (see Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 59). But
Israel had to reject God in order to have one man at the head of the cause;
and the papacy had to reject God in order to make her claim hold as to the one
man Peter's having been set at the head of the church. And on papal principles, it is true
that without one man at the head of the church, anarchy will be the result.
This for the reason that papal principles reject God; and when God is left
out, then only anarchy remains. And even though the anarchy be not openly manifested the
first day, it is inevitably manifested in the end. This is true also of Israel in the
days of Samuel, when they demanded that one man be at their head. They had
gotten so far away from God that He had so little power in their lives that
they could see nothing but anarchy coming. And this was correct; for anarchy
was all that there was to it, in the course which they were pursuing. But if all the people of Israel had
sought God in earnestness and devotion, and each one individually had found
God to be his Head, and his one Ruler, they would have found God to be
the Head of the whole people, and the organizer of the whole cause and
people. And there would have been such organization as is the only true
organization; and there would have been no ground for any possible suggestion
of disorganization, confusion or anarchy. And if those who made the papacy
and who required the invention of Peter's supremacy amongst the apostles and
in the Church of Christ, and had each kept himself, and had taught all the
people to be, devoted to God alone, in Christ alone, as his own personal
Master and Head of the Church, no such invention could ever have had any
place. Had each officer of the Church found for himself and had taught
faithfully each one of the people to find God in Christ to be his
personal and individual Head, and thus to give to Christ the place in their
lives and in the Church that belongs to Him -- the One sole person who
has the right to be at the Head of the Church; then there never would have
been such a thing as the papacy, nor any such thing as one man at the Head
and center of the Church in the whole world. AN ASTOUNDING PROPOSITION And what is the reason given by
"the General Conference Committee," that at the head of this
denomination there must be this fixture of a president of the whole world,
instead of a chairman of the committee? Here it is, on page 17 and 18 of the Statement:
It is because -- "The chairman could be changed
at the will and caprice of the committee." And this was "the
sensible thing to do in order to save the cause from sudden changes and
erratic movements." "The will and caprice"!
"At the will and caprice" and "erratic movements" "of
the committee"! Just look at that! Just consider that, will you? The
twenty-four substantial men, chosen by the deliberation of the General
Conference in session, could not be trusted for two years because of the
enormity of the danger that they would act by "will and caprice"!
But lo! one man must
be fixed for four years at the head of affairs for the whole world --
of course because there is no danger at all that he will ever act by
will or caprice! Twenty-four of the most trustworthy men in the whole field
could not be trusted for only two years, because of the certainty of their
acting "by will and caprice" and making "erratic
movements." But one man must be trusted
for twice as long -- inevitably because of the absolute
certainty that he will never act by will or caprice. No more monarchical argument was
ever written in human language than lies in these two lines of that
"Statement." Nor does that argument stop with only monarchy:
it openly approaches a far more serious thing. See: Why is it that the twenty-four most
trustworthy men of the denomination could not be trusted for two years with
the charge of affairs? -- because
of the certainty that they would act "by will and caprice." Then
why is it that at the head of affairs in the whole world, one man can be
trusted for four years?--Manifestly because there is no danger that he
will ever act by "will" or "caprice." Twenty-four trustworthy men are so
certain to act "by will and caprice" that they cannot be rusted for
even two years. But one man is so certain never to act by will or caprice
that he must be trusted more than the twenty-four, and for twice
as long. But when twenty-four sober
and trustworthy men are so certain to act "by will and caprice,"
what is the surety that one man will not act by will and
caprice? Just where does that surety lie? It could not be in the man himself,
for he was one of the twenty-four, and was the chairman. Then
does it come to him through the title? Or from the position?
Or from the chair? And does this surety of
exemption from his acting by will or caprice attach to him everywhere, and in
every capacity? Or does it attach to him only when he speaks officially under
the title, and ex-cathedra -- from the chair? Wherever may lie this surety of
exemption from will or caprice, of one man over twenty-four men, or in
whatever capacity it may attach to him, there is one thing certain: and that
is that the claim of it is nothing else than identical with the claim of the
infallibility of the pope. In argument and in essence, it is just that. And that is why I said above that
their argument for a one-man power does not stop with only monarchy; but
openly approaches a far more serious thing. And that far more serious thing
than monarchy, is the
infallibility of the monarch. And that awful statement, containing
that astounding argument, is issued by "the General Conference
Committee" of the Seventh-day Adventists! and bears the imprint of "the General
Conference Committee"! All this too in the face of the patent fact
that the one man already there did act by sheer will, if not also
caprice, in assuming in 1902, that very title and office. FOLLOWING IN THE TRACK OF ROME! Before the General Conference of
1897, the Spirit of prophecy said that this denomination was "following in the track of Romanism." To the General
Conference of 1897, the Spirit of prophecy said, "It is not wise to choose one man as
President of the General Conference." This started the denomination away from
"the track of Romanism." But the start was not followed. Therefore, before the General
Conference of 1901 the Spirit of prophecy declared that in the General
Conference circle "a
king" was enthroned;"
that the thing was "confused
in itself"; and
that finally it would "come
to nought." In the General Conference of 1901 the
denomination was again started away from "the track of Romanism."
But in 1902, by one man or two men or a few men, it was swung back to that
"track," and in the General Conference of 1903, it was fastened
there. And now, in 1906, it is so entrenched, and so confident of its
position, that "the General Conference Committee" issues a
"Statement" in which in behalf of one man at the head of this
denomination, a reason is given that reasons nothing less than a claim that
is identical with that of the infallibility of the pope! The question now is, Do the
people of this denomination endorse the position that one man is
so much less liable than are twenty-four most trustworthy men to act "by
will and caprice," that he must be trusted more and twice as
long as could the twenty-four? REPEATING THE FOLLIES OF ISRAEL And here is a situation worth
thinking of: Years ago the Testimony said that "The follies of Israel in the days of
Samuel" would be
"repeated" among this people, if there was not a truer devotion to
God. The chief folly of Israel in
the days of Samuel, was not only that they asked for a king --
that one man should be at their head; but that this was the second time
that Israel had come to that point. Read Judges 8::22,23; 9:1-57; 1 Sam. 8:1-22. And of the General Conference of
this Seventh-day Adventist denomination, in the Battle Creek College Library,
April 1, 1901, the Spirit of prophecy said that "a king" was enthroned. At that time and in the General
Conference following that day, God definitely called the General Conference
and the denomination away from that kingship. But in 1902-03, the General
Conference and the denomination were swung back to that "kinglike,
kingly ruling power," the second time: exactly repeating the
chief folly "of Israel in the days of Samuel." And if this course
and the present situation do not mark the fulfillment of that prediction,
then if ever the prediction shall be fulfilled, it will be hard to fulfill it
more exactly than has been done. And to argue now that this
centralized power must be continued as a barrier against disorganization and anarchy, is sheer vanity. It did
not save Israel from disorganization and anarchy. For Israel, disorganization
and anarchy was in the thing at the very start: and though this did
not show itself immediately, yet it did show itself in all its terrible
results in the end. Read again pages 13-19 of my leaflet of March 4-19 of my
leaflet of March 4, and see what was said in the College Library that day. It is too late, brethren, forever
too late -- the end is too near; to indulge any experiments
either with "the follies
of Israel" or
"in the track of
Romanism." Yet for all this, please bear in
mind that I do not say that the brethren know what they are doing, and are of
fell purpose doing it. I only say that
they and everybody else can know what they are doing, if they will
simply sober down and take time to think and consider Scripture and
principles and history as they are. I shall have no war to make on the
brethren, nor upon the system that has been formed, nor upon the denomination
that accepts it. My work is
and shall be only to preach the Third Angel's Message of the everlasting
gospel of warning against the worship of the beast and his image; and of
salvation from that worship. I do not believe that in the
Seventh-day Adventist denomination there will be disorganization, confusion
and anarchy, if the denomination should not have the fixture of one man at
its head. I do not believe it, because I do not believe that the Seventh-day
Adventists know so little of Christ that He has no control of them and cannot
Himself lead and guide and organize them. And I know by the eternal
truth, that the Lord Jesus Christ alone, in His place at and as the
Head of His Church, is able to organize His people, His Church, and His
cause, far better than can be done without Him in that place, and with a man
in that place at he head of His cause. I will not believe that it is high
treason to Christ nor to His people, nor to His cause, nor to His organized
Church and work in the world, to teach all people everywhere to find the
personal Christ, and be joined to Him, and to live in Him alone as
their only Head, and the only Head of His Church, His cause and His work in
the world. I never will believe that it is disorganization, or confusion, or
anarchy to teach all people everywhere that Christ alone is the Head of every
man, and that thus He alone is the Head and organizer of His Church and
people, and of His cause and work in the world. Therefore, my work is, and shall
be, only to persuade all people so to seek God, in Christ, by the Holy
Spirit, through His word, that each individual shall know God in
Christ as his Head: so that I may do all that my ministry can possibly
accomplish to restore to Christ, and to God in Christ, the place that
belongs to Him alone as the sole Head of the Church; and the place which
He occupied alone, when He was on earth and when He ascended to Heaven. And it is worth remembering that
that little company of believers in Him whom He left as His Church on earth
when He ascended to Heaven, each one of them through the Holy Spirit at
Pentecost finding and holding God in Christ as his personal Head, and knowing
Him alone as the only person at he Head of the Church -- let it not be
forgotten that that little company actually carried the gospel to all the
world in that generation. Let Christ have again in His
own Church, the place that belongs to him alone as the only person at and as
the Head of His Church, and again it will be, that the gospel will be
actually carried to all the world in this generation. And until Christ
shall have this His place as sole Head of His Church and cause, that thing
never can be done. A.T. Jones.
|