----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Straub
To: Kevin Straub
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:50 PM
Subject: Who is in
Charge, Here?_The 'Great Changes' of 1901 and
Kingly Rule
I spent yesterday afternoon and a couple hours today, starting in on
some studies of materials having to do with the 1901 church re-organization
and its subsequent repudiation in 1903. I have only begun and probably won’t
get back to it for some time, as there is a lot of material to go through,
but here are a few notes from that, for your information. This is important
to know, because there is a rewriting of history that takes place on this
subject as well as with regard to the official rejection of the 1888
message and even its very content.
(Brother Walter Veith, I encourage you to
read these notes and I would invite your personal comment as to why I should
be a member of the SdA structural organization.)
~KS
è
Who is in Charge, Here?: The ‘Great Changes’ of 1901 and Kingly
Rule
Kevin Straub, Apr. 17, 2011
"Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon
them. But it shall not be so among you.” Mark 10:42.
Jer. 5:20 Declare this in the house of Jacob, and publish it in
Judah, saying,
5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without
understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear
not….
5:30 A wonderful [startling, amazing] and horrible thing is
committed in the land;
5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests
bear rule by their means; and my people love [to have it] so: and what
will ye do in the end thereof?
I noted recently, during a Sabbath morning Adventist church replay of
the “President’s” 2010 address, Go Forward, that it was preached by
Ted Wilson that the church achieved proper organization structure in 1901 and
has maintained that to this day.
How do I say this but to just come right out with it: “It is not
true.”
“The result of the last General Conference [1901] has been the greatest, the most
terrible, sorrow of my life. No change was made.
The spirit that should have been brought into the whole work as the result of
that meeting was not brought in because men did not receive the testimonies
of the Spirit of God. As they went to their several fields of labor, they
did not walk in the light that the Lord had flashed upon their pathway,
but carried into their work the wrong principles that had been
prevailing in the work at Battle Creek.” {13MR
122.3}
The EGW Estate enters notes on this comment
that seem to me to be an obfuscation of the matter, citing letter 54 written
to her son Edson, wherein she says that great changes had been made and
reforms were to be made. It is true that it was decided in 1901 to make these
great changes, but they were not carried through properly and Christ was not
made the head of the work. Later, the decision to decentralize was rescinded
and a world conference was established, contrary to the will of the Lord.
"The backsliding of those who have been placed at the head of the
work--the very men who through communications have been informed that they
were out of place and in error in representing the voice of the General
Conference as being the voice of God. For many years it has not been
thus, and it is not thus now; nor will it ever be thus again,
unless there is a thorough reformation" (Ms. 124,
12/9/1901).
"The Lord has marked every movement made by the leading men....It
is a perilous thing to reject the light that God sends...." Letter
from Ellen White to Judge Jessie Arthur on 1-15-1903.
Again: It was not God’s will to have kingly power, a president over the
world church.
When we first met in conference, it was thought that the General
Conference should extend over the whole world. But this is not in God's order." GCB, April 5, 1901, par. 3.
“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. 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.” Testimonies to
Ministers, p. 342.
"The minister who throws himself on any Conference Committee
for direction, takes himself out of the hands of Christ. And that
committee that takes into its own hands the work of directing the ambassadors
for Christ, takes a fearful responsibility. ‘One is your master (leader),
even Christ, and all ye are brethren.’ Matt. 23:8. May God preserve to
us our organization and form of church discipline in its original form.” James
White, RH, Jan. 4, 1881.
God has not set any kingly power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church
to control the whole body or to control any branch of the work. He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a
few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent
men. {8T 236.3}
I write this that all may know that there is no controversy among
Seventh-day Adventists over the question of leadership. The Lord God of
heaven is our King. He is a leader whom we can safely follow, for He
never makes a mistake. Let us honor God and His Son, through whom He
communicates with the world. {8T
238.1}
"The kingly power formerly revealed in the General Conference
at Battle Creek is not to be perpetuated.” {8T
233.1}
Again:
“…they did not walk in the light that the
Lord had flashed upon their pathway, but carried into their work the wrong
principles that had been prevailing in the work at Battle Creek.”
{13MR 122.3}
and as for the General Conference being considered as the voice of God,
she was to say:
“For many years it has not been thus, and it is not thus now;
nor will it ever be thus again, unless there is a thorough
reformation" (Ms. 124, 12/9/1901).
In modern times, the truth of the matter has been put on official
record in legal proceedings of the land, as Judge William T. Hart handed down
a decision against Derrick Proctor and in favor of the SDA church. He
stated:
"Church documents that prescribe the church's structure and
governance confirm that all parts of the church are parts of a single entity.
Next to the Roman Catholic church, the Adventist church is the
most centralized of all the major Christian denominations in this country."
Derrick Proctor vs General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventist, case #81 C 4938, Findings of Fact, Section B,
Church Objectives and Structures, p 22.
Former ruler of the SdA structure,
“President” Neil Wilson, father of current ruler Ted Wilson, stated on the
stand in a court of law:
"Although it is true that there was a period in the life of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination took a distinctly
anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term ‘hierarchy’ was used in a
pejorative sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that
attitude on the church's part was nothing more than a manifestation of
widespread anti-popery among conservative Protestant denominations in the
early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which
has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the Seventh-day
Adventist Church is concerned." EEOC
vs PPPA and GC, Civil
Case #74-2025 CBR (1975).
So the aversion of the SdA church to the
Catholic form of church governance, or a hierarchy, has now been consigned by
the General Conference leadership to the trash heap! A hierarchy is a man
controlled system which effectively shuts Jesus out from the church and
allows man to rule over man.
In 1985, Neal
Wilson clearly stated:
"People
expect the General Conference to have the last word and to speak for the
Church with ultimate authority." 140-85GN
ROLE AND FUNCTION OF DENOMINATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS --COMMISSION REPORT, p
22 (April 30, 1985).
Neal Wilson
declares what type of organizational structure the SDA church operates under
in the court transcript, on p 3-4 of the Reply Brief for the church:
"From an
ecclesiastical-historical standpoint, there are numerous forms of church
organization, which are described variously as Presbyterian (which connotes
governance by the priesthood), or Episcopal (which connotes governance by the
bishops of the church), or papal (which connotes governance by a sole chief
bishop), or congregational (which connotes governance by individual local
church groups).
"These distinctions
are without legal significance. From a legal standpoint...there are
but two sorts of church organization which carry with them significant
legal consequences: the ‘congregational’, and all others, which in law
are called ‘representative’, or ‘hierarchical’.
"The
plain and undeniable fact is that the Seventh-day Adventist church is most
assuredly not a ‘congregational’ one (although it contains elements of
congregationalism) but is clearly of the ‘representative’ or ‘hierarchical’
variety." EEOC vs PPPA and GC, Civil Case
#74-2025 CBR (parentheses in original).
Now these two
terms "representative" and "hierarchical" mean two
different things, so why does Wilson use them both to describe the
organizational structure of the SdA church? He
explains why to the court on p 29 of the same brief:
"...the
church governs by a method of organization which in Seventh-day Adventist
terminology is ‘representative’, and which embraces exactly, from a
legal standpoint, the same kind of organization (in opposition to
‘congregationalism’) as is embraced by the term ‘hierarchical.’"
EEOC vs PPPA and GC, Civil Case #74-2025 CBR
(parenthesis in original).
So the
organizational structure of the SDA church is hierarchical and not
representative. But since "in Seventh-day Adventist terminology,"
the word "hierarchical" is replaced with the word
"representative," then the SDA leadership can say to their
membership that the organization of their church is not a hierarchy, when it
really is! What a deception!
In the same Reply
Brief, the SdA leadership were establishing the
fact before the court that the General Conference, like a “parent,” has
complete control over all SDA institutions and interests, and stated that
this control is achieved:
“through
the hierarchy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church” EEOC vs PPPA and GC, Civil Case #74-2025 CBR.
So, please, when I use the term “hierarchy” to refer to the SdA denominational leadership, I am not being
inflammatory in making a badly veiled comparative reference, or allusion, to
Catholic organization structure. There is no veil intended, whatsoever. I am
referring to her description of herself, as rooted in documentation that does
not get any more official than this.
Since 1984, and
especially at the 1985 and 1990 General Conference Sessions, policy changes
and restructuring has been done so that supreme power and authority over the
entire worldwide SDA church and membership is so well established and so well
centralized within the hierarchy of the General Conference, that it is
exactly like Catholicism. In fact, so much so, that a Federal Judge of the
United States says that it is, as cited above in Derrick Proctor vs General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist.
A few further
evidences from official church sources is here provided:
"At the
local conference level the Seventh-day Adventist church has a representative
form of government, above that level the polity of the Seventh-day Adventist
is hierarchical: authority flows downward and members in local congregations
have virtually no voice....the Seventh-day Adventist church is a closed,
self-operating, and self-perpetuating system, similar to the Roman
Catholic church, in which those in authority are not responsible to
lower echelons. Above the local conference level, those in authority are not
elected by, representative of, or administratively accountable to, local
congregations or the membership at large." Spectrum, vol 14, #4, March, 1984, p 42.
"The session
[55th General Conference Session in 1990] has demonstrated the hierarchial nature of the church's administrative
structure." Record, August 4, 1990, p 2.
"Others have
so identified structure with policy and the official hierarchy of the
church that change is often viewed as unfaithfulness." Adventist
Review, Special Edition, October, 1994, p 51.
And Walter Scragg, 1990 president of the SdA
South Pacific Division, admitted:
"...the
structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is essentially
hierarchical...The pyramid of church organization maintains
equilibrium and sustains growth as it reflects the people who comprise
it." Record, June 23, 1990, p 4-5.
But not only did
the leadership admit that the SdA church structure
is definitely hierarchical, but they also finally admitted that it resembles
Roman Catholicism!
Douglas Devnich, retired president of the SdA
Canadian Union, stated:
"The
Seventh-day Adventist Church follows a model of organizational order in the
church which is modified from the orders of Roman Catholicism, but
it retains the same notions of clerical order which separates the members
of the Church into two classes--clergy and laity." Messenger,
December, 1993, p 2.
In 1985,
then-president Neal C. Wilson made a revealing Commission Report to the
General Conference Committee regarding the "Role and Function of
Denominational Organizations." The Committee voted to "accept the
full report." In this report, he very clearly revealed the present and
future attitude of SDA leadership towards the hierarchical organization of
the church.
"The
General Conference is the highest authority and the sum of all the parts,
not only philosophically, but also (1) organizationally, (2) legislatively,
(3) administratively, (4) judicially, (5) in terms of policy and (6) Church
standards. This being the case, it seems that it should be the desire of the
conferences, unions, and any other organizations to do everything possible
to weld the whole family together and strengthen the hands of the General
Conference....
"It would
be folly to do anything or say anything that would in any way weaken the
influences and limit the leadership capabilities of the General Conference....To
do anything that would encourage congregational government would be a move in
the direction of disintegration, and the inability to achieve our divine
mission....
"The Church
must remain united, and this requires strong, centralized authority..."
140-85GN ROLE AND FUNCTION OF DENOMINATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS--COMMISSION REPORT, p 22-23, April 30, 1985.
These
sentiments--to continue with the apostate hierarchical structure--were
finally revealed by president Neal Wilson to the Adventist membership the
next year.
"I think we
will always continue to have the structure we currently have...
"It is
difficult for me to conceive any better organizational structure than we
have." Adventist Review, January 23, 1986, p 10-11.
Did Neil teach
that Adventism today functions organizationally as an expression of God’s
Perfect Will? I don’t know. But his son teaches it. As mentioned above, Ted
Wilson, currently presiding over the Structure, holds up the year 1901 (109
years ago, as per his 2010 statement) as a great monument in Adventist
history which is retained today, implying that the reorganization which was
in God’s plan is what we have today. I am incredulous at the statement;
surely he knows the history? Somebody tell me what is going on, here.
With all that SDA leaders have revealed, it becomes very clear that
the structure of the SdA church has indeed been
formed into another Catholic hierarchy to control "all parts" of
the SdA church, especially the membership. Every SdA whose name is on the church books is now legally
recognized as subject to, and subordinate to, the supreme hierarchical
authority of the General Conference--the Adventist Vatican, if you please!
Again, this is not me being pejorative. As can be seen by the graphic on the
left, there is a great pride taken in the role.
Your name on the
roll books signifies that you have agreed to be a loyal member of the General
Conference, which is the official organized SdA church. You remain under their authority so long as
you remain a part of that church! This is part of the "legal consequences"
of which Neal Wilson mentioned in the court transcript of the EEOC vs PPPA.
As such, the true
spiritual allegiance of SdA church members no
longer belongs to Christ, but it now belongs to the General Conference, and
hence its highest leader--the General Conference president. This is
exactly what the SdA leadership admitted under oath!
The SdA General Conference leadership stated in the EEOC vs PPPA
Opening Brief for the church:
"The General
Conference, then is the Seventh-day Adventist church....the embodiment of the
remnant church as a Christian denomination, in a unified worldwide
organization, to which all baptized Seventh-day Adventists owe
spiritual allegiance." EEOC vs PPPA, Civil Case
#74-2025 CBR, p 17.
The Catholic
Vatican and the pope also claim supreme spiritual authority over all their
church membership, and we see the Adventist Vatican doing the same. But will
the SdA General Conference president actually try
to follow in the footsteps of the bishop of Rome, becoming another pope--the
pope of Adventism?
In the EEOC vs PPPA
court trial, these startling statements appears in the Opening Brief for the
church:
"...the
Church's First Minister [president of the General Conference]...Elder
Robert H. Pierson is the President of [the] General Conference and, as such the
first minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." EEOC vs PPPA, Civil Case #74-2025 CBR,
p. 17, 45.
And General
Conference president Robert H. Pierson, totally agrees with this. In his
affidavit during this trial, he declared:
"...the
leadership of the church, including myself as its first minister for
the time being..." EEOC vs PPPA, Civil Case
#74-2025 CBR, November 30, 1974.
"We are to
have no kings, no rulers, no popes among us" (see Spalding and Magan Collection, p 324-325). This was written in
September, 1903, just a few months after the SdA
church threw out God's plan of organization, and adopted another plan of
organization, which 70 years later was admitted to be an hierarchical image
of Roman Catholicism!
1990 South
Pacific Division president Walter Scragg said:
"Many church
members would say that the power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church resides
with the president...He has authority to decide and act....he does have
considerable power....
"He's the
spiritual leader of the community of faith....He's shepherd, guardian,
guide and captain." Record, June 23, 1990, p 4.
Yet former GC
president Robert Folkenberg tells all SdA members that the plan of organization voted into
existence in the 1903 General Conference Session, was the product of God's
will through Ellen White!
"Through all
the growing pains [of SDA church growth and organization], and particularly
at the 1903 General Conference Session, the Spirit of Prophecy gave practical
guidance. The result is the worldwide church structure of today." We
Still Believe, by Robert S. Folkenberg, p 100.
The SdA leadership have succeeded in forming the General
Conference into another Vatican--making it the voice of, and spokesman for,
the entire SDA church. They have also succeeded in forming the organizational
structure of the SdA church into another Roman
Catholic hierarchy, and as such we could ask, “To what figure in the world
would we compare the General Conference president, also called the
"first minister" "spiritual leader" "shepherd,
guardian, guide and captain" of all church members.
Neal C. Wilson
declared before the entire SDA church that:
"...there
is another universal and truly catholic organization, the Seventh-day
Adventist Church." Adventist Review, March 5, 1981, p 3.
The SdA leadership have indeed followed Satan's reformation
by establishing "a new organization."
“The enemy of
souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to
take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would
consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith,
and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take
place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has
given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be
changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last
fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be
established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual
philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the
cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly
regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand
in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better
than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human
power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on
the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.” {1SM 204.2}
"In the
General Conference the counsels of God have been set aside, and the counsels
and wisdom of men have been relied upon....The General Conference--what is
it? What does it comprehend? Is it a General Conference, or is it something
wrapped up and called by that name? With the exception of a limited number,
the people who ought to know are not intelligent in regard to its
workings....and the people at large know scarcely anything of what is being
done at the heart of the work...
"As I was
made to understand something of the management of the work in this great
center, it was all that I could bear. My spirit was pained within me, for I
had lost confidence in that which I had ever presented before the people as
the voice of God to His children. It has not been the voice of God. There
has been a lording power exercised over God's heritage...Their own
principles have been counterworking the principles of truth and
righteousness. We cannot therefore present before the people that the voice
of the General Conference in its decisions must move and control them; for its
propositions and decisions cannot be accepted. They are not in the right
line of progress. God is cropped out of their counsels....
"The man who
magnifies his own office in working in any line to bind about the conscience
of another, be he president of the General Conference, president of a smaller
conference, or the elder or deacon or lay member of a church, he is out of
God's line....God desires that men shall stand in their own individual
responsibility...But in the present condition of things, if one stands
fast to his integrity, he is by some scorned, scouted, criticized, and
dropped out if it can be brought about....
"Men who
have been standing in stubborn resistance of the teachings of the Spirit of
God have been honored as chosen men, as men qualified to run the work of God
and to decide questions involving the highest responsibilities. They have
been sent from place to place to give judgment in regard to matters which
affect the future history of the work. But how can God look upon such a
presentation as is now given at the great center of the work?...
"‘Come
out from among them,’ God says, ‘and be ye separate,...and touch not the
unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye
shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty’ [2 Cor.
6:17,18]. We all need a Father with whom to consult. The Holy Spirit has been
refused by men who are puffed up with vain conceit and believe themselves
capable of managing wonderful responsibilities....
"If our
people were not blinded by deception they would see that these men are
walking contrary to God....
"When the
consolidation was first devised, it was represented as altogether another
thing. But the enemy saw that this was his chance to work under human minds.
He prepared a confederation that the Battle Creek institutions might be the
power to bring under its control all other lines of work. It cannot be done. God
will put a voice in the stones to cry out against it....
"The
refuge of lies will fail. God will strike a blow to deliver His oppressed
people....
"I must
speak plainly. We are reaching a time when a just standard of right and
wrong, of honor and dishonor, of truth and error, is becoming a thing of
naught. ‘Truth is fallen in the streets, and equity cannot enter’ [Isaiah
59:14]....The man who sits at the feet of Jesus and learns His lessons will
say as did one of old, ‘Unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou
united’ [Genesis 49:6]." Manuscript 66, 1898, Manuscript
Releases, vol 17, p 221-234.
Again, for further comment:
"…those who have been placed at the head of the work…have been
informed that they were out of place and in error in representing the
voice of the General Conference as being the voice of God. For many
years it has not been thus, and it is not thus now; nor will it
ever be thus again, unless there is a thorough reformation"
(Ms. 124, 12/9/1901).
I have asked church leaders and researchers to show me where such a “thorough
reformation” would have taken place in our history and I am still
ignorant of the event. Surely there must be such an event, otherwise how can
there be such confident assurances today, as we clearly hear the
denominational leaders trumpet from the pulpits of the land, “She is the
ship of God, perhaps listing badly, yet we are assured that she is
sailing steadfastly into the heavenly port…. STAY WITH THE SHIP!” “She is the
‘apple of God’s eye,’ ‘the remnant church.’ DON’T GIVE UP,
NOW!” “Defective and feeble though she be, -- indeed, she is not perfect, --
but God will purify His church. THE APOSTATES WILL LEAVE! DON’T BE FOUND
OUTSIDE WITH THEM.” “The church will appear as about to fall, BUT SHE
WILL NOT FALL!” These ideas are promoted more heavily in officialdom than I
can ever recall. One must wonder, are they having a problem? Again, where
is that historical “thorough reformation,” which would give thousands the
encouragement to stay in the church, supporting her with tithes and
offerings, and laboring to bring others into membership. Where is the return
to primitive godliness that would be more convincing to the honest seekers,
jaded by their observations of all institutionalized religion, so they would
have a desire to come into the church but find that in her present condition
there is little incentive to incorporate with her? I do not believe it is to
be found, nor do I believe there will be any kind of sweeping corporate
repentance. The church has officially exonerated the character and integrity
of leadership, blaming the laity for the fact that Christ has not yet
returned, in the heavily promoted official 1972 release by church historian
Leroy Froom, Movement of Destiny. Is that a radical statement? Read
it:
“Through the years since 1901 and before, Seventh-day Adventists have
published…on righteousness by faith….
“Many Seventh-day Adventists still seem ignorant of this
all-important doctrine. Much of this lack of awareness results from their
failure to read Adventist books and periodicals presenting the gospel in
clear, forceful language….
“We fear that to many church members the message of
righteousness by faith has become a dry theory instead of a living reality in
their daily experience.
“They have neglected the light that God in his love and mercy
has caused to shine upon them. They have failed to exchange the
worthless garments of their own self-righteousness for the spotless robe of
Christ’s righteousness. In the sight of God their poor souls are naked and
destitute. Unless they heed the counsel of the True Witness to buy
of him the white raiment, that the shame of their nakedness may not
appear, they will soon be rejected by their Lord. Movement of
Destiny, pp. 233-239
I can just hear Mr. Veith, right now. “This
is irritating.”
It can be easily shown that the problem lies first and foremost with
leadership. The SoP bears it out consistently. But
one text of Scripture proves it with clarity: The very testimony of Jesus in
rebuke and counsel, Revelation 3:14, is to the angel of the church, which
signifies leadership.
The organization is not God’s Ship. There is a top down denominational
stupor, called “strong delusion.” We the sheep do not have to buy into it,
because we can read and study for ourselves! Oh, let us shake off the sleep
and arise to our work.
"The heavenly Teacher inquired: ‘What stronger delusion can
beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right
foundation and that God accepts your works, when in reality you are working
out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah?’"
"One who sees beneath the surface, who reads the hearts of all
men, says of those who have had great light....‘Yea, they have chosen
their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will
choose their delusions....' 'God shall send them strong delusions, that
they should believe a lie,' 'because they received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved,' 'but had pleasure in unrighteousness.' Isaiah
66:3,4; 2 Thess. 2:11,10,12.” 8T 249.
The principle of man in the place of God is the mystery of iniquity,
papal. This has been the principal brought into SdA
church governance. God has allowed this to occur because of His mercy in
dealing with the hardness of men’s hearts; He has therefore directed within
the structure as permissive will only; that the oracles might be
preserved in the earth, but we must come to the realization that the work
cannot finish under man, only under Christ as the
divine head. A World GC president and committee is not the way. To think that
this structure is acceptable to God is strong delusion. In the end it will be
seen that "Their foundation" is "built on the sand, and storm
and tempest" will "sweep away the structure." {1SM 204.2}
“Because men refused to unite under Christ in the 1901 plan, the
1903 plan of centralization under man became a necessity to prevent total
fragmentation of the work. To maintain any
semblance of organizational unity, the American General Conference
transformed itself into "a world General Conference," and coerced
the budding European General Conference to revert to the European Union
Conference. The delegates chose one man as General Conference President just
as Israel chose a king; and the 1903 plan of centralization under man
replaced the 1901 apostolic plan under Christ. This was an hierarchical
plan of church organization in which man would rule over man in a layer
system of government. This plan was introduced on April 6, 1903 and was
accepted on April 9, 1903.” 1901 Rejected, by Deone
Hanson, 1985, p. 8.
“Men in authority could not work under Christ in the 1901 plan because
they failed to come into “Working order”. GCB,
1901, p. 23. Without Christ as "the Captain," the only
alternative was a strong central committee under man. A world Conference
Committee chaired by one president, a concept foreign to the principles of
the 1901 plan, was now proposed to manage “world-wide problems
everywhere." Ibid., p. 9.
Strong
minds, godly men, such as James White, A. T. Jones, E. A. Sutherland, Percy Magan, etc., were against centralization, being
pushed by Daniells and Butler.
“....Any man who has ever read those histories (Neander's,
Mosheim's of the early Christian Church) can come to no other conclusion but
that the principles which are to be brought in through this proposed
constitution...are the same principles, and introduced in precisely the same
way, as they were hundreds of years ago when the Papacy was made....” Percy
T. Magan, GCB,
1903, p. 150.
A
highly significant statement is made which further underscores the idea of
“permissive paradigm” being in play in this history:
“The Stone which was to be the Head of the corner, was set at naught
by the delegates of the 1903 session. Nevertheless, Ellen White supported
Elder Daniells just as Samuel supported King Saul.”
The apostasy led to the divided kingdom and to the eventual rejection
of the Lord. So, it remains that Permissive Will is deadly in the long run.
We must not look to man. Yet, the current ruler of the organized SdA church on earth states otherwise:
“LOOK TO THE LEADERS TO GIVE YOU THEIR PROGRAMS for
evangelizing.” Ted Wilson, Sermon: Go Forward, 2010
“Now, it has been Satan's determined purpose to eclipse the view of
Jesus and lead men to look to man, and trust to man, and be educated to
expect help from man. For years the church has been looking to man and
expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of
eternal life are centered. Therefore God gave to His servants a testimony
that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel's
message, in clear, distinct lines.” {TM 93.1}
A. T. Jones tells us that the origin of the State is found in Nimrod,
who was the first to boldly assume the title of king. Heretofore the
authorities posed only as rulers over others as viceroys of the gods, an idea
which was grounded in the truth of God Jehovah as the only rightful king and
ruler. “Hitherto there had been tribes – enlarged families – Society; now
there was a nation, a political community – the State. The political and
social history of the world henceforth are distinct, if not divergent. Empires
of the Bible, p. 51.” GCB 1897,
Sermon: The First Great Commandment, Tuesday Evening, March 2, 1897,
found on p. 15 of Apostasy: Who? When? Paradise View: Barronett, WI.,
Kingly power of man = 666.
|