Who is in Charge Here?

Click to go to our Home Page






----- 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





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} 




…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 ChurchEEOC 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.