Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Go and check out the Christians Discuss Forum for committed Christians at  http://www.christians-discuss.com

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 1888-Ellen White and the Church Leaders....  (Read 5921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

reddogs

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
1888-Ellen White and the Church Leaders....
« on: June 19, 2008, 10:27:33 AM »

1888-Ellen White and the Church Leaders


Here is some background on the controversial meeting that took place at the General Conference 1888 session held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This meeting marked the beginning of a heated theological debate on understanding brought by E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones.

Ellen G. White played an active role in the Minneapolis meetings and the many events that followed. Ellen White witnessed the events of Minneapolis firsthand, and she spoke and wrote much during the 1888 period. Shortly after the Minneapolis meeting, Mrs. White wrote a 26-page manuscript entitled, "Looking Back at Minneapolis"[ Ellen White, Manuscript 24, 1888.] to ensure that the actions of the Denominational leaders would be preserved accurately.

From the onset of the 1888 Minneapolis Conference, Ellen White perceived that a battle over truth was erupting within the denomination. At first, Ellen White rejoiced that the spirit of God was at the meeting and commented that the leaders "heard as it were God speaking to them through his Son. They saw, they felt the divine influence of the Spirit of God and all witnessed to the gracious words that proceeded from His mouth [Ellen White, Manuscript 24, 1888.]." Ellen White soon discovered, however, that other forces were deliberately at work planning to disrupt and confuse the mission and message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Ellen White was convinced that God had "raised up" two young ministers, E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, to give a message to the delegates at the conference.

Ellen White initially saw the conflict as a diversionary topic that was counter-productive to the real issue of the fulfillment of Adventist prophecy and she tried valiantly to resolve the uncomfortable situation. Notwithstanding Ellen White's considerable influence to assist Waggoner and Jones, the debate over the law in Galatians soon became heated. Even Ellen White could not stay the negative tide that had enveloped the Conference, and she concluded, "it is evident that a delusion was upon our brethren." Although she supported and protected Waggoner and Jones as much as possible, Ellen White realized that their theological positions were being resisted by the church's leaders.

Ellen White felt that Satan had won a decided victory at Minneapolis as an unholy influence now controlled the church leadership--an influence that she had "never met in them before [Ibid., p. 20.]." Ellen White believed that the immediate significance of the 1888 meeting was that God had been "testing and proving His people who had great light, whether they would walk in it or turn from it under temptation...[Ibid., p. 23.]"

As a direct result of the Minneapolis meeting, Ellen White relationship with many of the denomination's leaders was strained. She lamented this fact by writing: "They had lost confidence in Sister White, not because Sister White had changed but because another spirit had taken possession and control of them [Ibid., p. 23.]." Ellen White's statements regarding the significance of the 1888 meeting continued in both her private and public communications. By the Spring of 1890, she was still actively supporting the "fresh light" that had been delivered at Minneapolis by Waggoner and Jones, and she even went so far as to publicly connect Waggoner's 1888 message with the loud cry of the fourth angel of Revelation 18 in an article in the Review [Ellen G. White, "Repentence, the Gift of God," Review & Herald (April 1890).]. In this article, Ellen White challenged the church to receive the new message that would empower the denomination to break out of their Laodician condition. But the church leaders were still resisting.

Because of Ellen White's support of Waggoner and Jones, church leaders at Battle Creek decided to send her and Waggoner out of the country in an attempt to cool down the divisive situation [George Knight, Angry Saints (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald Publishing Association, 1989), pp. 94-95.]. Thus, in 1891, Ellen White was transferred to Australia and Waggoner to Great Britain.

In spite of this, Ellen White would not be silenced and continued the dialoge. In a two-part article appearing in the Review entitled, "The Perils and Privileges of the Last Days," she earnestly warned the Denomination to beware of Satan's deceptions and to prepare for the time of trouble approaching. She linked the Minneapolis message of Christ's righteousness with the loud cry, and made the strong statement that the loud cry of the fourth angel had already begun with Waggoner's 1888 message. "The time of test is just upon us," she wrote, "for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin pardoning redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth [Ellen G. White, Review & Herald, volume 69, No. 46, p. 615.] ."

Clearly, Ellen White connected the new message of Waggoner and Jones with the fourth angel of Revelation 18 and she linked the 1888 message directly to the prophetic events of the last days. Notwithstanding, the denomination's leadership stubbornly rejected Ellen White's plea to openly embrace the new 1888 theology.

By the mid 1890s, Ellen White, who was still in Australia, directed sharp remarks about the Minneapolis conflict to the church leadership in Battle Creek. She warned the leaders that grave consequences would ensue if they continued to reject the 1888 message. Ellen White wrote "The Lord in his great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Savior, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person, His merits, and His changeless love for the human family.... This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel's message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of his Spirit in a large measure [Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91,92]."

Ellen White warned the church leaders that those who had stood their ground ever since 1888 and had "for years" resisted the light of the Minneapolis theology were in grave danger. She had "no smooth message" for those who had confused the theological issues in an attempt to protect their previous positions, refusing to admit error [Ibid., p. 97].

In 1896, Ellen White wrote another communication to Battle Creek entitled, "The Danger of Rejecting Truth." She was very concerned about the denomination for she knew they were in great "peril." "The church needs to be converted," she wrote, again making reference to the denomination's refusal to accept the 1888 message. She reminded them about the history of the Jewish nation and compared their rejection of Christ with the denomination's recent rejection of the new light from Minneapolis [Ibid., p. 64.]. In a reference to the Galatian controversy, she scolded the church by saying, Seventh-day Adventists "are in danger" of rejecting truth "because it contradicts something which they have taken for granted" but which is not really truth at all. Ellen White also wrote of the danger the institution face for its rejection and its publication the Review which had been influential against the Minneapolis message, "That men should keep alive the spirit which ran riot at Minneapolis is an offense to God. All heaven is indignant at the spirit that for years has been revealed in our publishing institution at Battle Creek. Unrighteousness is practiced that God will not tolerate. He will visit for these things [Ibid., pp. 76-77.]."

Because the vast majority of the Battle Creek hierarchy continued to reject the 1888 message, the results of their rejection began to surface. This in turn lead to the fulfillment of Ellen White's predictions that the judgments of God would be poured out upon the denomination's institutions.

By February, 1902, the world-famous sanitarium burned to the ground and ten months later, the Review and Herald building was also completely destroyed. Within one hour, the flames had reduced the Review's four-story, 80,000-square foot building to a heap of smoldering ruins [SDA Bible Commentary, p. 213.], never again to be rebuilt in Battle Creek.

Ellen White was not surprised by these events. It was Ellen White's position that the denomination's 14-year history from 1888 through 1902 culminated in tragic loss as a direct result of not accepting the original 1888 message delivered by Waggoner and Jones. Her statement in 1902 summarizes her viewpoint of this episode quite succinctly: "I have been instructed," she wrote, "that the terrible experience at the Minneapolis conference is one of the saddest chapters in the history of the believers in present truth [EGW letter 179, 1902]."

Following the "fiery indignation," as Ellen White called it, the church leadership, under her direction, left Battle Creek chastised and rebuked, but she was again to face another challenge later, at another General Conference, this time led by A. G Daniels and W. W. Prescott.

Logged

reddogs

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: 1888-Ellen White and the Church Leaders....
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2008, 10:30:27 AM »

Some fo the 'leaders' in the church where working against the truth that God was giving to them, they were actually fighting against it. This happened again with A.G Daniels and W.W. Prescott in the 1919 Bible Conference Meeting which much was written into the record which today is being used against Ellen White and her writings, they just didnt understand what the effects of their work would be...here is part of what I dug up, its from another forum so its a bit fragmented...

"...Ellen White was very clear on her insistance on "the daily", she never wavered, never changed, never accepted a different view. She saw the alpha of apostasy when L.R. Conradi tried to force his "new" interpretation, which influenced A.G. Daniells, and W.W. Prescott who then tried to force the "new" view on Ellen White. She resisted them and refused to see them or let them try to get her to even look at the "new" view, and then warned them they needed "reconversion" if they continued pressing this issue as that would help Satans cause against the church and the effect would only be confusion. Thus her statement that "silence is eleqount" to gently try to stop them from this subtle attack on what God had presented clearly to the pioneers and the danger of a drift of the bearers of this "new view" to apostasy.

The public questioning of the "pagan daily" by the church's highest and most respected leaders touched off a fierce controversy that shook the denomination to its roots. The defenders of the "new view" included the General Conference president (A.G. Daniells), the editor of the Review (W.W. Prescott).

Prescott was subsequently pressured to leave the Review in mid-1909 by Ellen White, who urged him to engage in city evangelism instead. A.G. Daniells, as General Conference president, was repeatedly rebuffed by Ellen White on this issue, and was virtally forced to relinquish his position in 1910 and engage in city evangelism. Later in 1930, A.G. Daniells again pressed this "new view", but this time implied that he had met with Ellen White and she had not resisted the view, a fact that is not borne out by the record of any of Ellen Whites secretaries or Ellen White herself and her writtings.

F.C. Gilbert, however was able to interview Ellen White personally and privately concerning her views on the "daily." Elder Gilbert took notes as she was speaking and clearly endorsing the pioneers original view, and wrote up the interview immediately afterward and it clearly refutes what L.R. Conradi tried to push as the "new view". I have not finished my study to see what direct affect this had on L.R. Conradi , but L.R. Conradi some time after this became a apostate and left the church.


Here is some excerpts of what Ellen White told F. C. Gilbert, and was in her manuscripts:



Some excerpts:
When they [Prescott and A.G. Daniells] did not accept my message of reproof I knew what they would do and I knew what [ A.G.]Daniells would do in getting the people all stirred up. I have not written to Prescott because his wife is so very sick...[ A.G.]Daniells was here to se me, and I would not see him. I told them that I would not see him on any point, and I would not have anything to say to him about anything. About this "daily" that they are trying to work up, there is nothing in it, and it is not a testing point of character...
...I would not see [ A.G.] Daniells about the matter, and I would not have one word with him. They pled with me that I would give them an interview, but I would not give him any at all. They have stirred up the minds of the people against this testing time, and I am going to let the people know about these things.
God is testing these men, and they are showing how they are standing the test, and how they stand with regard to the Testimonies. They have shown by their actions how much confidence they have in the Testimonies.
...I saw why it was that [ A.G.] Daniells was rushing this thing through from place to place; for he knew that I would work against it. That is why I know they did not stand the testing. I knew they would not receive it. ... This whole thing they are doing is a scheme of the devil. He [ A.G. Daniells] has been president too long, and should not be there any longer....."

Ellen White saw the danger this confusion could and would cause later, so tried to stop the continuing debate and told them to stop pushing the issue or even use her writings in this matter as it had gone too far. Ellen White was never shown that the pioneers view should change and never allowed or endorsed L.R. Conradi "new view" as it was the alpha of apostasy but also saw the issue correctly as not critical just a distraction.


"...It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings shall be taken as settling this matter. The true meaning of the "daily" is not to be made a test question.
I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question; for I have no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under present conditions, silence is eloquence....9
Now William Miller came to the conclusion that the "daily" of Daniel 8:11,12 and 11:31 was "paganism". Joseph Bates identified the "daily" as paganism in 1846 (The Opening Heavens, p. 31), so did J.N. Andrews in 1853 (Review and Herald, 3:145, Feb. 3, 1853), and later Uriah Smith (ibid., 24:180, Nov. 1, 1864) and James White ("The Time" in Sermons on the Coming and Kingdom of...Christ, 1870, ed., pp. 116, 117).2


But the event that made "paganism" was Ellen White's endorsement of it in Present Truth, November 1850. A vision that she received on September 23, 1850, is now found on pages 74 and 75 of Early Writings:
Then I saw in relation to the "daily", Dan. 8:12, that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment-hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily", but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed.
Another document that wielded tremendous influence among Adventists was Uriah Smith's highly regarded The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, of which the Daniel half was published in 1873. According to A.C. Bordeau, a respected SDA minister and close associate of the White's:
Many years ago, when the late Uriah Smith was writing Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, while Elder James White and Ellen G. White were at my house in Enosburg, Vermont, they received by mail a roll of printed proofsheets on Thoughts on Revelation that Brother Smith had sent to them. Brother White read portions of the same to the company, and expressed much pleasure and satisfaction because they were so concisely and clearly written. Then Sister White stated what she had been shown as follows: "The Lord is inspiring Brother Smith--leading his mind by His Spirit, and an angel is guiding his hand in writing these "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation." I was present when these words were spoken. (signed) "A.C. Bordeau"3
In Daniel and Revelation, Smith strongly favored the paganism interpretation of the "daily," as can be seen on pages 164 and 165 of his book:
What is the Daily? We have proof in verse 13 that "sacrifice" is the wrong word to be supplied in connection with the word "daily". ...the daily cannot be the daily sacrifice of the Jews
Many have tried to use this controversy to reign confusion on the brethren, but it is nothing but a ruse by Satan to distract from the work to be done.........


http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/1919bc/hal-4.htm

On the "new view" which Smith and the others were fighting, not on the "old view" of the pioneers. But she told everyone to let it go, as sometimes Satans plan of confusion and infighting has to be stopped first....

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/1919bc/hal-4.htm

A. G. Daniels said he had let it go, but the intellectual pride showed itself again at the 1919 Bible Conference which not coincedentally he was the chairman of......

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/1919bc/hed38.htm


Logged

reddogs

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: 1888-Ellen White and the Church Leaders....
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2008, 10:30:50 AM »

The "new view" of Conradi was the view held by Protestant Christianity before William Miller. Conradi begins to promote around turn of century; eventually he totally apostatizes. Conradi was the instigator and here is the damage:"If there is a lack of reverence for the work of Sister White in Europe today, most people trace that right back to Conradi’s work that he did in Europe because he undermined the Spirit of Prophecy the whole time that he worked there."

http://www.temcat.com/daily2.htm


William Miller, Josiah Lietch, Sylvester Bliss, Joseph Bates, J.N. Andrews, Hyrom Edison, James White, Euriah Smith, Steven Haskell, O.A. Johnson, J.G. Matson, F.C. Gilbert, L.A. Smith, Washberg, and Luthborough all believed the "daily" symbolized paganism–and they presented this truth in their writings.

A Scheme of the Devil
F. C. Gilbert reported that on June 8, 1910, Ellen White stated to him; that what, which Daniells and Prescott were pushing [the daily] was "a scheme of the devil."
"Daniells and Prescott . . . would not give the the older brethren in the cause any chance to say anything. . . . Daniells was here to see me, and I would not see him. . . . I would not have anything to say to him about anything. About the 'daily' that they are trying to work up, there is nothing to it. . . . When I was in Washington there seemed to be something that just encased their minds, and I could not seem to touch them. We are to have nothing to do with this subject of the 'daily' . . . I knew they would work against my message, and then the people would not think there was anything to my message. I have written to him and told him that he was showing himself not fit to be president of the General Conference . . . not the man to keep the Presidency.

"If this message of the 'daily' were a testing message the Lord would have shown me. These people do not see the end from the beginning in this thing. . . . I utterly refuse to see any of them who are engaged in this work.
"The light that was given me of God is that Brother Daniells has stood in the Presidency long enough . . . and I was told not to have any more conversation with him about any of these things. I would not see Daniells about the matter, and I would not have one word with him. They pled with me to give him an interview, but I would not him any at all. . . . I was told to warn our people not to have anything to do with this thing they are teaching. . . . I was forbidden of the Lord to listen to it. I have expressed myself as not having a particle of confidence in it. . . . This whole thing they are doing is a scheme of the devil." F. C. Gilbert's deathbed report of an interview given him by Ellen White on June 8, 1910.
Errors and Dangers of Prescott and Daniells; The Cities to Be Worked
(A.G. Daniells was elected president of the General Conference in 1901. This suggests that this document was written in 1910, a time when Mrs. White was very concerned about Daniells' neglect of the cities and his involvement in the controversy over the 'Daily.')

"At this stage of our experience we are not to have our minds drawn away from the special light given [us] to consider at the important gathering of our conference. And there was Brother Daniells, whose mind the enemy was working; and your mind and Elder Prescott's mind were being worked by the angels that were expelled from heaven. Satan's work was to divert your minds that jots and tittles should be brought in which the Lord did not inspire you to bring in. They were not essential. But this meant much to the cause of truth. And the ideas of your minds, if you could be drawn away to jots or tittles, is a work of Satan's devising. To correct little things in the books written, you suppose would be doing a great work. But I am charged, Silence is eloquence.

"I am to say, Stop your picking flaws. If this purpose of the devil could only be carried out, then [it] appears to you [that] your work would be considered as most wonderful in conception. It was the enemy's plan to get all the supposed objectionable features where all classes of minds did not agree. And what then? The very work that pleases the devil would come to pass. There would be a representation given to the outsiders not of our faith just what would suit them, that would develop traits of character which would cause great confusion and occupy the golden moments which should be used zealously to bring the great message before the people. The presentations upon any subject we have worked upon could not all harmonize, and the results would be to confuse the minds of believers and unbelievers. This is the very thing that Satan had planned that should take place–anything that could be magnified as a disagreement.
"Read Ezekiel, chapter 28. Now, here is a grand work, where strange spirits can figure. But the Lord has a work to [be] done to save perishing souls; and the places which Satan, disguised, could fill in, bringing confusion into our ranks, he will do to perfection, and all those little differences will become enlarged, prominent.

"And I was shown from the first that the Lord had given neither Elders Daniells nor Prescott the burden of this work. Should Satan's wiles be brought in, should this 'Daily' be such a great matter as to be brought in to confuse minds and hinder the advancement of the work at this important period of time? It should not, whatever may be. This subject should not be introduced, for the spirit that would be brought in would be forbidding, and Lucifer is watching every movement. Satanic agencies would commence his work and there would be confusion brought into our ranks. You have no call to hunt up the difference of opinion that is not a testing question; but your silence is eloquence. I have the matter all plainly before me. If the devil could involve any one of our own people on these subjects, as he has proposed to do, Satan's cause would triumph. Now the work without delay is to be taken up and not a [difference] of opinion expressed.
"Satan would inspire those men who have gone out from us to unite with evil angels and [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] our work on unimportant questions, and what rejoicing [there] would be in the camp of the enemy. Press together, press together. Let every difference be buried. Our work now is to devote all our physical and brain-nerve power to put these differences out of the way, and all harmonize. If Satan could with his great unsanctified wisdom be permitted to get the least hold, [he would rejoice].

"Now, when I saw how you were working, my mind took in the whole situation and the results if you should go forward and give the parties that have left us the least chance to bring confusion into our ranks. Your lack of wisdom would be just what Satan would have it. Your loud proclamation was not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I was instructed to say to you that your picking flaws in the writings of men that have been led of God is not inspired of God. And if this is the wisdom that Elder Daniells would give to the people, by no means give him an official position, for he cannot reason from cause to effect. Your silence on this subject is your wisdom. Now, everything like picking flaws in the publications of men who are not alive is not the work God has given any of you to do. For if these men–Elders Daniells and Prescott–had followed the directions given in working the cities, there would have been many, very many, convinced of the truth and converted, able men that [now] are in positions where they never will be reached.
"All the world is to be regarded as one great family. And when you have such a fountain of knowledge to draw from, why have you left the world to perish for years with the testimonies given by our Lord Jesus Christ? True religion teaches us to regard every man and woman as a person to whom we can do good.

"This has been in print many years: 'A Balanced Mind,' testimony to Elder Andrews. The mind may be cultivated to become a power to know when to speak and what burdens to take up and to bear, for Christ is your teacher. And I feared greatly for you [when I saw you] exalting your wisdom and pursuing a course to bring in differences of opinion. The Lord calls for wise men who can hold their peace when it [is] wisdom for them to do so. If you would be a whole man, you need sanctification through Jesus Christ. Now there is a work just started, and let wisdom be seen in every minister, in every president of [a] conference. But here was a work for you to take hold of years ago where you were needed to lift your voice for this very work. Christ gave all His people special directions what they shall do and the things they shall not do. And there is a little time left us to work out the righteousness of the Lord.

"You can understand the way of the Lord. I saw your purpose of carrying things after your own devising after you were placed as president. You had thought you would do wonderful things, which would be a work God had not placed in your hands to do. Now, your work is not to oppress but to release every necessity possible if the Lord has accepted you to serve. But you have very early given evidence that wisdom and sanctified judgment have not been manifested by you. You blazed out matters that would not be received unless the Lord should give light.

"I have been instructed that such hasty movements should not have [been] made [such] as selecting you as president of the conference even another year. But the Lord forbids any more such hasty transactions until the matter is brought before the Lord in prayer; and as you have had the message come to you that the work of the Lord resting upon the president is a most solemn responsibility, you had no moral right to blaze out as you did upon the subject of the 'Daily' and suppose your influence would decide the question. There was Elder Haskell, who has carried the heavy responsibilities, and there is Elder Irwin and several men I might mention who have the heavy responsibilities.

"Where was your respect for the men of age? What authority could you exercise without taking all the responsible men to weigh the matter? But let us now investigate the matter. We must now reconsider whether it is the Lord's judgment, in the face of the work that has been neglected, of showing your zeal to carry the work even another year. If you should carry the work another year with the help that shall unite with you, there should be a change take place in you and Elder Prescott. And humble your own hearts before God. The Lord will have to see in you a showing of a different experience, for if ever men needed to be reconverted at this present [time], it [is] Elder Daniells and Elder Prescott...."

Logged

reddogs

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: 1888-Ellen White and the Church Leaders....
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2008, 10:31:58 AM »

And if anyone thinks it was Ellen White's idea to be 'shipped off' to Australia take a look at the following:

"..It is well known that Mrs. White went only because the General Conference appointed her to go (a laudable example of cooperation with the church leadership!). In 1896 she wrote very frankly to the General Conference president:

The Lord was not in our leaving America. He did not reveal that it was His will that I should leave Battle Creek. The Lord did not plan this, but He let you all move after your own imaginings. The Lord would have had W. C. White, his mother, and her workers remain in America. We were needed at the heart of the work, and had your spiritual perception discerned the true situation, you would never have consented to the movement made. But the Lord reads the hearts of all. There was so great a willingness to have us leave, that the Lord permitted this thing to take place. Those who were weary of the testimonies borne were left without the persons who bore them. Our separation from Battle Creek was to let men have their own will and way, which they thought superior to the way of the Lord.

The result is before you Had you stood in the right position the move would not have been made at that time. The Lord would have worked for Australia by other means, and a strong influence would have been held at Battle Creek, the great heart of the work.

There we should have stood shoulder to shoulder, creating a healthful atmosphere to be felt in all our conferences. It was not the Lord who devised this matter. I could not get one ray of light to leave America. But when the Lord presented this matter to me as it really was, I opened my lips to no one, because I knew that no one would discern the matter in all its bearings. When we left, relief was felt by many, but not so much by yourself, and the Lord was displeased, for He had set us to stand at the wheels of the moving machinery at Battle Creek.

This is the reason I have written you. Elder Olsen had not the perception, the courage, the force, to carry the responsibilities; nor was there any other man prepared to do the work the Lord had purposed we should do. I write you, Elder Olsen, telling you that it was God's desire that we should stand side by side with you, to counsel you, to advise you, to move with you. . . . You were not discerning; you were willing to have the strong experience and knowledge that comes from no human source removed from you, and thus you revealed that the Lord's ways were miscalculated and overlooked. . . . This counsel was not considered a necessity.

That the people of Battle Creek should feel that they could have us leave at the time we did, was the result of man's devising, and not the Lord's. . . . The Lord designed that we should be near the publishing houses, that we should have easy access to these institutions that we might counsel together. . . . O how terrible it is to treat the Lord with dissimulation and neglect, to scorn His counsel with pride because man's wisdom seems so much superior (Letter to O. A. Olsen, 127, 1896).
http://www.sdabol.org/sbhn/1888/reexamined/ch6.html


Church leaders are also prone to be swayed by the power and influence of the office and usually its not a real issue and does no harm, but in this case Ellen White makes clear in the letter that they were doing their own desires and ignoring what God desired for the church...

"..but He let you all move after your own imaginings. The Lord would have had W. C. White, his mother, and her workers remain in America. We were needed at the heart of the work, and had your spiritual perception discerned the true situation, you would never have consented to the movement made. But the Lord reads the hearts of all. There was so great a willingness to have us leave, that the Lord permitted this thing to take place. Those who were weary of the testimonies borne were left without the persons who bore them. Our separation from Battle Creek was to let men have their own will and way, which they thought superior to the way of the Lord..."
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up