The Birth of an Image, Part I

The thirty-fourth session of the General Conference convened at Battle Creek, Michigan, April 2 through April 23, 1901. This was an important General Conference session because it involved not only a major reorganization of the Church, but it was the first General Conference Ellen White had attended in 10 years.

“A feeling of exhilaration and excitement filled the air on Tuesday morning, April 2, as workers and church members began to assemble in the Battle Creek Tabernacle a little before nine o’clock,” Arthur White wrote. “This would be the largest General Conference session ever held.” Arthur L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 70.

There were 267 delegates at the 1901 General Conference session. The Church at that time had a membership of about 75,000: four-fifths of which were in the United States. The organization of the Church in 1901 consisted of only local Conferences and a General Conference. The “General Conference had remained unchanged from 1863 to 1901.” Ibid. It was time for a change, for a reorganization of the Church structure. Shortly after the “most precious message” was given to the Church by Waggoner and Jones in 1888, Ellen White stated that there was a wrong principle of power at the head of the Church and that this principle needed to be changed.

“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,” Ellen White wrote. “Therefore God gave to His servants [Waggoner and Jones] a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the Third Angel’s Message in clear, distinct lines.” Letter to O. A. Olsen, dated at Hobart, Tasmania, May 1, 1895; 1888 Materials, 1338.

“The result of this has been in various ways. The sacred character of the cause of God is no longer realized at the center of the work. The voice from Battle Creek, which has been regarded as authority in counseling how the work should be done, is no longer the voice of God; but it is the voice of—whom? From whence does it come, and where is its vital power? This state of things is maintained by men who should have been disconnected from the work long ago. These men do not scruple to quote the word of God as their authority, but the god who is leading them is a false god.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, 185, 186. [Emphasis supplied.]

“As the institutional interests in Battle Creek grew, businessmen were drawn in to head them, and a strong center developed,” Arthur White wrote. “A General Conference Executive Committee, beginning with three members in 1863, some twenty years later was increased to five.” Arthur L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 71.

There were seven members on the General Conference Committee in 1887. Two more members were added in 1889, and two more in 1893. By the opening of the 1901 General Conference session the Executive Committee numbered thirteen. The last two had been added at the 1899 General Conference session. (See Ibid.)

Although the Church had grown in size, the number of leading men at headquarters had not kept pace with the growth. A small group of men controlled the Church at Battle Creek. The 1901 delegation was to move forward with the establishment of Union Conferences between the local State Conferences and the General Conference.

Guard Against Consolidating and Centralizing the Work

“Beginning with 1889 certain measures were strongly promoted to consolidate and centralize various features of the denominational work,” Arthur White wrote. “This would begin with the publishing interests and then reach out to the educational and medical lines.” Ibid., 72.

Although some wished to consolidate and centralize the work of the denomination, the counsel from Ellen White was against centralization. Testimony after testimony was given against centralization.

“It is not the purpose of God to centralize in this way, bringing all the interests of one branch of the work under the management of a comparatively few men,” Ellen White wrote. “In His great purpose of advancing the cause of truth in the earth, He designs that every part of His work shall blend with every other part.” Spalding and Magan Collection, 404.

“The workers are to draw together in the Spirit of Christ,” Ellen White concluded. “In their diversity, they are to preserve unity. . . . The work of direction is to be left with the great Manager, while obedience to the work of the Lord is to be the aim of His workers.” Ibid., 404.

Notice that their unity was to be in their “diversity.” No one was to rule over the other. Their unity was in Christ and the truth. Christ, not man, is the Head, “the great Manager,” of the work and the Church.

Not only were Adventists counseled not to centralize the work, it was also not God’s plan that the Advent people should centralize their homes in one place. The plan was to spread out, to take the Advent truth to all the world.

“It is not the Lord’s plan to centralize largely in any one place,” Ellen White counseled. “The time has passed when there should be any binding about of the work and confining it to a few places.” The Publishing Ministry, 146.

In 1901, the Review and Herald publishing house at Battle Creek was in dire need of a complete overhaul. The Press was involved in commercial printing and because of this policy the publishing and sale of message-filled books suffered during this period. The policy was that any material would be published that would bring a profit to the Review and Herald Publishing house.

“This included fiction, Wild West stories, Roman Catholic books, and works on sex and hypnosis,” Arthur White wrote. “When cautioned, men in positions of management at the Review office declared that they were printers and not censors.” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 72.

The Adventist structure is in the very same situation today. The new Seventh-day Adventist publishing house in Russia is required by the State to publish the religious books of other denominations. Like the Review and Herald Publishing house in the 1890s, this includes, Roman Catholic books, Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and even works of spiritualism! Not only that, but this new publishing house in Russia had to have the endorsement of Billy Graham before the Soviet government would permit the General Conference to build the publishing house. The Soviet government would also retain 51 percent of the publishing house; thus the Soviet government would have final control in any dispute.

The Cleansing Fire

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked,” the apostle Paul warned, “for whatsoever a man [or church] soweth, that shall he also reap.” Galatians 6:7. Is it any wonder that on December 30, 1902, the Lord sent His angels to torch the main building of the Review and Herald publishing plant.

“Before the fire came which swept away the Review and Herald factory, I was in distress for many days. I was in distress while the council was in session, laboring to get the right matter before the meeting, hoping, if it were a possible thing, to call our brethren to repentance, and avert calamity. It seemed to me that it was almost a life and death question. It was then that I saw the representation of danger,—a sword of fire turning this way and that way. I was in an agony of distress. The next news was that the Review and Herald building had been burned by fire, but that not one life had been lost. In this the Lord spoke mercy with judgment. The mercy of God was mingled with judgment to spare the lives of the workers, that they might do the work which they had neglected to do, and which it seemed impossible to make them see and understand.” General Conference Bulletin, April 6, 1903.

Have times changed? Will the Lord still visit His people again in judgement?

“And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem [the Church] with candles, and punish the men that are settled on their lees: that say in their heart, The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil.” Zephaniah 1:12.

“He who presides over His church and the destinies of nations is carrying forward the last work to be accomplished for this world. To His angels He gives the commission to execute His judgments.” Testimonies to Ministers, 431.

“Let the ministers awake, let them take in the situation,” Ellen White warned. “The work of judgment begins at the sanctuary.” Ibid.

“Notwithstanding the condition of things at the publishing house, a suggestion had been made to bring still more of our work to the Review Office, still more power into Battle Creek,” Ellen White continued. “This greatly alarmed me, and when the fire came, I breathed easier than I had for a long time.” General Conference Bulletin, April 6, 1903.

“We were thankful that no lives were lost,” Ellen White stated. “There was a large loss of property. Again and again the Lord had shown me that for every dollar that was accumulated by unjust means, there would be ten times as much lost.” Ibid.

Ellen White’s Concern About the 1901 General Conference

The delegates gathered at the 1901 General Conference session with apprehension. They sensed that something important would happen at this session. Ellen White would be present at this General Conference for the first time in ten years .

“All were profoundly thankful that Ellen White was to be there, and she carried a heavy burden for the meeting,” Arthur White wrote. “It was this conference with its challenges and its opportunities that had in a large part led Ellen White to close up her work in Australia and hasten back to the United States.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 73.

A New Constitution

At the 1901 General Conference session, a new constitution was voted by the delegates. The two most important changes in this constitution from the previous constitution was as follows:

No General Conference President

The first action established a twenty-five man General Conference Committee instead of a thirteen man committee. The constitution abolished the office of a General Conference President, and established in its place the office of a General Conference “chairman.”

Another important aspect was that no officer of the General Conference committee was to serve more than two years. This would do away with one man at the head of the Church. This was a major move away from the form of government retained by the Papacy for over six hundred years when in 533 a.d., Justinian, the Roman emperor, decreed that the Bishop of Rome was supreme over all other Bishops of the Church.

Union Conferences

The second important change established Union Conferences. The Church prior to 1901 had only local State Conferences and a General Conference. This was still not perfect, but would decentralize ecclesiastical authority to a great degree. Under Article #2 it was stated that, “The object of this Conference shall be to unify and to extend to all parts of the world, the work of promulgating the everlasting gospel.” General Conference Bulletin, vol. IV, First Quarter, April 22, 1901. Extra No. 17, 378.

The New General Conference Executive Committee

Article #4, titled, “Executive Committee,” Section 1, stated in part: The Executive Committee of this Conference shall be twenty-five in number, and shall have power to organize itself by choosing a chairman, secretary, treasurer, and auditor, whose duties shall be such as usually pertain to their respective offices. It shall also have the power to appoint all necessary agents and committees for the conduct of its work.” Ibid.

The election of officers and the time they would serve was stated under Section #2: “The Executive Committee shall be elected at the regular sessions of the Conference, and shall hold office for the term of two years, or until their successors are elected, and appear to enter upon their duties.” Ibid.

Current Objection To the 1901 Constitution

Term-limits have never been popular by those holding office. This is true, not only in church offices, but also in the political debates of the day. In his history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Arthur White objected to this form of church government. He believed that the 1901 Constitution was “weak” on the point of a General Conference chairman versus a General Conference President, and the idea of term limits for those holding office. He wrote: “But there was one weakness in the new constitution that did not show up clearly when it was adopted,” Arthur White wrote. “It was to cause considerable concern in the months that followed. This related to the election of the officers of the General Conference.” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 95.

This “weakness” however, was the opinion of Arthur White. Obviously, it was not the opinion of the duly authorized delegates of the 1901 General Conference session who voted the constitution into law. Neither was it the opinion of Ellen White who was present at that General Conference session.

“I was never more astonished in my life than at the turn things have taken at this meeting. This is not our work. God has brought it about. Instruction regarding this was presented to me, but until the sum was worked out at this meeting, I could not comprehend this instruction. God’s angels have been walking up and down in this congregation. I want every one of you to remember this, and I want you to remember also that God has said that He will heal the wounds of His people.” General Conference Bulletin, April 25, 1901.

“According to the new constitution, the delegates attending a General Conference session were empowered to elect the General Conference Committee; this committee in turn was to organize itself, electing its own officers,” Arthur White wrote. “It was recognized at the time that this could mean that a man might be chairman for only one year.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 95.

Notice that Arthur White’s real objection to the 1901 Constitution centered on the part that “a man might be chairman for only one year,” and that a new chairman would be elected each year thereafter. This is still the objection of leadership today.

“Undoubtedly this provision came about as an overreaction to the desire to get away from any ‘kingly power’ (Letter 49, 1903),” Arthur White observed, “a point that was pushed hard by Elder A. T. Jones, a member of the committee on organization.” Ibid.

Arthur White suggested that the idea of a new General Conference chairman elected each year, “Undoubtedly…came about as an overreaction to the desire to get away from any ‘kingly power.’” Then he gives reference to a testimony from Ellen White, Letter 49, dated 1903, which was not written until two years later. If indeed there was overreaction to the “kingly power” stated in Ellen White’s testimony, then how could the delegates of 1901 overreact to a testimony that had not been given, indeed, that would not be written for two more years?

Notice also that once again Seventh-day Adventist historians, in their desire to alter history, try to attribute the responsibility or blame for an action they see as false on the shoulders of one man. Arthur White used this method when he stated that it was A. T. Jones who “pushed hard” for the idea of a new General Conference chairman elected each year, rather than a continual office of chairman that would keep one man in the office for years. Indeed, if it was A. T. Jones’ urging that caused the 267 delegates to see the wisdom that no one man should be the head of the church, and if his urging helped the delegates to vote it into the new Constitution of 1901, then A. T. Jones should be commended, not condemned. Did not Ellen White state that, “This is not our work. God has brought it about.” Are we not true Protestants? Do we still believe in a country without a king, and a church without a Pope? Are we like Israel of old, continually demanding a visible king over the Church?

“While this arrangement would clearly reduce the possibility of anyone exercising kingly power, it also greatly undercut responsible leadership,” Arthur White lamented. “It went too far, for it took out of the hands of the delegates attending the General Conference session the vital responsibility of electing the leaders of the church and instead placed this responsibility in the hands of the General Conference Executive Committee of twenty-five.” White added further that the new Constitution was “too unwieldy,” and, “There was no church leader with a mandate from the church as represented by its delegates.” Ibid.

The new Constitution did not take “out of the hands of the delegates attending the General Conference session the vital responsibility of electing the leaders of the church,” as Arthur White stated. The delegates elected the twenty-five members of the General Conference Committee. The twenty-five man Committee then chose their own “chairman,” this person to be replaced each year. Arthur White lamented the fact that the General Conference delegates could not choose who was to be the chairman of the General Conference Committee, and that this “chairman” could not serve for long periods of time. Of course, this thinking would only reestablish the old Constitution which provided for a permanent President of the General Conference.

Arthur White admitted that “this arrangement would clearly reduce the possibility of anyone exercising kingly power,” but he believed that the new Constitution “was too unwieldy.” Unfortunately, White then argued for a one-man ruler of the Church. He stated that with this new Constitution, “There was no church leader with a mandate.” That was the idea of the new Constitution, was it not? There was to be no one man at the head of the Church with a mandate from God or man. This would be establishing a Pope, an image of the Papacy!

“That some of the delegates attending the session of 1901 were not clear on this point is evidenced in the insistence that the Committee elect the chairman and announce their decision before that session closed,” White wrote. “A. G. Daniells was chosen as chairman of the General Conference Committee.” Ibid. White added further that, “He was the leader of the church and nearly all the delegates were pleased, but they did not discern at this point how he would be crippled in his work, having no tenure and no mandate.” Ibid.

Arthur White was correct in stating that Daniells was to have no “tenure or mandate.” It was the twenty-five man Executive Committee that was to have a “tenure” and a “mandate” to oversee the work. The chairman was merely to preside over the conference session. Daniells was never to be the leader of the Church; Jesus Christ is the leader of the Church. He was merely the chairman of the General Conference Committee, not the Pope of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As stated before, the chairman was to hold this office for one year, after which a new chairman would be elected the following year. However, history reveals that Daniells assumed himself President of the General Conference and wrote a new constitution that was voted into law two years later at the 1903 General Conference session. This “new” 1903 Constitution officially established Daniells in the office of President of the General Conference, which office he held for over twenty years!

“He [Daniells] assumed the presidency of the General Conference in 1901 at a difficult period in the history of the church,” the SDA Encyclopedia states. “In 1922 he relinquished the presidency of the General Conference and held the post of secretary for four years.” Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Second Revised Edition, 1995.

“To take the position that Ellen White’s urging that there be no kings meant, as interpreted by A. T. Jones, that the church should have no General Conference president was unjustified,” Arthur White wrote. “At no time had the messages from her called for the abolition of the office of president of the General Conference; rather her messages recognized such an office in the organization of the church.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 95. To substantiate this claim, Arthur White directed the reader to Testimonies to Ministers, 95, 96. Again, this testimony rebuking “kingly power” was written two years after the 1901 Constitution was voted!

“An earlier statement indicated that she understood that the work devolving upon the president of the General Conference was too large for one man to carry and that others should stand by his side to assist (Testimonies to Ministers, 342, 343),” Arthur White wrote. “She did condemn the exercise of kingly power.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 95, 96.

Arthur White tried to establish that A. T. Jones was the only one of the 267 delegates who believed that there should be “no kings,” no General Conference president. The 1901 General Conference Bulletin states that the Constitution was “voted unanimously” by the 267 delegates. A. T. Jones did not vote the new Constitution in by himself!

White stated that the idea that “the church should have no General Conference president was unjustified,” and that at no time had Ellen White “called for the abolition of the office of president of the General Conference.” Arthur White tried to establish that Ellen White endorsed the idea of a General Conference president by quoting an “earlier” statement. (Testimonies to Ministers, 342, 343). He stated that in this earlier statement Ellen White “recognized such an office in the organization of the church.”

Just because Ellen White recognized that there was a General Conference president at an earlier time, does not prove that she endorsed the idea. Indeed, she did state that “the president of the General Conference was too large for one man to carry and that others should stand by his side to assist.” This would have been true also of a General Conference chairman. Ellen White did acknowledge the office of president while it existed, but when the office was abolished at the 1901 General Conference session she stated, “This is not our work. God has brought it about.”

“The weakness, which soon became very apparent, was corrected at the next session of the General Conference,” Arthur White concluded, “the session of 1903.” Ibid.

We must now examine the 1903 General Conference Bulletin for ourselves to find out what was “corrected” at the next session of the General Conference.

To be concluded next month

The Birth of an Image, Part II

The 1903 General Conference session convened in Oakland, California, on March 27, 1903. This would be the most important point in the reorganization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for at this General Conference a “new” constitution would be voted that would forever establish one man at the head of the Church!

The Chairman, Elder Arthur G. Daniells, called the thirty-fifth General Conference session to order at two-thirty, Friday afternoon, March 27, 1903. One hundred and thirty four delegates were seated at this 1903 session. (General Conference Bulletin, 1903, 1.)

“Since the last meeting of the General Conference we have organized twelve union conferences and twenty-three local conferences,” Daniells stated. “Most of these local conferences are within the territory of the union conferences.” Ibid.

It should be noted that the 134 delegates seated at this 1903 session were 133 short of the 267 delegates seated at the 1901 General Conference session. This was a curious aspect of the 1903 session. The membership of the Church was now larger than it had been two years earlier, but the number of delegates was smaller! Why?

Arthur G. Daniells, General Conference chairman, was about to introduce still another Constitution, which he had written, a Constitution that would establish him in the office of General Conference President. “The business of the conference proper began Monday morning at nine-thirty,” Arthur White stated. “After a roll call of the delegates, the chairman, Elder Daniells, gave his address.…” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol.5, 243. [All emphasis supplied unless otherwise stated.]

Notice that in this statement Arthur White admits that A.G. Daniells was “the chairman,” and not the president of the General Conference. Why was Daniells still the “chairman” after two years, when the delegates, two years prior in 1901, had voted that the office of chairman was to continue only one year?

On Monday morning, Ellen White spoke to the delegates instead of the regular business meeting. She had received a vision the night before and wished to convey the message to the church leadership. She stated in part: “Today God is watching His people. We should seek to find out what He means when He sweeps away our sanitarium and our publishing house. Let us not move along as if there were nothing wrong.…God wants us to come to our senses, He wants us to seek for the meaning of the calamities that have overtaken us, that we may not tread in the footsteps of Israel, and say, ‘The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are we,’ when we are not this at all.” General Conference Bulletin, 1903, 31.

What Might Have Been

In her morning talk, Ellen White made reference to a vision she was given in regard to the past 1901 General Conference session: “The Lord has shown me what might have been had the work been done that ought to have been done. In the night season I was present in a meeting where brother was confessing to brother. Those present fell upon one another’s necks, and made heart-broken confessions. The Spirit and power of God were revealed. No one seemed too proud to bow before God in humility and contrition. Those who led in this work were the ones who had not before had the courage to confess their sins.” Ibid.

“This might have been,” Ellen White continued. “All this the Lord was waiting to do for His people. All heaven was waiting to be gracious.” Ibid.

(The complete vision Ellen White referred to is found in Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, 104–106, under the title, “What Might Have Been.” The testimony was sent to the Battle Creek Church from St. Helena, California, January 5, 1903.)

Debate Over A New Constitution

“The second major debate of the 1903 General Conference session, which came toward the end of the meeting, was centered upon the new constitution, specifically the provision for the election of a president.” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 256. This was a major step backward! Two years prior, the 267 delegates had voted unanimously that there would be no president of the General Conference, but merely a new chairman to be elected each year. Now the proposed “new” Constitution would reinstate the office of president of the General Conference. “But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us.” I Samuel 8:6a.

“Two reports were filed with the session from the Committee on Plans and Constitution,” Arthur White wrote. “The majority report supported the new constitution, which would provide for the leading officers of the General Conference to be chosen by the delegates, thus giving them a mandate from the church.” Ibid.

In this “new” Constitution, Arthur White referred to the “leading officers,” but the central issue was the provision for a new General Conference President, and it was this new General Conference President who would be given “a mandate from the church.” Arthur White had stated before that A. G. Daniells, the General Conference “chairman,” did not have a mandate from the church. Today, in political circles of the United States Congress we hear much about “mandates,” and “term-limits.” The political leaders and church leaders indeed claim a “mandate” from the people that would give them complete authority to enact what they think the people should have. But what does God say about this worldly policy in the church? “Vengeance will be executed,” Ellen White warned, “against those who sit in the gates deciding what the people should have.” Manuscript 15, 1886.

Obviously, political and church leaders want a “mandate” of authority. However, neither political nor church leaders want “term-limits.” Why is this? Because “term-limits” would put them out of power and out of office in a relatively short period of time.

“Christ foresaw that the undue assumption of authority indulged by the scribes and Pharisees would not cease with the dispersion of the Jews. He had a prophetic view of the work of exalting human authority to rule the conscience, which has been so terrible a curse to the church in all ages. And His fearful denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and His warnings to the people not to follow these blind leaders, were placed on record as an admonition to future generations.” The Great Controversy, 596.

The Minority Report

“The minority report, signed by three men [E. J. Waggoner, David Paulson, and P. T. Magan] largely connected with institutional interests, claimed that the proposed new constitution would reverse the reformatory steps taken at the General Conference of 1901.” Arthur White wrote, “These men argued that the constitution of 1901, which provided that the General Conference Committee could choose its officers, should not be ‘annihilated’ without giving it a fair trial.” These men on the minority committee did indeed argue that “the constitution of 1901…should not be ‘annihilated’ without giving it a fair trial.” However, the 1903 General Conference Bulletin reveals that “these three men” did not object to the new plan that the delegates at large should elect the General Conference committee members. What they did object to was the establishment of a permanent General Conference “President,” instead of a temporary General Conference Chairman. They also objected to the fact that the 1901 Constitution had only been tested for two years.

Actual Words Of the Minority Report

“The minority of your Committee on Plans and Constitution beg leave to submit that the Constitution proposed by the majority of the Committee appears to us to be so subversive of the principles of organization given to us at the General Conferences of 1897 and 1901 that we can not possibly subscribe to it.

“The proposed new Constitution reverses the reformatory steps that were taken, and the principles which were given and adopted as the principles of reorganization, in the General Conferences of 1897 and 1901, and embodied in the present Constitution; and this before that Constitution or the organization according to it, has ever had adequate trial.

“We therefore recommend that the Constitution of 1901 be given a fair trial before it be annihilated.” General Conference Bulletin, 1903, 146, 147.

Notice that the major contention of the Minority Committee was that the first constitutional revision in the history of the church, that had been voted two years prior in 1901 by 267 delegates, had not been in effect long enough for a just evaluation.

The “new” Constitution proposed by the majority of the committee reinstated the office of “President” of the General Conference. The new president would serve as chairman of the Executive Committee, and would continue in office for years. (A. G. Daniells, who was elected president at this 1903 General Conference, served as president for over twenty years). The Majority Committee Report on this point was as follows:

“Article iv—Executive Committee, Section 1. At each session the Conference shall elect an Executive Committee for the carrying forward of its work between the sessions.

“The Executive Committee shall consist of the president, two vice‑presidents, the presidents of Union Conferences, the superintendents of organized Union Missions, and twelve other persons, among whom there shall be representatives of all the leading departments of conference work, including the publishing, medical, educational, Sabbath‑School, and religious liberty.

“Article ii—Executive Committee, Section 1. During the intervals between sessions of the Conference, the Executive Committee shall have full administrative power, and shall fill for the current term any vacancies that may occur in its offices, boards, committees, or agents, by death, resignation, or otherwise, except in cases where other provisions for filling such vacancies shall be made by vote of the General Conference.

“Section 2. Any five members of the Executive Committee, including the president or vice‑president, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of such business as is in harmony with the general plans outlined by the Committee, but the concurrence of four members shall be necessary to pass any measure before the Committee.

“Section 3. Meetings of the Executive Committee may be called at any time or place, by the president or vice‑president, or upon the written request of any five members of the Committee.” Ibid.

The Majority Committee Report was signed by ten men:

H.W. Cottrell, E. T. Russell, C. W. Flaiz, W. C. White, W. T. Knox, E. H. Gates, G. E. Langdon, C. N. Woodward, Smith Sharp, S. B. Horton

The next action was that W. T. Knox made a motion for the “adoption of the majority report.” D. E Lindsey seconded the motion. (See Ibid.)

“Now, if it is the wish of the delegates, this report may be read through entirely; or, if you desire, it can be taken up one section or article at a time,” said the Chairman, H. W. Cottrell. “If this be the mind of the delegates, the secretary may read the first article.” Ibid., 147.

Percy T. Magan Speaks

“The congregation will all see that the minority report deals only with certain general vital principles, which we believe are transgressed in the proposed new constitution,” P. T. Magan stated, “and therefore, in order that that matter may be brought before the house, as it is the vital thing in the consideration of the whole subject, I move that the report of the minority be substituted now for consideration in place of the report of the majority.” Ibid. E. J. Waggoner seconded the motion.

The motion for the minority position was put, and was lost!

E.J. Waggoner Speaks

“My dissent from the report of the majority of the committee is on two lines,” Waggoner stated. “I will give those two lines as briefly and concisely as possible, and dispassionately.”

“The first objection I have to the report is that it is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the principles of organization as set forth in the Bible,” Waggoner continued, “and as, up to the present time, adhered to in the main by this body. This being so, I regard the [majority] report as revolutionary and inconsistent.” Ibid.

Waggoner Defines the Concept of Who and What Is the Church

“I think we are all agreed in this, that the church, the local body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, in any place, is the unit of organization and the standard,” Waggoner stated. “Thus in any company of believers, wherever they may be, in whatever city, we have there the epitome of the whole body of believers throughout the world.”

“Now the movement, although I am sure unconscious and unintentional on the part of the brethren, toward the adoption of this [majority] report does essentially lie in the line of the adoption of a creed,” Waggoner continued, “and that, although the churches of the world and the people of the world regard as essential to organization, we who know the Scriptures and know the falling away that came in the early days and has been perpetuated until this present time, —we know is essentially disorganization.”

“The Bible organization is opposed to the exaltation of any person over others,” Waggoner said. “Now the question will arise and be presented to me: ‘Why, then, do you sign this report, which recommends that we maintain the present constitution?’”

“I am not inconsistent,” Waggoner concluded. “My second objection is to this constitution itself, which, in some of its particulars, I regard as the worst constitution ever devised among Seventh-day Adventists.” Ibid.

Percy T. Magan Speaks

“As a member of the minority of the Committee on Plans, and as a man, if I had not been on the Committee on Plans at all, I am conscientiously opposed to the proposed new constitution,” Magan stated. “I have always felt that the hardest place that any man could be put in this life is to have to stand conscientiously opposed to what the majority of his brethren believe to be right.” Ibid., 150.

“To me it has always appeared to be a much easier thing to stand in a position of opposition to the world, and even to have to face a court of justice in the world, for your faith, than to have to face your brethren for your faith,” Magan continued. “And therefore I shall say today, as briefly and modestly as I know how, what I have to say.” Ibid., 159.

“The minority report expresses in a word the feelings which actuated the minority in making the report, because we believe that the constitution proposed by the majority of the committee appears to us to be so subversive of the principles of organization given to us at the General Conferences of 1897 and 1901,” Magan continued. “Those principles were given to us by the Spirit of God. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the minority of the committee, this constitution is absolutely subversive of those principles.” Ibid., 150.

“It may be stated there is nothing in this new constitution which is not abundantly safeguarded by the provisions of it,” Magan concluded, “but I want to say to you that any man who has ever read ‘Neander’s History of the Christian Church,’ Mosheim’s, or any of the other of the great church historians,—any man who has ever read those histories can come to no other conclusion but that the principles which are to be brought in through this proposed constitution, and in the way in which they are brought in, are the same principles, and introduced in precisely the same way, as they were hundreds of years ago when the Papacy was made.”

“Further,” Magan emphasized, “this whole house must recognize this, before we are through with this discussion, that the proposed new constitution, whatever improvements may be claimed for it, whatever advantages it may be stated that it contains, that, in principle, as far as the head of the work is concerned, it goes back precisely where we were before the reformatory steps of two years ago.” Ibid.

“Ellen White did not enter into the debate on the question of the constitution,” Arthur White wrote. “W. C. White spoke strongly in support of the changes proposed, as did some of the other respected leaders, such as Loughborough and Butler.”

“The opinions of learned men…the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastic councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith,” Ellen White wrote. “God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.” The Great Controversy, 595.

The New Constitution Voted and Ratified

That very evening, April 9, 1903, the vote was taken. The new Constitution was ratified. The minority report was rejected. The plea by P. T. Magan that the principles of the new Constitution, “are the same principles, and introduced in precisely the same way, as they were hundreds of years ago when the Papacy was made,” was also ignored. At that very hour, an image to the Papacy was established in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. For ninety five years that image has prospered and increased until institutions of the SDA Church are merging with those of the Roman Catholic Church.

“The matter was not settled quickly,” Arthur White stated. “A vote with a three‑fourths majority was needed.” One hundred and eight delegates were present. Eighty-five voted for the new Constitution, “carrying the action by a majority of four.” Early Elmshaven Years, 257. How sad that an image to the Papacy was carried by a slim margin of only four votes.

“When men who profess to serve God ignore His parental character, and depart from honor and righteousness in dealing with their fellow‑men, Satan exults, for he has inspired them with his attributes,” Ellen White stated. “They are following in the track of Romanism.” 1888 Materials, 1435.

“We have far more to fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 122.

Notice that Ellen White did not say, “We have more to fear from within.” What she said was that we have “far” more to fear from within than from without. How sad it is that “the hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world.”

Daniells’ Later Confession

“In 1946, I was in the U.S.A. and the General Conference asked me to take meetings at various Camps,” George Burnside, noted Australian SDA evangelist stated . “I roomed at two camps—New Jersey and East Pennsylvania—with Pastor Meade MacGuire and we chatted much about the old days.”

“He had known A. T. Jones,” Burnside continued. “Pastor MacGuire spoke highly of Jones, especially of his knowledge of Church history.”

“His [Jones’] big concern was the trends in SDA organization,” Burnside recalled. “Jones opposed A. G. Daniells (then Gen. Conference president) on church organization as Jones felt it was drifting Romeward. Finally Daniells broke Jones, with the result that Jones finally left the church.”

“Years later, Daniells and Pastor MacGuire were attending Camps in California. They were returning to Washington D. C. by train. Pastor MacGuire said Pastor Daniells was sitting looking out of the carriage window thinking. He [Daniells] looked up and said, ‘You know, Meade, I believe Jones was right and I was wrong.’ He was referring to the question of organization.

“Pastor MacGuire said that Pastor Daniells did all he could to rectify things, but as he was then out of the presidency no one paid much attention to him,” Burnside concluded. “This is the account as I recall it.” The document was dated February 7, 1987, and signed, George Burnside, Wahroonga, N. S. W. Australia.

Testimony Given Immediately Following the 1903 General Conference

“Ellen White returned home to Elmshaven from the [1903] session some time between April 10 and 12,” Arthur White wrote. “Of the significant and far-reaching events in the early summer of 1903 she wrote: ‘My strength was severely taxed while at the conference, but the Lord sustained me through the meeting, and by His blessing, I am recovering from the strain.…’” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 259.

One week after returning home from the 1903 General Conference session, Ellen White wrote the following testimony dated at St. Helena, California, April 21, 1903: “In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence: ‘Found want­ing.’ By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged.” Testimonies, vol. 8, 247.

How does the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1999 measure up to “the privile­ges and advantages that she has had”? How does the corporate church measure up to “her spiritual experience”? How does the church measure up to “the advantages that Christ…has bestowed on her”? How does the church measure up to “the blessings conferred” upon her? Has the SDA Church been faithful to the truth that would “qualify her to do the work entrusted to her”? And the most important questions of all—Has the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church already been judged? And if so, has she been found wanting?

Bible Study Guides – “Our God Whom We Serve Is Able To Deliver”

July 21, 2001 – July 27, 2001

MEMORY VERSE “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.” Isaiah 43:2.

STUDY HELP: Prophets and Kings, 503–513.

Introduction

“Important are the lessons to be learned from the experience of the Hebrew youth on the plain of Dura. In this our day, many of God’s servants, though innocent of wrongdoing, will be given over to suffer humiliation and abuse at the hands of those who, inspired by Satan, are filled with envy and religious bigotry. Especially will the wrath of man be aroused against those who hallow the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; and at last a universal decree will denounce these as deserving of death. The season of distress before God’s people will call for a faith that will not falter. His children must make it manifest that He is the only object of their worship, and that no consideration, not even that of life itself, can induce them to make the least concession to false worship.” Prophets and Kings, 512.

“In the Plain of Dura”

1 What gesture of pride did Nebuchadnezzar make? Daniel 3:1.

NOTE: “Light direct from Heaven had been permitted to shine upon King Nebuchadnezzar, and for a little time he was influenced by the fear of God. But a few years of prosperity filled his heart with pride, and he forgot his acknowledgment of the living God. He resumed his idol worship with increased zeal and bigotry. From the treasures obtained in war he made a golden image to represent the one that he had seen in his dream, setting it up in the plain of Dura, and commanding all the rulers and the people to worship it, on pain of death. This statue was about ninety feet in height and nine in breadth, and in the eyes of that idolatrous people it presented a most imposing and majestic appearance.” The Sanctified Life, 36, 37.

“Thus the grand lesson given by God to the heathen, and to all people, was misconstrued and misplaced. That which was designed by God to teach lessons of truth, and to give the world clear, distinct rays of light, Nebuchadnezzar turned from its purpose, making it minister to his pride and vanity. The prophetic illustration was made to serve for the glorification of humanity. The symbol designed to unfold important events was turned into a symbol which would hinder the spread of that knowledge which God designed the kingdoms of the earth should receive. By the height and beauty of his image, by the material of which it was formed, the king sought to make error and false doctrine magnificent and attractive, more powerful, seemingly, than anything God had given.” Signs of the Times, April 29, 1897.

2 What command did Nebuchadnezzar make regarding the image? Daniel 3:2–7.

NOTE: “This scheme, devised in the counsel of Satan, was made in order to compel the three Hebrew children to obey human laws in direct opposition to the laws of Jehovah. The most learned of the nation, men who were noted for their aptness and educational advantages, thus worked to form a confederacy that would exalt the king of Babylon and excite enmity against the Hebrew captives. They prevailed upon the king to enact certain laws which these youth could not consent to respect. The worship of the image which the king had set up, was made the established religion of the country.” Signs of the Times, September 2, 1897.

“There are Certain Jews”

3 What accusation was made by certain Chaldeans? Daniel 3:8–12.

NOTE: “These men who thus accused the Hebrews had been saved from death by Daniel’s appeal to the king in their behalf, but they were envious of the three Hebrews, and were desirous of hurting their influence; they therefore carried the complaint to the king that these men had dared to disobey his commands.” Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897.

4 What was the king’s immediate reaction to the news of the three young men’s disobedience? Daniel 3:13.

NOTE: “The thought that his slightest wish should not be respected at the dedication of the image, filled the king with rage, and he commanded that the men be brought before him. ‘Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? ’ How short-lived is the exaltation bestowed by men! How little dependence can be placed in them! These three men, once honored, and entrusted with great responsibilities, are now the objects of the wrath of a king whose will is law. Truly we can not trust in princes.” Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897.

5 What was the king’s considered response? Daniel 3:14, 15.

NOTE: “As the three Hebrews stood before the king, he was convinced that they possessed something the other wise men of his kingdom did not have. They had been faithful in the performance of every duty. He would give them another trial. If only they would signify their willingness to unite with the multitude in worshiping the image, all would be well with them; ‘but if ye worship not,’ he added, ‘ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.’ Then with his hand stretched upward in defiance, he demanded, ‘Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? ’” Prophets and Kings, 507.

“Our God is Able to Deliver”

6 What response did the three give the king? Daniel 3:16–18.

NOTE: “They had learned from the history of their fathers that disobedience to God is dishonor, disaster, and ruin; that the fear of the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom but the foundation of all true prosperity. They look with calmness upon the fiery furnace and the idolatrous throng. They have trusted in God, and He will not fail them now. Their answer is respectful, but decided: ‘Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up’ (Daniel 3:18).” The Sanctified Life, 37.

“Thus these youth, imbued with the Holy Spirit, declared to the whole nation their faith, that He whom they worshiped was the only true and living God. This demonstration of their own faith was the most eloquent presentation of their principles. In order to impress idolaters with the power and greatness of the living God, His servants must reveal their own reverence for God. They must make it manifest that He is the only object of their honor and worship, and that no consideration, not even the preservation of life itself, can induce them to make the least concession to idolatry. These lessons have a direct and vital bearing upon our experience in these last days.” In Heavenly Places, 149.

7 What punishment immediately followed the young men’s reply? Daniel 3:19–21.

NOTE: “When the king saw that his will was not received as the will of God, he was ‘full of fury,’ and the form of his visage was changed against these men. Satanic attributes made his countenance appear as the countenance of a demon; and with all the force he could command, he ordered that the furnace be heated seven times hotter than its wont, and commanded the most mighty men to bind the youth, and cast them into the furnace. He felt that it required more than ordinary power to deal with these noble men. His mind was strongly impressed that something unusual would interpose in their behalf, and his strongest men were ordered to deal with them. The king’s command was urgent. He was anxious to punish the men who had dared to exercise their will in opposition to his will; and without delay, with all their clothing upon them, they were cast into the fire.” Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897.

“Four Men Loose Walking In the Midst of the Fire”

8 What was the effect of the furnace on the executioners of the three young men? Daniel 3:22.

NOTE: “The king’s wrath knew no limits. In the very height of his power and glory, to be thus defied by the representatives of a despised and captive race was an insult which his proud spirit could not endure. The fiery furnace had been heated seven times more than it was wont, and into it were cast the Hebrew exiles. So furious were the flames, that the men who cast them in were burned to death.” The Sanctified Life, 38.

9 What astonishing sight met Nebuchadnezzar’s eyes? Daniel 3:24, 25.

NOTE: “How did that heathen king know what the Son of God was like? The Hebrew captives filling positions of trust in Babylon had in life and character represented before him the truth. When asked for a reason of their faith, they had given it without hesitation. Plainly and simply they had presented the principles of righteousness, thus teaching those around them of the God whom they worshiped. They had told of Christ, the Redeemer to come; and in the form of the fourth in the midst of the fire the king recognized the Son of God. . . .” Conflict and Courage, 252.

10 What wonderful Bible promise was thus fulfilled? Isaiah 43:2.

NOTE: “He who walked with the Hebrew worthies in the fiery furnace will be with His followers wherever they are. His abiding presence will comfort and sustain. In the midst of the time of trouble—trouble such as has not been since there was a nation—His chosen ones will stand unmoved. Satan with all the hosts of evil cannot destroy the weakest of God’s saints. Angels that excel in strength will protect them, and in their behalf Jehovah will reveal Himself as a ‘God of gods,’ able to save to the uttermost those who have put their trust in Him.” Conflict and Courage, 252.

“Nor Was an Hair of Their Head Singed”

11 What words did the king address to the three young men? Daniel 3:26.

NOTE: “And now, his own greatness and dignity forgotten, Nebuchadnezzar descended from his throne and, going to the mouth of the furnace, cried out, ‘Ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither.’ Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came forth before the vast multitude, showing themselves unhurt. The presence of their Saviour had guarded them from harm, and only their fetters had been burned. ‘And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king’s counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.’” Prophets and Kings, 509.

12 What effect had the fire had upon them? Daniel 3:27.

NOTE: “And they obeyed, showing themselves unhurt before that vast multitude, not even the smell of fire being upon their garments. This miracle produced a striking change in the minds of the people. The great golden image, set up with such display, was forgotten. The king published a decree that any one speaking against the God of these men should be put to death; ‘because there is no other god that can deliver after this sort.’” Review and Herald, February 1, 1881.

13 What was the king’s reaction to the courage and faith of the three young men? Daniel 3:28–30.

NOTE: “These three Hebrews possessed genuine sanctification. True Christian principle will not stop to weigh consequences. It does not ask, What will people think of me if I do this? or, How will it affect my worldly prospects if I do that? With the most intense longing the children of God desire to know what He would have them do, that their works may glorify Him. The Lord has made ample provision that the hearts and lives of all His followers may be controlled by divine grace, that they may be as burning and shining lights in the world. These faithful Hebrews possessed great natural ability, they had enjoyed the highest intellectual culture, and now occupied a position of honor; but all this did not lead them to forget God. Their powers were yielded to the sanctifying influence of divine grace. By their steadfast integrity they showed forth the praises of Him who had called them out of darkness into His marvelous light. In their wonderful deliverance were displayed, before that vast assembly, the power and majesty of God. Jesus placed Himself by their side in the fiery furnace, and by the glory of His presence convinced the proud king of Babylon that it could be no other than the Son of God. The light of Heaven had been shining forth from Daniel and his companions, until all their associates understood the faith which ennobled their lives and beautified their characters. By the deliverance of His faithful servants, the Lord declares that He will take His stand with the oppressed and overthrow all earthly powers that would trample upon the authority of the God of heaven.” The Sanctified Life, 39, 40.

Bible Study Guides – “What Shall Be In the Latter Days”

July 14, 2001 – July 20, 2001

MEMORY VERSE “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” Daniel 2:44.

STUDY HELP: Prophets and Kings, 491–502.

Introduction

“The Lord was working in the Babylonian kingdom, communicating light to the four Hebrew captives, that He might represent His work before the people. He would reveal that He had power over the kingdoms of the world, to set up kings and to throw down kings. The King over all kings was communicating great truth to the king of Babylon, awakening in his mind a sense of his responsibility to God. He saw the contrast between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the most learned men in his kingdom.” Special Testimonies on Education, 10.

“Nebuchadnezzar Dreamed Dreams”

1 What was the effect of his dreams on the king’s state of mind? Daniel 2:1.

NOTE: “Soon after Daniel and his companions entered the service of the king of Babylon, events occurred that revealed to an idolatrous nation the power and faithfulness of the God of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar had a remarkable dream, by which ‘his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.’ But although the king’s mind was deeply impressed, he found it impossible, when he awoke, to recall the particulars.” Prophets and Kings, 491.

2 What command did the king make of his astrologers and wise men and how did they respond? Daniel 2:2–9.

NOTE: “Dissatisfied with their evasive answer, and suspicious because, despite their pretentious claims to reveal the secrets of men, they nevertheless seemed unwilling to grant him help, the king commanded his wise men, with promises of wealth and honor on the one hand, and threats of death on the other, to tell him not only the interpretation of the dream, but the dream itself. . . . Still the wise men returned the answer, ‘Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it.’” Prophets and Kings, 492.

“There is Not a Man That Can Show the King’s Matter”

3 When the wise men failed to satisfy the king, what was his reaction? Daniel 2:10–13.

NOTE: “The inability of the wise men to tell the dream, is a representation of the wise men of the present day, who have not discernment and learning and knowledge from the Most High, and therefore are unable to understand the prophecies. The most learned in the world’s lore, who are not watching to hear what God says in His word, and opening their hearts to receive that word and give it to others, are not representatives of His. It is not the great and learned men of the earth, kings and nobles, who will receive the truth unto eternal life, though it will be brought to them.” Fundamentals of Christian Education, 412.

4 What was Daniel’s suggestion when he heard of this matter? Daniel 2:14–18.

NOTE: “Upon hearing this, Daniel, taking his life in his hands, ventured into the king’s presence and begged that time be granted, that he might petition his God to reveal to him the dream and its interpretation. To this request the monarch acceded. ‘Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions.’ Together they sought for wisdom from the Source of light and knowledge. Their faith was strong in the consciousness that God had placed them where they were, that they were doing His work and meeting the demands of duty. In times of perplexity and danger they had always turned to Him for guidance and protection, and He had proved an ever-present help. Now with contrition of heart they submitted themselves anew to the Judge of the earth, pleading that He would grant them deliverance in this their time of special need.” Prophets and Kings, 493, 494.

“He Revealeth the Deep and Secret Things”

5 How did Daniel learn the king’s dream and its interpretation and what was his response? Daniel 2:19–23.

NOTE: “And they did not plead in vain. The God whom they had honored, now honored them. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon them, and to Daniel, ‘in a night vision,’ was revealed the king’s dream and its meaning. Daniel’s first act was to thank God for the revelation given him.” Prophets and Kings, 494.

6 How did Daniel reply to the king’s question? Daniel 2:26–28.

NOTE: “Behold the Jewish captive, calm and self-possessed, in the presence of the monarch of the world’s most powerful empire. In his first words he disclaimed honor for himself and exalted God as the source of all wisdom. To the anxious inquiry of the king, ‘Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? ’ he replied: ‘The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king; but there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.’” Prophets and Kings, 494, 497.

“The Form Thereof Was Terrible”

7 How did Daniel describe the details of the king’s dream? Daniel 2:31–35.

NOTE: “The image shown to Nebuchadnezzar in the visions of the night represents the kingdoms of the world. The metals in the image, symbolizing the different kingdoms, became less and less pure and valuable, from the head down. The head of the image was of gold, the breast and arms of silver, the sides of brass, and the feet and toes iron mingled with clay. So the kingdoms represented by them deteriorated in value.” Review and Herald, February 6, 1900.

8 What did the golden head of the image represent? Daniel 2:36–38.

NOTE: “The vision of the great image, in which Babylon was represented as the head of gold, was given Nebuchadnezzar in order that he might have a clear understanding in regard to the end of all things earthly, and also in regard to the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom. Although in the interpretation he was declared to be ‘a king of kings,’ this was because ‘the God of heaven’ had given him ‘a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.’ His kingdom was universal, extending ‘wheresoever the children of men dwell,’ yet it was to be followed by three other universal kingdoms, after which ‘the God of heaven’ would ‘set up a kingdom,’ which should ‘never be destroyed.’” Youth’s Instructor, October 11, 1904.

“After Thee . . .”

9 What did the silver breast and arms symbolize? What was the kingdom that superseded Babylon? Daniel 2:39, first part. Compare Daniel 5:28, 30, 31.

NOTE: “The image revealed to Nebuchadnezzar, while representing the deterioration of the kingdoms of the earth in power and glory, also fitly represents the deterioration of religion and morality among the people of these kingdoms. As nations forget God, in like proportion they become weak morally. Babylon passed away because in her prosperity she forgot God, and ascribed the glory of her prosperity to human achievement. The Medo-Persian kingdom was visited by the wrath of heaven because in this kingdom God’s law was trampled under foot. The fear of the Lord found no place in the hearts of the people. The prevailing influences in Medo-Persia were wickedness, blasphemy, and corruption.” Youth’s Instructor, September 22, 1903.

10 How was the third kingdom symbolized? What was the name of this kingdom? Daniel 2:39, last part. Compare Daniel 7:3–7, 20, 21.

NOTE: “Every nation that has come upon the stage of action has been permitted to occupy its place on the earth, that the fact might be determined whether it would fulfill the purposes of the Watcher and the Holy One. Prophecy has traced the rise and progress of the world’s great empires—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. With each of these, as with the nations of less power, history has repeated itself. Each has had its period of test; each has failed, its glory faded, its power departed.” Prophets and Kings, 535.

“The Fourth Kingdom”

11 How is the fourth kingdom described? Daniel 2:40.

NOTE: “What kingdom succeeded Greece in the empire of the world, for the legs of iron denote the fourth kingdom in the series? The testimony of history is full and explicit on this point. One kingdom did this, and one only, and that was Rome.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 54.

“When the empire of Babylon was so strong and its influence so far-reaching that seemingly the most powerful foe could not take its sceptre, Daniel, a man inspired by God, prophesied that it would pass away, notwithstanding its apparent magnificence, and that a second would succeed it. He prophesied also that the second empire would be succeeded by the third, and that a fourth empire should arise, more fierce, more determined, and more powerful than any kingdom that had preceded it. As strong as iron, this kingdom would subdue and break in pieces all the nations of the world.” Review and Herald, February 6, 1900.

12 How is the later stage of Rome described? Daniel 2:41–43.

NOTE: “We have come to a time when God’s sacred work is represented by the feet of the image in which the iron was mixed with the miry clay. . . . The mingling of church craft and state craft is represented by the iron and the clay. This union is weakening all the power of the churches. This investing the church with the power of the state will bring evil results. Men have almost passed the point of God’s forbearance. They have invested their strength in politics, and have united with the papacy.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 51.

“The kingdoms that followed were even more base and corrupt. They deteriorated because they cast off their allegiance to God. As they forgot Him, they sank lower and still lower in the scale of moral value. The vast empire of Rome crumbled to pieces, and from its ruins rose that mighty power, the Roman Catholic Church. This church boasts of her infallibility and her hereditary religion. But this religion is a horror to all who are acquainted with the secrets of the mystery of iniquity. The priests of this church maintain their ascendancy by keeping the people in ignorance of God’s will, as revealed in the Scriptures.” Youth’s Instructor, September 22, 1903.

“A Kingdom Which Shall Never Be Destroyed”

13 What was the outcome of the history revealed in the king’s dream? Daniel 2:44, 45. Compare Luke 20:17, 18.

NOTE: “Read the book of Daniel. Call up, point by point, the history of the kingdoms there represented. Behold statesmen, councils, powerful armies, and see how God wrought to abase the pride of men, and lay human glory in the dust. God alone is represented as great. In the vision of the prophet He is seen casting down one mighty ruler, and setting up another. He is revealed as the monarch of the universe, about to set up His everlasting kingdom—the Ancient of days, the living God, the Source of all wisdom, the Ruler of the present, the Revealer of the future. Read, and understand how poor, how frail, how short-lived, how erring, how guilty is man in lifting up his soul unto vanity. . . .” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4, 1166.

14 What was Nebuchadnezzar’s immediate reaction to the revelation made by Daniel and what request did Daniel make? Daniel 2:46–49.

NOTE: “The Lord was working in the Babylonian kingdom, and communicating light to the four Hebrew youth, in order that He might represent His work before the idolatrous nation. He would reveal that He had power over the kingdoms of the world,—power to enthrone and to dethrone kings. The King over all kings was communicating great truths to the Babylonian monarch, and awakening in his mind a realization of his responsibility to God. Nebuchadnezzar saw clearly the difference between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the most learned men of his kingdom.” Youth’s Instructor, September 8, 1903.

Editorial – Two Key Texts for Our Time

There are certain texts in the Bible that have special meaning for a certain time. For example, in the time of the apostle Paul, a key text for the first century Christians to understand was that the righteous man shall live by faith. (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:16, 17.) A key text that was present truth during the days of John Wesley was that without holiness no man will see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14.) A key text in 1844 was, “Behold the bridegroom comes; go out to meet Him.” Matthew 25:6.

Two key texts for the last generation living since 1798 are Revelation 12:17 and Revelation 14:12. These two texts point out the chief characteristics of God’s chosen people in the last days of earth’s history. The first one describes God’s people as the remnant, or last of the descendants of the woman; in other words, God’s elect people in the last days, His final movement or church. (Genesis 3:15 distinguishes between the children of God as descendants of the woman, in contrast to the children of the devil who are the descendants of the serpent. They are described as those who: keep the commandments. This means they would have to be Sabbath keepers because if you break one you have broken all. (James 2:8-12.); they have the testimony of Jesus and that is the spirit of prophecy. (Revelation 19:10.) In other words, the spirit of prophecy has been manifested in their midst.

Revelation 14:12 describes again God’s holy people (saints) in the last days, in contrast to those who worship the beast and his image and receive the beast’s mark in their forehead or in their hand. The faith of Jesus is that religious faith by which a person lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. A person is enabled to have this faith by the power of the Holy Spirit. (See John 14–16 and Romans 8.)

It is stated immediately after the warning of receiving the beast’s mark or worshiping his image, that the holy people of God keep His commandments. This directly implies that the receiving of the beast’s mark, or worshiping his image, involves the breaking of God’s commandments.

The Three Angels’ Messages are the focal point of the latter half of the book of Revelation which describes the very last epochal events in our world. Revelation 14:12 is a key text that everybody who desires to be saved at the end should especially study.

Bible Study Guides – A Revealer of Secrets

October 4, 2009 – October 10, 2009

Key Text

“There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.” Daniel 2:28.

Study Help: Prophets and Kings, 491–502; Fundamentals of Christian Education, 410–415.

Introduction

“In God’s name Daniel made known to the king the heaven-sent messages of instruction, warning, and rebuke, and he was not repulsed. Let God’s workers of today read the firm, bold testimony of Daniel and follow his example.” Testimonies, vol. 7, 151.

1 What did King Nebuchadnezzar receive? Daniel 2:1. For what purpose was it given?

Note: “[Daniel 2:36–40, 44 quoted.] This dream was given to the king of Babylon, the events of the future, reaching down to the end of time, were opened before him, that he might have light on this important subject. It was also given for the benefit of all future generations. The record was traced by the prophetic pen that the light might be shared by those kingdoms which should succeed the kingdom of Babylon.” The Signs of the Times, April 29, 1897.

2 In his perplexity, whom did the king seek for help? Daniel 2:2. How can we be doing the same thing today?

Note: “It is fondly supposed that heathen superstitions have disappeared before the civilization of the twentieth century. But the word of God and the stern testimony of facts declare that sorcery is practiced in this age as verily as in the days of the old-time magicians. The ancient system of magic is, in reality, the same as what is now known as modern spiritualism.” The Acts of the Apostles, 289.

3 What did the wise men reveal by their answer? Daniel 2:3–7. What is the source of true wisdom?

Note: “Nebuchadnezzar began to see that the men whom he trusted to reveal mysteries through their boasted wisdom, failed him in his great perplexity.” Fundamentals of Christian Education, 410.

“The historic events related in the king’s dream were of consequence to him; but the dream was taken from him, that the wise men by their claimed understanding of mysteries, should not place upon it a false interpretation. The lessons taught in it were given by God for those who live in our day. The inability of the wise men to tell the dream, is a representation of the wise men of the present day, who have not discernment and learning and knowledge from the Most High, and therefore are unable to understand the prophecies.” Ibid., 412.

4 How did Nebuchadnezzar avoid being deceived? Daniel 2:8, 9. What command was given by the king? Daniel 2:10–13.

Note: “Nebuchadnezzar demanded not only the interpretation of the dream, but the relation of the dream itself. If the wise men would supply this, he would accept it as a proof of their claim as magicians and astrologers. The magicians were full of fear and trembling. They declared that the request of the king was something unreasonable, and the test beyond that which had ever been required of any man. The king became furious, and acted like all men who have great power and uncontrollable passions. He decided that every one of them should be put to death, and as Daniel and his fellows were numbered with the wise men, they also were to share this fate.” The Youth’s Instructor, November 22, 1894.

5 How did Daniel react in an hour of crisis? Daniel 2:14–18.

Note: “Daniel … pleaded for time to bring this matter before the supreme court of the universe, from whose decision there could be no appeal. When his request was granted, Daniel laid the whole matter before his companions, who were united with him in worshiping the true God. The matter was fully considered, and on their bended knees they pleaded that God would give them the power and wisdom that would alone avail them in their great necessity. …

“I would impress upon the youth that Daniel’s God is their God, and whatever difficulty may arise, let them do as did Daniel, ‘desire mercies of the God of heaven.’ [Daniel 2:18.]” Sons and Daughters of God, 216.

“Behold the Jewish captive, calm and self-possessed, in the presence of the monarch of the world’s most powerful empire. In his first words he disclaimed honor for himself and exalted God as the source of all wisdom.” Prophets and Kings, 494.

6 What was the first thing Daniel did when his prayer was answered? Daniel 2:19–23. What is God willing to do today?

Note: “As God made known His will to the Hebrew captives, to those who were most separate from the customs and practices of a world lying in wickedness, so will the Lord communicate light from heaven to all who will appreciate a ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ To them He will express His mind. Those who are least bound up with worldly ideas, are the most separate from display, and vanity, and pride, and love of promotion, who stand forth as His peculiar people, zealous of good works,—to these He will reveal the meaning of His word. The very first exhibition of God’s power to the Hebrew captives was in showing the defective wisdom of the great ones of the earth. The wisdom of men is foolishness with God. The magicians revealed their ignorance of the light before the Lord revealed His wisdom as supreme.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, 101, 102.

7 Name some noble qualities that we should learn from Daniel. Daniel 2:24–30.

Note: “The Jewish captive stands before the monarch of the most powerful empire the sun has ever shone upon. The king is in great distress amid all his riches and glory, but the youthful exile is peaceful and happy in his God. Now, if ever, is the time for Daniel to exalt himself, to make prominent his own goodness and superior wisdom. But his first effort is to disclaim all honor for himself and to exalt God as the source of wisdom.” The Sanctified Life, 35, 36.

“When called to stand before King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel did not hesitate to acknowledge the source of his wisdom. Did that faithful recognition of God detract from Daniel’s influence in the king’s court? By no means; it was the secret of his power; it secured for him favor in the eyes of the ruler of Babylon. …

“Never does man show greater folly than when he seeks to secure acceptance and recognition in the world by sacrificing in any degree the allegiance and honor due to God.” Testimonies, vol. 7, 151.

“Daniel was imbued with the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and he pleaded that the wise men of Babylon should not be destroyed. … The transforming grace of God was made manifest in His servant, and he pleaded most earnestly for the lives of the very men who afterwards in a secret, underhanded manner, made plans by which they thought to put an end to the life of Daniel. These men became jealous of Daniel because he found favor with kings and nobles, and was honored as the greatest man in Babylon.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, 319, 320.

8 What is revealed by the sequence of worldly dominion as depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream? Daniel 2:31–43.

Note: “The image revealed to Nebuchadnezzar, while representing the deterioration of the kingdoms of the earth in power and glory, also fitly represents the deterioration of religion and morality among the people of these kingdoms. As nations forget God, in like proportion they become weak morally.

“Babylon passed away because in her prosperity she forgot God, and ascribed the glory of her prosperity to human achievement.

“The Medo-Persian kingdom was visited by the wrath of heaven because in this kingdom God’s law was trampled under foot. The fear of the Lord found no place in the hearts of the people. The prevailing influences in Medo-Persia were wickedness, blasphemy, and corruption.

“The kingdoms that followed were even more base and corrupt. They deteriorated because they cast off their allegiance to God. As they forgot Him, they sank lower and still lower in the scale of moral value.

“We have come to a time when God’s sacred work is represented by the feet of the image in which the iron was mixed with the miry clay.” “Ellen G. White Comments,” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4, 11

9 How is the eternal kingdom of God represented? Daniel 2:44, 45. Who is the stone or rock? Isaiah 28:16; I Corinthians 3:11.

Note: “The kingdom of God’s grace is now being established, as day by day hearts that have been full of sin and rebellion yield to the sovereignty of His love. But the full establishment of the kingdom of His glory will not take place until the second coming of Christ to this world.” Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, 108.

10 How was the king’s satisfaction made apparent? Daniel 2:46–49.

Note: “Nebuchadnezzar felt that he could accept this interpretation as a divine revelation; for to Daniel had been revealed every detail of the dream. The solemn truths conveyed by the interpretation of this vision of the night made a deep impression on the sovereign’s mind.” “Ellen G. White Comments,” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4, 1169.

Additional Reading

“He who has to deal with persons differing so widely in character, disposition, and temperament will have trials, perplexities, and collisions, even when he does his best. He may be disgusted with the ignorance, pride, and independence which he will meet; but this should not discourage him. He should stand where he will sway, rather than be swayed. Firm as a rock to principle, with an intelligent faith, he should stand uncorrupted by surrounding influences. The people of God should not be transformed by the various influences to which they must necessarily be exposed, but they must stand up for Jesus and by the aid of His Spirit exert a transforming power upon minds deformed by false habits and defiled by sin. …

“We must confess Christ openly and bravely, exhibiting in our characters His meekness, humility, and love, till men shall be charmed by the beauty of holiness. It is not the best way to preserve our religion as we bottle perfumes lest the fragrance should escape.

“The very conflicts and rebuffs we meet are to make us stronger and give stability to our faith. We are not to be swayed, like a reed in the wind, by every passing influence. Our souls, warmed and invigorated by the truths of the gospel, and refreshed by divine grace, are to open and expand, and shed their fragrance upon others. Clad in the whole armor of righteousness, we can meet any influence and our purity remain untarnished.

“All should consider that God’s claims upon them are paramount to all others. God has given to every person capabilities to improve, that he may reflect glory to the Giver. Everyday some progress should be made. If the workers leave the sanitarium as they entered it, without making decided improvement, gaining in knowledge and spiritual strength, they have met with loss. God designs that Christians shall grow continually, grow up unto the full stature of men and women in Christ. All who do not grow stronger, and become more firmly rooted and grounded in the truth, are continually retrograding.

“A special effort should be made to secure the services of conscientious, Christian workers. It is the purpose of God that a health institution should be organized and controlled exclusively by Seventh-day Adventists; and when unbelievers are brought in to occupy responsible positions, an influence is presiding there that will tell with great weight against the sanitarium. God did not intend that this institution should be carried on after the order of any other health institute in the land, but that it should be one of the most effectual instrumentalities in His hands of giving light to the world. It should stand forth with scientific ability, with moral and spiritual power, and as a faithful sentinel of reform in all its bearings; and all who act a part in it should be reformers, having respect to its rules, and heeding the light of health reform now shining upon us as a people.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 555, 556.

© Reformation Herald Publishing Association, Roanoke, Virginia. Reprinted by permission.

Question & Answer – What formed the beast and its image?

Apostasy. “When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the state and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of ‘heresy.’ In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends. …

“It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and this prepared the way for the development of the papacy—the beast. Said Paul: ‘There’ shall ‘come a falling away, … and that man of sin be revealed’ (2 Thessalonians 2:3). So apostasy in the church will prepare the way for the image to the beast.

“The Bible declares that before the coming of the Lord there will exist a state of religious declension similar to that in the first centuries.” The Great Controversy, 443, 444.

“After the warning against the worship of the beast and his image the prophecy declares: ‘Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus’ (Revelation 14:12). Since those who keep God’s commandments are thus placed in contrast with those that worship the beast and his image and receive his mark, it follows that the keeping of God’s law, on the one hand, and its violation, on the other, will make the distinction between the worshipers of God and the worshipers of the beast.

“The special characteristic of the beast, and therefore of his image, is the breaking of God’s commandments. Says Daniel, of the little horn, the papacy: ‘He shall think to change times and the law’ (Daniel 7:25 R.V.). And Paul styled the same power the ‘man of sin’ (2 Thessalonians 2:3), who was to exalt himself above God. One prophecy is a complement of the other. Only by changing God’s law could the papacy exalt itself above God; whoever should understandingly keep the law as thus changed would be giving supreme honor to that power by which the change was made.” Ibid.