Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis

W. A. Colcord to E. G. White, Jul. 12, 1892

office of the
Seventh-day Adventist
GENERAL CONFERENCE
Corner Main and Washington Sts.
Battle Creek, Mich.
Battle Creek, Mich., July 12, 1892.
Mrs. E. G. White,
Bible Echo, N. Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.
Dear Sister White:—

I just receiver a letter from your son, W. C. White, last evening, and as I am writing to him I thought I would also write a little to you. I was glad to learn that you were not at the time of his writing, June 9th, suffering quite so much as you had been a month previous. We have been very sorry to learn that you not enjoyed as good health there as you apparently had been in this country before leaving. We trust, however, that the Lord will see fit to spare your life to return to this country, and be with us once more, I was thinking only yesterday, how I would love to hear your voice in our midst once more. MMM 200.1

I presume you are receiving considerable mail from different ones here, and for this reason I hardly know what to write you; but there are a few things which I will take the liberty to speak to you about, though I do not wish you to think I have to complaints or grievances concerning myself to come to you about. There are, however, some things developing here which are a source sorrow and regret to me. MMM 200.2

While you were writing that latest testimony to us dated at Melbourne, Australia, Feb. 18, 1892, in which you said, “Something great and decisive is to take place, and that right early,” the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, declaring this to be a Christian nation, was being written out and was agreed to and issued by the members of the supreme bench February 29th. As soon as Elder A.T. Jones received a copy of this decision of the Supreme Court, he at once saw that this was significant and decisive step in the line of the fulfillment of Revelation 13:11-18, and so presented the matter in tow sermons herd in the Tabernacle, which appeared in the “Review & Herald” under dates of May 31st, and June 7th, 14th, and 21st, each sermon occupying two numbers. My stenographer, W.E. Howell, took the sermons down, and I was the one who was instrumental in having them written out and presented to the “Review & Herald” for publications. When I took it over to Elder Smith, about the first thing he remarked to me was that he did not believe Elder Jones’ position that this decision virtually made the image of the beast, and that the next thing would be the giving of life to it, and its speaking and acting. Elder Jones held that this virtually formed the image of the beast, the same as God breathing of the breath of life into it to have what the prophecy foretold, an image here with life speaking and acting. Elder Smith said that if this decision practically formed the image, that we had had the image here all the while, as this decision referred to the religious sentiment that had been in this country, and the religious tests that had been required by certain state constitutions in the way of a belief in God, the Bible, the Trinity, etc. together with other such matters as state Sunday laws, etc. on top of all of which they declared that this was a “Christian nation.” But I told him that the decision itself, I thought, meant something, and that his reasoning in regard to it was similar to that of our opponents in claiming that if Sunday keeping was to be enforced as the mark of the beast, then all who have ever kept Sunday have had the mark of the beast. But it seems he could not see it. I did not, however, urge that Elder Jones’ sermons be printed. He took them and said he would see about it, and finally decided, to let them go in. But in the number containing the last part of Elder Jones’ last discourse, Elder Smith, in answer to a question asked by “C. E.” (Brother Eldridge, I presume), evidently attempted to upset Elder Jones’ position by stating that “The decision of Justice Brewer makes no new thing;” that “we cannot apply this to the image, for that would not be according to the prophecy; for the image does not exist from the beginning;” that “the great wonders, even to making fire come down from heaven, precede the formation of the image.” MMM 200.3

It does not seem to me it was right for Elder Smith to allow sermons preached by a brother, which he did not believe, to go into the “Review”, and then at the conclusion of them to speak directly against them, and attempt to nullify the good effect which they were evidently calculated to have upon our people in the way of arousing them to see the signs of the times and the condition of things in this government. In last week’s “Review,” July 5th, Elder Smith even goes further, and says that the image of the beast “has not yet come in sight.” It seems to me it has been in sight for some time. Such statements as these from such a source it seems to me cannot do otherwise than have a dampening effect upon many of our people. In fact we have pretty good evidence that such is already the case. In a letter Brother Allen Moon wrote under date of June 27th, from Washington, D. C., he says:— MMM 201.1

“I notice that Brother Jones and Brother Smith do not see things alike. I am sorry to see this conflict of sentiment, for it has the effect of putting our brethren to sleep. This is very noticeable here, and I presume it is the case otherwheres.” MMM 201.2

And in a letter I received day before yesterday from Elder Geo. B. Thompson, of Illinois, he says:— MMM 201.3

“Of late the “Review” has become a jargon of conflicting voices. Elder Orcutt’s criticism in the last “Review” on Elder Jones, I think altogether out of place, and shows a wrong spirit. This Babylon of voices is having a bad effect too. A few days ago I wrote my brother, who is not an Adventist, but much interested if he had read Elder Jones’ articles on the ‘Image of the Beast’. In reply he said he had, and that they made a sinner like him tremble; but he says, ‘Don’t Elder Smith contradict Elder Jones?’ Being unconverted, Elder Smith’s article seemed to neutralize, largely, the effect of Elder J’s article. For this I am sorry, and trust that the time is not far distant when circumstances will change, when the Lord in his good providence will bring harmony again, and the “Review” once more become harmonious.” MMM 201.4

Others from other quarters report in the same line, but this is sufficient to show what the natural results of such a clashing of voices in our denominational paper must inevitably produce. I can see only one possible good to come out of it all, and that is, it may set some of our brethren to thinking and studying and reading as they have not been doing heretofore. MMM 202.1

In last week’s “Review” Elder Smith says:— MMM 202.2

“We should be careful to be well informed on the subjects we discuss, and then keep within the facts in the case.... Don’t be in such haste for an image to the east, as to say it is here, when it has not yet come in sight; don’t be so impatient for eternal life as to imagine we have it here in this mortal state, nor think that we have got into the kingdom before we leave this earth.” MMM 202.3

If I am able to discern rightly, this, it seems to me, is something in the line of what you describe in “Testimony” No. 33, p. 243, which reads this:— MMM 202.4

“If the leading man in our conferences do not now accept the message sent them by God, and fall into line for action, the churches will suffer great loss. When the watchman seeing the sword coming, gives the trumpet a certain sound, the people along the line will echo the warning, and all will have opportunity to make ready for the conflict. But too often the leader has stood hesitating, seeming to say, ‘Let us not be in too great haste. There may be a mistake. We must be careful not to raise a false alarm.’ The very hesitancy and uncertainty on his part is crying, ‘Peace and Safety.’ ‘Do not get excited. Be not alarmed. There is a great deal more made of this Religious Amendment question than is demanded. This agitation will all die down.’ This he virtually denies the message sent from God; and the warning which was designed to stir the churches, fails to do its work.” MMM 202.5

In the “Review” of March 25, 1890 you said: “If a brother is teaching error, those who are in responsible positions ought to know it; and if they are teaching truth, they ought to take their stand at his side. We all ought to know what is being taught among us, for if it is true, we need to know it.” MMM 202.6

The sermons of Elder A. T. Jones I referred to, I know from what I have heard have stirred many of our people. A large number of extra copies of the “Review” containing them were printed, but the supply was soon exhausted, and Sister Woolsey, who has charge of the subscription list, says she could have used 500 copies more than she had, in supplying the demand for them. MMM 202.7

But another little matter recently came to light, which would indicate that our brethren in the field were not going to be allowed to express their convictions upon this matter through the “Review.” Elder J. W. Bagby, of Illinois, a brother who boarded with me during the ministerial institute held here last fall, wrote in a report, in which he said: MMM 202.8

“The work is onward in southern Illinois. I praise God that while the image may be erected, and only waits to have life to be able to speak with great power, yet God has greater power, and will overrule all for the good of his people.” MMM 203.1

This it seems got into page form before Elder Smith noticed it, whereupon, to save making over the page, which an expunging of this would require, he changed it to read as follows:— MMM 203.2

“The work is onward in southern Illinois. I praise God that while events are rapidly occurring to fulfill Revelation 13:11-18, and bring the long-looked for crisis upon us” etc. MMM 203.3

Although this at first glance might appear to be a very slight change, it virtually placed Brother Bag by on the opposite side of the question from that which he evidently intended to be placed. In fact in a letter which I have received from him since he wrote his report, he states that he came to the same conclusion as Brother Jones as soon as he read the decision of the Supreme Court; and that he preached it to one of our churches in southern Illinois, and wrote it home to his wife, before he saw Brother Jones’ sermons in the “Review.” MMM 203.4

But in addition to this change Elder Smith gave instruction to the “Review” proof-readers that hereafter when anything of this kind came in, they were to strike it out. It would seem that all this was not right. In the Sabbath-school Worker for June I notice you say:— MMM 203.5

“Precious light is to shine forth from the word of God, and let no one presume to dictate what shall or what shall not be brought before the people in the messages of enlightenment that he shall send, and so quench the Spirit of God. Whatever may be his position of authority, no one has a right to shut away the light from the people.” MMM 203.6

As this matter came under my notice without my making any attempt to learn of it, the foreman on the “Review” calling my attention to it, I thought it proper to call the attention of some of the leading brethren to it. I did so to Capt. Eldridge, Elder A. T. Jones, Bro. Bagby and a few others. Brother Eldridge said he did not believe all I told him-about it, and said he was going to have it brought up on the Board. This he did day before yesterday, when Elder Smith, upon being questioned, admitted that he made the change in Brother Bagby’s report, and gave the order to the proof-readers, as stated. But for reasons which I am not able to explain, I think the Board exonerated him. MMM 203.7

It may be that I did wrong in calling the attention of these brethren to this matter as I did. But it did not appear to me to be right to keep perfectly still, when what I could not believe to be other than crookedness was going on. But however this may be, I know I did not start the controversy over the image question. Elder Smith, I think, certainly did this when he allowed Elder Jones’ sermons to go in when he did not believe them, and then undertook to fight against and oppose them. I love Elder Smith, and have admired his writings, but I am not willing to follow along blindly after any man. I want to discern where the Spirit of the Lord is, and receive the Lord’s messages as they come to us, come from whatever source they may. I know that you have said the trumpet ought to give a certain sound, of and that when this is done the people will rouse to action and the message will echo warning along the line, and make ready for the conflict. If I can discern the voice of the true Shepherd, Elder Jones’ appeals are of this nature, and I would not dare to raise up against them, and feel pained when I see others doing so. Possibly I have not taken the right course in everything I have done, but I think my intentions have been good. I have not favored nor talked in favor of any plan or scheme to have Elder Smith taken off from the “Review & Herald.” I believe, as you said in the “Review” of March 18, 1890, that it is not God’s design to set the old workers aside, for their experience and capabilities are all needed for the work. But in order that the work may be carried forward, God brings in others whom he has ready to carry the message upward and forward as God shall direct. You do say in this, however, that “if the men whom God has used become jealous and envious and imagine evil, they will not fill the place, but will stand directly in the way of the advancement of the work. Then the work will move without them, and that is a great blessing.” MMM 203.8

I would not have said a word, nor written what I have to you, did I not believe that this crossfiring and opposition to the plain, straight forward message of one whom I believe is a chosen servant of God, is in the line of shutting out the light and truth from the people, which they so much need at this time. I want to stand in the light and take a course that will be on the side of right and truth. I desire counsel from those who are standing in a position to give good counsel; and I think I am also ready to acknowledge whatever mistakes I may have made, when they are pointed out to me. MMM 204.1

I will not write more this time.
Sincerely,
Yours in the love of the truth,
H. MMM 204.2

P.S.—The following is from a letter I just received from Eld. Haskell:—“I have sent four articles to Brother Smith for the “Review.” In one of them I took the position the same as Bro. Jones on the image; but Bro. Smith has written me a kind note suggesting some changes, so it would be he thinks sound in the faith. I have not as yet duly considered it: I wrote the articles before I had seen or even known of Bro. Jones’ position, although it appeared to me to be the truth and every one could see it. It is not necessary to say anything about this. I should like to have had it appear Bro. Smith did not in any way refuse to publish it, but he seemed to think that in that particular point it was not sound in the faith. [Selection ends here.] MMM 204.3