An Undetected Weakness

But there was one weakness in the new constitution that did not show up clearly when it was adopted. It was to cause considerable concern in the months that followed. This related to the election of the officers of the General Conference.5BIO 95.1

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. It was recognized at the time that this could mean that a man might be chairman for only one year.5BIO 95.2

Undoubtedly this provision came about as an overreaction to the desire to get away from any “kingly power” (Letter 49, 1903), a point that was pushed hard by Elder A. T. Jones, a member of the committee on organization.5BIO 95.3

While this arrangement would clearly reduce the possibility of anyone exercising kingly power, it also greatly undercut responsible leadership. 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. It was too unwieldy. There was no church leader with a mandate from the church as represented by its delegates.5BIO 95.4

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. A. G. Daniells was chosen as chairman of the General Conference Committee. 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.5BIO 95.5

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. 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. 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 and Gospel Workers, 342, 343). She did condemn the exercise of kingly power.5BIO 95.6

The weakness, which soon became very apparent, was corrected at the next session of the General Conference—the session of 1903. [Note: See A. V. Olson, through crisis to victory, pp. 316-320.]5BIO 96.1