Extreme interpretations of the Laodicean message by E. L. Barr and others: peremptory exclusion of members and the burning of daguerreotypes.1EGWLM 729.3

Dear Sister Chamberlain:

Duty compels me to write you a few lines. About one year ago when we visited the East, things were in great confusion. We were obliged to see things in the utmost confusion, and suffered much in mind on account of this wretched state of things. I was shown in vision while at Clinton [Massachusetts] the cause of this confusion. At the same time I was shown that it would be of no use for Brother Barr [Eli L. Barr]²

Identity: “Brother Barr,” we are told, was a traveling preacher “among the churches East,” gave an extreme interpretation of the Laodicean message, and was involved in the burning of pictures. Only E. L. Barr fits this description. For further details, see notes below.

to travel among the churches East, for he could not do them good; that he had better be laboring in a humble way, working with his hands, than to do this; and that he possessed too much dignity, etc.^{3
Apart from this brief reference there is no extant record of the Clinton vision. Ellen and James White, together with J. N. Loughborough, had participated in meetings in Clinton, Massachusetts, Nov. 5-7, 1858. Perhaps the following statement in James White's report in the Review is an allusion to the vision: “[At] our meeting at Clinton, Mass. … the erring were reproved and the distracted and fainting ones were greatly encouraged.”
See: J. W. [James White], “Eastern Tour,” Review, Dec. 30, 1858, p. 45.}1EGWLM 729.4

While at Dartmouth, Mass., a few weeks since, again the power of God rested upon me and I was wrapped up in a vision of God's glory. In that vision I was shown the state of things in Connecticut, in Massachusetts, in Maine, and in New York City.⁴

The vision given Ellen White while visiting Dartmouth (Sept. 15-18, 1859) is related in Lts 7, 19, 16, and 17, 1859 (Sept. 24, Oct. 4, Oct. 28). The central theme is how the call for repentance in the Laodicean message had been distorted and misapplied in Connecticut (Lts 7, 19) and New York (Lts 16, 17).

My soul was wrung with keen anguish as I saw the state of things. I was shown that the ministers, or those who professed to be servants of God, had caused much of this sad state of things for lack of real spiritual intelligence. Ministers of God should understand their work and their calling. They should not give the least influence to a hurried, fanatical spirit.1EGWLM 730.1

I saw that Brother Barr had done this, and when the message to the Laodiceans was given, a hurried fanatical spirit came in and burdens and exercises were had that the Lord was not in. No time was granted individuals to develop character. Angels of God were patiently waiting to weigh moral worth, and to mark the development of character. But some went ahead of the angels and were burdened and exercised because the work was not closed up at once. They did not wait patiently for the Lord to test character and to spue out the lukewarm, but took that work into their own hands; and unless they could see individuals coming up to the point they thought they should reach, they pushed them off.⁵

In the period after the autumn of 1856, when Sabbatarian Adventists had first begun to apply the Laodicean message (see EGWEnc) of Revelation 3 to their own movement, the call for repentance and wholehearted engagement had been positively received by many members. However, some, instead of pursuing personal reformation, turned their attention to the failings of fellow members. An extreme interpretation of the Laodicean message, condemned in this letter, pressed for speedy confession and reformation among members judged to be delinquent. Those unwilling or unable to promptly comply were thought to have been “spued out of the mouth of the Lord” (see Rev. 3:16) and consequently were ostracized by the rest of the group.

A fear came over them—fear to associate with the ones they thought spued out of the mouth of the Lord. Why did they not read the connection—Rev. 3:18-22? A strange, fearful, excitable, fanatical spirit came in and bore rule.1EGWLM 730.2

I saw that if Brother Barr had understood his duty, he would have checked this spirit at once. But he was not standing in the counsel of the Lord. I was pointed to the work in Connecticut. Oh, what a work! The brethren Graham [William Henry, Bruce, and Andrew Graham]⁶

Identities: One month earlier, while in Kensington, Connecticut, Ellen White noted in her diary that she had met Andrew, Bruce, and William Graham (Ms 7, 1859 [Sept. 2 entry]). All three are listed in the 1860 census of Berlin Township, in which Kensington is located. Census details strongly suggest that they were brothers. Further, the only Grahams in the Review of the 1850s who had Connecticut addresses are these three men. One of them, William Graham, was a deacon in the Berlin church for 20 years.

See: 1860 U.S. Federal Census, “Bruce Graham” and “Andrew Graham,” Connecticut, Hartford County, Berlin, p. 53; 1860 U.S. Federal Census, “Wm H. Graham,” Connecticut, Hartford County, Berlin, p. 34; search term “Graham” in Words of the Pioneers; obituary: “William Henry Graham,” Review, July 2, 1925, p. 22.

were led by a wrong spirit. Those burdens and exercises they had were not of the Lord. They were in a deception. Brother Barr encouraged this, and by his words created a fearful excitement when Sister Lyman^{7
Identity: This might be Clarissa Lyman, about 75 years old, living in the home of Sabbatarian pioneers Albert and Hannah Belden in Berlin, Connecticut.
See: 1860 U.S. Federal Census, “Albert Belden,” Connecticut, Hartford County, Berlin, p. 52.} was set aside by one of these burdens. Brother Barr said, “‘He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.’ Who goes next? There may be hope today; tomorrow it is gone.”^{8
Although this particular statement cannot be traced, the following extract by E. L. Barr, published in the Review, illustrates his uncompromising stance. “Arise! ye that are heartily in the truth … and give a testimony that shall ring in the ears of the lukewarm, the self-righteous and the insubordinate ones, and clear your garments from the blood of all men! … No hiding nor covering up wrongs now! No half-way work any longer! ‘He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck shall suddenly be destroyed and that without remedy.’ Prov. xxix, 1.”
See: E. L. Barr, “The Cause in the East,” Review, Aug. 5, 1858, p. 96.}1EGWLM 730.3

I was shown Sophronia C.⁹

It is possible that Sophronia Chamberlain, originally from Maine, is referred to here (not a daughter of Mary Ann Chamberlain, addressee of this letter). About 20 years old at this time, she subsequently married one of the Graham brothers, Andrew Graham, sometime after his first wife died in 1862.

See: 1870 U.S. Federal Census, “Sophronia C. Graham,” Michigan, Calhoun County, Battle Creek, p. 21; obituary: “Sophronia Graham,” Review, July 18, 1871, p. 39.

mixed up with these strange exercises; and the burdens and exercises for Mary North and John Wilcox [Mary S. and John Y. Wilcox]^{10
Identity: See note 8 in Lt 7, 1859 (Sept. 24), for evidence of these identifications.} were uncalled for. It was not of God. They were made to believe that they had greatly sinned where there was no sin. Their thinking of marriage might have been injudicious; further than this they were not guilty, and the treatment of Mary was cruel in the extreme. God loves Mary and John.1EGWLM 731.1

Then the moves Brother Barr made in your place were not actuated by the Lord. It was in his own spirit he came to you. His influence over you and the burning of those pictures¹¹

Although not mentioning E. L. Barr by name, James White no doubt had him, among others, in mind when he complained in the next Review of those preachers who had “run from place to place on the cars, encouraging a fanatical spirit in burning daguerreotypes &c., worse than wasting their Lord's money, and leaving the brethren in distraction.” Originating in France in 1839, daguerreotype photographs achieved their greatest popularity in the United States in the 1840s and 1850s. Prices for a medium-size portrait in the early 1850s ranged from 50 cents to $2, depending on quality. At a time when unskilled labor averaged about $1.00 a day in the Midwest and $1.10 in the Northeast this was a considerable outlay, although more affordable for the middle classes. Part of Barr's criticism was that the daguerreotype craze had led members to use scarce funds that could have been better spent, and on this point both Ellen and James White would no doubt have agreed. Barr's problem, his “fanatical spirit,” was to go to extremes and press for the burning of daguerreotypes owned by members.

See: J. W. [James White], “New Fields,” Review, Oct. 6, 1859, p. 156; Beaumont Newhall, The Daguerreotype in America, pp. 11, 63; Robert A. Margo, Wages and Labor Markets in the United States, 1820-1860, pp. 67, 68.

and the cases^{12
Daguerreotypes had glass surfaces and needed the protection of velvet-lined cases.
See: Newhall, The Daguerreotype in America, p. 11.} was not right. I was shown that this was a loss that need not to have been. The cases could have been exchanged for something useful. And then again I saw that there was destruction of property that was not your own. It belonged to another. And if you could not conscientiously keep it you should have handed it to the owners and then you would be clear, your duty done, and they could find no reason … [remainder missing].1EGWLM 731.2

Lt 10, 1859

Published in AY