W. C. White Not Present

W. C. White, the most valuable source person available, could have answered some of the questions more accurately, more constructively, than anyone else. ^{14W. W. Prescott’s ambiguity, as sensed by some present, would have been clarified by W. C. White’s presence and counsel.} Perhaps, with his experience and communicative skills, he could have helped to focus more clearly the issues that were seriously dividing church leaders and laypeople at that time, and for years to come. That focus would have led to a careful, forthright examination of the facts regarding the work of a prophet in modern times. Cutting away mistaken ideas would have been painful for some, but the healing would have been quicker and longer lasting than the widening gap of confidence that followed the Conference/Council.MOL 439.1

However, another aspect must be considered: For many church leaders, at the Conference and in the field, W. C. White was suspect, and had been for twenty years, as being one of the “liberals.” ^{15For example, note the accusations by his brother Edson and echoed by followers of Dr. Kellogg in 1906—Bio., vol. 6, pp. 62, 94-101, 155-157; the harsh attack at the 1913 General Conference and Autumn Council, cited in Moon, W. C. White and E. G. White, pp. 340-342. Stephen Haskell’s unsureness regarding W. C. White’s role as the chief editor of his mother’s writings was reflected in letters to both him and his mother in 1909. Haskell referred to “the experience that I have had,” and challenged his younger colleague: “It is the dropping out of some of these things from what has been published in your mother’s writings, and the changing of some things, that has been taken advantage of by the enemies of the truth and today is the cause of some of our best brethren losing confidence in you; because they think you change your mother’s writings and call it ‘editing.’ Now I do not mean by this that you make changes in the thought, but in the wording and the reading of them.” Later in the letter he recalled an experience “that put me to my stumps.” A woman arose in a meeting where Haskell had announced that he would defend “your mother’s writings from the Bible.” The woman asked, “Can you prove from the Bible that a prophet ever had sons that changed the prophet’s testimony, and called it editing?” Haskell answered in substance “that he could prove from the Bible that prophets had sons that did not always do right, and their not doing right tested the people. She sat down and said no more.” Moon, W. C. White and E. G. White, p. 361.} Why? Because he had been emphasizing that his mother’s writings should always be understood in context with “time, place, and circumstances” determining their meaning and application. W. C. White, with Daniells, Wilcox, and later Prescott, represented those who were thought-inspirationists, though that term had not been used at that time.MOL 439.2

Often at the heart of the controversy with Dr. J. H. Kellogg and A. T. Jones was the issue of how to interpret the statements of Ellen White. These two articulate leaders eventually used Mrs. White’s writings only when they seemed to support their views. Part of Jones’s attack on Daniells was based on Mrs. White’s comments regarding the unreliability of General Conference leadership in 1897, and then charging that the same statements applied in 1906. ^{16Haloviak, “In the Shadow of the ‘Daily’...”, p. 14. See page 396.} On other occasions, when they found difficulty with her writings, their response was that “someone” had told her wrong information. Often that “someone” was, in their mind, her son W. C. White. ^{17See Selected Messages 3:63; Manuscript Releases 13:122.}MOL 439.3

From 1919 to his death in 1937, W. C. White’s contribution to the facts surrounding the prophetic ministry of his mother was enormously helpful. ^{18Moon, W. C. White and E. G. White, pp. 451-456.}MOL 439.4

(2) Beneath the differences of the delegates (and many of the ministers and lay-people in the churches) over such agenda topics as the Eastern question, the Arian-Trinity controversy, the two covenants, the “daily” (Daniel 8:11-13), beginning and ending of the 1260 years, and the king of the north (Daniel 11), was the issue of how to interpret Ellen White. Accusations of disloyalty to her, of unfaithfulness to her authority by picking and choosing her writings as to what was inspired, of unsafe leaders leading the denomination down a fearful path without the guidance that she had given the denomination for seventy years—all such spirited words directed at General Conference officers and those among the teachers in the colleges who supported them did not bring out the best in people, on either side.MOL 439.5

The Conference/Council was charged with tension the moment it opened. At stake, each side believed, was the authority of Ellen White. Each side further believed that on this issue would hang the future of the church. ^{19Former General Conference president George I. Butler, in a letter written to A. G. Daniells, had foreseen the developing fissure between these two groups over conflicting interpretations of how to read Ellen White: “It is a terrible, terrible thing! And are we going into the conflict before us ... the great and closing conflict, with two camps wrangling with each other, Arthur? I do not believe it is possible, unless we get this thing fixed up in some way, and union restored, to go on without being terribly crippled for years, and loss of many souls.” Haloviak, “In the Shadow of the ‘Daily’ ...”, p. 13.}MOL 439.6

(3) Both sides, verbal- and thought- inspirationists, had much of value to hold on to. But neither side saw the heart-truth for which the other was contending. Thus they missed the transcending, healing nature of the ellipse of truth. ^{20See pp. 573-575.} Neither side saw clearly the biggest reason why the ministry of Mrs. White had made such an enormous impact on their lives, though each appealed to their own experience under her guidance as undeniable. Neither side could see clearly that her distinctive message, her coherent, integrating theological principles, were the foundation for her guiding concepts in education, health, mission, and the Adventist theological teachings.MOL 439.7

The foundation principles, understood as the Great Controversy Theme, ^{21See pp. 256-263.} were the reasons why the policies these leaders had followed were so effective. They had been living so close to the rapidly developing church and the equally rapid change in national and world conditions that most of them had not stepped back far enough to see the big picture. Both sides saw these undeniably wonderful results (in education, health, and rapid church growth) and they wanted to protect their divinely guided messenger from the use or misuse of her writings. Each side saw the other as the ultimate problem when they perceived what seemed to be a lack of appreciation for the gift of prophecy in their midst.MOL 440.1