The Neglect of the Spirit of Prophecy

But there was another matter of large importance to which the conference addressed itself, and that was a seeming decline of the influence of the Spirit of Prophecy in their midst. Ellen White was to speak of it in reporting the vision given at the close of the conference: “I saw that the Spirit of the Lord has been dying away from the church.”—Testimonies for the Church, 1:113. Looking back a few weeks later, she wrote:1BIO 326.1

The visions have been of late less and less frequent, and my testimony for God's children has been gone. I have thought that my work in God's cause was done, and that I had no further duty to do, but to save my own soul, and carefully attend to my little family.—The Review and Herald, January 10, 1856.1BIO 326.2

In his report of the conference James White wrote of the concern of those at the meeting for the spiritual welfare of the church. He mentioned that there were “remarks and confessions relative to the evident departure of the remnant from the spirit of the message, and the humble, straight forward course taken by those who first embraced it. Strong desires were expressed, and fervent prayers were offered to heaven, for the return of the spirit of consecration, sacrifice, and holiness once enjoyed by the remnant.”—Ibid., December 4, 18551BIO 326.3

Somehow the sense swept over them that this may have been the result of neglect on the part of the church in its relation to the visions. To avoid prejudicing those they hoped to reach with the third angel's message through the Review and Herald, they had published none of the visions in the paper for nearly five years, and only twice had James White referred to the visions in his articles or editorials. These exceptions were (1) in October, 1854, when under attack from the Messenger party for putting the visions ahead of the Bible, he reprinted an article that had appeared in the first volume of the Review on April 21, 1851; and (2) on October 16, 1855, in five brief articles, quite an extended defense of the position of the church in the issue. In one of these he may, in one statement, have gone a little too far in exercising his attempts to show that Seventh-day Adventist doctrines were not dependent on the visions. It seems this led some to conclude—quite contrary to his purpose—that he was downgrading the visions. In the one titled “A Test” he declared:1BIO 326.4

There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors made the views of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. It may be duty to notice these persons on account of the part they are acting, which is calculated to deceive some.1BIO 327.1

What has the Review to do with Mrs. White's views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. The Review for five years has not published one of them. Its motto has been “The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty.” Then why should these men charge the Review with being a supporter of Mrs. White's views?—Ibid., October 16, 18551BIO 327.2

James White then called the attention of his readers to his consistent position during the past eight years. He referred to his published statements, beginning with what appeared in A Word to the “Little Flock” in 1847. There he had declared:1BIO 327.3

The Bible is a perfect and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice. But this is no reason why God may not show the past, present, and future fulfillment of His Word in these last days, by dreams and visions, according to Peter's testimony. True visions are given to lead us to God and to His written word; but those that are given for a new rule of faith and practice, separate from the Bible, cannot be from God and should be rejected.— Ibid.1BIO 327.4

In attempting to make his point, he quoted other statements he had made through the years, which in no way downgrade the visions. But it was strong language he had used in mid-October, and it would appear that this, with the absence of visions in the Review, had undercut in the minds of some the importance of the gift of prophecy in the remnant church. This was felt at the conference in Battle Creek right after the move to that city.1BIO 328.1

At any rate, the conference was led to give consideration to the matter. Among its resolutions was the vote:1BIO 328.2

9. That Joseph Bates, J. H. Waggoner, and M. E. Cornell be appointed to address the saints on behalf of the conference, on the gifts of the church.—Ibid., December 4, 18551BIO 328.3

That address, appearing in the same issue of the Review as the conference actions, is quite revealing and will be mentioned again shortly.1BIO 328.4

Now, back to the last meeting of the conference, James White, after writing of the distress of the brethren over the spiritual state of the church, reported:1BIO 328.5

Our long-suffering and tender Father in heaven smiled upon His waiting children, and manifested His power to their joy. The brethren separated greatly refreshed and encouraged.—Ibid.1BIO 328.6