A Second Rebellion Worse than the First

Loughborough stayed close to Brinkerhoff for a time, joining him in evangelistic work in Iowa for a few weeks. Then he went on to other tasks. He later recounted:2BIO 149.1

After a few days, it seems that B. F. Snook's objections revived. He began to communicate with Brinkerhoff, who left his field, and went home to Lisbon. That soon ended their labors in our ranks, and they were again at work on their scheme of “independence of the churches.” This did not, however, assume its final fighting form for several months.—Pacific Union Recorder, November 21, 1912.2BIO 149.2

Continuing his account, Loughborough stated that “in the spring of 1866, the ‘Snook and Brinkerhoff company,’ as we called them in that day, had succeeded in drawing off with them forty-five of the sixty members of the Marion church.” They obtained the handpress used by the Hope of Israel party and started a paper they called The Advent and Sabbath Advocate. They boasted, like the former owners of the press, that “when we get rid of the testimonies, the message will go.”—Ibid. This was clearly a case of bold rebellion, the type of opposition concerning which Ellen White in later years wrote, “I question whether genuine rebellion is ever curable.”—Manuscript 185, 1897 (see also Selected Messages 2:393).2BIO 149.3

Early in 1866 W. S. Ingraham visited Marion, Iowa, where Snook still resided. From there he reported in a letter to James White that he found “a bad state of things” (The Review and Herald, January 23, 1866). He noted the doctrinal disagreements with the church, and after referring to the experience of meeting Snook and Brinkerhoff in 1865 and the confession of the two men, stated, “We find them...in a second rebellion worse than the first.” Ingraham added, “Knowing the object of these men, my duty demands that I should raise a warning voice. Let the brethren beware of them.” The publication of his letter in the Review served notice to the church generally, and leading men in Battle Creek followed it with “Remarks,” pointing out that “many of the fundamental principles of present truth” had been abandoned by the dissident leaders in Iowa. The notice stated:2BIO 149.4

Their downward course commenced with opposition to the visions. Long weeks they spent framing and writing out objections, and blowing up to a white heat in their own hearts the fires of opposition against the cause of present truth and its leaders.—Ibid.2BIO 149.5

The loyal members in Iowa were urged to hold on, steadfast and unmovable. A layman, J. Dorcas, reported in the Review of February 13, 1866, what he had found at Marion:2BIO 150.1

The saints in that place are now again on their way, rejoicing in the truth. I have also visited other parts of the work, as Fairview, Anamosa, and Lisbon, and am happy to say that I have no doubt of the fixed purpose of the brethren and sisters generally to hold on to the old landmarks. I believe they realize the necessity of a deeper work of grace, which may the Lord grant, is my prayer.—Ibid., February 13, 18662BIO 150.2

As many of the churches in Iowa reported one by one through the Review, they declared their determination to hold on to the “old landmarks” in spite of the visits of the men in apostasy and the earnest work they did to unsettle the believers.2BIO 150.3

Administrative committees in the General Conference, as well as in Iowa, took action dismissing the leaders in the rebellion. Thirty-two-year-old George I. Butler, a layman, was called to the presidency of the Iowa Conference (Ibid., May 22, 1866; Ibid., July 17, 1866).2BIO 150.4