In the controversy which raged between the A. G. Daniells' administration and the Battle Creek Medical leadership at the time of the "Alpha" apostasy, the charge of literary borrowing, or plagiarism was leveled against Ellen G. White. "In Battle Creek in 1904 Ellen White's alleged plagiarism was being offered as proof that her authority need not be accepted on all things." (McAdams, Ellen G. White and Protestant Historians, p. 9; Unpublished Ms.) In response to this, a Testimony appeared dated, March 30, 1906, in which Ellen G. White stated:

Recently in the visions of the night I stood in a large company of people. There were present Dr. Kellogg, Elders Jones, Tenny and Taylor, Dr. Paulson, Elder Sadler, Judge Arthur and many of their associates. I was directed by the Lord to request them and any others who have perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and made plain that which seems to be intricate. Let those who are troubled now place upon paper a statement of the difficulties that perplex their minds, and let us see if we cannot throw some light upon the matter that will relieve their perplexities. (Quoted by McAdams, Ibid.)

In response to this Testimony, Dr. Charles E. Stewart put together a lengthy letter to Ellen White. According to McAdams' research, this was the first time that a printed document supported the charge of plagiarism with double columns one for the printed works of Ellen White and the other, the alleged sources of her statements. But - and here is where the mystery begins - this lengthy letter was sent to Elder W. C. White, May 8, 1907, with this comment - "I am sending this to you so that you can give it personally to your mother if you think best. I do not wish to burden her with these things, but since she has said that the Lord wished them sent and that He will help her to answer them, I shall leave the responsibility and results with her." Dr. Stewart received no reply from Elder White, not even the courtesy of an acknowledgment, although the registration receipt was properly signed and returned. But within a month - June 3, 1906 - a Testimony which purported to be from Ellen G. White appeared which stated:

I had a vision in which I was speaking before a large company, where many questions were asked concerning my work and writings. I was directed

Page 2

by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put into many minds.

McAdams' comments on this contradiction of testimonies, stated - "I have not found any explanation of this matter." (Ibid., p. 12) However, the facts indicate that W. C. White did show this letter of Stewart's to A. G. Daniells, who in turn, went public with it at the dedication of the Washington Sanitarium and Hospital. The end result was that someone without Dr. Stewart's permission obtained a copy of his letter and published it in what has been referred to as "The Blue Book."

Into this time framework - 1906 - there was an exchange between Elder A. T. Jones, and the General Conference Administration under Elder A. G. Daniells. After A. T. Jones had presented a paper to the brethren personally, he then revealed the same facts to the Battle Creek Sanitarium group in the Chapel on the evening of March 4, 1906. To these remarks, the General Conference Committee replied in May of that year with A Statement - a 96 page pamphlet - referred to in The White Truth, p. 56 - "refuting charges made by A. T. Jones against the Spirit of Prophecy." To this Jones replied - and it is this reply when understood against the backdrop of the Blue Book, that carries weighty counsel for us today. We are facing some very "devastating" charges - to borrow the words of a brother who called me from the West Coast after hearing a taped presentation given by Walter Rea at Walla Walla - concerning the writings of Ellen G. White.

Already the reaction to the publication of Rea's forthcoming book - The White Lie - is being assessed. There will be those who will bury their heads in the sand, hoping the storm will pass over; others will throw their whole experience overboard, and deny the faith. Neither reaction is justified by one who is a seeker of Truth, and who as a seeker of Truth, has been admonished to - "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." (I Thess. 5:21) The counsel of A. T. Jones will give guidance through the narrows of the two extremes noted above. He wrote concerning the General Conference Committee's charge:

"Please do not confuse the issue. Please do not allow any one to confuse the issue for you or to you. Therefore I call attention first of all to the title of the 'Statement' sent out by the General Conference Committee. It is claimed to be, first of all - 'A Statement Refuting Charges Made by A. T. Jones against the Spirit of Prophecy.'

"I have already presented from Testimony 33

Page 3

and from the address in the College Library, April 1, 1901, that the Testimonies are 'to bring the mind of the people to His word' that 'the written Testimonies are not to give new light;' 'additional truth is not brought out,' ' but God gives plain and pointed Testimonies to bring them back to the Word that they have neglected to follow.' ' Don't you ever quote my words again as long as you live until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible, and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink and make that the elements of your character - when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God.'

"But when we use these writings for the simple purpose for which they are given; that is, to gain a better understanding of the Bible, and to find in the Bible the things which these writings point out, then these writings will be readily received and used for what they are intended - to know more of the Bible. And then, again, there will not be any ground for any one's saying that ' If I did not believe that every word of Sister White's was the word of God, I would give up the whole thing;' neither will there be any fear of the Testimonies failing, even though it should be found that a mistake had occurred." (Final Word and a Confession, pp. 3-6, Emphasis his)

This sane counsel steers us clearly between the charges that will be forthcoming in the book - The White Lie - and the volumes of propaganda coming from the hierarchy in Washington and the White Estate offices. May God give us sanctified judgment and wisdom in this crisis hour.

+++++++

SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED

In the January issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?" we published a statement from the writings of Ellen G. White, which we had received from Elder David L. Bauer. Evidence indicates that this compilation was gathered soon after the death of Ellen G. White in 1915, and was primarily addressed to the high-handed administrative policies of A. G. Daniells. The quotation we used stated in part: - "The Bible and the Bible alone is to be your guide. The Testimonies should never be preached from our pulpits ... You have no right to use the Testimonies to prove doctrines." This statement distressed a number of readers. Some who wrote to us went so far as to declare that Ellen G. White wrote no such statement. However, it is in every way consistent with what she wrote in other

Page 4

places. In 1890, she had written - "The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word." (Letter 12, 1890)

In 1894, she again wrote - "Our position and faith is in the Bible. And never do we want any soul to bring in the Testimonies ahead of the Bible." (Ms. 7, 1894)

You will observe these last two statements come from the decade following the 1888 General Conference Session. A careful study of the messages of Elder A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner during this decade reveal that they quoted the Spirit of Prophecy very infrequently in their sermon presentations, in fact hardly at all - yet no one can allege that Ellen G. White did not stand behind these men during that time. They, in turn, supported her testimonies as is evidenced by their, quotes during discussion of issues at the General Conference Sessions even beyond that decade including the 1903 Session.

Those who have the book - A Prophet Among You - by T. Housel Jemison would do well to read carefully the chapter entitled, "The Ellen G. White Writings and the Bible." No one who ever knew the late Elder Jemison would ever accuse him of being anti-Spirit of Prophecy. However, he wrote plainly - "Throughout her writings, Ellen White fully recognizes and emphasizes this primacy of the Scriptures. Two brief, comprehensive sentences from the introduction to The Great Controversy state her view succinctly: 'The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible, revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience.' - page vii" (p. 365, emphasis mine.)

A. T. Jones' advise is indeed apropos in this situation. (See preceding article) Instead of seeking to study to know "what is in" the writings, we should be using them to help to know better what is in the Bible, for unless we take this viewpoint, we are making for ourselves a third canon of Scripture, and are thus defeating the purpose for which these writings were given - a lesser light to lead to the greater.

But tragically, there are those who seek to be "a voice" for concerned Adventists who are confusing the flock of God by seeking to lead them by "moonlight" rather than guiding them by the "sunlight" of God's Sacred Scriptures. And remember, Ellen G. White's illustration of comparison is taken from Genesis 1:16. If those ministering know nothing more than the light of the moon; how can the laity be expected to know the light shining forth from the Sun of Righteousness? And that light from the Sun of Righteousness is given as "the bright beams out of His side" for, "there is the hiding of His power." (Hab. 3:4) But when the preaching of the Cross is disdained, or opposed as a message to be preached at this time let every one who readeth take heed!

+++++++

HOW CAN WE CONTINUE TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN A LYING SYSTEM?

Based on our sources of information, we stated and gave supportive proof in the January issue (written in December) of "Watchman, What of the Night?" p. 3, that "tithe funds" were involved in the Davenport scandal. Since that date (a month later, January 16, 1982), there has been released by the AP from Walla Walla, Washington, an admission by David Dennis of the General Conference Auditing Service that "under $1 million" of the total funds lent to Davenport came from "tithe reserve funds." The AP news writer noted that Dennis' "statements contrasted with earlier ones from the General Conference, where church leaders said only trust funds, and no tithe funds, had been invested with Davenport." (Ibid.) Even the Press is aware of the lying and deception that the hierarchy have been attempting to perpetrate upon the laity. An earlier AP release from Walla Walla appearing in the Seattle Times, August 2, 1981, had noted: "Conference investments were made with money that was not required for daily church operations, and tithe money from

Page 5

church members was said not to have been involved."

A close analysis of the "language play" made by a General Conference official reveals that the hierarchy knew from the start that tithe funds were used in monies loaned to Davenport. The latest AP release quotes auditor Dennis as defining the tithe as "money paid by church members to support day-to-day operations" of the church. The tithe money actually invested is listed in audit statements as "reserve tithe funds," in other words, tithe funds in excess of monies required in day-to-day operations. In one of the very first releases on the scandal - The Los Angeles Times, July 25, 1981, the staff writers quoted Elder Charles E. Bradford, President of the North American Division as stating that the loans made "were 'surplus' monies not needed for day-to-day operations of the church."

This brings every member of the Church face to face with some reality, and accountability. Where is he to place his or her tithe? The Bible indicates that the tithe is to be brought "into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house." (Mal. 3:10) In this injunction of "the Lord of hosts" there are two elements - "storehouse" and "food in His house." The storehouse of God is said to be "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. " (I Tim. 3:15) It should be very obvious to anyone who is freed from Laodicean blindness that truth has departed from the hierarchy who demand that the tithe be placed under their jurisdiction. Thus each follower must find where truth is being presented. Secondly, there must be food in the house of the Lord. Jesus noted that "a faithful and wise servant" gives "meat in due season" to the household of God. (Matt. 24:45) These servants are to receive the tithe for their service to God's household. Thus we are to accept individual responsibility to see that the monies entrusted to us are so channeled, and not placed indiscriminately where truth is mitigated, or where sensationalism is fed for truth.

+++++++

$35 MILLION CLASS ACTION SUIT FILED IN OREGON

On January 22, 1982, a Class Action suit was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah (Portland). The named Defendants included the General Conference of S.D.A., its president, Elder Neal C. Wilson, and former president, Robert H. Pierson; the North Pacific Union with its various entities, both conferences and associations; Wayne Massengill, Charles O'Dell, and James K. Hopps who "are officers or former officers of the North Pacific Union and/or NPU Association." This suit asks for $10, Million I in damages as a "result of wrongful acts and omissions" committed on the part of the Defendants. Because of alleged "misrepresentations and concealing" of "material facts" which worked to the detriment of "the rights and welfare of the plaintiffs," another $25 Million is asked in the form of punitive damages.

Two of the Plaintiffs - Helen Black and Gertrude Daniels - charge that "upon the advice of defendant Wayne Massengill, "they "invested funds with Donald J. Davenport and received promissory notes signed by Donald J. Davenport, which were placed in trust with the NPU Association." The third Plaintiff - Arthur Blumenshein, alleged that he placed monies with the NPU Association who in turn invested these with Davenport.

The suit is divided into two sections - Class Allegations, and Claims for Relief. The second section involves three subsections - Claims based on "Breach of Fiduciary [Trust] Duty," "Security Violations," and "Fraud." If substantiated in trial, these latter two allegations could produce criminal charges against Wayne Massengill and other Trust Officers involved. The "Class Allegations" note "questions of law and fact" involved. In Section XI under Class Allegations, the Complaint reads:

"Among the common questions of law and fact are the following: whether defendants or anyone of them were negligent or breached their fiduciary [trust] duties as trustees for plaintiffs; whether defendants or any one of them defrauded plaintiffs;

Page 6

whether defendants or any one them committed securities violations; whether the General Conference or the North American Division are responsible for breaches of fiduciary duty by the North Pacific Union, the NPU Association, the Local Conferences, and their Trust Departments; whether the General Conference or the North American Division breached their fiduciary duty to plaintiffs by failing to adequately supervise the actions of the NPU Association; whether the NPU Association is responsible as trustee for all funds placed within its investment pool; and the remedies available to members of the class."

In the section which alleges - "Breach of Fiduciary [Trust] Duty" the lady plaintiffs state they were approached by Elder Wayne Massengill "acting in his capacity as a trust officer and were advised to invest funds with Donald J. Davenport." They further state that the funds were sent by Massengill direct to Davenport, who in turn gave them "promissory notes" (securities) , which were placed with the NPU Association. If proven, this means that Massengill performed service as an agent for the sale of securities without a license to do so. The Federal SEC Agency will be watching the outcome of this allegation closely. Blumenshein for his part charges - "At no time did defendant Wayne Massengill or NPU Association or any other defendants inform" him "of the substantial risk involved in this investment" with Davenport.

Another allegation under this section charges "conspiracy" on the part of Davenport and the defendants. It reads:

"In devising a conspiracy, plan, or scheme whereby trust funds as well as other funds held by defendants could be and were 'laundered' by Dr. Davenport, by which scheme defendants transmitted funds for investment with Dr. Davenport, and Dr. Davenport returned those funds to defendants in the form of 'contributions' and 'prepaid interest,' so as to free said funds for use in defendants' operations."

Under the charge of "Fraud, " the complaint alleges - "In an effort to induce plaintiffs to invest their funds with Dr. Davenport, the defendants Wayne Massengill, the NPU Association, and other agents and employees of the defendants" misrepresented to them the stability of the Davenport investments. Eight misrepresentations are listed. It is further charged that the defendants, or officers and agents of the defendants "received personal benefits in the form of 'finders fees,' gifts, and free vacation facilities for the funds that they caused to be invested with Dr. Davenport." We have been advised by a very reliable source that Davenport owned and made available condominiums in Hawaii and Palm Springs, California, to these men. Besides all of this, the Complaint, alleges that these individuals could invest their own money with Davenport "at rates of return in excess of that which would be paid" to those whom they solicited to invest with Davenport. We have seen documentation verifying this allegation.

We have in our possession a copy of a letter written by Massengill, May 31, 1978, to Elder E. S. Reile, who had at the time just been elevated to the presidency of the Central Union Conference (now Mid-America Union Conference). In this letter, Massengill is extolling the Davenport investments, and the virtues of the man himself. He suggests to Reile that he investigate these investments with the view of placing Central Union Funds with Davenport. This letter supports the allegations made in Oregon Class Action suit in regard to the activities of Massengill. It is interesting to recall that the Central Union was named as involved in investing tithes with Davenport from previous information which had been made available to us. (See WWN, XV-1, p. 3)

It has also been learned that other such suits are being contemplated which will involve ministers in other parts of the country who served as agents for Davenport. We shall keep our readers informed just as soon as documents such as the document upon which this article is written, becomes available to us. However, every reader of this article needs to keep in mind that a complaint is only allegation until proven in Court. Thus the outcome of this suit should be followed closely before passing final judgment on individuals. We do learn from sources available to us that responsible men in the General Conference are at a loss to know what defense can be made by the plaintiffs.

Page 7

Evaluations - From time to time we receive requests - a large number to receive the monthly thought paper - "Watchman, What of the Night?" Then, too, from time to time there are those who ask for the removal of their names from the mailing list. We received one such request in the past month from Australia, and in so doing we were favorably evaluated, in our judgment. The request read - "Thank you for the copies of "Watchman, What of the Night?" that you have sent me. I do not, however, share your bias towards traditional Adventism and request that my name be removed from your mailing list." While we prefer the term - "historical Adventism" - we understand from this young man's viewpoint, we are not with the Ford theology.

Just this week, the February 6 (Vol. 8, No. 3) issue of Limboline came to our desk. (Limboline is the official "organ" of the Church of the Adventist Fellowship which came into being as a result of the breakup of the Burbank SDA Church by action of the Southern California Conference in a dispute over the extent of local church control and doctrinal issues. Its theology tends toward the radical left.) In this issue there was reproduced an article on the investment of tithe with Davenport from WWN, XI-1, p. 3. In doing so, the Editor described the Adventist Laymen's Foundation as "right of center, but critical of the GC establishment, pro-Ellen G. White, but against GC attempts to buttress her." (p. 7) We confess that we seek to stay in the middle of the right side of the road, so as to avoid an head-on collision and landing in a ditch, as many will be doing when confronted by the Rea book.

+++++++

An Interesting Letter - Just this week, we received a communication from a Brother in Australia who is not afflicted with the Laodicean blindness which seems to mark many who profess to believe in "historical Adventism" in Australia. He wrote:

"I attended a meeting in the 'Kingscliff ' church last year when R. Allan Anderson spoke against the Brinsmead-Ford doctrine very forcefully for over 23 hours without a break. A lot of people thought he was wonderful. I wasn't so sure because I had never seen or heard of a confession on his part. I prayed that the Lord would give me wisdom and words to speak to him to find out his position now. I didn't have to ask him because before he closed the meeting, he upheld the book, Questions on Doctrine and said it was one of the best books ever written, and also Movement of Destiny, and Froom was one of our best writers ever. I almost felt the floor swallowing me up. It was uncanny. After such a discourse on 'Ford' doctrines - How double-minded can one get! From my observation and conversations with others present, it almost seemed as if I was the only one who understood that he re-enforced the errors of the 1950's. I found out later that there were a few others who understood this. So this seems to be the problem - we have those who are guilty of apostasy using as a 'strawman' (Ford), or 'scapegoat' (Brinsmead), if you like, to hide their own doings. How can we wake these people up?" That is a good question!