Appendix A

FC Gilbert
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
The Gathering Time
SDA Encyclopedia


In an April, 1920 open letter titled, "Startling Omega and Its True Genealogy," J. S. Washburn issued publicly charged key denominational leaders with introducing the omega of apostasy:

“We are face to face with the most subtle apostasy of the ages. The cruel serpent coils with strangling fangs into the very souls of our children. If this [Papal view] is not the beginning of the ‘startling Omega,’ & we are not thrilled, aroused & startled, we must indeed be dead, in doubt, in darkness and infidelity."

Stung by this violent attack upon Prescott, and Willie White and himself, Daniells tried unsuccessfully to remove Washburn’s credentials (1921). At the next GC session (1922), Washburn struck back.  In another open letter he charged him personally with the "daily" controversy. To “prove” that Daniell's Papal view repudiated the spirit of prophecy, he cited reports of its repudiation by Daniells at the 1919 Bible conference. As a result a nearly unanimous initial vote to return him to office was overturned.

But Washburn was not through. In a February, 1923 letter to Meade MacGuire, associate secretary of the M.V. Department, he charged Papal view proponents with identifying devil worship (“the daily”) as Christ’s mediation, implying that they may have committed the unpardonable sin:

But according to the new-view of the 'daily,' this 'daily in transgression,' devil worship has become the 'continual mediation of Jesus Christ.' In other words Satan is Christ! Surely the most astonishing transformation of all ages. If I ascribe the work of Satan to Christ or the work of Christ to Satan is there no danger that I may thus sin against the Holy Ghost"? (p 18)

“With what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged.” Washburn’s own view attributes Christ’s mediatorial work to Satan! Yet, just as Waggoner & Jones initiated the 1888 debate by failing to first present their ideas to brethren of experience, even so two decades later Daniells and Prescott initiated the “daily” debate. In both, unnecessary conflict resulted from violating priesthood of believers principles and making a major issue of secondary truth, when primary truth was under threat. Ellen White rebuked and once refused to see Daniells.  But she never challenged his “daily” view. Her concern was the conflict he created by promoting a secondary issue.

On the other hand, just as 1888 charges of heresy and rejecting the spirit of prophecy were based on faulty memory of a single four-decade-old, lost letter that accusers had never seen, so the 1908 heresy charges were based on opinion regarding two ambiguous Early Writings sentences. In both cases Ellen White urged that her statements not be used as evidence; but in neither was her request honored.

The Guilt of Apostasy Must be Shared

Our debates since the 1957 printing of Questions on Doctrine show that we have yet to learn the lesson of the "daily" conflict—itself a spin off from our Minneapolis failure. In his biography, Arthur White quotes  W.C. (Willie) White expressed his own and his mother’s concern regarding “larger issues than the identity of the daily:

I have told some of our brethren that I thought there were two questions connected with this [daily] matter that were of more importance than the decision which shall be made as to which is most nearly correct, the old or the new-view regarding the daily." The first is, How shall we deal with one another when there is difference of opinion? Second, How shall we deal with Mother's writings in our effort to settle doctrinal questions?-- WCW to AGD, March 13, 1910. {6BIO 261.3-4}.

When will we deal with Bible questions from the Bible? And treat those we disagree with as we want to be treated? Counsel given in 1880 that should have prevented the 1888 conflict, but was again ignored in 1908, proved prophetic then and now in our continuing conflict:

True Christian love cherished in the heart and exemplified in the life, would teach us to put the best possible construction upon the course of our brethren. We should be as jealous of their reputation as of our own. If we are forever suspecting evil, this very fact will so shape their course of action as to produce the very evil which we have allowed ourselves to suspect" (RH 1:234; 4-15-80).

Suspicion and heresy charges in defense of the spirit of prophecy that, against Ellen White’s specific counsel, pitted an ambiguous Early Writings statement against clear Bible evidence did “produce the very evil” suspected! Did this not undermine confidence, stimulating Conradi’s later apostasy and precipitating a liberal reaction? Was he not left to choose between clear Bible evidence and an unclear Ellen White testimony, as though between contrary authorities?

Meanwhile Heresy charges and hostile reaction to contextual examination "produce[d] the very evil" suspected. Ironically, when Conradi later succumbed to Ballenger’s repudiation of 1844 and the sanctuary message, those who had made “the daily” a test of faith claimed his apostasy proved that the Papal concept leads logically to denial of our sanctuary message!!

Morever, that "evil" has born fruit to this day. Two permanent opposing parties emerged from the 1919 Bible conference attempt to correct the "verbal inspiration" mentality that precipitated charges based on sentences totally unrelated to a Pagan “daily.” The Liberal revolt that has led many SDA scholars to reject the spirit of prophecy and our sanctuary message is historically traceable to “the daily” conflict and reaction against attitudes and methods then exhibited. This is the soil in which our present conflict grew.

Violation of priesthood principles and failure to answer Scriptural questions by Scripture bred opposite, imbalanced concepts of revelation that fuel extremes on our left and right. We need to share convictions forthrightly. But arrogant accusations betray the Minneapolis principle—Christ our righteousness, designed “to humble in the dust” the pride that in all of us ever seeks to raise its ugly head. We need earnest, honest dialogue, with each clearly expressing Scriptural evidence as he sees it, but with all guarding against a judgmental spirit that evokes accusation and rancor against one another.