From an early date Ellen White seemed to be rather certain that she would attend the 1909 General Conference session to be held in Washington, D.C., May 13 to June 6. As early as September 1908 she wrote, "I expect to attend the next General Conference in Washington" (Letter 274, 1908). In November she was discussing the best route to take."But," she told Edson, "I dare not move in any action according to my own judgment."
As the time approached she wrote Edson on March 30:
We have decided our family party--Sara McEnterfer, Minnie Hawkins, W.C.W., and your mother--will leave next Monday.... We must go to Los Angeles and direct from there to Paradise Valley, stay a couple of days and then visit Loma Linda, and then on to College View and then to Nashville. I think this is the route. Then to Washington (Letter 183, 1909).
My health is quite good. I am thankful that my lame hip is little trouble to me now. I have much to be thankful for that at my age--in my eighty-second year--I can be up (Ibid.).
As planned, the party from Elmshaven left home Monday morning, April 5, and reached Mountain View in the early afternoon. After resting in Elder Cottrell's home for a few hours, they continued to San Jose to catch the 5:10 p.m. train for Los Angeles, and then it was on to San Diego and Paradise Valley Sanitarium.
Tuesday morning the party was again on its way, this time bound for College View, Nebraska, over the Salt Lake City and Omaha Railroad (37 WCW, p. 953). There Mrs. White spoke twice Friday morning, first to the students and faculty of Union College and then a few minutes later to the children in the elementary school room nearby (Letter 88, 1909). The topic of the Sabbath morning sermon in the College View church, where she addressed 2,000 people, was "Individual Cooperation" (Manuscript 31, 1909). Then again on Sunday she delivered her sixth sermon of the trip to those who gathered in the College View church. This was followed by an address to the college faculty on educational principles (Letter 84, 1909) and a tour of the school farm.
Tuesday morning, April 20, the group hastened on to Nashville, where she was entertained at Nashville Sanitarium for nearly a week, slipping out for a visit to the Hillcrest school and the Oakwood school.
Sunday afternoon she went out to the Madison school and addressed those attending a teachers' institute in progress there (Letter 74, 1909; Manuscript 15, 1909). She spent a few days at Madison, staying in their "new sanitarium" (Letter 74, 1909).
The journey to Huntsville, Alabama, to visit the school was exhausting. The train made frequent stops in the stifling heat, and she suffered pain in her troublesome left eye (Letter 74, 1909; 37 WCW, p. 959). But she talked to the students the next morning and visited the campus, the buildings, and the farm. That night she rode on the train to Asheville, North Carolina, and on Sabbath morning, May 1, took the service in the Haywood church.
On Sunday afternoon she addressed the congregation in the Black church pastored by M. C. Strachen, speaking on John 15. She tarried after the service to shake hands with the members. After dinner she left on the 2:05 p.m. train for Washington, D.C. By the time she reached Washington, she had spoken 14 times since leaving home.
In Washington she was entertained near the school grounds where the session was held, at the home of G. A. Irwin, General Conference vice president (37 WCW, p. 977). There she had two rooms--one for sleeping and the other in which to counsel with those who wished to see her. She quickly arranged for rooms in the nearby D. H. Kress home for Edson and Emma, and urged them to attend the conference at her expense, which they did.
The 1909 General Conference Session
As in 1905, this General Conference session was held in a large tent pitched on the grounds of Washington Missionary College. The opening meeting convened at 10:45 a.m. Thursday, May 13. There were 328 delegates present, a number that swelled a little as the conference progressed.
The session itself was quite routine, with a great deal of time given over to reports of the progress of the cause around the world. A portion of each day was devoted to individual meetings of the various departments and to the business of the quadrennial session.
Sabbath morning, May 15, at 11:00 Ellen White addressed the session in the big tent. The Bulletin reported that it "was a day long to be remembered" as the "aged servant of God" stood in that large tent speaking to an audience of more than 1,000 people. She seemed to "lay upon those assembled representatives of the third angel's message the importance of rightly representing Christ to the world in our speech, in our character, in all our dealing with our fellow men, in order that we shall not be found fruitless in the great day of harvest" (p. 28).
She spoke 11 times in the big tent, taking the Sabbath morning services on three of the four Sabbaths of the session.
How did the voice of this little woman of 81 come through to the audience? Those who were there reported that they all heard her clearly and distinctly. One curious young minister, A. V. Olson, attending his first General Conference session, eager to find out for himself, sat near the front, where he heard her well. He went outside the tent, and even there her voice came through in clear tones. She did not shout. She had no public address system, but with a steady, low voice supported by her abdominal muscles, she spoke as she had been instructed by God (see Evangelism, 669). She made all hear, with no one straining to catch her words.
Reviewing instruction on the importance of healthful living, she listed strict temperance in eating as one reason for her ability to do so much work in speaking and writing (Letter 50, 1908). Addressing one influential minister on March 28, 1909, she declared, "True conversion to the message of present truth embraces conversion to the principles of health reform" (Letter 62, 1909). She also said:
It is our duty to act wisely in regard to our habits of eating, to be temperate, and to learn to reason from cause to effect. If we will do our part, then the Lord will do His part in preserving our brain-nerve power (Letter 50, 1908).
Ellen White used the opportunities given to her to speak in admonishing, encouraging, and instructing. Her prime theme was evangelistic outreach, with emphasis on both personal and city evangelism. Health reform and health interests were a close second. She had attended General Conference sessions from 1863 on, missing some while in Europe and Australia. She had been at the first general gathering of Sabbathkeeping Adventists in 1848, and at succeeding Sabbath Conferences had been with the brethren as they diligently studied the Word and formed the doctrinal structure of the church based on that Word.
The last meeting, Sunday afternoon at 3:00, June 6, was given to her."Partakers of the Divine Nature" was her theme. It came too late to be included in the Bulletin, but it was referred to in the last issue under the title "A Touching Farewell."
Thus closed the last sermon Ellen White was to make at a General Conference session. She moved away from the desk and started to her seat, then turned and came back, picked up the Bible from which she had read, opened it, and held it out on extended hands that trembled with age. She admonished, "Brethren and Sisters, I commend unto you this Book" (reported by W. A. Spicer, then secretary of the General Conference, in The Spirit of Prophecy in the Advent Movement, p. 30).
Thus in her last words to the leaders of the church officially assembled in conference Ellen White elevated the Word of God--that Word that had been so precious to her and that she freely used and ever kept before the church and the world.
The Daily
During the General Conference session in Washington in 1909, signals of potential doctrinal controversy surfaced in which the "daily" of Daniel 8 largely figured." Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sacrifice was cast down" (Daniel 8:11).
"'The daily'--this phrase is best limited to the usually accepted sense of the morning and the evening offering, though some prefer a more general sense as an expression of everything connected with the worship of the sanctuary" (F. C. Cook, The Bible Commentary, Vol. VI, p. 344).
The question of the meaning of the "daily" was not a new one in Adventist history. William Miller had taught that it referred to paganism, but even before the Disappointment that view was questioned. The classic 1843 chart produced by Fitch and used by all the Adventist preachers omitted reference to the meaning of the "daily."
In 1847 O.R.L. Crosier had expressed the view that the "daily" refers to the high-priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. Uriah Smith in 1854 briefly expounded this position (The Review and Herald, March 28, 1854). But Smith, rising to prominence shortly afterward in his Thoughts on the Book of Daniel (1873 ed., p. 163), went back to the view of William Miller. Smith's became the accepted position until the turn of the century, and thus was known as the "old view." Prescott's position was similar to Crosier's but nevertheless acquired the less-than-accurate designation as the "new view."
As careful students took time to examine all the evidence, many were led to accept the new view--A. G. Daniells and W. C. White among them--and polarization began to develop. After the close of the Pacific Union Conference session at St. Helena in late January 1908, some of the workers lingered on to spend a little time at Elmshaven studying the question. They met in the Elmshaven office--Daniells, Prescott, Loughborough, the Haskells, W. C. White, C. C. Crisler, and D. E. Robinson (DF 200). The meeting, in place of bringing some solutions to the problem, served only to harden positions.
Counsel Against Agitating The Subject
Before Prescott left for the East on February 6, Ellen White spoke to him about the problem, telling him not to publish anything at that time that would unsettle the minds of the people regarding positions held in the past. She promised to write him on the subject (35 WCW, p. 217).
She did not write at once, but on June 24, 1908, she wrote to Prescott of perils that at times threatened his ministry. She spoke of a tendency on his part "to sway from clearly defined truth and give undue attention to some items which seem to require hours of argument to prove, when in reality they do not need to be handled at all." She wrote:
You are not beyond danger of making mistakes. You sometimes allow your mind to center upon a certain train of thought, and you are in danger of making a mountain out of a molehill (Letter 224, 1908).
A week later she wrote Prescott again, opening with the words:
I am instructed to say to you, Let there be no questions agitated at this time in the Review that will tend to unsettle minds.... It will prove to be a great mistake if you agitate at this time the question regarding the "daily," which has been occupying much of your attention of late. I have been shown that the results of your making this question a prominent issue would be that the minds of a large number will be directed to an unnecessary controversy, and that questioning and confusion will be developed in our ranks.... My brother, let us be slow to raise questions that will be a source of temptation to our people (Letter 226, 1908).
Then she referred to her own relation to the matter and the fact that God had given no special revelation on it:
I have had no special light on the point presented for discussion, and I do not see the need of this discussion.... There have been different opinions regarding the "daily," and there will continue to be. If the Lord has seen fit to let this matter rest for so many years without correcting the same, would it not be wisdom on your part to refrain from presenting your views concerning it? (Ibid.; italics supplied).
This letter was not sent off immediately and we do not know what Ellen White may have instructed him orally, but he published no articles on the subject in subsequent issues of the Review.
S. N. Haskell And The 1843 Chart
On August 28, 1908, almost two months after writing to Prescott, Ellen White wrote to S. N. Haskell, a stalwart advocate of the old view. Because in Early Writings she had made reference to "the 1843 chart" in connection with a mention of the "daily," Haskell had arranged for the publication of a facsimile copy of the chart and was circulating it. In her testimony to Haskell she stated:
Now, my brother, I feel that at this crisis in our experience that chart which you have republished should not be circulated. You have made a mistake in this matter. Satan is determinedly at work to bring about issues that will create confusion.
There are those who would be delighted to see our ministers at an issue on this question, and they would make much of it (Letter 250, 1908).
While Ellen White was without special light from the Lord on the particular point in question, she did receive light on the controversy the discussion was causing, and she wrote, "I have been instructed that regarding what might be said on either side of this question, silence at this time is eloquence."
Significantly, in closing her letter, she declared:
Elder Haskell, I am unable to define clearly the points that are questioned. Let us not agitate a subject that will give the impression that as a people we hold varied opinions, and thus open the way for those to work who wish to leave the impression on minds that we are not led by God. It will also be a source of temptation to those who are not thoroughly converted, and will lead to the making of rash moves (Ibid.; italics supplied).
The Issue Of Inspiration
In the case of the "daily," those who held the old view, with Haskell in the lead, maintained that to veer away from it would strike a mortal blow to confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy because of what they claimed was her endorsement of that view in the chapter "The Gathering Time," published in her first little book in 1851 and republished in Early Writings, 74-76. In this chapter, written in September 1850, in the context of time setting and containing such expressions as "Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test" and "The message of the third angel ... must not be hung on time," she wrote:
I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it until His hand was removed.
Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Daniel 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily"; but in the confusion since 1844 other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test (Early Writings, 74, 75).
While some who were involved in the discussion attempted to follow the counsel against agitating the matter of the "daily" as one of importance, and no articles on the subject appeared in the Review, Haskell did not remain silent. Writing to Elder Daniells on March 22, 1908, he declared:
It is the Early Writings that I would defend, and as long as I believe they teach the view I take, and there are many others that believe the same, and if Sister White does not give any explanation in harmony with Prescott's idea to defend the testimonies for the sake of others I shall defend them. Must I be made to believe the testimonies teach a certain thing, contrary to my own judgment and the reading of the writings, when Sister White herself does not so explain it?
Thus, with not a few the discussion took on a major significance--namely, the integrity of the testimonies and loyalty to the Spirit of Prophecy. The question of revelation-inspiration was pressed to the front.
Study Of The Context Important
Concerning this whole matter W. C. White, after spending a day or two studying it carefully, on June 1, 1910, wrote to Edson, taking the position that the context of the statement must be considered.
It is evident that the vision of September 23, 1850, as published in Ibid., new edition, pages 74-76, under the title "The Gathering Time," was given to correct the prevalent error of time setting, and to check the fanatical doctrines being taught regarding the return of the Jews to Jerusalem.
The statement concerning the "daily" of Daniel 8:9-14, as published in Early Writings, appeared first in Present Truth, Vol. I. No. 11, dated Paris, Maine, November 1850. During the same month and in the same place, there was published the first number of Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, which has continued as the church paper of Seventh-day Adventists ever since. In this first number appears an article by Elder Joseph Bates on "The Laodicean Church," in which he writes at considerable length on the confused state of various bodies of Advent believers, in contrast with the unity that the commandment-keeping Adventists were endeavoring to maintain. On the point of confusion of many bodies of Adventists at that period in their history, over the question of prophetic "time," he declares:
"For six successive years, viz: from the fall of 1844 to the spring and fall of 1850, the most of these leading members have been aiding and assisting each other in changing the chronology, i.e., the world's history, to prove that they were on the true position. What have they gained? Answer, nothing but disappointment and confusion."
At one point a little later in the discussions Elder Daniells, accompanied by
W. C. White and C. C. Crisler, eager to get from Ellen White herself just what the meaning was of her Early Writings statement, went to her and laid the matter before her. Daniells took with him Early Writings and the 1843 chart. He sat down close to her and plied her with questions. His report of this interview was confirmed by W. C. White:
I first read to Sister White the statement given above in Early Writings. Then I placed before her our 1843 prophetic chart used by our ministers in expounding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. I called her attention to the picture of the sanctuary and also to the 2300 year period as they appeared on the chart.
I then asked if she could recall what was shown her regarding this subject.
As I recall her answer, she began by telling how some of the leaders who had been in the 1844 movement endeavored to find new dates for the termination of the 2300-year period. This endeavor was to fix new dates for the coming of the Lord. This was causing confusion among those who had been in the Advent Movement.
In this confusion the Lord revealed to her, she said, that the view that had been held and presented regarding the dates was correct, and that there must never be another time set, nor another time message.
I then asked her to tell what had been revealed to her about the rest of the "daily"--the Prince, the host, the taking away of the "daily," and the casting down of the sanctuary.
She replied that these features were not placed before her in vision as the time part was. She would not be led out to make an explanation of those points of the prophecy....
The only conclusion I could draw from her free explanation of the time and her silence as to the taking away of the "daily" and the casting down of the sanctuary was that the vision given her was regarding the time, and that she received no explanation as to the other parts of the prophecy (DF 201b, AGD statement, September 25, 1931).
Since charts figure in this matter, Ellen White's attitude in this interview is given strong support as the reckoning of the Cummings 1854 "prophetic chart" is studied. * In this the Jewish altar of "daily sacrifice" in 446 B.C. is used as the starting point for a new 2300-year time span set to end in 1854. This chart, published at Concord, New Hampshire, in 1853, was typical of charts that commenced the 2300 days with what was said to be the taking away of the "daily sacrifice."
A Call To Halt The Controversy
Ellen White watched with growing anxiety and distress the time-consuming controversy between leading brethren on a point on which she repeatedly said she had received no light. On July 31, 1910, she could restrain herself no longer, and wrote:
I have words to speak to my brethren east and west, north and south. I request that my writings shall not be used as the leading argument to settle questions over which there is now so much controversy. I entreat of Elders Haskell, Loughborough, Smith, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views of the "daily."
It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings shall be taken as settling this matter. The true meaning of the "daily" is not to be made a test question.
I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question; for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion and I see no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under present conditions, silence is eloquence (Manuscript 11, 1910 [see also Selected Messages 1:164]).
A few days later, on August 3, she addressed a communication to the ministry of the church:
To My Brethren in the Ministry:
Dear Fellow Workers,
I have words to speak to Brethren Butler, Loughborough, Haskell, Smith, Gilbert, Daniells, Prescott, and all who have been active in urging their views in regard to the meaning of the "daily" of Daniel 8. This is not to be made a test question, and the agitation that has resulted from its being treated as such has been very unfortunate. Confusion has resulted, and the minds of some of our brethren have been diverted from the thoughtful consideration that should have been given to the work that the Lord has directed should be done at this time in our cities. This has been pleasing to the great enemy of our work (Letter 62, 1910 [see also Selected Messages 1:167]).
Then she referred to the last prayer of Christ calling for unity, brought to view in John 17, and commented, "There are many subjects upon which we can speak--sacred, testing truths, beautiful in their simplicity. On these you may dwell with intense earnestness. But," she urged, "let not the 'daily,' or any other subject that will arouse controversy among brethren, be brought in at this time, for this will delay and hinder the work that the Lord would have the minds of our brethren centered upon just now." And she pleaded, "Let us not agitate questions that will reveal a marked difference of opinion, but rather let us bring from the Word the sacred truths regarding the binding claims of the law of God" Ibid.
As to the discourses of Seventh-day Adventist ministers, her counsel was:
Our ministers should seek to make the most favorable presentation of truth. So far as possible, let all speak the same things. Let the discourses be simple, and treating upon vital subjects that can be easily understood.... We must blend together in the bonds of Christlike unity; then our labors will not be in vain. Draw in even cords, and let no contentions be brought in. Reveal the unifying power of truth, and this will make a powerful impression on human minds. In unity there is strength (Ibid. [see also Selected Messages 1:167, 168]).
W. C. White repeatedly declared his position that statements in the Spirit of Prophecy must be taken in their proper context. On the question of the Early Writings statement in which the "daily" is mentioned, he considered it relevant that his mother had written much concerning the importance of the Advent movement and of the 2300-year prophecy, while the nature of the "daily" itself was "wholly ignored" in all her writings except in one 35-word sentence, found in the middle of the argument that "time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test." To him the context of the statement found in Early Writings seemed to involve the entire article in which the statement was originally written, the entire scope of the Ellen White writings on the subject, and the historical background of the original writing (DF 201b, WCW to J. E. White, June 1, 1910).
But larger issues than the identity of the "daily" concerned W. C. White:
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).