The Visions---Objections Answered.
OBJ. 26. Matters in Iowa. The nature of objections to the visions depends considerably upon the locality from which they come. Wherever wrongs have been exposed or errors reproved, when opposition breaks out, these things are sure to come up in the fore front among the objections. There were, unfortunately, some fanatical movements in Iowa in relation to the late war; and it so happens that those who are now leading off in that section in opposition to the visions, are the ones who were principally concerned in those movements. They were reproved by vision; and it is perhaps not to be wondered at, that, still smarting under the ignominious failure of their fanatical schemes, they should feel sensitive on this point. We have never known a person who had once committed himself upon the visions, to rise up in opposition to them, till his own dear self was in some way touched by their testimony. And here we discover, perhaps the principal, at least a not very remote, cause of the present opposition to the visions in that State. It would no doubt be a great gratification to those concerned to be able to prove that others in other places had been equally fanatical, and were not reproved, and so that the visions were at least inconsistent, or partial in their testimony. This they attempt, with a good deal of spirit; but facts are wofully against them. The circumstances may be summed up in brief as these: In Iowa under the pressure of repeated calls for men by the government, certain ones appealed to the legislature of that State to enact a law exempting Seventh-day Adventists from military duty. As any one might have foreseen, they utterly failed in their object; and what kind of a notoriety did they gain by the transaction. Any one who wished to avoid military duty was at that time looked upon with suspicion; but here was a class who not only wished to avoid military duty, but asked that special laws might be promulgated in their behalf, in order that they might do it. If the authorities could bring special pressure to bear upon any class, it would be sure to be such. On the other hand the General Conference Committee, to whom the brethren were all looking to do something in their behalf, sent up a petition to the government, and carried it to headquarters where all such petitions belong,—for what? For a law to be enacted especially in their favor? No: but for the benefit of a law already existing. The law exempting non-combatants was already in force; and if we could show ourselves to be such as were contemplated in its provision, the law was bound to protect us. This the committee undertook to do and succeeded in doing. The one was a reasonable project, prosecuted in a proper manner, and in the end successful. The other was a spasmodic irrational effort, prosecuted in a spirit of fanaticism, so one of its principal abettors has once confessed, and in the end an utter failure. This is the difference between the two efforts. Yet now these disappointed Iowa aspirants for military favor, have the effrontery to come forth and declare that if their movement was fanaticism, the action of the committee was "fanaticism intensified!" We leave the reader to judge upon which side the intensity belongs. But this is not the worst feature of their treatment of the course of the committee in this matter. The action of the committee involved an expense in procuring testimony, employing counsel, making journeys, &c., &c., in comparison with which the cost of the paper and printing of the documents which they issued, was scarcely to be taken into account; yet these murmurers set forth that the price of these documents was exorbitant, because a few pages out of the 16 were blank, as though the mere printing was the main thing! And when subsequent steps were taken, involving a still greater expense, and the necessary documents were then issued to enable our brethren to avail themselves of the exemption act, they complain again that an extra 50 cents was added to the price of these documents when sent out of the State of Michigan. Now it was fully explained in the paper, at the time these documents were published, see Review Vol. xxv, No. 16, that those which were to be used out of the State, must be taken to the County clerk, thirteen miles to receive his certificate, a step that did not have to be taken with those used within the State; and if any think 50 cents each was an exorbitant price to cover the time and expense of the journey, the cost of the certificate, and the requisite stamp, the worst wish we have for them is that they were obliged to foot the bill out of the proceeds. But they carefully keep back all these facts, and endeavor to appeal to the prejudice of the reader, by representing that advantage was taken of those living out of the State. And then plunging into a still greater depth of turpitude, they add: "Since nobody is in danger of being drafted, these books can be had for one dollar. Somebody's necessities must have been taken advantage of." The occasion of the books being offered for one dollar after the close of the war is explained by the following resolution, which was passed, be it remembered, at the session of the General Conference of 1865. Whereas, The General Conference Committee have been under the necessity of incurring a considerable expense in preparing and procuring preliminary proofs and documents, to enable certain of our brethren to avail themselves of the law in favor of non-combatants, which expense as yet has been but partially met from the avails of said proofs and documents, therefore, Resolved, That this Conference hereby request all those for whose personal benefit said expense was incurred, viz.: those who were liable to the draft—and all others who are so disposed, to contribute one dollar each for the purpose of defraying the same, and that each of said contributors be entitled to a copy of said documents. This action speaks for itself. It was deliberately done in open session of the highest body known among Seventh-day Adventists; and moreover, those very persons who now throw out their base insinuations against it, were present and voted for it! Why did they not withhold their votes, and exhibit their opposition there before the Conference? But after having by their votes acknowledged that the expense of the works had not been met, and that it should be made up in the way the resolution indicated, how can they now turn about as they do and denounce the course of the committee? Such hypocrisy is too transparent to need exposure. They further complain that during the war nothing was shown about the duty of the brethren in view of the draft, but a vision was given showing the length at which women should wear their dresses. In this they have stated an absolute falsehood; for what was published about dress, was only an article from sister White in How to Live, No. 6, p. 63. It does not purport to be a vision. That is a clause of their own adding. Now could not sister White write an article during the rebellion on any other subject but war, without being denounced therefor? Misrepresentations like this may for awhile have some influence; but they must surely in the end redound disastrously upon the heads of their authors. OBJ. 27. The objector declares further that S. D. A. ministers gather up from infidels contradictions in the Bible, and peddle them around to sustain the contradictions in the visions. This is another malicious falsehood. No S. D. A. minister acknowledges that there are any real contradictions in the Bible; and they know it. What our ministers do do, is this: They hold up the infidel's objection against the Bible, side by side with the anti-visionist's objections against the visions; and they show that they are all from the same piece. The same principles and the same arguments that the infidel makes use of to establish contradictions in the Bible, these use to establish contradictions in the visions. This the reader can see in the42objections we have already answered in this work. They are mere misrepresentations and cavils. And if the reasoning of one class is valid, so is the other. But we deny them both. We deny that there are any real contradictions in the Bible or in the visions either. OBJ. 28. What is said about the visions containing nothing that is beyond human foresight, and human wisdom, and nothing but that with which the person to whom they are given is already acquainted, finds a sufficient reply in the visions themselves. They abound in points which show this objection to be false, as any reader may satisfy himself by a few moments' perusal of their testimony. OBJ. 29. The Sealing Time. The visions show that the sealing time commenced in 1844; and yet it is claimed that the Review teaches that we are just starting into that time. Although this is offered as an objection to the visions, the most that can be claimed for it, certainly, is that here is a discrepancy between the teachings of the Review, and the vision; but this would by no means prove the visions false. But there is no discrepancy between the two. The trouble with the objector all arises from his overlooking the very plain fact that the sealing time covers a period during which a progressive work is carried on upon the earth. The third angel's message, is a sealing message; but a person is not sealed as soon as he embraces it. Time is given for the development of a holy character, by obedience to the truth. And the message is designed to bring people to a position where they can be sealed absolutely, in the sense of having their cases forever decided for Heaven. Yet all the time covered by this message is the sealing time. In the sense of decision of character, the closing work in the sanctuary in Heaven is also a sealing work. This work, the cleansing of the sanctuary, commenced in 1844, and the time during which it is carried on is the sealing time. It is a time when investigative judgment sits upon all characters, and every individual of the human race has his place assigned him [not his punishment or reward meted out] either among the righteous or the wicked. Now it must be apparent to all that by far a greater proportion of this time must be occupied with the cases of the dead, than with the cases of the living. And while the decisions of the sanctuary are going on in relation to the dead, a message goes forth to the living to prepare a people for the time when the decisions of the sanctuary shall have respect to them. That message is now going forth; and what the Review has taught is that the time is about to commence when the cases of the living will come up in the investigative judgment in the sanctuary above, and those who are found righteous among them will be sealed for Heaven. The work brought to view in Rev. vii, 1-3 has reference of course to the living not to the dead. By overlooking this plain distinction, the objector fancies he finds a discrepancy between the Review and the visions, and hopes to make capital out of it against the visions. But if there was any disagreement between them, it would only prove the Review at fault, and make nothing whatever for his cause; and since there is none at all, he is left to get what consolation he can from the fact that his own lack of discrimination is the only ground of all his fancied triumph here. OBJ. 30. Time to commence the Sabbath. Here the objector finds another contradiction in the visions by asserting that they once taught that the Sabbath should commence at 6 o'clock P. M.; and that the time was subsequently changed by vision to sunset. This we meet with an unqualified denial. The visions never taught that the Sabbath should commence at 6 o'clock; and the article setting forth the reasons for sunset time, published in Review Vol. vii, No. 10, antedates the vision which the objector claims was given to change the time. OBJ. 31. The holding of the winds. It was shown in vision some sixteen years since that the winds were being held, and that they would be held till Jesus' work in the most holy place was finished. Then, says the objector, his work there must be now finished, according to the vision; for the winds began to blow in the recent terrible rebellion in the United States. But cannot the objector see that an outbreak of the winds, and their being restrained is not the blowing of the winds? And how would it be known that they were being held, unless there should be an occasional outbreak, and that outbreak be by some unseen power suddenly restrained? But all such outbreaks will be checked till the work of Christ is finished in the sanctuary. Then the nations will be permitted to plunge into that final conflict for which the spirits of devils and their own anger, are now preparing them. There is no difficulty here. OBJ. 32. But another objection rolls up from the distant West: "Sr. White has seen that every case is decided before Jesus leaves the sanctuary; and again she sees that during the thousand years the saints sit in judgment with Christ, which is a positive contradiction." This objection must have been put in just to swell the list. It would almost be an imposition on the good sense of the reader to enter into a formal explanation of it. It need only be remarked that the decision that takes place before Christ leaves the sanctuary, is simply a decision as to who are righteous, and who are wicked; while the work that the saints perform in conjunction with Christ during the thousand years, is not to decide who are wicked, but only to mete out to those already decided to be such, the full measure of their punishment. This is most fully and minutely explained in the visions themselves. OBJ. 33. Another exhibition of an astonishing lack of perception is given us in the following: In Testimony No. 10, certain persons are pointed out as complainers and murmurers, for continually expressing their fears that the body of Sabbath-keepers are becoming like the world, &c., whereas in other testimonies, the visions themselves reprove the body of Sabbath-keepers for becoming like the world. Here, says the objector, is an inconsistency, at least; for if the visions are correct in saying that Sabbath-keepers are like the world, the others cannot be wrong who say the same thing. We have only to reply that they do not say the same thing. By examining the testimony, a person cannot fail to see that those whom the visions reprove, are such as strike against every advance step on the part of this people, such as church order, organization, building meeting-houses, &c., and base their opposition on the plea that in these things Sabbath-keepers are becoming just like the world, backsliding, &c., &c. The visions speak of different things entirely. Their reproof is for those who in pride, vanity, dress, manners, and conversation, are conforming to the world. The two are as distinct as could well be conceived. And we can account for such an objection as this, only on the ground that those who offer it, have suffered the god of this world to envelop their minds in a pitiable blindness. OBJ. 34. Meats for food. On this point the objector claims that the testimony of the visions is contradictory and opposed to the Bible. We shall not follow him in all his tortuous wanderings here. His work is but a tissue of confusion. He gives that as a vision which is not, and does not purport to be such. His quotations are garbled, a sentence being detached from one page and applied to another subject on another page. And events that took place hundreds of miles, and many years, apart, are confounded together. All this is done to prove to the reader that the visions have taught that swine's flesh is good and nourishing food. But they have never so taught. The chief point, however, over which there seems to be a disposition to cavil, is a statement on p. 121, of Spiritual Gifts, Vol. iv. "And he [God] permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives." This is spoken of the generations that lived immediately after the flood. A few lines that immediately precede it, read as follows: "After the flood the people ate largely of animal food. God saw that the ways of man were corrupt, and that he was disposed to exalt himself proudly against his Creator, and to follow the inclinations of his own heart. And he permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives." If this is so, says the objector, why did God also permit Noah and the Israelites, his chosen people, to eat of it, when the effect upon them would be the same? We answer, We have no idea that God ever did give permission to any one to partake of it in the manner that it was partaken of by the wicked soon after the flood. Mark the expression, "After the flood the people ate largely of animal food." In that word "largely" lies, as we understand it, their chief sin. Just as eating and drinking are mentioned as sins of the last days; not that eating and drinking in themselves considered are sinful; but the sin is in the excess committed in these things, and in the devotion of the people to them. And when God saw that that long-lived race were determined to give themselves up to every excess of lust and riot, he permitted them to go on eating largely of animal food, stimulating their passions, and rapidly exhausting their vital energies. And the Bible teaches essentially the same thing, in relation to the incorrigibly wicked, whom God gives up to their own lusts, to be filled with their own doings. See Ps. lxxxi, 12; Acts vii, 42; Rom. i, 24. But the objector urges further, that Abraham, when the angels came to him, ran to the herd, and killed a calf, good and tender, and set before them, and they did eat. Why was this, if meat is such bad food? This circumstance is introduced, we suppose, to show that Abraham made use of meat, for the question before us is not what angels may eat, but what is best for man. But even here a bare thought of that commonest of all adages, "Circumstances alter cases," would have saved any question. A well man can eat with comparative impunity what would be ruinous to a sick one. Give us the strong physical powers of Abraham, and as healthy meat as he had, and we will use it as freely as he did, if the objector will give us the requisite information as to how freely that was. [?] But in comparison with Abraham we are a puny and sickly race, and in comparison with the animals of his day, the animals of the present day are greatly degenerated and prone to disease. Now because strong persons, nearly 4000 years ago, could eat temperately of the flesh of healthy animals without apparent injury, it is no reason why an enfeebled generation like the present, can partake without injury of the flesh of the degenerate and sickly animals of these last days. There have been, no doubt, healthy hogs [as healthy as those animals can be], but we do not care, on that account, to run the risk of partaking of the diseased swine of to-day, and squirming into the grave with a multitude of the horrid trichina in our muscles. The meat question is all right.