THE CAUSE IN THE WEST by J. H. Waggoner

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 7, 1856

THE CAUSE IN THE WEST.

By J. H. Waggoner

SOME time since I noticed some statements of Solomon Myers in regard to the decline of the cause in the West, and asked three questions for him to answer. I have received from him a long letter, purporting to be a reply, but he does not notice the questions, or give any reply to either of them. Long as his letter is I would publish it, that the readers of the Review might see the spirit manifested by our opposers, were it not that it contains so many expressions too coarse and vulgar to find a place in this paper. After stating what some body told him about Bro. White and Cornell, he gives his own belief as follows:—

"Now it is possible that we do not perfectly understand the rise and progress of the 3d Angel’s Message in the west, but we do believe that the preaching of Phelps, D. P. Hall, J. H. Waggoner, J. M. Stephenson, Stewart, Sheffield, and some other western brethren has done more to get the truth before the people and awaken an interest in the minds of the western people than all the labors of eastern brethren put together. That the Age to Come views had the influence that J. W. charges it with is to us a miserable absurdity. Now, Bro. Waggoner, we have given you this hasty sketch. If it is not satisfactory we will take pains to collect more facts and give them to you more in detail."

The question does not relate to the relative amount of labor by eastern and western brethren. I am free to acknowledge that the labors of those mentioned, or some of them, have done more to awaken an interest in the west, than the labors of all the eastern brethren put together; as might be expected, considering that the labors of the eastern brethren were confined to a few short visits. But I think great credit is due to the eastern Brn. for what they have written, published, and freely circulated in the west.

But that is not the question. I wish to be definite on the point, but Mr. Myers has not named the place where, or the person by whom, an interest was awakened, where the eastern Brn. afterward caused division, or where any division was created until after the Age to Come was brought in. I have preserved a memorandum of labors in the west since early in the Spring of 1853, and can point out the time of the giving of the Message, and the minister giving it in every place where it was preached up to the time of Bro. White’s visit to Wisconsin, the last visit of any eastern brother till Bro. Bates’ late visit, and if Mr. Myers or any other one can show that a company of Sabbath keepers was brought out by the labors of any who believed in the Age to Come, or any who differed with eastern brethren on the "peculiar views" they held, I call for a statement to that effect. The fact is, Mr. Myers has made statements that cannot be substantiated; and if he is acquainted with the rise and progress of the cause in the west he knows that he has.

Relative to the influence of the Age-to-Come oracles, on the cause of the Third Angel’s Message, I may be allowed to say a word. In a letter published in the Review, Vol. IV, No. 23, (Dec. 1853,) I said: "By letter received from Brn. Hall and Stephenson I learn that God has been blessing their labors since I parted with them." The letter referred to was written at Union, Wis., and received by me at Middlebury, Ind., Nov. 22, and from its tenor I supposed that they had been preaching the Message in Union and other places. When I was at Union on the 12th of Dec. following, sister P. G. Pitts and others informed me that they preached altogether on immortality and the kingdom in that place, without touching on the Third Angel’s Message. In the last discourse given by them, speaking of the chain of prophecy presented in Daniel and Revelation, D. P. Hall said, on these prophecies were based three messages, of which they had not time to speak. When Brn. Loughborough and Cornell were in Union an interest was awakened to hear the Message, and a merchant of that village offered to become responsible, (I was told,) for $20,00, to be raised for any who would give a course of lectures there on the subject. As elders S. and H. had then professedly devoted themselves to the cause, we requested them to visit the place and give the Message, which they promised to do; but how far short did they come of their known duty as watchmen. In Madison I obtained a similar report. A brother there told me that they obtained the use of a church in which to lecture, but were so harsh and censorious that they were permitted to occupy it only four evenings; and he said he feared a prejudice was raised in Madison that would never be allayed. A significant fact was, that, soon after I arrived there he wanted to know if I could harmonize their views of prophecy with the Third Angel’s Message—something that I have not been able to do to the present day. At Waukau, on the 23d of the same month, I was asked the same question by each of the brethren as soon as I met them. They said Elds. S. and H. came there, and they had a meeting; but most of the evening was consumed by them in disputing on a point of their favorite theory, upon which they did not agree;—much to the dissatisfaction of the church, who wanted to hear something on the present truth. Bro. W. H. Rapp, of Markesan, said that he invited Eld. S. to his neighborhood, hoping his brother-in-law might be benefitted, as he was interested in the truth; but he divided his labors between the Message and the Age to Come, and the individual referred to refused to hear any more, saying a man must be dishonest who would teach such opposite doctrines. Thus it has been ever since the cause has been clogged with the Age to Come.

On this subject I would introduce the following letter lately received. The writer speaks like a candid man, who can state his difference of views in a christian manner, without any of that animosity which has characterized our opponents.

Hebron, Wis., June 8th, 1856. BRO. J. H. WAGGONER:—As I have seen in the Review, "Information wanted," I think I can give some. And in answer to your question, first, Bro. Phelps has awakened a great interest here in the west, and has been instrumental in causing a great many to keep the Commandments of God; and I think Brothers Stewart and Sheffield have been ardent in the cause, and are now believers in the Third Angel’s Message. Yet I do think the very day the Age-to-Come doctrine was preached here, that very day the decline commenced in the Third Angel’s Message. I have never believed in full the views of E. G. White; nor that the earth would be desolate through the thousand years, therefore my sympathy has been with such of like faith as Ed. D. P. Hall and H. V. Reed, who now deny the Bible in denying the Third Angel’s Message. I say I can no more agree with them. And I think the Review party the most humble, God-like of any, yet I will make some exceptions, and will say, I think some are as strenuous on the visions as some are on the Age to Come. But the Age-to-Come doctrine is leading many, very many, from the truth, and because it is advocated by those that deny the Third Angel’s Message. May the Lord open the eyes here in the west; may the delusion be swept away. And that we shall all be brought into the unity of the faith, is the prayer of your humble servant. ALVAH H. DANIELS.

To this prayer I can respond a hearty Amen. I am well aware—I could not think of denying, that Bro. Phelps has labored zealously, devotedly, and successfully, in the cause of the Third Angel’s Message. I am also glad to hear that Brn. Steward and Sheffield still believe the Message, as I feared they would also fall fully into the snare into which Eld. Hall and H. V. Reed have fallen. But I was well acquainted with Bro. Phelps’ labors, and had them in my mind when I asked the questions of Mr. Myers; and the testimony of Bro. Daniels is itself a refutation of the assumption of Mr. M., and a truthful vindication of the statement of Bro. White.

Lest some should think we are too severe on those with whom we have formerly been associated, and as we have been accused of misusing Elds. H. and S. in the Review, I will notice some things in the past course of J. M. Stephenson, that all may see that we have been very forbearing toward them; also that if any honest souls are yet under his influence they may take warning and escape. The course of D. P. Hall needs no further notice, as he has denied the faith, and of course can no longer mislead those who love the truth.

The crooked course of J. M. Stephenson began before his first visit east; his deceptions can be shown by statements over his own signature, if occasion requires. I shall for the present confine myself to his course in the Messenger. In noticing Dr. Chapman’s statements in the Messenger he said:—

"6. I told his wife that I had reference to Ellen’s visions in my remarks. This statement is not true. Again I repeat, I made no reference to any visions or dreams in my remarks. I never believed Ellen White’s visions to be of divine origin, and as a matter of course would not refer to them as evidence."

When sister White related her view to me on the 8th of June, 1853, at the close Eld. S. came to the wagon where myself and wife sat, and said to us that he believed that the message was from the Lord, and hoped we would endeavor to profit by it. On Sabbath evening, the 17th of the same month, he was at my house in Waukau, and I then asked him how his mind had been impressed in regard to the visions, by Bro. and Sr. White’s visit, and he answered—"Very favorably; they must be from the Lord." He told me that Eld. Hall was also quite favorable to them. At the trial in question, after Dr. Chapman had left the room, Eld. S. called attention to some words he had spoken, and said he referred to what Sr. White saw. Bro. Dennis said, "You ought to have told him you referred to the vision: then he would have known what you meant." Eld. S. replied, "He knew what I meant." These things were not forgotten at Waukau, but were referred to after the trial by those who were present.

Again he said in the Messenger:—

"7. Lastly, O. accuses me of advising his wife to leave him. This statement is the most wicked of all. When C.’s wife wished my advice in reference to her duty under the circumstances, I positively refused to give any advice at all."

The above declaration of Eld. S. is also untrue. As he was warning Mrs. C. of the dangerous influence to which she was exposed by the wickedness of her husband, she asked, "What shall I do? Shall I leave him?" Eld. S. replied, "That would be better than that you, through his influence, should be lost." Considering what our Saviour said, [Mark x, 29, 30,] I could find no fault with his reply; but I was truly surprised at his cool denial of it.

To these and various other statements he appends the following certificate: "We whose names are appended, do certify that the foregoing statements of Bro. Stephenson are true. M. DENNIS. M. A. DENNIS. L. W. NUTTALL. M. A. NUTTALL. M. E. BECKER."

With all the above named persons I am well acquainted, and know full well that their word will be taken by all who know them: What then could I think of their certificate being appended to statements which I knew to be untrue, and which they also, to my certain knowledge, knew to be untrue. To solve the mystery and give the reader a chance to judge between us, I will give extracts from letters since received from Waukau. The following is from Bro. M. Dennis, dated, Waukau, Dec. 30, 1855: "You have probably read the article by Stephenson in Messenger. I am not satisfied with that; he made us say things we never said. . . . He came here and stated that his character was injured by Chapman’s letter, and that Bezzo refused to publish a letter from him in refutation of C.’s letter, unless it was endorsed by the party here in Waukau. I have been sorry I ever signed any thing of the kind, for I did wish my name never to appear in that vile, slanderous sheet."

Before receiving the above, I wrote to Bro. Dennis, about the 10th of Jan., asking them to explain how their names became attached to statements which they knew to be untrue. Under date of Feb. 11th, ’56, he replied as follows: "You wish for some explanation in regard to our names being appended to Stephenson’s letter in the Messenger. Stephenson came here one day about noon—he appeared to be in a great hurry—said he wanted to take our statement of the facts in the case of Dr. C.’s letter in the Messenger. So he sat down and with the pencil he wrote what we believed to be true; but what was our astonishment to see in the "Messenger of (corruption) Truth" an entirely new version of things—names misplaced and statements we never stated. We came to the conclusion to let it go, and not correct the error, believing that paper and its correspondents incapable of telling the truth."

The unprovoked attack upon myself in his article I shall not notice, though its object is evident. And of the degree of moral turpitude developed in his actions I leave all to judge for themselves. We have been led to lament the state of the churches as manifested in their opposition to the truths of God’s word, and later, the fallen state of many professed Adventists who have brought the doctrine of the coming of Christ to shame by their discord and "secret workings;" but words cannot describe our feelings when we have seen a professed teacher of the Third Angel’s Message publish to the world statements so destitute of truth, and append a forged certificate to deceive those unacquainted with the facts.

Many of the readers of the Review may think there is no necessity for making these public statements; but there are some who have been deceived by J. M. Stephenson and others, in the Messenger, and have had no means of judging of the correctness of their assertions. For their benefit we write. No one dislikes to perform such a task more than myself, but I have written from a solemn conviction of duty, noticing only a few of the many things that have been spoken and done to the detriment of the cause of present truth, which I might expose if I thought it necessary. And it shall be my earnest prayer that no future action of those professing the faith of the Third Angel’s Message shall ever make it necessary to again expose the characters of the enemies of the cause which we hold it our duty to defend. J. H. W. Battle Creek, July 29th, 1856.