Where, specifically, did Mrs. White renounce the concept that the …

Comment on Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference by Sean Pitman.

Where, specifically, did Mrs. White renounce the concept that the GC “in session” should have authority over the church? or that this authority constitutes “Kingly Power”? How can the anyone call a vote taken by hundreds of representatives from around the world “kingly power”? This certainly wasn’t Mrs. Whites view of the power of the GC “in session”. After all, the passage I quoted from Mrs. White in my article above was from 1909 (she died in 1915). So, where, in those six years, did Mrs. White argue that the GC “in session” shouldn’t have ultimate authority over church matters? – regarding decisions that do not clearly go against the Word of God found in the Bible? Where did she ever make such a comment during her whole life?

As far as I can tell, the “kingly power” comment is only in reference to a small group of individuals that may be officers of the GC. It doesn’t seem to be in reference to the GC “in session”. After all, the Union Conference system was adopted in 1901 – well before her 1909 statement that I reference in my article.

In reference to “kingly power” Mrs. White explains that what she is talking about is putting too much power in the hands of a small group of men – that power should not be put into the hands of a few General Conference officials:

There must be a committee, not composed of half a dozen men, but of representatives from all lines of our work, from our publishing house, from our educational institutions, and from our sanitariums, which have life in them, which are constantly working, constantly broadening… The division of the General Conference into District Union Conferences was God’s arrangement. In the work of the Lord in these last days there should be no Jerusalem centers, no kingly power. And the work in the different countries is not to be tied up by contracts to the work centering in Battle Creek, for this is not God’s plan.” (Link)

So, you see, the Union Conferences were to be set up to distribute power among more than a handful of leaders, leader who knew more about what was actually happening in the field, but they were not to overturn the decisions of the General Conference “in session” where hundreds and even thousands of delegates have a voice. That concept is nowhere to be found. On the contrary, as referenced above, Mrs. White was very clear, well after the Union Conferences were established in 1901 that the GC “in session” should have authority to govern the church:

God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work. (EGW, Testimonies, Vol. 9 p. 260-261)

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.