A Response to an Urgent Testimony
By Doctor Charles Stewart
14
Rebuilding The Battle Creek Sanitarium
Series B. No. 6, 1904:
"The Battle Creek Sanitarium was erected against the expressed will of God. Presidents of Conferences and others were consulted, it is true, and they assented to the plans presented, because they did not desire to differ with the leader of the medical work, when they could possibly agree with him. And besides, they had not received all the messages that he had received. Those who had not seen the testimonies that the leaders in the medical work had seen, were not responsible for what they did not know."
(a) The Sanitarium was erected against the expressed will of God.
(b) Presidents of Conferences and others assented to the plans because they did not desire to differ with the leader of the medical work when they could possibly agree with him.
(c) Presidents of Conferences and others had not received all the messages that the leaders in the medical work had seen.
The Sanitarium was burned Feb. 18, 1902, therefore if God expressed his will with reference to its rebuilding, He probably did so after Feb. 18, 1902. Prior to this there was apparently no occasion for an expression concerning the rebuilding. For several years previous to the fire the leaders in the medical work had done everything that they possibly could to "establish plants in many places," and as a result between sixty and seventy centers had been established in this and foreign countries during the past ten years. This branch of the work had grown to such an extent that you cautioned us not to be so aggressive. "The medical missionary work is not to be made all and in all."—Vol. 8, p. 161.
Several other statements to the same effect are to be found in your writings.
(a) If the Sanitarium was erected against the expressed will of God, some evidence of such an expression should be in evidence, and after a diligent search we find in Series B, No. 6, p. 5, under the title, "The Burning of the Sanitarium," dated St. Helena, Cal., Feb. 20, 1902, the following:
"To-day we received the sad news of the burning of the Battle Creek Sanitarium." And from page 9 of the same testimony under the caption, "A Solemn Caution," we quote as follows: "A solemn responsibility rests upon those who have charge of the Battle Creek Sanitarium. Will they build up in Battle Creek a mammoth institution, or will they carry out the purpose of God by making plants in many places? I pray God that a work may be done that will be done for the best interests of the work and the cause of God." . . .
"Message after message has been sent that plants shall be made in many places. A most solemn review should now be made."
This is the only message we have been able to find that can be considered as being the expressed will of God relating to the rebuilding of the Sanitarium, and from it can be clearly seen that the erection of a mammoth institution was not in accordance with the "purpose of God," according to your testimony.
The receipt of this message by you on the very day you received word of the burning of the Sanitarium, and the fact that it gives plain instruction with reference to what you state was God's purpose regarding the rebuilding of the Sanitarium and also that explicit instruction was given in it in the following words: "A solemn review should now be made," and because of the enormous responsibilities involved, makes it one of more than ordinary importance.
Since "presidents of conferences and others" are excused from all responsibility in connection with the rebuilding of the Sanitarium because they did not wish to differ with the leader in the medical work, and because they had not seen the testimonies that the leaders in the medical work had seen, the whole responsibility of whatever was done is laid upon the leaders in the medical work.
We have made a thorough search through Dr. Kellogg's private files of testimonies which we have had access to for the past twelve years, and have been unable to find a single line from you pertaining to the rebuilding of the Sanitarium, or anything that might be construed as being the expressed will of God that the Sanitarium should not be rebuilt in Battle Creek, that "presidents of conferences and others" have not had access to, and further than this, every leader in the medical work denies any knowledge of such a message or messages being received.
The last additions to the old Sanitarium, the hospital and chapel, were both made at your request. As late as several years after the erection of the hospital and chapel, Dr. Kellogg in a letter to you mentioned that the Sanitarium was short of accommodations, and in reply to this you stated as follows in a letter dated New Castle, Dec. 29, 1898:
"Now Dr. Kellogg, I think I wrote to you, inquiring if you could not dispose of my property, the two buildings in Battle Creek. I need the money so much. . . . I ask you, Can my property be sold? You say the Sanitarium needs more room. Will you, that is, the Sanitarium, not you personally, take the place, and let me know how much you will give for it? I hope you will help us in this way if possible."
This property was so far away from the Sanitarium that it could not be utilized by the Sanitarium, but in order to help you, the Food Company purchased it and sent the money to you in Australia. The letter referred to is on file and can be produced if necessary.
Since all of the recent adding of building to building as far as the old Sanitarium was concerned was endorsed and approved by you (see General Conference Bulletin, 1903, p. 86) as late as December, 1898, you asked the Sanitarium to purchase from you property to the amount of $3,000 or $4,000, and since the medical leaders had been the means of "establishing plants in many places," wherein did they go contrary to the "expressed will of God," prior to 1902, as far as the erection of buildings are concerned?
The majority of people believe that the testimony which appears in Series B, No. 6, "The Burning of the Sanitarium," was in the hands of the "leaders in the medical work," and why should they believe otherwise, for as no explanation is given, they are allowed to think that the testimony was sent and that in the erection of the Sanitarium the "leaders in the medical work" went in direct opposition to the "expressed will of God," but such is not the case, for this message has never been received by the "leaders in the medical work," and was not known by them to have existed prior to its appearance in print in Series B, No. 6, in 1905, several years after the erection of the Sanitarium.
The facts pertaining to the sending out of this important message can be obtained from a letter written by one of your trusted helpers who had been with you a great many years, and doubtless gives the facts. This letter is dated
- St. Helena, Cal., March 16, 1906:
- To B. L. G., B. C. San., Battle Creek, Mich.
Dear Sister: Your letter of February 17 was duly received and no doubt you have been anxiously looking for a reply, so this morning I will try to write you a few lines in answer to your questions.
I intend only to repeat to you what I know to be facts leaving you to draw your own conclusion and make your own decision. . . .
"Now with reference to the other article to which you refer in Series B, No. 6, 'The burning of the Sanitarium, dated February 20, 1902, you say this is referred to as evidence that light was given the medical men of which ministers knew nothing. This article dated Feb. 20, 1902, two days after the fire, I find by reference to our record was not copied from Sister White's manuscript until August, 1903. In August, 1903, it was placed in the hands of her workers and copied on the typewriter Aug. 2, 1903. But so far as our records show, it was never sent out to any one until it was sent to the printers for publication in December, 1905.". . .
"For years Sister White has been sending out communications discouraging the adding of building to building in Battle Creek. . . . Both the medical and ministerial brethren have had these things to guide them for a number of years; so there is no excuse either for the doctors or the ministers for any part that they may have acted contrary to this counsel."
It is difficult to comprehend why such a vital message as this should have been withheld, and since it was withheld, it is still quite difficult to imagine what good purpose was served by publishing it three years later in Series B, No. 6, especially when a false impression has been created by its appearance in this connection.
Had A. G. Daniells, W. W. Prescott, and the presidents of conferences and others referred to, had this message, we feel confident that the present large Sanitarium building would not be standing in Battle Creek to-day, for we believe that these men would not have lent their support to the furtherance of a plan so extensive as this one was when it was in opposition to the plain statement of the testimony. The co-operation of these men was necessary, and had they not promised to co-operate in a plan that would insure the means necessary for the erection of the building, the "leaders in the medical work" could not and would not have gone ahead with the plans adopted.
General Conference Bulletin, 1903, p. 86, THE SANITARIUM:
EGW: And when the Sanitarium there was burned, our people should have studied the messages of reproof and warning sent them in former years, and taken heed. . . . I had many things written out, but I thought, I will not say a word to condemn any one. I will keep quiet. When the planning for the new building was taken up, I think there were no questions or propositions sent me about it from those in charge."
(a) In view of these facts I wish to respectfully ask you who is responsible for the erection of the present Sanitarium as you state "against the expressed will of God"? Since you exonerated the presidents of conferences and others from all responsibility in this matter because they had not seen the testimony, are you willing to as fully exonerate the "leaders in the medical work" because they did not see the testimony, and had no more light on the subject than did the "presidents of conferences and others"?
(b) Are the "presidents of conferences and others" —Elders Daniells, Prescott, and others- so easily influenced by the "leader of the medical work," that in order to concur with him they are willing to sacrifice a principle? If these men are so easily influenced, can they be considered safe and reliable leaders?
(c) If presidents of conferences and others did not receive all the messages that the leaders in the medical work had seen, we respectfully ask that you refer us to any such, for after a very thorough search we have been unable to find a single message or part of a message that can be construed as being the expressed will of God that the Sanitarium should not be rebuilt, that the "presidents of conferences and others" have not had.
After the Sanitarium was rebuilt, it could have been sold to good advantage, but when the proposition was brought to your attention, you said, "The Sanitarium must not be sold." If such a serious mistake was made in erecting it "against the expressed will of God," what was the objection to selling it and following out the instruction which you sent in August, 1902, which stated that it would have been more pleasing to the Lord had the Sanitarium been removed to a more salubrious climate?
Next: Facts About Mrs. White's Book "Sketches From The Life of Paul" (Plagiarism)