Ms 2, 1856

[Circa May 27, 1856],¹

No date or place of the vision described is given in the earliest copy of this manuscript. The contents are not readily datable except in very general terms. Until recently editors had assigned it the date “circa 1861.” However, an examination of the correspondence from this period reveals a letter by Amanda Westcott that provides a more precise date. Writing on July 16, 1856, she describes a vision given Ellen White during “the conference at Battle Creek” that matches the vision account in Ms 2 very closely, even to the wording. Thus, according to Amanda Westcott, Ellen White saw “that Bro. Arnold and Bro. Hart had been too exacting about the note James published in the Review.” Ellen White's account in Ms 2 reads almost identically: “I saw that Brethren Hart and Arnold had been too exacting about the matter of the note James published in the paper.” This and other parallels seem too close to be coincidental.The vision, wrote Westcott, took place during “the conference at Battle Creek.” The context suggests that the conference had taken place recently. The most recent conference at Battle Creek, Michigan, prior to her letter took place May 23-27, 1856. There are several reasons for concluding that the Ms 2 vision was given at that time. Among these is the fact that David Arnold, whose case is described in Ms 2, writes in the Review of his attendance at the May 1856 “general conference” in Battle Creek where “the Lord … manifested through one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit my condition.” The details given in the Westcott letter and in a later report by Ellen White (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 127) indicate that the Ms 2 vision was probably given on the last day of the conference, May 27, 1856.

See: Amanda Westcott to M. Crawford, July 16, 1856; J. W. [James White], “The Conference,” Review, June 12, 1856, p. 52; David Arnold, “From Bro. Arnold,” Review, Apr. 23, 1857, p. 199.

n.p.1EGWLM 486.1

Testimony for David Arnold,²

Identity: There are several reasons for identifying Brother Arnold with David Arnold of Oswego County, New York. Particularly telling is the statement in the last paragraph that “Brethren Hart and Arnold had been too exacting about the matter of the note James published in the paper.” We know from other sources that both David Arnold and a Brother Hart had taken issue with the Whites on whether the visions should be a test of fellowship. Arnold believed they should be and had reacted negatively to James White's article “A Test” the previous autumn in the Review (Oct. 16, 1855), in which White insisted that “the visions are not a test.” Arnold subsequently debated the issue in a letter to Ellen White and also submitted his viewpoints to James White for publication in the Review. White, however, “declined publishing it,” as Arnold pointed out in a letter to M. Crawford on February 3, 1856. In the same letter David Arnold notes that “Bro. Hart is a strong one on the visions” and had also “labored hard and long last summer” with James White “to convince him that they [the visions] were a test.”

See: J. W. [James White], “A Test,” Review, Oct. 16, 1855, pp. 61, 62; D. Arnold to M. Crawford, Feb. 3, 1856.

Alexander Ross,3

Identity: A clear indication that Alexander Ross is referred to here is found in the third paragraph, where Ellen White “saw that Brother Ross's dreams and impressions had not been from the true Source.” One year later “Alex Ross,” of Caughdenoy (Oswego County), confessed in the Review to his “unwisely giving heed to peculiar impressions and dreams, which I am fully persuaded are not from the right source.”

See: Alex Ross, “From Bro. Ross,” Review, Apr. 9, 1857, p. 182. See also note 1.

and others.1EGWLM 486.2

Previously unpublished.1EGWLM 486.3

David Arnold's discursive, formal preaching and extreme position on the visions of Ellen White. Need for sensitivity in dealing with the mistakes of Alexander Ross. Call for experience of “free and full salvation” in the congregations of Arnold and Ross.1EGWLM 486.4

I saw in vision concerning Brethren Arnold [David Arnold], and Ross [Alexander Ross], and others.1EGWLM 487.1

I saw that there was a wrong. There were difficulties in Oswego County [New York]. I saw that Brother Arnold had not understood what manner of spirit he was of, and he came to the conference⁴

Probably a reference to the “general conference” held in Battle Creek May 23-27, 1856, i.e., the conference at which Ellen White had the vision here recounted. David Arnold later confirmed that he attended that conference.

See: J. W. [James White], “The Conference,” Review, June 12, 1856, p. 52; David Arnold, “From Bro. Arnold,” Review, Apr. 23, 1857, p. 199.

with another spirit. It was not the Spirit of Jesus. I saw that since he was ordained, set apart by the brethren,5

David Arnold, together with Hiram Edson, had been ordained six months earlier, “to act as Elders in the church.”

See: J. N. Loughborough, “Oswego Conference,” Review, Dec. 27, 1855, p. 101.

he has taken an exalted position that God had never assigned him, a position that it was impossible for him to rightly fill to the glory of God. Exaltation and self-esteem has led astray and perverted his judgment, and a deathly influence, instead of a saving influence, has been the consequence. I saw that this influence had injured Brother Ross.6

David Arnold, from Volney (near Fulton), New York, lived only seven or eight miles (12 kilometers) from Alexander Ross in Caughdenoy.

1EGWLM 487.2

I saw that Brother Arnold had reasoned away and made of none effect what God had shown in vision in regard to Brother Ross.⁷

The only earlier mention of Alexander Ross still preserved is found in a vision given two years earlier, in February 1854, which focused on his failure as leader to deal firmly with some serious moral lapses in his congregation. Ellen White may be referring to that vision here or to another one, the record of which has been lost.

See: Ellen G. White, Ms 1, 1854 (Feb. 12).

Brother Arnold has not seen as God seeth in regard to Brother Ross. I saw that Brother Ross's dreams and impressions had not been from the true Source.8

See: Note 3 above.

He has been, and still is, exalted, and has a large share of self-esteem. This will too surely prove his ruin unless it is seen and there is a breaking down before God.1EGWLM 487.3

I saw that Brother Ross and Brother Arnold have built themselves up upon Brother Rhodes's [Samuel W. Rhodes]⁹

Identity: No doubt Samuel W. Rhodes. No other Rhodes is found in the Review in the early 1850s.

See: Search term “Rhodes” in Words of the Pioneers.

past errors or what they think are his wrongs. They have both pushed and crowded Brother Rhodes, when God had been healing the past wrongs and errors in judgment that he has made formerly, and God has been fitting him up to work for Him in His cause.10

Samuel W. Rhodes, a prominent itinerant preacher in the early and mid-1850s, had frequently visited the various groups in Oswego county and vicinity. Rhodes had been reproved in 1853 and 1854 for his “overbearing spirit,” harshness, and severity.

See: Ellen G. White, Ms 1, 1853 (June 2); idem, Ms 6, 1854 (Feb. 19).

1EGWLM 487.4

I saw that it was a weakness with Brother Arnold, his reasoning as much as he does. There is no religion or Jesus in it. It destroys the life of religion and encourages a formality that discourages and disheartens the people of God, and destroys the interest of meetings. This reasoning has grieved away God's Spirit, for I saw that God hates this reasoning that he has indulged in. I saw that this reasoning has mystified and fogged up the plainest facts and made them to be another thing. It has affected others; souls have felt with cringing its influence.1EGWLM 488.1

I saw that the case of Brother Ross must be handled carefully, yet decidedly and with firmness. Possessing the Spirit of Jesus, show him his true state. I saw that humble confessions from him were due his brethren who have been oppressed by him.¹¹

See: Note 3 above.

1EGWLM 488.2

I saw that in considering the wrongs of Brother Ross there had been feelings that were not free from self on his brethren's part. A feeling would rise in their hearts unlike the humble Pattern. However wrong Brother Ross may have been, his brethren could not be justified in having a single feeling or using a single word that was wrong.1EGWLM 488.3

Many of those in union with Brother Ross know but little of the things of God. I saw that a great work must be done for Brother Ross, and not only for him but for many in that section of country. Free and full salvation from God is scarcely felt; daily communion with God and consecration to Him is a rare thing. Said the angel, “Oh, how far from the bleeding side of Jesus! When at His feet strife and contention cease.”1EGWLM 488.4

I saw that Brother Arnold's course had affected many. Amanda¹²

Identity: This may be Amanda Westcott, who lived with the Arnold family from 1856 to the time of her death in 1870.

See: Obituary: “Amanda Westcott,” Review, Mar. 7, 1871, p. 95.

has been drinking down the same spirit, the same feelings and ideas, and she is in danger of being led astray and discouraged and perplexed. I saw that Sister Arnold did not possess that feeling and spirit that God approbates; an humble spirit she does not possess. She has had too much of a complaining spirit. She talks more than is for her own spiritual good or the spiritual good of others or for the glory of God.1EGWLM 488.5

I saw that Brethren Hart and Arnold had been too exacting about the matter of the note James published in the paper.¹³

See: Note 2 above.

These two have made nearly all the difficulty about this matter. Others would have had but little trouble had not these brethren stirred it up. I saw that God had especially guided His servants in their judgment and counsel concerning Brother Arnold's case, and then in addition set to His seal that it was right by the descent of His Holy Spirit in answer to the united, earnest cries of His children. I saw that there were one or two that did not see or feel the case of Brother Arnold as it stood in the sight of God, but these had not the right judgment.1EGWLM 488.6