The 1866 General Conference Session

Wednesday morning, May 16, the fourth session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists opened. The president, James White, could not be there, and in his absence John Byington was asked to preside. Loughborough, stationed in Battle Creek as president of the Michigan Conference, reported that this was a conference at which one third more business was done than at any conference before it. He added:2BIO 135.5

In the transaction of this amount of business not a jarring note was heard. The meetinghouse enterprise [a new church building for Battle Creek] and the Health Institute [the proposal that Seventh-day Adventists establish and operate a medical institution], et cetera, in addition to the yearly labor attending conference, made plenty of care and thought for ministers and committees. But we felt indeed the approving smile of God upon us as we came to the conclusions since made public in relation to these various enterprises, and we believe firmly that God is still leading out His people.—The Review and Herald, July 10, 1866.2BIO 135.6

The minutes reported only business meetings. The nominating committee recommended officers for the General Conference: for president, James White; secretary, U. Smith; treasurer, I. D. Van Horn; plus an executive committee of White, Andrews, and Loughborough. The resolutions called for the construction of a house of worship of appropriate size in Battle Creek—the third to be built there. Andrews was asked to prepare an article “setting forth the teachings of the Scriptures on the subject of war.” Of course, there was other business, particularly resolutions touching health and proper dress. The Battle Creek church had adopted an explicit statement on appropriate attire; the conference amended it somewhat and adopted it for recommendation to the churches.2BIO 136.1

The question of health reform was still much to the front. The Review had carried a number of articles on the subject, some substantial members had reported favorably as a result of adopting its principles, and Ellen White had addressed the conference on the subject. The conference resolution on this read:2BIO 136.2

Whereas, The subject of health is now attracting much attention among us as a people, and we are now learning the great truth that the proper way to avoid disease, or to recover from it, is to adopt correct habits of life, therefore2BIO 136.3

Resolved, That this conference request our brother Dr. H. S. Lay, whom we deem fully competent so to do, to furnish through the Review a series of articles on the health reform.2BIO 136.4

Resolved, That we acknowledge the health reform as set forth in the testimony of Sister White, as part of the work of God incumbent on us at this time; and that we pledge ourselves to live in accordance with these principles, and that we will use our best endeavors to impress their importance on others.—Ibid., May 22, 18662BIO 136.5

For a year the church had had before it an outline of the basic health principles, in the six How to Live pamphlets. Selections from various health works had been published in the Review, and in some very affirmative articles laymen had reported their personal experiences. One such article, titled “Influence of Diet,” was written by Joseph Clarke, a rather prosperous and influential farmer. In this he stated:2BIO 136.6

In a late number of the Review, Brother E. Goodwin speaks of the importance of heeding the late testimony respecting our diet; he speaks as though this had much to do with gaining the victory. To all this we say, Amen.2BIO 137.1

For about two years self and family have tried the two meal per day system, [see appendix C.] during which time we have not used meats of any kind; neither have we used tea or coffee, nor any highly seasoned food, and but a very small quantity of fish; we have used grains, fruits, and vegetables. The results of the system are evenness of temper, clearness of mind, steadiness of nerve, increased mental power, and a better subjection of the physical to the moral power.2BIO 137.2

I feel as if I were entering upon a new life, with new strength of hope and faith. Indeed, without the experience, I could hardly have believed it possible that the quality of our food, and the intervals between our meals, had so great an influence for good or evil.—Ibid., March 27, 18662BIO 137.3

It seems that this rather frequent contributor to the Review could hardly contain himself as he described his experience and that of his family. He wrote of how he had tested it on the farm and could do more work with less fatigue, and do it better. He continued:2BIO 137.4

It is now nearly two years since we began to practice upon this system, in all kinds of weather, at all work, in the long days of harvest and haying, and the short days of winter: whether at the plough or the hoe, the axe or the spade. I find I am not as hungry for my meals as formerly, when eating three meals a day and lunches besides; neither do I crave more at a meal, if as much; neither do I feel half as much inconvenience from faintness when hungry, as formerly.2BIO 137.5

At first I was so much pleased with the good effects of this system, that I feared it was enthusiasm in part, and that a reaction would follow; but sober reality, from two years’ experience, has satisfied us that it is still better for us than our most enthusiastic dreams had pictured to our minds. Others in this vicinity have the same views of the matter, and will, I hope, bear testimony to the same.—Ibid.2BIO 137.6

He closed his lively statement by referring to the “work published at the Review office, entitled How to Live,” and added, “You cannot afford to do without it; send for it immediately, and don't be offended with me for saying that tea and coffee, and hog's lard and tobacco, should never be the diet of a Christian.”2BIO 138.1

It is obvious that the church was beginning to feel a rise in the tide toward the principles embodied in this new and encouraging way of life. But this was just a beginning.2BIO 138.2