A.T. Jones: THE MAN AND THE MESSAGE

APPENDIX B

THE TESTIMONY OF CONTEMPORARY WITNESSES

As we went to press, the Ellen G. White Estate released their 589-page Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis 1888 (Pacific Press, 1988). This supplements the four-volume set of Ellen G. White 1888 materials, containing voluminous letters and manuscripts of brethren who knew A.T. Jones personally.

We have noted how Ellen White said nothing in her accounts of Minneapolis about Jones being harsh or abrasive, or giving his brethren a valid excuse to reject his message. The 1,812 pages contain no evidence that he was harsh at the General Conference Sessions of 1888, 1891, 1893, or 1895. Surely his brethren who knew him well and opposed him vigorously will tell us of these severe personality faults in their letters.

Does this fifth volume contain such contemporary evi­dence? Did they see him as "abrasive," "cocksure," "harsh," or "arrogant"? Such evidence is totally lacking in this massive collec­tion of documents.

Two brethren speak in a derogatory manner about Jones, but not until 42 and 43 years respectively after Minneapolis. This may indicate that their memories are reading back into the 1888-era Jones impressions from the post-1903 Jones.

One of Jones's most determined opponents has only good to say of him:

I love Dr. W[aggoner] and Brother A.T. Jones. … I was especially pleased with the latter, as a man of a good spirit (G. I. Butler letter to Ellen White, March 31, 1887; p. 69).

C. H. Jones says that the opposition against him was "cruel and unreasonable," which he could hardly say if he felt that Jones had provoked it (letter to Ellen White, August 24, 1890; p. 175). In 1892 W. A. Colcord writes to her of the on-going opposition from Uriah Smith:

If I can discern the voice of the true Shepherd, Elder Jones's appeals are of this nature, and I would not dare to raise up against them, and

[I] feel pained when I see others doing so. … I would not have said a word, nor written what I have to you, did I not believe that this cross-firing and opposition to the plain, straightforward message of one whom I believe is a chosen servant of God, is in the line of shutting out the light and truth from the people, which they so much need at this time (letter, July 12, 1892; p. 204).

Of all the participants of that era, S. N. Haskell emerges as one of the most level-headed. We cannot accuse him of insin­cerity. His objectivity is evident in that he does not hesitate to criticize Jones for his mistakes. Consider his 1893 letter to Ellen White:

Some younger men [were] quite officious in acting an unwise part on points where there was a difference of faith and feeling. … I think the more the older hands get acquainted with Brother Jones the more of a feeling of harmony there is with him and his positions. So what I have said about some young men I have refferenc [sic] to W. A. Colcord in particular and others outside of Elder Jones (p. 262).

A. O. Tait writes to W. C. White as late as October 7, 1895 of the heart-breaking trials that Jones was forced to endure:

Why, it was only the day before yesterday, Bro. White, that the Chairman of the [General Conference] Book Committee in apologiz­ing to me for the rejection of a manuscript from Bro. Jones, stated in just so many words, that there was such a prejudice against him on the part of the members of the Book Committee who are acting here in Battle Creek, that it was just about impossible to get one of his manuscripts passed through. … Members of the Committee have vari­ous degrees of antipathy in their minds against those brethren who are leading out in the presentation of the doctrine of the righteousness of Christ (pp. 295, 296).

Yet in his long letter Tait gives no hint that Jones's person­ality gives these opposing brethren any reason for their "antipathy."

Further, in all the confessions of erstwhile rejectors of the message printed in this volume, not one suggests that Jones's attitude or spirit encouraged them to reject his message.

We must look at the two tentative exceptions which were written nearly half a century later:

(1) W. C. White tells Taylor G. Bunch that Jones's "pomposi­ty and egotism" were a stumbling-block to the brethren's acceptance of his message (December 30, 1930; p. 334). There are several problems with this statement:

1. The same writer says very different things back in the 1888 era, never breathing a word of criticism of Jones's spirit or personality. For example, note his account written a few weeks after Minneapolis:

It took considerable planning at first to secure for Alonzo an opportu­nity to appear before the people of the Battle Creek church at all. Some who returned from the Conf. before it was done had given out that he was a crank, and it seemed as though it would break their hearts to have the people think otherwise; but when he did get a chance to speak, the prejudice was swept away like dew before the sun (Letter to J. H. Waggoner, February 27, 1889; p. 136).

2. No other contemporary eyewitness accounts in this vol­ume support W. C. White's 1930 impressions of "pomposity" or "egotism."
3. It is reasonable to inquire if the passage of 42 years may have befogged the writer's memory.
4. It would be understandable if in 1930 the fresh memo­ries of Jones's post-1903 attitudes could be superimposed upon or injected into White's recollections of the 1888-era Jones.

(2) A.T. Robinson recalls 43 years after Minneapolis what appears on the surface to be a specific example of harshness:

What was spoken of [by opponents] as an offensive attitude … was criticized severely by some, and at times they [Jones and Waggoner] were made the subject of ridicule. Perhaps I can best give one con­crete illustration of what appeared to justify the attitude taken by some of our leading men. …

Elders U. Smith and A.T. Jones were discussing some features in con­nection with the ten horns. … Elder Smith, in his characteristic mod­esty, stated that he did not claim originality. … Elder Jones, in his characteristic style, began by saying, "Elder Smith has told you he does not know anything about this matter. I do, and I don't want you to blame me for what he does not know." This harsh statement called forth an open rebuke from Sister White (January 31, 1931; p. 337).

As noted earlier in this review, Ellen White does not men­tion this incident in her diaries or her accounts of the Minneapolis event (Mss. 24, 1888 and 13, 30, 1889). Had the incident been as severe as Robinson says, it seems likely she would have noted it. Neither does any other contemporary witness mention it; yet opponents looking for some excuse to condemn Jones would readily have seized upon it.

We cannot doubt that some such incident took place; Robinson could not invent it. But it is quite possible that 43 years could lend a color to it that was heavily tinctured by the memories of Jones's unfortunate post-1903 spirit. It may have been possible that Jones made that remark with a smile, that there was a touch of jest in it. If so, it was unwise and inappro­priate. But if he was dead serious, his eyewitness contempo­raries give no evidence in these 589-page documents that such harshness was "characteristic" of him at that time. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that the solemn endorsement of the Holy Spirit crowned Jones's ministry.