The Mystery

of 1888

A Study of
Seventh-day Adventist
History
in the Light of the
Minneapolis General
Conference of 1888
 INTRODUCTION

This compilation has been prepared by Donald K. Short, upon invitation as a member of
a special committee authorized by the General Conference. It has been compiled for Seventh-
Day Adventists and in particular leaders and ministers who should have a rather full knowledge of
Adventist history and an understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy and the teachings that make "us" a
people in the final generation of the world.
Certain guidelines were provided for the study. These were given special attention in
due course, along with numerous other relevant factors. The focal point of the entire study is
the Minneapolis Conference of 1888. This event in "our" church history demands a correct
understanding. For too long there has been uncertainty and lack of unity. The great importance of
this session is not based on the acceptance or rejection of a "doctrine" by few, some, or many, but
on the question whether the Latter Rain and Loud Cry was recognized and received or spurned and
rejected. Has the church entered into that unity of purpose and love commensurate with its divine
destiny? Really what did "we see" in 1888 and what do "we see" now? There are two diametrically
opposed views. Either it was "a glorious victory and the occasion and the beginning of larger
and better things for the advent church" or it was "one of the saddest chapters in the history of the
believers in present truth"? (Christian, P. 219; E.G.W. letter 179, 1902.)
The difference between these two views is very great. It is imperative that Laodicea now come
to "know thy works" and understand. "We" have the promise of Jesus, "For judgment I am come into
this world, that they which see not might see." Could anything in all the world be more important than
to have that kind of sight now?
The committee worked under the following title and was made up of the members listed below.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE 1888 EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE
Willis J. Hackett, Chairman Jim Nix
M. R. Thurber, Secretary R. W. Schwarz
J. J. Blanco D. K. Short
Robert Haddock E. K. VandeVere
Mervyn Maxwell A. L. White
Cape Town, April, 1974
Retyped and repaged differently from the original manuscript, and published privately by a
concerned individual interested in Seventh-day Adventist history. Typographical errors are
regretted.

ii
 Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
I. The Mystery of 1888. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Hebrew History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. Major Opinions On What “We See” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A Circuitous Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III. Conflicting Views Of What “We See”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Daniells versus Froom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
What Does Daniells See?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IV. Does History Confirm That “We See”?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
History versus Froom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Victory in Our History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2. “Some” Accepting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Testimony of the Twelve Best Informed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. “Verdict of Determining Evidence” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
i. No Vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ii. Leaders Did Not Reject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
iii. Confessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
iv. Temporary Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
v. Acting President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
vi. Prominent Preaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
vii. Adventism Personified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
viii. Some Definitely Rejected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ix. Approval of Confessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
x. Editor-in-Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 xii. Stream of Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
xiii. No Subsequent Vote. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
xiv. Recorded Declarations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
V. Does Ellen G. White Proclaim That “We See”?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Ellen G. White versus Froom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Many Ministers Not Converted, Sermon No. 1. . . . . . . . . . 27
2. Generalship of Satan, Sermon No. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3. Like the Pharisees, Sermon No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4. Strong-minded Opposers, Sermon No. 7. . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Heart of the Problem, Sermon No. 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
The Letter To Mary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The "Peerless Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
VI. Men Say That “We See”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Several Writers Assert “We See”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Pease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. 1888 Message Not Recognized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2. Preacher Disparaged. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3. The Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4. Getting Better. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5. Zeal to Protect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Christian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1. Light and Victory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2. Spiritual Awakening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3. Same Doctrine as Others Have. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4. Period of Revival. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Spalding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 1. Conflict of Personalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2. Could So Few Create So Much. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3. Both Parties to Blame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4. One Right Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5. Message Not Recognized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Branson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Latter Rain Falling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Olson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. The Mystery of Victory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2. Progressive Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3. How Many Were Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4. No Official Rejection, No Vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5. Problems Following 1888. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6. Repentance Spurned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7. Confused Understanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8. The Laity Will Be Rejected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Froom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1. Resurgence of Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2. Errors Have Been Removed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
VII. “Guidelines” On What “We See”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
VIII. Can “We See” Better Than The Seer?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Ellen G. White Versus Ellen G. White Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1. The Intent of the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2. Explanation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3. No Vote Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4. The “Some” Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 5. Enormous Anomalies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6. There Was No Reception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7. Was She Elijah?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8. Reception of the Message. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
9. Reconstructed History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Is There a Conspiracy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
IX. “That They Which See Not Might See”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Why Did They Speak?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
The Lessons Are For Us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Ministers Are Involved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
The Jews and Us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Who Rejected Christ?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Leaders Can Be Blind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
The Parting of the Ways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
A New Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Appendix A, Letter, July 11, 1950. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Appendix B, Letter, July 18, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Appendix C, Letter, February 27, 1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
 Chapter One

THE MYSTERY OF 1888

Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see
not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. … The Pharisees
… said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blinded,
ye should have no sin; but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
— John 9:39-41.

These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, … Thou sayest,
I … have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art … blind.
— Revelation 3:14-17.
*****
The hope and very existence of the Remnant Church is built upon a written record. Without
“history” as found in the Bible, the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination would have no reason
to exist. The belief that this Record defines a relationship between God and man, and man and
God, and that this relationship can be perfect now, and throughout all eternity, is the belief that has
caused a distinctive group of people to be gathered out from all the earth.
That Book is none other than the record of men’s lives, a record that claims to have been
“given by inspiration of God” notwithstanding it is a record filled with every shade of human
misdemeanor and gross sin. This Biblical-Christian history has an irrevocable finality about it that
is most serious. No man can undo the facts that make this history, nor can even the sovereignty of
God do so. Yet the Lord has seen fit to use such a record, and build His case on such a history of
rebellion and enmity towards Himself. Ultimately this contest must find a solution.
Seventh-Day Adventists claim to have a solution, and they do! The “foolishness of the cross”
is the ultimate power to bring the solution. In this context the irrevocable past can be used, and
understood and made to accomplish exactly what this generation is called upon to attain.
Seventh-Day Adventists do not believe the Bible because they were present when it was
written, nor because they knew the authors personally and can vouch for their characters, nor
because it is a flattering record. They believe it out of conviction that God gave it to His people,
and it has in it the power to destroy enmity against God! The Christ of this Book proved His point
and did what Satan said fallen man could not do. The basic spiritual equipment that enabled Him to
triumph is available to the last generation who are called to live without sin! Inherent in this is a belief
that the history portrayed in the Book is true. By the same token the history of Seventh-Day Adventists
must be known, believed, and accepted by them for just what it is. Anything less than this “is not of
faith” and “is sin.”

1
 HEBREW HISTORY

If this same conviction should come to the Hebrew nation, it could grasp even now the
whole truth of the entire Bible and find in Christ the promised Messiah. This would have world-wide
repercussions. Undoubtedly the effects would be felt across all sectors of mankind. This would
be true partly because of the adamant stance they have taken over the centuries and the sudden
reversal of this. Their repentance would have tremendous impact! True, it would polarize their nation
and bring about a “shaking” that would have very far-reaching results, perhaps terrible results as
man measures events. But if such a conviction could grip the people, and God could get through
to half the nation and they find salvation and bring to Him the glory He deserves and which is due
as a final vindication of His name, then surely the travail of the shaking would be worth all that was
involved. Truly this would shake the whole world! This would be the result of belief and faith in the
Bible which would bear the fruit of conviction and repentance. There is no assurance that such an
experience will ever come to the Hebrew nation.
But there is an explicit promise that it will come to the Laodiceans. “We” the leaders, the
ministry, the church as a body, can read the history of the Jewish nation. “We” believe that “we”
understand it. Can “we” read “our” history and understand it?
The Remnant Church has been told that a “shaking” will come to it and it will do wonders!
Those that receive the “counsel of the True Witness … exalt the standard and pour forth the straight
truth.” There will be “deep repentance.” They will “be purified,” and be “clothed with an armor
from their head to their feet,” and they will move “in exact order, like a company of soldiers.” Their
countenances will show “the severe conflict which they had endured,” but their features will shine
“with the light and glory of heaven.” They will have “obtained the victory,” and “speak forth the truth
with great power.” It will have effect. (EW 269, 270.)
This knowledge of the future has been given by direct inspiration. The Lord’s messenger,
Ellen G. White, has placed in the hands of God’s people instruction for every phase of life.
Presumably the Lord desires to take every precaution to assure that the victory of His people is
complete. The history they have been making in the end of time will be read by the entire universe.
That history has been written by men during the last 130 years and continues to be written now.
The history would have closed ere this if the purposes of God had been carried out. This is a fact
well known to Seventh-Day Adventists. The lapse of time has now become a perplexing problem. If,
however, “we” will not walk with the Lord, He will condescend to walk with “us.” But sooner or later
the divine purpose must be carried out in every detail no matter how humbling the experience may
be for His people. The final atonement must be made.

2
 THE PROBLEM

In sacred history there is a mysterious phenomenon that stands out in point of time when the
life and work of Christ is considered. God’s chosen people for centuries had been looking for the
day when Messiah would come. He came but He was rejected. He did not fit the preconceived
ideas of what Messiah ought to be and do. He had a very humbling influence.
However, “the common people heard him gladly.” The problem was not the people. The
inspired record of Luke affirms, “the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to
death, and have crucified him.” There was great perplexity as to why it turned out the way it did. It
need not have been so, for Jesus said, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets
have spoken.” (Luke 24:15-32.)
From that day to this there has been debate. Jews, athiests, agnostics, deists, Moslems, and
a host of others have been involved — even Christians. But it need not be so. The inspired Record
removes all mystery, if “we” believe the Record.
*****

In a similar way, terrible to contemplate, “we” as a people have built up an array of ideas
as to what happened at that remarkable meeting known as the Minneapolis Conference of 1888.
“We” have published two views that are diametrically opposed with varying shades of opposition
and with conflicting views within the opposition. This is “The Mystery of 1888.”
As time has gone on, this dichotomy has become worse and has now reached vexing
proportions. The views are such there can be no compromise. One or the other is wrong, terribly
wrong, eternally wrong for the Spirit of God is involved in the outcome. What anguish all Heaven
must feel in the circumstances. A solution must be found, the mystery must be solved. “We” must
sense the peril of thinking “we see” for under such circumstances Jesus said, “your sin remaineth.”
This is another way to say, “You have an unpardonable sin.”

3
 Chapter Two

MAJOR OPINIONS ON WHAT “WE SEE”

Over a period of years several books and documents have been written, dealing wholly or
partly with the 1888 era. The books published have been under the direction of denominational
publishing houses. The documents have been prepared by ordained ministers of the church, or by
committees authorized by the church. During this span of about fifty years, there has also been no
small amount of “official” correspondence. It is in the study of all this material that the mystery of
1888 becomes so very evident.
Aside from all these publications, documents, and letters, there stands the record given to
the church by the Lord’s messenger, Ellen G. White. Her testimony covers the entire episode and
presumably for a Seventh-Day Adventist should be the “peerless witness” as long as time shall last.
Here is an inspired record. In this there is no need “to puzzle over conflicting human opinions, with
their biases, ofttimes faulty reasonings, and slanted conclusions.” In her record there is no mystery.
A chronological listing of the books and documents dealing with the 1888 era would include
the following as being major compilations.
1926 Christ Our Righteousness, by Arthur G. Daniells. This book of 128 pages, (1941
edition) includes a sixteen page Appendix, all from the Spirit of Prophecy. It was
prepared specifically by committee action as the first denominational study on the
1888 era by an author well qualified to know the history and at a time nearest the
event concerned. It presents many Spirit of Prophecy quotations of great importance.
The author in the Foreword assures the reader, “Those who have full confidence
in the gift of the Spirit of Prophecy to the remnant church, will place great value
upon the compilation of statements herein furnished. … In no other document have
all of these been brought together in systematic and chronological form, as here
presented.” This work has great value, Hereinafter referred to as, Daniells.
1945 “Justification and Righteousness by Faith in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church Before
1900,” by Norval Frederick Pease. This is an unpublished thesis prepared in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts. This academic
treatise is the first study of 1888 following Daniells’ work. It does not come to the
same conclusions and seems to establish a pattern for some of the subsequent
publications. Hereinafter referred to as, Pease 1.

4
1947 The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts, by Lewis Harrison Christian. This book of 446 pages
has one chapter entitled, “The Minneapolis Conference and the Great Revival.”
The twenty-six pages in this chapter are but a small part of the total work but very
significant in content. Published twenty-one years after Daniells’ book, and fifty-nine
years after the Conference, the work has some conclusions in sharp contrast to his
book. Hereinafter referred to as, Christian.
1949 Captains of the Host, by Arthur Whitefield Spalding. This is a history of the Seventh-
Day Adventists covering the years 1845-1900. Of the 704 pages in this volume,
nineteen comprise chapter 36 entitled, “The Lord Our Saviour,” and of these,
nine pages deal with the 1888 Minneapolis Conference. The author affirms he
is “indebted” to Pease for several authorities “as well as for general inspiration.”
Hereinafter referred to as, Spalding.
1950 1888 Re-Examined, by Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short. This is an
unpublished manuscript of 204 pages originally on legal size sheets in
mimeographed form. Subsequently, it was reproduced in various ways by private
individuals on their own initiative, and has since had fairly wide distribution around
the world. The original document was prepared without title page or listing of
authors, date or any other relative data. It was prepared for denominational
leadership and in due course considered to be “critical,” although many laity and
some ministers considered it a call to repentance.
1953 Our Firm Foundation, A Report of the Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Conference
held September 1-13, 1952. Volume II comprises 767 pages. In this volume
there is a forty-three page presentation by W. H. Branson, entitled, “The Lord Our
Righteousness.” There is a further three pages of “Closing Remarks.” Both of these
sections have special relevance to this compilation. Hereinafter referred to as,
Branson.
1958 Further Appraisal of the Manuscript “1888 Re-Examined.” This is a mimeographed
report “prepared by a committee appointed by the Officers of the General
Conference.” It was made available in September of 1958. This manuscript of 49
pages presents an opinion that was considered necessary for the Church to have
due to the interest 1888 Re-Examined had created in the eight years following its
appearance. The conclusions of this report are in decided opposition to the work it
appraises. The members of the committee making the report have not been listed.
Hereinafter referred to as, Appraisal.

5
1958 An Answer to “Further Appraisal of the Manuscript ‘1888 Re-Examined’,” by Robert
J. Wieland and Donald K. Short. This mimeographed document of 70 pages was
issued in October, just one month after the report by the committee appointed by
the Officers. An answer is given to the charges of “numerous inaccuracies,” and the
“heedless way” E. G. White statements are used. The concern of the authors is very
evident in the document. Hereinafter referred to as, Answer.
1962 By Faith Alone, by Norval F. Pease. This book of 248 pages which is basically the
author’s Master of Arts thesis written in 1945, was published to overcome certain
interests in the field surrounding the 1888 era. The Foreword to the book written by
the General Conference president at the time, declares “this book sets the record
straight.” Hereinafter referred to as, Pease II.
1966 Through Crisis to Victory 1888-1901, by A. V. Olson. This book of 320 pages is a
“historical review of a changing and perilous period in the development of a church
movement.” Due to the author’s death in 1963, the book came from the press under
the sponsorship of the Ellen G. White Estate Board. This important work is intended
to combat “misleading conclusions” regarding 1888. The seventy-eight page
Appendix contains much previously unpublished E. G. White material. Hereinafter
referred to as, Olson.
1969 The Faith that Saves, by Norval F. Pease. This paperback book has 65 pages. The
thesis is the same as the author’s two previous works. Hereinafter referred to as,
Pease III.
1971 Movement of Destiny, by LeRoy Edwin Froom. This book of 700 pages came into
being, according to the author, because A. G. Daniells in the year 1930 urged
that it be written “with special emphasis upon the developments of ‘1888,’ and its
sequel.” It was to be a “comprehensive portrayal — one that would honor God and
exalt truth, that would enlighten and uplift the Church.” It was to be “complete and
forthright, and documented,” a work that “would round out in historical sequence
what he had begun in 1926 in the comparatively brief recital of his epochal Christ
Our Righteousness.”

The author was “admonished … to be fair and faithful to fact, comprehensive

and impartial in treatment, and to present the full picture in balance. ... A true and
trustworthy picture was imperative.” The author was subsequently urged by others to
“above all … be faithful to fact and unswerving in fidelity to the full truth.”

6
 He was charged “to get to the bottom of the facts, to reveal the resultant findings,
and to be candid and undeviating … correcting misconceptions and false
impressions.”
This work portrays beyond doubt that 1888 was a crisis point in the history of
SDA’s. The implications of this treatise are such that it could well be carefully read
and analyzed by all leaders, theologians, and historians of the Church. Hereinafter
referred to as, Froom.
1972 “An Explicit Confession … Due the Church,” by Robert J. Wieland and Donald K.
Short. This document of 64 pages was prepared as a direct outgrowth of Froom’s
work and as a result of his demand. (P. 358.) This work is an attempt to make clear
that SDA history should be accepted exactly as portrayed in the writings of Ellen
G. White, and that there is no need to perpetuate the condition that prevents “the
finishing of His work in our own hearts.” Hereinafter referred to as, Confession.

These thirteen works present the two main SDA interpretations of the 1888 era. All of these
have been prepared by ministers employed by the denomination. Each presentation professes
to be true to the facts of history. Each quotes the Spirit of prophecy in one way or another, some
much more than others. The end product of these thirteen works produces the “mystery” of 1888.
How can ministers of a church, men supposedly of sound mind and normal understanding, produce
two completely different concepts regarding the history of that church and the spiritual implications
surrounding and growing out of that history? This is the kind of mystery that perhaps only has a
significant parallel in the history of the Jews — why did they reject Christ their Messiah?
Although the compilations that have been made over a period of nearly 50 years comprise
thirteen main works, the actual number of authors is ten, allowing for one author of Appraisal. Of
these ten, only seven have actually prepared very much material, and when it is remembered that
of these seven, two authors collaborated, the total number of contributions is reduced to six. To this
must be added the Spirit of prophecy as an inspired source covering the entire record. This would
tend to indicate that, although the compilations cover numerous facets, the basic issues are rather
limited and the opposing concepts rather clear-cut.

A CIRCUITOUS RECORD

A broad study of these compilations brings a very interesting pattern to notice. Once a
statement has been projected by one author, another author picks it up and soon a complete circle
of authority is established. An example may be seen in the following chain of references.

7
 Spalding states (P. 602) that he is indebted to Pease I “for reference to several authorities, as
well as for general inspiration,” the thesis of Pease having been written in 1945, four years before
Spalding’s work.
Subsequently, Pease II, published in 1962 (Pp. 208, 209), quotes Spalding when giving a
personality sketch of Jones and Waggoner.
In due course Olson’s work appears (1966) and he quotes (P. 44) Spalding in a footnote
giving further impressions of the personalities of Jones and Waggoner.
In Appendix B of Olson’s work (P. 303), another author, Arthur L. White, in portraying Jones
and Waggoner, picks up the same passage used by Pease and Olson as found originally in
Spalding.
At a still later date, 1969, Pease III (Pp. 34 - 41) refers back to Olson regarding the 1888
session in general and in particular to the outcome of the session (P. 41) as interpreted by Olson.
There is a further cross reference among these authors. Pease III in 1962 (P. 207) goes back
to Christian who in 1947 wrote his comments following Pease I in 1945 and Daniells in 1926, and
accepts the results of the conference as declared by Christian: “Though the Minneapolis conference
was a stormy meeting, the fruitage was most encouraging. As already stated, it marked the
beginning of a new era of spiritual awakening and growth.” (Christian, P. 237.)
There is yet another interrelated complex of references. The latest publication on this era by
Froom quotes Pease, (Pp. 608 - 610) and refers to his thesis. Reference also is made to this study
later published as a book (P. 760). In a similar way Froom cites and quotes Spalding (Pp. 239,
260, 605), and refers to Captains of the Host and Origin and History of Seventh-Day Adventists
although these two books are the same works in different format. Likewise Froom refers to Olson (Pp.
76, 610 - 612), and vouches for his “accurate and dependable portrayal of that special period.”
Froom also refers to Branson (P. 607) and his topic “The Lord Our Righteousness” as mentioned
above in Our Firm Foundation, as well as Christian (Pp. 239, 684) and his testimony.
In a nutshell — Spalding refers to Pease, and Pease quotes Spalding; Olson quotes Spalding
and Arthur L. White quotes Spalding; Pease quotes Olson and Froom quotes and/or refers to the
whole group, Pease, Spalding, Olson as well as Christian and Branson.
This kind of circuitous research leaves something to be desired. Because one author makes
a statement and others pick it up and repeat it — can it be assumed that it becomes accurate and
authoritative? Can this sort of cross pollination really change the original stock or in the context of
this study add any support to what the Lord actually has said about this era through His messenger?
Does a majority, as such, really establish right and substantiate truth? Sacred history denies such a
premise.

8
 Chapter Three

CONFLICTING VIEWS OF WHAT “WE SEE”

Daniells versus Froom — The contribution Froom has made in Movement of Destiny is large and
has been acknowledged. At the same time the work has been called into question as “dependable
history.” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, January 1972, Pp. 119-122.) There is ample reason for
this. Yet it may be assumed that it was published in the providence of God that the real truth of “our”
history might come into focus and be known by the Church after these eighty odd years.
Froom affirms that more than forty years ago he received his mandate from Daniells to
undertake his survey (P. 17). Repeatedly, he vouches for the veracity of his work. (Pp. 17, 18, 19, 20,
22, 23.) He proclaims the following as his goal and uses terms such as: “comprehensive portrayal
— one that would honor God and exalt truth, that would enlighten and uplift the Church. … complete
and forthright, and documented … fair and faithful to fact … impartial in treatment … full picture in
balance … avoid any superficial type of treatment … true and trustworthy picture … candid portrayal
… plumb the depths, to record faithfully … comprehensive and trustworthy … faithful and forthright …
my fidelity to truth … above all to be faithful to fact and unswerving in fidelity to the full truth … to get
to the bottom of the facts, to reveal the resultant findings, and to be candid and undeviating in my
presentations, correcting misconceptions and false impressions and where needed — and providing a
sound setting for the final advances. … Above all, I must not be unfaithful to God and to the Church.”
It is impossible to misunderstand the tenor of these affirmations but does true history require
such to validate the stance taken? Should not the plain facts of the case be sufficient support? And
aside from what men may or may not have said and misunderstood, should not the witness of the Lord
be taken at face value?
How can anyone understand the inferences, the statements and the tenor of Froom’s book as
a whole regarding the 1888 era of “our” history when it concludes on a basis diametrically opposed
to the book Daniells wrote? Daniells is said in the first instance to have given him the charge to write
Movement of Destiny.
Here is the dichotomy. A very good summation of 1888 and the Church’s relation to the era
and its aftermath may be found in Froom’s words as follows:

There is one contention that, regrettably, has periodically been brought

forward that needs to be considered frankly in our quest for historic truth. Ever
since the 1888 tensions there have been recurrent harpers on the note that the

9
 Church, and primarily its leaders actually rejected the Message of 1888 — at
and following that fateful hour of trial. This is perhaps as suitable a place as any
to examine its validity — for echoers still persist, maintaining that the leadership
of the Movement, at the time, ‘rejected’ the message of Righteousness by Faith,
and thereby incurred the continuing disfavor of God.

And along with that assumption and assertion goes a contention that until
and unless the Movement as a whole today — nearly eighty years later — repents
as a body in sackcloth and ashes for the sins of the ‘some’ who, back at that
fateful time, did definitely reject the Minneapolis Message at and following
1888, the smile and benediction of God will never rest upon the Advent people
and Movement, and its message will never be consummated under present
conditions.

In other words, such maintain that the Loud Cry and Latter Rain will never
be visited upon us until that retroactive penitence requirement is met through
some official acknowledgement and action. (P. 357, italics in original.)
Froom emphatically denies the dichotomy yet his understanding of the problem seems
fairly clear. (1) There has been “contention” on the subject. (2) “Primarily” the “leaders” and
“the leadership” were involved. (3) They “rejected” the message. (4) There is now a question of
repentance. (5) The Loud Cry and Latter Rain have not yet come.
Under the circumstances it seems reasonable to ask: Where did this “contention” start? Is it the
fruit of some mischievous troublemaker? Did some apostate create the idea? Is it the result of some
amateurs riding hobby horses? On the other hand, is it possible that the “contention” is the outgrowth
of “our” reluctance to face “our” history — just like the Jews?
Froom’s verdict cannot be misunderstood. The thrust of the entire book ends with this thought:

Traditional attack on the integrity of leaders, at and following 1888 and

onward, is an assumption without justification in historical truth or fact. … One
can only come to the conclusion that persistent clinging to such a charge is
sheer stubbornness, based on a personal stance that has been taken and that
must be maintained irrespective of the actual evidence and the testimony of facts
that persuade all others. And it should be added that no defector or detractor
through the years, has ever produced any such E. G. White statements, or
evidence, sufficient to convince unbiased scholars.

10
 In the light of all this, it is my considered view that such a charge of ‘leadership rejection’
stands as invalid and unproved, and is deeply regrettable. (Pp. 685, 686, italics in original.)
What Does Daniells “See”? — What is the witness of Daniells; what does he recognize in this
history and what does he actually say?
With regard to instruction that came from EGW for a period of “nearly two years” immediately
prior to the session, he states, “This instruction is directed especially to ministers — the teachers in
Israel. … Who can tell what would have come to the church and the cause of God if that message of
Righteousness by Faith had been fully and wholeheartedly received by all at the time? And who can
estimate the loss that has been sustained by the failure of many to receive the message? Eternity alone
will reveal the whole truth regarding this matter.” (Pp. 38 - 40).
Are “ministers” leaders in the church? Are they to be compared to “teachers in Israel”? Does
Israel of old have any connection with modern Israel? Daniells’ perception on this is clear! But there is
much more.
The message was not received alike by all who attended the Conference, in fact, there was
serious difference of opinion concerning it among the LEADERS. This division of opinion may be
classified as follows:
Class 1.— Those who saw great light in it and gladly accepted it. …
Class 2.— There were some, however, who felt uncertain about the ‘new teaching.’ …
Class 3.— But there were others who were decidedly opposed to the presentation of the
message. … [If words mean anything, the preponderance of opposition was in the third class.]
This difference of views among the LEADERS led to serious results. It created controversy, and a
degree of estrangement which was most unfortunate. But through the intervening years there has been
steadily developing the desire and hope — yes, belief — that someday the message of Righteousness
by Faith would shine forth in all its inherent worth, glory, and power, and receive full recognition.
Through subsequent writings of the Spirit of Prophecy information is furnished regarding the
developments in connection with the giving of the message and its reception and also its REJECTION,
and it is quite necessary to become familiar with this inspired information in order to understand better
our present situation. It would be far more agreeable to eliminate some of the statements given by
the Spirit of Prophecy regarding the attitude of some of the LEADERS toward the message and the
messengers. But this cannot be done without giving only a partial presentation of the situation which
developed at the Conference, thus leaving the question in more or less of mystery. (Pp. 41-43, capitals
supplied.)

11
 Are these statements “out of context”? Does Daniells mean what he says? When within three
pages of his book he three times says “leaders,” does he mean leaders? When he says “failure
of many to receive” does he mean “few” or “some” and does “failure” really mean in this case
something opposite from failure? When he mentions Spirit of Prophecy and refers to “rejection” does
he mean rejection or is this a problem of semantics? Can there be any doubt as to what he thought
and what he meant? As further study will prove, it is precisely because “statements given by the Spirit
of Prophecy” have been eliminated or overlooked or ignored, that the situation has continued “in
more or less of mystery,” as he suggests could happen. But Daniells has more to say, much more.

What a mighty revival of true godliness, what a restoration of spiritual life,

what a cleansing from sin, what a baptism of the Spirit, and what a manifestation
of divine power for the finishing of the work in our own lives and in the world,
might have come to the people of God if all our ministers had gone forth from
that Conference as did this loyal obedient servant of the Lord! (i.e., EGW, P. 47.)
This paragraph has terrible implications! Daniells says that “if all our ministers,” had followed
the urging, the counsel, the example of EGW, following that conference, there would have come to
the people of God all the things they have been talking about for the past eighty years — including
“a power for the finishing of the work” in their “own lives and in the world.” Since the SDA church has
only one ministry, it is plain to see where the burden rests. It is certainly not on the laity as has been
inferred by both Froom (Pp. 582, 613) and Olson (Pp. 238, 239). “We” the ministry are at fault.
“We” are the messengers of the church of the Laodiceans.
Daniells continues on the same page (47) to emphasize what he had seen and heard and
knew to be a fact. “The message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course as
it should have been in order to convey to the church the measureless blessings that were wrapped
within it. The seriousness of exerting such an influence is indicated through the reproofs that were
given. These words of reproof and admonition should receive most thoughtful consideration at this
time.”
It must be remembered that this was published in 1926, thirty-eight years after the Conference.
At that date he could say, “The message has never been received, nor proclaimed. …” He knew
this not only from living through the era but from the messages God’s servant brought and which he
freely quotes. Evidently the meaning and the intent of what EGW said was not lost on Daniells in this
instance. All that she has said about the experience of 1888 has never been compiled. Much is now
available in the facsimile reprints of the Review articles. Considerable of this has never been reprinted
in any other form and much is in the Estate vault awaiting the time when it will be known, read, and
understood by the watchmen on the walls of Zion.

12
 The relevance of the EGW material which Daniells quotes is very great. A few high-lights need
to be presented.

There are those who see no necessity for a special work at this time. …
they seek to turn aside the message of warning, reproof, and entreaty. … Some
of our brethren are not receiving the message of God. … Will you dare to turn
from, or make light of, the warnings, because God did not consult you. … Some
have turned from the message of the righteousness of Christ to criticize the men.
… cast contempt and reproach on the message and the messenger. Spiritually
deadened. … If our brethren were all laborers together with God, they would
not doubt but that the message He has sent us during these last two years is from
heaven. Our young men look to our older brethren, and as they see that they
do not accept the message, but treat it as though it were of no consequence, it
influences those who are ignorant of the Scriptures to reject the light. These men
who refuse to receive truth, interpose themselves between the people and the
light. (Pp. 48 - 51.)
The understanding Daniells received from EGW is quite different from that of Froom, thus the
title for this section, Daniells versus Froom. He summarizes with words that are the opposite of those
attributed to him.

The twofold result of rejecting the message. … The division and conflict
which arose among the leaders … produced a very unfavorable reaction. …
Its rejection by some of the more experienced brethren led the younger men
into uncertainty and confusion. … Those who rejected the message, interposed
themselves between the people and the light. … Those who refuse to walk in
this advancing light, will be unable to comprehend the third angel’s message. …
Those who refuse to walk in this heavenly light, … will call it a ‘false light’.
(Pp. 50 - 53, italics supplied.)
Not only did Daniells sense the problem as being a “rejection” by the “leaders,” but he also
understood that the opposition was in reality against the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry. His reference
to EGW and his analysis of what she said makes this clear. (Pp. 56 - 63.) This is of great significance.
His understanding is evident in the following words as he referred to EGW in the Review, Nov.
22, 1892. She says: “The loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the
righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel
whose glory shall fill the whole earth.”
Upon this statement and others to which he makes reference, he makes the observation:

13
 This was declared in 1892. What marked the fresh, or new revelation of
the righteousness of Christ and the beginning of the loud cry? As the statement
itself points out, it was ‘the revelation of the righteousness of Christ’ as set forth at
the Minneapolis Conference.

Now these important manifestations are ordained of God for the finishing
of His work in the earth. When they began, they marked the starting point for
that closing work. That place, that hour was reached in 1888.

This is a tremendous conclusion, but what other conclusion can be

reached with all the statements before us? Why should this conclusion be
thought incredible? We believe the statements to be true. We have looked for
their fulfillment. Our waiting for the fulfillment has been anxious and long. The
fulfillment will be witnessed by someone. Why may we not see it and be in it?
(Pp. 62, 63.)
Again it must be noted that this was his view and understanding in 1926.
The burden and frustrations that Daniells bore may be seen in the following:

O that we had all listened as we should to both warning and appeal as

they came to us in that seemingly strange, yet impressive, way at the Conference
of 1888! What uncertainty would have been removed, what wanderings and
defeats and losses would have been prevented! What light and blessing and
triumph and progress would have come to us! But thanks be unto Him who loves
us with an everlasting love, it is not too late even now to respond with the whole
heart to both warning and appeal, and receive the great benefits provided.
(P. 69.)
Could anyone at a subsequent date prepare anything that would nullify this understanding of
Daniells? If after thirty-eight years the situation was as he has portrayed it, could even a massive work
prepared after another forty-two years really alter the facts of the case? Why should anyone try? This
is the mystery of 1888.

14
 Chapter Four

DOES HISTORY CONFIRM THAT “WE SEE”?

History versus Froom — Leaving the specific field of pitting one man’s understanding against
another as found in the previous section, Daniells versus Froom, it is now important to weigh certain
premises of Froom against history and the spiritual understanding “we” have as a people and in
particular against the knowledge “we” must have as ministers called to be “the angel of the church of
the Laodiceans.”
The credentials of the book Movement of Destiny are very impressive, perhaps without parallel
in the denomination’s history. The book is said to have been “commissioned” by a former General
Conference president and “approved” by five successive presidents “and many consultants.” It “was
made possible by the contribution of hundreds of priceless source documents from individual and
institutional donors, archivists, librarians, and collectors, as well as affidavits of actual participants
in the 1888 Minneapolis Conference, and rare documents from descendants of pioneers. … It was
read critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars-specialists … by key Bible teachers, editors, mass
communications men, scientists, physicians, and by veteran leaders with vivid memories and extensive
backgrounds.” (P. 8.) This is not the whole list!
It would seem to be certain that if prestige and native ability and sheer numbers could
establish truth, this book would have a certified pedigree above question and beyond reproach.
Unfortunately this is not the case. From the point of historical research and the validation of certain
critical and very important areas, there is no authority cited or suggested. From a theological
and/or spiritual analysis, similar large problems are very evident. Without attempting a critical
appraisal of the entire book as a whole or necessarily in any particular sequence, yet some of the
inescapable conflicts and relevant problems must be listed as follows.
1. Froom declares the Conference “marked the turning point in our history.” Furthermore, in
1887, Ellen G. White “called for a revival of primitive godliness” and that “revival began following the
conference. … The epochal Minneapolis Session stands out like a mountain peak, towering above
all other sessions in uniqueness and importance. It was a distinct turning point. Nothing like it had
occurred before, and none has since been comparable to it. It definitely introduced a new epoch. …
1888 therefore came to mark the beginning of a new note and new day, the significance of which
was not fully sensed at the time. 1888 was not a point of defeat but a turn in the tide for ultimate
victory. … few today are really aware of the tremendous issues centering in and revolving around the
1888 turning point in our history — of the battle hard fought and the victory so dearly won.” (Pp. 174,
186, 187, 191.) Can this idea of “victory” be upheld? Who had the “victory”? Can any true-hearted
SDA believe that since 1888 “we” turned and have really had a “revival”? Where did Laodicea
begin and/or has it now ended? The implications of the “victory” philosophy will not stand before

15
history or reason. The sincere and genuine call made at the Annual Council of 1973 should make it
abundantly clear that the church is still looking for “victory” and it has been driven to the conclusion
that the message of Christ to the Laodiceans has not been clearly understood or adequately heeded.
“We” cannot have a “victory” and a defeat at the same time. History demands either the Lord God or
Baal — never can it be both!
To confirm the “victory” philosophy, an impressive array of declarations are made. The
assurance is given that — ”Here a change of concept and direction began to take place in the
Movement. … we take our places … seeing and hearing … through the trustworthy eyes and ears of
prominent individuals who were personally there. … some twenty-six able and representative men and
women who were actual participants, observers, or recorders at the crucial Minneapolis Session of
‘88.” (Pp. 238,239.)
From a historical point of view, immense problems present themselves as an analysis is made of
the “affidavits” of the twenty-six. A tabulation of these gives the following information.
a. A careful count indicates that twenty-two persons actually are referred to as having given
“priceless insights into inner aspects of the Minneapolis Conference. … personal portrayals, based on
eyewitness and personal-participant attestations.” (P. 237.) The slight difference between 22 and 26 is
not critical, but merely noted.
b. Of the total number of “attestations” provided, only 13 persons giving such were actually in
attendance at the Conference. This means that only 13 persons could be “eyewitnesses” and not 26.
c. Sixty-four references are made to the 26 persons and their letters or interviews. Repeated
reference is made to certain witnesses, one being mentioned 14 times with others much less but a
mean figure of 2.46 times per person becoming evident.
d. The average age of those attending the Conference (“eyewitnesses” is 33.5 years, based
on 10 participants whose age could be verified. (Youngest 30, oldest 38.)
e. The average age of the entire group reporting subsequently, mostly in the year 1930, is
74.6 years. (Youngest 63, oldest 80.)
f. With one exception, the letter of A. T. Jones to C. E. Holmes in 1921, all “affidavits” were
made at least 42 years after the 1888 session, that is, in 1930, and another two respectively were
made 64 and 76 years after the Conference.
g. With one exception, there is not a single complete sentence quoted from any of the entire
sixty-four references made, “eyewitness” or otherwise.

16
 Reason compels that certain questions be raised. Why should all these testimonies which are
said to prove so much — why should they be kept secret and “confidential” for over 40 years while the
world plunges on to destruction?
Why should not “eyewitnesses” be allowed to speak in their own words and give a verbatim
report, if it is really “priceless”?
Why is it that even by inference not a single witness in all the 26 gives any indication that
1888 can be considered a “victory”?
Is there a court or a jury that would give much credence to the testimony of men in their
seventies relating an experience that transpired over 40 years previously but even more astonishingly
when called to the witness stand were not allowed to speak their own words?
Why should it be categorically stated in italics, “There was no denomination-wide, or
leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted,” (P. 256) and yet not one person of the 26 is
quoted to this effect?
The situation here portrayed adds to the great mystery!
There is a further point that must be noted in this context of “eyewitnesses” and the support
of certain assertions. The question must be asked, Where does historical authority lie and what
constitutes an “authoritative account”? (Cf. P. 189.) It needs to be remembered that two sources to
which Froom refers are Arthur W. Spalding and Lewis H. Christian. But Spalding did not attend the
1888 Conference. He was eleven years old at the time. (1877 - 1953) Christian was a high-school
student at the time, seventeen years old. (1871 - 1949) He passed through Minneapolis during the
session and attended at least one meeting the first day, as well as the meeting that evening and heard
Mrs. White speak the following day. (Cf. Christian, Pp. 43-45.) (See also Froom, P. 239: “ … our SDA
historians Spalding and Christian … ) What is it that makes these men the source of so much authority
on this Conference? This is a further mystery.
2. Repeatedly throughout the book, reference is made to “some” accepting and “some”
rejecting. (P. 299, etc.) If this is a fact, why should the Lord continue to speak in such emphatic terms
to the entire Conference when only “some,” less than the majority and not “leaders” were involved?
Why were the messages of the Lord’s servant increasingly more pointed as the Conference drew
to a close? Why should the entire conference time be taken up simply because “some” were out of
harmony? Why should it be that for years Minneapolis was referred to by name and the rebellious
spirit of Minneapolis was repeatedly brought to the attention of the leaders? If it was only “some”

17
perhaps few, why should the Lord continue for over eighty years to chastise His people, the entire
Remnant, by keeping them in this world when so “many” seem desirous of getting into heaven?
3. What really constitutes testimony and what sort of testimony is the “Testimony of Best
Informed … those who have made the most complete study of this whole question through
unprejudiced examination of the sources”? The testimony of twelve persons, said to be the best, must
be considered (P. 370).
i. A. G. Daniells — His testimony has been considered as given in his book, Christ Our
Righteousness. His conclusions do not agree with Froom.
ii. W. W. Prescott — There is not a single sentence of quotation from him. There is no intimation,
nothing indicating “victory.” On the contrary “he saw the ‘hard cutting spirit’ manifested by the
opposition.” (P. 254.) Because of this he absented himself from part of the meeting. His actual
understanding as given by himself at the time and subsequently may be found in the General
Conference Bulletin 1893, Pp. 38, 39, 67, 107. He quotes Ellen G. White, R&H, Nov. 22, 1892:
“The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation
of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer.” He affirms the “loud cry and the latter rain
go together. As the time has come for the loud cry it has also come for the latter rain.” (G. C. Bulletin,
1893, P. 39.) He further states: “Standing this side of events that have taken place the last four years
we ask, Has it been fulfilled? Some think they do not need the righteousness of Christ, and others
oppose it.” (Loc. cit.) Does this sound like “victory,” and this was in 1893! His plea was to sense the
fact that the loud cry of the third angel’s message had come but had not been received. He makes
reference to the Jews’ experience: “They rejected Jesus Christ and then put him to death, because he
did not come and meet their ideas, their own plan and interpretation of the prophecies, and because
he did not meet their ideas and did not conform to their plan, they rejected him and put him to death.
In the same way, Jesus Christ is being rejected today, and crucified afresh.” (Op. cit., p. 107.)
As strange as it may seem, W. W. Prescott was very frank in his comment in a way directly
opposed to Froom’s inference. Thirteen years after 1888, at the time of the 1901 session, Prescott
bluntly stated that he saw the need among the ministers for a spirit of repentance such as many have
not known for many years. He goes on to say that confusion and darkness will not be overcome
by outward form of organization. It seems quite clear he did not consider either 1888 or 1901 as
anything to be called victory. To see this in his own words, note the following:

I have not seen, and do not see now in this Conference, that real
response to the message that God has sent us, that will be of any effective
result in His work. I am willing to face the fact, but it is a fact. I saw that there
ought to come upon us, ministers of the word for Jesus Christ, such a spirit of

18
 repentance as many of us have not known for many years. There ought to be a
work wrought at this Conference that we have seen no signs of yet. … God must
work. He must put power on someone who is willing to receive it, who will stand
forth and give the message with clearness and power and lead the way out
of the confusion and darkness. It will not be by outward form of organization.
Our minds have been busily occupied during the last week formulating plans
for organization, and my own spiritual sense has said to me that we have been
losing ground in the work of organization. Do not think that it will be by change
of plan, by change of administration, by a new way of doing things. The change
that is needed is a complete change of heart. … Christ did not have to call His
people together, and tell them that their method of organization was wrong, and
that He had new plans by which to work. … It is not in this outward form and
plan of operation. That is all right, it ought to be changed; but if our minds are
resting upon that, the work will not be accomplished in that way.” (G.C. Bulletin,
1901, Pp. 321, 322.)
The grave seriousness of this kind of testimony cannot be ignored. There is obvious
discrepancy between this and that which is inferred as being his testimony.
iii. A. O. Tait — The evidence is certain that Tait was of such a character that Ellen G. White
considered she could confide in him. She corresponded with him and years after the Conference
revealed matters to him of a most serious nature, grave in their implications and with meaning that
cannot be questioned. Statements that the incumbent President “has not acted upon the light given”
(EGW to OAT, Aug. 27, 1896), and “has ventured on, directly contrary to the light which the Lord has
been giving him,” are most significant. Her confidence in him was such that she could state that the
chief officer of the church was under the inspiration of Satan. As revealing and astonishing, indeed
overwhelming in portent as this is, yet it does not provide a single word from the man himself even
though he undoubtedly was in sympathy with the stand of Ellen White. His actual “testimony” is not
given.
iv. Oliver Montgomery — Undoubtedly a leader, but again not a single sentence of testimony
quoted.
v. L. H. Christian, A. W. Spalding, A. V. Olson, Norval Pease, A. L. White — Chronologically
their work is Pease I, (1945); Christian, (1947); Spalding, (1949); White (1958); and Olson, (1966).
The viewpoints of these men are generally in harmony with Froom. One builds upon the other, yet the
differences are great. These require consideration on their own which is taken up subsequently.

19
 vi. R. L. Odom — Surely a researcher of no mean caliber. The three volumes of the Index bear
witness to his proficient and tireless labors. But where is his “testimony”? Not one line is to be found in
Froom.
vii. L. E. Froom — The author himself is listed as the eleventh on the list of twelve. His testimony is
evident enough. It is this, his testimony that is under study.
viii. Ellen G. White — ”The chosen messenger to the Remnant,” is above all others the one
bearing testimony that delineates precisely what happened at 1888. Because of this true testimony
the entire matter has been placed in a terribly serious setting having far-reaching implications! Her
testimony must be considered on its own in due course.
Of the twelve witnesses here listed and said to be the “best informed,” it would seem that two
are in a special group, Daniells and E. G. White. They stand together. The other ten are either silent
or bear varying testimonies. Why should these be called the “best informed”? If the matter rests on
their witness the case is in jeopardy. The testimony among the witnesses is not in agreement!
4. Beginning on page 370, Froom makes a fourteen-point summation and these points are
said to be the “Verdict of Determining Evidence” to attest “the fact that the denomination as a whole,
and its leadership in particular, did not reject the message and provisions of Righteousness by Faith in
and following 1888.” These points need to be considered briefly.
i. “No vote was taken by the delegate leadership, … rejecting the teaching. …” Following the
same reasoning, in fairness it must be asked, was there a “vote” to accept? Could a vote of “yes”
or “no” really change the fact that “the Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His
people …”? Was the rejection of Christ by the High Priest due to a “vote”? But if the fact of a “vote”
has any weight, then the witness of one of the chief participants must be noted. A. T. Jones states
in the 1893 G. C. Bulletin, P. 244, “Some of these brethren, since the Minneapolis meeting, I have
heard, myself, say ‘amen’ to preaching, to statements that were utterly heathen, and did not know but
that it was the righteousness of Christ. Some of those who stood so openly against that at the time,
and voted with uplifted hand against it, and since that time, I have heard say ‘amen’ to statements that
were as openly and decidedly papal as the papal church itself can state them.” If those who stood so
openly against actually “voted with uplifted hand,” as he says, it seems clear that at least an attempt
was made to get a “vote.” The fact that it did not get into the Minutes does not change the principle.
The life of Christ could not be saved by the fact “the common people heard him gladly” as long as
“the men who composed the Sanhedrin exercised their authority in controlling men according to their
will.” (TM 361.)

20
 ii. “The elected leadership was changed at the ‘88 Conference by vote of the session, … So
the elected head, the responsible leaders of the movement from 1888 to 1897, definitely did not
reject Righteousness by Faith.” What does this change of leadership actually prove, except perhaps
there was need for a change. It certainly does not prove what it is implied to prove! Surely all that the
Lord directed His messenger to write at a later date to the outgoing president and all that she wrote to
the new president, hundreds of pages, over a period of years, makes it very clear that the chief officer
of the church was not fulfilling his solemn duty. Notwithstanding all the noble affirmations made on
behalf of the new president, the facts of history cannot be changed.
The immeasurable difference between Froom’s evaluation of the situation and that of the Lord
may be seen in the following comparisons. The marked contrast of unstinted praise is taken from
pages 359 to 363 while the EGW testimony is taken from a letter to A. O. Tait, Aug. 27, 1896;
Special Testimonies, No. 19, Pp. 29, 30; letter to O. A. Olson, May 31, 1896; TM 359. The praise
by Froom is indicated by (1); the sobering indictment of the Lord by (2).
(1) “… the record of Olson’s spiritual leadership is clear and loyal.” (2) “… he has not acted
upon the light given.”
(1) “He joined wholeheartedly with Ellen White …” (2) “… he has ventured on, directly contrary
to the light which the Lord has been giving him.”
(1) “Olson … helped to bind the Church together.” (2) “He is leading other minds to view
matters in a perverted light.”
(1) “Olson … fostered the study of the Spirit of Prophecy.” (2) “He does not regard the
testimonies.”
(1) “Olson’s tenure of office was a time of … growing acceptance of the message of
Righteousness by Faith.” (2) “Unmistakably Elder O. has acted as did Aaron, in regard to these men
who have been opposed to the work of God ever since the Minneapolis meeting. They have not
repented of their course of action in resisting light and evidence.”
(1) “Olson … helped … to advance the Message of Minneapolis … from 1888 to 1897.
(2) “Those who then refused to receive the testimony given me by God for them, and rejecting the
evidence attending these testimonies, would not be benefited should I return (i.e., from Australia).”
(1) “His was a healing, unifying, and helpful influence …” (2) “The disease at the heart of
the work poisons the blood. … The spiritual blindness which rests upon human minds seems to be
deepening.” “The whole body is sick.”

21
 (1) “Olson’s tenure of office was a time of awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction and
self-reliance …” (2) “At the center of the work matters are being shaped so that every other institution
is following in the same course. And the General Conference is itself becoming corrupted with wrong
sentiments and principles. … The people are learning that men in high positions of responsibility
cannot be trusted to mold and fashion other men’s minds and characters.” (This was written in 1895.)
“We” need to understand this terrible situation with pity, sympathy, and tender sorrow. About
seven years after the notable session, this condition prevailed. It was not just a man involved, or
“some” but it was “we” ourselves insulting the Spirit of God.
iii. “A goodly proportion of the ‘some’ rejecting the message in 1888 made confession of error
within the decade following 1888. … Only pockets of resistance remained, with certain individuals
persisting in the rejective attitude. But they could scarcely be classified as leaders.” (Pp. 370,
371.) Are the officers leaders? Are “responsible brethren” leaders? Is the “General Conference” a
leader? Does the Lord really mean what He says through His messenger? How can reason support
the contention that it was “only pockets of resistance” remaining? Can the Adventist conscience
conclude that for all these eighty-odd years since 1888, the Lord has withheld His Spirit because of
“only pockets” of resistance? Did Israel of old because of “pockets of resistance” go back into the
wilderness after coming up to the borders of Canaan? The good report of the Caleb-and-Joshua
“some” was not able to outweigh the bad report, the unbelieving report of the remaining ten “some”
and when the ten repented the terrible ill effect was not cancelled out. They had to go back. Their
prayer to die in the wilderness was answered. The truth is “they seemed sincerely to repent of their
sinful conduct; but they sorrowed because of the result of their evil course, rather than from a sense of
their ingratitude and disobedience. … Their hearts were unchanged.” (Pp. 391.)
“We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as
did the children of Israel; but for Christ’s sake, His people should not add sin to sin by charging God
with the consequence of their own wrong course of action.” (Letter 184, 1901, Ev. 696.)
iv and v. Could a “temporary chairman of the 1888 Conference, Stephen N. Haskell” (P. 371)
really change the whole tenor of the succeeding years? There is no record that he or W. C. White
ever stood in the forefront of the ‘88 confrontation. It was Ellen G. White standing with A. T. Jones and
E. J. Waggoner who had to bear the brunt of the battle.
vi. “For a dozen years following 1888, E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones continued to teach
the Minneapolis Message with great force and prominence.” This is true! The Lord sent the precious
message through them. But what is the relationship of these two plus Ellen White to the total number?
Perhaps it only verifies that they understood the message better than the others. It certainly does not

22
alter the circumstances nor the opposition that existed any more than the faithful report of Caleb and
Joshua could counteract the disbelief and evil lying report of the other ten spies. The fact that Jones
and Waggoner continued to preach and even hold prominent positions could not cancel out the
“insubordination.” It is a known fact that there was widespread opposition to Ellen White, who stood
with them, and to the messages she was giving to the church. Her testimony was ignored and had
determined opposition against it. There were things spoken against her that virtually accused her
of untruths. There were apparent friends who were actually assailants weakening her counsels and
making them of none effect. Yet all the while, for years, there appeared each week on the front page
of the Review, an article by Ellen White. This exposure of the church to her messages could not in any
way counteract the “insubordination” that prevailed nor undo the rejection of the latter rain and loud
cry. Likewise the preaching of Jones and Waggoner, even though it may have been sponsored by
the brethren to a certain degree, cannot prove the acceptance of the message which they preached
and which the Lord gave them for His people. For some mysterious reason this, as yet, has not been
recognized.
vii. “Most determinative of all, Mrs. White herself surely did not reject it, and she was
Adventism personified, as it were.” (P. 371.) It is difficult to follow this line of reasoning. It is precisely
because of what she has said, it is her testimony that has so vividly delineated the rebellion and
rejection of the latter rain and loud cry which was offered to “us” as a people. How could the Lord
who gave her the counsel possibly reject His own counsel? But Ellen White could go forward only as
the church was willing to go with her. An example may help in this connection.
In days of old, surely Moses was “Israel personified.” His service, his position and his calling
from the Lord made him thus. He accepted the report of the two faithful spies. He was deeply grieved
at the terrible rebellion of the people as they rejected the truth and accepted the false report of the
unfaithful spies. These ten men had entered upon a wrong course, stubbornly set themselves against
Caleb and Joshua and against Moses — even against God! They distorted the truth in order to sustain
their influence. Satan has his way. But Moses remained “Israel personified” and he in humiliation and
distress of soul went before the Lord and pleaded for the people and the Lord heard and pardoned
according to the word of Moses. But the damage was done! Moses with all his hopes and his whole
life immersed in the welfare of Israel could not change the rebellion into obedience nor alter the
verdict of the Lord, “turn you and get you into the wilderness.” (Cf. Pp. 387-393.)
viii. “Mrs. White never once declared or condoned the idea that the denomination as a
whole, or that the leadership of the Movement as such, rejected Righteousness by Faith — only
that ‘some’ had definitely resisted and rejected it.” (P. 372.) Never once does she declare that the
message was accepted! What she has “declared” and what she has testified is more than enough to

23
show the Lord’s attitude. Spiritual immaturity stifled the Holy Spirit. The truth of this is inherent in the fact
that “we” are still talking about the Latter Rain coming at some future time whereas the Lord offered
this to “us” over eighty years ago. If there was nothing more now in print for God’s people, other
than Testimonies to Ministers and Christ Our Righteousness they would know that some great tragedy
came to “us” in 1888. The fact is, all that the Lord has said on this matter has yet to be put together
and made available. The “triumph of the Church” (which is absolutely certain) has nothing to do with
what “we” as a people have written about our history.
ix. “Mrs. White spoke approvingly of the various confessions of men like Uriah Smith, G.
I. Butler, and others. …” (P. 372.) This is very true! But the damage was already done, the seeds
of rebellion having been sown over a period of years. By the same token the Lord accepted the
repentance of Moses and Aaron at the smitten rock episode even though “they were not chargeable
with willful or deliberate sin; they had been overcome by a sudden temptation, and their contrition
was immediate and heartfelt.” (Pp. 419.) But notwithstanding this “immediate” repentance they could
not take the children of Israel into the promised land. How does this compare with repentances
that took years to come forth and even then, Olson says, “In the years following his repentance
and confession, Elder Smith enjoyed a good religious experience, but he was not always quick to
apprehend the truth in its fullness and to comprehend the works of Providence. He found it difficult at
times to join his brethren wholeheartedly in promoting the message of righteousness by faith.” (Olson,
P. 99.)
x. “A. T. Jones was made editor-in-chief of the Review for some four years — from 1897 to
1901. …” (P. 372.) Being placed in this responsible position in 1897, about nine years after the
Conference, could not possibly change the detour that had already been fixed. If this “leadership
action” is relevant to the overall problem, then it must be asked in fairness why the “leadership”
removed Jones in 1901 and replaced him with Uriah Smith who had been his predecessor.
xi and xii. “Ellen White’s major books … were all written after 1888. … An increasing stream
of literature, by different authors, … continued to flow from our publishing houses following 1888. …”
(Pp. 372, 373.) Can the publication of all these wonderful books really have a bearing upon the
heart-felt acceptance of the Latter Rain and Loud Cry in 1888? Has the publication of the E. G. White
compilations over the years meant that all the counsel has been accepted? Did the publication of
Counsels on Diet and Foods in 1938 cause all the “leadership” to become vegetarians forthwith? The
answer is obvious! It is a mystery why such line of reasoning would be attempted and approved “by
some sixty of our ablest scholars.”
xiii. “It is also to be noted that no subsequent vote — that is, following 1888 — was ever taken
by the Conference, or responsible committee or institute, against the truth of Righteousness by Faith.”

24
(P. 373.) This again reveals a strange understanding of what a “vote” can or cannot do. Can a “vote”
prepare God’s people for heaven? It should be obvious that a “vote” is futile to change history —
indeed nothing can change history. It must be faced as “written for our admonition, upon whom the
ends of the world are come.”
xiv. “We have the recorded declarations, made in 1930, of the core of loyal men present
at and participating in the 1888 Conference.” (P. 373.) It has already been pointed out that the
declarations of men, their written witness, should be of sufficient value to be displayed, and set
before all who have any interest in the matter to enable them to read the record. Only then can such
“declarations” have validity and relevance and any hope of upholding assertions! But more than this.
Twenty-one men are listed by name. Several of these, perhaps ten or twelve are mentioned
in this list who are not referred to in pages 240 to 267. It is not clear why this group is different from
those who supplied affidavits, but in any event this group, if they were present at the Conference,
would make about one-fourth of the delegation. (Pease I indicates there were 84 delegates (Pease
I, P. 54); Olson indicates there were 85 delegates at opening time with an additional five delegates
seated on October 26, which is about half way through the conference (Olson, p. 33); while Froom
(P. 373) refers to a total number of delegates as about 90.) This group of twenty-one men is said to
“fully offset the ‘some’ who did not at first see the truth.” By comparison “the ‘some’ who rejected turns
out to be less than twenty out of more than ninety.” (P. 369.) Thus from forty to fifty were the “some” or
“others” remaining noncommittal.
If this little exercise in arithmetic can be even approximately correct as based on Froom’s own
figures, how can “we” possibly understand why Ellen G. White has said so much about this notable
Conference and the terrible spirit of opposition and rebellion manifested there and in subsequent
years? Reason demands an answer. Was it the “few” or the “some” or the “many” of the Sanhedrin
that doomed the nation of Israel? History indicates there were probably seventy-one members
(delegates). Can it possibly be the quantity that accepted or rejected and/or were noncommittal
that has delayed the coming of Christ? Surely the Adventist conscience cannot submit to this kind of
frustrating mental exercise!
But what is the unique, indeed very strange remedy that is suggested in this hour of crisis? Just
forget it! “Surely the hour has now come to forget the past and its variances, to press together, and
to move forward unitedly in response to God’s call to advance.” (P. 373.) Truly advance is essential.
Unity is imperative for the Spirit cannot abide confusion. But how can God’s people be called upon
“to forget” their past? This is to countermand the very thing “we” have been warned against — ”we
have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His

25
teaching in our past history.” (LS 196.) There is a principle at stake! The Remnant Church dare not
pass over lightly its own relationship to the Lord and His Spirit as evidenced in the 1888 experience
any more than it may presume to try and forget Calvary because it happened 2000 years ago. The
mere passage of time does not cancel out an insult. At Calvary a love relationship was opened to all
mankind; at Minneapolis God desired His bride to enter into the consummation of this divine-human
relationship. The acceptance or rejection of a “doctrine” could never fulfill the potential God had in
mind but which to date has eluded “us.”
History does not support what “we” say “we see” nor can history ever be supported by mere
assertions. If Froom worked from “hundreds of priceless source documents” it is only right, proper
and reasonable that at least “some” of these be put on display and quoted from rather fully. This has
not been the case. This is a mystery. Yet we say “we see,” and have been in “a time of awakening
from Laodicean self-satisfaction and self-reliance,” which began in 1888. What a startling fulfillment
of prophecy! We are “blind” and know it not, all the time saying, “We see; therefore” our “sin
remaineth.”

26
 Chapter Five

DOES ELLEN G. WHITE PROCLAIM THAT “WE SEE”?

Turning from history as such, it is important to consider next the eyewitness accounts as given
and understood by the Lord's messenger. Ellen G. White was present at the 1888 Conference. She
was sixty-one years of age at that time (1827 - 1915). Her understanding of all that transpired at this
session came to her by (1) being present, and (2) by divine revelation given as much as two years
before the Conference was held, and (3) by inspired insight.
These counsels from the Lord will bear witness as long as time shall last. Their great
significance will increase in value and import the further "we" travel in time from 1888. It is a solemn
truth that she must stand as "Adventism's Peerless Witness." (Froom, P. 443, et. seq.) There is no
question about this. The problem is, are "we" prepared to accept her witness. Do "we" take her
words for just what they say or do "we" make them say what "we see"? In chapter thirteen of Froom's
work, "we see" far more than the Lord has ever said or implied through His messenger. Fortunately,
not only what she said is available, but what she wrote at the time of the Conference is also on hand
for careful study. This must be considered in contrast to the general thesis and implications of Froom's
work.
E. G. White versus Froom — The tone of the public presentations made by Ellen White at the
Conference is one of solemn entreaty, positive warning, and specific comparisons with the Jews and
condemnations for rebellion and rejection. This evidence is very great. Yet Froom, professing to accept
this weighty divine counsel, proceeds in a way that leads to an end result which is a nullified version
or complete reversal of what has been stated. The portent of this is very serious and perhaps cannot
be fully appreciated without careful study and comparison of the record from God's messenger and
his chapter thirteen. (Pp. 218-236.) Specific points must be noted. Unless otherwise indicated, all
emphasis has been supplied in this section to delineate the points considered. For ready reference
the Ellen G. White material is quoted from Olson, Appendix A, Pp. 257, et. seq., wherein an almost
complete record is provided of the E. G. White sermons given at the session.
1. Froom refers to the first EGW talk at the session, October 18. (Olson, Pp. 257-260.) He
quotes part of a sentence (P. 221): "We are losing a great deal of the blessing we might have at this
meeting because we do not take advance steps in the Christian life as our duty is presented before
us;" then the balance of the sentence reads: "and this will be an eternal loss." Note: Three times in
this one sentence she refers to "we" that is, all present at the Conference. The gravity of the situation is
clear by her reference to "an eternal loss," which Froom did not quote.
He next quotes: "We must not measure God or His truth by our finite understanding or by our

27
preconceived opinions." The preceding sentence reads: "We should be in a position where we can
comprehend the teaching, leading, and working of the Spirit of Christ." The next following sentence
reads: "There are many who do not realize where they are standing, for they are spiritually blinded."
These are words to the delegates as a whole and not to a segment. This entire sermon needs to be
read carefully.
Froom states: "Some, she admonishes specifically, have 'never been converted.'" She actually
says, "There are many ministers who have never been converted." The ministers were offering "lifeless
prayers ... dry discourses … they are not partakers of the divine nature." The thrust of the whole sermon
was against "those who are in positions of responsibility," "the ministers." "We want the ministers and
the young men to be converted."
2. The third EGW sermon was given on October 20. (Olson, Pp. 260 - 268.) She called for
"progress." Following three pages of solemn admonitions and illustrations from sacred history, she
came to a crucial point and makes reference to Christ being "thrust out of the city."
At this place Froom (P. 223) quotes a few words: "She warns that 'if God gives light,' He will
'withdraw His Spirit unless His truth is accepted.'" (Olson, P. 264.) Here the Lord's messenger was
making a terrible comparison. What did "they" do to Christ? "They 'rose up, and thrust him out of
the city.'" She speaks to the Conference, the delegates assembled — "for you to do as they did" is "a
terrible thing." "We" today should be driven to our knees by the awful significance of these words!
They must be read in their full context.
She continues by pointing out that disbelief had been the problem in Christ's day and the
people had been "under the generalship of Satan and yet claimed that they were working under
the generalship of God. But God had nothing to do with their unbelief and their rising against Jesus
Christ." To be under the generalship of Satan while claiming God as the general must be very close
to the ultimate in self-deception. Her next sentence is: "I wish you could see and feel that if you are not
advancing you are retrograding." She continues to the delegates: "Now, what we want you to see
is the relation which you sustain to the work of God. ... I ask you what position shall we take that we
may be partakers of the divine nature?" Much more than a doctrine was involved; a divine-human
relationship was at stake, and the withdrawal of the Spirit was pending.
3. The fifth sermon (Olson, Pp. 272 - 285) proceeds to point out very clearly the need for
"men who are spiritually sharp and clearsighted, men worked by the Holy Spirit." The entire sermon
is very frank. When "we" are compared to the Pharisees, it should frighten us. She says: (P. 276) "The
Lord has plain words for those who, like the Pharisees, make great boast of their piety but whose
hearts are destitute of the love of God. The Pharisees refused to know God and Jesus Christ whom
He had sent. Are we not in danger of doing the same thing as did the Pharisees and scribes?"

28
 Some further statements, likewise not quoted by Froom, should serve to show the real attitude
taken at the session.
"God calls upon you to leave the atmosphere of unbelief in which you have been dwelling,
and place yourselves in an atmosphere of faith and confidence." (P. 281.)
"If we neglect to walk in the light given, it becomes darkness to us; and the darkness is
proportionate to the light and privileges which we have not improved." (P. 283.)
"God is displeased with those who call evil good and good evil." (P. 284.)
"If, as Christ's overseers, we do our work with an eye single to the glory of God, there is no
reason why the church should be weak, faithless, and corrupt. Let the watchmen on the walls of Zion
awake!" (P. 284.)
"Come up out of the cellar of doubt, of unbelief, of jealousy, and evil surmising, into the upper
chamber of faith, hope, courage, and thankfulness." (P. 285.)
"It is Satan's work to misrepresent the Father and His Son, to misrepresent truth and gloss over
error, making it appear as truth." (P. 285.)
These words were spoken to the entire Conference, not just to "some." Who are "Christ's
overseers"? Who are "the watchmen on the walls of Zion"? Dare any minister disclaim his
responsibility, above all the leadership? Can such solemn words as these be the basis for declaring
as Froom does: "1888 therefore came to mark the beginning of a new note and new day, the
significance of which was not fully sensed at the time … not a point of defeat but a turn in the tide for
ultimate victory." (P. 187.) "The Minneapolis Conference was nevertheless the beginning of a new
epoch in the gradual clarification, development, and perfection of new aspects of truth." (P. 252.) Do
present conditions in the church indicate that the "revival of primitive godliness … began following the
Conference of 1888"? (P. 187.)
4. The nearer the end of the Conference came, the more pronounced and direct the counsel
of the Lord became. The seventh sermon of EGW stands out boldly to show exactly what the attitude
was of the "ministering brethren." (Olson, pp. 290-293.) There is no possible way to construe these
words to be directed against "a few strong-minded opposers … exerting a disproportionate influence."
(P. 228.) The tenor of her words cannot be misunderstood. The numerous broken quotations taken by
Froom from the whole must be read in their entirety as complete sentences in their context. There is no
intimation from any word spoken by the Lord's messenger to show she was trying to correct a "few" or
"some." Repeatedly she refers to "my brethren," "our ministering brethren," "brethren," "ministers," and
"you" in the generic sense! More than once the comparison is made with the Jewish nation. "Just like
the Jewish nation." (Olson, p. 292.)

29
 "How can you listen to all that I have been telling you all through these meetings and not know
for yourself what is truth?" (P. 292.)
"Eyes have ye but ye see not; ears, but ye hear not." (Ibid.)
"There is the danger God has shown me that there would be a deceitful handling of the Word
of God." (Ibid.)
"All this terrible feeling I don't believe in." (P. 293.)
"You want the eyesalve that you can see, and Jesus will help you if you will come to Him as
little children." (Ibid.)
5. Then the last great cry came in the eighth sermon, written out in full so that no future
generation need have any question about what was said. (Olson, pp. 294-302.) In view of the
language she used it is difficult to understand why any man should persist in claiming that all came out
well following 1888. Why is it repeatedly denied that the "leadership" failed in their understanding
and responsibility of that hour? This eighth sermon bears careful analysis in full context and not by
fragmentary excerpts. If the church had nothing else to study regarding 1888, this sermon would
clearly point out who were involved, and the attitude of rejection which they took. There is no way
to construe this to be "an assumption without justification in historical truth or fact." (Froom, p. 685.)
Indeed this sermon is but one sure testimony among many that the Lord had given to make clear the
1888 episode. What more can the Lord do to make us see and understand "our" history?
At the outset it must be noted that the sermon was addressed to, "Dear Brethren Assembled at
General Conference." It could not be more specific. This was to the leaders and ministry of the church
assembled by vote of the church and bearing the responsibilities delegated by the church. At no point
in the entire sermon is it intimated that EGW was burdened over the quantity of "some" accepting
and 'some' rejecting," as Froom states. (P. 229.) The great contrast between truth and error is evident
in her opening sentence: "I entreat you to exercise the spirit of Christians." It may seem strange why
such an entreaty should be made to a church assembly, but very soon the reason is pointed out. The
contrast is made between Christians and how they should think and reason and "Satan's way of
working." This is made in a setting that must be considered.
In this context, Froom quotes one sentence as follows (p. 230): "Of one thing I am certain,
as Christians you have no right to entertain feelings of enmity, unkindness, and prejudice toward Dr.
Waggoner, who has presented his views in a plain, straightforward manner, as a Christian should."
Froom then states: "That pierces to the heart of the Minneapolis problem — resistance by 'some'
against the light presented by Waggoner, and the wrong spirit of antagonism toward the messenger
and the message." (Italics in original.)

30
 He considers "that" sentence "pierces to the heart of the Minneapolis problem." Surely, this
is to grossly over-simplify the problem. The very next sentence from the EGW sermon reads: "If he is
in error, you should, in a calm, rational, Christlike manner, seek to show him from the Word of God
where he is out of harmony with its teachings. If you cannot do this, you have no right as Christians to
pick flaws, to criticize, to work in the dark, to prejudice minds with your objections. This is Satan's way
of working."
If "that" sentence to which he makes reference is truly the heart of the problem, one can but
wonder why for so many years the Lord, through His messenger, continued to employ such strong
language regarding the terrible loss sustained at the session. One can but ponder why she over and
over repeatedly used in this sermon the generic term "you," that is, "Brethren Assembled." One must
note she says, "our brethren," or "our ministering brethren." Consider the following serious indictment
not quoted by Froom, but again immediately following a citation he does make — (P. 231):

If our ministering brethren would accept the doctrine which has been
presented so clearly — the righteousness of Christ in connection with the
law — and I know they need to accept this, their prejudices would not have
a controlling power, and the people would be fed with their portion of meat
in due season. … I see no excuse for the wrought-up state of feeling that has
been created at this meeting. … The messages coming from your president at
Battle Creek are calculated to stir you up to make (hasty decisions) and to take
decided positions; but I warn you against doing this. You are not now calm;
there are many who do not know what they believe. It is perilous to make
decisions upon any controverted point without dispassionately considering all
sides of the question. Excited feelings will lead to rash movements. It is certain
that many have come to this meeting (with false impressions and perverted
opinions). They have imaginings that have no foundation in truth. Even if the
position which we have held upon the two laws is truth, the Spirit of truth will
not countenance any such measures to defend it as many of you would take.
(Olson, Pp. 295, 296. Words in parenthesis quoted by Froom, P. 231.)
She says, "ministering brethren" under the controlling power of prejudices "many" do not know
what they believe; "many" have come with perverted opinions; "many" would defend truth in a way
the Spirit of truth will not countenance. Is there any possible way to construe this as "some"? Do her
words mean what they say? Surely they must.
The next part of her sermon is of intense interest for reference is made to a vision received two
years previously but having a present application. She was addressed in the night season and told
by her guide to follow and she seemed to be at headquarters in Battle Creek. The guide said, "The

31
Spirit of God has not had a controlling influence in this meeting. The spirit that controlled the Pharisees
is coming in among this people, who have been greatly favored of God." She goes on to say, "I
was told that there was need of great spiritual revival among the men who bear responsibilities in the
cause of God. There was not perfection in all points on either side of the question under discussion.
We must search the Scriptures for evidences of truth." Again she quotes the word of the guide. "There
are but few, even of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third angel's message, and
yet this is the message for this time. It is present truth. But how few take up this message in its true
bearing, and present it to the people in its power! With many it has but little force." Surely this sermon
needs to be read with a prayerful heart! Now note some very significant points.
The guide said, "The Spirit of God has not had a controlling influence in this meeting. The
Spirit that controlled the Pharisees is coming in." Where was the deficiency? The guide told her there
was "need of great spiritual revival among the men who bear responsibilities in the cause of God."
Could it be stated any plainer — the problem was with leadership! This was pointed out by specific
words from the "guide." And could it be any more certain it was not just a doctrinal or theological
problem, but a spiritual deficiency. But equally astonishing, the guide said: "There are but few, even
of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third angel's message, and yet it is the message
for this time." (Olson, p. 296.) It is axiomatic among SDA's that if the three angels' messages are
not comprehended then righteousness by faith likewise is not comprehended! The guide said "few"
comprehended — not even "some." The guide went on to say: "There is much light yet to shine forth
from the law of God and the gospel of righteousness. This message, understood in its true character,
and proclaimed in the Spirit, will lighten the earth with its glory." If "we" accepted in 1888 all that
"we" say "we" did, then it is long past time for this "glory" to be seen. From what the guide said it
would seem obvious that the message is not yet understood in its true character notwithstanding all
affirmations to the contrary.

Brightness, glory, and power are to be connected with the third angel's
message, and conviction will follow wherever it is preached in demonstration of
the Spirit. How will any of our brethren know when the light shall come to the
people of God? As yet, we certainly have not seen the light that answers to this
description. God has light for His people, and all who will accept it will see the
sinfulness of remaining in a lukewarm condition; they will heed the counsel of the
True Witness when he says, 'Be zealous therefore, and repent.' … The Church is
represented as standing in a self-satisfied, pleased, proud, independent position,
ignorant of her destitution and wretchedness. … The Lord is far from pleased.
… To our brethren who are standing in this self-confident, self-satisfied position,
who talk and act as if there was no need of more light, we want to say that the
Laodicean message is applicable to you." (R&H, April 1, 1890. This quotation

32
 follows immediately the well-known statement of EGW equating justification by
faith with the third angel's message. "It is the third angel's message in verity."
It was written about one and one-half years after the '88 Conference and is
relevant in this context due to the contrast it presented to the thesis of Froom.)
The sermon of EGW continues by repeatedly referring to "many" who are in various states
of need. (Cf. Olson, P. 297.) She does not use the word "some" as put into her mouth by Froom, p.
231, but she says, "Many who claim to believe the truth will change their opinions in times of peril,
and will take the side of the transgressors of God's law in order to (escape persecution). … But Satan
will work upon the unconsecrated elements of the human mind that many will not accept the light
in God's appointed way. I entreat you, brethren, be not like the Pharisees, who were blinded with
spiritual pride, self-righteousness, and self-sufficiency, and who because of this were forsaken of God.
For years I have been receiving instructions and warnings that this was the danger to our people. …
There is positive danger that some who profess to believe the truth will be found in a position similar to
the Jews. … Self-esteem and self-righteousness are coming in upon us, and many will fall because of
unbelief and unrighteousness, for the grace of Christ is not ruling in the hearts of many."
If such a message as contained in this sermon should be given at a session of the church
today, would anyone dare to say it was meant for "some"? When God's spirit speaks, there should
never be a contest as to whom the Spirit is speaking.
The next paragraph of the sermon is a further entreaty, a call to accept light, a warning not to
be like the Jews. In three sentences she uses ten times the term "you" and "yourselves" in a generic
sense — the Conference as a whole, the brethren assembled, the leaders of the church. Her plea:
"I entreat you close not the door of the heart for fear some ray of light shall come to you. You need
greater light, you need clearer understanding of the truth which you carry to the people. If you do not
see light yourselves, you will close the door; if you can you will prevent the rays of light from coming
to the people. Let it not be said of this highly favored people, 'Ye entered not in yourselves, and them
that were entering in ye hindered' (Luke 11:52). All these lessons are given for the benefit of those
upon whom the ends of the world are come." (Olson, P. 297.)
These words stand like a terrible prophecy for later she said emphatically that the Holy Spirit
in a great measure had been shut away from our people and light kept away from the world by "our
own brethren." The statement reads:

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept

this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested
at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren Waggoner and
Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our

33
 people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God
longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that
efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the
apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the
whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren
has been in a great degree kept away from the world." (1 SM 234, 235.)
Further important points having terrible significance must be noted from this sermon.

Let no one quench the Spirit of God. … Let men be careful how they
handle the Word of inspiration. … If men were themselves controlled by the Holy
Spirit they would bring heart and soul to the task. … If they are not controlled by
the Spirit of God, they will give evidence of this by caviling over His Word and
by sitting in judgment upon its teachings just as did the Jews. … Many workers
are not now fitted for the position of trust they occupy. … God wants to give our
brethren another spirit. … Our greatest fear should be that we may be found
rebelling against God's Word, which is to be our guide amid all the perils of the
last days. We must be sure that we are on the Lord's side, and that we have the
truth as it is in Jesus. … When the Jews took the first step in the rejection of Christ,
they took a dangerous step. When afterward evidence accumulated that Jesus
of Nazareth was the Messiah, they were too proud to acknowledge that they
had erred. So with the people of our day who reject the truth. They do not take
time to investigate candidly, with earnest prayer, the evidences of the truth, and
they oppose that which they do not understand. Just like the Jews, they take it
for granted they have all the truth, and feel a sort of contempt for anyone who
should suppose they had more correct ideas than themselves of what is truth."
(Olson, Pp. 298, 299, 300.)
These are thoughts to which Froom makes no reference. Surely they are very important. The
contest of E. G. White versus Froom seems very clear.
Nearing the close of this sermon which in its printed form is eight and one-half pages in
length, a subtle inference of Froom must be considered. The intent is to support his "no vote" premise.
He states on page 233: "Again Mrs. White repeats that it is 'not wise' to come to 'a decision
at this meeting, where opposition, rather than investigation, is the order of the day.' No vote on
Righteousness by Faith was taken."
The few words in quotation marks are absolutely correct but when placed in their context are
absolutely wrong. The paragraph in which they are found reads as follows; the parentheses enclose
Froom's portion:

34
 God has a work to do in our world that many finite minds do not see or
understand, and when God unfolds truth to His people, and it does not come
in harmony with their ideas, many are ready to despise and reject it. I entreat
you, brethren, reverence your Bible. Plead with God for light. Fast and pray in
your closet upon your knees. Ask God to lead you into all truth. Tell Him that
you want the truth as it is in Jesus. It is (not wise) for one of these young men
to commit himself to (a decision at this meeting, where opposition, rather than
investigation, is the order of the day.) The Scriptures must be your study, then you
will know that you have the truth. Open your heart that God might write the truth
upon its tablets." (Olson, P. 301.)
How is it possible to read into this paragraph anything about a vote being taken on a
doctrine? Why should such inference be made? This paragraph, plus the one preceding in the
sermon, make it clear that the real issue deals with, confidence in God's Word in contrast to
confidence in men. Those who do not think for themselves, but believe because their associates
believe certain doctrines, resist the truth and oppose the light. "Many" are ready to despise and
reject truth on this basis. The "young men" were being warned not to follow, by implication the older
brethren, and oppose light and truth as was "the order of the day."
This sermon should be read by every worker, minister, and administrator in the cause. It deals
not only with "our" history, but with spiritual truth of the highest order greatly needed in this hour. It
closes with these words:

Let the love of Christ reign in hearts here. Let all yield themselves to that
heavenly power which alone can create unity by quelling selfish ambitions
and human pride. When the Spirit of God comes in, love will take the place of
variance, because Jesus is love; if His Spirit were cherished here our meeting
would be like a stream in the desert.

Has the truth as it is in Jesus been received into the heart? Have the mind
of God and His ways become our mind and our ways? Is the law of God our
standard? If it is, its principles will be wrought out in our life. Wherever the love
of Jesus reigns there is peace with God, joy in God; and the love and joy are
reflected to others. We cannot afford to be deceived by a semblance, a form.
The truth of the Bible may be read, and we may think that a form of words will
accomplish that which only the Spirit of God can accomplish by its converting,
transforming power. We may hold certain points of truth firmly and yet refuse to
let in any fresh rays of light which God may send to show us the beauty of the
truth. It is dangerous for us to take a step in uncertainty. We should not reject or

35
 oppose the views of our fellow laborers because they do not agree with our
ideas until we have used every means in our power to find out whether or not
they are truth, comparing scripture with scripture. (Olson, P. 302.)

THE LETTER TO MARY

The last portion of the chapter about "Inspired Counsels" gives consideration to a personal
letter from EGW to her daughter-in-law, Mary, wife of W. C. White. Unfortunately the complete letter
is not published but sufficient is available to make it clear that Sister White went through a great trial
at the session. (Froom, Pp. 234 - 236; 673, 674.) Her expressed faith in the Lord as leader and Jesus
at the helm, in no way counteract her summation of the Conference.
This letter is the only new contribution from the Spirit of Prophecy to be found in the entire
volume, notwithstanding repeated affirmations by the author that Ellen G. White is "Adventism's
Peerless Witness." The letter does not support that the rank and file of workers and laity accepted the
presentations at Minneapolis. Indeed, it gives every evidence of the opposite.
She says it was "a most laborious meeting" and she had "to watch at every point lest there
should be moves made, resolutions passed, that would prove detrimental to the future work," and
that "we have had the hardest and most incomprehensible tug of war we have ever had among
our people." Words could not be plainer to indicate that it was a battle, and not just of "some."
She states that, "envy, evil surmisings, jealousies have been working like leaven until the whole lump
seemed to be leavened. …" and at this point there is an ellipsis in the letter so what further she said is
not published. But if the "whole lump" seemed to be leavened, one can reasonably inquire, just how
much a "whole" is in relation to a whole? Is it "few," "some," or "many"?
It must be further noted that she specifically says she is grateful to God for the strength and
freedom and power of His Spirit in bearing her testimony although it has made the "least impression
upon many minds than at any period in my history." Froom has the temerity to insert his own words
"not all," following her use of the word "many," (Froom, P. 235), and indicates this in brackets. Can
such tampering be justified?
The battle between truth and error is clearly marked out when she further states, "Satan has
seemed to have power to hinder my work in a wonderful degree, but I tremble to think what would
have been in this meeting if we had not been here."
Perhaps much better than he knew were Froom's words wherein he called this letter a
"priceless summation" of the Conference. (P. 235.) It certainly gives Ellen White's view very clearly
and presents a wistful plea — "God would have worked in some way to prevent this spirit brought to
the meeting having a controlling power." God would have, but He was not permitted.

36
 THE "PEERLESS WITNESS

Froom has referred to Ellen G. White as "Adventism's Peerless Witness" and this is perhaps a
very good description. It implies that her witness will be accepted as supreme, without rival, second to
none. Chapter twenty-eight and twenty-nine of his work consider the place of this witness. (Froom, Pp.
443 - 464.)
As far back as 1965, through private correspondence with Froom, it was pointed out by
him that the then future book, Movement of Destiny, would contain certain EGW material, "further
evidence," that would settle permanently the 1888 issue. Reference was made to classified files and
confidential materials among which he said are doubtless the most illuminating portrayals of truth in all
her writings. Obviously the publication of this book was awaited with keen interest.
The book has now been off the press for about three years. A careful study of its contents
indicates there is nothing in it of "further evidence" from the Spirit of Prophecy to settle the 1888
issue. As has been mentioned above, only the letter to Mary constitutes new "evidence" but this, as
analyzed, adds nothing to support Froom's thesis, on the contrary, it tends to further nullify it. It remains
then to consider briefly the contents of his two chapters, twenty-eight and twenty-nine.
Chapter twenty-eight reiterates, "'Leadership' Did Not Reject Message" and submits as
supreme evidence the fact that the great majority of Ellen White's books have all been penned and
produced since 1888. The true Adventist conscience certainly accepts all of these writings as a
great blessing and assurance of God's interest in the Remnant Church and indeed as one mark of
authenticity for that church. But notwithstanding this, the mere possession of books cannot in any way
prove that historically the church fulfilled its high calling. It should be obvious that mere possession of
her books will in no way change the spiritual status of the church anymore than a Bible in a man's
briefcase will make him a Christian. It is astonishing why this line of reasoning should be attempted.
The emphatic approval which EGW gave to messengers other than herself helped to
precipitate the '88 crisis. Men were not prepared to accept what she had to say. Her testimony was
ignored. There was not only the question of degree of inspiration, but war against specific counsel
such as health reform.
The futility of saying, "we have not rejected" (P. 445) but at the same time saying "we have
not advanced as we should" ought to be self-evident. "We" cannot have it both ways at once! This
is discussed in Confession, Pp. 33, 34, and need not be repeated here. The theology of Froom's
chapter twenty-eight remains to be carefully analyzed and outlined but that is outside this study.
Chapter twenty-nine (pp. 454 - 464) takes up "key communications" from the "Peerless
Witness." With great interest one would turn to this chapter and hope to read these communications.
But this is impossible. There is only a list, a summarizing sentence, made by the author and not a

37
single word from the witness. Between 1888 and 1901, there are 200 items listed but only two of
these give original sources. This list is considered by the author to be a "priceless guide and reference
sheet." This whole presentation is an astonishment. A "witness" must bear a testimony in order to be a
valid witness. To deny this right is to nullify the definition of the term and make completely meaningless
the title of these two chapters.
The proof of any case must depend upon the testimony brought to bear by the witness said to
know something about the matter. No assertion can be accepted nor stand as valid, no matter how
much faith may be proclaimed in the veracity of the witness, unless the evidence and testimony of that
witness is brought to bear and is heard. This has not been done and consequently it stands, Ellen G.
White versus Froom.

38
 Chapter Six

MEN SAY THAT “WE SEE”

The weight of evidence against Froom rests not only with Daniells, but the prime original source
of evidence and testimony is that of Ellen G. White, yet he does not stand alone. In particular there
are five other denominational writers who have published ideas about 1888. Reference has been
made to these but further study needs to be given to them.
SEVERAL WRITERS ASSERT “WE SEE”

The historical fact of the 1888 Conference and the subsequent 1893 session and the
repeated references to this era made by EGW over more than a decade, finally passed into the
archives, as it were. It was not until 1926, thirty-eight years after the great session, that new impetus
was given to its study when Daniells published his book, Christ Our Righteousness. The stand which
Daniells took is very clear, as has been pointed out.
In the meantime, from that date to this, several different authors have published rather specific
views about 1888. Six of them have come to varying conclusions in direct opposition to Daniells who
pointed out clearly the attitude of the Spirit of Prophecy toward the Minneapolis episode. It would
seem that these authors either were unaware of what has been said or ignored the many specific
statements and judgments that have been made by the Lord’s messenger. As set out in chapter two of
this study, the authors who stand in opposition to Daniells are Pease in all three of his works, Christian,
Spalding, Branson, Olson and Froom. The last one of these has already been considered in part. It
remains to review briefly the works of the other authors.
PEASE

It was in the year 1945, that further momentum was given to study of this era of Adventist
history when Pease prepared his unpublished M.A. thesis, “Justification and Righteousness by Faith
in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church Before 1900.” This was 57 years after the session. There is a
decided difference in his study from that presented by Daniells, notwithstanding Pease recognizes
that by 1900 Mrs. White, Waggoner and Jones still remained the impetus of the movement, and “the
doctrine” had not taken its place as a major tenet of the denomination. (Pease 1, P. 88.)
This thesis written in 1945, is virtually a word for word preliminary copy of his book, By Faith
Alone, subsequently published in 1962. It is clear from the foreword in the book (P. vii) that it was
considered needful to have it published due to the questions and comments coming from the field at
the time. The Foreword, written by the General Conference President at that time, states: “This book
sets the record straight.” The fact that subsequent volumes regarding 1888 have been published

39
would indicate that there was further need to try and cancel out persistent problems and anomalies
not yet solved. This is evident as Pease I, Pease II, and Pease III is studied.
Pease does not set the record straight, and it is evident there are serious problems in the
presentations he makes of what “we see.” Here are some reasons for these difficulties.
1. He almost completely fails to recognize the 1888 message for what it was in truth — the
intended beginning of the latter rain and loud cry, a message sent of God to prepare a people for
translation.
2. An allusion is made to this on P. 156 (Pease II) in quoting EGW, Review, November
22, 1892: “For the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of Christ, the
sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole
earth.” But the significance of this is not grasped. In a similar way, reference is made to Jones at
the 1893 session but then aspersions are cast upon him and his dialogue with the congregation is
disparaged regarding what the brethren rejected at Minneapolis. His utterances are referred to as
“vehement, almost vitriolic.
3. Scores of times Pease refers to the 1888 message as the “doctrine of justification by faith,”
or “the doctrine of righteousness by faith,” and proceeds to equate it with the historical doctrine
as taught by the apostle Paul, and Luther, Wesley, and others, and emphasizes strongly the idea
that Jones and Waggoner got the doctrine from the popular Protestant churches of their day. (Pp.
138, 139.) This implies that it was indeed unknown among “us” in pre-1888 times, but Sister White
says she had been trying to present it to our people for 45 years previously. Again, if the Protestant
churches had had its essence in their midst all the time, how could the message be the beginning of
the latter rain, and above all, how could it be the “third angel’s message in verity?” It would be very
difficult for the Adventist conscience to accept that the 1888 message really came from Babylon and
that Babylon understand the truth of justification and righteousness by faith in a way to enhance the
Remnant church.
4. As the denomination gets older, a near phenomenon becomes evident; for the first time
in history here is a church that is getting better and better all the time, yet is warned against an
“unscriptural perfectionism.” (Cf. Pease II, Pp. 227, 239, 240.) But perhaps all is well, or nearly so,
“we” have the Bible, Sister White’s writings, and at some future time His second coming will bring the
consummation of the gospel. There was a mixed reaction to the 1888 message; there was “obvious
spiritual growth and improved insight, but it was not as general as it should have been. The efforts
for revival were neither a failure nor a complete success.” (Cf. Pease III, P. 45.) This is perhaps a very
graphic portrayal of what the True Witness saw: “Thou art neither cold nor hot … thou art lukewarm …
and knowest not that thou art wretched and … blind.”

40
 5. As the published works on 1888 are studied, other problems and conflicts of viewpoints
become evident. But the hour is very late and the conflicts among men is not the chief problem. At
the same time the zeal of each author to protect the church — or the traditions of the elders — is very
evident and from a human standpoint praiseworthy. The Lord also truly protects, guards, and loves
His bride, perhaps in a way “we” have not fully appreciated as yet. Albeit, He will countenance “no
guile” (Revelation 14:5) irrespective of how much His beloved may require to be humbled. If He could
only get her to look back — and repent.
CHRISTIAN

The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts, by L. H. Christian, published in 1947, sets forth a grand view and
witness of the place the Spirit of Prophecy has held in the church. He declares, “Prophetic guidance
is still a part of our divine heritage, and the future of the remnant church will largely depend on how
our gospel workers study and follow the light of God in the days to come.” (Pp. 7, 8.) In this work
of 446 pages, there is one chapter of twenty-six pages relevant to this study; it is, “The Minneapolis
Conference and the Great Revival.” The conclusions of this chapter do not agree with Daniells and
the chapter contains contradictions. Here are some highlights.
1. “At no other gathering in our entire history has the Lord in so marked a manner brought light
and victory to His people through Bible study and the Spirit of Prophecy.” (P. 219.) In great contrast
to this view of “our” history, a statement from the Lord’s messenger is presented in the same chapter: “I
have been instructed that the terrible experience at the Minneapolis Conference is one of the saddest
chapters in the history of the believers in present truth.” (P. 230, Letter 179, 1902.) The difference in
these two concepts is vast, but the Adventist conscience must accept the Lord’s word which has the
specific impressive preamble — ”I have been instructed.”
2. “Though the Minneapolis Conference was a stormy meeting, the fruitage was most
encouraging. As already stated, it marked the beginning of a new era of spiritual awakening and
growth.” (P. 237.) In deep concern “we” now living in the 1970’s, must inquire, “What has happened
to the ‘new era of spiritual awakening’?”
3. “Some may well ask, What was this teaching of righteousness by faith which became the
mainspring of the great Adventist revival, as taught and emphasized by Mrs. White and others? It was
the same doctrine that Luther, Wesley, and many other servants of God had been teaching. This is
easily seen as one reads the articles by Mrs. White in our papers for many years, and also her large
books.” (P. 239.) Can any SDA truly believe the 1888 message was merely a re-emphasis of Luther,
Wesley, and such others? Did Mrs. White really get her message from them? Is this what her books
contain?

41
 4. “Thus the after effect of the great Minneapolis revival was the beginning of another era
for the advent movement. This blessed period of revival, beginning in 1888, which was so rich in
both holiness and mission fruitage, came, above all, as a direct result of the work of the messenger
of the Lord through the Spirit of God.” (P. 245.) Was the message truly accepted? Was a victory
gained and a new era begun? How can it be? After another twenty-seven years since the book was
published can any Adventist say, “Amen,” to this thesis? But more than this. Current study and research
of the 1888 Conference now proposes that it was precisely because the work of the messenger of
the Lord and the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy was rejected that the session became such a tragic
episode then and in the years that followed. Obviously one of these concepts is completely wrong!
5. No mention is made of the latter rain and its relation to the session.
SPALDING

In the history book, Captains of the Host, published in 1949, A. W. Spalding uses only one
chapter of the 704 pages to consider 1888. The author is said by Froom to be “a most trenchant and
dependable historian of our early days and the experience of 1888.” (P. 605.) Spalding’s view of
what “we see” must be considered next. It is not quite clear why he should be accorded the place
of a “historian” when it comes to 1888. He was born that year and actually has written but very few
pages on this experience of the church. What he has written needs to be considered briefly.
1. He places the session in an atmosphere of “rancors aroused by personalities, much more
than the differences of beliefs, which caused the difficulty.” (P. 599.) This is a unique appraisal. Could
“the conflict” which “involved personalities quite as much as preaching,” (P. 592) be sufficient cause
for God to stand back for further decades awaiting His people to forget all this and at some future
time fulfill their “destiny”?
2. Could the some half-dozen men listed by name as opponents on the two sides be the cause
of the seventh church journeying on for 85 years and more?
3. Can it be true that Jones and Waggoner were equally at fault with those who opposed
them, as affirmed: “Never before in the history of this people had there been an issue so grave, in
which not one party alone, but both parties, were at fault.” (P. 593.) If this is a fact, where does it
leave the Lord’s messenger who so decidedly took her stand with one side? How would she dare
to keep a personality clash alive and vivid and continuing for about seven years by proclaiming so
emphatically in 1895: “The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people
through Elders Waggoner and Jones”?

42
 4. The decorum of at least one of the main proponents is set forth clearly by Ellen White.
She refers to “a right spirit, a Christlike spirit, manifested, such as Elder E. J. Waggoner had shown
all through the presentations of his views. ... As Elder E. J. Waggoner had conducted himself like
a Christian gentleman, they should do the same. … Elder Waggoner had taken a straightforward
course, not involving personalities, to thrust any one or to ridicule any one. He conducted the subject
as a Christian gentleman should in a kind and courteous manner. This was acknowledged to be the
case by those who were holding opposite views.” (MS-24, 1888.)
In great contrast she continues to delineate the attitude of one of the opposition: “If only
Elder _____ had done the same.” (Ibid.)
Thereafter the Lord’s messenger proceeds to speak without repress regarding the terrible
spirit of opposition and in due course, specifically refers to A. T. Jones as well as E. J. Waggoner,
together, as having received treatment less than their due. As this is studied it will be seen where and
upon whom the preponderance of fault lay — unfortunately upon “the ministers,” “my brethren,” “my
ministering brethren,” men in high positions.” Is it possible for anyone to read such heaven-inspired
indictments and continue to think the crisis was a conflict of personalities? The controversy was
between light and darkness; truth and error; Christ and Satan — and “we” were involved, this is “our”
record!
5. There is a complete lack of any recognition that the 1888 message was the beginning
of the latter rain and loud cry. It is difficult to see how this historian missed such vital information as
portrayed in the original sources.
BRANSON

The 1952 Bible Conference, held in the Sligo Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Takoma Park,
Maryland, was a world-wide gathering of workers from various departments of the church. The
papers presented at the Conference resulted in 1503 pages of printed material produced in two
volumes. Volume II has some material dealing specifically with 1888. It is very briefly reviewed here,
not because it adds new insight to the ‘88 era, but rather because it should make “us” comprehend
after these further twenty-odd years exactly how confused the situation is in “our” midst and measure
carefully what “we see.”
The Introduction of Volume II contains these words: “Although the studies were prepared
independently and without collaboration on the part of the speakers, there nevertheless runs through
them a thread of truth which binds them together with a remarkable degree of unity and purpose.
That thread is righteousness by faith, which is ‘the third angel’s message in verity’ and this doctrine is
to become the message of the loud cry, which results from the outpouring of the latter rain.” It will be
noted that the “loud cry” and the “latter rain” were still in 1952 anticipated at a future date.

43
 The following lengthy quotation must be read and analyzed in the light of the 1888 session
and in relation to what has transpired since 1952.

To a large degree the church failed to build on the foundation laid at

the 1888 General Conference. Much has been lost as a result. We are years
behind where we should have been in spiritual growth. Long ere this we should
have been in the Promised Land.

But the message of righteousness by faith given in the 1888 Conference

has been repeated here. Practically every speaker from the first day onward has
laid great stress upon this all-important doctrine, and there was no prearranged
plan that he should do so. It was spontaneous on the part of the speakers. No
doubt they were impelled by the Spirit of God to do so. Truly this one subject
has, in this conference ‘swallowed up every other.’

And this great truth has been given here in this 1952 Bible Conference
with far greater power than it was given in the 1888 Conference because those
who have spoken here have had the advantage of much added light shining
forth from hundreds of pronouncements on this subject in the writings of the Spirit
of Prophecy which those who spoke back there did not have.

The light of justification and righteousness by faith shines upon us today

more clearly than it ever shone before upon any people.

No longer will the question be, ‘What was the attitude of our workers
and people toward the message of righteousness by faith that was given in
1888? What did they do about it?’ From now on the great question must be,
‘What did we do with the light on righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the
1952 Bible Conference?’

Brethren, what shall be our response?

The reception of the righteousness of Christ by faith will bring the Holy
Ghost down from heaven. This will result in the very foundations of the world
being shaken by the preaching of the Advent message.

We are engaged in an effort to double our church membership in a

four-year period from January 1, 1950, to December 31, 1953. Some have

44
 reckoned such a goal to be preposterous. But is it? When the first Pentecost
came, the church doubled its numbers in one day.

The reception of the righteousness of Christ by the church today will

bring the second Pentecost. Revelation 18:1-3 will be fulfilled. Thousands will be
converted in a day as the message of salvation through Christ swells to a loud
and mighty cry. With such power in the message, who shall say that a four-year
period is too short a time in which to double the number of those who are
brought into the church of God?

This question of receiving the righteousness of Christ in its fullness is

therefore the most important consideration before each one of us.

Who, then, are there among us who will without further delay reach out
the hand of faith and grasp this mighty gift? It is ours for the asking and taking if
we only believe.

When this takes place the very skies will pour down righteousness and
the earth will open up and cause righteousness and salvation to spring up
together. (Pp. 616 - 618.)
Is it possible at this date that “we” really believe what is set forth in this passage? Was the
message of 1888 truly “repeated” in 1952? And was it given “with far greater power than it was
given in the 1888 Conference”? Is not the terrible confusion of all this very apparent? But to add to
the discord and variance, Branson is countermanded by Froom with the following pronouncement:
“The epochal Minneapolis Session stands out like a mountain peak, towering above all other sessions
in uniqueness and importance. It was a distinct turning point. Nothing like it had occurred before, and
none has since been comparable to it. It definitely introduced a new epoch.” (Froom, P. 187.) This is
“our” history! The utter futility and confusion of all this should humble “our” hearts!
A side-light must be noted at this point for it was in the early 1950’s that a supreme effort was
put forth to vindicate the idea of the latter rain falling at that time. In Africa candidates for baptism
were accumulated over a period of time and then on certain given Sabbaths great mass baptisms
were performed so that the total for the day was over 2,000 for the Division. Thereafter it was
self-evident that the latter rain was falling, or so it was proclaimed, “Pentecost Being Repeated in
Africa.”
Will “we” face our situation and “our” history exactly as they stand or will some future
generation “research” all that is now transpiring? One thing is as clear as it could possibly be — ”We”

45
have not remotely fulfilled the grand proclamations made at that meeting nor has the church yet seen
“far greater power” in its midst due to the 1952 conference! The root of 1888 goes deep.
OLSON

By the year 1966, problems in the field in connection with 1888 had increased to a
perplexing state. There was a sort of credibility-gap that would not go away. As various viewpoints
got into print, so the confusion increased. By this time the regular published works dealing with this era
numbered four, besides the unpublished thesis and, of course, Daniell’s work. Chronologically these
would be listed as follows: Daniells, 1926; Pease I, 1945; Christian, 1947; Spalding, 1949; Branson,
1953; Pease II, 1962; leaving Olson to come in 1966 and Froom yet to appear in 1971. Besides
these regular denominationally sponsored publications, there had appeared three other studies which
undoubtedly had much to do with precipitating the publication of at least three of the above books.
The three studies were: “1888 Re-examined,” prepared in 1950; “Further Appraisal of the Manuscript
‘1888 Re-examined,’” released in September 1958; and “An Answer to ‘Further Appraisal of the
Manuscript ‘1888 Re-examined’,” prepared in October, 1958.
At this point A. V. Olson’s book, Through Crisis to Victory, must be considered.
1. The very title of the book presents a great mystery. That there was a “crisis” is abundantly
clear, but what was the “victory”? How dare “we” call 1901 a “victory” when the Lord’s servant
called it the greatest sorrow of her life? What sort of eyesight do “we” have; is this really what “we
see”? How can a defeat possibly be called a victory? Is not the situation here all too much like that
of old when they could not distinguish between the voice of the true Shepherd and the voice of a
stranger? Here is one message to hear, given during this era:

God stands ready to bestow rich blessings upon men; but few will bend
from their selfishness to receive the gracious gift. From age to age there is acted
over the same rejection of light that grieved the heart of Christ when He was
on earth. There is seen the same refusal to hear the voice of God through His
appointed agencies, because the message borne does not sanction human
theories. Christ is as really rejected today by the rejection of His messages
of warning and reproof as when He stood in this world a man among men.
(Review, April 2, 1901.)
2. On what basis can “we” presume to say the period between 1888 and 1901 “were in
some ways the most progressive years of the Advent Movement up until that time”? It was but a few
months later, February 18, 1902, that the terrible sanitarium fire came. The shock of this was scarcely
over, when ten months later the publishing house was burned. The Lord has told us these losses did

46
not just happen. Is this the fruit of “progressive years”? “The natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14.)
3. In an effort to be specific as to how many comprised the opposition at the ‘88 session,
Olson “by searching through letter files, manuscript files, and periodical files … discovered that at
least twenty-three workers were involved in it in one way or another.” (P. 84.) If “at least” this many
were involved in sheer numbers known by name, without any reference to the tremendous spiritual
overtones, it means that the situation was very similar to that described in the Scriptures: — ”There
was war in heaven” and the war was of such magnitude that when that old serpent fought against
Michael, “his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth.” What
mortal man would dare to minimize the war in heaven because only about one-third fought against
Michael? Yet history confirms that “at least” more than one-fourth of the delegates known and listed
by name, not to count the unnamed group, were on the wrong side of the issue, warring against the
light God sent.
It must be noted here that Froom (P. 367) while giving Olson high marks for “the most complete
investigation into the number and scope of subsequent confessions,” changes the figures Olson
uses and says there were “less than a score … who actually fought the message of Righteousness
by Faith, though these were disproportionately vocal.” It seems relevant and reasonable to point
out that Froom has undercut his whole thesis about “leaders” not rejecting for it is leaders, men in
responsible positions, who usually have the ability to express themselves, to be “vocal” as they deem
circumstances require. Froom further points out that Olson’s “painstaking search, pursued with his
characteristic thoroughness … was made during his chairmanship of the Trustees of the Ellen G. White
Estate, with access to the files.” It can be but wondered how so much that is in the files was either
overlooked, ignored or completely misunderstood. In mercy the Lord says, “thou knowest not that thou
art blind.”
4. The idea is presented and urged that the message of righteousness by faith was not
“officially rejected” and that “no action whatever was taken by vote of the delegates to accept it or
to reject it. Its acceptance or rejection by the people present at the session was an individual matter.”
(P. 36.) Froom promotes the same “no vote” idea. (Pp. 233, 370.) This is to miss entirely the practical
results of what happened and this is clearly seen as the record is examined. It is only required to
read the words of those who were there. The speakers, the delegates, and congregation — they
understood. To seal the matter the counsel of the Lord is also recorded with explicit reference to
Minneapolis! Read the General Conference Bulletin of 1893. There was not the least doubt about
“rejecting the loud cry.” The understanding was clear enough and positive enough that five years
after 1888, the session of 1893 as a body publicly acknowledged — ”Then what did the brethren
in that fearful position in which they stood, reject at Minneapolis? They rejected the latter rain — the

47
loud cry of the third angel’s message. (P. 183.) On this one page of the Bulletin, seven times there
is specific reference to “reject,” “rejected,” “rejecting,” “set aside,” or not receiving. The evidence is
overwhelming, yet “we” presume to rationalize and set aside this solemn positive recorded history to
suit “our” terrible desire for self-vindication which in the final analysis is to charge God for His delay in
returning!
5. The very serious problems in the church following 1888, stated bluntly, unrighteousness and
rebellion, and continuing through the era covered by the book are to be ignored as having nothing
to do with righteousness by faith and still do unrighteousness? Is justification by faith a ritual that has
no practical value, no relevance to translation? The Lord says: “Truth is not truth to those who do not
practice it. Truth is only truth to you when you live it in the daily life, showing the world what those
people must be who are at last saved. (G. C. Bulletin, April 3, 1901, quoted by Olson, P. 184.)
6. The idea of a denominational repentance is spurned and a quotation less than one-fourth
of a sentence is given in support of this. (P. 83.) It is the same piece of a sentence used by Froom, (P.
368) taken out of context to protect “us.” See Confession, Pp. 43, 44, for a consideration of this.
7. The reader is led to believe that the problem of 1888 was unique to that session by these
words: “As we now examine the historical record and look at the General Conference sessions,
we see that except for the meeting of 1888, righteousness by faith was not an issue in the great
gatherings of the church. The doctrine was understood to be part of the third angel’s message.” (P.
228.)
Pease I says quite a different thing: “It can hardly be said, however, that the doctrine of
justification by faith had taken its place as a major tenet of the denomination. In order for the doctrine
to have achieved this status, it would have to have become part of the teaching of practically all
accredited spokesmen of the denomination. Such was not the case.” (Pease I, P. 88.)
There is a further viewpoint expressed by Froom, a kind of theological evolution based on a
long period of time, (P. 535, also P. 316): “The crisis hour for the Advent Movement passed. Time
would vindicate the Biblical truth presented. Time would overcome stubborn opposition. And time
would ultimately heal the wounds and rifts. But it would take time, much time.”
Bringing these vastly different concepts carefully into focus, the following emerges:
(a) Olson says righteousness by faith was an issue only at the meeting of 1888, the doctrine
was understood to be part of the third angel’s message.
(b) Pease says the doctrine had not taken its place as a major tenet of the denomination at or
following 1888 though from 1890 to 1900 many accepted the doctrine. (Cf. Pease II, P. 164.)

48
 (c) Froom says though it might take years before the light would triumph — it would eventually,
time would overcome stubborn opposition, but it would take time, much time.
There is evidenced here tragic confusion of thought. The word of the Lord’s messenger about
this era stands consistent and clear without contradiction.
8. By evading the recognition that the 1888 message was the beginning of the latter rain and
was rejected, a painful conclusion is forced: The leadership and ministry are good; the laity are bad.
This is brought to view in the close of the book (P. 239): “They have neglected … they have failed …
their poor souls are naked and destitute … they will soon be rejected by their Lord.”
This same conclusion is brought to bear on the laity by Froom: “God has had to wait for His
people to respond. We have repeated Israel’s experience.” (P. 317.) “The Holy Spirit — ready, willing
and able — could not do His allotted work because of the unpreparedness of the membership.” (P.
582.) “The groundwork has all been laid and the stage all set for the last final surge forward and
upward. What now remains is entrance of His people into the full provision of God for the finishing
of the Great Commission under the enabling provisions and the power of the Holy Spirit in the Latter
Rain and Loud Cry.” (Pp. 612, 613.) When “we” in contrition cease to proclaim “we see,” “we” will no
longer need a scapegoat!
Equally serious is the end product of this philosophy which dare not remain unchallenged. In
time this deception would destroy the church as Ellen White and the pioneers conceived it to be and
understood its destiny. The false philosophy is this: There can be a church leadership which is right
with God and a laity that is unresponsive. Where in the Bible is such a teaching formulated? This
concept is the essence of the Roman Catholic teaching of a hierarchy — you cannot trust the church,
that is, the laity, they cannot be given the cup.
1888 contains infinitely more than a “doctrine,” an eternal principle is at stake.
FROOM

Considerable reference has already been made to Movement of Destiny, by LeRoy Edwin
Froom. Chronologically there is need to refer to this work again as it is the latest official publication
on the 1888 era. A very brief review needs to be given, plus a few other points not considered
heretofore.
1. An endeavor is made in Chapter twenty-three, (Pp. 375 - 391) to point out that by the
year 1920, a resurgence of and a renewed study of righteousness by faith was under way. Critical
problems and pressures in previous years had crowded the great theme into the background. “It failed
to be stressed as it had been in the 1890’s. And for several years it was largely quiescent. Major

49
problems, together with demanding activities, had had first place. Now an auspicious change began
to take place.” (P. 375.) This presents a deep mystery.
If the message of 1888 as widely affirmed, produced a great revival in the 1890’s and if this
is the third angel’s message in verity, it must be asked: (a) What happened to the revival? (b) How
could the very reason for the existence of SDA’s become quiescent? (c) How could other activities
demand first place? (d) How could there have been a failure to stress this message from 1900 to
1910 if it was truly accepted in 1888 as claimed? (e) What line of reasoning could produce the idea
that “Righteousness by Faith was again slowly but steadily on the rise”? (P. 378, emphasis added.)
(f) Did the publication in 1920 of a book by Prescott trigger “a reverberation of the old issue at
Minneapolis, where he had been a participant”? (P. 380.) (g) Notwithstanding the reverberations, it
is a fact? — ”Prescott’s book thus helped pave the way for the complete revival and full acceptance of
the truth enunciated at Minneapolis in 1888, which is destined to come into its consummating phase
under the Loud Cry and Latter Rain. … It was the message of 1888 restated in textbook form.” (P. 391,
emphasis added.) (h) Subsequently in 1923, ‘24, and ‘25 it is said that through the institutes and men
combined it could be stated: “A revival of true godliness was now under way, with emphasis upon the
underlying principles and provisions of Righteousness by Faith in Christ. …” (P. 395.)
Truly is this what “we see” in the SDA church today? The anomalies are wearisome and
baffling!
2. With all that has gone before and all that has been published, it seems that Froom
endeavors to present a solution and bring all matters into focus, thus: In 1888 the real issue was
the Deity of Christ, Arianism was a problem. “We” have now overcome “our” Arianism by the
developments of the last few decades and errors have been removed right up to the 1940’s. (P.
428.) Declarations have been made. Questions on Doctrine has been published. Time was extended
because of unpreparedness but we can now “have the spotlight of the pitiless scrutiny of the religious
world turned full upon us” which we were not prepared to have “for decades following ‘88.” (P. 316.)
The movement has been aroused since 1888 ”from the complacency of Laodiceanism.” (P. 267.) The
doctrinal problems have been solved. “We” now await the climax under the provision of the latter
rain and loud cry.
There is no need for denominational repentance. All is quite well, except perhaps “we” need
a fresh approach, a new appeal, a more effective strategy, a more winsome plan of action, a more
efficient method that meets the demands of the hour. (P. 666.) But if the “harpers” on the note that the
leaders actually rejected the message of 1888 would make an explicit confession due the church,
the way would be cleared. Those who call for corporate and denominational repentance would be
humiliated; then the Lord could pour out His Spirit.

50
 Surely this concept is in sharp contrast to the understanding held by an increasing number of
staunch, loyal, life-long Adventists, workers and ministers. That there is a study and research program
into “our” history now in progress is one of the most encouraging things to happen in the church in the
last twenty-five years. The results of this could be the most humiliating experience the church has ever
faced. Suppose the “official” view of 1888 that has been taken over the years cannot be supported
historically nor spiritually from a “thus saith the Lord” as given to “us” through the explicit counsel of the
Lord’s messenger, Ellen G. White — what then? Facts all point to this pending conclusion! One thing is
certain — only truth will stand in the judgment.

51
 Chapter Seven

“GUIDELINES” ON WHAT “WE SEE”

There is a growing polarization in the worker ranks and a bewilderment among the laity
concerning what happened in “our” history as it transpired at this ‘88 Conference, and why. In
pursuing the present research, it is obvious that certain ideas and biases continue to prevail, just as
they did before, at, and following the ‘88 session. But this condition must change. The Spirit is to guide
into “all truth” without equivocation.
The “Guidelines for the Study Committee” as provided, seem to be built upon the conscious
or unconscious premise that certain stances that have been taken in the past must be protected at all
costs. The “Guidelines” betray a prejudice and bias in favor of published views and are worded in
such a way as to be loaded and lead to wrong answers. Nevertheless these “Guidelines” must be
considered.
*****
SOME GUIDELINES FOR THE STUDY COMMITTEES ON
THE 1888 CONFERENCE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH

Do our findings as we look at the documents (E.G. White and others) reveal,
1. That at Minneapolis and subsequently the church, rejected the messages of justification by
faith and righteousness by faith?
Answer: The question as worded is very misleading and is put in a way that does not face the
problem nor the issues under discussion, (a) The issue is not whether the church or anybody accepted
the historic Protestant “doctrine” of justification and righteousness by faith, but how was the message
that was to have been the beginning of the Latter Rain and Loud Cry accepted? (b) The issue is not
whether the church per se “rejected” the Latter Rain. The truth is, the church never had a real chance
to consider the message. The real issue is: Did the church leadership accept the message? Recorded
history on this is clear enough.
2. That there is a call for, and must be, a corporate repentance and confession before the
wrongs done at Minneapolis are righted?
Answer: Here again the wording is misleading. Has anyone ever suggested or called for
a “corporate confession”? To try to answer this question is deceptive. The wording should be “a
corporate and denominational repentance.”
3. That there are varying essential qualities in the concepts of righteousness by faith as
understood and advocated by Paul, Luther, Ellen G. White, Jones and Waggoner, and the
presentations of Jones and Waggoner disclose their holdings as unique and superior?

52
 Answer: This question is loaded! No one would dare to answer this with a plain “Yes.” And
yet the question goes begging. The real question is: Does God have a more mature concept of
righteousness by faith for His people to understand in the time of the cleansing of the heavenly
sanctuary? Is it essential that the people who receive the Latter Rain understand righteousness by faith
in a deeper and more meaningful way than any previous generation has understood it? Was the
message of Jones and Waggoner “light” that was intended by the Lord to lead into a preparation for
the end?
4. That Adventist historians and apologists as Spalding, Christian, Froom, Pease and Olson
have either intentionally or inadvertently misrepresented the basic facts relating to the Minneapolis
experience and the aftermath, and if all documents (particularly the E. G. White manuscripts) were
taken into account their witness would be different than it is?
Answer: There is no question but that if all documents particularly E. G. White manuscripts
as well as published statements from her pen were taken into account the witness regarding 1888
would be completely different than it now is. Whether the present state is the result of “intentionally or
inadvertently” overlooking basic facts is not the real point and need not be judged here. Facts have
been overlooked. The whole EGW record has not been presented although more than enough has
been made available to settle the matter in a way quite different from that presented by these authors.
This paper, “The Mystery of 1888,” has presented enough other material to make the answer evident.
The recent study, “An Explicit Confession … Due the Church,” if read, studied and analyzed will add
much more to the evidence and clearly show the answer to the question.
5. That there has been no true advance in the experience and work of the church — numbers
notwithstanding to the contrary — nor can there be until there is a proper recognition of the point of
departure (attitude toward the 1888 experience) and a turnabout marked by a public corporate
acknowledgement?
Answer: What is the intent of this question? Has anyone said that there has been no “true
advance in the experience and work of the church” since 1888? Who has called for a “public
corporate acknowledgement”? This question seems loaded or does it stem from a misunderstanding
of what constitutes “true advance”? True advance in understanding the sanctuary truth and
understanding righteousness by faith as the beginning of the Latter Rain is quite different than the thrust
of this question.
6. That unconscious sin and corporate guilt are at the root of the problem of the church and
will remain so, delaying the coming of the Lord, until there is proper recognition, acknowledgement
and turnabout.
Answer: This is a perceptive question and puts the matter in the proper context. This must have
and is now receiving further study. One thing is clear, the “True Witness” says the Laodicean church
“knowest not” her true condition and she is called to “repent.”

53
 7. That in the light of Ellen White’s statements regarding the failures of the General Conference
of 1901 the experiences referred to by Christian, Olson, and Froom as victories are not such but in
reality dismal failures.
Answer: It would be improper and unfair to use such an expression, “in reality dismal failures.”
The General Conference of 1901 was not such! The establishment of institutions and churches all
over the world dare not be so termed. Has anyone referred to the reorganization in such terms?
Notwithstanding this, the 1901 Conference cannot in any degree be called “victory” in the sense of
reversing the 1888 unbelief or ushering in the Latter Rain and Loud Cry. It should be very clear that
ultimate “victory” over the beast, his image and all the terrible self-worship for which he stands cannot
be gained by organizational efficiencies, numerical greatness, nor material assets.
8. That the Bible record of the experience of prominent Bible characters in confessing before
God the sins of the people or nation they represent provides direction to church leaders today in the
matter of their obligation to instigate a corporate confession and repentance.
Answer: The persistence of the term “corporate confession” indicates a serious
misunderstanding. Where has this concept come from? Nonetheless a serious study of prominent
Bible characters in relation to their people would have merit!
9. That until such steps are taken God cannot pour out His Spirit in the Latter Rain.
Answer: Current church history would seem to make it very clear that until some kind of “steps
are taken” God cannot do what He said He was willing to do more than eighty years ago. If the
Latter Rain had its “beginning” those many years ago, surely it is self-evident that something happened
so that the “rain” has turned into what some would call a mere “drizzle.”
10. That certain personal testimonies to Elder 0. A. Olson, president of the General
Conference, penned in 1895 and 1896, and reference to him in other E. G. White correspondence
of the time, undercuts the credibility of the Froom assertions that Olson ever related himself aright to
the teachings of righteousness by faith.
Answer: The credibility of Froom’s assertions are most assuredly undercut by EGW
correspondence. But what is meant by “teachings of righteousness by faith”? The doctrines of Luther,
Calvin and so on? Or the Latter Rain? Did Olson lead out in the experience of denominational
repentance? What is the full intent of the question?
11. That there were other basic issues in 1888 than that of the acceptance of the message of
righteousness by faith, such as, relationship to authority as seen particularly in the work of Ellen G.
White.
Answer: Can the idea of accepting a “doctrine” be held in contrast to accepting the
“authority” of EGW? Has the “authority” of EGW ever been at variance with the teaching of the

54
church? The real issue of 1888 was relationship to the authority of Jesus Christ. Ellen White uses the
term “insubordination.”
12. That what is said to be a unique and superior concept of righteousness by faith, not found
in the writings of Ellen G. White, but taught by Jones and Waggoner, is of significance and vital
importance to the church today?
Answer: In fairness, how could such a question be formulated? There is a subtle aspersion
here that pits Jones and Waggoner against Ellen White whereas this ignores the facts of the case
— they stood together. All that Jones and Waggoner taught is in harmony with and is implicit in the
writings of Ellen White and so why say, “not found in the writings of Ellen G. White”? Furthermore, it
must be understood that it was the Lord Himself trying to arouse His people and it was His Spirit that
spoke through His messenger when she emphatically stated, “The Lord in His great mercy sent a most
precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones.”
13. That justification and righteousness by faith as taught in the Scriptures and amplified in
the writings of Ellen G. White lead us doctrinally and experientially to positions superior to those
commonly held today by evangelical groups?
Answer: This is an amazing question! The answer to it is basic to “us” as a people and
demands a clear-cut understanding. If the answer is not a decided “yes,” then “we” have not the
slightest excuse for existing as a people.
14. That the Early Writings, P. 56, portrayal of men and women “bowed before the throne”
left by Jesus as He entered the Holy of Holies having their prayers answered by Satan who breathed
upon them “an unholy influence of light and power” has a valid application to the 1888 experience
and to the church today, suggesting that Seventh-Day Adventists may be worshipping a false Christ
and their ministers motivated by a false Holy Spirit as seemingly suggested in the 1950 Wieland and
Short presentation?
Answer: Where in the entire manuscript prepared by Wieland and Short in 1950, do they say
what is inferred in this question? They point out the “grave danger” that this will become the case — IF
“our” views of righteousness by faith are basically identical to those of the popular churches who have
no knowledge of the way into the Most Holy apartment. The call of alarm and warning of danger is
vastly different to stating something has transpired, or leveling an accusation.
There is one further matter that must be considered in this list of fourteen questions. The
preamble reads: “Do our findings as we look at the documents (E. G. White and others) reveal,” what
the questions ask? But who are the “others” besides E. G. White? Would anyone dare to lay aside
today what she said at the time about the terrible experience? Where did she get her “authority”? If
“we” presume to suggest that someone else may know more about 1888 than she knew — woe to
“us”!

55
 Chapter Eight

CAN “WE SEE” BETTER THAN THE SEER?

Within the Seventh-Day Adventist Church today, there is not a person alive who was in
attendance at the notable 1888 Minneapolis Conference. This means that everything known of this
era must be obtained from the written record, the history that was made then and which cannot be
changed now no matter what interpretation may be put on that history. Stated another way, for good
or ill the record must be taken now by faith for just what it says.
There is an increasing number of young ministers in training at the Seminary, or out in the field
with a few years service, including young ordained men, (as well as many older ones) who see in
1888 a great tragedy and they are beginning to voice their convictions in public from the pulpit. This
is a result of study and seeing the matter in its historical significance and spiritual implications. A check
of the Seminary library card catalog will indicate that more and more research is being done on the
1888 era of “our” history. The research is sincere and prompted by a desire for correct understanding
and is not based upon who is for whom, or where a certain party may stand, or was the “doctrine”
accepted or rejected. Much more is involved. A principle is at stake and this is becoming evident.
If the “gray heads” now involved in most serious dialogue continue to contest the matter over “few,”
“some,” or “many,” and do not see through to the heart of the problem, the enormous spiritual
implications, then the generation now coming forward and soon to take over will move into places
of responsibility and have no inhibitions about exposing all. They will go back to the sources and
separate all that man has said or added or taken away from “thus saith the Lord.”
No matter how fondly any one of “us” may cherish “our” ideas, “we” will sooner or later be
laid to rest — unless “we” as a generation are willing to die to our own concepts and take at face
value, by faith, all that the Lord has said about 1888. To continue to rationalize is “our” doom!
It is entirely possible that messages from the Lord which “we” have long applied to the world,
may in the final analysis prove to have been terrible prophecies of “our” failings. A minister who has
sacrificed truth or even compromised to gain the favor of men and brethren, will as a false watchman
be the first to fall, for destruction begins among those who have professed to be the spiritual
guardians of the people. A very solemn and vivid picture of such a situation is given in The Great
Controversy, beginning on page 654. This can well be read and studied for it may have in it much
more than has been considered to date.
If there is any truth, any relevance in these observations, it means that E. G. White information
now held in reserve because of personal acquaintance with workers of former years, or because of
family relationships, or any number of other personal implications, will all in the future be made plain
and open. This is as certain as history and may be witnessed in the Biblical portrayal of the whole

56
life — all the secrets without repress — of any number of characters in sacred history. In due time no
personal inhibitions will repress “our” true history of that decisive ‘88 Conference. With this approach,
there remains a further most solemn consideration. The title of this chapter sets the premise before “us,”
can “we see” better than the seer? The “seer” in this case is Ellen G. White. The specific consideration
is:
ELLEN G. WHITE VERSUS ELLEN G. WHITE ESTATE

The magnitude of this inference dare not be underrated. Its seriousness is enormous--but so in
the final atonement which is pending and which “we” face. The matter must be pursued.
1. In the 1962 edition of Testimonies to Ministers, there is found on page xxxvi of the Historical
Foreword, the following statement: “It is not the work of the custodians of the Ellen G. White writings
to explain or interpret the counsels which have been given.” This is most reasonable and would
seem to be correct in every way. Indeed, with all the thousands of pages that have been directed
to the church by Ellen G. White, there is precious little that is not very clear and forthright leaving no
place for interpretation or rationalization as to the intent of what she said or the meaning thereof.
Notwithstanding this, the latest edition of Testimonies to Ministers has the most extended explanatory
foreword of perhaps any E. G. White book ever published. To add to this, there is a lengthy Appendix
such as none of her other books have. In all the Historical Foreword and the Appendix have a total
of 36 pages. When it is considered that the previous edition of this book published in 1944 does not
have a single page of Historical Foreword or one page or even one entry in an Appendix, it would
seem strange that the 1962 edition should require 36 pages of special notes.
When an analysis is made of this material, a pattern emerges that is singular and most serious.
It would be extremely difficult to read all of this without getting a very pronounced concept that the
writings are being both “explained” and “interpreted.” In fact, the Preface to this Third Edition printed
in 1962, states specifically on page xi: “The notes will aid the reader in ascertaining correctly the
intent of the author in the messages here presented.”
2. What are the messages presented and what do the notes say? Perhaps no compilation
from the pen of Ellen White contains such a sustained tone of warning and entreaty and fearful
accusations against men in responsible positions and the ministry in general, as does Testimonies to
Ministers. Not only are reproofs and warnings given, but the terrible charge is made that all too often
these have been evaded and interpreted and made void by the devices of men. This book contains
perhaps more specific and direct reference to 1888 than any other published volume. It is in this area
that the Historical Foreword and the Appendix play a prominent part. Of the forty-odd entries made
in the Appendix, the largest group of references is to 1888. Some of the inspired statements to which
they refer are dramatically impressive and very forthright! Here are some examples. The asterisk in
each case is in the original and refers to the footnote which states, “See Appendix.”

57
 Let not men feel that it is their prerogative to give to the world what they
suppose to be truth, and refuse that anything should be given contrary to their
ideas. This is not their work. Many things will appear distinctly as truth which will
not be acceptable to those who think their own interpretations of the Scripture
always right. Most decided changes will have to be made in regard to ideas
which some have accepted as without a flaw. These men give evidence of
fallibility in very many ways; they work upon principles which the word of God
condemns. … That men should keep alive the spirit which ran riot at Minneapolis
is an offense to God.” (P. 76.) (Note: This was written May 30, 1896, over
seven years after the session and well beyond the time when “some” were to
have made confessions.)

Men who are entrusted with weighty responsibilities, but who have no
living connection with God, have been and are doing despite to His Holy Spirit.
They are indulging the very same spirit as did Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and
as did the Jews in the days of Christ. … ‘Wherefore, behold, I send unto you
prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them shall ye scourge in your
synagogues, and persecute them from city to city.’ This prophecy was literally
fulfilled by the Jews in their treatment of Christ and of the messengers whom
God sent to them. Will men in these last days follow the example of those whom
Christ condemned? These terrible predictions they have not as yet carried out to
the full; but if God spares their lives, and they nourish the same spirit that marked
their course of action both before and after the Minneapolis meeting,” they will
fill up to the full the deeds of those whom Christ condemned when He was upon
the earth.” (Pp. 78, 79.) (Note: Written May 1, 1895.)

I inquire of those in responsible positions in Battle Creek, What are you

doing? You have turned your back, and not your face, to the Lord. … What is
the message to be given at this time? It is the third angel’s message. But that light
which is to fill the whole earth with its glory has been despised by some who
claim to believe the present truth.” (P. 89.) (Note: Written in 1896.)

The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His
people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more
prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the
whole world.” (P. 91.) (Note: Written in 1895.)

I would speak in warning to those who have stood for years resisting
light and cherishing the spirit of opposition. How long will you hate and despise
the messengers of God’s righteousness? God has given them His message. … If

58
 you reject Christ’s delegated messengers, you reject Christ.” (Pp. 96, 97.) (Note:
Written in 1895.)

The prejudices and opinions that prevailed at Minneapolis are not

dead by any means; the seeds sown there in some hearts are ready to spring
into life and bear a like harvest. The tops have been cut down, but the roots
have never been eradicated, and they still bear their unholy fruit to poison the
judgment, pervert the perceptions, and blind the understanding of those with
whom you connect, in regard to the message and the messengers. … There
has been a departure from God among us. … Infidelity has been making its
inroads into our ranks; for it is the fashion to depart from Christ, and give place
to skepticism. With many the cry of the heart has been, ‘We will not have this
man to reign over us.’ Baal, Baal, is the choice. The religion of many among us
will be the religion of apostate Israel, because they love their own way, and
forsake the way of the Lord. The true religion, the only religion of the Bible, that
teaches forgiveness only through the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour,
that advocates righteousness by the faith of the Son of God, has been slighted,
spoken against, ridiculed, and rejected.” (Pp. 467, 468.) (Note: Written Nov.
1890.)
A careful reading of the notes gives the definite impression that explanation and interpretation
of the Ellen G. White statements have been attempted. The date this edition was published, in 1962,
is relevant and lends weight to this fact. The two previous editions had no such comment. Why was
there need in 1962 to interpret and supply notes that seem intended to give the impression that
ultimately the ‘88 session came out not too badly? For example, consider Appendix, page 533, item
for page 468:

Page 468. Slighted, spoken against, ridiculed, and rejected: Reference is

here made to the attitude which some took in resistance to the emphasis given to
the message of righteousness by faith at and following the General Conference
session of 1888. See Historical Foreword for a fuller statement indicating that
while some took the attitude here referred to there were many who received the
message and gained a great blessing in their own personal experience.”
This Appendix comment cannot be supported in the context to which it refers and which is
quoted above from pages 467 and 468. There is no way to construe this passage to infer “there
were many who received the message.” Furthermore, it must be noted that this was written two years
after the session and as the above quotations indicate the same train of thought continues from the
Lord’s messenger for seven to eight years after the session without a change of sentiment.

59
 Currently there has been the suggestion put forward that there was animosity against Ellen
White writings prior to and at the ‘88 session, and that this was the root problem. It is very certain
there was animosity. But if “we” at this late date rationalize and try to justify history to “our” liking and
in the end refuse to accept all that the Lord’s messenger has said about what happened then, is not
“our” condition and weakness exactly the same? Rebellion, rejection and insubordination is the same
in any decade by whomever may participate.
3. In a previous chapter of this study (Chapter six) reference was made to the stance taken
by Olson and Froom regarding “no vote” being taken at the ‘88 session, hence the rejection of truth
could not have taken place. The fallacy of this premise has already been considered. The unique
thing is to discover that the seed of this idea was planted by the Ellen G. White Estate in the
Historical Foreword of the book under consideration. On page xxiv of this 1962 edition, the following
statement is made: “No action was taken on the Biblical questions discussed.”
In 1966 this same idea was picked up and promoted by Olson: “No action whatever
was taken by vote of the delegates to accept it or to reject it.” (P. 36.) His work was published
posthumously under the sponsorship of the Ellen G. White Estate. (Cf. Olson, p. 8.)
A few years later, in 1971, the same idea was promoted and published by Froom and in
no less than three places the premise is advocated. He says: “No vote on Righteousness by Faith
was taken.” (P. 233.) “No vote was taken by the delegate leadership, at Minneapolis, rejecting the
teaching of Righteousness by Faith. Indeed, no Conference vote of any kind was taken on the issue.”
(P. 370.) “It is also to be noted that no subsequent vote — that is, following 1888 — was ever taken by
any Conference, or responsible committee or institute, against the truth of Righteousness by Faith.”
(P. 373.)
How tragic to even consider the idea that a “vote” could or could not have any spiritual
significance in preparing a people for the final atonement! Could a vote possibly send or withhold the
Latter Rain? Will a vote usher in the second coming of Christ? The truth is, a vote was taken. Supra, P.
20.
4. There is another proposition which Froom puts forward and on which much of his case is
built. This is his “some” philosophy. Repeatedly, dozens of times, reference is made to the “some” who
rejected the message, but only “some,” “not all,” while “some” accepted it, and “some” remained
uncertain at first. (Cf. Froom, Pp. 365, 370.) The thrust of the argument is that the “some” who rejected
were really insignificant in relation to the other groups.
The root of this idea is found in the Ellen G. White Estate Historical Foreword of Testimonies to
Ministers, on page xxv, as follows:

Unfortunately, several among the leaders of our work connected with

the General Conference and our institutions at Battle Creek ranked themselves

60
 on the negative side and established in the very heart of the work of the
church a hard core of resistance. Within the next few years, many of those
who had placed themselves in this camp saw their mistake and made heartfelt
confessions. But there were some who stubbornly resisted. Some of these,
connected with the business interests of the church and our institutions, made
their influence felt through the 1890’s. It was of such that Ellen White in 1895
wrote as recorded on page 363: ‘The righteousness of Christ by faith has been
ignored by some; for it is contrary to their spirit, and their whole life experience.’

In this volume, from page 76 and onward, frequent reference will be

found to Minneapolis and its aftermath, and to the experience of some who
were involved.” (Emphasis added.)
This use of this “some” by Ellen G. White, must be read in its context. To make this fit the
numerical sense of “some” is to ignore completely the whole chapter in which this sentence is found.
If this idea promoted by the Ellen G. White Estate and reiterated time and time again by Froom stems
from this source, it means that a terrible misconception is being promoted in the name of Ellen G.
White! It is in this chapter (TM pp. 359 - 364) entitled, “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before
Me,” written in 1895 seven years after the session, that Ellen White uses some of the most emphatic
language in print about the “center of the work,” about “men in high positions of responsibility.” The
“some” to which she refers is none other than the leadership! The chapter must be read carefully to
get the full import of the content found in such phrases as:

The General Conference is itself becoming corrupted with wrong

sentiments and principles. … I have been shown that the Jewish nation were not
brought suddenly into their condition of thought and practice. From generation
to generation they were working on false theories, carrying out principles
opposed to the truth, and combining with their religion thoughts and plans that
were the product of human minds. Human inventions were made supreme.
The holy principles that God has given are represented as the sacred fire, but
common fire has been used in place of the sacred. Plans contrary to truth and
righteousness are introduced in a subtle manner on the plea that this must be
done, and that must be done, ‘because it is for the advancement of the cause
of God.’ But it is the devising of men that leads to oppression, injustice, and
wickedness. … False propositions are assumed as truth and righteousness, and
then everything is worked in such a way as to carry out these propositions,
which are not in accordance with the will of God, but are a misrepresentation of
His character. … The high-handed power that has been developed, as though
position has made men gods, makes me afraid, and ought to cause fear. … The
people are learning that men in high positions of responsibility cannot be trusted

61
 to mold and fashion other men’s minds and characters. … At the time of the first
advent of Christ to our world, the men who composed the Sanhedrin exercised
their authority in controlling men according to their will. … Those in authority
should manifest the spirit of Christ. … A man’s position does not make him one
jot or tittle greater in the sight of God. … When men who profess to serve
God ignore His parental character and depart from honor and righteousness
in dealing with their fellowmen, Satan exults, for he has inspired them with his
attributes. They are following in the track of Romanism. (TM Pp. 359 - 364.)
It is in this context, and just four sentences later that Ellen White says: “The righteousness of
Christ by faith has been ignored by some. … “ That “some” is the leadership! The “blinded eyes of
men” (P. 363) is an age-old disease, so the Lord in His mercy has given “us” a seer — if “we” will but
accept His sight and guidance through her.
5. The quotations in the previous section were written during the time of Elder O. A. Olson’s
administration (1888 - 1897). They comprise but a very small fragment of the hundreds of pages of
counsel that came to him during his tenure. It is obvious the words are very serious and the meaning
cannot be evaded.
Both Olson and Froom extol the leadership of Elder Olson. Olson’s commendation is thus:

Elder Olson was a God-fearing man, and his soul was troubled over
what he saw and heard in Battle Creek. … He gladly supported Sister White in
her noble and persistent efforts to improve the situation. …” (Olson, P. 116.)
Froom uses about three pages in his book to portray “Olson’s Leadership Years.” The following
are some descriptions given:
Olson seemed to sense the spiritual bearings of the questions at
issue, and gave quiet but effective leadership to their solution. He joined
wholeheartedly with Ellen White in revival meetings in the Review and Herald
chapel and in the vestry of the Battle Creek Tabernacle, as well as in a
continuing succession of camp meetings and ministerial institutes. … a man of
piety … gravity. … earnest, dedicated, and balanced. … helped to bind the
Church together at this most difficult time, and to advance the Message of
Minneapolis. … His was a healing, unifying, and helpful influence. … the years
of Olson’s administration saw a real revival and reformation. … Olson’s tenure of
office was a time of awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction and self-reliance,
a renewal brought about through the growing acceptance of the message of
Righteousness by Faith. … He fostered the study of the Spirit of Prophecy. …
(Froom, pp. 361 - 363.)
The anomalies are enormous between this portrayal and that which Ellen White gives during

62
and covering this period. Froom’s appraisal is absolutely opposite from that of the Lord’s messenger
as will be seen in due course. In the meantime it must be noted that this amazing anomalous
approach was instigated by the Ellen G. White Estate before either Olson or Froom went into print.
The Historical Foreword states on page xxvi: “Elder Olson, a man in full sympathy with the emphasis
placed on the truth of righteousness by faith, and one who was ever loyal to the Spirit of Prophecy
counsels, found it difficult to meet certain of the problems at Battle Creek.”
Where in all the Spirit of Prophecy can support be found for the statement that Elder Olson
was “one who was ever loyal to the Spirit of Prophecy counsels”? There is an abundance of evidence
that is exactly the opposite. Why should men presume to speak words that so emphatically deny
that which the Lord has said through His servant? To make this as clear as sunlight, note the following
quotations and the years in which the messages were given.

For years I have carried a consuming burden for the cause of God in
Battle Creek. I am now deeply troubled over the shape which matters are taking
there, and the influence which is being exerted on the work everywhere. (Letter
53, 1895; Olson, P. 127.)

Elder Olson, the present state of things has continued long enough. Your
eyesight has become imperfect. … I now beg of you to arise in the name of the
Lord, and He will help you to retrieve the errors of the past, that are leading to
serious results. (Letter 55, 1895; Olson, P. 127.)

I am sorry you have not regarded the warnings and instructions which
have been given you as of sufficient value to be heeded, but by disregarding
them before men who care naught for them, have made them a common matter,
not worthy to have weight in your practice. Your practice has been contrary to
these warnings, and this has weakened them in the eyes of men who needed
correction, who in their life-practice have separated from God, and who have
manifested a selfishness and harshness which should have separated them from
the work long ago.

Brother Olson, you have lost much from your experience that should have
been brought into your character building by failing to stand firmly and faithfully
for right, braving all the consequences. (Letter, May 31, 1896.)

O my brother, my brother, watchman upon the walls of Zion, how could

you move in such uncertain paths? It seems more than I can explain. How could
you consent to propositions which came to you through the same fallen angel
that tempted our first parents? (Letter July 5, 1896.)

63
 He has not acted upon the light given. … He has ventured on, directly
contrary to the light which the Lord has been giving him. … He does not regard
the Testimonies. … Unmistakably Elder Olson has acted as did Aaron, in
regard to these men who have been opposed to the work of God ever since
the Minneapolis meeting. They have not repented of their course of action in
resisting light and evidence. (Letter August 27, 1896.)

Then I wrote to Elder Olson, but while I was expecting to hear from him in
regard to the communications I had entrusted to him, and which he was to read
to those assembled in councils and board meetings, light came to me from the
Lord that Elder Olson had neglected the trust given him, and had failed in doing
his duty to read the things that I had given him, to the ones who must have them.
… The only thing that I now regret is, that I did not, as I have done in the past,
get out a testimony for our own people that they might not be left in darkness
in regard to the movements in Battle Creek. The perverting of principles which
would disconnect God from those who were handling sacred things. … I regret
that in the place of entrusting the light given me with a few men in Battle Creek,
I did not issue testimonies which would have come before the leading men
throughout our Conferences. I supposed that the men at the heart of the work,
when receiving the warnings and cautions given, would in a careful manner use
these more private matters to enlighten our people and guard them. I did not
suppose that those who claimed to believe the testimonies would lay them away
and make no use of them which were to prevent a condition of things that was
imperilling the Cause of God.

I had presented before me the dangers of Elder Olson and wrote to

him personally in regard to them, and I thought he would take heed to the light
given … but as he went directly contrary to the cautions and warnings given
him, I was left to try some other way to get the light before the people. … (Letter,
November 21, 1897.)
This same letter goes on to use such expressions as: “… men who were not worked by the
Holy Spirit of God, but by a power that was from the inspiration of the devil. … there were so few
consecrated to God to do His will that whatever I should send would be perverted, misinterpreted,
mis-stated, misunderstood. … the very men are inspired by Satan.”
These are words to bring tears and remorse but words with meaning beyond dispute, and
more could be quoted. Have these things been overlooked? How could the Estate instigate and then
allow Olson and Froom to follow a course of lauding and praise when actually Ellen White says the
opposite? How could men talk about “a real revival and reformation” when the Lord says years of

64
“consuming burden” venturing on “directly contrary to the light which the Lord had been giving”? How
dare men speak of a “time of awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction” while the Lord pronounces,
“men who were not worked by the Holy Spirit of God … inspired by Satan”? Such a situation presents
a terrible mystery — perhaps the very mystery of iniquity. Would it not be better to keep silent rather
than try to misinform? But, of course, even silence cannot contain truth forever, it must live and be
proclaimed!
6. The next consideration in this chapter must be given to Ellen G. White Estate Manuscript
Release No. 253. This deals with a sermon given by EGW at the Ministerial Institute in Battle Creek,
Sunday morning, March 16, 1890. This was well over a year after the ‘88 session. The sermon
is nearly three pages in length of single spaced typing and is as forthright, emphatic, and positive
regarding the “unbelief,” “darkest unbelief,” “miseries of unbelief,” such as that has been since we
were in Minneapolis,” as anyone could expect to be found in a public address. Without reserve, the
messenger points out the failure to recognize the Spirit of God; and the unbelief of the Jews in “that
day” the same as “this day,” and placing themselves where God has “no reserve power” to reach
them; where “every arrow in His quiver is exhausted;” and how “I feel this in every meeting where I
have been;” “there is a pressure of unbelief;” a situation where all “the power of brain, and all the
power of thought, and all the power of talk, as it has been the case here, to stay the work of God.”
“Let me tell you, the testimony will be this: ‘Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!’ …
Now I know what I am talking about. …”
The agony of soul she felt breathes throughout the entire sermon. Eight times Minneapolis
is referred to by name. Sixteen times at least, reference is made to the continuing opposition to the
message and the position of responsible leadership on the wrong side at the time she was speaking!
“I have told our brethren here again and again that God has shown me that he raised up men here
to carry the truth to His people, and that this is the truth. Well, what effect did it have on them? They
were just the same. …” “It is something beyond anything I have ever seen in all my experience since I
first encountered the work. The people of God who have had light and evidence have stood where
God would not let His blessing fall upon them.”
This sermon should be required reading for every leader and minister who has any interest in
the truth of “our” 1888 history. When Ellen White finally comes to the last page of the sermon, she
states as given in the Release No. 253:

Now brethren, we want to have the simplicity of Christ. I know that He

has a blessing for us, He had it at Minneapolis, and He had it for us at the time
of the General Conference here. But there was no reception.
It is this last sentence to which the Estate takes exception and therefore produced the Release
and then adds the footnote:

65
 The wording of this sentence is clearly faulty for, isolated, it is out of
harmony with what follows and other of her statements relating to the General
Conference of 1889. See Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 361-2. See also
chapter, ‘The Ministerial Institutes and Their Fruitage,’ in Through Crisis to Victory,
Pp. 66-81.
How could any man, or committee or board presume to add such a contradictory footnote?
There is not a single line in the sermon to support such a prejudiced statement. She meant just what
she said. Furthermore, the idea of “no reception” or in other words, a rejection, is used many times by
the Lord’s messenger in other places and over a period of years. What justification can possibly be
given by the Ellen G. White Estate for this contradictory footnote in Release No. 253?
7. The growing liberty being taken “to explain or interpret the counsels which have been given”
is very serious. The Review and Herald of Feb. 18, 1890, contains an item about Elijah that has been
somewhat perplexing. This statement is found among many which appeared over a period of many
months wherein repeatedly explicit or implicit reference was made to the rebellion at Minneapolis.
A portion of the article is found in Testimonies to Ministers, p. 475. The article in full has since been
published in 1 SM 406 - 416. The portion of deep interest as taken from the Review, reads as follows:

The Jews had tried to stop the proclamation of the message that had
been predicted in the word of God; but prophecy must be fulfilled. The Lord
says, ‘Behold, I send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord.’ Somebody is to come in the spirit and power of Elijah,
and when he appears, men may say, ‘You are too earnest, you do not interpret
the Scriptures in the proper way. Let me tell you how to teach your message.’
(R&H, Feb. 18, 1890.)
The Appendix in TM, P. 534 asserts: “When the article is read in its entirety it become
apparent that Ellen White, in this statement made just a little more than a year after the Minneapolis
Conference to a group in Battle Creek, was speaking of her own ministry.” It would seem very difficult
to make the terminology used by EGW, fit the interpretation given by the Estate. “When he appears”
would seem rather unusual wording if it means when “she” appears and does her work.
The Estate closes the Appendix note with: “That she was referring to her own experience is
also made clear from the paragraph which follows, in which she declares: ‘I shall tell the truth as God
gives it to me. …’ “The sentence in full context reads: “There are many who cannot distinguish between
the work of God and that of man. I shall tell the truth as God gives it to me, and I say now, If you
continue to find fault, to have a spirit of variance, you will never know the truth.” Further subsequent
citations from this article read:

66
 There are many among us who are prejudiced against the doctrines
that are now being discussed. They will not come to hear, they will not calmly
investigate, but they put forth their objections in the dark. They are perfectly
satisfied with their position. (Quotes Rev. 3:17 - 19.) This scripture applies to
those who live under the sound of the message, but who will not come to hear it.
How do you know but that the Lord is giving fresh evidences of his truth, placing
it in a new setting, that the way of the Lord may be prepared? What plans
have you been laying that new light may be infused through the ranks of God’s
people? What evidence have you that God has not sent light to His children?
All self-sufficiency, egotism, and pride of opinion must be put away. … We are
in danger of variance, in danger of taking sides on a controversial point; and
should we not seek God in earnestness, with humiliation of soul, that we know
what is truth? … When a message is presented to God’s people, they should not
rise up in opposition to it …”
The content of the article makes it very difficult to support that “he” is “she,” consequently to
state that this is “made clear” is to interpret under very strained circumstances. It seems self-evident
that an appendix should not contradict that to which it is added, but once even the best of intentions
cut loose from a firm “Thus saith the Lord,” there is no end to the inconsistencies which will be made
manifest. Whether EGW was the “he” of Elijah in this passage is surely open to question. One thing
is certain, Elijah comes at a time when Israel faces a supreme national crisis! There is another thing
which is very clear but not mentioned by the Estate, and that is the whole article is under implicit
reference to the “prejudice,” “objections,” “self-sufficiency,” “egotism,” “pride of opinion,” “variance”
and “opposition” which had their roots in the 1888 Conference.
8. Footnotes to “explain” and “interpret” are to be found in other publications from the Estate
and of fairly recent date, since 1950. In Selected Messages, book 1, published in 1958, there is a
note on page 359:
Items drawn from reports on the reception of the message of
righteousness by faith as it was presented following the General Conference
held at Minneapolis in 1888.”
The footnote uses the word “reception” and clearly the intent is to show that all went well
following the ‘88 session. The chapter under reference is entitled, “A Truth Bearing Divine Credentials,”
and is made up of a random selection of five articles taken from the Review over a period from Aug.
13, 1889 to Nov. 22, 1892, although not in chronological order. There is an additional item from
Manuscript 10, 1889, but the circumstances surrounding the writing of this manuscript are not given
nor is the recipient indicated. The disturbing thing is that the footnote is intended to give an impression
and the excerpts quoted are intended to support that impression that there was a “reception of the
message … following the General Conference held in Minneapolis in 1888.” It must be noted that the

67
articles in context do not support this footnote. Here are some relevant citations listed in chronological
order. Immediately following the quotation which closes on page 361 of 1 SM, there is this:
God has raised up men to meet the necessity of this time who will cry
aloud and spare not, who will lift up their voice like a trumpet, and show my
people their transgressions and the House of Jacob their sins. Their work is
not only to proclaim the law, but to preach the truth for this time,--the Lord our
righteousness. … But there are those who see no necessity for a special work at
this time. While God is working to arouse the people, they seek to turn aside
the message of warning, reproof, and entreaty. Their influence tends to quiet the
fears of the people, and to prevent them from awakening to the solemnity of this
time. Those who are doing this, are giving the trumpet no certain sound. (R&H,
Aug. 13, 1889; emphasis added.)
The article by EGW two weeks later is very relevant. It is not quoted in 1 SM, but should be
noted:
Suppose a brother should come to us, and present some matter to us
in a different light from that in which we had ever looked at it before, should
we come together with those who agree with us, to make sarcastic remarks, to
ridicule his position, and to form a confederacy to misrepresent his arguments
and ideas? Should we manifest a bitter spirit toward him, while neglecting
to seek wisdom of God in earnest prayer, — while failing to seek counsel of
Heaven? Would you think you were keeping the commandments of God while
pursuing such a course toward your brother? Would you be in a condition to
recognize the bright beams of heaven’s light should it be flashed upon your
pathway? Would your heart be ready to receive divine illumination? --No;
you would not recognize the light. All this spirit of bigotry and intolerance must
be taken away, and the meekness and lowliness of Christ must take its place
before the Spirit of God can impress your minds with divine truth. … We should
be ready to accept light from God from whatever source it may come, instead
of rejecting it because it does not come through the channel from which we
expected it. (R&H, Aug. 27, 1889; emphasis added.)
The Review for the next week, Sept. 3, 1889, contains the quotation as found in 1 SM 360,
but the very next paragraph gives a different idea from “reception” and is quoted below, plus
subsequent serious cautions about the fact “many will reject” the truth and stand in “danger of refusing
light.”
The enemy of God and man is not willing that this truth should be clearly
presented; for he knows that if the people receive it fully, his power will be
broken. If he can control minds so that doubt and unbelief and darkness shall
compose the experience of those who claim to be the children of God, he

Note: Due to a simple typographical error in the

68
original, there are two page 68.
 can overcome them with temptation. … It is perilous to the soul to to hesitate,
question, and criticize divine light. Satan will present his temptations until the light
will appear as darkness, and many wi11 reject the very truth that would have
proved the saving of their souls. … The ministers have not presented Christ in His
fullness to the people, either in the churches or in new fields, and the people
have not an intelligent faith. They have not been instructed as they should have
been, that Christ is unto them both salvation and righteousness. … Our present
position is interesting and perilous. The danger of refusing light from heaven
should make us watchful unto prayer, lest we should any of us have an evil heart
of unbelief.” (R&H, Sept. 3, 1889; emphasis added.)
The next quotation in 1 SM is from the Review of Mar. 18, 1890, but before this issue
was printed, three previous issues came out with pointed remarks indicating quite the opposite of
“reception.” In sequence these messages follow.
Christ has made rich promises in regard to bestowing the Holy Spirit
upon his church, and yet how little these promises are appreciated! We are
not called to worship and serve God by the use of the means employed in
former years. God requires higher service now than ever before. He requires
the improvement of the heavenly gifts. He has brought us into a position where
we need higher and better things than have ever been needed before. The
slumbering Church must be aroused, awakened out of its spiritual lethargy,
to a realization of the important duties which have been left undone. The
people have not entered into the holy place, where Jesus has gone to make an
atonement for his children. We need the Holy Spirit in order to understand the
truths for this time; but there is spiritual drought in the churches. … God will not
bless men in indolence, nor in zealous, stubborn opposition to the light he gives
to his people. … They oppose they know not what, because unfortunately, they
are leavened with the spirit of opposition. The loose, lax way in which many
regard the law of Jehovah and the gift of His Son, is an insult to God. … Men
must advance in the path of duty from light to a greater light, for light unimproved
becomes darkness, and a means of treasuring up wrath for themselves against
the day of wrath. … My brethren, if we were blind, we would not sin, but we
have been privileged to look upon great light. … Many plead that their fathers
believed certain things, that they loved God and were favored by Him, and
therefore, we shall be favored in taking a like position. But we cannot stand
where our fathers stood. We cannot be accepted of God in rendering the same
service our fathers rendered. (R&H, Feb. 25, 1890; emphasis added.) (Note:
Additional attention must be given to the thought and the marked emphasis on
the unique calling to the last church, “higher service than ever before,” and “we
cannot stand where our fathers stood.”

68
 The reason men do not understand is because they fasten themselves
in a position of questioning and doubt. They do not cultivate faith. If God gives
light, you must walk in the light, and follow the light. … It is too late in the day
to cry out against men for manifesting too much earnestness in the service of
God. … Every line I trace about the condition of the people in the time of Christ,
about their attitude toward the Light of the world, in which I see danger that we
shall take the same position. … We shall have to meet unbelief in every form in
the world, but it is when we meet unbelief in those who should be leaders of the
people, that our souls are wounded. (R&H, Mar. 4, 1890; emphasis added.)
We should not be found quibbling, and putting up hooks on which to
hang our doubts in regard to the light which God sends us. When a point of
doctrine that you do not understand comes to your attention, go to God on your
knees, that you may understand what is truth, and not be found, as were the
Jews, fighting against God. Light came to them, but they loved darkness rather
than light. When warning men to beware, to accept nothing unless it is truth, we
should also warn them not to imperil their souls by rejecting messages of light,
but to press out the darkness by earnest study of the word of God. Greater
caution should be exercised by all, lest we reject that which is truth. … I have
done what I could to present the matter. I can speak to the ear, but I cannot
speak to the heart. Shall we not arise, and get out of this position of unbelief?
(R&H, Mar. 11, 1890; emphasis added.)
These quotations have been long but they represent only a portion of the extremely serious
counsel given on the subject. The next issue of the Review is that from which the Estate quotes a very
short passage being only the first two sentences of the entire article. The remainder of the article is
very clear and cannot be construed to fit the “reception” philosophy. Note in the following citation the
terms used: “our brethren,” “older brethren … do not accept the message,” “men who refuse to receive
truth,” “those at the head of the work keep themselves aloof from the message of God.”
You have been having light from heaven for the past year and a half,
that the Lord would have you bring into your character and weave into your
experience. … If our brethren were all laborers together with God, they would
not doubt but that the message he has sent us during these last two years is from
heaven. Our young men look to our older brethren, and as they see that they
do not accept the message, but treat it as though it were of no consequence, it
influences those who are ignorant of the Scriptures to reject the light. These men
who refuse to receive the truth, interpose themselves between the people and
the light. But there is no excuse for any one’s refusing the light, for it has been
plainly revealed. … Shall we repeat the history of the Jews in our work? … How
long will it be before the word of truth will have weight with you? How long

69
 will it before you will believe the testimonies of God’s Spirit? When is the truth
for this time to find access to your hearts? Will you wait till Christ comes? How
long will God permit the way to be hedged up? … How long will those at the
head of the work keep themselves aloof from the message of God? … Suppose
that you blot out the testimony that has been going during these last two years
proclaiming the righteousness of Christ, who can you point to as bringing
out special light for the people? … Where are the builders that care carrying
forward the work of restoration? (R&H, Mar. 18, 1980; emphasis added.)
The understanding obtained in this study is not unique even though exactly opposite from the
Estate. Elder A. G. Daniells read both the Mar. 11 and Mar. 18 Reviews and obtained precisely the
same understanding as noted in this study and thereafter quotes from both these articles and makes
summarizing remarks in the same vein. (Cf. Daniells, pp. 51-53.) He likewise quotes from the issues of
Aug. 13, 1889; Sept. 3, 1889, and Nov. 22, 1892, and in each case draws a conclusion different
from that of the Estate. (Cf. Daniells, pp. 47, 48; 43, 44, 56.) He draws from seven other issues of
the Review during this period, and in each case his conclusions conform to this study and are in
opposition to the Estate. (Listed chronologically: Mar. 5, 1889; July 23, 1889; Mar. 11, 1890; Apr. 1,
1890; May 27, 1890; Dec. 27, 1890; July 26, 1892.) The last reference is very dramatic and explicit
and was given at a date nearly four years after the ‘88 session so that reference needs to be made
to it. The portion in parentheses was not quoted by Daniells but is continuous within the quotation and
has equal, if not even greater import.

(“Some of our leading brethren have frequently taken positions on

the wrong side, and if God would send a message and wait for these older
brethren to open the way for its advance, it would never reach the people.
These brethren will be found in this position until they become partakers of the
divine nature to a greater extent than ever they have been in the past.) There
is sadness in heaven over the spiritual blindness of many of our brethren. (Our
younger ministers who fill less important positions must make decided efforts to
come to the light, to sink the shaft deeper and still deeper into the mine of truth.

The rebuke of the Lord will be upon those who would be guardians of
the doctrine, who would bar the way that greater light shall not come to the
people. A great work is to be done, and God sees that our leading men have
need of greater light, that they may unite with the messengers whom he shall
send harmoniously to accomplish the work that he designs they should.) The
Lord has raised up messengers and endued them with His Spirit. … (R&H, July
26, 1892; Cf. Daniells, p. 52. Emphasis added.)
It is abundantly clear that these references from the pen of Ellen G. White do not give the idea
of “reception” promoted by the Estate, indeed, they give the very opposite.

70
 9. It is self-evident that certain principles are basic in any historical research study.
Notwithstanding the inherited and cultivated tendencies of the researcher to lay aside objectivity,
ethics and honesty must prevail from a Christian standpoint. The weight of evidence to make truth
known will overrule. The greater the attempt to sustain a promise that historically is false, the greater
the ultimate confusion and horrible defeat.
Froom perceived and discussed this principle at length, pp. 364, 365. In part he says:

Regrettable Ploy of Reconstructed History — History has sometimes

been reconstructed by attempted selectivity — that is, by using out of context or
intent such citations as suit an objective — in an attempt to sustain a particular
assumption or theory. But such a practice is neither ethical nor honest. … As men
of integrity, we must have no part in such manipulation of historical episodes.
Servants of the God of truth must ever use quotations, evidence, and lines or
arguments in such a way as to honor Truth and its Author. (Froom, Pp. 364,
365.)
The principle here enunciated is right and proper and must be accepted and followed. It is in
this context that the next point must be considered.
In chapter thirty-nine of his work, Froom proceeds on the premise that “there has been a
steady growing emphasis on Righteousness by Faith in recent decades.” (P. 604.) Various authors are
referred to in support of this idea, among them E. G. White. He states: “She rejoiced in the growing
acceptance of Righteousness by Faith. Hers was an assuring, steadying, rallying voice. She ever
identified herself with the Church and its triumphs. She was an Adventist optimist, yet realist.” (Pp. 604,
606.) In support of this unique idea that she rejoiced in “the growing acceptance of Righteousness by
Faith,” a certain letter is quoted. It is a letter which the Ellen G. White Estate approves as upholding
the postulation Froom makes, for the same letter was quoted in Appraisal in 1958, and in support of
the same idea. Written in Sept. 1893, the one line quotation reads as follows: “We stood on the field
of battle for nearly three years, but at that time decided changes took place among our people, and
through the grace of God we gained decided victories.” (Froom, P. 606; Appraisal, p. 44.)
Does this one sentence really support Froom’s contention and likewise uphold the Estate as
quoted in Appraisal? The entire letter should be released, so that it can become evident to all that
there is in its context no burden of discussion of the growing acceptance or rejection of the message
of Christ’s righteousness. The letter deals with health reform. Reference is made to it in Counsels on
Diet and Foods, p. 369, where an excerpt is identified as “Letter 40, 1893.” The extract deals with
cheese being sold at a certain camp meeting and the attitude Dr. Kellogg took towards this and
apparently with the support of Ellen White. The point must be pressed for release of this letter in full.
Only then will it be known by all whether there has been a “manipulation of historical episodes.”

71
 Seventh-Day Adventist history has been written and no effort in all the universe can change
it nor can any apology alter a single facet of it. But it is possible that an attempt is being made now
to interpret and cover-up certain episodes in that history in order to make it fit a public stance that
has been taken by the church and published abroad? The amount of official material published
since 1950 is considerable, totaling over 1,200 pages in three books. The more that is published,
the greater the problem becomes. The confusion and anomalies developing are on the increase.
There is a very sad credibility gap emerging. The last two publications, by Olson and Froom, are
serious misfortunes and present apologies which will not bear analysis. To have the Ellen G. White
Estate approve and condone these publications is tragic enough. But to go even further and seek
to interpret, and to expound the “intent” of what Ellen G. White has said, presents a most solemn
predicament. This is not to condemn any man or group of men. It only brings into focus a situation
“we” face as a people! Pride is a terrible sin, as sacred history proves. Rebellion grows out of it.
For decades “we” have stood amazed at the way the world seeks every possible means to
lawfully disregard the fourth commandment. The untenable, though sometimes plausible, excuses put
forward are legion. The attempt to ignore and cover-up are distressing and ignoble.
The published positions “we” have accepted in recent years and the Historical Foreword as
found in Testimonies to Ministers, and similar attitudes taken and promoted by the Ellen G. White
Estate seem to be in the same vein.
Is it possible that “we” have fallen into some sort of benign cover-up conspiracy which “we”
consider is justified for the sake of the dead and the preservation of denominational pride and
reputation, but which in reality is a tragic fall into a kind of denominational Watergate?

72
 Chapter Nine

“THAT THEY WHICH SEE NOT MIGHT SEE”

An attempt has been made in this study to follow the generally accepted pattern for such a
document as this, albeit not very professional. This final chapter must now be written from a different
approach. The hour demands and conscience compels that this go forth as a plea and perhaps
the final cry following nearly a quarter century of waiting and watching, hoping and praying that
somehow the truth of our history might come to be understood by the watchmen on the walls of Zion
and the words of Jesus fulfilled— “that they which see not might see.”
In the year 1950, Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, returned on their first furlough
following about fourteen years of combined service in East Africa. Wieland had worked in Uganda
and this author had been in Tanganyika and Kenya. We were appointed as delegates to the General
Conference Session in San Francisco. Over the years we had seen each other very infrequently. It
happened that part of the journey home was on the same ship from Mombasa to Southampton.
We were perplexed about the mission program and how the work would be “finished.” In
some areas there were many baptisms but the larger the church membership became the greater the
call for overseas funds to care for the work. Something was wrong. We knew every branch ought to
bear fruit — fruit in genuine dedicated Christians and fruit in the benevolence of tithes and offerings
that would sustain the work and thus put out new branches. But it was not working that way and to
this day has not really worked. The ever larger membership has only created greater demands for
external money and in all candor this is not the kind of fruit the gospel is to bear. This is a study on its
own in relation to the whole mission program but it is of vital relevance to the total call and task of the
church in the context of this study.
In due course we arrived at the General Conference Session following which we were
scheduled to return to our foreign service. It was at this, our first Session to attend, that our perplexity
turned into consternation! We were astonished at the showmanship that figured prominently at a
General Conference Session. The vaunted speeches, the competition between Divisions, the rivalry
in display among various booths and exhibits, the proud pageantry to show the progress of the work
— all this seemed so vain that we were overwhelmed. What could all this possibly have to do with
the preparation of a people for the final atonement? This whole appeal seemed to be to the physical
senses!
There seemed to be a flood of theological confusion that stunned us. If anyone at this date
questions this, let him return to the 1950 Session Report and read for himself. With some notable
exceptions, much that is recorded simply will not bear careful scrutiny in the light of the truth we have
been given. There was vain talk as to how to receive the Holy Spirit. There was continual lauding of

73
men. There was a sermon about “Fighting the Stars,” that to this day is one of the strangest mixtures of
confusion to appear under SDA sponsorship!
The outcome of all this was a letter we jointly sent to the brethren. We surely had not had the
experience at that date of some of our “older brethren,” but we wrote out of heart conviction and a
sincere desire and belief that the truth we have been given is unique in all the ages and is to prepare
a people for the final atonement and to meet the Lord. What we wrote is in Appendix A herewith, and
now after 25 years may be read and judged as to its validity or otherwise. After eight days, we had
received no reply, so we wrote another letter. This is in Appendix B and may be appraised in the light
of all our elapsed history since then.
Under date of July 20, 1950, a reply was received from the brethren. Perhaps they had never
before had such frank letters from ministers in the church. They were concerned and admitted they
found it difficult to understand what we were trying to accomplish. They considered we were passing
through a spiritual conflict and accusing the brethren but they did perceive the implications of Baal
worship which we mentioned. It was not our intention then or at any time since to accuse the brethren.
We are a part of “the brethren.” But the impact was great and immediately the question arose as to
whether we should return to Africa. There had to be an understanding as to our future relationship to
the ministry of the denomination. We were told specifically, “You are on the path that Satan trod in
your spirit of accusation which led to his being cast out of heaven. … We cannot see that God has
placed you in His church as a critic of your brethren, but we do want to help you and save you to
your work in Africa.”
The brethren did have a concern for us. At no time was there every any ill-feeling or rancor. In
particular, Elder A. V. Olson was to us a spiritual father and counsellor. It was simply we were on a
different wave length. Our suggestions were so utterly foreign to their thinking that dialogue was of
little advantage — if it could truly be called dialogue. With perhaps only one exception, the men with
whom we met at that time have all gone off the scene of action by retirement or death. This leaves us
today to commune with virtually a new generation.
The General Conference Session had been held July 10 - 22, 1950. The meetings with
the brethren followed in due course. As a result of the meetings there came the manuscript “1888
Re-Examined.” This was our attempt to put into writing for further study, exactly what we had in mind.
This manuscript had been very hurridly put together under great pressure. The entire compilation of
204 pages of legal size was gathered together, written, edited, typed and duplicated in about six
to eight weeks. We have been grateful that it was not loaded with all sorts of serious errors. For a
long time we were concerned that some unknown statement to which we had had no access might
come out of the Estate vault which would completely alter the understanding we had gained about
1888. As time went on exactly the opposite took place. In 1952, there appeared in the Review,

74
the statement which later was published in Selected Messages, Book 1, pages 234 and 235. The
statement is a one-paragraph history of 1888 and reads as follows:
An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept
this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested
at Minneapolis against the Lord’s message through Brethren Waggoner and
Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our
people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God
longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that
efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the
apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the
whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren
has been in a great degree kept away from the world.
This settled the matter. There was nothing in the vault to contravene the many statements we
had already researched regarding Ellen White’s attitude toward 1888.
After the brethren had received the manuscript but before it had really been studied, it was
decided to return us to Africa. From correspondence it would seem that Elder A. V. Olson had
somewhat to do with this decision. So the two families returned to East Africa. It was over a year later
that the official reply came to us from the Defense Literature Committee. This reply has since been
published abroad to thousands of SDA’s as it is in the compilation, “A Warning and Its Reception.”
Under date of Feb. 27, 1952, we replied to the brethren and rested our case. That reply which has
never before been made public is found in Appendix C of this study. The truth or error of it may also
be measured against two decades of denominational history.
It is not known exactly how the manuscript “1888 Re-examined” first came to be published
far and wide in Adventist circles. The original copies placed in the hands of the brethren had no title
page, no date, and no authors were listed. In due course the material was re-typed, in whole or in
part, microfilmed, duplicated in sections, and otherwise spread abroad by various persons until it had
gone around the world. It came into the hands of both ministers and laity. The reaction was, “What is
wrong with ‘1888 Re-Examined’? Why is it rejected? If it is wrong, it should be pointed out wherein
the error lies.”
By the year 1958 there were sufficient reaction and questions from the field to cause
the Officers of the General Conference to issue, “Further Appraisal of the Manuscript ‘1888
Re-examined’.” From this point on the record has been rather well published with the official
opposition to “1888 Re-examined” becoming more pronounced and certain with each new book
released. Wieland and Short had decided with their final commitment of the matter as stated in their
letter of January 21, 1959, to remain silent and go down to their graves without another word. It was
only when public demand was made as published in Movement of Destiny, that they considered they

75
could not escape a proper reply. It was then that they prepared “An Explicit Confession. … Due the
Church.” Over the years the authors of this and their previous presentations have freely confessed they
may be wrong — even fools. But even fools can be given reason and understanding which will make
for intelligence if they are under the tutorship of those who are truly wise and who “see” and analyze
the actual deficiency.
*****

This study has dealt with SDA history as contained in the printed record. If expressions have
been used which are inept or seem to judge men or impugn motives, it is not intentional so to do. It is
only because of the deficiencies of this author and his inability to put thoughts into better terminology.
It cannot be overemphasized that the men who have written the record and the men who have
approved the record and sponsored its publication have been men of zeal and good intentions,
dedicated to the cause. By the same token Wieland and Short have written out their convictions
and bear their testimony and declare their absolute confidence in the triumph of the church. It is most
assuredly a “movement of destiny” and must fulfill its divine calling. But the church cannot be absolved
from the responsibilities that are inherent in that destiny by simply talking confidence and courage or
by trying to adjust and balance truth, nor by considering the recognition of unpleasant history as a
sign of disloyalty or stubbornness. Froom has stated a solemn truth:

The lesson of 1888, with aftermath and afterglow, is therefore not only
a timely topic in retrospect but is essential for action as we move into tomorrow.
Its principles are imperative for all time that remains. … The lessons of the past
are specifically for us, and no one else. We must act upon principle and right,
irrespective of consequences. (P. 656.)
The lessons are indeed for us. This means we cannot await some future date. It dare not be
a matter of taking time, much time! Furthermore God’s people must shun the idea “that victory is final
only when life itself is done.” (Olson, P. 228.) The “marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath
made herself ready.” (Rev. 19:7.) That marriage is now, not in the grave. “Thou shalt call his name
JESUS: for he shall save His people from their sins.” (Matt. 1:21.) His people must be saved from their
sins while they are alive. This is what the whole message of righteousness by faith is all about.
*****

As our history of 1888 has unfolded ever more clearly in recent years, so “our” denial has
become more pronounced that it was the leadership which was primarily involved. This whole idea
seems to be very offensive to “us.” But why should it be so? Could it be because we as ministers are
involved?
We are the messenger to the church of Laodicea — that angel to whom the True Witness
directs His message. Since the Remnant Church has only one ministry, anything said to that ministry

76
includes all. In a certain sense every minister is a leader, albeit there are “brethren in responsible
positions” that stand apart and surely will face the sterner judgment, but that leaders should fail in
fulfilling their solemn responsibilities is not something new or unique which suddenly overtook us in
1888. Sacred history is replete with this problem. In fact, sin originated with the leader of the entire
angelic host! Why should our own history be such a stumbling block? It is the Lord who has given
us the record through His messenger. What can the verdict against us be if we fail to see and know
what the Lord has said? There must be some dreadful reason why the Lord gave the messages He did
which compare with the Jews.
*****

We want to understand the time in which we live. We do not half

understand it. … The trials of the children of Israel, and their attitude just before
the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to
illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second
coming of Christ--how the enemy sought every occasion to take control of the
minds of the Jews, and today he is seeking to blind the minds of God’s servants,
that they may not be able to discern the precious truth. (R&H, Feb. 18, 1890;
1 SM 406, emphasis supplied.)
Why should the Lord present this to Ellen White “again and again,” in other words many
times? Is it really possible our position just now before the second coming of Christ is like the Jews
before the first coming of Christ? Are we prepared to believe that? Can we really be that blind? Don’t
we see what they say we see? How could we have “their attitude”? They rejected Christ.

O how Christ longed, how His heart burned, to open to the priests the
greater measures of the truth! But their minds had been cast in such a mold that
it was next to an impossibility to reveal to them the truths relating to His kingdom.
The Scriptures had not been read aright. (1 SM 407 - 408.)
How can this be true? Why should “the priests” need the “greater treasures of the truth! “—
surely as leaders they ought to have known and been able to see. In fact they were offended at the
very idea —”Are we blind?” was their astonished question. And why not — they were a movement of
destiny like ourselves! But somehow —
Satan … won his great triumph in perverting the faith of Israel. By
contemplating and worshiping their own conceptions, the heathen had lost
a knowledge of God, and had become more and more corrupt. So it was
with Israel. The principle that man can save himself by his own works, lay at
the foundation of every heathen religion; it had now become the principle
of the Jewish religion. Satan had implanted this principle. Wherever it is held

77
 men have no barrier against sin. … But the Jews … robbed God of His glory,
and defrauded the world by a counterfeit of the gospel. They had refused to
surrender themselves to God for the salvation of the world, and they became
agents of Satan for its destruction. The people whom God had called to be the
pillar and ground of the truth had become representatives of Satan. (DA 35, 36,
emphasis supplied.)
Can we imagine a more pathetic situation? They “defrauded the world by a counterfeit of
the gospel … refused to surrender themselves … became agents of Satan,”--how tragic, and they had
not a vague notion that they were blind, completely unable to see. But wonder of wonders, God’s
Spirit has said almost exactly the same thing about our church in our day! Do we believe it? Do we
see it? Read again Selected Messages, book 1, pages 234 and 235. --”Unwillingness to yield up
preconceived opinions … opposition … Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great
measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit … Enemy prevented them … in carrying the truth to the
world. … The light … by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from
the world. (1 SM 234, 235.) Again it must be asked — Do we see this? Do we believe it?

*****

The Pharisees, the leaders, the “separate ones,” were not insensitive to moral principles.
Indeed, they were the very opposite of this. For this reason they said one to another —

If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have united
with them in shedding the blood of God’s servants. At the same time they were
planning to take the life of His son. This should be a lesson to us. It should open
our eyes to the power of Satan to deceive the mind that turns from the light of
truth. (DA 618, emphasis supplied.)
Is the history of the Jews truly “a lesson to us”? They were certain they were not blind! Can
any member of the SDA church, and in particular can any minister of the church read the most recent
700 page treatise about our history without being impressed that we too are not blind? We see! We
speak much about righteousness by faith, and we have Sabbath school lessons on the subject, and so
we are inclined to consider we have a true revival of the 1888 message. Because of such emphasis
which may in reality be a revival of the teaching of the popular churches we end up by saying, “It is
being more widely believed and cherished today, and more eagerly studied and entered into now,
than at any time since 1888. There is a revival of rejoicing in the provisions of our God that is most
refreshing. This is to be the time of full embracement. We stand on the threshold of the great advance
foretold. But some will not recognize it. (Froom, P. 667.)
This is our condition in very graphic terms — better now than at any time since 1888, even
though some may not recognize it, they do not see, but we see. Where in the world field can

78
evidence be produced to support — “It is being more widely believed and cherished today, and more
eagerly studied and entered into now, than at any time since 1888”? The Lord has said — ”The enemy
of man and God is not willing that this truth should be clearly presented; for he knows that if the
people receive it fully, his power will be broken.” (R&H, Sept. 3, 1889.)
Is the power of the enemy being broken now in a way it was not just a few years ago?
Ask our pastors. Ask our parents. Ask our school principals. Check the statistics on our LLU medical
graduates. Compare records of our Seminary students. Examine the attrition rate on ordinations.
Take a look at our marriage registers. Weep for Israel in this hour! What possesses us to call
darkness light? Why do we insist on flattering ourselves that we are rich and increased with goods
when actually our wretchedness and nakedness “is the want of the righteousness of Christ. … Could
deception be greater?” (R&H, Aug. 7, 1894.)
“Again and again,” the “attitude” of the children of Israel was presented to the Lord’s servant to
illustrate our position. As long as our vision is unimpaired we do not need a Physician, Jesus came into
this world “that they which see not might see,” and He has assured us He has “eyesalve.”
*****

“If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Gal,
3:29). We have a kinship with the Jews that is closer than to any other people on earth. They are our
spiritual forebears. Even the fact that they have been scattered to the four corners of the earth has
a spiritual significance for our kinship must extend to the whole world in a very special way as the
three angel’s messages gathers out from all nations a people prepared for the final atonement. But
sometimes we forget this. It is so easy to wonder why they “rejected” Christ. Truth demands that we
mourn with them for the tragic results. They provide a photograph of our own sinful hearts. A careful
study of what actually happened may throw more light on the messages given and the comparisons
as made by Ellen White between them and us--and our 1888 history.
Who “rejected” Christ? How was a verdict obtained to crucify Him and release Barabbas?
The charge against Jesus had not come from the inhabitants of Samaria, nor from Judea, nor even
from Jerusalem. How did the whole Hebrew nation get involved? Who among the Jews “rejected”
Christ? Surely it was not the people of the nation. They had no opportunity to enter into the case. Not
even the Sanhedrin as a whole rejected Christ! Would it be fair to say that a vocal minority carried
the rejection to its terrible climax? There were the ex-high priest, the incumbent high priest, the judges,
the priests, the rulers, the elders and some other members of the Sanhedrin, plus certain specially
interested interested parties, and then the mob — the rabble of Jerusalem. But there is no possible
way to construe this as the Hebrew nation. Yet the nation was involved through the leaders. It was the
religious authorities that sought the life of Christ.

79
 When Caiaphas proclaimed “that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not.” he was only voicing the essence of good common
sense. His zeal for the church and the history of the church were all bound up in that one statement.
He was merely throwing up a hedge of protection for his people from the days of Abraham to
that very hour. The fact eluded them that the house of David was rejecting the very One whom for
centuries they had been looking, even though, “not a few among the priests and rulers had been
convicted by Christ’s teaching, and only fear of excommunication prevented them from confessing
Him.” (DA 699.) They were in exactly the same condition as Laodicea, they did not know how
wretched they were, and though blind they thought they could see. Jesus wept over their condition
and said, “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy
peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes” (Luke 19:42). That same Jesus, “the faithful and true
witness” says that we in our day do not know we are blind!
*****

Jewish history has established forever the fact that leaders, religious authorities, can be blind
and not know it and today no matter how many rabbis might vehemently deny this, the historical proof
stands. The condition in which they found themselves when the Messiah came was not the work of
a few days nor the fruit of a sudden unforeseen conflict and apostasy. “I have been shown that the
Jewish nation were not brought suddenly into their condition of thought and practice. For generation
to generation they were working on false theories, carrying out principles opposed to the truth, and
combining with their religion thoughts and plans that were the product of human minds. Human
inventions were made supreme. (TM 359.) In the same way the 1888 crisis can be seen to have roots
in previous events. The call which the Lord sent to His people pointing out their Laodicean condition
prior to 1888, is not without deep significance.
The stage having been set by the religious leaders, the trial of Christ had to proceed at all
costs. Human devisings determined He must die. He did not fit into the preconceived pattern of what
a Messiah ought to be. The revered memory of father Abraham had to be protected, and zeal to
reach their ends caused them to resort to devious methods. They were so blind to the situation they
faced that when the news came to the chief priests and elders assembled that Sunday morning
following the resurrection, more human devisings were put into operation. From a human viewpoint
the watchmen of the tomb were placed in a serious dilemma because of the proposition presented
to them. Should they perjure their souls and deny their solemn charge as soldiers and watchmen
of Caesar or should they tell the truth and face the consequences? The “large money” and good
standing with the priests won the day, “so they took the money, and did as they were taught: and
this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.” (Matt. 28:15). The official report
became the norm for all time.

80
 This did not alter the fact that subsequently there were thousands of conversions among
the Jews, but no matter how many became Christians this could not undo the tragic results of the
course which had been taken by the leaders and elders. Their course prevented God from doing for
“Jerusalem” what He wanted to do — had planned to do.
For centuries the Jews continued to build up arguments against the truth of their history. They
are still looking for Messiah to come. They insist all is well, Messiah will come. The Zionists have
proof that all is well for has not the state of Israel been established and all the world can see it! They
are certain, in the light of the total evidence, that persistent clinging to the idea that Messiah actually
came 2,000 years ago is sheer stubbornness. The official report stands. No one has ever produced
any statements or evidence sufficient to convince Jewish scholars. In the light of all this the charge of
Jewish “leadership rejection” of the Messiah stands as invalid and unproved.
Would any Christian, and above all would any SDA possibly accept this line of reasoning no
matter how many Jews should proclaim it or for how many years it might be promoted! Historical truth
will not support this premise no matter what may be published as the official Jewish view.
There must be a very real reason why the Lord “again and again” presented the children of
Israel to illustrate the position of God’s people just before the second coming of Christ. They are
still looking for Messiah to come. We are still looking for the Latter Rain and after more than eighty-
five years wistfully hope it will not be much longer before it comes, whereas the Lord has stated
emphatically that He “longed to impart” this “special power” to us at Minneapolis. But “our own
brethren” resisted and kept it away.
The solution to this terrible dichotomy involves none other than the “shaking” in our midst. Were
it not for the fact the Lord’s messenger has stated this time would come, we could hope and pray to
avoid it, for it will be a terrible time!
If the Jews could read their history today for what it says and truly means--even after these
2,000 years, there would be a world-wide “shaking,” as mentioned in the first chapter of this study.
Although 2,000 years have elapsed it does not alter one iota the fact that they must go back to the
place where they departed from the Lord--if they want to walk again with Him. Every genuine Hebrew
Christian any place in the world will testify to this. The lapse of time does not efface sin. For us it
means we too must face our history and we too must specifically go back to that place where we
insulted the Holy Spirit and offended God. Only this kind of God-given repentance can suffice in the
final atonement.

81
 All the universe in heaven witnessed the disgraceful treatment of Jesus
Christ represented by the Holy Spirit. Had Christ been before them, they would
have treated Him in a manner similar to that in which the Jews treated Christ.
(Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 6, p. 20.)
When the Lord came to His people in 1888, it was to be a new experience, a new way, more
intimate than ever offered before to the human race--but the leaders said, “Beware, fanaticism.” For
more than a decade God’s messenger continued to talk of the terrible loss sustained at Minneapolis.
Up to fourteen years after this notable Conference, Ellen White continued to make reference by name
to this session. The light of the Holy Spirit faded away.
Years went by. Finally the long tenure of Elder Daniells came to an end in 1922 and then he
carried on as secretary of the Ministerial Association until 1926. It was in this year that his book was
published. Christ Our Righteousness. This treatise was a call to denominational repentance, though the
idea was not yet developed. He, with Elder Meade MacGuire, recognized that the 1888 message
was the beginning of the Latter Rain. In due course Elder Taylor G. Bunch added his voice to the
same plea and in 1937 his manuscript became available, “The Exodus and Advent Movements in
Type and Antitype.” He perceived that —

Just as Kadesh Barnea brought ancient Israel to the greatest crisis of their
journey, so the message of 1888 brought modern Israel to the parting of the
ways and the greatest crisis of our history. That the Lord intended to pour out
the latter rain and quickly finish His work is abundantly evident. … According to
some who attended the Minneapolis meeting fully two thirds of those present
either opposed the message of righteousness by faith or were afraid of it. They
felt that it was a form of fanaticism. … (Pp. 89, 90.) (Froom makes no reference
to Bunch.)
The field got the message and inquiries began to come into the White Estate, and from that
year (1937) it would seem that certain selected E. G. White statements were gathered out and
began to appear in support of the “victory” philosophy but the statements in their context do not
uphold the inference given to them.
*****

It is not necessary for us deliberately to choose the service of the

kingdom of darkness in order to come under its dominion. We have only
to neglect to ally ourselves with the kingdom of light. … There are none so
hardened as those who have slighted the invitation of mercy, and done despite
to the Spirit of grace. The most common manifestation of the sin against the Holy
Spirit, is in persistently slighting Heaven’s invitation to repent. (DA 324.)

82
 Within the last year a new theory has been presented as a major factor in the 1888 crisis.
It is this: Opposition to the Spirit of Prophecy messages was widespread, therefore rejection of the
authority of Ellen G. White was an underlying cause of the difficulties in 1888. This may be very
important. It requires further analysis. In the meantime it is perilous to allow this idea to swallow up the
fact that the ‘88 message was the beginning of the Latter Rain and Loud Cry and it was that which
was rejected. It was that rejection which was an insult to the Holy Spirit, an offense to God. Let us
listen to our Lord: “But the Holy Spirit has been insulted, and light has been rejected. Is it possible
for those who for years have been so blinded, to see?” (TM 393, written in 1896.) The fact that the
authority of Ellen G. White was also rejected only magnifies the sin of ‘88. We dare not construe
this to imply we have overcome the doubts of the leadership of that day. Neither dare we presume
that now all is well, and there is really no need for denominational repentance because E. G. White
books have greater distribution today than ever before. Such a theory will only compound our
perplexities and deepen the roots of our unbelief.
If we now admit there was a rejection of the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy as given
through Ellen White, and this rejection was by the leadership, we must therefore admit there was a
rejection of the Holy Spirit and this is the crux of the 1888 rebellion. No Seventh-Day Adventist can
reject the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy without rejecting the Holy Spirit. If we are now ready to
acknowledge the first premise, the second is inescapable! It is therefore futile to go into prolonged
polemics about the “few,” “some,” or “many” or exactly the number that were involved in the crisis.
“We” were involved! To delay the recognition of this is but a continuing insult to heaven. Is there a
greater sin than the suppression of truth? “The last great deception of Satan will be to make of none
effect the testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy. There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies
which is satanic.” (1 SM 48.)
*****
CONCLUSION

Our persistent delay to acknowledge our history for exactly what it says can put us in the
same category as the Jews of old, when the Lord said of their temple, “Your house is left unto you
desolate.” The consequences of our procrastination are tragic and demean our destiny. If the Lord
could have come before now had we fulfilled our calling, it means we are in a degree responsible
for the increasing woe coming upon the world. Why have we steeled our hearts against what the
Lord Himself has said about us as a people and above all about us as leaders? Why do we insist
our history does not call for repentance? What can the Lord do to get us to read and understand
His plea and His indictment given to us specifically by the Holy Spirit through His messenger Ellen G.
White? Has not the time come to cry aloud and spare not?

83
 At this date, 85 years after the Minneapolis Conference, why-do we insist that men know more
about what happened at that time than the Lord Himself knows? The true and reliable source for that
session and the years following is the testimony of the Lord’s servant in its whole context. “Affidavits”
which have not been seen and which have not been quoted to the church are unconvincing. They
were not written at the time of crisis and did not come into existence until forty years after the event.
These can never take the place of “thus saith the Lord” through His delegated messenger to the
Remnant Church. How long will we refuse her testimony? The Lord gave it to her and our refusal to
accept it now is to continue to reject the Latter Rain and to evade her authority as surely as our fathers
did.
Our faith in the Lord is based on a written record set down by men under “inspiration.” Our
destiny depends on the truth of what they wrote. By the same token and by the same Holy Spirit
which inspired them to write, so depends the destiny of the Remnant Church for it is the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit in the testimony of Ellen White, which makes her counsel valid and relevant. If it is
not so, we have no reason to exist as a denominated people. The time has come to lay aside the
confidence of man in man. Each one of us must know truth for what it is. We should not take any
man’s words, any man’s prejudices, any man’s arguments, nor any man’s theories. Human viewpoints
must be abandoned and a total picture of 1888 and our history must be taken from the pen of
inspiration so that all may see clearly how we have truly followed in the steps of the Jews. In that great
and final denouement of history we must depart from then and accept our rebuke and our chastening
and truly repent. Then may we “open the door,” and the faithful and true witness promises, “I will
come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” The question is, are we ready now and willing
to repent or must this yet be the work of a future generation? It need not be.
Can our wanderings now cease? Do we see our relationship to the Jews? Do we see our
relation to our brethren of 1888? Are we willing to take our place beside them? Will we accept a
spirit of humility and contrition? For our solemn encouragement there is a recorded example of just
what we need to do.

The prophet Daniel was drawing very near to God when he was
seeking him with confession and humiliation of soul. He did not try to excuse
himself or his people, but acknowledged the full extent of their transgression. In
their behalf he confessed sins of which he himself was not guilty, and besought
the mercy of God, that he might bring his brethren to see their sins, and with him
to humble their hearts before the Lord, (R&H, Dec. 16, 1890, emphasis added.)
If Daniel was willing to enter into this experience, why should we not be willing to do likewise?

84
 SUMMARY

Much more could be compiled for this study but to what advantage? It would seem to be futile
to publish any more books on the 1888 era. Too much has already been postulated which cannot be
supported by history. It is the conflicting views of men that has built up the great mystery of 1888. But
there are some things which can be done.
1. If “the Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders
Waggoner and Jones,” then let us examine that message very carefully and make a plan for “His
people” to get the message. The Lord sent the message. We have no right to try to stop it or in any
way to discredit the men who brought it. They had “credentials from heaven” and what they brought
was the beginning of the latter rain and loud cry. Let them speak. This will obviate trying to compile
what we may think their message was and it will, if we are honest, remove the spirit of censure and
criticism which is all too frequently indulged against them.
2. Let the Lord’s messenger speak! Let us lay aside A. G. Daniells, and N. F. Pease, and L.
H. Christian, and A. W. Spalding, and W. H. Branson, and A. V. Olson, and L. E. Froom, singly and
collectively and all the 1000 pages and more that they have written about 1888. And then lay aside
Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, who perhaps should head the list for discarding. There is
one more. The Ellen G, White Estate must also be laid aside. The one who must now speak without
repress, without comment, without interpretation or any explanation of intent is the Lord’s messenger
to the Remnant Church, Ellen G. White. Let the dialogue of men be silent and let the Lord speak
through her pen. This need not desecrate the memory of any who have gone before us. They have
been men like ourselves and if anything in our lives and experience could be a help to the church,
surely we would want and urge that it be made known as a warning to all. Furthermore this is not to
depreciate or impugn any man or group of men but rather to carefully measure our relationship to
the precious message sent to us and to know the Lord who came near at that special time but had to
turn back. This means there is a need for the following material to be gathered out and arranged in
chronological order in three categories and made available to the leadership, and undoubtedly to
many laity who have a growing insatiable desire for light:
(a) All documents, published and unpublished, that refer specifically by name to Minneapolis.
(b) All documents, published and unpublished, that refer specifically to Minneapolis by
implication.

85
 (c) All documents, published and unpublished, which in context refer to the spirit manifested at
and following the Minneapolis Conference which would include the role Laodicea has played and
will play until repentance comes.
Such a compilation would cancel the opinions of men. It would be what the Lord has said to
us about ourselves.
3. Should such a compilation be considered too formidable and require too much time to
complete, at least something towards it could be done even though not an exhaustive study. The
immediate crisis demands that some statements in each category be compiled without delay. More
than twenty years ago this suggestion was put forward but the hour has come now when it must be
pressed and given priority!
*****

The mystery of 1888 must be resolved, Man cannot do it but the Lord can. We need only
to accept what He has told us about our history and this need not wait for a future generation. The
universe has waited long enough. It is time for the atonement to be completed. The judgment for
which Jesus came into the world needs to be finished. Can we see ourselves as He sees us? Can we
confess that we are blind? If we can, we have the promise of Jesus that He came into this world in
order “that they which see not might see.”

86
 APPENDIX A

Crest Hotel,
San Francisco, CA
July 11, 1950
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE:
Dear Brethren,
On this day of fasting and prayer, we as a people are to seek not to the god of Ekron, but to
the God of truth, the Author and Finisher of our faith, the God who has led the remnant church these
106 years, as He led Israel of old. The President’s stirring address last night, calling upon us to guard
the faith once delivered to the saints, and to speak forthrightly in defense of it, presents a challenge.
With this in mind, it is imperative that we know exactly what it is that should be guarded, for certainly
there is great confusion in our ranks today.
This confusion was evident in the “Christ-centered preaching” urged upon us repeatedly in the
Ministerial Association meeting of the past four days. These meetings were supposed to set the stage
for a mighty revival among God’s people at this General Conference session. This “Christ-centered
preaching” is expected by its proponents, to bring in a great reformation among Seventh-Day
Adventist workers the world around.
No one for a moment could disparage the preaching of the true Christ as the center and
substance of the three angels’ messages. However, in the confusion, it has not been discerned that
much of this so-called “Christ centered preaching” is in reality merely anti-Christ centered preaching.
It vitally affects the outcome of this General Conference session. To make such a statement to the
General Conference Committee sounds fantastic. But startling things are not unexpected by the
church in the last days.
No Seventh-Day Adventist can deny for a moment that Satan will take the religious world
captive, appearing as an angel of light, to deceive if possible the very elect. Through a three-fold
union of apostate Protestantism, Romanism, and Spiritualism, he will present the most bitter opposition
to the three angels’ messages ever encountered. Men such as E. Stanley Jones, Leslie Weatherhead,
Norman Vincent Peale, and Billy Graham, are allying themselves with Spiritualistic forces, robed
in garments of light. They indeed preach a winsome, lovable, always smiling “Christ.” But, with the
aid of the Bible, this “Christ” can be proven to be identifiable with the father of all lies, the author of
Spiritualism and Romanism. Need it be said that we have nothing to do as Seventh-Day Adventists
with such a false “Christ”? Ought we not to realize that our cruel and bitter enemy knows by now far
too well the fallacy of trying to allure us with apparent evil, gross and crude Spiritualism? In these last
days, he will assume the form of good, and seek to allure us and charm us with specious reasonings,
apparently holy, causing men, as we heard last night, “to give utterance to opinions that betray

87
sacred, holy trusts.” It could be proven, as simply and as clearly as that the Seventh-Day Sabbath is
the true one, that the “Christ” of those modern men is identifiable with the god of modern Spiritualism!
In the sermons and exhortations of the past four days, no clear distinction whatever has been
made between the Christ of Seventh-Day Adventism, and this false Christ. While lip service has been
paid to the preaching of our distinctive doctrines, they have been openly and repeatedly disparaged
as secondary, this “Christ” being considered primary. We are thus left with a vague mysticism
permeating Seventh-Day Adventism. If followed to its logical ends, it can only bring in a false, spurious
type of “Christian” experience, calculated indeed to deceive the very elect, but which will not hasten
the finishing of the work committed to us. It is a modern counterpart of an ancient call to Israel in
the wilderness to return to Egypt. Should not this matter dear brethren and elders, be thoroughly
investigated by men capable of discerning between the wiles of the devil and the solemn work of the
true Holy Spirit?
Is it not true that our fasting, praying, and seeking for the outpouring of the Spirit will be
tragically hindered until this matter is clarified? The most earnest, intercessory, pleading prayers
offered unwittingly to Baal will not avail Israel one drop of heaven-sent rain, in this time of spiritual
drought. Is it not true that the “Christ” of these modern Spiritualistic actors is in reality Israel’s ancient
enemy, Baal, under a new and more highly refined guise?
The following facts are worthy of consideration:
1. Our history proves, in the incident of Dr. Kellogg’s apostasy into what the servant of the Lord
repeatedly termed “deadly heresies” and “doctrines of devils” and specious “spiritualistic sentiments,”
that trusted men amongst us can think themselves in harmony with our faith, have regard to the
law and the Sabbath, be men of apparent rectitude, and yet be deceived by a refined species of
Spiritualism. Therefore, to say that we are not in any danger of being confused by the false Christ and
his spiritualism so long as we hold to the Sabbath and the law, etc., is not entirely true. Seventh-Day
Adventists can be deceived. Only a tyro in denominational history will deny that.
2. Plain, unequivocal statements that cannot be possibly gainsaid, in Special Testimonies,
Series B, indicate that the spiritualistic sophistries which deceived Dr. Kellogg and a great proportion
of our trusted leaders fifty years ago, will again deceive our people; further, that Dr. Kellogg’s
apostasy, revealed in “Living Temple,” was but the comparatively crude, immature beginning of
deadly deceptions and doctrines of devils; and that the most serious development in the history of
Adventism, as we near the end, would be an almost overmastering attempt on the part of Satan to
lead us into Spiritualism, a revival of the deceptions of fifty years ago. Just a few key statements follow,
which should indicate that this is not a fantastic idea:

Many are in danger of receiving theories and sophistries that undermine

the foundation pillars of our faith. … Satan with his seductive influence, has
stolen away from one and then another the faith once delivered to the saints.

88
 … Nothing but a determined effort will break the spell that is upon them. Be
not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits
and doctrines of devils. We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The
omega will be of a most startling nature. Pp. 15, 16.
‘Living Temple’ … contains specious sentiments. There are in it sentiments
that are entirely true, but these are mingled with error. … In the book ‘Living
Temple’ there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow,
and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has
given. Pp. 49, 50.
The time is near when the deceptive powers of satanic agencies will be
fully developed. On one side is Christ, who has been given all power in heaven
and in earth. On the other side, is Satan, continually exercising his power to
allure [appearing as anti-Christ, in the place of Christ], to deceive with strong,
spiritualistic sophistries, to remove God [the true Christ] out of the places that He
should occupy in the minds of men. No. 7, Pp. 16, 17.
Fanciful representations and interpretations of truth have been stealing in
step by step, unperceived by men who ought, through a clear understanding of
the Scriptures, to be prepared to see the danger and sound a note of warning.
… Blindness hath happened unto Israel. P. 17.
Spiritualistic sentiments have been given to our people, and have been
received by some who have had a long experience as teachers in the word of
God. The results of this insidious devising will break out again and again. P. 36.
That those whom we have thought sound in the faith should have failed
to discern the specious, deadly influence of this science of evil, should alarm us
as nothing else has alarmed us. ‘It is something that cannot be treated as a small
matter.’ P. 37.
The strange part of the matter is that these ideas have been accepted by
so many as beautiful truths. P. 49.
3. This deception of refined Spiritualism constitutes a species of virtual Baal worship. The old
enemy of ancient Israel has deceived many in modern Israel.
(a) Baal is simply a false “Christ,” and is Satan disguising as the god who led Israel out of
Egypt. He is an utter impostor, assuming the appearance of Israel’s true Lord. The word Baal simply
meant “Lord,” or “husband,” etymologically. Thus when the prophets of Baal prayed at Carmel, they
simply prayed, “O Lord, Lord, etc,” while Elijah had a clear distinction in his mind about the true God.

89
 (b) Ancient Israel did not realize that they had apostatized into Baal worship. It was a gradual,
unconscious apostasy. This is evident from statements in Prophets and Kings, and Jeremiah 2:23, 35;
16:10. Modern Israel’s Baal worhsip has also been gradual and unconscious. Men are sincerely
deceived.
(c) An unequivocally plain prophecy occurs in Testimonies to Ministers, P. 467, 468, that as a
consequence of not discerning the light of righteousness by faith revealed in 1888, “many” amongst
us would be deceived into virtual Baal worship.
(d) This modern Baal worship and highly refined Spiritualism constitutes a spurious and
counterfeit species of righteousness by faith. This revival of “Christ centered preaching,” being
practically identical with the “gospel” of modern Babylon, is not a true revival such as Jones and
Waggoner and Sister White brought to us 62 years ago.
(e) This spurious faith in “Christ” can never prepare the remnant church to stand in the day of
God, nor is it a distinctive message which will lighten the earth with the glory of God. Followed to its
logical end, it will rob us of the distinctive message God has given us for the world. It is a call back to
Egypt.
(f) The alarming and heartbreaking examples of treachery, immorality, cupidity, fraud, and
embezzlement, arising within our ministerial ranks, and sadly familiar to us here and there, indicate
that the fruit of this apostasy is increasingly bitter. Faith in the true Christ, dear brethren, bears not fruit
such as we see today amongst us.
4. Modern Spiritualism is not clearly discerned by our people. It constitutes not merely a
crude peeping and muttering of the dead, but also a counterfeit Holy Spirit, Thus Baal worship
includes a false god, a false “Christ,” and a false “Holy Spirit.” Other religious bodies are earnestly
seeking a “latter rain” as are we, but their Holy Spirit will prove to be an Unholy Spiritism. The church
appeals to the ministry to make this distinction clear to our workers and people. Already spurious
manifestations of miracle-working power have been evident amongst us, and have been received
by many. Clear, unequivocal statements from the Spirit of Prophecy indicate that near the end false
miracles will appear amongst Seventh-Day Adventists to deceive them, and that such miracles will be
accompanied by a spurious righteousness by faith such as the world will receive. Our people are
tragically confused, as sheep without a shepherd, and await a clarification of this matter.
5. It is certain that there are keen minds in the world who will someday be able to prove
conclusively from history and theology, that the “Christ” of modern Babylon, of Billy Graham,
E. Stanley Jones, etc., is the ancient Adonis, or Tammuz, of old pagan religions, and the false Messiah
of Mithraism, and the anti-Christ of Romanism.
(a) It can be proven logically and clearly, as much as so as we prove the Sabbath or
Sanctuary truths, that the “Christ” of popular “Christian” experience is identifiable with the old pagan
Christs.’

90
 (b) It can be proven conclusively that the type of Christian experience preached amongst us
today is practically the same as that advocated by E. Stanley Jones and others; and that this species
of experience is a manifest departure from the truths taught in the Bible and Steps to Christ.
(c) It can be proven that this modern “Christ centered preaching” is a subtle reappearance
of that “other gospel” which Paul so sharply warned the Galatians against receiving. Gal. 1:8, 9. If
we make any mistakes in this field of Christian experience, it is a damnable confusion. You will recall
that that “other gospel” “bewitched” the Galatians. (The word “proven,” brethren, does not mean
the making of bald, unsupported statements. There are such authorities as J. Garnier, who wrote The
True Christ and the False Christ--London, 1900, a monumental work which may be found in the R&H
library, and authorities cited by Weigal in The Paganism in Our Christianity, and Frazer’s Golden
Bough.)
6. Lest this appeal be thought fantastic, and the conditions referred to impossible amongst
Seventh-Day Adventists, the following incidents are with embarrassment and hesitation referred to:
(a) In 1899 a certain imposter, “Captain” Norman, deceived practically the entire group of
Seventh-Day Adventist leaders. Older workers will recall that this smooth impostor was described by
Sister White as an agent or emissary of the devil, and that the whole embarrassing incident was a
parable, to show our people how much they were falling down. Immediately afterwards occurred
the sad episode of Dr. Kellogg’s spiritualistic apostasy, when brethren who had believed an agent of
the devil, also received what Sister White plainly termed “doctrines of devils.” The warning was not
received. Thus there developed the “alpha.”
(b) In 1949 a certain impostor, “Doctor” Legg, deceived some Seventh-Day Adventist leaders
tragically. This wicked man was an uncouth, poorly disguised deceiver. He appeared to be a very
strange sort of new “convert.” He couldn’t look one in the eye and scarcely did he even act the part
of a refined, converted, Christian, gentleman. The sad story is well known. Can any one successfully
maintain that sincere brethren, who will be so deceived by a very agent of the devil, will not also be
as readily deceived by “doctrines of devils”? The analogy of the 1899 incident with Dr. Kellogg’s
Spiritualism, makes a disturbing consideration.
Our dear people, could they voice their unconscious desires, would thus appeal to this highest
Committee of authority, gathered at this world session in 1950, to clarify this highly important matter
of the difference between the true God and the false, the true Christ and the anti-Christ, the true Holy
Spirit and Spiritualism, and true Christian experience and false supposition. No matter before this
gathering can possibly be as weighty with serious import as this.
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) R. J. Wieland (Signed) D. K. Short

91
 APPENDIX B

Crest Hotel
July 18, 1950
TO THE GENERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE:
Dear Brethren,
With reference to our former letter of last week, we have had no reply as yet. It is now over
eight days. We have been informed, perhaps “unofficially,” that the sentiment of the Committee is
that we not be allowed to return to Africa as missionaries until the matter presented in our last letter
is “cleared up.” Presumably that would mean that we retract the positions we have expressed, either
with or without being shown rationally and logically wherein they are erroneous. We regret that the
implied threat of dismissal from the mission field is used as a sort of lever to pry us into “step” with the
opinions of men, which opinions are so clearly opposed to both reason and revelation.
We have not challenged a single tenet of Seventh-Day Adventist faith. Rather, we are
appealing for a return to the faith of the pioneers of this movement, to the faith of Ellen G. White, and
the light which came to us in 1888, which latter is now quite completely obscured by a confusion of
“the third angel’s message in verity” with Babylon’s false and synthetic, so-called “righteousness by
faith.”
We would ask respectfully, brethren, why is the first reaction to our appeal that of dangling a
sword over our heads?
As for us, behold, we are in your hand: do unto us as seemeth good and meet unto you.
(Jeremiah 26:14.) We freely confess that it may not be impossible that we are indeed the most stupid
fools ever to attend a General Conference session. But, if we are, it should be most easily possible for
you to show us wherein, logically and rationally and truthfully, our conclusions are utterly erroneous.
This matter is very serious; either we are terribly right, or we are terribly wrong. If the latter is the case,
then the fundamental errors of our convictions should be outstandingly apparent to your minds. If the
former is the case, we would respectfully remind you, dear elders, that to seek to stifle this matter will
be a serious tragedy, not for our weak selves, but for yourselves and the church, to whom, under God,
you are responsible.
We believe in unity, and keeping step with the brethren. But the time has come to point out
the ultimate results of confusing our people with Babylon’s irrational and spurious “righteousness by
faith,” which is in affinity with modern Spiritualism. “We are to unify, but not on a platform of error,”
wrote Ellen G. White nearly fifty years ago, at the time of Dr. Kellogg’s spiritualistic apostasy. “In

92
the providence of God, the errors that have been coming in must be met,” she added (Special
Testimonies, Series B.)
Herewith are a few selections from her pen, addressed “To the Brethren Assembled at the
General Conference,” Minneapolis, Minn., November 1888. May we refresh your minds with a few
of the solemn counsels which she gave at that time concerning the danger of “squashing” men who
speak their deepest convictions:
Doctor Waggoner has spoken to us in a straightforward manner. There is precious light in what
he has said. … Truth will lose nothing in investigation, therefore I plead for Christ’s sake that you come
to the living oracles, and with prayer and humiliation seek God. … I want to receive every ray of light
that God shall send me, though it should come through the humblest of His servants. Of one thing I
am certain, as Christians, you have no right to entertain feelings of enmity, unkindness, and prejudice
toward Dr. Waggoner who has presented his view in a plain, straightforward, manner, as a Christian
should. If he is in error, you should, in a calm, rational, Christian manner, seek to show him from the
word of God where he is out of harmony with its teachings. If you cannot do this, you have no right as
Christians, to pick flaws, to criticise, to work in the dark to prejudice minds with your objections. This is
Satan’s way of working.
Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I
believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and trust him as a
Christian gentleman. I have no reason to think that he is not as much esteemed of God as any of
my brethren and I shall regard him as a Christian brother, so long as there is no evidence that he is
unworthy. The fact that he honestly holds some views of Scripture differing from yours and mine is no
reason we should treat him as an offender, as a dangerous man, and make him the subject of unjust
criticism. We should not raise a voice of censure against him or his teachings unless we can present
reasons for so doing, and show him that he is in error. … There are some who have a desire to have
a decision made at once as to what is the correct view in the point under discussion. As this would
please Elder Butler, it is advised that this question should be settled at once; but are minds prepared
for such a decision? … While under so much excitement as now exists, they are not prepared to make
safe decisions. …
It is perilous to make decisions upon any controverted point without dispassionately
considering all sides of the question. …
The truth must be presented as it is in Jesus, and it will satisfy the soul. Let not any among us
become stirred up because ideas are presented in this meeting contrary to what they have believed.
Stop your unsanctified criticism and come and investigate the subject. …

93
 There are but few, even of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third angel’s
message [how could they, if they confuse its verity with modern Spiritualism?] … Said my Guide,
“There is much light yet to shine forth from the law of God and the gospel of righteousness. This
message understood in its true character, and proclaimed in the spirit, will lighten the earth with its
glory. …
There will be great humbling of heart before God upon the part of everyone who remains
faithful and true to the end. Satan will so work upon the unconsecrated elements of the human mind
that many will not accept the light in God’s appointed way. …
There is positive danger that some who profess to believe the truth will be found in a position
similar to that of the Jews, They take the ideas of the men they are associated with, but not because
of searching the Scriptures. They conscientiously accept their teachings as doctrines of truth. I entreat
of you to make God your trust; idolize no man, depend upon no man. Let not your love of men
hold them in places of trust that they are unqualified to fill. For man is finite and erring, liable to be
controlled by his own feelings, and opinions. …
I entreat you, close not the door of the heart for fear some ray of light shall come to you. … If
you do not see the light yourselves, you will prevent the rays of light from coming to the people. …
With humbled softened hearts, with respect and love for one another, search your Bibles. The
light may not come in accordance with the plans that men may devise. … And let no one pursue an
unfair course, not willing to open their ears to hear and yet free to comment and quibble and sow
doubt of that which they will not take time to-understand. …
Our greatest fears should be that we may be rebelling against God’s word which we have as
a guide amid all the perils of the last days. We must be sure that we are on the Lord’s side, that we
have the truth as it is in Jesus. …
Men will go forth in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare the way for the second Advent
of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is their work to make crooked things straight. Some things must be torn
down; some things must be built up. The old treasures must be reset in the framework of truth. … Their
testimony must not be molded by the opinions and ideas that have been regarded sound, but by the
word of God which liveth and abideth forever. They are to lift up Christ [the true One, of course], and
call sinners to repentance. …
[Some, like the Jews of old] do not take the time to investigate candidly with earnest prayer,
the evidences of the truth, and they oppose that which they do not understand. Like the Jews, they take
it for granted that they have all the truth, and feel a sort of contempt for anyone who should suppose
that he had more correct ideas than themselves of what is truth. They tell others that the doctrine is not

94
true, and afterward when they see light and evidence they still cherish doubt and take steps which
lead to results of which they never dreamed. Those who have doctrines because their associates in
the work believe them resist the truth without going to the Scriptures to learn what is truth. Because
those in whom they have confidence oppose the light, they oppose it, not knowing that they are
rejecting the counsel of God against themselves. …
It is not wise for one of these young men [Jones and Waggoner] to commit himself to a
decision at this meeting where opposition rather than investigation is the order of the day. … You
should not believe any doctrine because another says it is truth. You should not believe it because
Elder Smith, or Elder Kilgore, or Elder Van Horn, or Elder Haskell says it is truth, but because God’s
voice has declared it in His living oracles. … Those who neglect to search for evidence for themselves,
and rely upon what some one else says, will not have root in themselves, and will not be able to give
a reason for the hope that is within them. …
We should not reject or oppose the views of our fellow laborers because they do not agree
with our ideas until we have used every means in our power to find out whether or not they are truth,
comparing Scripture with Scripture.
— MS 15, 1888, E. G. White.
Thus did the Spirit of God solemnly counsel our fathers sixty-two years ago at the fateful
meeting at Minneapolis. We do not profess to be messengers of God as were Elder Jones and
Waggoner at that time. We are just humble missionaries from the heart of Africa. But we are
constrained to speak our sincere and conscientious convictions of truth. Will you not make it possible
for us to present to you, without an atmosphere of prejudice, bias, or threats, the reasons for the
conclusions to which we have come?
This is God’s true church, and it will triumph. There are seven thousand left in Israel who have
not bowed the knee to Baal, in spite of the insidious work of Baal’s four hundred and fifty prophets.
Truth will triumph, and God may use agencies we do not now discern to turn the heart of His people
back to Him in genuine, heartbroken love. The Christ of the Cross will yet be uplifted. On Monday,
February 27, 1893, the following words were read to the General Conference session of that year, in
a letter sent from Australia by Sister White (she speaks of the sad consequences of spurning the light
at Minneapolis, and the tragic deceptions that would ensue):

There will be lords many and gods many. The cry will be heard, “Lo,
here is Christ, and lo, he is there.” The deep plot Satan will reveal its working
everywhere, for the purpose of distracting attention from present duty. The
appearance of a false Christ will awaken delusive hopes in the minds of those

95
 who will allow themselves to be deceived. The church members that are awake
will arise to the emergency, and manifestations of satanic power are to be
presented in their true light before the people.
Let the Cross be restored to the everlasting gospel. Let Israel behold the Lamb of God, rather
than this false Christ, this Babylonian Baal, held up before them at the present time.
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) R. J. Wieland (Signed) D. K. Short

96
 APPENDIX C

This letter is a reply to the Defense Literature Committee letter of December 4, 1951, published
in “A Warning and Its Reception,” Pp. 245 - 255.
*****

Box 22, Kampala, Uganda

February 27, 1952
Defense Literature Committee
General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists
Takoma Park, Washington 12, D.C.
Dear Brethren:
Thank you for your letter of December 4, 1951, and the 11-page reply to our manuscript
“1888 Re-examined.”
We fully recognize from your reply that the committee has clearly and unequivocally decided
that we are in error and that at least part of the manuscript is “false and unfounded.” We note that
you have asked that we not “press” our “rather critical view” any further.
In the course of the last 18 months we have presented to you our deepest convictions. This we
have done openly and frankly in a written form. This letter, which to all appearances will be the last
on a matter that to us seems of staggering importance, will be no less frank.
On the outset we wish to make it clear that we submit to the counsel of the General
Conference in this matter and further that we acknowledge the General Conference to be the highest
body God has placed on earth and therefore the matter is now their responsibility — being the
properly constituted watchmen upon the walls of Zion. We also wish to state that we are prepared
to write to every individual who has received a copy of the manuscript and to point out the decision
of the General Conference. While we make this statement of submission to the General Conference
we also wish to be frank in saying that we do not believe the reply as given to us will bear careful
analysis. Therefore to go into your file before it is closed on this matter we submit the following and
quite needless to say time will soon prove how “false and unfounded” or how dreadfully true our
convictions are.
1. While we appreciate the “concern” of the brethren over what appears to them to be a very
critical attitude on our part yet we submit that the first concern should be with the future of Israel and
the tremendous issues facing Israel today rather than what happens to us as two young workers in
the heart of Africa. If there is one grain of truth presented in the manuscript that has been denied or is

97
being repressed then that is of prime importance and no amount of “criticism” charges against us will
nullify that truth. We freely admit that truth always brings division.
2. It was not out intent nor our expression to disparage Paul’s understanding of the gospel by
mentioning him in connection with the 1888 message. Reference to Abraham will illustrate the point.
The gospel was preached to him (Gal. 3:8) and he was called the “friend of God.” “He saw Christ.
A supernatural light was given him. … He was given a view of the divine sacrifice for sin.” (DA 468.)
“The sun of righteousness shone upon his heart.” (PK 683.) Thus Abraham, like Paul, had a “clear,
full comprehension of the love of Christ.” But he “died in faith, not having received the promises,
but having seen them afar off. … God having provided some better thing for us that they without us
should not be made perfect.” (Heb. 11.) To say that Paul preached a “more mature, more developed”
understanding of the gospel than Abraham perceived in his day does not disparage Abraham in the
least. Surely it is not wrong to believe that the last generation of mankind will have a “more mature
concept of the everlasting gospel than has been perceived by any previous generation of human
beings, a preaching of ‘righteousness by faith’ more mature and developed, and more practical than
has been preached by any previous generation of God’s faithful people.” Certainly Paul or Luther or
Wesley did not preach the “third angel’s message in verity.”
3. We believe that Sister White always presented the “matchless charms of Christ” as quoted
in your letter on page 4 from Manuscript 5, 1888, (1889?) yet the next sentence from that quotation
presents the true context in which she made that statement: “When Brother Waggoner brought out
these ideas at Minneapolis, it was the first clear teaching on this subject from any human lips I had
heard, excepting the conversations between myself and my husband.” (Sermon delivered at Rome,
N.Y. June 17, 1889, Ms. 5, 1889, Pp. 9, 10.)
4. We appreciate Elder Spalding’s letter and we wish to accord to our “older, experienced,
and highly honoured brethren” all the respect due them but we consider it perilous and a denial of
truth to accept any man’s “impression” in preference to the clear word of the Lord as given through
the Spirit of Prophecy. Elder Spalding’s statement, “My impression was that the great majority of
our ministers and our people accepted this truth” must be put beside such statements as found in
Testimonies to Ministers, pages 76 and 77; the chapter pages 89 to 98 and page 413, etc. Further, it
must be compared with Sister White’s statement: “When I came to Battle Creek, I repeated the same
testimony in the presence of Elder Butler, but there was not one who had the courage to stand by my
side.” (U-3-1889.)
5. We appreciate your list of works by E. J. Waggoner which coincides with our
understanding as well as of course a number of items in old Reviews and General Conference
Bulletins but we would point out that this does not in any way make these works generally available

98
to our corps of workers nor does it suggest what would be wrong with publishing these again along
with all that Mrs. White says about Minneapolis.
6. We reaffirm that we believe “every failure of God’s people to follow the light shining upon
their pathway for the past century must be completely rectified by the present generation before the
remnant church can be granted any divine vindication before the world.” Further we note that a very
similar sentiment is put forward by Elder Spalding in no less than three places in the letter you quote,
in such statements as: “I believe, indeed, that it is because we have not entered into the depths of the
experience of righteousness in Christ, that we have strayed farther and farther from the Testimonies of
the Spirit of God, in health and healing, in education, in evangelism, in daily living in every respect.”
But further brethren, if as you say it is not “according to God’s plan and purpose for the present
leadership of the movement to make acknowledgement of confession” or that our “proposal is not
according to God’s plan in His dealings with His people” or that “such teaching is totally at variance
with the divine pattern” or that “we do not find the Lord requiring of the next generation that they
confess the mistakes of the generation before” — if this is the case, then the following plain words of
the Lord demand some careful study.

If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with
their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked
contrary unto me; and that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have
brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts
be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I
remember my covenant …” Lev. 26:40 - 42.
Josiah said: “Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah,
concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against
us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that
which is written concerning us.” 2 Kings 22:13.
Great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the
word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book.” 2 Chron. 34:21.
Sad to say even the world may come to know of the confession:

But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath,
He gave them up into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the
Chaldean …” Ezra 5:12.

O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God:

for our iniquities are increased over our heads and our trespass is grown up unto

99
 the heavens. Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass
unto this day. Ezra 9:6, 7.
We have sinned against thee: both I and my father’s house have sinned.
Neh. 1:6.
We have sinned with our fathers. … Our fathers understood not thy
wonders in Egypt. Ps. 106:5, 6.
Baal-worship has always devoured the fruit of our father’s toil, their flocks
and their herds, their sons and daughters. Let us lie down then in our shame, let
our dishonour cover us; for we have sinned against our God, both we and our
fathers, from our youth until now, and never have we listened to the voice of our
God. Jere. 3:24, 25. Moffatt.
There are many other texts with a similar thought such as: 2 Chron. 29:6 - 9; Neh. 9:16 - 38;
Jer. 16:10 -12; Ez. 20; Dan. 9:8, 10, 16, 20. Surely these texts ought to have a meaning for Israel
today. The context indicates in many places that where there was a true repentance and confession
that great spiritual blessing came to Israel, Our need today is the same.
7. We note your charge that our conviction and statement in relation to Baal worship is
“entirely false and unfounded.” We do not deny that there may be more to be understood but if
our statement is “false” it remains with the brethren to explain what the statement in Testimonies to
Ministers, pages 467 and 468 means. It cannot be denied that Sister White has warned against an
alluring, clever, highly disguised false Christ — the Baal of the popular religious world. Did she warn in
vain?
8. No mention was made in your reply as to what the “omega” might be as referred to in
Special Testimonies, Series B. If it was such as to cause the prophet to “tremble” certainly it ought to
call us to study what the awful insidious thing is.
9. We note your appeal in closing your letter that we look to the “mission lands” and see what
God is doing. We live in the mission lands. We know of the hundreds that are clamoring for baptism,
are even willing to pay to get baptized. We know also that if it were not for the large increases in
membership from the mission fields our world membership would be virtually static. But all the mission
stories in the world can never cancel out the fact that we are spiritually sick and feeble. We believe
that the germs of this sickness were contracted about 60 years ago.
In closing we would say that we agree with you brethren wholeheartedly that the Lord does
love His church “enfeebled and defective as it may be.” He remembers that we are but dust. But
is it right to play upon the patience of the Lord? Are we to be satisfied with boasting rather than

100
deep repentance? Our concern has been with teachings and with an understanding of the Spirit
of Prophecy and not with any of the brethren personally. As we have said in the past to you, so we
repeat, we may be two of the most stupid fools ever to be in denominational employment. We have
presented our convictions to you and you have replied that they are “false and unfounded” and
contain “nothing new.” We accept your verdict and shall not press the matter further. But brethren, if
the Investigative Judgment is now in session and if the facts of our denominational history are a mighty
call to repentance and if we have sensed the seriousness of the urgent warnings to beware of the
misrepresentations of the false Christ so rampant around us and further if we have understood aright
the seriousness of God’s call to straighten out every crooked thing that has hindered the progress of
His work in every branch — then surely God will soon give judgment in His own way according to His
will and we shall be proven terribly wrong or dreadfully right. We leave the case in His hands.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) R. J. Wieland (Signed) D. K. Short

101