The Return of the Latter Rain

Response of the Leading Brethren to the Holy Spirit and Advancing Light

The 1888 General Conference began on Wednesday, October 17, at 9:30 a.m. The controversy that had overshadowed the Ministerial Institute did little to set a good tone for the General Conference. Unfortunately, this was only the beginning.

As Jones and Waggoner arrived at the church that opening day, their attention was drawn to a large blackboard positioned up front with two opposing propositions written upon it. The one read: "Resolved-That the Law in Galatians Is the Ceremonial Law"-with J. H. Morrison's name affixed. The second read: "Resolved-That the Law in Galatians Is the Moral Law"-with a blank space for E. J. Waggoner to sign. Waggoner refused to sign it, saying he had not come to debate. Furthermore, his point was that we do not get righteousness by the law, but by faith-irrespective of whether it be the moral or ceremonial law. [1]

Waggoner had begun his series of at least nine presentations on the relationship of the law to the righteousness of Christ just two days prior, and to him the issue was much larger than of which law the book of Galatians was speaking. Only after he had given the first six presentations on righteousness by faith did he take up the issue of Galatians more specifically, and even then he discussed it in a righteousness by faith context. [2]

It would become obvious that the controversy surrounding 1888 pertained to more than the law in Galatians. Although the central issue was righteousness by faith and its relation to other Bible truths, there was a close connection with many other subjects including religious liberty, church organization, education, publishing, and medical missionary work. We will look more specifically at some of the teachings of Jones and Waggoner in the pages ahead, but before we move on we would do well to summarize the "1888 Message."

The 1888 Message

First, we need to realize that the "message" the Lord sent through Jones and Waggoner was not confined to the year 1888 and the Minneapolis General Conference. To the contrary, as we shall see in the chapters ahead, that message was presented during the 1888 General Conference to a great extent and proclaimed well into the decade that followed. Second, we need to realize that although we do not have an exact transcript of what Jones and Waggoner presented at Minneapolis, we are able to reconstruct a fair and accurate concept of what they taught before, during and after the conference. [3*]

Both Jones and Waggoner were prolific writers of books and articles for the church papers. We know from their writings what they taught before the Conference, including Waggoner's The Gospel in Galatians, written in 1887, which was given to the delegates attending the 1888 Conference. We also know from their writings what they taught after the Conference, including Waggoner's Christ and His Righteousness, published in 1890, which was based on shorthand notes taken by Jessie F. Moser-Waggoner of E. J. Waggoner's presentations at the 1888 General Conference. [4*]

We also have available more than 1800 pages of Ellen White's correspondence, manuscripts, and sermons regarding the Minneapolis episode as found in the four volumes of The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials. Added to that is Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis; nearly 600 pages of letters from various participants regarding the 1888 meetings. Included in this collection are copies of denominational and newspaper reports, such as the 1888 General Conference Daily Bulletin, R. Dewitt Hottel's diary and two W. C. White notebooks containing notes written during meetings. [5*]

As we take a look at what Jones and Waggoner taught, we need to remember first and foremost that they presented Bible doctrines from the Bible itself. [6] Ellen White confirmed them in their approach, stating that "the Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and preaching," [7] for "it alone can give a correct knowledge of God's will." [8] Besides, "the Bible and the Bible alone, laid up in the heart and blessed by the Spirit of God, can make man right and keep him right." [9] Ellen White realized that the Bible was not stagnant but a "progressive book" [10] from which "glorious truths" were to be "laid open before the followers of Christ." [11] These "Bible truths connected with the great plan of redemption" would be "continually unfolding, expanding, and developing" for it was "Divine, like its Author." [12*]

These Bible truths that Jones and Waggoner were presenting were in line with the distinct Adventist landmarks. Ellen White confirmed seven landmarks in the context of the 1888 message as: "the passing of the time in 1844 … the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, 'The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.' … The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment [and] the nonimmortality of the wicked." Ellen White suggested that Jones and Waggoner had given these landmarks a "fresh impetus." [13] They presented them in a different context-as "the truth as it is in Jesus." [14*] In particular, they presented the gospel-"justification by faith and the righteousness of Christ"- or the faith of Jesus landmark, in relation to the law, or hand in hand with the commandments of God landmark. This, Ellen White said, is the "third angel's message." [15]

Seventh-day Adventists had proclaimed "the commandments of God," but they had not proclaimed "the faith of Jesus" as of equal importance. It had been "talked about but not understood." It had been "overlooked and treated in an indifferent, careless manner," and had not occupied the prominent position God had intended. [16] The law of God is powerless without the "faith of Jesus," for that faith "comprehends more than is generally supposed." [17] Thus, the real issue at Minneapolis was over the plan of salvation itself.

Toward the end of the General Conference, Waggoner wrote that one of the principal subjects being discussed was "the law and the gospel in their various relations, coming under the general head of justification by faith." [18] Years later Ellen White wrote what is perhaps the most well-known statement regarding the 1888 Message. Here we find a trustworthy summary of the more specific aspects of that precious message:

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. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to his divine person, his merits, and his changeless love for the human family. All power is given into his hands, that he may dispense rich gifts unto men, imparting the priceless gift of his own righteousness to the helpless human agent. This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel's message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of his Spirit in a large measure.

The uplifted Saviour is to appear … sitting upon the throne, to dispense the priceless covenant blessings. … Christ is pleading for the church in the heavenly courts above. …

Notwithstanding our unworthiness, we are ever to bear in mind that there is One that can take away sin and save the sinner. …

God gave to His servants a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel's message, in clear, distinct lines. …

This … testimony … presents the law and the gospel, binding up the two in a perfect whole. (See Romans 5 and 1 John 3:9 to the close of the chapter). …

This is the very work which the Lord designs that the message He has given His servant shall perform in the heart and mind of every human agent. It is the perpetual life of the church to love God supremely and to love others as they love themselves. …

Neglect this great salvation, kept before you for years, despise this glorious offer of justification through the blood of Christ, and sanctification through the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, and there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. [19]

The heart of this message was the "uplifted Saviour," both in His divine and human nature. It presented the Saviour as one with "changeless love" who has taken the initiative to save the whole "human family." His "sacrifice for the sins of the whole world" accomplished something for every human being, and if not despised and neglected would lead to "justification through faith in the Surety." Those who exercised this genuine faith would "receive the righteousness of Christ" which is "manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God." This would be accomplished by the "priceless covenant blessings," not of the old covenant, but of the new, wherein the law is written on the heart. Thus mankind need no longer be in bondage to sin, for Christ condemned sin in the flesh and can "take away sin and save the sinner." Sanctification, therefore, is none other than continually experiencing justification by faith and is clearly a part of righteousness by faith.

Now a new motivation takes the place of fear of punishment and hope of reward, for to "love God supremely and to love others as they love themselves" is the highest motivation. In short, this is "the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel's message," joining the Biblical idea of righteousness by faith with the unique truth of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. One who ever bears in mind this good news will find it easier to be saved than to be lost.

It was this very message that was to be "proclaimed with a loud voice"-the loud cry-"and attended with the outpouring of his Spirit in a large measure"- the latter rain. [20] But how was this message received? We return now to the 1888 General Conference.

Votes and Resolutions

As Waggoner's presentations continued during the first week of the Conference, prejudice and opposition only increased. On Thursday morning, October 18, he presented the subject of "justification by faith in Christ." He said that "liberty in Christ was always freedom from sin, and that separation from Christ to some other means of justification always brought bondage." Both he and Ellen White appealed to the brethren, "old and young, to seek God, put away all spirit of prejudice and opposition, and strive to come into the unity of faith." [21]

On Friday, October 19, Waggoner compared the book of Romans with the book of Galatians with the purpose of showing that "the real point of controversy [in Paul's day] was justification by faith in Christ." He also said that the "covenant and promises to Abraham are the covenant and promises to us." The implication suggested that the same controversy that rocked the church in Paul's day was once again taking place. [22*] Butler believed that an overemphasis on the gospel threatened the law, while Waggoner believed both the law and the gospel were threatened by a legalistic approach. As one of the delegates put it: "the issue was righteousness by faith vs. righteousness by works." [23]

Uriah Smith had an opportunity to speak later in the day and voiced his opinion that "Romans had no reference to Galatians." He also felt there was "danger in Waggoner's position." [24]

On Sabbath, Ellen White spoke to those assembled about making progress in the Christian life. She mentioned the excuses people would make for not overcoming sin in their lives, but that Christ had come to set men free. His sacrifice was sufficient to bring victory; "He comes in and imputes to me His righteousness in His perfect obedience." She stated that when meetings were held and the truth was "being impressed on minds, Satan presents the difficulties." She spoke of the "state of unbelief" held by the Jews when Christ was on earth and during the time of Elijah. God's people had been so "hardhearted" they would not be "impressed with truth," nor were they "susceptible to the influences of the Spirit of God." Ellen White then brought the application home to the leaders before her:

Here I want to tell you what a terrible thing it is if God gives light, and it is impressed on your heart and spirit, for you to do as they did. God will withdraw His Spirit unless His truth is accepted. …

The human race is accepted in the Beloved. His long human arm encircles the race, while with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite, and He opens to man all of heaven. The gates are ajar today. Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary and your prayers can go up to the Father. Christ says, if I go away, I will send you the Comforter, and when we have the Holy Spirit we have everything. …

Then we must enter by faith into the sanctuary with Him, we must commence the work in the sanctuary of our souls. We are to cleanse ourselves from all defilement. [25]

As Ellen White presented, she felt that "the Spirit of the Lord was resting not only upon [her] but upon the people." Many bore testimony after the meeting that it was the happiest day of their lives. She knew that the "presence of the Lord Jesus was in the assembly" to bless the people, and that this "special revealing of the Spirit of God was for a purpose; to quell the doubts, to roll back the tide of unbelief which had been admitted into hearts and minds concerning Sister White and the work the Lord had given her to do." [26*] Would this "season of refreshing" turn the tide?

Sunday morning Ellen White gave a short devotional talk; her subject was "A Chosen People." She spoke of the "high standard" to which God had called His people and that the only way this could be obtained was by taking their eyes off the world and placing them on "heavenly things." It is "only by the light shining from the cross of Calvary … that we can understand anything of the wonderful theme of redemption." Speaking of the law, and echoing what Waggoner had been saying earlier in the session, Ellen White indicated that the moral law pointed us to Christ:

Our work is to show forth the praises of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous light. How are we to do this? By showing to the world that we are a commandment-keeping people, walking in harmony with God's law. By never losing sight of His goodness and love, and by making everything in our lives subordinate to the claims of His Word. Thus we shall be representatives of Christ, showing forth in our lives a transcript of His character.

"But," one says, "I thought the commandments were a yoke of bondage." It is those only who break the law that find it a yoke of bondage. To those who keep the law it is life and joy and peace and happiness. The law is a mirror, into which we may look and discern the defects in our characters. Should we not be grateful that God has provided a means whereby we may discover our shortcomings?

There is no power in the law to save or to pardon the transgressor. What, then, does it do? It brings the repentant sinner to Christ. Paul declares, "I … have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:20, 21). Why did he preach repentance? Because the law of God had been transgressed. Those who have broken the law must repent. Why did he preach faith in Christ? Because Christ is the One who has redeemed sinners from the penalty of the law. The law points to the remedy for sin-repentance toward God and faith in Christ. Do you wonder that Satan wants to get rid of the law? [27*]

During the afternoon meeting on educational interests, a resolution was proposed to the effect that: "nothing be taught in our school at Battle Creek contrary to what has been taught in the past, or approved by the General Conference Committee." This proposal was made by the brethren to try to stop Jones and Waggoner from presenting at the General Conference doctrines they had taught in the past, as well as preventing them from presenting new ideas in the future. [28*] G. I. Butler had a part in this for he had spread the report that the parents of several students from Healdsburg College would send their children elsewhere as long as Jones' and Waggoner's views were being taught there. [29] The proposal also aimed to prevent Jones from introducing his views to students at Battle Creek College, where it had been planned he would begin teaching the first of the year. [30]

Ellen White was present at the meeting and asked for a rereading of the proposal. She then asked whether such a resolution had ever been proposed or voted on before. Silence was the response. She pressed the point by asking Uriah Smith, the secretary, whether he knew of such a resolution considered at any time, at any previous meeting. Smith seemed uncertain. Ellen White then pointed out the "'danger of binding about the Lord's work.'" The Lord had revealed to her that it was wrong and dangerous, and she admonished the brethren to "'refrain from voting it.'" W. C. White saw it as a "craze for orthodoxy," so he fought against it hard with his mother and finally "killed it dead." [31] Describing the incident later, Ellen White made it clear why it was so dangerous to vote in such a way:

I stated that I was a stock holder and I could not let the resolution pass, that there was to be special light for God's people as they neared the closing scenes of this earth's history. Another angel was to come from heaven with a message and the whole earth was to be lightened with his glory. It would be impossible for us to state just how this additional light would come. It might come in a very unexpected manner, in a way that would not agree with the ideas that many have conceived. It is not at all unlikely, or contrary to the ways and works of God to send light to His people in unexpected ways. Would it be right that every avenue should be closed in our school so that the students could not have the benefit of this light? The resolution was not called for. [32]

Unfortunately, Ellen White's advice did little to stop the sequence of events. Even after she had stated "things clearly," R. A. Underwood "urged that the resolution should be carried into effect." [33] So it was, that with the words from Ellen White's lips still ringing in their ears, a vote was taken; one man voting for the resolution with both hands. [34*] Although the resolution did not pass, this event made one thing clear. Even with the Spirit-filled Sabbath meeting only one day behind them, many of the brethren had lost confidence in Ellen White and her testimonies: "Just as soon as they saw that Sister White did not agree with all their ideas and harmonize with the propositions and resolutions to be voted upon … the evidence they had received had as little weight with some as did the words spoken by Christ in the synagogue to the Nazarenes." [35]

That evening, Ellen White poured out her counsel in a public discourse. She spoke of the need to receive the new "manna fresh from heaven" and the need for "Christlike love" which was so lacking at the Conference. She spoke out against the "jesting and joking," "evil speaking," and "making a mock" of their brethren. Using wording from Revelation 5, she once again spoke out against the attempt made earlier to pass the suggested resolution; it was time "when through God's messengers the scroll is being unrolled to the world":

The time has come when through God's messengers the scroll is being unrolled to the world. Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto. Away with such restrictions. There is a God to give the message His people shall speak. … The gospel must be fulfilled in accordance with the messages God sends. That which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty years ago, but it is God's message for this time. …

God is presenting to the minds of men divinely appointed precious gems of truth, appropriate for our time. God has rescued these truths from the companionship of error, and has placed them in their proper framework. … [36]

Those who have not been sinking the shaft deeper and still deeper into the mine of truth will see no beauty in the precious things presented at this conference. When the will is once set in stubborn opposition to the light given, it is difficult to yield, even under the convincing evidence which has been in this conference. … Jesus Christ has been in every sleeping room where you have been entertained. How many prayers went up to heaven from these rooms? …

We do well to remember that Christ is the light of the world, and that fresh beams of light are constantly reflected from the Source of all light. …

There was a time when Israel could not prevail against their enemies. This was because of Achan's sin. God declared, "Neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed thing from among you." God is the same today. If defiling sins are cherished by those who claim to believe the truth, the displeasure of God rests upon the church, and He will not remove it until the members do all in their power to show their hatred for sin, and their determination to cast it out of the church. God is displeased with those who call evil good and good evil. If jealousy, evil surmising, and evil-speaking are allowed to have a place in the church, that church is under the frown of God. It will be spiritually unhealthy until it is cleansed from these sins, for till then God cannot reveal His power to strengthen and elevate His people and give them victory. …

Oh, how much we all need the baptism of the Holy Ghost. [37]

Although Ellen White was not fully aware of the extent this evil speaking had gone, she had seen enough already to speak out against it. There had been considerable heckling of Waggoner during his presentations. Though Waggoner was short in stature, he could be plainly heard. However, someone called out tauntingly: "We can't see you." There was marked "antagonism by some," and a few even "turned their heads away when Waggoner was seen approaching." All of this was meant to hurt Jones and Waggoner, and it did. [38]

G. I. Butler had been sending messages "over the wires from Battle Creek" telling the brethren to stand by the landmarks, and admonishing them "to bring the people to a decision" on the controverted points under discussion. [39] As Ellen White saw the spirit manifested against Jones and Waggoner, which "seemed to be contagious," her heart was deeply pained. She and W. C. White tried "most earnestly" to have the "ministering brethren" meet in an unoccupied room to pray together, yet this did not succeed "but two or three times." As Ellen White would soon discover, however, there was even more going on behind the scenes. [40*]

Finally, early Monday morning, Ellen White wrote out the matter so that her words "would not be misstated" and presented them in the evening, before quite a number of the "leading responsible men." She told them that she had "heard for the first time the views of Elder E. J. Waggoner," and that she was inexpressibly grateful to God for she "knew it was the message for [that] time." "All through the presentation of his views," E. J. Waggoner had presented in a "right spirit, a Christlike spirit." Unlike those opposed to his teachings, Waggoner had "taken a straightforward course, not involving personalities, to thrust anyone or to ridicule anyone. He had conducted the subject as a Christian gentleman should, in a kind and courteous manner," not using a "debating style." Ellen White stated that "this was acknowledged to be the case [even] by those who were holding opposite views." [41*]

Ellen White regretted that a much larger number were not present for her talk, for some "began to see things in a different light" after she shared. After speaking for a time she had opportunity to answer some questions which she wrote about later:

Questions were asked at that time. "Sister White, do you think that the Lord has any new and increased light for us as a people?" I answered, "Most assuredly. I do not only think so, I but can speak understandingly. I know that there is precious truth to be unfolded to us if we are the people that are to stand in the day of God's preparation."

Then the question was asked whether I thought the matter better drop where it was, after Brother Waggoner had stated his views of the law in Galatians. I said, "By no means. We want all on both sides of the question." But I stated that the spirit I had seen manifested at the meeting was unreasonable. …

The remark was made, "If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith." I said, "Brethren, here is the very thing I have been telling you. This statement is not true. It is an extravagant, exaggerated statement. If it is made in the discussion of this question I shall feel it my duty to set this matter before all that are assembled, and whether they hear or forbear, tell them the statement is incorrect. … There has been a spirit of Pharisaism coming in among us which I shall lift my voice against wherever it may be revealed. …"

Again, a brother said, "Perhaps you think nothing should be said on the other side of the question." My son Willie and I spoke decidedly that we would not have the matter end here by any means, but we desired that they should bring out all the evidence on both sides of the question for all we wanted was the truth, Bible truth, to be brought before the people. [42]

Early the next morning, on Tuesday, October 23, a meeting was called that neither Ellen White nor her son was invited to attend. Statements were made that "Sister White was opposed to the other side of the question being discussed!" Someone sitting in on the meeting went quickly to W. C. White and told him what was taking place and advised him to come in. When he arrived, a "very mournful presentation of the case" was being presented "which created great sympathy for the brethren" who thought they were "crippled and not allowed a chance to set forth their ideas." W. C. White presented the subject "in the correct light," and spoke in behalf of his mother, "who was just as desirous … to hear all that was to be said on the other side of the question." He informed the brethren that "she had spoken thus decidedly in the council of the ministers the night before." [43]

Later that morning, J. H. Morrison, President of the Iowa Conference and a polished debater, was to speak to the other side of the issue. He had been chosen by the General Conference brethren to refute Waggoner's view and defend the traditional majority view of the law in Galatians. Just before Morrison got up to speak in front of the "mixed congregation" in the packed church in Minneapolis, R. M. Kilgore asked for recognition so he might speak. He "spoke in decided, unqualified language," stating "over and over again, that he greatly deplored the introduction of this question" on the "law in Galatians" and "righteousness by faith" when Elder Butler "was sick and could not be present to manage the matter." With "emphasis he stated that it was a cowardly thing" to deal with the matter when the one "best prepared to handle" the issue was "not present." [44] Kilgore claimed that there had "never been an opportunity" like that given to E. J. Waggoner, who was being allowed to present his new views. [45] Then Kilgore made a motion that the "discussion on the subject of Righteousness by Faith" be stopped until Butler could be present. [46*]

Uriah Smith followed immediately, making "remarks of the same order," which were "all calculated to create sympathy" for their position. [47] Speaking as he would for years to come, Smith claimed that "3/4 of what Bro. W. presents I fully agree to," [48] and he could have really enjoyed the presentations of Waggoner "first rate" [49] if it had not been for something down yonder still to come, which he deemed erroneous. [50] At this, Ellen White who was seated on the platform, arose to her feet and when recognized said: "'Brethren, this is the Lord's work. Does the Lord want His work to wait for Elder Butler? The Lord wants His work to go forward and not wait for any man.'" To this there was no reply. [51*]

Ellen White was "surprised" and "astonished" by what she heard that morning. Language could not "express the burden and distress" of her soul. The "future experience" of the Adventist church had been set before her while in Europe, "in figures and symbols, but the explanation" had later been given her and she recognized these things being fulfilled before her eyes. She had "not one doubt or question in regard to the matter," for she "knew the light which had been presented" by Jones and Waggoner "in clear and distinct lines." But there was one thing she did question: "for the first time I began to think it might be we did not hold the correct view after all upon the law in Galatians, for the truth required no such spirit to sustain it." [52]

This was not the end of the push to officially vote on the subject of the law in Galatians, and righteousness by faith, which was the underlying issue. Ellen White stated that she and W. C. White "had to watch at every point lest there should be moves made, resolutions passed, that would prove detrimental to the future work." Satan seemed to have power to hinder her work in a "wonderful degree," and yet she could say: "I tremble to think what would have been in this meeting if we had not been here." [53] Toward the end of the Conference, Ellen White once again spoke against settling the matter by a vote:

There are some who desire to have a decision made at once as to what is the correct view on the point under discussion. As this would please Elder B[utler], it is advised that this question be settled at once. But are minds prepared for such a decision? I could not sanction this course. … While under so much excitement as now exists, they are not prepared to make safe decisions. …

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 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. [54]

A year later, Ellen White spoke of the danger these resolutions posed to the "work of God" had they been passed: "One year ago [1888] resolutions were brought into the Conference for adoption that, had they all been accepted, would have bound about the work of God. Some resolutions were urged by young, inexperienced ones, that never should have received the consent of the Conference. … If some resolutions that were accepted had not been proposed, it would have been better, for those who presented them were in darkness and not in the light." [55]

At the 1893 General Conference Session, A. T. Jones spoke about the solemn events of 1888, when "three direct efforts" were made, by those claiming to stand by the landmarks, to vote down the message sent of God. The reason these efforts were not successful was because the angel of the Lord, speaking through Ellen White, said: "'do not do it:'"

Some of those who stood so openly against that [message of the righteousness of Christ] at that time [the Minneapolis meeting], 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. …

Whether the creed is drawn up in actual writing, or whether it is somebody's idea that they want to pass off by a vote in a General Conference, it makes no difference. … And there are people here who remember a time-four years ago; and a place-Minneapolis-when three direct efforts were made to get such a thing as that fastened upon the third angel's message, by a vote in a General Conference. What somebody believed-set that up as the landmarks, and then vote to stand by the landmarks, whether you know what the landmarks are or not; and then go ahead and agree to keep the commandments of God, and a lot of other things that you are going to do, and that was to be passed off as justification by faith. Were we not told at that time that the angel of God said, "Do not take that step; you do not know what is in that"? "I can't take time to tell you what is in that, but the angel has said, Do not do it." The papacy was in it. That was what the Lord was trying to tell us, get us to understand. [56*]

So it was that the Lord used Ellen White almost single-handedly to block an official rejection, by proposal or vote, of that message which He had sent to the Seventh-day Adventist church more than one hundred years ago. This was the very message that was to be "proclaimed with a loud voice and attended with the outpouring of [God's] Spirit in a large measure"-the loud cry and latter rain. [57] The only reason these proposals and votes did not pass and were not recorded is that Ellen White wisely forbade it. Clearly, some of the delegates intended to pass such a vote of rejection, even though none of these incidents were mentioned in the Review and Herald or the General Conference Daily Bulletin. [58]

As a result of such a stance on her part, however, the brethren "lost confidence in Sister White." She "did not agree with all their ideas and harmonize with the propositions and resolutions to be voted." She spoke out against their "treatment of … A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner." She claimed to have "heard for the first time" the views of Jones and Waggoner and could "respond with all [her] heart." Because of all this the brethren thought she had "been influenced" and had "changed," and therefore they "did not believe" her. [59] Sadly, the very ones who were claiming that the message of Jones and Waggoner would "break down confidence" in the testimonies, [60] were themselves making "of none effect the testimonies of the Spirit of God." [61] When Ellen White realized the condition of things in Minneapolis that Tuesday in October of 1888, she purposed to leave, but the Lord had more work for her to do. She was to stand by her post.

Notes:

1. Norval F. Pease, "The Truth as it is in Jesus: The 1888 General Conference Session," Adventist Heritage, Spring 1985, pp. 5-6.


2. See: Ron Graybill, "Elder Hottel goes to General Conference," Ministry, February 1988, pp. 19-21; Clinton Wahlen, "What Did E. J. Waggoner Say at Minneapolis?" Adventist Heritage, Winter, 1988, pp. 22-37 (this article is taken from Wahlen's Master's Thesis; see endnote 5); L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 243.


3. Some have tried to suggest that the "most precious message" was that which was delivered in 1888 only; suggesting that even "for Ellen White the 1888 message is the message of 1888 rather than the message of 1893 or 1895" (George R. Knight, A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, pp. 165-166). According to Roy Adams the fact that we don't have an exact transcript of their presentations at Minneapolis is "'one of the best things that happened to the 1888 message.'" And furthermore, we "cannot be sure about what precisely was included in Ellen White's endorsement" of Jones and Waggoner (The Nature of Christ, p. 31-32). The conclusion we are being asked to draw from these statements is that Ellen White's commendations were only for what Jones and Waggoner presented at Minneapolis, a message of which we cannot be sure. The reality, however, is that we are not left without plenty of good evidence.


4. L. E. Froom is the primary expositor of the idea that Waggoner's 1888 messages were taken down in shorthand, having obtained letters from Jessie F. Moser-Waggoner that state such. According to Froom, Jessie's shorthand notes of E. J. Waggoner's studies were edited and printed in book form. Froom includes The Gospel in Creation (18931894), and The Glad Tidings (1900), with the list of books that came from these transcribed notes (Jessie Waggoner to L. E. Froom, April 16, 1930; in Movement of Destiny, pp. 189, 200-201). We must remember, however, that although Waggoner's basic understanding of Galatians and Romans, the covenants, the human and divine nature of Christ, and the underlying theme of his understanding of righteousness by faith did not substantially change, by 1900 some of the details of these subjects were definitely affected by his panentheistic ideas. Thus, it is not entirely correct to state that his later books reflect the exact concepts that he presented at Minneapolis. We must also remember as well, that Froom's primary thesis in Movement of Destiny was seeking to prove that one of Waggoner's main themes at Minneapolis was in regard to Christ's divine attributes (Ibid.). Jessie F. Moser-Waggoner, E. J. Waggoner's wife, was Corresponding Secretary for the International Sabbath School Association and in attendance at the 1888 General Conference. In addition to taking down E. J. Waggoner's presentations in shorthand, she also gave an informal talk on Tuesday, October 23; "How to Study the Lesson" (General Conference Daily Bulletin, Oct. 24, 1888 p. 2-3; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 373-374).


5. The best summaries of the train of events, and of the content of Waggoner's message at Minneapolis itself, can be found in: Clinton Wahlen, Selected Aspects of Ellet J. Waggoner's Eschatology and Their Relation to His Understanding of Righteousness by Faith, 1882-1895; and Paul E. Penno, Calvary at Sinai: The Law and the Covenants in Seventh-Day Adventist History. George Knight states that "Manuscripts and Memories contains only a small percentage of the existing documents that throw light on the meetings" (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, p. 53). Perhaps more should be released.


6. Ellen G. White Manuscript 9, Oct. 24, 1888, "Morning Talk," and Manuscript 22, Oct. 1889, "Diary Entries"; in 1888 Materials, pp. 153, 463.


7. Ellen G. White, "To Brethren Who Shall Assemble in General Conference," Letter 20, Aug. 5, 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 44.


8. Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, Letter 21, Oct. 14, 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 93.


9. Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler and Wife, Letter 18, Dec. 11, 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 194.


10. Ellen G. White Manuscript 16, Jan. 1889, "The Discernment of Truth"; in 1888 Materials, p. 259.


11. Ellen G. White to H. Miller, Letter 5, June 2, 1889; in 1888 Materials, p. 333.


12. Ellen G. White Manuscript 27, Sept. 13, 1889; in 1888 Materials, p. 434. Unfortunately, those who opposed Jones and Waggoner did so based on their understanding of Bible truths which they felt needed to be defended. Ellen White saw that men could have "misunderstandings not only of the testimonies, but of the Bible itself," which led them to the "denouncing of others and passing judgment upon their brethren." This, she claimed, was due to the "spirit of Phariseeism" that had come into the church (1888 Materials, p. 312). Men who had trained themselves as debaters were in "continual danger of handling the Word of God deceitfully." They would "change the meaning of God's word" by quoting "half a sentence" to make it "conform to their preconceived ideas" (1888 Materials, pp. 167, 573). George Knight does a good job of describing Ellen White's appeal for more Bible study and her support of Jones and Waggoner in this regard (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, pp. 60-62). However, he condemns those who accept their Bible-based message, claiming it is reading "the Bible through the eyes of Jones and Waggoner" which is a "perilous mistake." Besides, Knight continues, Ellen White "upheld both men because they were leading Adventism back to Christ and the Bible, not because they had the final word on theology or even had a theology with which she fully agreed" (Ibid., pp. 79, 179). We must agree that Jones and Waggoner were not infallible. But why would God send a most "precious message" leading Adventists back to Christ and the Bible, if at the same time the messengers He sent had perilous theological problems with which Ellen White disagreed? This was the very cry of those who opposed Jones and Waggoner over 120 years ago. They didn't oppose Jones and Waggoner because they were leading Adventism back to "Christ and the Bible;" they claimed to already believe in all that. They rejected "light sent of God, because it [did] not coincide with their ideas" (1888 Materials, p. 226).


13. Ellen G. White Manuscript 13, n.d. 1889, "Standing by the Landmarks"; in 1888 Materials, p. 518.


14. Ellen White used the term "the truth as it is in Jesus" many times to describe the 1888 message. Forty-two times the term is mentioned in the 1888 Materials. See the following examples: pp. 267, 566, 1120, 1126, 1338, 1547.


15. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 211, 217.


16. Ibid., pp. 217, 212.


17. Ellen G. White Manuscript 30, June 1889; in 1888 Materials, pp. 375, 367.


18. E. J. Waggoner, "Editorial Correspondence," Signs of the Times, Nov. 2, 1888, p. 662; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 413.


19. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 57, May 1, 1895; in Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 92-98.


20. Ibid. For a more detailed look at ten of the particular truths of the 1888 message see Appendix A.


21. General Conference Daily Bulletin, Oct. 19, 1888, p. 2; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 359.


22. General Conference Daily Bulletin, Oct. 21, 1888, p. 1; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 361. Paul Penno correctly states: "It cannot be stressed enough. E. J. Waggoner's message of righteousness by faith was constructed in connection with this understanding of the law and the covenants. To misunderstand, discount or reject any aspect of this trio would be to distort the 1888 message. The law in Galatians may never be a landmark, but it was crucial for understanding God's plan of salvation for the ages" (Calvary at Sinai, p. 114).


23. L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 255.


24. Ron Graybill, "Elder Hottel goes to General Conference," Ministry, February 1988, p. 20; and Manuscripts and Memories, p. 424.


25. Ellen G. White Manuscript 8, Oct. 20, 1888, "Sabbath Talk"; in 1888 Materials, pp. 124-125, 127.


26. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, p 207. Ellen White stated that her "heart was made glad as I heard the testimonies borne after the discourse on Sabbath. These testimonies made no reference to the speaker, but to the light and truth" (Manuscript 8a, Oct. 21, 1888, "Talk to Ministers"; in 1888 Materials, p. 143).


27. Ellen G. White Manuscript 17, Oct. 21, 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 123-131. It is comments like these that show Ellen White supported Waggoner's presentations on the "law and the gospel." For a summary of Waggoner's nine-part series see: Paul Penno, Calvary at Sinai, pp. 106-114.


28. L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, pp. 253-254. One could rightly wonder if this resolution was not suggested in part because Ellen White was clearly speaking in terms that favored Waggoner's positions.


29. G. I Butler to Ellen G. White, Oct. 1, 1888: in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 91.


30. W. C. White to Mary White, Nov. 24, 1888; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 127; and L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, pp. 253-254.


31. Ibid., and W. C. White to Mary White, Nov. 3, 1888; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 123.


32. Ellen G. White to R. A. Underwood, Letter 22, Jan. 18, 1889; in 1888 Materials, p. 239.


33. Ibid.


34. L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 254. This proposed resolution was not mentioned in the General Conference Bulletin or the Review and Herald. Thus they cannot be relied upon to determine if a vote was ever taken. Ellen White protested against such a resolution because she had been shown "many things," but she "could not at that time present before the Conference, because they were not prepared for it" (Manuscript 5, 1890, "Results of Studying Harmful Textbooks"; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 19, p. 74). If such an action were taken, it would imply that nothing but truth had heretofore been taught in the classrooms of Battle Creek College, but such had not been the case. Four years earlier G. I. Butler himself had taught error and wrong sentiments in regard to "differences in degrees" of inspiration in the Scriptures. He had even published a series of ten articles in the Review (Jan. 15 through June 3, 1884), which pronounced judgement on God's Word "selecting some things as inspired and discrediting others as uninspired." Ellen White was shown the infidelity and skepticism that would result, even in treating the testimonies in the "same way" (Ellen G. White to R. A. Underwood, Letter 22, Jan. 18, 1889; in 1888 Materials, pp. 238-239).


35. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 207.


36. For many years the idea has been put forth that the 1888 message was no different than that of the Reformers-just basic Christianity. L. H. Christian stated: "What was the teaching of righteousness by faith which became the mainspring of the great [1888] Adventist revival, as taught and emphasized by Mrs. White and others? It was the same doctrine that Luther, Wesley, and other servants of God had been teaching" (The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts [1947], p. 239). A. W. Spalding commented: "The greatest event of the eighties [1880s] in the experience of the Seventh-day Adventists was the recovery, or the restatement and new consciousness, of their faith in the basic doctrine of Christianity" (Captains of the Host [1949] p. 583). A. L. White declared: "The evaluation of the message of righteousness by faith as presented in 1888 as a message more mature and developed, and more practical than had been preached by the pioneers of the message or even by the apostle Paul, was without support and far from accurate" (A Further Appraisal of the Manuscript "1888 Re-examined" [General Conference Report, 1958] p. 2). N. F. Pease claimed: "Where was the doctrine of justification by faith to be found in 1888 and the preceding years? In the creeds of the Protestant churches of the day. ... The same churches which were rejecting the advent message and the law of God were holding, at least in form, the doctrine of justification by faith" (By Faith Alone [1962], pp. 138-139). Leroy Froom, key player in Questions on Doctrine, and driving force behind meetings with Calvinists Barnhouse and Martin, had this to say: "We have not been too well aware of these paralleling spiritual movements-of organizations and men outside the Advent Movement-having the same general burden and emphasis, and arising at about the same time. ... The impulse manifestly came from the same Source. And in timing, Righteousness by Faith centered in the year 1888. For example, the renowned Keswick Conferences of Britain were founded to 'promote practical holiness.' ... Some fifty men could easily be listed in the closing decades of the nineteenth and the opening decades of the twentieth centuries ... all giving this general emphasis" (Movement of Destiny [1971], pp. 319, 320; emphasis original). Desmond Ford has been adamant on this point: "[Question:] Some have affirmed that the theology of preachers E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones of the nineteenth century was an advance upon Reformation theology. Do you agree? ... [Answer:] Preachers Waggoner and Jones at the famous Minneapolis Conference of 1888 had the first gleamings of the light which irradiated the Roman world in the first century, Europe in the sixteenth, ... Unfortunately, neither man was clear on other important points such as the distinction between justification and sanctification" (Australian Signs of the Times, Feb. 1978, p. 30). Robert Brinsmead follows the same line of thought: "At special periods in our history the gospel has struggled to break through to the Adventist community. The year 1888 marked such a period. ... Waggoner had light on justification for the Adventist community. But better material on justification by faith could be found among Protestant scholars of his day" (Judge by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism [1980], pp. 14-15). David McMahon echoes the same thoughts: "E. J. Waggoner had not fully recovered the Protestant message of justification by faith by 1886. Much less had he recovered Paul's message of justification. ... If God used Waggoner to bring light on the gospel to the church, then God was not shining the full blaze of even the imperfect Reformation light on the Adventist community. Those who compare Waggoner's early gropings after the gospel with the clear doctrine of justification propounded by the best nineteenthcentury Protestant scholars will be startled" (The Myth and the Man [1979], p. 63). George Knight has pushed this same point of view in many of his books: "The genius of their 1888 message was that they had combined the two halves of Revelations 14:12. They not only taught the commandments of God, but they preached the doctrine of faith that the holiness preachers had proclaimed. Thus, from Ellen White's perspective, the importance of the 1888 message was not some special Adventist doctrine of justification by faith developed by Jones and Waggoner. Rather, it was the reuniting of Adventism with basic Christian beliefs on salvation" (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message [1998], pp. 108-109; emphasis original). While the earlier authors mentioned above seemed to take their stance primarily from the motivation of defending the church from the allegation that the message was rejected, the latter authors seem to take their stance primarily because of their push for a Calvinistic Reformation or Evangelical gospel. Others, however, have recognized the 1888 message as something more: "The profound uniting [of law and grace] ... was [Ellen White's] remarkable contribution to the 1888 crisis over salvation by faith. Further, her messages clearly demonstrate that this 'precious message' was not a mere recovery of a sixteenth-century emphasis, nor a borrowing of a nineteenth-century Methodist accent. ... In the 1888 emphasis, linkage was further made between the results of a personal application of salvation by faith and the closing work of Christ in the Most Holy Place. ... The 1888 'revelation of the righteousness of Christ' was only the 'beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth' (Rev. 18:4)" (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, [1998], pp. 197, 198). Again, Douglass counters claims by modern church historians when he states: "The other rewrite has been the concurrent reluctance to review the theological detour that occurred [since the 1950s], when denominational publications and academic classrooms opined that the key contribution of the 1888 General Conference was to recognize that Adventists had finally recovered the so-called emphasis of the Protestant Reformers regarding 'righteousness by faith.' Nothing could be farther from the truth! This line of reasoning, wherever taught or preached, poisons any genuine study of that remarkable conference. Further, it has locked the door on what Ellen White called 'a most precious message'-a message that would prepare a people for translation. Some day that door will be unlocked" (A Fork in the Road, [Coldwater, MI: Remnant Publications, Inc., 2008], p. 85). Clinton Wahlen responds to David McMahon's claims that Waggoner's theology was nothing more than an attempt to resurrect the Reformation gospel (as interpreted by modern followers): "In addition, attempts to trace EJW's theology to Reformation figures like Luther is also without tangible support" (op. sit., p. 63). Robert Wieland & Donald Short expressed similar thoughts in regard to the 1888 message: "Righteousness by faith since 1844 is 'the third angel's message in verity.' Thus it is greater than what the reformers taught and the popular churches understand today. It is a message of abounding grace consistent with the unique Adventist truth of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, a work contingent on the full cleansing of the hearts of God's people on earth" (1888 Re-Examined, [1987], p. iv). Ellen White had expressed this clearly before the Minneapolis Conference, in her newest edition of The Great Controversy: "There was a present truth in the days of Luther,-a truth at that time of special importance; there is a present truth for the church today. ... But truth is no more desired by the majority today than it was by the papists who opposed Luther" (pp. 143-144, 1888 ed.). While it is true that the Disciples, and the Reformers of the 16th century, laid the foundation upon which the 1888 message stood, the Advent message itself-presenting the second coming and judgment hour message-was a message that Paul and the Reformers "did not preach" (Ibid., p. 356). But the Advent message was not only to bring forth truths that had never been preached before, it was God's purpose that "great truths that have lain unheeded and unseen since the day of Pentecost, are to shine from God's word in their native purity" (Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 473). Thus the 1888 message was made up of both "present truth"-that which Paul and the Reformers did not preach, and which God had not sent even "twenty years" earlier-and "rescued" truth; that which had been unheeded and unseen since the day of Pentecost. Both these aspects of the 1888 message were founded upon the message of the Reformers but entailed much more. The sad fact of the matter is that those who rejected the present truth message the Lord sent through Jones and Waggoner were also rejecting foundational truths that Paul and the Reformers taught, as are those today who are seeking to take us back to a distorted Reformation gospel.


37. Ellen G. White Manuscript 8a, Oct. 21, 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 133-144.


38. L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, pp. 244, 245, 260; quotes from F. H. Westphal, W. H. Edwards, and Jessie Moser-Waggoner.


39. Ellen G. White Manuscript 13, 1889; in 1888 Materials, p. 516.


40. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 218, emphasis supplied. G. B. Starr recalls one such session of prayer at Minneapolis: "Sister White called a large company of ministers together for a season of special prayer. Uniting with others, Sister White, herself, prayed earnestly for the blessing of God upon the conference. In the midst of her prayer, she suddenly stopped for a short period of possibly one-minute; then, completing the broken sentence, finished her prayer. Not one of us who were present and heard her prayer, and noted the break in it, was aware that anything special had happened. But later, Elder W. C. White informed me that it took her six weeks to write out what she had seen in those sixty seconds. The Spirit of God had flashed, in rapid precession, the life and work of many of the ministers kneeling about her. She saw them in their homes, the spirit they manifested, as Christians. She saw them in the sacred desk and heard their manner of presenting the precious truths of the message for this time" (G. B. Starr, "Fifty Years With One of God's Seers," unpublished manuscript, pp. 150-152; in Document File 496, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD.


41. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, 219-222, emphasis supplied. In complete contrast to Ellen White's description of Waggoner's conduct at the meetings, Woodrow Whidden offers the following from his research: "Willie White would later recall (in 1930, 42 years after the session) that 'the pomposity and egotism' of Jones and Waggoner 'seemed out of place in such young men' at the Minneapolis gathering. His is the harshest assessment recorded. ... While some reportedly heckled [Waggoner] for his short stature, we have no record that he made any retaliatory retorts or exhibited any of his possible unflattering personality traits as a decisive feature in his public presentations" (E. J. Waggoner, p. 105, emphasis supplied). Thus Willie's statements in regard to Waggoner's conduct are pitted against Ellen White's inspired statements as of almost equal import. To Whidden's credit, he seems to recognize the contrast: "Ellen White's observations regarding Waggoner's conduct, stated publicly at the Minneapolis session itself seems to better reflect his overall demeanor and conduct" (Ibid.). George Knight, whom Whidden cites as the source of his quotes, states under the heading of "personality conflicts," that "the younger men didn't help matters any. As W. C. White (a participant in the conference) put it: 'the pomposity and egotism' of Jones and Waggoner 'seemed out of place in such young men,' and did much to develop prejudice and feeling against them. Jones, he noted, was especially pompous" (From 1888 to Apostasy, p. 33). But what should we do when faced with such differing views between Ellen White and her son Willie White? Should they be taken as of equal authority? That said, there is just one major problem with this quoted evidence. Willie White never wrote such a letter. This letter was written by D. E. Robinson, who was born in 1879, was not present at the Minneapolis conference, and wrote to Taylor Bunch while on staff and doing indexing at the White Estate in 1930. Bunch had just finished the fall week-of-prayer at Pacific Union College, where he had compared the Advent movement to ancient Israel's Egypt to Canaan travels. In the course of these meetings, he had compared Israel's Kadesh-Barnea experience to Adventists' 1888 experience, attributing the "long delay of the coming of Christ" to the rejection He received in 1888, and the rejection of the beginning of the latter rain (The Exodus and Advent Movements, pp. 107, 168). Robinson took offense to Bunch's comparison and sought to defend the church from what he saw as unwarranted attacks that would only lead to more offshoot groups. It is this episode that also sparked written responses from A. T. Robinson (D. E. Robinson's father), and C. McReynolds (Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 136142; see also Chapter 3, endnote 40). A copy of D. E. Robinson's original letter can be found in Document File 371, at the Ellen G. White Estate, in Silver Spring, MD. At some point, Robinson's letter was retyped, one paragraph being removed which clarified him as the writer, and A. L. White's name was penciled in. A. L. White's name was then erased and replaced with W. C. White's name, in what appears to be A. L. White's handwriting. The original copy of this retyped letter is found in Document File 331, and is the copy published in Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 333-335, and attributed to W. C. White (Tim Poirier from the White Estate verified these findings). It seems that this letter falsely attributed to W. C. White, did not surface until it appeared as "Appendix D" in Thirteen Crisis Years: 1888-1901, in 1981. This book was a reprint of A. V. Olson's book, Through Crisis to Victory: 1888-1901, first published in 1966. But A. V. Olson died in 1963, three years before his book was published, at which time it came under the sponsorship of the Ellen G. White Estate Board, with A. L. White as Secretary. The 1981 reprint was published under the same auspices. In Appendix D, Arthur White makes the claim that W. C. White wrote the letter to deal with "the unsupported conjecture from the pen and lips of one [Taylor Bunch] who was at the time [of the Minneapolis Conference] a child of three," and who had presented "such a distortion of history and such a forecast" (Thirteen Crisis Years, p. 331). The removed paragraph from D. E. Robinson's original letter was his 6th paragraph which states: "I have been reading through all the manuscripts and letters that are here on file that pertain to the experiences of the Minneapolis meeting in 1888. Last Sabbath afternoon, by happy chance, Elder W. C. White, Elder C. McReynolds, and my father were together, and I had the privilege of hearing them give their recollections of the meeting and of what followed. From what I have read, and their story, I should reconstruct that meeting something as follows." Although we should not attribute any malicious intent on the part of D. E. Robinson, or even A. L. White-perhaps both thinking to defend the church from what they thought were false accusations-we should realize that only the father of lies could weave this web into what it has become today, thereby distorting what really took place in 1888. This writer would suggest that Satan hates our 1888 history today as much as he hated the possibilities that God intended would take place back then. It is true that both leading men were probably influenced by Jones' and Waggoner's fall in their later years, but this gives no license for what appears to have been underhandedly written about Jones' and Waggoner's personalities. More details of the situation mentioned above will be discussed in a later chapter.


42. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 221-222.


43. Ibid.


44. Ibid.


45. W. C. White, "Notes Taken at Minneapolis"; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 424.


46. R. T. Nash to General Conference of SDA, June 25, 1955, "The Minneapolis Conference: And the Issues Concerning the Presentation of the Message of Righteousness by Faith: An Eyewitness Account"; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 354, hereafter "An Eyewitness Account." It appears that R. T. Nash later published this letter with some changes, in pamphlet form under the title: "An Eyewitness Report of the 1888 General Conference at Minneapolis (Highland CA: Privately Publ., 1955), hereafter "An Eyewitness Report."


47. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 221.


48. W. C. White, "Notes Taken at Minneapolis"; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 424.


49. Uriah Smith to Ellen G. White, Feb. 17, 1889; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 154.


50. A. T. Jones to Brother Holmes, May 12, 1921; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 329.


51. R. T. Nash, "An Eyewitness Account," Jun 25, 1955; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 354. Ellen White was concerned that Butler had special union only with those who considered his work and his "way of doing it all right." But "many who [were] far more acceptable" he looked upon "with suspicion" because they did not feel "obliged to receive their impressions and ideas from human beings [who] act only as they act, talk only as they talk, think only as they think and, in fact, make themselves little less than machines" (1888 Materials, pp. 89-90). Lowliness and humility of mind had departed from Butler: "He thinks his position gives him such power that his voice is infallible" (Ibid., p. 183). Thus Ellen White warned: "We should not consider that either Elder Butler or Elder Smith are the guardians of the doctrines for Seventh-day Adventists, and that no one may dare to express an idea that differs from theirs" (Ibid., p. 188). "It is because men have been encouraged to look to one man to think for them, to be conscience for them, that they are now so inefficient, and unable to stand at their post of duty as faithful sentinels for God" (Ibid., p. 974). Butler felt Ellen White's counsel, which seemed so contrary to what she had said before, was the cause of his illness (see also Chapter 5, endnote 23). It also led to his resignation as president of the denomination before the end of the Conference and Uriah Smith's resignation from his position as General Conference secretary soon thereafter ("General Conference Committee Minutes," Nov. 16, 1888).


52. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 221-223.


53. Ellen G. White to Mary White, Letter 82, Nov. 4, 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 182, 184. Another resolution that was passed contrary to Ellen White's counsel was in regard to canvassing, or colporteuring as we call it today. On November 1, 1888, R. A. Underwood made a motion that a person should be required to have a "practical experience in the canvassing field" before being "encouraged to enter the Bible work or the ministry." Ellen White opposed such an "absolute rule," but notwithstanding all she had to say against the resolution, "it was carried." Because this resolution passed it was recorded in the Review and Herald under the minutes for Nov. 2, 1888 (Manuscripts and Memories, p. 409; 1888 Materials, pp. 239-240). More than a year later, Ellen White was still speaking against it: "The resolution passed at Minneapolis, requiring young men to canvass before they were granted a license to preach was wrong" (General Conference Committee Minutes," Ninth Meeting, July 16, 1890). Interestingly, this "same requirement is still on the policy books in 1988" even though "in practice it is not applied consistently" (Roger Coon, Transcript of Loma Linda University Lecture, Oct. 23-25, 1988, "Minneapolis/1888: The 'Forgotten' Issue," p. 16).


54. Ellen G. White Manuscript 15, Nov., 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 164, 165, 170.


55. Ellen G. White Manuscript 6, Nov. 4, 1889, "Issues at the Gen. Con. of 1889"; in 1888 Materials, p. 472.


56. A. T. Jones, "The Third Angel's Message No. 11" and "The Third Angel's Message No. 12," General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 13, 14, 1893, pp. 244, 265. Fourteen years later, A. T. Jones again spoke of these attempted votes: "At Minneapolis, in 1888, the General Conference 'administration' did its very best to have the denomination committed by a vote of the General Conference to the covenant of 'Obey and Live,' to righteousness by works" (God's Everlasting Covenant [n.p. 1907], p. 31).


57. Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers, p. 92.


58. There are at least six modern published denials of any action or vote being attempted or taken. Arthur White, while representing the Board of Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate, wrote in a "Historical Forward" that "no action was taken on the Biblical questions discussed" at Minneapolis (Testimonies to Ministers [1962], p. xxiv). A. V. Olsen states resolutely: "Unfortunately, the impression exists in some minds today that the General Conference session in 1888 officially rejected the message of righteousness by faith presented to it. This is a serious mistake. 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" (Through Crisis to Victory [1966], p. 36). N. F. Pease echoes the thought: "Some have maintained that the 'denomination' rejected righteousness by faith in 1888. In the first place, no official action was taken on the subject; and more important, righteousness by faith in Christ is accepted or rejected by individuals, not groups" (The Faith that Saves [1969], p. 41, emphasis original). L. E. Froom states emphatically: "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." Froom even uses a "dictated personal statement" from R. A. Underwood-the very man involved in seeking to pass resolutions at the 1888 Conference-to prove that "no vote for or against Righteousness by Faith was ever taken" (Movement of Destiny [1971], pp. 370, 256). A. L. White asserts: "As to establishing positions, no official action was taken in regard to theological questions discussed. The uniform witness concerning the attitude toward the matter of righteousness by faith was that there were mixed reactions. ... The concept that the General Conference, and thus the denomination, rejected the message of righteousness by faith in 1888 is without foundation and was not projected until forty years after" (The Lonely Years [1984], pp. 395, 396). But Taylor Bunch, "forty years after," didn't say that the "denomination" rejected the message, he spoke of the effect that the rejection by many leaders had on the church at large: "The message of righteousness by faith was preached with power for more than ten years during which time the Minneapolis crisis was kept before the leaders. This message brought the beginning of the latter rain. ... Why did not the latter rain continue to fall? ... It was rejected by many and it soon died out of the experience of the Advent people and the loud cry died with it. ... Just before the end, the Advent people will review their past history and see it in a new light. ... We must acknowledge and confess the mistakes of our fathers and see to it that we do not repeat them and thus further delay the final triumph of the Advent movement" (The Exodus and Advent Movements [1928, 1937], pp. 107, 168, emphasis supplied). Norman R. Gulley has also expressed his views on the Minneapolis meetings, stating: "There was no official action taken by the GC to reject the messages about Christ and His righteousness" ("The 1888 'MOVEMENT' Understood Within its Historical Context," [unpublished paper], 1998). It must be readily admitted that all the above writers are technically correct in a certain sense by suggesting that there was never any "official action" or "vote taken" against "righteousness by faith." In other words, no individual or group of leaders ever stood up and suggested that a vote be taken "against the message of righteousness by faith." And why would they do such a thing? They all claimed to believe in the message of righteousness by faith! However, many who claimed to believe in righteousness by faith strongly disagreed with the message that Jones and Waggoner presented and were ready to pass resolutions, take action and/or vote against it. Yet Ellen White would subsequently identify that message as the third angel's message in verity, the message of righteousness by faith, the message of the loud cry and latter rain. In a similar manner we find no evidence that the Jewish nation ever took official action by voting "to crucify the Messiah." Why would they, when they were longing for Him to come? What they did however, was just to reject and crucify Jesus of Nazareth, whom they thought an impostor, a counterfeit, and a danger to their religion and national security. And while the disciples proclaimed the truth about Jesus under the power of Pentecost, the Jewish nation refused to ever admit the real heart-sickening truth of their actions. But in regard to our modern historians, Leroy Moore puts their claims in the proper context: "Nor did the church ever take an official action against the Minneapolis message. But one may be technically correct and yet very wrong. ... Corporate rejection of truth always precedes any vote and is no less real even if a vote is prevented, as at Minneapolis by Ellen White's insistence and W. C. White's vigilance (Adventism in Conflict [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn.], p. 86, emphasis supplied). Thankfully, George Knight admits that votes were attempted and blocked: "... the Butler-Smith-Morrison faction sought to force a vote to establish the correct creedal position on the relationship of law and gospel. As Jones would later put it: 'At Minneapolis, in 1888, the General Conference "administration" did its very best to have the denomination committed by vote of the General Conference to the covenant of "Obey and Live" to righteousness by works' (God's Everlasting Covenant 31). The attempt failed, but it was not an idle jest when Ellen White stated at the close of the conference that 'Willie and I have had to watch at every point lest there should be moves made, resolutions passed, that would prove detrimental to the future work' (EGW to MW, Nov. 4, 1888)" (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, p. 56. See also, pp. 54, 58, 139). Yet one could rightly wonder how the leading brethren could attempt to pass a vote against the message and at the same time be credited by Knight for accepting the same message (Ibid., pp. 119, 139, 147). For more Ellen White statements on "resolutions," see: 1888 Materials, pp. 114, 182, 238-240, 258, 302, 581, 941, 954, 1186, 1403, 1410, 1435, 1583, 1584, 1601, 1617.


59. Ellen G. White to W. M. Healy, Letter 7, Dec. 9, 1888, and Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 186, and 207, 217, 224.


60. G. I. Butler to Ellen G. White, Oct. 1, 1888; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 89.


61. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 224.