Wounded in the House of His Friends

Chapter 8

Oh, How My Heart Rejoices

The Ten Witnesses

Sabbath afternoon, February 25, an "important communication from sister White was read." According to an editorial note in the Review, the Testimony set "forth with great clearness the dangers and duties of the times in which we live. The sin of fault-finding, and criticizing each other, was the especial sin pointed out. We are glad to report that these words of reproof met with a response from those present, and many hearty confessions were made, and many pledged to the Lord and to each other that they would cease to help Satan in his work, by becoming 'accusers of the brethren.'" [1]

In the evening, at the commencement of the Sabbath, W. W. Prescott led out in a song service, which included his conducting of the choir that had sung for his evangelistic meetings being held in Battle Creek three times a week. The Review noted that "the beautiful hymns of this service, well rendered, made a powerful impression upon the congregation."

Following the extended song service, A. T. Jones gave a "discourse on the relation of the law to righteousness, showing the perfect unity, and the inseparable union, between the law and the gospel, and how we pass at last the searching examination of the ten witnesses (the ten commandments)." [2] Jones spoke of the work of sanctification in the life, and how "it is the presence of Christ that makes holy and sanctifies the place where [He] is." Jones mentioned the Sabbath as the sign or seal of that sanctification process. "Then are we not right now, in the time of the sealing?" Jones asked, the congregation answering, "Yes." And it is "through the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, is it not? Yes, sir. ... Thank the Lord. There are the tests that we are to pass through; but, brethren, when we have this righteousness of Jesus Christ, we have that which will pass through every test."

Jones then contrasted the two parties that would gather on the day of the Lord. Some will come and say: "'We have done many wonderful works; we have done them; we are all right; we are righteous; we are just, exactly right; therefore we have a right to be there. Open the door.' But 'we' does not count there, does it?" The answer for this group will be, "'Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.'" But what about the second group; what response would they give?:

There is going to be another company there that day--a great multitude that no man can number--all nations, and kindreds, and tongues, and people; and they will come up to enter in. And if any one should ask them that question, "What have you done that you should enter here? What claim have you here?" The answer would be:

"Oh, I have not done anything at all to deserve it. I am a sinner, dependent only on the grace of the Lord. Oh I was so wretched, so completely a captive, and in such a bondage, that nobody could deliver me but the Lord himself; so miserable that all I could ever do was to have the Lord constantly to comfort me; so poor that I had constantly to beg from the Lord; so blind that no one but the Lord could cause me to see; so naked that no one could clothe me but the Lord himself: All the claim that I have is what Jesus has done for me. But the Lord has loved me. When in my wretchedness I cried, he delivered me; when in my misery I wanted comfort, he comforted me all the way; when in my poverty I begged, he gave me riches; when in my blindness I asked him to show me the way, that I might know the way, he led me all the way, and made me to see; when I was so naked that no one could clothe me, why, he gave me this garment that I have on; and so all I can present, all that I have to present, as that upon which I can enter, any claim that would cause me to enter, is just what he has done for me; if that will not pass me, then I am left out; and that will be just, too. If I am left out, I have no complaint to make. But, oh, will not this entitle me to enter and possess the inheritance?"

But he says, "Well, there are some very particular persons here; they want to be fully satisfied with everybody that goes by here. We have ten examiners here. When they look into a man's case and say that he is all right, why then he can pass. Are you willing that these shall be called to examine into your case?" And we shall answer, "Yes, yes; because I want to enter in: and I am willing to submit to any examination; because even if I am left out I have no complaint to make: I am lost anyway when I am left to myself."

"Well," says he, "we will call them then." And so those ten are brought up, and they say, "Why, yes, we are perfectly satisfied with him. Why, yes, the deliverance that he obtained from his wretchedness is that which our Lord wrought; the comfort that he had all the way, and that he needed so much, is that which our Lord gave; the wealth that he has, whatever he has, poor as he was, the Lord gave it; and blind, whatever he sees, it is the Lord that gave it to him, and he sees only what is the Lord's: and naked as he was, that garment that he has on, the Lord gave it to him, the Lord wove it, and it is all divine. It is only Christ. Why, yes, he can come in." [3]

As Jones reached this point at the end of his sermon, the congregation spontaneously began to sing, "'Jesus paid it all, All to Him I owe; Sin had left a crimson stain: He washed it white as snow.'" Jones finished his illustration by testifying that at that point "there will come over the gates a voice of sweetest music, full of the gentleness and compassion of my Saviour, the voice will come from within, 'Come in, thou blessed of the Lord.' (Congregation: 'Amen.')."

Jones ended his discourse by praising the Lord before his brethren: "Oh, he is a complete Saviour. He is my Saviour. My soul doth magnify the Lord. My soul shall rejoice in the Lord, brethren, to-night. Oh, I say with David, come and magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together. He has made complete satisfaction; there is not anything against us, brethren; the way is clear; the road is open. The righteousness of Christ satisfies." [4]

The report in the Review following the Sabbath meetings shared the rest of the story: "As the climax was reached, and the blessed results of Christ's work for us were pictured before us, the sermon ceased, and the vast congregation, crowding every available space in the Tabernacle, involuntarily resolved itself into a praise meeting. The ministers scattered through the congregation to the number of thirty or forty, rose up and took charge of groups in their respective localities, and hundreds of testimonies of praise to God for his goodness and salvation were borne all over the house. It was such a meeting as has never been seen before in Battle Creek." [5] God was truly visiting His people in Battle Creek once again.

More Confessions

On Monday morning, February 27, a portion of a recent Testimony from Ellen White was read at the 8:30 ministers' meeting. The emphasis of the counsel fit right in with the messages that had been sounding from the various speakers during the previous weeks of meetings:

The time of peril is now upon us. It can no longer be spoken of as in the future. And the power of every mind, sanctified to the Master's work, is to be employed, not to hedge up the way before the messages God sends to his people, but to labor unitedly in preparing a people to stand in the great day of God. ... Had our brethren been free from prejudice, and walking in humility, they would have been ready to receive light from whatever source; recognizing the Spirit of God and the grace of Christ, they would be indeed channels of light. ...

The opposition in our own ranks has imposed upon the Lord's messengers a laborious and soul trying task; for they have had to meet difficulties and obstacles which need not have existed. While this labor had to be performed among our own people, to make them willing that God should work in the day of his power, the light of the glory of God has not been shining in clear concentrated rays to the world. Thousands who are now in the darkness of error, might have been added to our numbers. All the time and thought and labor required to counteract the influence of our brethren who oppose the message has been just so much taken from the world of the swift coming judgments of God. The Spirit of God has been present in power among his people, but it could not be bestowed upon them, because they did not open their hearts to receive it.

It is not the opposition of the world that we have to fear; but it is the elements that work among ourselves that have hindered the message. The efficiency of the movements for extending the truth depends upon the harmonious action of those who profess to believe it. Love and confidence constitute a moral force that would have united our churches, and insured harmony of action: but coldness and distrust have brought disunion that has shorn us of our strength. [6]

Ellen White continued, writing about the messages that God had given through the Spirit that were meant to go everywhere: "But the influence that grew out of the resistance of light and truth at Minneapolis, tended to make of no effect the light God had given to his people through the Testimonies." In fact, she went so far as to declare that the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy had not "had the circulation that it should have had, because some of those who occupy responsible positions were leavened with the spirit that prevailed at Minneapolis." Just as in the 1850s, when the Laodicean message was first sounded, God was holding back the four winds that the message might go to the world:

The work of opponents to the truth has been steadily advancing while we have been compelled to devote our energies in a great degree to counteracting the work of the enemy through those who were in our ranks. The dullness of some and the opposition of others have confined our strength and means largely among those who know the truth, but do not practice its principles. If every soldier of Christ had done his duty, if every watchman on the walls of Zion had given the trumpet a certain sound, the world might ere this have heard the message of warning. But the work is years behind. What account will be rendered to God for thus retarding the work?

While the angels were holding the four winds that they should not blow, giving opportunity for everyone who had light to let it shine to the world, there have been influences among us to cry peace and safety. Many did not understand that we had not time or strength or influence to be lost through dilatory action. While men slept, Satan has been stealing a march upon us, working up the advantages given him to have things after his own order.

The Lord has revealed to us that the Laodicean message applies to the church at this time, and yet how few make a practical application of it to themselves. God has wrought for us; we have no complaint to make of heaven, for the richest blessings have been proffered us, but our people have been very reluctant to accept them. Those who have been so stubborn and rebellious that they would not humble themselves to receive the light of God sent in mercy to their souls, became so destitute of the Holy Spirit that the Lord could not use them. Unless they are converted, these men will never enter the mansions of the blest. [7]

Indisputably, there had been a delay of Christ's return by the actions of those within our own ranks since the Minneapolis meeting. Now the Laodicean message applied to God's last-day Church with even greater force. When the reproach of such "indolence and slothfulness shall have been wiped away from the church, the Spirit of the Lord will be graciously manifested," Ellen White declared, and the "earth will be lighted with the glory of the angel from heaven." The Lord was "waiting to bless His people," who would "recognize the blessing when it comes, and diffuse it in clear, strong rays of light" to others. But it was only "through the Holy Spirit of God poured out upon his people" that such things could take place. The sad fact, Ellen White mused, was that "heavenly agencies have long been waiting for the human agents, the members of the church, to co-operate with them in the great work to be done. They are waiting for you."

The Bulletin records that after Ellen White's letter was read, "a most excellent social meeting occurred, a number of brethren responding with hearty confessions and expressions of determination to walk in unity and love and the advancing light. The good Spirit of the Lord came in marked degree, tears flowed freely, and expressions of joy and thankfulness seemed to well up from every heart." [8]*

It is most likely that J. H. Morrison, former President of the Iowa Conference and a delegate at the 1888 Conference, made his long-awaited confession at this meeting. Morrison had played a pivotal role at the Minneapolis meeting in fighting against the message God sent to His people. Ellen White had sent him Testimonies and spoken to him directly since that time, but with little to no change. [9] Finally, in November 1892, Morrison wrote a letter to Ellen White (no longer extant), confessing at least in part his past mistakes. Ellen White responded in a letter which would have arrived right before the start of the 1893 Ministerial Institute. Here she expressed sadness that he had stood so long against the abundance of light and did not "recognize the voice of Jesus," or submit "to the leadings of the Holy Spirit of God." Ellen White reminded him that at times, the Holy Spirit had moved upon him, and he "felt moved to accept the truth and the light," but "pride and stubbornness" had held him back. Now she entreated him to repent and make no "half-way work in this matter. Unless you move out decidedly now, unless the transforming power of truth shall do its work upon your heart, and you make thorough work for eternity, you will surely fall into the snare of Satan." [10]

Throughout the Ministerial Institute and the General Conference thus far, Morrison would have been continually reminded of the sad results of the Minneapolis rebellion and the call to repentance, from both the various speakers and the Testimonies read. O. A. Olsen often led out in the morning ministers' devotional meeting, and with "but very few exceptions," always had something to read from the material Ellen White had sent over the past year. He rejoiced later to Ellen White that the messages seemed to come in just at the proper time. ... And never did I witness our ministers respond so heartily as they did to this instruction and reproof of the Lord. In a number of your articles, you referred freely to Minneapolis and the spirit manifested there. Yes, we went over Minneapolis again, and many confessed the wrong part they had acted and the feelings they had indulged, both those who were present at that meeting and those who were not." [11]

C. H. Jones reported similar facts in his letter to W. C. White in Australia following the Conference. He mentioned that during the meetings, the Minneapolis matter was "made quite prominent;" the Testimonies from Ellen White "which had been sent referred to it in particular; and many confessions were made. This opened the way for the Lord to work; and he did work for us in a special manner." While C. H. Jones stated that he "was not at fault in the position taken at Minneapolis," he felt he had made just as grave mistakes and felt the need for confessing his sins and humbling himself before God. But the meeting that affected him the most was "the one when Bro. J. H. Morrison made a confession in regard to the course he took at Minneapolis, and had taken since that time. ... He went right to the root of the matter; and it affected every one present." [12]

O. A. Olsen expressed a similar experience in his letter to W. C. White. As Testimonies where read at the ministers' morning meetings, "the Spirit of the Lord wrought marvelously, and the convicting and converting power of God was manifested in a wonderful measure." For Olsen as well, the most interesting and the most remarkable case of all was the confession of J. H. Morrison: "I have listened to many confessions, but this I must say, that I never listened to one like his. While it was cool and deliberate, as is the nature of his temperament, it was a most thorough-going, and most deep in its work, that I have ever witnessed. And I never saw any congregation so affected by a confession as on this occasion." [13]

Years later, A. T. Jones would also recall Morrison's confession: "In justice to Bro. J. H. Morrison he should be given credit by name for the truth and fact that some time after the Minneapolis conference was over ... cleared himself of all connection with that opposition; and put himself body, soul and spirit into the truth and blessing of righteousness by faith by one of the finest and noblest confessions that I ever heard." [14]*

Once again, such confessions were the providential results of Testimonies read that confirmed the call to Laodicean repentance which the various Conference lecturers had been presenting since the start of the Ministerial Institute. This was not the end result, as some have suggested, of "critical," "pointed," "vehement" preaching by A. T. Jones, but of responding to the True Witness's call to repentance. [15]*

The 1893 Conference Draws to a Close

Finally on Tuesday, February 28, W. W. Prescott gave his final lesson on the Holy Spirit. Here he mentioned again the early church and the gifts of the Spirit that were poured out upon her to enable the proclamation of the gospel to the then-known world. Those same gifts and blessings were promised to the end-time church as well. As Prescott reached this point in his talk, he once again pointed out the delay caused by unbelief in our own ranks:

Now when I think that for four years we have been in the time of the latter rain, and that God has wanted to pour out his Spirit that these gifts might be restored, that his work might go with power; and that he wishes us to join gladly in the work and co-operate with him with the whole heart, it occurs to me that we have been the hands that have been holding on and the feet that wouldn't go; and rather than tear the whole body to pieces the body has waited.

So we are told that we are years behind; and if some of the hands had not held on, and some of the feet had not refused to go, so that the body could not move without tearing it to pieces, the body would have gone right along these four years. But rather than tear out a limb and leave it by the wayside--that means you and me-and so this four years course be marked all the way by these parts of the body scattered along over the course, rather than do that, the Lord in great mercy has let the body wait, so that we should not be torn out and be left by the wayside. But the body is going on now; and I say, let every hand, and every foot, and every member be ready to go, that the body be not torn asunder. That is what the Lord wants to do, and he is going to do it now: and he has warned us and told us of it for four years. [16]*

On the final Sabbath evening of the Conference, A. T. Jones would for the last time refer to the Minneapolis history and the four years since the message of righteousness by faith came to us as a people. Now Jones declared their study had found "that the righteousness of God upon his people is the one thing, the only thing, the all in all, the fitting up of the people for receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit, and the outpouring of it." And when that message is received and accepted gladly, "God tells you and me: 'Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of God is risen upon thee, and when you and I do as God says, and arise by faith in him, he will see that we shine. (Congregation: 'Amen.')." But as Jones pointed out, there was still danger that both the righteousness by faith and time of the latter rain messages might continue to be rejected:

Now, that message: 'Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee,' is as certainly and as distinctly the message of God to you and me, and through you and me as ministers to the people, from this day henceforth, as was that message four years ago of the righteousness of God which is by faith alone in Jesus Christ. (Congregation: 'Amen.') And the people of to-day who reject this message, which is now the message of to-day, as they rejected and slighted that four years ago, are taking the step which will leave them everlastingly behind, and which involves their whole salvation.

God has given us a message, and has borne with us these four years, in order that we might receive this which is now the message. Those who cannot receive that message are not prepared to receive this message, because they rejected that. And now when God gives the other in special measure in order that this may be received, and both together are slighted, then what can become of those blind eyes? What can become of them! So as we have been called upon to state several times during the Institute, and this work, It is a fearful time. [17]

Truly the 1893 General Conference was a fearful time to which the church had arrived. Would there be a continued rejection of the most precious message sent from heaven? Or would Laodicea recognize her need and repent?

"Oh How My Heart Rejoices"

The 1893 General Conference adjourned on Monday evening, March 6. O. A. Olsen "expressed his thanks to God and gratitude to the Conference for the spirit of harmony and love which have characterized the session, stating that it had been the best meeting over which he had ever presided." [18] As the many participants scattered across the country and even the world, positive reflections were shared about the Conference. W. A. Spicer described the Conference to W. C. White as "a feast," declaring that it "was the greatest meeting that has been held in more ways than one." Spicer also noted that the Bible studies found in the Bulletin, "reads well but it sounded better" in person. [19]

C. H. Jones agreed, affirming that the "Conference was the best meeting I ever attended, without any exception." He told W. C. White that they "had a feast of good things; and the spirit of the Lord was present in large measure." He wished White could have been there to enjoy the good meetings: "As we studied the Bible, rays of light shone in upon the sacred page, and many souls were made to rejoice in the Lord."[20]

O. A. Olsen joined in, announcing to W. C. White the "remarkable occasion. The Spirit of the Lord was present in a very large measure. I have never seen anything like it in any of our meetings before." [21] Olsen expressed similar approbation in a twenty-five page letter to Ellen White. Olsen recalled that he "never came up to a meeting nor a time with more anxiety than that with which I approached the late General Conference." He knew that very much was at stake yet was fully aware that God "was able and willing to do great things" for His people:

That which concerned me the most was that we might individually and collectively place ourselves in such an attitude that we could receive all that God had for us. That we would be in a place where we could be instructed as he desired to instruct us. Well, the institute and the Conference from first to last was a most remarkable season. I never before attended a meeting anywhere like it. The Lord's presence seemed to be realized in a very large measure. And at different times the power of God rested down upon the people in a very marked manner. Everything passed off with remarkable harmony and unity. Still, there was great freedom in discussion on every question that came up; indeed, I think I never attended a Conference where there seemed to be such perfect freedom, no human restraint, yet I never saw any meeting where every speaker seemed to have such regard for the feelings and sentiments of others. This was a very interesting feature of the occasion. On leaving, the brethren all felt greatly encouraged, and never have delegates left any of our Conferences with the same feeling and spirit with which they left the one just past. [22]*

W. W. Prescott also shared his perspective of the Conference in a letter to Ellen White: "The Lord came very near by His Spirit during our Conference, and we feel that great good was accomplished for all whose hearts were open to receive the light and blessing from God." Prescott went on to state that he had "never known the laborers to go forth with such a degree of hope in the Lord." [23]

Reports of the Conference through various church papers were also shared around the world field. G. C. Tenney reported to those in Australia and New Zealand that "it was the wonderful manifestation of God's blessing manifested from the first and increasing in power to the close. Never has it been our privilege to attend such meetings as these. The Comforter came to convince of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." Tenney reported that the Bible studies by Haskell, Jones, and Prescott brought out "much light on the sacred Word," and the reception of that light "increased the joy in the hearts of those uniting in the study." Tenney was aware that there had been in the past a divergence on the subject of justification by faith, but now all had come together to see eye to eye, "and with deep humility wrong feelings were confessed, and hearts that had been somewhat estranged were drawn together and united in the closest of bonds." Tenney could now unapologetically state, "We have reached the time of the latter rain, and the time when the LORD says to his people, 'Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.'" [24]

W. C. White rejoiced at Tenney's new experience after attending the Institute and Conference. He recalled, in a letter of response to Tenney, his own experience after attending the 1888 Conference, even with the great perplexity that followed: "Nothing that has occurred for years has given me so much joy as to hear what you have written about this experience. It was for this, more than anything else, that I wanted you to go to the Conf. and it was the faith that you would get this great light and blessing, that has kept me firm in the opinion that you would come back to do better work in this field than ever before."[25]

Mrs. Peebles described in expressive language for the readers of the Review the blessings of the Conference: "What words are adequate to express the magnitude and preciousness of that which the 'Teacher of righteousness according to righteousness' (Joel 2:23, margin) has given us. He came and sat with us, and opened our understanding, as did the Holy One who walked with those of old to Emmaus, and we now say with them, 'Did not our hearts burn within us, as he talked with us by the way.'" She rejoiced for the counsel that the filthy rags of our unrighteousness needed "stripped off, in order that the wedding garment, which the Master has himself prepared--even the robe of his own righteousness--may be put on to cover our nakedness." All of this led her to proclaim: "We are asking of the Lord rain because it is time for the latter rain; and he made bright clouds, and gave bountiful showers, and our thirsty souls are indeed refreshed; but how gently and quietly it has fallen! It did not come in the rush and noise of the wind or the earthquake, to startle and astonish us, but in the still small voice, speaking in such gentle whispering to the soul, that we almost held our breath lest we should lose one whisper." [26]

O. A. Olsen penned later for The Home Missionary that "the last General Conference and the Bible Institute connected with it was a season of refreshing from the presence of the Lord. The Spirit of God rested on ministers and people." But this, Olsen recalled, came about by confession of sin: "To many it came as a reprover of sin. There was much earnest work done in clearing up the past, and seeking a new conversion and an entire consecration. Sins were confessed; many that had been in darkness broke the spell of Satan and came into the light. The Spirit of God witnessed his approbation by giving light and peace and joy where before there had been darkness and barrenness of soul." [27]

Of course, news of the events of the Conference and the confessions made by several of the protagonists of the message since Minneapolis, arrived in Australia for Ellen White to read. I. D. Van Horn, in his letter of repentance, confessed that he had "never witnessed before" such a Conference "in which was manifested the spirit and power of God." He had now come to the point of realizing that he was "nothing, and in my own strength can do nothing. All power is in Christ and with Him dwelling in me and leading me I can do all things to His glory." Now his desire was to arise and "in the fear of the Lord, go forward with the advancing light of the message." [28]

L. T. Nicola realized after the 1893 Conference that Ellen White had indeed "unflinchingly and most decidedly stood for four or more years in favor of special principles," that were to the benefit of the Church. He now "rejoiced in the light" of righteousness by faith, that had "been shining since that meeting" in 1888. [29]*

Ellen White rejoiced at the good news, even though she had "passed many sleepless hours during the night." It was "the good news from America [that] kept me awake. Oh how my heart rejoices in the fact that the Lord is working in behalf of His people," she said. Reports of confessions apprised her of the fact "that the Lord by His Holy Spirit was working upon the hearts of those who have been in a large measure convinced of their true condition before God." [30]

Having also received copies of the Bulletin, Ellen White declared she had "found a rich feast in reading" the daily sermons. [31] In fact, the messages given were of such a nature that years later, she was "instructed to use those discourses," specifically of A. T. Jones, "printed in the General Conference Bulletins of 1893 and 1897." Jones' discourses, Ellen White stated, contained "strong arguments regarding the validity of the Testimonies, and which substantiate the gift of prophecy among us. I was shown that many would be helped by these articles, and especially those newly come to the faith who have not been made acquainted with our history as a people. It will be a blessing to you to read again these arguments, which were of the Holy Spirit's framing."[32]*

Notes:

  1. Editorial note, Review and Herald, Feb. 28, 1893, 144.

  2. Editorial note, "Memorable Meetings," Review and Herald, Feb. 28, 1893, 144.

  3. A. T. Jones, "The Third Angel's Message, No. 18," General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 27, 1893, 416, 417, emphasis original.

  4. Ibid., 417.

  5. Editorial note, "Memorable Meetings," Review and Herald, Feb. 28, 1893, 144.

  6. Ellen G. White to W. Ing, Letter 77, Jan. 9, 1893; in General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 28, 1893, 419. The entire letter is published in 1888 Materials, 1118-1135.

  7. Ibid.

  8. Ibid., 420. Only a portion of this eighteen-page letter written to William Ing was read at the Conference. A large portion of the letter not read at the Conference dealt with Uriah Smith having run countering articles in the Review in mid-1892, in response to Jones' sermons on the setting up of the Image of the Beast. Ellen White unmistakably condemned Uriah Smith's actions and supported the work of Jones and Waggoner, which was being carried out under such difficult circumstances. George Knight, on the other hand, ever ready to put Jones in a bad light, suggests that Ellen White's letters only "tended to support the Jones-Prescott theses" that the final events were rapidly fulfilling. Because Ellen White's letter defended Jones and rebuked those who continued to work against him, Knight seeks to invalidate such an endorsement by insinuating that the "knowledge of her testimony [read at the minister's meeting] undoubtedly emboldened Jones in his attitude and remarks toward Smith and his allies during the conference" (From 1888 to Apostasy, 93, emphasis supplied). Search the Bulletin over, however, and not one valid example can be given supporting Knight's suppositious claim.

  9. Ellen White to J. H. Morrison, Letter 49, April 4, 1889; Ellen G. White to My Dear Brethren, Letter 85, April, 1889; Ellen G. White, "Diary Entries," Manuscript 22, Oct. 1889; in 1888 Materials, 274, 277, 468.

  10. Ellen G. White to J. H. Morrison, Letter 47, Dec. 22, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1084, 1085.

  11. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, March 21, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 245.

  12. C. H. Jones to W. C. White, March 30, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 248.

  13. O. A. Olsen to W. C. White, March 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 242, 243.

  14. A. T. Jones to Brother Holmes, May 12, 1921; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 330. Within a year of the1893 General Conference, J. H. Morrison moved back to Lincoln, Nebraska, where he lived out the rest of his life. It would appear that his confession was genuine and that his bitterness against the Minneapolis message had been put aside. However, he may not have ever changed some of his strong doctrinal opinions. M. L. Andreason shares some background insights into Morrison's later years. As a new convert, Andreason was given the opportunity to sit in on meetings and councils held at Union College where Morrison was present:

    "It was only a matter of eight years since the famous 1888 Conference in Minneapolis [1896], and the conference was frequently the subject of discussion. Old Elder J. H. Morrison, father of Prof. H. A. Morrison, lived in Lincoln. He had taken a prominent role in the discussions at Minneapolis and had written a book on the subject. He was a sterling character of the old school, uncompromisingly orthodox after the light he had. Though not always on the right side, he was on the side he thought was right. He loved to discuss and I loved to listen to him. I pitied those who were not on his side, for he could 'lay them out' and enjoyed doing so. I should add, however, that there was never anything unseemly going on. The bitterness of the early discussions was gone, and all met and parted good friends.

    "It was largely through the kindness of old Brother Morrison that I was permitted to attend the discussions. Of course, I was there to listen and not to talk. And I did not talk. But I learned much. In fact, it was a wonderful school. I only wish that I had notes. In retrospect, I doubt that the meetings I attended when the older ministers met were the best for a young convert hardly an Adventist yet. I would call it rather strong meat. They paid little attention to me, but plunged right into a subject of which I knew nothing. But I soon caught on, and was astonished at the freedom with which they discussed personalities. Most of the older men who had known Elder White were not endeared to him, it appeared. In their opinion he, was too strong headed to work well with others....

    "A few of the leaders were waiting for the day when there would be a change in the way the church was run. They thought that at the Minneapolis meeting such a change might be made. I have heard many versions of what took place at Minneapolis. Someday, if I ever get time, I would like to tell the story as I heard it recounted at the meetings held in College View by the men who were the leaders in opposition to Sister White. They did not consider the message of Jones and Waggoner to be the real issue. The real issue, according to my informers, was whether Sister White was to be permitted to overrule the men who carried the responsibility of the work. It was an attempt to overthrow the position of the Spirit of Prophecy. And it seemed the men in opposition carried the day.... As interpreted by some, the Minneapolis conference was a revolt against Sister White. If that is so, it throws some light on the omega apostasy" (M. L. Andreason, in Virginia Steinweg, Without Fear or Favor: The Life of M. L. Andreason, 42-44).

  15. Unfortunately, several Adventist authors since the 1940s have brought many allegations against Jones' 1893presentations. Perhaps sincerely thinking to defend the church against accusations of failure, or based on Jones' later years of bitterness, these writers appear to read back into history that which fails to accurately represent the truth of the 1893 Conference. N. F. Pease, in his 1945 master's thesis, makes these outlandish claims: "Jones was one of the principal speakers at several General Conference sessions following [1888].... In 1893 he was pointed, vehement, almost vitriolic in his utterances. Just a few months after the General Conference session, Jones received a letter from Mrs. White warning him in the danger of extreme statements" ("Justification and Righteousness by Faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church Before 1900" [unpublished master's thesis, 1945], 81). The letter from Ellen White, which Pease mentions, was a caution to Jones about comments he had made in regard to faith and works but was not in regard to the 1893 Conference and stated nothing about speaking pointedly, vehemently, or vitriolically.

    Four years later, A. W. Spalding echoes Pease's charges against Jones with some added claims but gives no references as evidence: "Mrs. White's testimonies of warning and correction were given impartially, not alone to those who opposed the message, but also to the ardent and sometimes critical Jones. Thus, in 1893, when at the General Conference he spoke on 'The Third Angel's Message,' he took occasion to unite the audience with him in censure of the brethren who opposed him, Mrs. White wrote from Australia, to which land she had removed, warning him against censoriousness." (Captains of the Host [Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1949], 598). But search all of Ellen White's letters during the time of the 1893 Conference, and one will not find any such evidence.

    In 1956 the Department of Education of the General Conference published an Adventist history book, The Story of Our Church, for the purpose of teaching a one-semester Adventist history course in denominational secondary schools. The only paragraph in the entire book that mentions the 1893 General Conference unfortunately gives an incorrect date and repeats the same claims as Spalding's earlier book: "After the 1888 conference, unity gradually came; leaders of the movement...accepted reproof from Mrs. White and confessed their unhappy condition of mind after the conference. Her testimonies of warning went to the other side too. At the 1892 General Conference, Elder Jones tried to arouse the audience against those who opposed him. From Australia, Ellen White wrote to him, warning him against his critical attitudes and his extreme statements" (247). Once again, no evidence is offered. Can it be any wonder that Adventist young people have grown up with incorrect perceptions regarding our Adventist history?

    The General Conference committee assigned to evaluate Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short's manuscript "1888Re-examined," portrayed in their assessment of the manuscript a similar distorted view of the part Jones and Waggoner played at several subsequent General Conferences. Seeking to put aside the evidence found in "1888 Re-examined," that Jones and Waggoner were hated and rejected by many, the committee stated in defense: "Brethren Jones and Waggoner almost monopolized the Bible study hours at the important General Conference sessions for years" (A. V. Olson, N. W. Dunn, H. L. Rudy, A. L. White, "Further Appraisal of the Manuscript '1888 Re-Examined'" [Takoma Park, Washington, D.C.: General Conference, Sept. 1958], 5-7; in Al Hudson, compiler, A Warning and Its Reception [privately published, n.d.], 263)

    Arthur White expressed the same concepts in correspondence from the White Estate. Answering an inquiry about"1888 Re-examined," White emphatically declared that Jones and Waggoner "monopolized the Bible study hours of the General Conference sessions. In one year, 1891, there were 17 Bible studies recorded in the General Conference bulletin and A. J. [sic] Waggoner gave 16 of these. In 1893 A. T. Jones gave 24 consecutive Bible studies, and so on down through the years. Now you see the point, Brother Brainard, is that brethren Wieland and Short have given us a distorted picture. Most of those who read the manuscript either do not have time or they do not have the sources available and have not checked on the historical data" (Arthur L. White to F. E. Brainard, Aug. 28, 1958; in Ellen G. White Estate, Question & Answer File, 16-C-1a). But whether or not Wieland and Short gave a distorted picture, one thing is for sure, if Brother Brainard had had free access to the "sources" White spoke of in 1958, he most likely would have sided with Wieland and Short and been led to a more accurate perception than that expressed by White himself.

    Similar accusations were also leveled against Jones by D. A. Delafield, associate secretary of Ellen G. White Estates, in at least one of his responses to a letter of inquiry: "Poor Jones. People read his books and they listened to his sermons-which were altogether too plentiful, particularly at our big [General Conference] meetings-and they went away gasping at the man's breadth of knowledge and range of ideas. They were impressed by Jones.... He frequently talked about subjects that he did not understand himself. This Sister White clearly indicated to him in her letter of May 19, 1890. His use of extravagant expressions, his handling of topics that were beyond his mind, strong as it was, was deplorable. ... Jones could have done a good job of handling the simple and understandable truths of the gospel.... But instead, he wanted to make an impression. He wanted to appear as a big theologian. And he did have the skill as a Bible student. He had much precious truth, as Sister White indicated to him. But that truth was mixed with grevious [sic] error. Turn to Selected Messages, Book 1, pages 176 to 184. There you will find the material that Sister White wrote to A. T. Jones from St. Helena, California, May 19, 1890" (D. A. Delafield to L. Roy Blackburn, Aug. 11, 1959; in Ellen G. White Estate Digital Resource Center).

    There is at least one great problem in Delafield's response. The letter he applies to A. T. Jones found in Selected Messages, was written to E. R. Jones instead, having no relation and having nothing to do with A. T. Jones. Certainly A. T. Jones received a fair share of counsel from Ellen White, especially in his later years. But confusion among those at the White Estate, who should have known better, has not helped in portraying correct facts about our history, including the1893 General Conference.

    N. F. Pease reiterated his previous charges against Jones found in his 1945 thesis, even adding some new ones, in his book By Faith Alone: "The most pertinent contribution of the year 1893 was a series of twenty-four sermons by Jones at the General Conference session of that year. These sermons are of immense importance to the investigator today because they reveal exactly what Jones taught, and they also reveal his attitude, as expressed in public discourse, toward the issues of 1888. . . . In 1893 he was pointed, vehement, almost vitriolic, in his utterances. Just a few months after the General Conference session, Jones received a letter from Mrs. White warning him in a very kindly manner against the danger of extreme statements.... At the General Conference of 1895, Jones presented the subject, but not nearly as dogmatically as in 1893" (By Faith Alone [Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1962], 157, 158, 160).

    George Knight has carried the same torch of criticism for nearly thirty years; putting Jones in the worst possible light regardless of the context of historical evidence: "Jones was at his self-confident best during the 1893 General Conference session.... During the conference, he plainly told those who were resisting him that he had the facts.... A man who saw things in terms of black and white, Jones was not bashful about reminding others that he was right and they were wrong. That approach, of course, was not the most diplomatic way to win over his enemies" (1888 to Apostasy, 94). Knight seems to have missed the fact that Jones was just one of many presenting the Laodicean message, which was in accordance with Ellen White's counsel before the meetings, and to which she continually contributed in numerous Testimonies. Those who truly repented at the 1893 meetings seemed to have missed the "vehement" attacks of Jones, stating nothing of the sort in their letters of confession.

  16. W. W. Prescott, "The Promise of the Holy Spirit, No. 10," General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 3, 1893, 463. Unfortunately, Prescott's optimism that the Church would move on with the outpouring of the latter rain was never realized during his lifetime and still waits fulfillment today.

  17. A. T. Jones, "The Third Angel's Message, No. 22," General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 7, 1893, 494.

  18. "General Conference Proceedings; Twentieth Meeting," General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 7, 1893, 493.

  19. W. A. Spicer to W. C. White, March 24, 1893, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office.

  20. C. H. Jones to W. C. White, March 30, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 248.

  21. O. A. Olsen to W. C. White, March 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 242.

  22. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, March 21, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 244, emphasis supplied. Olsen seems to have missed what modern historians claim about Jones' attitude during his lectures. See footnote 15.

  23. W. W. Prescott to Ellen G. White, March 23, 1893, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office.

  24. G. C. Tenney, "The General Conference," The Bible Echo, May 1, 1893, 152.

  25. W. C. White to G. C. Tenney, May 5, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 257.

  26. Mrs. E. M. Peebles, "Thoughts Suggested at the Close of the Institute and Conference," Review and Herald, March 21, 1893, 189.

  27. O. A. Olsen, "The Year's Work and the Outlook," The Home Missionary Extra, Nov. 1893, 2.

  28. I. D. Van Horn to Ellen G. White, March 9, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 239.

  29. L. T. Nicola to Ellen G. White, March 24, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 247. Unfortunately, Nicola's repentance did not apparently last very long. By June of 1895, Ellen White chided O. A. Olsen for "putting so much dependence on A.R. Henry, Leroy Nicola, and others I might name, who in a crisis will be on the wrong side?" (Letter 65, June 19, 1895; in 1888 Materials, 1404).

  30. Ellen G. White, "Diary," Manuscript 80, April 24, 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1170.

  31. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 41a, May 12, 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1184.

  32. Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, Letter 230, July 25, 1908; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 9, 278, emphasis supplied. Is it possible that Ellen White's heavenly informant was unaware of what our modern-day historians seem so readily to find in Jones' 1893 sermons? See chapter 5, footnote 5.