The reader can see that Ellen G. White testimony is clear and consistent. But now a real problem arises. “Eyewitness and personal-participant attestations” referred to in Movement of Destiny appear on the surface to contradict her view (see pages 237-268). How could it be that these “twenty-six living participants at the 1888 Minneapolis Conference” in their “affidavits” give such a different picture? (See The Fascinating Story of Movement of Destiny, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1970, page 15.) For example, we are told, “There was no denomination-wide, or leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted. The newly appointed leaders supported it. (C. McReynolds, Letter to L.E.F., April 25, 1930).”—Movement of Destiny, page 256, emphasis in original. This is indeed very perplexing! However, the reader is not permitted to see even one of these affidavits in context. (Neither is the reader permitted to see any significant previously unpublished Ellen G. White testimony in the entire 700 page volume. For example, when the “Testimony of Adventism’s Peerless Witness,” Ellen G. White, is at last brought to bear on this era, her actual “testimony” is almost completely omitted, though these two chapters occupy 21 pages. Indeed, about the only previously unpublished Ellen G. White material the reader is permitted to see is an excerpt from a letter to Mrs. Mary White on pages 673, 674. Dated November 4, 1888, the letter has no bearing on the outcome of the post-1888 leadership, the key issue. Astounding as it may seem, this one letter is virtually the only new contribution the reader receives from the Spirit of Prophecy. Nonetheless it is a significant letter. It does not support the position that “the rank and file of Seventh-day Adventist workers and laity accepted the presentations at Minneapolis and were blessed.” It states: “My testimony … has made the least impression upon many minds than at any period before in our history. … I tremble to think what would have been in this meeting if we had not been here.”) One has no way of knowing if all twenty-six contradicted Ellen G. White’s view.
But the authors are certain that two of them did not, because copies of their eyewitness accounts came into their possession in 1949. Quoting directly:
In 1888 I was sent as a delegate from the Kansas conference to the General Conference held that year in Minneapolis. ... I know that some of our dear brethren contend to this day that there was no confusion and really no debate. Well, I was there and was in the midst of it, both in the public meetings and in our private quarters [we were lodged in a large house with the delegation from Iowa], and I know the spirit of debate and controversy ran high and some very bitter feelings were developed, but the conference closed with a dark shadow over many minds. …
I am sorry for anyone who was at the Conference in Minneapolis in 1888 who does not recognize that there was opposition and rejection of the message the Lord sent to His people at that time. It is not too late to repent and receive a great blessing.—C. McReynolds, Experiences While at the General Conference in Minneapolis, Minn. in 1888. White Estate D. File, 189.
Elder McReynolds went on to say that “most of the leading men who had refused the light at the Conference” came out “with clear confessions” “within two or three years.” “Many, both ministers and people, were aroused and sought the Lord with sincerity of soul, and found light and peace.” But did Elder McReynolds know of that steady stream of private correspondence from
Australia that the reader of this “Confession” has now seen? Obviously not. Did he have prophetic insight to distinguish “professedly accepting it,” to quote Ellen G. White’s 1901 expression, from genuine heart-acceptance? Nowhere does Elder McReynolds suggest that the post-1888 leadership ever recovered the rejected “beginning” of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry. Otherwise he could not have said in his day (1930), “It is not too late to repent and receive a great blessing.”
The other eyewitness account that came into our possession is that of R. T. Nash (see Movement of Destiny, page 247). We will let him also speak for himself:
The writer remembers, and many who attended the meetings at that conference [1888] know of what took place at that conference meeting. When Christ was lifted up as the only hope of the church, and of all men, the speakers met a united opposition from nearly all the senior ministers. They tried to put a stop to this teaching of Elders Waggoner and Jones.—An Eyewitness Report of the 1888 General Conference at Minneapolis, Ellen G. White Publications Files, emphasis added.
This agrees fully with Ellen G. White’s view of the matter. There remain twenty-four eyewitnesses yet to be heard from; but are we not conscience-bound to stand with the clear testimony of the one who was given the gift of prophecy?