DEFENSE LITERATURE COMMITTEE: S/ W. E. Read, Chairman; S/ Frank H. Yost, Secretary.

page 256

FURTHER APPRAISAL OF THE MANUSCRIPT "1888 RE-EXAMINED": General Conference, Takoma Park, Washington, D.C.; September, 1958.

[THIS IS THE "SECOND GENERAL CONFERENCE REPORT".]

page 257

FURTHER APPRAISAL OF THE MANUSCRIPT "1888 RE-EXAMINED"

Early in 1950 two Seventh-day Adventist ministers home on furlough from mission service approached the leading officers of the General Conference with burdened hearts and a feeling that a large part of the ministry of the church and the leaders in particular had fallen far short of God's ideal, had failed to comprehend the true issues of the conflict and were in reality worshiping a "false Christ" and that these conditions were the natural outgrowth of a failure of the church and its leaders to relate themselves aright to the message of righteousness by faith which was presented with renewed emphasis at the Minneapolis General Conference Session of 1888.

The two ministers concerned, R. J. Wieland and D. A. Short, were invited to present their views for careful study and appraisal to a committee of leading men. Several hours were spent in hearing the views of the two men. They were requested to write out their views so that the committee might have the full presentation before it in form for study and analysis. Stenographic help was furnished to assist in bringing this about. The written statement when presented was a 204 page document which bore the title of "1888 Re-examined." The committee gave careful and prayerful reading to this large document to determine if its message was one which should have the consideration of the church. This study led the committee to the opinion (1) that the men had drawn their conclusions from inadequate sources.

(2) That weakness was shown in the almost total lack of Biblical background or sources in the manuscript.

(3) That the manuscript sets forth no positive teaching of righteousness by faith and contains a number of contradictions.

(4) That in the light of these findings the conclusions set forth in the document could not be accepted and consequently copies of the manuscript should not be distributed and further, the authors should recall the copies they had hastened into the field before it had been reviewed. [1]

page 258

(5) That the manuscript should be placed in the hands of the Defense Literature committee for more deliberate checking and study.

(6) That Brethren Wieland and Short should be invited to return to their fields of labor at the termination of their furlough periods with the understanding that when further careful study had been given to their propositions and charges they would be informed of the findings.

(7) That the committee recognized that there was danger that the church might fail to lay hold upon all the possibilities given this people and suggested that we continue to emphasize the important Scriptural teaching of righteousness by faith.

The two brethren concerned returned to their fields of labor and threw themselves wholeheartedly into their work of proclaiming the gospel message, but they found it impossible to recall all copies of the manuscripts prematurely sent into the field.

The Defense Literature Committee took up study of the manuscript and on December 4, 1951, made its report in the form of a letter to Elders Wieland and Short, as these were the men concerned. In this report it was observed that:

(a) The manuscript revealed a very critical attitude concerning the leadership, the ministry, and the plane of work in God's cause.

(b) 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 was far from accurate.

(c) The interpretation of the aftermath of 1888 was not in accord with all the facts in the case as known by those close to the experience.

(d) The charge that the true message of righteousness by faith was buried in the denominational archives was without foundation. [2]

page 259

(e) The solution proposed, of the denomination making confession of the mistakes of men made in the 1880's and the 1890's and of a denominational repentance, is not possible nor would an attempt to do so be of value. The experience of the church is the collective experience of its members and leaders, and thus rightness with God is a matter of present day personal relationships.

(f) The assertion that our ministers have been presenting a false Christ is without foundation, for the ministry of the denomination is presenting the saving Christ of the Scriptures and the loving Saviour presented in the Spirit of prophecy writings.

(g) The focusing of attention on the weakness and mistakes of mankind rather than on the triumphs of the message may becloud the vision and lead to distorted concepts.

This report to the authors of the manuscript, in the closing paragraphs stated:

"In the light of the foregoing facts, however, in view of the responsibility of reading and appraising your manuscript, which responsibility was laid upon us by the General Conference officers, we cannot but feel that if you accept this counsel which we offer in response to what we believe was your sincere desire for the help of the brethren, you will not wish to press your rather critical views nor to circulate them further."

With the evidence before it, what other counsel could the committee give? It could not endorse the conclusions set forth nor could it place its approval on its distribution.

It was thought that the report of seven years ago had closed the matter. The views and conclusions of the two brethren had been dealt with in oral hearing and in written presentation, in accordance with the instruction given to us in the Spirit of prophecy. The report on the views of Brethren Wieland and Short presented the conclusions of men who had given considerable study to the manuscript.

Had the committee sensed that copies of the manuscript were subsequently to be duplicated and circulated quite widely by certain individuals as a choice presentation of vital truth [3] and would be read by those not in possession of the backgrounds, its report would doubtless have been more detailed and well supported by exhibits of factual data. It is to present such factual data to those who are now concerned with the manuscript and its conclusions and who may entertain fears that the leaders of the church in their negative report have rejected light, that this further statement has been prepared.* [Footnote [*] This report was prepared by a committee appointed by the Officers of the General Conference.]

page 260

THE STATE OF THE CHURCH.

The authors of the manuscript portray the spiritual condition of the church as far short of God's ideal and they assume that they have discovered the precise reasons for the conditions as they see them. They lay out what they believe to be the only remedy.

It should be made very clear at the outset that a failure of the leaders of the church to accept the conclusions set forth in the manuscript should not be interpreted to mean that it is the opinion of the committee or the leaders of the church that all is just as it should be, and that the church is meeting in every respect God's ideal.

We are painfully mindful of shortcomings, weaknesses, and mistakes. We sense the full implications of the message to the Laodicean church. We recognize furthermore that "the message to the Laodiceans is applicable to Seventh-day Adventists who had great light and have not walked in the light." (2SM, p. 66.) At the same time we also see clearly that "It is those who have made great profession, but have not kept in step with their Leader, that will be spewed out of His mouth unless they repent." (Ibid., p. 66.)

We sense also that evils will exist in the church until the end, and at no time short of the coming of Christ will it be free from imperfections. [4]

page 261

"Although there are evils existing in the church and will be until the end of the world, the church in these last days is to be the light of the world that is polluted and demoralized by sin. The church, enfeebled and defective, needing to be reproved, warned, and counseled, is the only object upon earth which Christ bestows His supreme regard." -- TM, p. 49.

In the appeals from the public platform and in the articles appearing in the journals of the church there is an oft repeated call to reach forth to higher standards and to walk fully in God's way.

We remind the reader of these facts here lest he conclude erroneously that because we do not accept the conclusions of the manuscript under study, there is entertained the feeling that all is well and there is no need for revival and reformation.

INACCURATE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM INADEQUATE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

The presentation as a whole presents little in the way of Biblical support. This is markedly evident in the fact that scarcely more than a dozen scripture quotations appear in the 204 pages. The authors support their premises with sketchy historical data and numerous excerpts from E. G. Whites inter-mingled with the philosophy of a false Christ as set forth in the writings of Garnier.

This being the case, it is highly essential that (1) the historical references be adequate and accurate, presenting a true picture historically, and (2) the E. G. White statements be used in keeping with their historical setting. As an exhibit of serious shortcoming on the first point we cite the following:

IN WHAT ESTEEM WERE ELDERS JONES AND WAGGONER HELD FOLLOWING 1888?

The authors, projecting what they believe to be "the true 'reason' why the message" of righteousness by faith "was rejected," indicate that Elders Jones and Waggoner who were prominent in presenting the message in 1888 were thereafter men hated, despised and rejected by the church and its leaders. The reader cannot escape this thought as it is presented again and again. On page 19 of their manuscript the authors declare that it: [5]

page 262

"Would require the acceptance also of the living messengers who brought it as being men especially chosen of God. How could the brethren accept the message God should send, and continue to hate and despise the messengers whom He should employ? But the fact that the messengers were 'only men,' were very positive and bold, and were, unfortunately for the prestige and peace of the brethren, right, made the Lord's chosen agencies of deliverance to the brethren, because of their unbelief, objects of stumbling, and stones of offense." (Italics supplied)

The assertion that there was a persistent hatred of Elders Jones and Waggoner is repeated several times in the manuscript. The reader is impressed that Elders Jones and Waggoner were hated, despised men whose talents and services were not sought after, especially by the leadership of the church. It would appear that here, incidentally, the authors confuse the leaders of the church generally after 1888 with those in responsible positions who in 1888 rejected the message and in the few succeeding years did not change their attitude. The authors have not informed their readers that in 1888 these particular men ceased to be the responsible leaders of the church. This fact may have been unknown to the authors, but it is information vital to the subject and could have been easily obtained.

Perhaps the true attitude of the church and its leaders toward Elders Jones and Waggoner after the 1888 Conference is best reflected by the invitations which were extended to these two men to conduct the Bible studies in the General Conference sessions held during the next ten years. In fact, they became the principal Bible exponents of that decade. Be it noted that the leaders of the church responsible for choosing the speakers at the General Conference sessions. They did not have to ask Elder Jones and Waggoner to speak. There were many other able preachers among us. They surely would not have asked them to take service after service if these men were hated and despised. Here is the true historical picture: [6]

page 263

In 1889 Elder A. T. Jones took the 8:00 Bible study from day to day and spoke on righteousness by faith. Elder E. J. Waggoner also spoke. See 2SM, p. 361.

In 1891 seventeen Bible studies were recorded in the "General Conference Bulletin". All but one of them were given by Elder E. J. Waggoner -- sixteen in all.

In 1893 Elder A. T. Jones gave twenty-four consecutive Bible studies which were published in the "General Conference Bulletin".

In 1895 thirteen consecutive studies by A. T. Jones were recorded.

In 1897 there were eleven Bible studies by A. T. Jones and nineteen by E. J. Waggoner. One man spoke on consecutive mornings, the other on consecutive afternoons. A large part of the "Bulletin" is made up of the reports of their thirty studies.

In 1899 Elder E. J. Waggoner gave three studies and Elder A. T. Jones seven.

The records reveal that at the important gatherings of the church for more than a decade after 1888 Elders Jones and Waggoner were the much sought after and principal speakers. These are the facts, facts which make it clear that the rank and file of workers and laity alike respected and appreciated the men and benefited from their earnest ministry of the Word. It is clear that unprecedented opportunity was given for the presentation of the message which was the burden of their hearts.

In the light of these facts, is it logical to accept the conclusions of the authors that the church hated and despised the messengers whom God had employed? If the church failed to grasp the full significance of the truths these men were ordained of God to present, it certainly was not because Jones and Waggoner did not have every opportunity to keep these essential truths before the church. The desire of the leaders that the church should have kept before it these essential truths, led to arrangements by which Brethren Jones and Waggoner almost monopolized the Bible study hours at the important General Conference sessions for years. [7]

page 264

CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM E. G. WHITE STATEMENTS DIVESTED OF THEIR HISTORICAL SETTINGS.

In presenting specific items of Spirit of prophecy counsel directed to the church, its leaders, or its institutions, as exhibits to support a line of argument, it is vitally important that the statements quoted were written by Ellen White to apply to the situation delineated. A thorough knowledge of denominational history, together with a recognition of the relationship of counsels and events and a strict integrity are needed by one so using E. G. White materials. The Spirit of prophecy writings extend over a period of seventy years. During those seventy years the denomination passed through many experiences. There were victories and defeats, great advances and serious setbacks. As the work grew, many vital developments were, in point of time, in close proximity or simultaneous, some related and many unrelated.

One of the most serious flaws in the manuscript under consideration is the heedless way in which its authors employ E. G. White statements which apply to one situation as if they were written concerning another situation. The authors apparently assume that because certain leading men took a wrong attitude toward righteousness by faith in 1888, a large part, if not all subsequent shortcomings and wrongs stem from or relate to the 1888 experience and the bulk of Ellen G. White counsels having to do with shortcomings in the church relate to that experience. Further, because "leading men" are especially mentioned by Ellen White, all subsequent Spirit of prophecy reference to leading men, whether in the General Conference Association, the Review and Herald, the College or the Sanitarium, are taken to mean the General Conference Committee.

It is regretted that in the urgency to find in the Ellen G. White writings, support for conclusions obviously already reached by the authors, that they allowed themselves, perhaps unwittingly, but non-the-less erroneously, to resort to the use of E. G. White statements written concerning one situation and to apply them to an entirely different situation. [8]

page 265

A careful study of the history of the epoch make makes it clear that the problems of Battle Creek through the 1890's were not alone that of the aftermath of the 1888 General Conference. Certain business men who had been called in to manage our institutions were in their concepts of business efficiency reaching out to centralize the various lines of denominational work, drawing into one huge organization all the publishing interests, with the plan to manage the several publishing houses outside of Battle Creek as branches. The same trends were seen in the College and in the Sanitarium. The General Conference administration itself was not strong, for the several branches of the work now bound to the General Conferences as departments were then separate and independent associations, managing the world-wide interests of their particular fields. The General Conference Association was a corporate body established to handle the financial interests of the cause and its personnel outnumbered the General Conference Committee.

Furthermore in the publishing house, its managers were growing selfish and grasping, and they ground down the employees, depriving them of their rightful incomes. In the sanitarium employees were signed up for long-term contracts at little more than subsistence wages, but sworn to loyalty to the medical leaders. Then on top of all this, the General Conference organization had not expanded to meet the needs of a work now world-wide. Each local conference or mission was answerable directly to Battle Creek. We had no union conferences, no division conferences. The result was that the work was greatly restricted, all decisions having to be made by a small group in Battle Creek.

This is the picture of the complexity of the situations in the 1890's. This is the background of the counsels which fill a large part of "Testimonies to Ministers". While, in dealing with all these situations Ellen White on a few occasions referred to the spirit of Minneapolis, and unquestionably if certain men had taken a different attitude there, some of these problems may not have existed, or would have been less difficult to deal with, yet her counsels deal with the specific problems and situations as such. [9]

page 266

Akin to the error of applying to one situation counsels written concerning other situations, is the error of applying to the church generally in its wide geographical reach, certain counsels written to meet a very stubborn and vexing situation at its headquarters. Those who were at Minneapolis and knew firsthand, and those who received their information only one step removed from eyewitnesses, report that while certain leading men of the denomination resisted the message of righteousness by faith presented at Minneapolis, a much larger group of workers present, and the laity in general, accepted the presentations of Elders Jones and Waggoner and entered upon a victorious experience. This is attested to by Ellen White.

But still there remained the hard core of resistance on the part of certain workers after the Conference session, no longer connected closely with General Conference administration, but in the Review and Herald office and General Conference Association and to a lesser degree in the College and Sanitarium. Several of these men were prominent officers of the Battle Creek church and obviously the influence of this resistance was felt not only in the large headquarters church but to a degree outside of Battle Creek.

With the Minneapolis meeting over, and after having spent some months in the field with Elders Jones and Waggoner in carrying the glorious message of righteousness by faith to the churches, Ellen White concentrated on the situation in Battle Creek. Much that is written of resistance, and refusal to accept the message applies to the hard core in Battle Creek. But little is said of the situation in the far-flung church. To apply to the church at large all counsels of reproof directed to certain leading men in Battle Creek, unless the messages so indicate, is a serious error.

Then again we must keep in mind that each organization in Battle Creek had its leading men, whether General Conference or institution, and Ellen White frequently used the term in speaking of the leading men in any one of the given institutions. [10]

page 267

THE OVERALL PICTURE.

In the use of historical data and Spirit of prophecy counsels in the development of certain premises as they relate to conclusions, the whole overall picture must be taken into consideration. The authors of the manuscript under consideration conclude that the church has "traveled the road of disillusionment since the Minneapolis meeting of 1888: and before true progress can be made we must return to 1893, confess our wrongs, and begin to build from that point.

We review briefly the history.

1. Somewhat because of the many successful debates in which our ministers engaged, the denomination fell into a legalistic attitude.

2. In the providence of God at the General Conference at Minneapolis in 1888 Elders Jones and Waggoner called our attention to the blessings of the message of righteousness by faith.

3. The rank and file of Seventh-day Adventist workers and laity accepted the presentations at Minneapolis and were blessed. Certain leading men there resisted the teaching.

4. The General Conference Committee of seven selected at that conference was made up very largely of men known to have accepted the message of righteousness by faith. Those prominent in resistance were not placed on the committee.

5. Certain leading men filling responsible positions in our institutions at Battle Creek resisted the message and continued their resistance for some years. In time some of these men resigned their positions. Others confessed their wrongs and made things right with God and their fellow men.

6. In Battle Creek centralizing movements were put on foot and certain institutional leaders, losing their consecration, were guilty of a course of action detrimental to the cause and displeasing to God.

7. The issues during the 1890's were not primarily over the doctrine of righteousness by faith, but over the concentration and misuse of power in Battle Creek, and the consequent evils resulting therefrom. [11]

page 268

8. The messages of rebuke and reproof to the leaders and institutions at Battle Creek through the 1890's had to do not primarily with the 1888 experience but with the experience of these unconsecrated men and centralizing policies.

9. The communications in which Mrs. White refers to resistance to the Message of Minneapolis were in the main addressed to or referred to the hard core at Battle Creek which began to disintegrate in the early 1890's but was a problem through to the reorganization of 1901.

10. At the General Conference session of 1901 Ellen White at the outset of the meeting portrayed the deplorable situation and called for the replacement of unconsecrated men and the reorganization of the work so as to bring in a wide group of men throughout the world to carry the responsibilities of a world-wide work.

11. There was an immediate response to Ellen White's appeal and the General Conference was reorganized, opening the way for union conferences, General Conference departments, and a larger and more representative General Conference Committee.

12. The newly-elected General Conference Committee of 1901, was composed very largely of new men untainted with the unfavorable attitudes of the preceding decade.

13. Changes in the institutions came more slowly. Leading personnel of the institutions were not a matter of General Conference session election. The Battle Creek Sanitarium fire on Feb. 18, 1902, and the Review and Herald fire of December 30, 1902, recognized as judgments of God, were large factors in correcting ills that had been carried over into the new century.

14. Seldom after 1901 did Ellen White make reference to Minneapolis. She continued to call the attention of the church to its backslidings, compromised standards, waning earnestness, and reminded the church that the coming of Christ was delayed because the church had come short of its privileges, crying out in 1909: [12]

page 269

"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. While men have slept, Satan has stolen a march upon us." -- 9T, p. 29.

The picture painted of the church "defective and enfeebled" is one we view with bowed heads and saddened hearts. The solution to the problem we find set before us in the Spirit of prophecy writings, again and again, not in conjectures that the church is worshiping a false Christ, but in practical terms all can grasp as portrayed in "Testimonies, Volume 8:

"A call for Reformation: Unless the church, which is now being leavened with her own backsliding, shall repent and be converted, she will eat of the fruit of her own doing, until she shall abhor herself. When she resists the evil and chooses the good, when she seeks God with all humility and reaches her high calling in Christ, standing on the platform of eternal truth and by faith laying hold upon the attainments prepared for her, she will be healed. She will appear in her God-given simplicity and purity, separate from earthly entanglements, showing that the truth has made her free indeed. Then her members will indeed be the chosen of God, His representatives.

"The time has come for a thorough reformation to take place." -- 8T, pp. 250-251.

A REVIEW OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

With this background we again turn to the Wieland and Short manuscript, "1888 Re-examined," which will for the sake of brevity henceforth be referred to only as "the manuscript." Inasmuch as E. G. White statements form the foundation stones we will first give attention to the proper use of Spirit of prophecy materials and then will examine areas of the manuscript in the light of certain safe guiding principles.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE USE OF STATEMENTS FROM THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.

There is a proper and an improper way to use inspired statements to support an argument. The proper procedure is to assemble all pertinent E. G. White statements which have a bearing on the subject and from these sources draw the essence and base conclusions as to teaching and emphasis on the whole body of Spirit of prophecy materials. [13]

page 270

The improper procedure is to select paragraphs or sentences or parts of sentences out of context to support the preconceived ideas and conclusions of the compiler. Thus an inspired writer may be made to give apparent support to ideas even foreign to his intent at the time the statements were written.

Well-meaning men and women, heavily burdened with a knowledge of the back-sliding of church members or the indifference of Seventh-day Adventists to their responsibilities, or eager to present what seems to them to be beautiful new truth, may unwittingly follow the improper procedure just outlined, both as regards the use of the Bible and the E. G. White materials. it was so in Ellen White's day, and it is doubly so in our day. There is strong evidence that the authors of "1888 Re-examined" stumbled into this pitfall.

The following basic principles reiterating somewhat the introduction to this review should guide in the interpretation and application of Spirit of prophecy materials:

(1) While general statements of truth are universal in their application, and statement of principle is timeless, quotations dealing with specific situations must be used in the setting of the situation intended by the author. Ellen G. White's words relating to one specific condition or situation cannot rightfully be used in dealing with a different type of situation just because in the opinion of the compiler, the words seem to fit.

(2) In the use of Spirit of prophecy materials, if deletions are made, such deletions can rightly be made only in the interests of condensation. Materials left out must be either irrelevant or repetitious. To leave out certain words to change the meaning or application of a statement is a wrong and unwarranted use of the E. G. White writings. If the employment of the full statement would convey to the reader an idea different from that created by the abbreviated statement, no other conclusion can be drawn than that the deletion was a deliberate attempt to make Ellen White say that which she did not say or to place emphasis where she did not place it. [14]

page 271

(3) It must be kept constantly in mind that in writing in regard to the experiences of men and the issues of the denomination there were many different situations that were parallel in time. To attempt to focus on just on point and bend all E. G. White utterances to the one point, overlooking the many other issues and factors in the hearts of men and the denomination, is taking a distorted view, perilous in its resulting conclusions. True, there may be some inter-relationships, but only the One who reads the hearts of man is qualified to judge.

(4) In dealing with matters which have to do with the vital spiritual experience of individuals and their relationships with God it must be remembered that in each heart there is a conflict between the forces of righteousness and the forces of evil, and that usually it is the great motivating desire of each person to serve God and build up His cause. Also, that when one errs, it may be only for a time, after which he may repent and experience a change of heart.

(5) In reaching conclusions regarding our duties from the counsels given to guide us in our labors and manner of life and the state of the church, we must take the whole body of E. G. White statements so as to have the whole picture before us, putting statements addressed to individuals under certain circumstances with statements of more general character. We must find the tenor of the teachings as a whole.

(6) The overall conclusions reached must harmonize with the tenor of the body of the Spirit of prophecy statements. If the conclusions are in conflict with the overall tenor of E. G. White teachings or with the conclusions consistently set forth in her writings, then the conclusion of the compiler should be laid aside as the result of unsound premises, faulty reasoning, or a misuse of E. G. White materials. [15]

page 272

A STUDY OF THE USE OF E. G. WHITE STATEMENTS IN THE WIELAND-SHORT MANUSCRIPT.

1. The Cross -- The Cross of Christ or the Cross of "the reform dress".

On page 7 of "1888 Re-examined" reference is made to a "deficiency in the understanding of the three angels' messages." After making reference to the blindness of the Jews the authors state:

"That verity to which the Jews were blind was the place of the Cross in the services of their sanctuary," etc. "Likewise the place of the Cross in the third angel's message was not discerned. The deficiency was tragic. As early as 1867, Mrs. White said:

"2)* 'In the acceptance of the Cross, we are distinguished from the world.... (1) We have been so united with the world that we have lost sight of the Cross, and do not suffer for Christ's sake.' (1T 525).

[Footnote [*] The numbers are here inserted to show changed order of statements in the use of this E. G. White quotation.]

Here is the E. G. White statement in its fuller setting with omissions filled in:

** [The reform dress is simple and healthful, yet there is a cross in it. I thank God for the cross and cheerfully bow to lift it.] (1) We have been so united with the world that we have lost sight of the cross and do not suffer for Christ's sake. [We should not wish to invent something to make a cross; but if God presents to us a cross, we should cheerfully bear it.] (2) In the acceptance of the cross we are distinguished from the world, [who love us not and ridicule our peculiarity]. (1T 525)

[Footnote [**] Brackets have been used to indicate material filling in from original source but not used by the authors of the manuscript.]

By reading the full statement it is evident that the "cross" referred to is not the cross of Calvary as the writers have implied, and further indicated by capitalizing the word, but rather the cross involved in wearing the reform dress.

2. True Progress -- Has the S. D. A. Church Advanced since 1888 or has it Retrograded?

On pages 7 and 8 of the manuscript, we find the following:

"The spiritual difficulty which obstructed the real progress of the Advent movement was only rendered more complex by the fact that the church was enjoying prosperous growth numerically, financially and in prestige." [16]

page 273

"Most alarming discrepancies are evident between Mrs. White's appraisal of the condition of the church and the self-congratulatory spirit of many of the reports." (p. 8).

"Can anyone successfully maintain that the remnant church is closer to the attainments of that goal in 1950 than she was in 1850? Rather, it would be difficult to prove that there has not been some progress in reverse." (p. 8)

The authors here speak of "Mrs. White's appraisal of the condition of the church." Quotations are employed throughout the manuscript in a manner to lead the reader to conclude that no real progress has been made by the church since 1893. We must keep in mind that Mrs. White was writing and speaking of many things almost simultaneously. While pointing out the backsliding and indifference of a family, of a leader, a group of leaders, or a church, she was also able to take in the overall picture and wrote of true progress of the church as a whole.

In a general manuscript written in Australia January 9, 1893, and read to the General Conference February 27, E. G. White speaks of "opposition in our ranks" and "the resistance of light and truth at Minneapolis" -- and mentions definite names. -- (E. G. White Manuscript 1, 1893, "General Conference Bulletin", February 28, 1893, quoted in Wieland and Short manuscript, p. 34.) Yet on December 19, 1892, just three weeks before, she address a communication to "Dear Brethren at the General Conference" presenting the retrospective statement found in "Testimonies to Ministers", p. 31, in which these lines appear:

"In reviewing our past history, having traveled over every step of advance to our present standing, I can say, Praise God! As I see what God has wrought, I am filled with astonishment, and with confidence in Christ as leader. We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us."

This was just four years after the Minneapolis meeting.

In this same tone, just four days later, December 23, 1892, she addressed a second letter to "Dear Brethren of the General Conference," reaffirming that:

"The church of Christ, enfeebled and defective as it may be, is the only object on earth on which He [Christ] bestows His supreme regard." TM, p. 15.

Near the close of this tender communication she writes: [17]

page 274

"The Lord Jesus is making experiments on human hearts through the exhibition of His mercy and abundant grace. He is effecting transformations so amazing that Satan, with all his triumphant boasting, with all his confederacy of evil united against God and the laws of His government, stands viewing them as a fortress impregnable to his sophistries and delusions. They are to him an incomprehensible mystery. The angels of God, seraphim and cherubim, the powers commissioned to cooperate with human agencies, look on with astonishment and joy, that fallen men, once children of wrath, are through the training of Christ developing characters after the divine similitude, to be sons and daughters of God, to act an important part in the occupations and pleasures of heaven.

"To His church, Christ has given ample facilities, that He may receive a large revenue of glory from His redeemed, purchased possession. The church, being endowed with the righteousness of Christ, in His depository, in which the wealth of His mercy, His love, His grace, is to appear in full and final display." -- TM, p. 18.

On May 6, 1907, she wrote confidently of the progress being made by the Seventh-day Adventists:

"While there have been fierce contentions in the effort to maintain our distinctive character, yet we have as Bible Christians ever been gaining ground. Remembering that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, we are to labor earnestly, ever praying that the saving grace of God will instruct us at every step." -- Ellen G. White Letter 170, 1907. Published in part in 2SM, pp. 396-397. (Italics supplied)

Again on October 24, 1907, she wrote:

"The evidence we have had for the past fifty years of the presence of the Spirit of God with us as a people, will stand the test of those who are now arraying themselves on the side of the enemy and bracing themselves against the message of God." -- E. G. White Letter 356, 1907. Published in 2SM, p. 397. (Italics supplied)

The week of prayer reading prepared by Ellen White for the church in 1910 opens with the words:

"When I think of the history of our work during the past ten years, I can say, see what God hath wrought." -- R. & H., Nov. 17, 1910. (MS 15, 1910) Medical Ministry, p. 331.

A few weeks after penning these words she wrote on Nov. 26, 1910:

"Nothing in this world is so dear to God as His church. With jealous care He guards those who seek Him. Nothing so offends God as for the servants of Satan to strive to rob His people of their rights. The Lord has not forsaken His people. Satan points to the mistakes that they have made, and tries to make them believe that thus they have separated themselves from God. Evil angels seek in every way to discourage those who are striving for victory over sin." -- E. G. White Letter 136, 1910. Published in Selected Messages, Book 2, p. 297. [18]

page 275

Thus the general tenor of E. G. White's writings not only does not support the argument that no true progress has been made since 1888, but strongly affirms the very opposite.

3. General Application of Specific Messages of Reproof -- Is the 1888 Message a General Message Applicable to the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

On page 11 of their manuscript Wieland and Short take E. G. White statements that deal with specific situations, make them all-inclusive, and connect them directly with the 1888 experience, though they were in no wise related to it.

While none would deny that certain men who responded unfavorably to the message of 1888 might have manifested a different attitude had they related themselves favorably to certain earlier experiences, great care should be exercised when presenting exhibits in demonstration of their attitude, to use E. G. White quotations which have a direct bearing on the subject. This Wieland and Short did not do. The material quoted in the manuscript is drawn from a "Testimony to the Battle Creek Church," published in pamphlet form in 1882 to meet a special crisis. It is badly mutilated on page 11 of the Wieland and Short manuscript where only nine lines are drawn from eighteen pages of material and then made to apply to the 1888 experience. These nine lines are introduced with a statement by the authors which condition the reader to accept conclusions that the quotations do not support when these quotations appear in their proper setting. Here is the presentation on page 11 of the manuscript:

"From our vantage point seventy years after, we may observe how apparently none of the responsible brethren of that day recognized the seriousness of Mrs. White's warning that they might disparage and spurn the 'loud cry' when it should finally begin, because of their inability to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit. In 1882 Mrs. White wrote:

"The minds of many have been so darkened and confused by worldly customs, worldly practices, and worldly influences, that all power to discriminate between light and darkness, truth and error, seems destroyed.... [19]

page 276

"Many of you cannot discern the work and presence of God....

"... self, important self, appears everywhere....

"There are men among us in responsible positions who hold that .... Such a faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John is ... old-fashioned and insufferable at the present day. It is pronounced absurd, mystical, and unworthy of an intelligent mind. (5T, 62, 74, 79.)"

First: Observe that "Mrs. White's warning that they [the responsible brethren, according to the authors] might disparage and spurn the loud cry when it should finally begin" is not mentioned in the testimony article from which the quotations are drawn, but the peril of spurning the Loud Cry here spoken of by Mrs. White she links with another experience entirely, and in another state. See Item No. 4, on page 23 of this review.

Second: The authors do not mention the fact that the excerpts quoted are from a communication addressed in 1882, not particularly to the "responsible brethren," but to "Brethren and Sisters in Battle Creek," and first published in a pamphlet entitled "Testimony for the Battle Creek Church." When this fact is understood, it is readily seen that the authors have erred in applying the brief, disconnected excerpts to "the responsible brethren" when in reality, the warnings were addressed particularly to "the Battle Creek Church."

The paragraph in TM, page 79, looks quite different when used in its entirety. We give it here as quoted by Wieland and Short and then in its setting as it was written by Ellen G. White, June 20, 1882, in connection with the crisis in the conduct of the Battle Creek College complicated by the exaltation of Professor Alexander McLearn: *

[Footnote [*] Concerning this experience A. W. Spalding wrote: "The board was in a quandary, for teacher talent was none too plentiful. Although they must recognize that Professor Bell was best qualified to undertake the reforms they desired, they balked at his lack of university training; for though scholastic degrees then had not the exclusive right of way in the teaching profession that they had attained in our day, they were yet marks of attainment which the board felt they could not ignore.

"In this state they hailed with relief the appearance of an educator who had recently joined their church, Prof. Alexander McLearn. He was very new to Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, it was true, and even less acquainted with the principles of education which had begun to a small degree to take hold of the denomination. But he was learned and he was affable, and they trusted that under the influence of Professor Bell he would take a postgraduate course in Christian education.

"No greater mistake could they have made. For the university-trained president was of no mind to take lessons from a self-educated teacher of English. The school year of 1881-82 was a melee of conflicting opinions, objectives, and methods. Two strong-minded men, McLearn and Bell, clashed at every turn. The result was the resignation of Bell and the elimination of McLearn." -- "Captains of the Host", pp. 449, 450. [20]]

page 277

"There are men among us in responsible positions who hold that .... Such a faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John is ... old-fashioned and insufferable at the present day. It is pronounced absurd, mystical, and unworthy of an intelligent mind." (5T 79)

Here is the E. G. White statement in its setting, as written to the Battle Creek Church in 1882:

"The prevailing spirit of our time is that of infidelity and apostasy -- a spirit of pretended illumination because of a knowledge of the truth, but in reality of the blindest presumption. There is a spirit of opposition to the plain word of God and to the testimony of His spirit. There is a spirit of idolatrous exaltation of mere human reason above the revealed wisdom of God.

"There are men among us in responsible positions who hold that [the opinions of a few conceited philosophers, so called, are more to be trusted than the truth of the Bible, or the testimonies of the Holy Spirit.] Such a faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John is [considered] old-fashioned and insufferable at the present day. It is pronounced absurd, mystical, and unworthy of an intelligent mind." -- 5T, p. 79.

Then the authors of the manuscript take the specific message Mrs. White wrote concerning certain leaders in the Battle Creek Church in 1882, and give it the impact of a general message to the leading brethren of the denomination as follows:

"Mrs. White pointed out that a false optimism prevailed among the brethren ('I know that many think far too favorably of the present time,') (5T 80) and warned that 'in the mighty sifting soon to take place,' leading workers would be found unfit for crisis-era leadership:

"'Those who have trusted to intellect, genius, or talent, will not then stand at the head of rank and file. They did not keep pace with the light. Those who have proved themselves unfaithful will not then be entrusted with the flock. In the last solemn work few great men will be engaged.'" (5T 80) [21]

page 278

No reference is made by the authors to the fact that this, like the preceding quotations, is taken from a message addressed to "The Battle Creek Church" in connection with the crisis of 1882. Nor is the reader informed as to the setting of the phrases used. We present here the first items quoted from the "Testimony" volume giving the setting in brackets:

"[God has promised that where the shepherds are not true, He will take charge of the flock Himself. God has never made the flock wholly dependent upon human instrumentalities. But the days of purification of the church are hastening on apace. God will have a people pure and true.] In the mighty sifting soon to take place [we shall be better able to measure the strength of Israel.]"

The authors then follow this excerpt with the comment:

"Leading workers would be found unfit for crisis-era leadership."

Used in this manner the words addressed to the Battle Creek church are given general application.

The second quotation in its fuller setting actually shows the issue to be in the field of education. It reads:

"[The days are fast approaching when there will be great perplexity and confusion.... Those who have rendered supreme homage to 'science falsely so called' will not be the leaders then.] Those who have trusted to intellect, genius, or talent will not then stand at the head of rank and file. they did not keep pace with the light. Those who have proved themselves unfaithful will not then be entrusted with the flock. In the last solemn work few great men will be engaged. [They are self-sufficient, independent of God, and He cannot use them. The Lord has faithful servants, who in the shaking, testing time will be disclosed to view. There are precious ones now hidden who have not bowed the knee to Baal.]" -- 5T 80, 81.

Again on page 12 of the Wieland-Short manuscript, excerpts are drawn from the Testimony to Battle Creek Church of 1882. We here supply in brackets some of the phrases which the authors deleted apparently to make the statement better serve their purpose. Notice how the full statement reads:

"Elijah took Elisha from the plough, and threw upon him his mantle of consecration. The call to this great and solemn work was presented to men of learning and position; had these been little in their own eyes and trusted fully in the Lord, He would have honored them with bearing His standard in triumph to the victory. But [they separated from God, yielded to the influence of the world, and] the Lord rejected them. [22]

page 279

"[Many have exalted science and lost sight of the God of science. This was not the case with the church in the purest times.]

"God will work a work in our day that but few anticipate. He will raise up and exalt among us those who are taught rather by the unction of His Spirit than by the outward training of scientific institutions." (5T 82).

4. Illustration of Misapplied Quotation. -- Was it the President of the General Conference, or the Brethren in New York?

The authors state on page 12 of their manuscript:

"In a message addressed to the President of the General Conference, dated Oct. 1, 1885, Mrs. White warns him that unless he and some others' ... are roused to a sense of their duty, they will not recognize the work of God when the loud cry of the third angel shall be heard.'" -- TM, p. 300.

In this connection it is interesting to observe what was deleted by the authors, at the outset of the E. G. White statement as given here in brackets. Turning to the book we read:

"[Unless those who can help in ________] are roused to a sense of their duty they will not recognize the work of God when the loud cry of the third angel shall be heard."

The original document indicates that Mrs. White is writing about a school enterprise in the state of New York. It is true she was writing to the President of the General Conference. But does not the full sentence give the quotation quite a different meaning than is given by the authors of the manuscript when they introduce the quotation with a phrase which focuses the attention on the Battle Creek headquarters of the church?

Mrs. White actually wrote:

"Unless those who can help in New York are aroused."

The authors make it read:

"Mrs. White warns him that unless he and some others '.... are aroused'" [23]

page 280

Again and again in the manuscript reference is made to this item as the Spirit of prophecy "warning that they might disparage and spurn the 'loud cry' when it should finally begin, because of their inability to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit," (See manuscript page 11) and it forms the basis for their assertions that the president of the General Conference did not recognize the loud cry of 1888, as may be illustrated by the following statements found on pages 14 and 15 of their manuscript:

"The caviling, fault-finding, critical, and opposing attitude of the leading brethren tragically fulfilled the pointed warning sent to the President of the General Conference in 1885, quoted above, as well as many other testimonies sent to workers and people in general. Indeed, the brethren did 'not recognize the work of God when the loud cry of the third angel' was 'heard.'" ...

"In Elder Butler's opposition to the 'loud cry' when it was beginning to sound, we may see the sad fulfillment of the inspired warning sent him on October 1, 1885, that he might 'not recognize the work of God when the loud cry of the third angel shall be heard.'"

Is not this deduction more sweeping than the quotation in its fullness justifies? Did Elder Butler deliberately oppose the loud cry as such or was it a case of his opposing the messages presented by Jones and Waggoner, which messages resulted, according to a statement in 1892 by Ellen White, in the beginning of the loud cry.

The reproofs to Elder Butler were grave, but Mrs. White never leveled against him the charges which the authors of the manuscript made against him. In 1902 Ellen White wrote the following concerning Elder Butler:

"I am thankful that Elder Loughborough can still use his abilities and his gifts in God's service. He has stood faithful amid storm and trial. With Elder Smith, my husband, Brother Butler, who joined us at a later period, and yourself [S. N. Haskell] he can say, 'That which was from the beginning... that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.'

"It is with feelings of satisfaction and of gratitude to God that we see Elder Butler again in active service. * His gray hairs testify that he understands what trials are. We welcome him into our ranks once more, and regard him as one of our most valuable laborers." -- 2SM, pp. 225, 226. [Footnote [*] Note: Because of illness Elder Butler had not for some years been in active service.] [24]

page 281

5. Illustration of Bending General Reproof and Counsel Given in Subsequent Years to the 1888 Situation.

On page 14 of their manuscript, after quoting two statements regarding the insults at Minneapolis, Wieland and Short assert:

"Later, in consequence of the insult of that time, the prophet declared that:

"'Injured and insulted Deity will speak, proclaiming the sins that have been hidden.'" (Spec. Test., Series A, No. 7, p. 54.)

These words were penned in 1896 in a general manuscript at a time when Sister White was warning the brethren against wrong policies that were developing at Battle Creek in the administration of the publishing work, in the overgrowth of the medical work, in the relaxed standards in our educational work and the general consolidation of all of these interests so that outlying institutions would be brought under the control of the great Battle Creek mother institutions. Business men were largely in charge of the business interests of the cause and some of these men had lost their consecration and devotion to the principles of the message. Ellen White dealt with these situations in a striking manner at the General Conference Session of 1901. However, previous to this, in the 1890's she made many allusions to these developing conditions, and sent warnings and counsels to leading workers concerning them.

In the case of the above quotation, there is no mention of Minneapolis. As to the setting of the quotation we find that following a reference made by Mrs. White to the defilement of the temple which led to its cleansing by Christ, she wrote::

"[Today this sacrilegious work is being more repeated. There will be messages borne; and those who have rejected the message God has sent, will hear most startling declarations. The Holy Spirit will invest the announcement with a sanctity and solemnity which will appear terrible in the ears of those who have heard the pleadings of infinite love, and have not responded to the offers of pardon and forgiveness.] Injured and insulted Deity will speak, proclaiming the sins that have been hidden. [as the priests and rulers, full of indignation and terror, sought refuge in flight at the last scene of the cleansing of the temple, so will it be in the work for these last days. The woes that will be pronounced upon those that have had light from heaven, and yet did not heed it, they will feel.]" -- "Spec. Test. to Ministers, Series A", No. 7, pp. 54, 55. Published in 1897. [25]

page 282

6. Further Illustrations of Bending a General Message to Fit the 1888 Situation -- Is it "Opposing Responsible Brethren" or Unrepentant Church Members Generally?

1. At the bottom of page 15 of the Wieland-Short manuscript we find the following conclusion and the quotation which they present to support it:

"The only 'reason' which can possibly be given for the opposing attitude of responsible brethren is simply that the Lord surprised them by the way He worked:

"'In the manifestation of the power that lightens the earth with its glory, they think dangerous, something which will arouse their fears and they will brace themselves against it. Because the Lord does not work according to their expectation and ideas, they will oppose the work.'" (R. & H., Nov. 7, 1918; Bible Training School, May, 1907)

Actually, the statement appeared first in the "Review and Herald Extra", December 23, 1890, in an article entitled "Be Zealous and Repent" apparently rushed into print for Week of Prayer use. This is a general appeal to Seventh-day Adventists to repentance and reformation. While this and other messages subsequent to 1888 may be dealing with conditions which may have had some of their roots in the 1888 experience, they may well be linked also to other experiences or influences. No mention is made in this article to Minneapolis or 1888. We give now the statement in its fuller setting which reveals clearly that it is not addressed to "opposing responsible brethren" as such, but to "those who have not humbled themselves before the Lord" whether they were leaders or not:

"[There is to be in the church a wonderful manifestation of the power of God, but it will not move upon those who have not humbled themselves before the Lord, and opened the door of the heart by confession and repentance.] In the manifestation of that power which lightens the earth with the glory of God, they will see only some thing which in their blindness they think dangerous, something which will arouse their fears, and they will brace themselves to resist it. Because the Lord does not work according to their expectations and ideas, they will oppose the work." -- R. & H. Extra, Dec. 23, 1890. (Italics supplied) [26]

page 283

(2) Is it "His Message" for 1897 or "the Message of 1888?"

The second quotation on page 16 of their manuscript, taken from "Testimonies to Ministers", page 413, is material drawn from a general article entitled "God's Messengers" written August 12, 1897. The article makes no direct reference to the Minneapolis experience or Jones or Waggoner, but is counsel to ministers generally.

We now present the full quotation, enclosing in brackets the sentences that were deleted by Wieland and Short which clearly indicate that the statement applied to a situation that existed in 1897, but by means of the deletions was made to fit the crisis of 1888:

"God [gives men counsel and reproof for their good. He has sent His message, telling them what was needed for the time -- 1897. Did you accept the message? Did you heed the appeal? He] gave you opportunity to come up armed and equipped to the help of the Lord. [And having done all, He told you to stand] But did you make ready? [Did you say, 'Here am I; send me'?] You sat still, and did nothing. You left the word of the Lord to fall unheeded to the ground; and now the Lord has taken men who were boys when you were standing at the forefront of the battle, and has given them the message and the work which you did not take upon you. [Will you be stumbling blocks to them?] Will you criticize? Will you say, 'They are getting out of their place'? Yet you did not fill the place they are now called to fill." TM, p. 413.

It would appear that a similarity of circumstances led the authors into the pitfall of deleting the 1897 reference so they could use the statement in apparent support of the 1888 crisis.

7. Misapplication of E. G. White Statements -- Was it 1888 or 1891?

(1) In the middle of page 33 of their manuscript Wieland and Short make the following assertion and present a quotation supposedly in support of it:

"What should have taken place, but what didn't was made plain in a statement made at the 1901 General Conference session, when Mrs. White referred back to the 1888 crisis as follows:

"'I feel a special interest in the movements and decisions that shall be made at this Conference regarding the things that should have been done years ago, and especially ten years ago, when we were assembled in Conference, and the Spirit and power of God came into our meeting, testifying that God was ready to work for this people if they would come into working order. The brethren assented to the light God had given, but there were those connected with our institutions, especially with the Review and Herald office and [General] Conference who brought in elements of unbelief, so that the light that was given was not acted upon. It was assented to, but no special change was made to bring about such a condition of things that the power of God could be revealed among His people.'" (General Conference Bulletin at the opening of the 1901 meeting) (Single underlining supplied by committee) [27]

page 284

Mrs. White attended the General Conference Sessions of 1888, 1889, 1891, and 1901. She was in Australia from 1891 to 1900. Are we to believe that when in 1901 she referred to the conference of "ten years ago" she was talking about the Conference of 1888 at Minneapolis with its crisis or was she speaking of the General Conference session of 1891 held just ten years before? The emphasis of her talk at the opening session in 1901, pointing out the restrictions which had come to the work, the lack of consecration of those engaged in the business interests of the cause, the centralizing trends of the preceding years and the call for a reorganization of the General Conference would point to the issues of the 1891 Conference when Mrs. White delineated the dangers of centralization and called for Seventh-day Adventists to scatter out from Battle Creek, taking the light with them to other communities.

True, the influence of the decisions made at Minneapolis may have had its effects, but its direct relationship is a matter of conjecture. We must keep in mind there were many counsels and reproofs on many lines involving many people and organizations. Not everything can be tied to Minneapolis and 1888.

(2) "The Message and the Messenger" -- E. G. White or Jones and Waggoner. In the "Review and Herald Extra" of December 23, 1890, appeared an article by Mrs. White entitled, "Be Zealous and Repent." It was a general appeal to the church. However, on page 34 of their manuscript, Wieland and Short quote a brief paragraph from the article and apply it particularly to the 1888 experiences as follows: [28]

page 285

"The Lord has sent a message to arouse His people to repent, and to do their first works; but how has the message been received: While some have heeded it, others have cast contempt and reproach on the message and the messenger. Spiritually deadened, humility and childlike simplicity gone, a mechanical formal profession of faith has taken the place of love and devotion. Is this mournful condition of things to continue?" (Italics supplied by committee)

The implication is that the reference to "the message and the messenger" is to the message of righteousness by faith and the messengers, Elders Jones and Waggoner. the quotation does not so state, nor does the article give this impression. Neither Minneapolis nor 1888, nor Jones, nor Waggoner are mentioned in the article. It is a general appeal to Seventh-day Adventists for a revival. If Mrs. White had had in mind Jones and Waggoner would she not have said "messenger"? The setting of the statement in the article would point to Ellen G. White as the "messenger" and her testimony "the message."

(3) Shakespeare in the "Signs" or Refusal of Leaders of the Advent Movement to Accept the Message.

On page 38 of the Wieland and Short manuscript is found the assertion that "the leaders of the Advent Movement in general ... refused to accept the gracious message brought to us at the 1888 meeting by A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and E. G. White." The authors close the paragraph with a one-sentence quotation from E. G. White, "Letter 106, 1902", which had nothing to do with the 1888 experience, but they used it to support their assertion that the leaders rejected the message of 1888. Here is their full paragraph:

"The leaders in general of the advent movement, and the spokesmen in particular, refused to accept the gracious message brought to us at the 1888 meeting by A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and E. G. White. Concerning what they did, it can be truthfully said, 'You did not mean to do this, but you have done it.' "Letter 106, 1902."

Now let us look at the full statement by E. G. White from which the one-sentence quotation is drawn. It is from "Counsels to Writers and Editors", page 176 and was written in 1902 as a reproof to the publishers of "Signs of the Times" for publishing a picture of Shakespeare's home on the first page of the paper and accompanying it with an article on Shakespeare. Then the message concludes: [29]

page 286

"I am instructed to say that you have dishonored God. You did not mean to do this, but you have done it." -- "Counsels to Writers and Editors", p. 176.

It is clearly evident that the quotation was misapplied by Wieland and Short and had no reference whatever to the attitude of the leaders to the message of 1888. Why was the manuscript reference given and the easily avoidable published reference ignored?

8. Deletions Which Change the Meaning.

Page 34 of the manuscript carries a four-paragraph quotation from the "General Conference Bulletin" of February 28, 1893. We present the third paragraph here inserting in brackets the one line item left out and indicated by the authors by the dots of deletion:

"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. ['Great Controversy' volume 4 has 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, a spirit that clouded the discernment of the people of God." (Letter read from E. G. White, February 27. "General Conference Bulletin", February 28, 1893).

Is it necessary to suggest why these words were deleted by the authors of "1888 Re-examined"?

9. Isolated Extracts -- Statements Which if Used in Their Larger Setting Would Have Painted a More Accurate Picture.

On page 13 of the manuscript the following excerpts appear drawn from "Testimonies to Ministers" -- two sentences from page 91 and one phrase from page 95:

"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.... God gave His messengers just what the people needed." (Testimonies to Minister, pp. 91, 95).

Why did not the authors use the very next sentence?

"Those who received the message were greatly blessed, for they saw the bright rays of the Sun of Righteousness, and life and hope sprang up in their hearts." (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 95). (Italics supplied) [30]

page 287

WHAT DO YOU CONCLUDE?

We have examined the use of E. G. White quotations in 38 pages of the manuscript. In these 38 pages, we have found no less than fifteen instances where E. G. White materials if used in their full and proper setting would have conveyed ideas to the reader quite different from those which they have been forced to convey by the way they have been used here. Need we go further with this phase of our examination? Could it be that the words penned by Mrs. White in 1901 have a present application?

"I know that many men take the testimonies the Lord has given, and apply them as they suppose they should be applied, picking out a sentence here and there, taking it from its proper connection, and applying it according to their idea. Thus poor souls become bewildered, when could they read in order all that has been given, they would see the true application, and would not become confused. Much that purports to be a message from Sister White, serves the purpose of misrepresenting Sister White, making her testify in favor of things that are not in accordance with her mind or judgment. This makes her work very trying.... Please let Sister White bear her own message. It will come with a better grace from her than from the one who reports her." -- Selected Messages, Book I, p. 44.

One making careful investigation is also led to the word recorded in "Testimonies to Ministers", but written in 1893 for the "Review and Herald", of the work of a well-meaning but overwrought Seventh-day Adventist who had used her writings freely to sustain certain conclusions he had reached:

"I have been made very sad in reading the pamphlet that has been issued by Brother S. and by those associated with him in the work he has been doing. Without my consent, they have made selections from the "Testimonies," and have inserted them in the pamphlet they have published, to make it appear that my writings sustain and approve the position they advocate. In doing this, they have done that which is not justice or righteousness. Through taking unwarrantable liberties, they have presented to the people a theory that is of a character to deceive and destroy. In times past many others have done this same thing, and have made it appear that the "Testimonies" sustained positions that were untenable and false....

"Those who receive the pamphlets advocating these false positions, will receive the impression that I sustain these positions, and am united with these workers in proclaiming what they term the 'new light.' I know that their message is mingled with truth, but the truth is misapplied and wrested by its connection with error." -- Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 32-34. [31]

page 288

ELDER URIAH SMITH AND HIS CONFESSIONS.

It is clear to every careful student of the experience of 1888 that certain leading men of the cause resisted the messages presented at Minneapolis and in succeeding years opposed the work of Elders Jones and Waggoner. It is also known that within five years of the Minneapolis meeting, most of these men made confession of their wrong course.

The authors of the manuscript in a chapter of 16 pages enter a very delicate field in an attempt to appraise the confessions of these leading men and particularly those of Elder Uriah Smith, and to hold before the reader what they consider the true spiritual state of these men and their damaging subsequent relationship to the work of God in the earth. This is basic to the philosophy propounded that there has been no real true progress in the work since 1888, and the church must today return to that point and make right the wrongs of those days.

To enter the field of judging a man's personal relationship with his God is to tread on sacred ground. Who can know of the heart struggles, the anguish, the remorse, the repentance, the backsliding and the penitent return to the paths of righteousness. There is no complete record, except that kept in the books of Heaven, and hidden from human eyes. A few excepts from the writings of Ellen G. White seem sufficient to the authors for their basis of sweeping conclusions and far-reaching charges.

The chapter "An Examination of the 'Confessions'" opens with a summary of pure assertions:

"The 'Confessions' were practically extorted."

"Most of the 'repentance' was over opposition to Mrs. White.... There was very little frank, open confessions that led to sincere brotherly union with A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, or acceptance of their message." [32]

page 289

"There is evidence that some of the most prominent 'confessors' subsequently acted contrary to the intent of their repentance."

"There is no evidence that these 'confessors' made genuine work of repenting of the sin of quenching the Holy Spirit's outpouring in the form of the 'latter rain,' or a despising of the light of the loud cry."

As the authors take up the case of Elder Smith they present a few excerpts from a communication of Ellen G. White to Elder O. A. Olsen, president of the General conference, written October 7, 1890: a communication which by its nature should have been kept in confidence. Here is the exhibit presented:

Elder Smith as Elders Wieland and Short See Him.

[1].* ''Brother Smith is ensnared by the enemy and cannot in his present state give the trumpet a certain sound ... yet ... is placed in positions as teacher to mold and fashion the minds of students, when it is a well known fact he is not standing in the light. He is not working in God's order. He is sowing seeds of unbelief that spring up and bear fruit for some souls to harvest.... Elder Smith will not receive the light God has given to correct him, and he has not a spirit to correct by confession any wrong course he has pursued in the past.... I have been shown that as he now stands, Satan has prepared his temptations to close about his soul.' (Letter to O. A. Olsen, Oct. 7, 1890.)"

[Footnote [*] Note: Numbers in brackets are used to key comments to the enumerated points.]

As presented in the manuscript this would seem to be almost a final pronouncement on the fate of Uriah Smith. Actually the message is one of burden of soul because a worker of long experience was faltering. This is revealed in the last sentence of the matter as quoted -- a sentence left uncompleted by the authors of the manuscript. Here is the full sentence:

"I have been shown that as he now stands, Satan has prepared his temptations to close about his soul, [that if he is not rescued the banner of truth will not be held aloft by him.]" -- Ellen G. White Letter 20, 1890.

Ellen White was laboring diligently to "rescue" him, and the evidence to be presented soon seems to indicate that these efforts were not without success, although the authors do not so concede. [33]

page 290

The authors on page 78 of the manuscript make a casual reference to a confession of Elder Smith:

[2]. "Finally, after the turn of the New Year, 1891, he made confession 'to his brethren, and asked the pardon of Mrs. White for his erroneous course.' (R. J. Hammond, 'The Life and Work of Uriah Smith,' p. 113, S. D. A. Theological Seminary Thesis.)"

"Elder Smith had formerly had several experiences quite similar. In this spring of 1873, after a disagreement with James White, he had left the "Review" office to go into private business for himself, as a wood engraver. After the subsequent reconciliation, he 'made some very impressive remarks.'"

"Was Elder Smith's repentance of early 1891 thorough and permanent? Mrs. White hopes so, and it could have well been."

On page 80 of the manuscript the following conclusions appear:

[3]. "It is unpleasant to investigate further, but it will be profitable to get the picture clearly in mind. Elder Smith, after his confessions, seemed to have no sense of the true spiritual condition of the church. Contrary to the numerous straight-spoken articles from Sister White published during his editorship, he continued to 'think far too favorably of the present time.' (5T 80) [4]. His innocent readers knew no better; we, sixty years later, do know better, now that history verified the attitude of the Spirit of Prophecy which was so consistently opposed to his representations. In an editorial of March 14, 1892, he spoke in an over-optimistic mood:

[5]. "'The cause has been going forward with increasing rapidity, especially in these later years. The object here is to ... call attention to the wonderful momentum which the cause of present truth has now attained. It is going forward everywhere. It is increasing in velocity day by day. It is going with a power which cannot be arrested. At the rate of progress now developed, it must soon reach it goal. It is accelerating its footsteps to its final triumph.' (Uriah Smith, R. and H., Mar. 14, 1892.)" [The credit should be March 14, 1893, and the statement is somewhat garbled.]

Then in the first paragraph under the "Conclusion" on page 85, the authors state:

[6]. "The record of Elder Smith's repentance has been examined at this length because it is typical of most of the others' 'change of attitude.' He was the virtual leader of the opposition, if not nominally, at least effectively. It is amazing to read through the "Reviews' of that period, and note the persistent, stolid indifference to the all important issue of the day. It should also be noted that a true and complete confession would have required that he make known his repentance as far as his sinful unbelief had exerted its influence. That would have required a forthright, courageous, and complete statement in the columns of the "Review", and a thorough 'about-face' thereafter in editorial policy. We look in vain for any evidence that such took place." [34]

page 291

ELDER SMITH AS ELLEN G. WHITE SAW HIM.

Now let us look at certain phases of the matter as revealed in the Ellen G. White communications. These will be keyed to the conclusions of the authors of "1888 Re-Examined." The more complete record than presented in the manuscript shows not only the mistakes made by a noble man of God, but his repentance, and Mrs. White's approval of the man, his judgment, and the place he should hold in the work of God.

[1]. In the quotation represented above as item No. [1], the authors saw Elder Smith as one whose soul was about to be closed about by Satan. The communication from which they drew their quotation was penned on October 7, 1890. Two months before this, August 6, 1890, Mrs. White wrote:

"The Lord has seen fit to counsel Elder Smith, to give him words of reproof because he had erred; but is this an evidence that God has forsaken him? -- No. 'As many as I love I rebuke and chasten. Be zealous therefore, and repent' (Rev. 3:19). The Lord reproves wrongs in His people, but is this an evidence that He has rejected them? -- No." E. G. White Letter 11, 1890, and 2SM, p. 81.

[2]. The confession referred to by the authors as having taken place "after the turn of the New Year, 1891," is described by Mrs. White as follows on January 6, 1891. Perhaps her account may give us a basis for appraising its sincerity:

"Tuesday night I was in an agony of soul all night so that I could not sleep. Elder Smith's case was weighing heavily upon me. I was working with him, pleading with God, and I could not cease my crying unto God. Friday night I was asked to speak; the house was full, and I gave some account of the working of the Spirit of God with me in the meetings which I had attended. I related as well as I could the success of these meetings. [35]

page 292

"We had a special meeting of deep interest after I had spoken and many excellent testimonies were borne, especially from those who were earnestly seeking the Lord. It was a good meeting. On Sabbath I spoke from Matt. 11:16-27. I made a decided application of this lesson to those who had great light, precious opportunities, and wonderful privileges, and yet their spiritual growth and advancement was not in accordance with the blessings of the light and knowledge given of God. There was a solemn impression made upon the congregation, and fully two thousand persons were present. I had great freedom in speaking. In the afternoon the meetings were divided, and i hear there were excellent meetings in these divisions.

"Monday Elder Smith came to me and we had an earnest, faithful talk. I could see that he had a very different spirit from that he had months ago. He was not hard and unimpressible; he felt the words I spoke to him, laying before him faithfully the course he had taken, and the harm he had done through this position. He said he wanted to come into harmony with the testimonies of the spirit of God. I had written to him thirteen pages and sent it to him -- very plain words.

"Tuesday he called again to see me and asked if I would meet with a select few, that he had something to say. I told him I would.

"Tuesday, Wednesday, the meeting was held in my room in the office and Elder Smith read the letter I had sent him, read it to them all, and said he accepted it as from God. He went back to the Minneapolis meeting and made a confession of the spirit he had occupied, casting on me very heavy burdens. Bro. Rupert confessed also, and we had a very profitable, excellent meeting. Bro. Smith has fallen on the Rock, and is broken, and the Lord Jesus will now work with him. He took my hand as he left the room, and said, 'If the Lord will forgive me for the sorrow and burdens I have brought upon you, I tell you this will be the last. I will stay up your hands. The testimonies of God shall hold this place in my experience.'

"It is seldom that Elder Smith sheds a tear, but he did weep, and his voice was choked with tears in it. Now you see I have reason to be glad and rejoice and praise the Lord. Prof. Bell was present. Elder Smith confessed to him the wrong he had done him in the school trial in 1882, O, how glad I was to see and hear and know that these things that had barred the Spirit of God from coming into our meetings were removed." -- Letter 32, 1891.

[3]. It is asserted by the authors that "Elder Smith after his confession seemed to have no sense of the true spiritual condition of the church." This is hardly sustained by the following taken from an E. G. White letter written from Australia to Elder Smith, Sept. 19, 1892. This concerned the disposition of materials sent by Mrs. White to the brethren in Battle Creek, and her words, indicating confidence in Elder Smith's "judgment" and delegating authority to him in the handling of her writings, speak for themselves. Such authority is not known to have been given by Mrs. White to any other of our workers. [36]

page 293

Dear Brother Smith:

"You have written to me in regard to what shall be done with the article addressed to the Battle Creek Church. I answer Do with it as you think best, using it as you judge it will best serve the cause of God. Please follow your own judgment as to the disposal of any thing I may write from henceforth, unless I give special directions concerning it. After it serves the special purpose for which it was written, you may drop out the personal matter, and make it general, and put it to whatever use you may think best for the interests of the cause of God. As you say, we are far separated, and two or three months must pass before communications can be answered however important may be their character, therefore it is best not to wait my decisions on matters of this kind, especially when your judgment is evidently in harmony with what is best, and something to which I could have no objection." -- Letter 24, 1892.

[4]. In the setting of the mid-nineties, and the situation following the Minneapolis conference the authors introduce as applying to Elder Smith's experience the quotation taken from the Testimony to the Battle Creek Church of 1882: "He continued to 'think far too favorably of the present time.' (5T p. 80)" and in disparaging terms refer to his work as editor of the "Review."

In this connection it is interesting to observe that in 1890 the book "Patriarchs and Prophets" was published as a book for Seventh-day Adventists and for wide distribution in the world. Its predecessor, "Great Controversy", published in 1888, carried an "Introduction" written by Mrs. White, an outstanding statement on inspiration and mildly referring to her inspiration. The seventy-three chapters of "Patriarchs" are introduced also by and "Introduction" -- an eight-page statement presenting the arguments for the present day manifestation of the Spirit of prophecy from a Bible standpoint. And who, just before the issuance of this book in 1890 -- less than two years after Minneapolis -- was asked to prepare this important statement? None other than Uriah Smith. Was Mrs. White's confidence in this man stronger than that of the authors of the manuscript under study? [37]

page 294

Then we come down to February 5, 1901, just about a year before Elder's unexpected and sudden death and we find Mrs. White writing again in a manner to indicate her confidence in the basic soundness of the man and also concerning his connection with the editorial work of the church paper:

"We can easily count the first burden-bearers now alive [Feb. 5, 1902]. Elder [Uriah] Smith was connected with us at the beginning of the publishing work. He labored in connection with my husband. We hope always to see his name in the "Review and Herald" at the head of the list of editors; for thus it should be. Those who began the work, who fought bravely when the battle went so hard, must not lose their hold now. They are to be honored by those who entered the work after the hardest privation had been borne.

"I feel very tender toward Elder Smith. My life-interest in the publishing work is bound up with his. He came to us as a young man, possessing talents that qualified him to stand in his lot and place as an editor. How I rejoice as I read his articles in the "Review" -- so excellent, so full of spiritual truth. I thank God for them. I feel a strong sympathy for Elder Smith, and I believe that his name should always appear in the "Review" as the name of the leading editor. Thus God would have it. When, some years ago, his name was placed second, I felt hurt. When it was again placed first, I wept, and said, 'Thank God.' May it always be there, as God designs it shall be, while Elder Smith's right hand can hold a pen. And when the power of his hand fails, let his sons write at his dictation." -- 2SM, pp. 225, 226.

THE CONFESSIONS OF OTHER MEN.

While Elder Uriah Smith who was present at the Minneapolis conference, and Elder G. I. Butler, president of the General Conference who was not at the conference because of illness, were perhaps the principal leading workers who opposed the presentation of the message in 1888, the names of some others appear in the records. Elder Spalding in "Captain of the Host", p. 593, names J. H. Morrison, I. D. Van Horn, W. H. Littlejohn, and R. A. Underwood, as men who rallied around Elder Smith. [38]

page 295

In the same communication dated January 6, 1891, mentioning the confession of Elder Smith, (see p. 25) Mrs. White also stated:

"Pro. Prescott read the matter (the article "Be Zealous and Repent," published in the "Review and Herald Extra", Dec. 23, 1890] and paused a number of times, deeply affected, weeping. He then confessed that at the Minneapolis meeting, and since that time, he had not altogether right feelings, He asked the forgiveness of all, and especially Brethren Waggoner and Jones. Bro. Jones, I think, was not present. He then took the arm of Bro. Smith and both went forward." -- E. G. White, MS. 3, 1891.

Reaching out for evidence that Elder Prescott's confession was shallow and insincere the authors refer on page 84 to his support on February 28, 1893, to a resolution to enlarge Battle Creek College at an expense not exceeding $15,000.00 and endeavor to show that this action was inconsistent with the Spirit of prophecy counsels and therefore demonstrated his failure "to recognize the presence and work of the mighty Heavenly Guest on later occasions." (MS., 84.)

The supporting Spirit of prophecy counsels cited in this case were penned in Australia, in October, 1893, not before, but eight months after the meeting referred to, and doubtless were called for by the action taken in February. The men could hardly have been held accountable for counsel not yet written. Elder J. N. Loughborough was a member of three that formulated the February report. There is no attempt made by the authors to indict him. Of this man, Mrs. White wrote, on Oct. 7, 1890:

"Elder Loughborough has stood firmly for the testimonies. ... The influence of Elder Loughborough is valuable in our churches. Just such a man is needed, one who has stood unwaveringly for the light that God has given to His people, while many have been changing their attitude toward this work of God." -- E. G. White Letter 20, 1890. (This is the same letter that carried the distressing message about Elder Smith referred to in item # [1]. See p. 22.) [39]

page 296

On September 5, 1893, just a month before she reproved the brethren for laying plans to enlarge Battle Creek College, she wrote to Elder Prescott that she was reminding some who questioned, that"... your connection with the school was in God's order." -- E. G. White Letter 46, 1893.

Is the fact that Professor Prescott favored the enlargement of the college proof positive that his confession and repentance of 1891 was not sincere?

Another worker is especially mentioned by Mrs. White as making confession in 1891:

"Brother Rupert then confessed quite fully, and this was a very solemn meeting indeed." (Meeting at which U. Smith made a full confession.) -- E. G. White MS. 3, 1891 (Jan. 9, 1891).

At the time of the 1893 General Conference there were several leading workers who made confession, some more fully than others. We find such E. G. White references as following:

"I received a most thorough, and hearty confession from Le Roy Nicola. I knew if he walked in the light that this must come." -- E. G. White Letter 79, 1893. (April 24, 1893).

"I understand that Bro. Morrison, Madison Miller, and others are coming into the light, where they may be a blessing to other souls." -- E. G. White Letter 79, 1893 (April 24, 1893).

Another who made full confession in 1893 was Elder I. D. Van Horn. In a touching letter to Ellen White, written March 9, 1893, he acknowledges a testimony pointing out his sad condition which stemmed back to Minneapolis, told of his heartfelt repentance, and reported:

"This communication by your hand to me I heartily accept as a testimony from the Lord. It reveals to me the sad condition I have been since the Minneapolis meeting; and this reproof from the Lord is just and true."

ELDER GEORGE I. BUTLER.

The stalwart Elder Butler, who for many years had been president of the General Conference and whose name is so often mentioned as one who with Uriah Smith spurned the light in 1888, was ill at the time of the Minneapolis meeting. He retired for the recuperation of his health. Then his wife suffered a paralyzing stroke and for several years Elder Butler patiently cared for her until her death. [40]

page 297

For more than ten years we hear little of him, but soon after the turn of the century his ailing wife now at rest, he was back in the work again filling positions of responsibility. We have no records of confessions on his part, but Mrs. White's frequent reference to him and his work indicated that he must have made things right with God and with his brethren. On page 24 we used a statement penned in 1902 referring to Elder Butler. At the General Conference of 1903, in one of her addresses, Mrs. White said:

"I rejoice that Brother Butler is with us in this work (in the Southern field). I have known that the time would come when he would again take his place in the work. I want you to appreciate the trials he has passed through, and to help him all you can. God desires the gray-haired pioneers, the men who acted a part in the work when the first, second, and third angel's messages were first given, to stand in their place in His work today. They are not to drop out of sight." -- G. C. Bull., April 14, 1903, p. 205.

Other statements are:

"Elder Butler is president of the Southern Union Conference, and I believe this is right." -- MS. 124, 1902 (May, 1902).

"The Lord has appointed Elder Butler and Elder Haskell and his wife to labor in the South." -- Letter 121, 1904 (March 29, 1904).

"I have not lost faith in you, Elder Butler. I greatly desire that the old soldiers, grown grey in the Master's service, shall continue to bear their testimony right to the point,