1975 Jan-MarVIII 1(75) - VIII 3(75)
1975 Apr-Jun VIII 4(75) - VIII 6(75)
1975 Jul-Sep VIII 7(75) - VIII 9(75)
1975 Oct-Dec VIII 10(75) - VIII 12(75)
1976 Jan-Mar IX 1(76) - IX 3(76)
1976 Apr-Jun IX 4(76) - IX 6(76)
1976 Jul-Sep IX 7(76) - IX 9(76)
1976 Oct-Dec IX 10(76) - IX 12(76)
1977 Jan-MarX 1(77) - X 3(77)
1977 Apr-Jun X 4(77) - X 6(77)
1977 Jul-Sep X 7(77) - X 9(77)
1977 Oct-DecX 10(77) - X 12(77)
1978 Jan-Mar XI 1(78) - XI 3(78)
1978 Apr-Jun XI 4(78) - XI 6(78)
1978 Jul-Sep XI 7(78) - XI 9(78)
1978 Oct-Dec XI 10(78) - XI 12(78)
1979 Jan-Mar XI 1(79) - XI 3(79)
1979 Apr-Jun XI 4(79) - XI 6(79)
1979 Jul-Sep XI 7(79) - XI 9(79)
1979 Oct-DecXI 10(79) - XI 12(79)
Feb Knight Descends On Jones. 1of 4.
Mar Knight Descends On Jones. 2 of 4.
1988 Apr-Jun 3 & 4 of 4.
last of WWN published
ADVENTIST LAYMEN'S FOUNDATION OF CANADA (ALF)
SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation
- Legal Documents
Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer
Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer
the Form of a Slave
In Bible Prophecy
Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer
Seal of God
Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer
of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear
OTHER BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS & ARTICLES:
Various Studies --
Bible As History - Werner Keller
Canons of the Bible, The - Raymond A. Cutts
Daniel and the Revelation - Uriah Smith
Facts of Faith - Christian Edwardson
Individuality in Religion - Alonzo T. Jones
"Is the Bible Inspired or Expired?" - J. J. Williamson
Letters to the Churches - M. L. Andreasen
Place of the Bible In Education, The - Alonzo T. Jones
Sabbath, The - M. L. Andreasen
So Much In Common - WCC/SDA
Which Banner? - Jon A. Vannoy
As of 2010, all official sites of ALF in the United States of America were closed. The Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Canada with its website, www.Adventist Alert.com, is now the only official Adventist Layman's Foundation established by Elder Grotheer worldwide.
The MISSION of this site -- to put works of the Foundation online.
Any portion of these works may be reproduced without further permission by adding the credit line - "Reprinted from Adventist Layman's Foundation, AdventistAlert.com, Victoria, BC Canada."
Thank you for visiting. We look forward to you coming
WWN 1976 Jan - Mar
Jan -- A BENIGN OR MALIGNANT CONSPIRACY -WHICH?
-- (The Mystery of 1888, D. K. Short Manuscript -- Part
1) -- To a committee - named
"Historical Background of the 1888 Experience Committee",
chaired by Vice President - Elder D. K. Short, also a member
of the committee, submitted a manuscript entitled, The Mystery
of 1888. In the introduction of this manuscript, Elder Short wrote:
compilation has been prepared by Donald K. Short, upon invitation
as a member of a special committee authorized by the General Conference.
It has been compiled for the Seventh-day Adventists and in particular
leaders and ministers who should have a rather full knowledge of
Adventist history and an understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy and
the teachings that make "us" a people in the final generation
of the world. (1)
In this document a question is asked. Has there been a "benign cover-up conspiracy a kind of denominational Watergate" in regard to the 1888 experience? (Or do the facts indicate a "malignant conspiracy?" Observe the suggestion of a conspiracy in full context. Short wrote: Seventh-day Adventist history has been written and no effort in all the universe can change it nor can any apology alter a single facet of it. But, is it possible -that an attempt is being made now to interpret and cover-up certain episodes in that history in order to make it fit a public stance that has been taken by the Church and published abroad? The amount of official material published since 1950 is considerable, totaling over 1200 pages in three books. The more that is published the greater the problem becomes. The confusion and anomalies developing are on the increase. There is a very sad credibility gap emerging. The last two publications by Olson and Froom, are serious misfortunes and present apologies which will not bear analysis. To have the Ellen G. White Estate approve and condone these publications is tragic enough. But to go even further and seek to interpret and to expound the "intent" of what Ellen G. White has said, presents a most solemn predicament. This is not to condemn any man or group of men. It only brings into focus a situation "we" face as a people! Pride is a terrible sin, as sacred history proves, rebellion grows out of it.
P 2 -- For decades "we" have stood amazed at the way the world seeks every possible means to lawfully disregard the fourth commandment. The untenable, though sometimes plausible, excuses put forward are legion. The attempt to ignore and cover-up are distressing and ignoble.
The published positions "we" have accepted in recent years and the Historical Foreword as found in Testimonies to Ministers, and similar attitudes taken and promoted by the Ellen G. White Estate seem to be in the same vein.
Is it possible that "we" have fallen into some sort of benign cover-up conspiracy which "we" consider justified for the sake of the dead and the preservation of denominational pride and reputation, but which in reality is a tragic fall into a kind of denominational Watergate? (2)
This summary of certain implications from our history - and for that matter very recent history - demand our close attention. We shall in this thought paper note what is called "an emerging credibility gap" in relationship to the suggested "cover-up conspiracy". In so doing we shall follow closely the evidence presented in the manuscript - The Mystery of 1888 - but giving the primary source documentation where ever possible so that the reader may check for himself.
In the above quotes from Elder Short, he spoke of the "credibility gap emerging." His exact words are: The amount of material published since 1950 is considerable, totaling over 1200 pages in three books. The more that is published, the greater the problem becomes. The confusion and anomalies developing are on the increase. There is a very sad credibility gap emerging. (2)
The first of these three books was written by Dr. Norval F. Pease, and was entitled By Faith Alone. The Foreword was written by the then president of the General Conference, Elder R. R. Figuhr, but not in his capacity as President. This book, according to Figuhr, was to be the answer to comments regarding 1888 being raised by various persons in the church, "especially in recent months" (1962). He wrote: "This book sets the record straight." (3) What does Pease present in setting the record straight? Note the question he asks and answer he gives: Where was the doctrine of justification by faith to be found in 1888 and the preceding years? In the creeds of the Protestant churches of
P 3 -- the day; hence from the Seventh-day Adventist viewpoint, "in the companionship of error." The same churches which were rejecting the Adventist message and the law of God were holding, at least in form, the doctrine of justification by faith. From such a doctrinal environment God "rescued" this truth, and placed it where it should be - in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (4)
Consider the import of this. Sister White stated emphatically that the message of 1888 - Justification by Faith as taught by Elders Jones and Waggoner - " is the third angel's message in verity." (5) Now if this is inspired truth from the Lord's servant, and it is, then Pease is saying that the Third Angel's Message was not obtained by the Church until 1888, and that from 1844 to 1888 was held in the creeds of the Protestant churches. If so, then what was the unique position God assigned to the Advent Movement in 1844? To what lengths men will go to rewrite history simply to avoid the truth that history correctly written would reveal!
The second book was published for Elder A. V. Olson posthumously by the Ellen G. White Estate under the direction of Dr. A. L. White. It was entitled, Through Crisis to Victory, 1888 - 1901. The Foreword written by Dr. A. L. White stated that this work is "a stimulating historical review of a changing and perilous period in the development of a church movement." It was written with the avowed purpose of changing what was termed, "misleading conclusions." Those with these conceptions were accused of basing their judgment on "fragmentary bits of information." This period - 1888-1901 - was noted as "a period over which Providence could spell out the word, victory. (6)
From the very title it is suggested that the year 1901 marked the date when the crisis of the final decade of the 19th Century was resolved, and the hour of the triumph had arrived. It is beyond question that the very essence of the Advent Movement is the realization of the end of the world, and the ushering in of the Eternal Kingdom. Thus if "victory" was the judgment of God in 1901, and a proper evaluation of history verifies this, then we should not even be here at this time here
P 4 -- to discuss what we are writing about. What a contrast to this theses projected by the Ellen G. White Estate are the words of the prophet herself - written in 1901: We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children Israel, but for Christ's sake, His people should not sin to sin by charging God with the consequences of their own wrong course of action. (7)
Now if "insubordination" is "victory", then who wants victory? As Short points out - seeking to vindicate the leadership's rejection of the Message of 1888, and calling the year 1901, the year of victory, is "in the final analysis to charge God for His delay in returning!" (8) - the very thing the servant of the Lord warned us not to do.
Who are we to believe - a book published by the White Estate, who are to faithfully protect and project correctly the inspired heritage to the Church or are we to accept the verdict of the prophetess herself? Rather than "emerging", there has emerged a credibility gap in regard to the custodians of the spiritual gift to the Church. And another question, has the leadership of the White Estate conspired with the hierarchy of the Church to falsify our Church history? Is this just benign, or is it malignant?
The third book is none other than Movement of Destiny by Dr. LeRoy E. Froom bearing the imprimatur of the present president of the General Conference, Elder R. H. Pierson, in his capacity as President. In Froom's own preface - "From the Author to the Reader" - he stated that this book is a result of a charge given to him by Elder A. G. Daniells in 1930 to undertake a survey of the whole plan of redemption with its principles, provisions and divine Personalities "as they unfolded to our view as a Movement from 1844 onward, with special emphasis upon the developments of '1888', and its sequel." This book was to also to "round out in historical sequence what he (Daniells) had begun in 1926 in a comparatively brief recital of
P 5 -- his epochal Christ Our Righteousness." (9)
Of this 1888 Session, Froom writes: The epochal Minneapolis Session stands out like a mountain peak, towering above all other sessions in uniqueness and importance. It was a distinct turning point. Nothing like it had occurred before, and none has since been comparable to it. It definitely introduced a new epoch. After its initial conflict a period of revival and heart searching followed. And that which brought this about was the message Righteousness by Faith in Christ as "all the fullness of the Godhead" - an expression that became a vital keynote, stressed at the stormy session.
Christ was uplifted before the Conference as never before in our history, with a fullness that had not heretofore been envisioned or proclaimed. That was the crux of it all. 1888 therefore came to mark the beginning of a new note and a new day, the significance of which was not fully sensed at that time.
1888 was not a point of defeat, but a turn in the tide for ultimate victory. It was the beginning of decades of clarification and advance - despite struggles and setbacks. (10)
Of the same session the servant of the Lord wrote: But all the universe of heaven witnessed the disgraceful treatment of Jesus Christ, represented by the Holy Spirit. Had Christ been before them, they would have treated Him in a manner similar to that which the Jews treated Christ. (11)
How can we call Minneapolis a "mountain peak" which marked an new epoch, when at the session, the leadership rejected the Holy Spirit? How can we say that "1888 was not a point of defeat but a turn in the tide for ultimate victory?" Is spurning Christ in the Person of the Holy Spirit to be considered a victory rather than a defeat? Incredible! Indeed a "credibility gap" of the greatest dimensions.
We need to keep in mind that the men who wrote these books had access to the files of the Ellen G. White Estate. One author was chairman of the Board of the Estate at the time of his writing, and then after his death, the Estate itself in the person of Dr. Arthur White finished the material for publication. Froom, himself, claims that over sixty of the leading scholars of the Church approved what he wrote.(12) There is only one conclusion to draw - there has been a conspiracy to rewrite our church history, thus deceiving the laity in an attempt to keep the
P 6 -- rank and file subservient to the leadership with unquestioned loyalty. How long are we going to accept this "blindness" foisted on us by such leadership? How long are we going to reject the eye salve of truth that we may see? How long are we going to be bound to the "comfortable pew" by the shackles of erroneous propaganda?
In the next thought paper we shall continue to note the mystery of 1888 and observe what Daniells wrote about 1888, which Froom professes to enlarge honestly and accurately. We shall note the extent that the Ellen G. White Estate has entered into the conspiracy to deceive the laity, and the rank and file of the ministry of the Church.
(1) D. K. Short, The Mystery of 1888, A Study of
Seventh-day Adventist History in the light of the Minneapolis General
Conference of 1888. Presented to the "Historical Background of the
1888 Experience Committee." April, 1974, p. i
1976 Feb. -- DANIELLS VERSUS FROOM -- (The Mystery of 1888, D. K. Short Manuscript) -- Part 2 -- One of the sections of Elder D. K. Short's manuscript -The Mystery of 1888 - is entitled, "Daniells versus Froom."(1) It is this aspect of the historical review of 1888 which we wish to cover in this thought paper.
In the very first paragraph of Froom's foreword to his book, Movement of Destiny, Froom bases the first cause for writing the book on a mandate given him in 1930 by Elder A. G. Daniells. He, states that he was urged by Daniells to present a "comprehensive portrayal -one that would honor God and exalt truth." (2) Froom writes he was further "admonished" by Daniells "to be fair and faithful to fact, comprehensive and impartial in treatment, and to present the full picture in balance." He finalizes Daniells mandate in these words: He charged me to take due note of the impediments, as well as the incentives, involved in our advance. A true and trustworthy picture was imperative. Truth, he insisted, is never-honored by shading or shielding. And only in candid portrayal can we really see the divine hand of God that has so clearly led us. So he urged me to plumb the depths, to record faithfully, and to evaluate the storms as well as the calms. He wanted the portrayal to be both comprehensive and trustworthy. (3)
Froom concluded his foreword with these words: "Above all, I must not be unfaithful to God and to the Church, and the burden that had been placed upon me." This was his New Year's resolution of 1970, for the statement was dated, January 1, 1970. (4)
In the previous thought paper, we noted what Froom had to say about the General Conference of 1888. By way of review note the following observations: It (1888) definitely introduced a new epoch. After its initial conflict a period of revival and heart searching followed. 1888 therefore came to mark the beginning of a new note and new day, the significance of which was
p 2 -- not fully sensed at the time. ... 1888 was not a point of defeat, but a turn in the tide for ultimate victory. (5)
Froom in his foreword to Movement of Destiny also noted that Daniells had begun a "brief recital" of the events and reaction of 1888 in the book, Christ Our Righteousness. (2) But what does Daniells actually write in his book in regard to what Froom calls a "revival", "a new epoch", and "a new note and new day."? Observe carefully: How sad how deeply regrettable, it is that this message of righteousness in Christ should, at the time of its coming have met with opposition on the part of earnest, well-meaning men in the cause of God! The message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course as it should have been in order to convey to the church the measureless blessings that were wrapped within it. (6)
Daniells also wrote: Who can tell what would have come to the church and the cause of God if that message of Righteousness by Faith had been fully and whole heartedly received by all at that time? And who can estimate the loss that has been sustained by failure of many to receive that message? (7)
Now if Elder A. G. Daniells is giving a fair and accurate summation of the 1888 Conference and its aftermath in regard to the message of Righteousness by Faith, then Froom has betrayed his mandate and perpetrated a deception on the Church. His New Year's resolution of 1970 constitutes a Jesuitical fraud of the darkest hue.
Daniells plainly stated that the cause of the rejection of the message of 1888 was due to the action of the leaders of the Church. Here are his words: The message was not received alike by all who attended the Conference; in fact, there was a serious difference of opinion concerning it among the leaders. ...This difference of views among the leaders led to serious results. It created controversy, and a degree of estrangement which was most unfortunate. (8)
This Froom denies. He writes: There is one contention that, regrettably, had periodically been brought forward that needs to be considered frankly in our quest for historic truth. Ever since the 1888 tensions there has been recurrent harpers on the note that the Church, and primarily its leaders, actually rejected the Message of 1888 - at and following that fateful hour of trial. (9)
In the Appendixes to the book, Movement of Destiny, Froom vigorously states the
P 3 -- charge that the Message of 1888 was rejected by the leaders of the Church is an assumption without justification in historical truth or fact.(10) Then he concludes - "And it should be added that no defector or detractor, through the years, has ever produced any such E. G. White statements, or evidence, sufficient to convince unbiased scholars." (11)
Here again the deception of Froom surfaces, and his New Year's resolution takes the shape of a "cover-up" for the distortion of truth. The servant of the Lord has plainly placed the rejection of the message of 1888 on the "brethren"' in leadership. Here are her words: An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions and to accept this truth, Lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren Waggoner and Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them ... The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept from the world. (12)
It is at this point that the mystery in regard to 1888 deepens. Elder Daniells noted in his brief presentation in 1926 that while - No complete report of the presentation and discussion of the message of Righteousness by Faith at the Minneapolis Conference was published, through subsequent writing of the spirit of prophecy information is furnished regarding developments in connection with the giving of the message and its reception and also its rejection, and it is quite necessary to become familiar with this inspired information in order to understand better our present situation."(13)
Then he wrote these key sentences: It would be far more agreeable to eliminate some of the statements given in the spirit of prophecy regarding the attitude of some of the leaders toward the message and messengers. But this cannot be done without giving only a partial presentation of the situation which developed at the Conference, thus leaving the question in more or less of a mystery .(14)
As far as I have been able to ascertain in my reading of Daniell's book, Christ Our Righteousness, not one single statement to which he alludes in the above admission, appears in the book. The first published statement by the press of the Church,
P 4 -- following the agitation created over the original research by Wieland and Short, was the statement found in Selected Messages, bk i, pp. 234-235, quoted above. This was in 1958. Prior to this date, the books, Life Sketches, and Testimonies to Ministers contained some references to the leadership rejection of the 1888 Message. (What has been done to mitigate the force of the statements in the last named book will be noted in the next thought paper.)
But at this point the mysterious question arises. Did Daniells actually believe -by his omission of such statements -that the cause of God would be best served if these statements remained forever covered, even though it would mean "only a partial presentation of the situation"? Is this the basis of Froom's assertion in his foreword to Movement of Destiny that - Elder Daniells recognized the serious problems involved and sensed almost prophetically certain difficulties that would confront. He knew that time would be required for certain theological wounds to heal, and for attitudes to modify on the part of some. Possibly it would be necessary to wait till certain individuals had dropped out of action, before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth. (2)
Note that Froom does not use the words -although these words constitute the main thrust of his foreword - "honest", "truthful", nor "full" in describing the portrayal that could wisely be brought forth, but "the needed portrayal." Is this really what Daniells said to Froom, or is this Froom's deduction from what Daniells wrote? Did Daniells really believe that it would be best to hold back on these statements and by suggesting this belief to Froom, Froom went "overboard" to the point where he purposefully misrepresented the facts of our history? Both men are now dead, so we will never know, thus this phase of the 1888 presentation will forever remain a "mystery." It remains, Daniells versus Froom -and the only point where their polarity seems to verge is over what attitude was best to take in regard to what the servant of the Lord wrote. Even in this there is a gap - Daniells conceded "it would be far more agreeable" if such statements could be eliminated from consideration,
p 5 -- while Froom emphatically denies their existence.
He that has eyes to read, let him read.
(1) D. K. Short, The Mystery of 1888, pp. 9-14
A COMPARISON -- One of the points which Froom seeks to make in regard to the acceptance of the message at the 1888 General Conference Session is the fact that the leadership of the Church was changed. Here are his words: The elected leadership was changed at the '88 Conference by vote of the session, the absent president George I. Butler, and secretary Uriah Smith, being replaced by O. A. Olsen as the new president and Dan T. Jones as secretary. ...So the elected head, the responsible leaders of the movement from 1888 to 1897 did not reject Righteousness by Faith. (Movement of Destiny, p. 370, emphasis his.)
Working on this point, Froom presents Elder Olsen as a leader who adhered strictly, to the Testimonies received by the servant of the Lord. The comparison between what Froom states concerning O. A. Olsen, and what the Spirit of Prophecy indicates are
P 6 -- two different pictures. From Elder D. K.
Short's manuscript, Mystery of 1888, (pp.
This sickening portrayal of the rewrite of our Church history could go on. But the tragedy is compounded today. The laity are lulled into the acceptance of this distortion by the "disease at the heart of the work" in this our day. On this book has been placed the imprimatur of the President of the General Conference, Elder R.
p 7 -- H. Pierson, who wrote concerning it -"Movement of Destiny is a must for every worker, every theological student, and every church officer -in fact, for every church member who loves this message and longs to see it triumph in the near, very near, future." (Movement of Destiny, p. 13) How can distortion of truth cause the Movement to triumph?
But this is not all. Froom wrote in his acknowledgment these two paragraphs: When finally in manuscript form, it was read critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars - specialists in denominational history and Adventist theology. By experts in the Spirit of Prophecy. By key Bible teachers, editors, mass communications men, scientists, physicians. And by veteran leaders with vivid memories and extensive backgrounds.
Next, magnificent constant help from special consultants concerning key chapters, sensitive sections, and problems -particularly Administrator Neal C. Wilson, Seminary Dean W. G. C. Murdoch, Ministerial Secretary R. A. Anderson, Radio Veteran H. M. S. Richards, Sr., Denominational Researcher H. W. Lowe, Educator T. S. Garaty, White Publications Secretary A. L. White, Review Editor, K. H. Wood -and a dozen other experts. And protected by verifiers and copy editors.. (p. 8)
THINK - open your eyes, consider! Have any of these men -princes and ancient men of the house of Israel -publicly confessed that they were dupes -whether willingly or not so willingly -when they placed their approval on this vast distortion of truth? Have they confessed to the laity, and to God regarding their acquiescence to this rewrite of our history? To this date, to my knowledge not one -yea not a single one has placed in writing in the same media which advertised the book, Movement of Destiny, his rejection of this fraudulent deception. Well did Jeremiah write: The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule with their means; and my people love to have it so: [BUT] what will ye do in the end thereof? (Jer. 5:31). --- (1976 Feb) --- END --- TOP
1976 Mar -- "ELLEN G. WHITE VERSUS ELLEN G. WHITE ESTATE" -- (The Mystery of 1888, D. K. Short Manuscript -- Part 3) -- The title of this thought paper is the title given to a major section of the manuscript -The Mystery of 1888.(1) It is based upon the "Historical Foreword" and the "Appendix" to be found in the 1962 edition of Testimonies to Ministers. [ The date of this edition coincides with the publication of By Faith Alone, and antedates the publication of both Through Crisis to Victory and Movement of Destiny.]
Concerning this 1962 edition of Testimonies to Ministers, Elder Short writes: The latest edition of Testimonies to Ministers has the most extended explanatory foreword of perhaps any E. G. White book ever published. To add to this, there is a lengthy Appendix such as none of her other books have. In all, the Historical Foreword and the Appendix have a total of 36 pages. When it is considered that the previous edition of this book published in 1944 does not have a single page of Historical Foreword or one page of even one entry in an Appendix, it would seem strange that the 1962 edition should require 36 pages of special notes.
When an analysis is made of this material, a pattern emerges that is singular and most serious. It would be extremely difficult to read all of this without getting a very pronounced concept that the writings are being both "explained" and " "interpreted." In fact, the Preface to this Third Edition printed in 1962, states specifically on page xi: "The notes will aid the reader in ascertaining correctly the intent of the author in the messages here presented." (2)
There are forty-five entries made in the Appendix, and as Elder Short observes, "the largest [single] group of references is to 1888." (3) Three of the twelve sections of the Historical Foreword also deal specifically with the 1888 General Conference Session and the Message of Righteousness by Faith, while three other sections "review certain situations in our church history which form the background for the messages of the 1890's." (4)
P 2 -- Before citing specific examples where interpretive explanations are made in regard to statements of the servant of the Lord concerning the 1888 historical experience, I would call the attention of the reader to the report of "The Vault Incident" found in Andreasen's Letters to the Churches.) (5) Let it be noted that while the Trustees in this incident did not grant the request for explanatory notes to be placed in certain writings of Ellen G. White, their decision was delayed eight months, and the final action taken only after the plan had become known to Elder Andreasen who protested to the General Conference president. Every sincere seeker for truth needs to reread with clear open vision the report of this experience, and the correspondence that took place between Elder Andreasen and the President of the General Conference at that time.
Let us note carefully some of the footnotes and explanations placed in the 1962 edition of Testimonies to Ministers. On page 76, we read -"That men should keep alive the spirit which ran riot at Minneapolis* is an offense to God." At the bottom of the page is this comment -"*See Appendix." Turning to the Appendix we read: Page 76. The spirit which ran riot at Minneapolis: The background of the 1888 General Conference held at Minneapolis, and its aftermath, is traced briefly in the Historical Foreword. This forms the basis for a better understanding of this and other statements in Testimonies to Ministers touching on the experience at Minneapolis. (6)
So we turn to the Historical Foreword, where we read: To many, the message of righteousness by faith struck home, and there was a response of heart and soul which led to victorious experience in personal Christian living. There were others who identified themselves with certain cautious and conservative leaders from Battle Creek who saw what they thought were perils in some or the teachings presented. (7)
Now honestly can you equate a riotous spirit with "cautious and conservative" guidance of church leadership? Does "riot" = caution, and conservatism? Paraphrasing the words of Jesus to the Pharisees of His day -"Ye have made the testimony of the Spirit of none effect by your interpretation." Of this meeting the servant of the
P 3 -- Lord wrote in 1896: The scenes which took place at that meeting [ in Minneapolis] made the God of heaven ashamed to call those who took part in them His brethren. All this the heavenly Watchers noticed, and it is written in the book of God's remembrance."(8)
Who are we really covering for in this rewrite of history, when we say that those who opposed the message of 1888 were "cautious and conservative," and thus could not have possibly fostered a riotous spirit? Is not the present leadership seeking to convey a similar public image to cover the behind-the-scenes activities? What is written for the consumption of the laity, and what is being done are two different things!
Consider a second example from Testimonies to Ministers, p. 468, which states: The true religion, the only religion of the Bible, that teaches forgiveness only through the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour, that advocates righteousness by the faith of the Son of God, has been slighted, spoken against, ridiculed, and rejected.*
Again at the bottom of the page -"See Appendix." So we turn and read: Page 468. Slighted, spoken against, ridiculed, and rejected: Reference is here made to the attitude which some took in resistance to the emphasis given to the message of righteousness by faith at and following the General Conference Session in 1888. See Historical Foreword for a fuller statement indicating that while some took the attitude here referred to there were many who received the message and gained a great blessing in their own personal experience.(9)
So we again turn to the Historical Foreword, where it states: (Note carefully the use of the words which denote numerical numbers.)
Unfortunately, several among the leaders of our work connected with the General Conference and our institutions at Battle Creek ranked themselves on the negative side and established in the very heart of the work of the church a hard core of resistance. Within the next few years, many of those who had placed themselves in this camp saw their mistake and made heartfelt confession. But there were some who stubbornly resisted. Some of these, connected with the business interests of the church and our institutions, made their influence felt well through the 1890' s. It was such that Ellen White in 1895 wrote as recorded on page 363: "The righteousness of Christ by faith has been ignored by some; for it is contrary to their spirit, and their whole life experience."(10)
Consider - define in your mind the possible number envisioned by the word, "several".
P 4 -- Subtract from that what would equal "many of these", and you should arrive at a definition of what constitutes the "some" who opposed the message of 1888. Now honestly is the God whom we profess to serve -a God of righteousness and of true judgment, a God of mercy and understanding -going to keep His people here in a world of sin, lo, these many years because the "some" as arrived at by the arithmetic of the White Estate opposed the message given at Minneapolis?
But let us turn to the reference quoted in the Historical Foreword -p. 363- in Testimonies to Ministers. Note the setting of the chapter as a whole; it is dealing with the "spirit of domination", which is extending to the very level of the local conference.(11) It is placing the church "In the track of Romanism." But where was the influence beginning? Note: At the center of the work matters are being shaped so that every other institution is following in the same course. The General Conference is itself becoming corrupt with wrong sentiments and principles. In the working of plans, the same principles are manifest that have controlled matters at Battle Creek for quite a length of time. (12)
This likewise has been weakly footnoted -which you can check for yourself -but the fact remains that the "some" is much larger than the arithmetic conjured by the White Estate would allow. The influence of the "hard core of resistance" permeated the entire General Conference and reached down to the local conference presidents. This is the insubordination which remains to this day -which has caused us to have to remain here in this old world many more years than God wanted us to be here.
There is another very interesting concept which finds its germination in the Historical Foreword, as pointed out by Short in his, Mystery of 1888. Froom in his book, Movement of Destiny, sets forth "fourteen points attesting the fact that the denomination as a whole, and its leadership in particular, did not reject the message and provisions of Righteousness by Faith in and following 1888."(13) He lists as #1 - "No vote was taken by the delegate leadership at Minneapolis, rejecting the teaching of Righteousness by Faith." Then both Sister White and Elder A. T. Jones
P 5 -- are cited in the use of the word, "some". Froom emphasizes this "no vote" idea in two other places in his book.(14) Keep in mind that the date of Froom's publication is 1971. Going back to Olson's posthumous publication, From Crisis to Victory in 1966, we find the same idea expressed - "No action whatever was taken by vote of the delegates to accept or reject it." (15)
But where did the seed for this idea originate? Short answers -"The unique thing is to discover that the seed of this idea was planted by the Ellen G. White Estate in the Historical Foreword of the book under consideration. On page xxiv of this 1962 edition, the following statement is made: 'No action was taken on the Biblical questions discussed.'" (16) But what is the truth of the matter? The truth is a vote was taken. At the 1893 General Conference Session, Elder A. T. Jones stated: (and note how he used the word, "some"): Some of those who stood so openly against that [the message of righteousness by faith] at that time, and voted with uplifted hand against it, and since that time I have heard say "amen" to statements that were as openly and decidedly papal as the papal church itself can state them. (17)
Thus the Ellen G. White Estate has not only become guilty of seeking to interpret what the servant of the Lord has written, but they have also planted the seed for the distortion and cover-up of our history. How much longer will the laity remain in Laodicean blindness, sleeping on to eternal ruin? Is is not high time to awaken out of sleep?
(1) D.K. Short, The Mystery of 1888, pp. 59-74
P 6 --
NOTES AND COMMENTS -- More on A. T. Jones -- Besides stating at the 1893 General Conference Session, that a vote had been taken, he also entered into a dialogue with the congregation as to what had been rejected in 1888. Here is the report: Now brethren, when did that message of the righteousness of Christ, begin with us as a people? [One or two in the audience: "Three or Four years ago."] Which was it, three? or four? [Congregation: "Four."] Yes, four. Where was it? [Congregation: "Minneapolis."] What then did the brethren reject at Minneapolis? [Some in the congregation: "The loud cry."] What is that message of righteousness? The Testimony has told us what it is; the loud cry - the latter rain. Then what did the brethren in that fearful position in which they stood, reject at Minneapolis? They rejected the latter rain -the loud cry of the third angel's message. (G. C. Bulletin, 1893, p. 183)
To this rejection, our present leadership will not admit; to this sin, they will not confess in corporate repentance. But now a greater tragedy has been added - a conspiracy to distort history and an attempt to interpret the Spirit of Prophecy to cover up the debacle in 1888. Thus the sin of the leadership is compounded, and the laity continue to support this prolonged insubordination.
IN RELIGION -- This old book by Elder A.
T. Jones has been made available to the Foundation for distribution. It
is a limited facsimile reprint edition (155 pp.)
P 7 -- Another report in the North Pacific Union Gleaner (August 18, 1975) features a project of Maranatha Flights International on Kodiak Island, Alaska. In the report is found the following: Not all those cooperating in the project are Seventh-day Adventists. Father Sean O'Donoghue, rector of the Kodiak Catholic Church, offered the facilities of the St. Mary's Parish School for use by Maranatha.
The fellowship is genuine. Father O'Donoghue delivers one of the early morning worship talks and prays for the success of the Adventist center. He and the Sisters of the Sacred Heart eat with the workers and seem intently interested in a religion that would motivate people to perform as Maranatha is doing. [They even framed a 30 by 40 all-purpose building for the Catholic Church there.] Father O'Donoghue is invited to participate in the opening services (of the new SDA Church). p.5
Do we no longer believe the prophecies of the Word of God? What about the "little horn" of Daniel 8? It is just one horn representing both the pagan and papal phases of that power which stood up and continues to stand up against the "Prince of princes." Would it not be well to reread "Aims of the Papacy" in Great Controversy? Seeking the salvation of sincere seekers for truth in the Catholic Church, even including priests, is different than ecumenical fellowship no matter how "genuine."
Heresy in the Sabbath School Lessons? -- Did you notice in Part 2, Lesson 1 (p. 11) Of the adult lessons for this Quarter, the teaching relative to God:- "The paradox of a triune monotheism (Trinity) is not explained in the Scriptures." Do we now believe that our God is three-in-one (triune) or do we believe that our God -the Godhead -consists of three distinct Persons? To support the concept of "triune", the quotation at the bottom of the page from the Spirit of Prophecy was altered to read: -"There are three living powers of the heavenly trio;. ..." Such a concept would tend to support the "triune" concept. However, the original source of this quotation in Special Testimonies, Series B, #7, p. 62 reads: There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these ,three great powers -the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers cooperate with obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ."
These powers are three Persons, not just manifestations of One Person! Perhaps the typist erred, and the proof reader missed it. Did anyone see a note in the Review, or any Union paper calling attention to this error, and explaining it? We need so much to reach the maturity spoken of by Paul in Hebrews 5:14, where by reason of use our senses are exercised to discern both good and evil. (1976 Mar) --- END ---