Foreword

Few authors ever have had the first printing of their first book sell out after 6,000 volumes! Such has been Ron Duffield's experience with The Return of the Latter Rain, volume 1-a book of over 500 pages-AND WITHOUT HIS DOING ANY COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING!

Obviously, something about the title grabbed attention. And why not? So many today are looking forward to the promised latter rain of the Holy Spirit-and rightly so! But unfortunately, most believe that merely by our joining in united prayer all over the world, the Spirit will then believe that it is time to come with the promised power.

However, God is not playing games with us! The latter rain did begin in the 1888-1895 era, but it was largely "resisted" by church leaders, we are told. I know, that is hard to believe and surely needs some explanations-all of which Ron addressed in Volume One. If few are aware of how Christ was really treated over 125 years ago even among our own church fathers, is it possible that we are still wounding Him by our naïve or willful ignorance today?

In this volume, Ron zeroes in on "what" was "resisted" and how that could very well be continuing today. In the several years since The Return of the Latter Rain was published, I have not seen anyone dispute any of his voluminous evidence for the clarity of what was preached/taught in 1888-1892-and why "the latter rain" has been delayed ever since those fateful years.

Wounded in the House of His Friends brings us face to face with the reality of divine sufferings that were intensified during the 1888 episode and aftermath and that continue to this very day.

His subtitle for this present volume is "When Will the Aborted Latter Rain Resume?"

The connection of an aborted latter rain with the church of "Laodicea" in the book of Revelation is important to note.

Why? The Lord's description of this last-day church (Revelation 3:14-22) pictures Christ's professed followers refusing to open the door to Him-the one who stands at the door and knocks. And knocks, and knocks-decade after decade after decade...

Laodicea is the Adventist Potemkin Village. For hundreds of years, "Potemkin" has signified something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance. It is part of Russian literature, wherein Gregory Potemkin, remarkable head of the Russian army and navy, did amazing things, including erecting fake settlements with happy inhabitants along the banks of the Dnieper River in order to fool Empress Catherine II during her visit to Crimea in 1787. So "Potemkin Village" has come to mean any hollow or false construction, physical or figurative, meant to hide an undesirable situation.

It seems that our Lord's, description of the Laodicean church (Revelation 3:5-8) is best labeled as a "Potemkin Village."

At no time in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has it appeared more prosperous than today-more first-class, more inviting, or relatively more successful! Or led by more academically educated ministers and administrators! Or more publicly recognized as a major voice in producing healthy men and women.

Theologically, most members, clergy or laity, feel they "do not need a thing"-why should these dear folk think otherwise? They have all the texts to prove which day is the Sabbath, or where we go when we die. They all freely use the right words, such as atonement, righteousness by faith, latter rain-and the list grows long. They have amazing personal records of how many evangelistic series they have faithfully attended!

How could it be possible that our Lord says, "The more I look, the more I feel like spitting?" (Some translations say, "vomit"!) Of course, the Lord does not actually spit out and give up on Laodiceans. He simply stands at its door as a Gentleman, embarrassing as it may be, waiting for His designated people to listen-and to listen some more, as the years go by.

What a picture in words! God, trying to get the attention of that church which seems to do everything right and is proud of it! But He keeps knocking, decade after decade, for some to open the door so that He can really bring truth and peace and exciting joy to those who are tired of being satisfied with being merely neither hot nor cold.

So what are Potemkin Adventists missing? Or lacking? In spite of accelerating numbers and impressive buildings, in spite of massive quantities of reading material from a variety of publishing houses, in spite of an enviable school system from kindergarten on through to highly respected graduate schools, in spite of more pastors with advanced degrees, what do we need more of?

Could it be that we are in danger of creating our own Potemkin Village? If it is true that Jesus could have returned in the nineteenth century, why are we still here?

Or, maybe some have better ideas? Such as, going to the door and listening to the one knocking, who wants to come in and strip the Potemkin façade we have so admirably erected.

Do we have any clues as to what He wants to say? Ah, yes, He never has left us wondering since the Garden of Eden as to what He would say! He offers us "gold refined in the fire," "white raiment" that we "may be clothed," and "eye salve" that we "may see."

All this is exactly what Ron Duffield is asking and answering in his first volume and in this interlude volume. Since 1888, Adventists have been enjoying their Potemkin Village. This book, uniting with Volume One and the forthcoming Volume Two, will surely bring new readers up to speed as to what the Gentleman at the door is trying to say to Adventists in the twenty-first century.

Herbert Edgar Douglass
Yountville, CA
June 2014
Introduction

"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones" (Zechariah 13:6-7).

This messianic prophecy was written by the prophet Zechariah toward the end of his message sent to the discouraged Jews who had returned from Babylonian exile to rebuild Jerusalem. Five centuries later, few of the Jewish people caught the significance of the fulfillment of such words in the life and death of Jesus Christ, their promised Messiah. Yet Jesus Himself quoted from Zechariah 13:7, the smiting of the Shepherd, to eleven of His disciples as they made their way up to the Mount of Olives on the night before His crucifixion (Matthew 26:31).

Some Bible commentaries rightly interpret Zechariah 13:6, at least in a secondary application, as predictive of Christ's scourging and the wounds He received at the hands of those who should have been His friends. Many Seventh-day Adventists are aware of this fact and that Ellen White also quoted verse 6, as one of the "plain and specific prophecies" predicting "even the manner of His death:" However, few Adventists may be aware that Ellen White also applied the portrayal of Zechariah 13:6 to the disgraceful treatment of Jesus Christ, represented by the Holy Spirit, at the hands of His remnant people during the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference session and throughout the controversial aftermath in the years that followed. How few are aware that Christ was "wounded" among our own church fathers, 125 years ago. Is it possible that we are continuing to wound Him today by our naïve or willful ignorance of the way He was treated in the past? All too often, as we long for Christ's Second Coming to put an end to our suffering, we forget how He has been wounded and what enormous suffering the long delay has caused Him-and all heaven. Well might we take to heart the words Ellen White penned in 1902:

"The result of hastening or hindering the gospel, we think of, if at all, in relation to ourselves and to the world. Few think of its relation to God. Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that sin, from its very inception, has brought to the heart of God.... Our world is a vast lazar-house, a scene of misery that no pen can picture, misery that we dare not allow even our thoughts to dwell upon. Did we realize it as it is, the burden would be too terrible. Yet God feels it all."

Is it possible that such divine sufferings were intensified during the 1888 episode and its aftermath-an aftermath that continues even to this very day? Wounded in the House of His Friends seeks to bring us face to face with the reality of this fact.

Wounded in the House of His Friends is really an interlude, or summary volume, in The Return of the Latter Rain series-Volume 1 being first published in 2010. The Return of the Latter Rain was the result of a personal study that began in 1998 as a simple, yet unique compilation of Ellen White statements on the subject of the latter rain and the loud cry, placed in chronological order-statements which Ellen White made between the 1840s and the close of her life in 1915. As the study developed into a manuscript, more and more background information was added to help give context surrounding the historic events in which Ellen White's statements were made. Of particular interest were her statements made around the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference session and during the events that followed over the next decade.

Originally, the manuscript's main objective was to address the core questions surrounding the 1888 episode that have plagued Adventism since the 1890s: Did in fact the Lord send the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry in 1888-and were they accepted? For 125 years many have believed that at least the loud cry began and was after a short time of trial, ultimately accepted and has been proclaimed ever since. Yet others have claimed that both the latter rain and the loud cry began in 1888, but through the action of our own brethren of that day these heaven-sent gifts were in a great measure shut away from our people, all of which has resulted in the long delay of Christ's return.

As The Return of the Latter Rain manuscript continued to develop, more and more original sources and primary evidence was added in an attempt to address the above core questions. At the same time, the manuscript also began addressing many other related topics and issues, such as: biographical sketches of both Jones and Waggoner before and after the Minneapolis meetings; what part their personalities might have played in the 1888 session and controversies that followed; a fuller understanding of the law in Galatians controversy; what exactly was the 1888 message in its totality; what were the theological contributions of both Jones and Waggoner in such areas as, the nature of sin and of man, the nature of Christ (both human and divine), righteousness by faith, the covenants, the perfecting of a final generation before Christ's return, religious liberty, etc.; the extent of Ellen White's endorsements of Jones and Waggoner; the degree to which the message was accepted or rejected; the aspects and extent of the antagonism expressed against Jones and Waggoner by key proponents such as Frank Belden, Captain Eldridge, Dan Jones, John Harvey Kellogg, Harmon Lindsay, A. R. Henry, Uriah Smith and others; the thoroughness and outcome of confessions made by antagonists following Minneapolis; the magnitude of the revival and reformation that took place between 1889 and 1893 among Adventists; the cause and reality of Jones and Waggoner's departure from the faith; the consequences of all the above on Adventist thought since the 1890s to this very day; and many other related topics and issues.

As a consequence of seeking to cover so many related topics and issues, when The Return of the Latter Rain was originally published in 2010 it was merely the first volume drawn from the original manuscript, but only covered the years 1844 through the year 1891. Plans were immediately made to publish the remainder of the story in a second volume the following year. By 2012, however, it was clear that there was far more material to cover than would fit in a second volume alone and that more thorough research needed to be done in order to cover such a vast amount of related topics and issues. As a result, the completion of the series has been delayed.

In early 2013, while working on the manuscript for The Return of the Latter Rain, volume 2, the author was asked to write an article for the special 125th anniversary commemorating the 1888 Minneapolis session to be featured in the Adventist Review in October 2013. The originally assigned topic was to cover the events surrounding the 1888 message that developed during the 1888 to 1896 era. In the process of seeking to summarize the events from this era-taken from the large amount of research material collected over the past twenty years-a small manuscript was formed wherein the original underlying theme or topic of The Return of the Latter Rain manuscript once again surfaced: Did in fact the Lord send the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry in 1888, and were they accepted? Many of the answers to these core questions may be found in material from the 1888 to 1896 era. From this newly formed manuscript, a 2,000-word summary article was painfully extracted for the Review, through the excellent and professional editorial help of Ken McFarland. Plans were also made to publish the small manuscript as a pamphlet for those readers of the article who wished further documentation.

However, when the article was submitted to the Review in August of 2013, one week before the deadline, it failed to meet the objectives of the editorial staff and was ultimately turned clown. Rather than losing all the time and effort put into both the summary article and the pamphlet, plans were made that, with a little further development, would produce the book you hold in your hands. Once again, Wounded in the House of His Friends is really a summary book of the underlying theme of The Return of the Latter Rain series. Work will continue on the series, covering in greater depth the main theme in Wounded in the House of His Friends, as well as many of the other related topics and issues that surround the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference and its aftermath.

ln the meantime, let us now direct our attention to Jesus Christ and His representative the Holy Spirit and ask how they were treated during the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference and throughout the controversial aftermath in the years that followed. Is it possible that just as the Jews waited for so long for their Deliverer, yet at His coming they knew Him not, likewise many Seventh-day Adventists, who had waited so long for the latter rain and the loud cry, knew not the hour of their visitation? If the answer is in the affirmative, how are we to respond to the mistakes of our spiritual fathers and to the long forbearance and mercy of God toward us all? Furthermore, how does the call for repentance from the True Witness found in the message to the Laodiceans factor in to the answer of such questions? May Wounded in the House of His Friends help us begin to find some of the answers.

While we review our history we should remember that it is not for the purpose of finding fault in others-past or present-or for the sake of tearing down, but rather that we might learn from their mistakes and not repeat them-that we may learn anew the depth of the long forbearance and mercy of God. We should consider well the words of Kenneth H. Wood, former Review editor:

"As we note the mistakes of our spiritual forebears, we may be filled with anguish and regret. But we cannot change the past. We cannot rewrite history. We can, however, learn from history, and we can set our own hearts and houses in order, giving full opportunity for the Holy Spirit to have His way with us. Only as we today relate rightly to the message of righteousness by faith can we expect the outpouring of the latter rain and the finishing of "the work"."

As in The Return of the Latter Rain, volume 1, the storyline of Wounded in the House of His Friends focuses on key events in Seventh-day Adventist history from 1888 to the present and is largely taken from primary sources. Additional comments and/or contrasting viewpoints expressed by various modern-day Adventist historians have been included in some of the footnotes.
Chapter 1

The Latter Rain of the Holy Spirit

"There is nothing that Satan fears so much," wrote Ellen White in 1887 while in Europe, than that "the people of God shall clear the way by removing every hindrance, so that the Lord can pour out His Spirit upon a languishing church and an impenitent congregation." [1] For nearly forty years the Advent people had looked forward to "the times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19), when the latter rain would be poured out on the church, thus enabling and empowering the loud cry message of Revelation 18 to be demonstratively given throughout the world.

In one of her earlier visions Ellen White was told that "it is the latter rain, the refreshing from the presence of the Lord, the loud cry of the third angel" that would enable God's people to "speak forth the truth with great power" amidst the most trying circumstances. [2] The latter rain and loud cry, although distinct from one another, could never be separated--the latter rain being the cause and the loud cry the effect. Rather than being just an increase in divine power, the latter rain as at Pentecost would bring an increase in light and understanding. If accepted, taken to heart and experienced, this enlightening and empowering message would enable and empower the loud cry to blanket the earth with the end-time gospel message of God's abounding grace. Ellen White would reiterate these connections many times during the years following the 1888 Minneapolis session:

When the mighty angel descends from heaven, clothed with the panoply of heaven and gives strength to the third angel, the power of the message is felt by them. The heavenly showers fall on them. The latter rain drops in their vessels. [3]

Those who follow in the light need have no anxiety lest that in the outpouring of the latter rain they will not be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If we would receive the light of the glorious angel that shall lighten the earth with his glory, let us see to it that our hearts are cleansed, emptied of self, and turned toward heaven, that they may be ready for the latter rain. [4]

We have now the invitations of mercy to become vessels unto honor, and then we need not worry about the latter rain; all we have to do is to keep the vessel clean and right side up and prepared for the reception of the heavenly rain, and keep praying, "Let the latter rain come into my vessel Let the light of the glorious angel which unîtes with the third angel shine upon me; give me a part in the work; let me sound the proclamation; let me be a co-laborer with Jesus Christ." [5]

When the Spirit was poured out from on high [on the clay of Pentecost], the church was flooded with light, but Christ was the source of that light; his name was on every tongue, his love filled every heart. So it will be when the angel that comes down from heaven having great power, shall lighten the whole earth with his glory. [6]

Others, writing in the context of 1888 and its aftermath, have also expressed these same connections. A. G. Daniells, former General Conference president, stated that Ellen White's writings clearly place "the latter rain visitation with the loud cry, the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, and the flooding of the earth with the light of the third angel's message.... It will be seen that all these events are associated together to be in operation
at the same time.... The appearance of one is a signal for all to appear." [7]

Leroy Froom, writing of the message of 1888, went so far as to suggest that the "Latter Rain"
was "synonymous with the Loud Cry" because of their close, inseparable connection. [8]

The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, describing the sequence of end-time events, states that "the latter rain, in turn, qualifies the church for bearing witness in the 'loud cry' and to stand firm during the last great time of trouble." [9]

Woodrow Whidden summarizes these thoughts in his biography of E. J. Waggoner: "The loud cry is an expression commonly invoked by Seventh-day Adventists to describe the role of the aroused remnant church to proclaim effectively the last message of mercy and warning to the world. It will be the immediate effect of the latter rain empowerment of the Holy Spirit." [10]*

The point seems clear: The loud cry cannot begin without the latter rain having begun--without the attending latter rain providing the loud cry with its enlightening and transforming power. The two go hand and hand. The appearance of one signals the presence of the other.

1888 General Conference Approaching

While in Europe in 1885-1887, only months before the 1888 Minneapolis Conference, Ellen White was given a sense of the important events soon to take place in the church. Here she was told that "there is much light yet to shine forth from the law of God and the gospel of righteousness. This message, understood in its true character, and proclaimed in the Spirit, will lighten the earth with its glory.... The closing work of the third angel's message will be attended with a power that will send the rays of the Sun of Righteousness into all the highways and byways of life." Yet she was also shown that the "spirit that controlled the Pharisees is coming in among this people, who have been greatly favored of God." Such a condition would allow Satan to "work upon the unconsecrated elements of the human mind" and many would "not accept the light in God's appointed way." [11]

Such insights into the condition of the ministry in the church left Ellen White "horribly afraid to come into our [1888] conference," [12] which she would describe in a circular letter to the leading brethren as "the most important meeting you have ever attended." [13] With perhaps as many as 500 attendees, including 96 delegates representing the 27,000 church members around the world at that time, the results of such a gathering of church leadership would have lasting impact on the Advent movement. [14] At the "very commencement" of the meetings however, Ellen White discerned a "spirit which burdened" her. [15] Only two days into the meetings, she would ardently state that "the baptism of the Holy Ghost will come upon us at this very meeting if we will have it so." [16] Yet, facing pharisaical attitudes and strife that erupted during the Ministerial Institute preceding the General Conference, she could only ask: "How shall we stand in the time of the latter rain?" [17]

Ellen White soon realized that "the spirit and influence of the ministers generally who have come to this meeting is to discard light" [18] and "opposition, rather than investigation, is the order of the day." [19] As the Lord wrought in their midst, "some did not receive the blessing. They had been privileged to hear the most faithful preaching of the gospel, and had listened to the message God had given His servants to give them, with their hearts padlocked." Instead of rejoicing in the message given by Alonzo T. Jones and Ellet J. Waggoner, they "used all their powers to pick some flaws in the messengers and in the message, and they grieved the Spirit of God." Yet those who "did receive the message were charmed with the presentation of the free gifts of Jesus Christ," [20]

Minister G. B. Staff, who would later spend ten years with Ellen White in Australia, was one who received a rich blessing at Minneapolis, where "the subject of Righteousness by Faith was emphasized." Here he was witness as Ellen White "daily threw influence in decided words with the presentation of this subject." Starr would also recall later that she "stated that this marked the beginning of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry of the Three Angels Messages." [21] F. H. Westphal, who arrived late to
the conference, [22] also rejoiced in the message that was "sweet music to my soul." He went back to his home in Wisconsin, "and told the church that the Latter Rain had started." [23]

While on the one hand, Ellen White was compelled to speak words of support at Minneapolis for Jones and Waggoner and the message they taught she was also instructed to express the "dangers of resisting the Spirit of God." [24] As a result of her support of Jones and Waggoner, many thought there was "some mistake in [her] testimony," and the position and work that God gave her at the conference "was disregarded by nearly all. Rebellion was popular." Such a course, she stated, was "an insult to the Spirit of God." [25] In what might be one of her most sobering statements regarding 1888, Ellen White quoted Zechariah 13:6 and applied it to the way her inspired
Testimonies, given in defense of the message and the messengers, were treated at Minneapolis: "Christ was wounded in the house of His friends." [26]

As early as 1885, Ellen White had warned that when the "most remarkable movements of the Spirit of God" were to come upon the church, "brethren may arise and in their sense of paring everything done after their style, lay their hand upon God's working and forbid it." [27] In fact, she declared it was possible that "when the Spirit of God comes it will be called fanaticism, as in the day of Pentecost." [28] Such frightening possibilities were fulfilled at Minneapolis in 1888.

In the months and years following the Minneapolis experience Ellen White would describe how "all assembled in that meeting had an opportunity to place themselves on the side of truth by receiving the Holy Spirit, which was sent by God in such a rich current of love and mercy. But ... the manifestations of the Holy Spirit were attributed to fanaticism." [29] She would dolefully declare that "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." [30] Even after the turn of the century she was "instructed that the terrible experience at the Minneapolis Conference is one of the saddest chapters in the history of the believers in present truth." [31]

Give the People a Chance

Yet God is merciful; the showers from heaven would not be shut off without first giving the people a chance to receive the most precious message. In one of the last ministers' meetings of the 1888 Conference Ellen White questioned, "What was the use of our assembling here together and for our ministering brethren to come in if they are here only to shut out the Spirit of God from the people?... If the ministers will not receive the light, I want to give the people a chance; perhaps they may receive it." [32] True to her word, Ellen White, along with A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and others took the precious message to the churches around the country throughout the coming months.

At the Adventist school in South Lancaster, Massachusetts, in January of 1889, Ellen White, A. T. Jones, and S. N. Haskell took part in tell days of meetings where "the simple story of the cross was shared." Ellen White later described how "the glory of God came into that meeting ... but it did not come only to a few, but at this time like a tidal wave it swept through that congregation, and what a time of rejoicing." [33] S. N. Haskell penned that the meetings were "characterized by the outpouring of the Spirit of God.... A solemn impression rested upon many that it was a few draps of what will be experienced by those who have a part in the closing work,--in the loud cry of the third angel's message that will ripen off the grain for the harvest." He then rhetorically asked: "Can it be true that we are really in the midst of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? which will increase in power and extent until it swells into the loud cry of the third angel's message?" [34]

Many more camp meetings were held that year, up to the 1889 General Conference, where Ellen White, Jones, and Waggoner shared the message with similar results. Many people found a new experience as they heard and took to heart the message presented. However, many, including several of the leading brethren, continued to fight against the message and the messengers. While attending camp meeting in Kansas, Ellen White wrote pointed remarks to those who continued their stubborn resistance: "Think ye not that the heavenly Watcher se es four unbelief and opposition? Think ye not your ridiculing, scoffing words are never to appear before you again? Even the outpouring of the Spirit of God you have treated with contempt, and have passed your unsanctified judgment upon." [35]

The 1889 General Conference opened with a different spirit than the 1888 Conference the year before. During the first weekend of meetings, many bore "testimony of the blessings received during the past year, of the blessed light they had received and cherished, which was justification through faith." This led Ellen White to declare that the "Spirit of the Lord was in our midst." [36] She reported to her daughter-in-law, Mary White, that "thus far, not one voice of opposition is heard. Unity seems to prevail." She did add, however, "at the same time there are a number who apparently stand where they did at Minneapolis." [37]

But by the end of the conference Ellen White was giving warnings of the danger that lay ahead because of the plans that were being speedily laid for the control of the work under the guidance of those who were still in opposition to the message sent of God. She knew that a work needed to be done "or many will not be prepared to receive the light of the angel sent down from heaven to lighten the whole earth with his glory." She recognized that they would not be ready for "the time of the latter rain, to receive the glory of God," if they were "cherishing roots of bitterness brought from the conference at Minneapolis." She went so far as to say that "Baal, Baal," would be the choice resulting from "infidelity to God" coming into our ranks:

The religion of many among us will be the religion of apostate Israel, because they love their own way, and forsake the way of the Lord. The true religion, the only religion of the Bible, that teaches forgiveness 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. It has been denounced as leading to enthusiasm and fanaticism. [38]

Notes:

1. Ellen G. White, "The Church's Great Need," Review and Herald, March, 22, 1887.
2. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, 271 (Nov. 1957).
3. Ellen G. White, "Diary," Manuscript 8, Oct. 10, 1859; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 3, 145.
4. Ellen G. White, "The Necessity of Receiving the Holy Spirit," Signs of the Times, Aug. 1, 1892.
5. Ellen G. White, "Work and Baptism of Holy Spirit Needed," Manuscript 35, Sept. 26, 1891; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 179.
6. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 25b, Aug. 30, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1017.
7. A. G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1926), 59, 62)
8. Leroy E. Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn. 1971), 651.
9. Don F. Neufeld, ed., "Latter Rain," Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1995 2nd rev. ed.), vol. 10, 905.
10. Woodrow W. Whidden II, E. J. Waggoner: From the Physician of Good News to Agent of Division (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2008), endnote, 211. Although Whidden's observations here are worthwhile, much of the rest of his biography on E. J. Waggoner follows the same questionable editorial approach as George Knight's biography on A. T. Jones. One could possibly conclude that both writers have been more interested in promoting their own Evangelical theology than in being honest with our Adventist history. See comments in chapter 3, footnote 30.
11. Ellen G. White, "To Brethren Assembled at General Conference," Manuscript 15, Nov. 1888; in 1888 Materials, 165, 166.
12. Ellen G. White, "Remarks After Reading an Article," Manuscript 26, Oct. 1888; in 1888 Materials, 154.
13. Ellen G. White to Brethren Who Shall Assemble in General Conference, Letter 20, Aug. 5, 1888; in 1888 Materials, 38.
14. Roger Coon, "Minneapolis/1888: The 'Forgotten' Issue," Transcript of Loma Linda University Lecture, Oct. 23-25,1988, Ellen G. White Estate, Shelf Document, 7.
15. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, 206.
16. Ellen G. White, "Morning Talk," Manuscript 6, Oct. 11, 1888; in 1888 Materials, 72.
17. Ellen G. White, "Remarks After Reading an Article," Manuscript 26, Oct. 1888; in 1888 Materials, 162.
18. Ellen G. White to G.I. Butler, Letter 21, Oct. 14, 1888; in 1888 Materials, 86.
19. Ellen G. White, "To Brethren Assembled at General Conference," Manuscript 15, Nov. 1888; in 1888 Materials, 170.
20. Ellen G. White, "Experience Following Minneapolis Conference," Manuscript 30, June, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 368.
21. G. B. Staff, "Sixty-Two Years in the Highest University," unpublished manuscript, 8; in Document File 496, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office.
22. "Eighth Day's Proceedings," General Conference Daily Bulletin, Oct. 26, 1888, 1.
23. F. H. Westphal to L. E. Froom, April 28, 1930; in L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 262.
24. Ellen G. White, "Light in God's Word," Manuscript 37, n.d., 1890; in 1888 Materials, 829.
25. Ellen G. White to Children of the Household, Letter 14, May 12, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 314.
26. Ellen G. White to J. Fargo, Letter 50, May 2,1889; in 1888 Materials, 296.
27. Ellen G. White to W. C. White, Letter 35, Nov. 17, 1885, unpublished.
28. Ellen G. White to J. N. Loughborough, J. H. Waggoner, E. J. Waggoner, A. T. Jones, Letter 76, April, 1886; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, 148.
29. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 81, May 31, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1565.
30. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 96, June 6, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1575.
31. Ellen G. White to C. P. Bollman, Letter 179, Nov.18, 1902; in 1888 Materials, 1796.
32. Ellen G. White, "Morning Talk," Manuscript 9, Oct. 24, 1888; in 1888 Materials, 151, 152.
33. Ellen G. White, "Sermon at Ashfield, Australia, Camp-meeting," Manuscript 49, Nov. 3, 1894; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, 234.
34. S. N. Haskell, "The General Meeting at South Lancaster, Mass.," Review and Herald, Jan. 29, 1889, 73.
35. Ellen G. White to Children of the Household, Letter 14, May 12, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 320.
36. Ellen G. White, "Diary," Manuscript 22, Oct. 1889, section dated Oct. 20; in 1888 Materials, 454.
37. Ellen G. White to Mary White, Letter 76, Oct. 29, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 450.
38. Ellen G. White to the General Conference, Letter 24, Oct. 1889; in 1888 Materials, 442, 445. 

Chapter 2

1889 to 1891 Ministerial Institutes and General Conference Sessions

1889 Ministerial Institute

The following winter at the 1889-1890 Ministerial Institute in Battle Creek, Ellen White would summarize the results of both the 1888 and 1889 General Conferences: "I know that [Christ] has a blessing for us. He had it at Minneapolis, and He had it for us at the time of the [1889] General Conference here [in Battle Creek]. But there was no reception. Some received the light for the people, and rejoiced in it. Then there were others that stood right back, and their position has given confidence to others to talk unbelief, and cherish it." [1]

Controversy continued through the 1890 Ministerial Institute where the topics of the Covenants and Law in Galatians had once again come into question. Two special meetings were held with explanations given by Ellen White, Jones, and Waggoner, which sought to bring about reconciliation and resolve the controversy that had existed since before Minneapolis and had even caused doubt in the Testimonies themselves. The meetings had limited success. [2] While some came to see matters differently, many continued their wayward course. Ellen White described to those gathered there the end results of the first meeting: "In the chapel hall [yesterday] the power of God was all ready to fall upon us. I felt for a little time as though I could look right into glory; but the spirit that was there drove it away." [3] Months later she would express the outcome of the second meeting in a letter to Uriah Smith, Review and Herald editor and key opponent of the message: "Then the second meeting on the Sabbath in the office chapel was held when the Spirit of the Lord came nigh to us. Christ knocked for entrance but no room was made for him, the door was not opened and the light of His glory, so nigh, was withdrawn." [4]

ln a Review article published two months after the Ministerial Institute, Ellen White continued to encourage people to make a full surrender for Christ. It was time to choose between Christ and Baal, not "wavering between dependence upon the righteousness of Christ, and dependence upon your own righteousness." God had sent a message of "truth and righteousness" and was calling all to "lift up Jesus." Yet many where turning from the message and criticizing the messengers, Jones and Waggoner, which without a change would bring frightening results:

God has raised up his messengers to do his work for this time. Some have turned from the message of the righteousness of Christ to criticize the men and their imperfections, because they do not speak the message of truth with all the grace and polish desirable. They have too much zeal, are too much in earnest, speak with too much positiveness, and the message that would bring healing and life and comfort to many weary and oppressed souls, is, in a measure, excluded.... Christ has registered all the hard, proud, sneering speeches spoken against his servants as against himself.

The third angel's message will not be comprehended, the light which will lighten the earth with its glory will be called a false light, by those who refuse to walk in its advancing glory. The work that might have been done, will be left undone by the rejecters of truth, because of their unbelief. We entreat of you who oppose the light of truth, to stand out of the way of God's people. [5]*

Writing to General Conference president O. A. Olsen the summer of 1890, Ellen White shared what she had been shown of the evils that existed in many of the conferences across the country. The spirit of resistance that had been exhibited "in presenting the righteousness of Christ as our only hope has grieved the Spirit of God," she explained. lt had caused her great sadness to "see that those who ought to be giving the trumpet a certain sound ... to prepare a people to stand in the day of the Lord" were standing as sentinels to bar the way. Satan saw that it was "time to make a strike," and those who should have been standing for the light of truth opposed the very message sent of God. Indeed, the very message sent through A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner was "seen to be wrong by very many, and they cry 'Danger, fanaticism,' when there is no heresy and fanaticism." [6]

The 1890-1891 Ministerial Institute brought better results, as some confessions were made (although not long-lasting for many). Ellen White rejoiced that during this "season of close searching of the Scriptures" the hearts of the attendees "were not barred with iron, lest rays of light should penetrate the darkened chambers of the mind, and the sanctifying power should cleanse and refine the soul temple." She testified that during the special study times at the Institute there were times "where there was not a question with the class but that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit of God, was doing His work." Many of the students bore precious testimonies and "went forth to labor, trusting to be made efficient by the agency of the Holy Spirit." [7]

E. J. Waggoner rejoiced with Ellen White as well, in early January, 1891, stating "that there was an entirely different atmosphere pervading the meetings than was in the ministerial institute" the year before. [8] Yet that very same night Ellen White was shown by the Lord "many things being transacted in Battle Creek, right here at the heart of the work, that are contrary to the principles plainly defined by the word of God." A confederacy was being formed, which would hinder His divine plan, to which Ellen White declared: "God is insulted." [9] Thus Satan was working to undo that which the Lord was seeking to do through the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. 

On the closing night of the Institute, Ellen White spoke on "matters that were deeply impressing my mind." She referred to the fear expressed by some who had not attended the Institute, that "there was danger of carrying the subject of justification by faith altogether too far, and of not dwelling enough on the law." But she could see "no cause for alarm" and that such fears "were not warranted." The Bible and the Bible alone had been the subject of investigation in the Institute. Yet among those who had not attended, many had a "freezingly cold" religion; the "hearts of not a few are still unmelted, unsubdued." [10]

1891 General Conference

Ellen White carried the same burden with her into the 1891 General Conference, which ran from March 5th through the 24th. Speaking to a large assembly at the Tabernacle in Battle Creek, Ellen White referred to the "increased light" God had for them and the great blessings that "come with the reception of this light." Yet when she saw her own brethren "stirred with anger against God's messages and messengers," she thought of "similar scenes in the life of Christ and the reformers." Sadly, "the reception given to God's servants in past ages is the same as the reception that those today receive through whom God is sending precious rays of light. The leaders of the people today pursue the same course of action that the Jews pursued." Drawing a parallel between the Jews' treatment of Christ and the way that the 1888 message and messengers had been treated, Ellen White spoke of the sin against the Holy Spirit and of the sad results of attributing His work to fanaticism:

[Christ] tells his hearers that all manner of sin and blasphemy may be forgiven if done in ignorance. In their great blindness they might speak words of insult and derision against the Son of man, and yet be within the boundary of mercy. But when the power and Spirit of God rested upon his messengers they were on holy ground. To ignore the Spirit of God, to charge it with being the Spirit of the devil, placed them in a position where God had no power to reach their souls. No power in any of God's provisions to correct the erring can reach them.

Some in Battle Creek will surely reach this point if they do not change their course. They will place themselves where none of God's ordained means will be able to set them right. ... To speak against Christ, charging His work to Satanic agencies, and attributing the manifestations of the Spirit to fanaticism, is not of itself a damning sin, but the spirit that leads men to make these assertions places them in a position of stubborn resistance, where they cannot see spiritual light, Some will never retrace their steps, they will never humble their hearts by acknowledging their wrongs, but like the Jews will continually make assertions that mislead others. ...

In this time light from the throne of God has been long resisted as an objectionable thing. It has been regarded as darkness and spoke of as fanaticism, as something dangerous, to be shunned. Thus men have become guide-posts pointing in the wrong direction. They have followed the example set by the Jewish people. ... If all those who claim to believe present truth had opened their hearts to receive the message, and the spirit of truth, which is the mercy and justice and love of God, they would not have gathered about the darkness so dense that they could not discern light. They would not have called the operations of the Holy Spirit fanaticism and error. [11]

On the last night of the General Conference session, Ellen White again picked up the same theme. Some had been manifesting "a spirit of Pharisaic prejudice and criticism," and as soon as this was indulged, "the holy angels depart." Ellen White observed that they possessed "in a large degree the same spirit that was revealed in the Conference at Minneapolis." The deception that was upon their minds in 1888 still existed in 1891. Many were still "indulging skepticism and infidelity" and refusing to accept the message God had sent. Ellen White now addressed the claim that the message was itself fanaticism: 

In the revival work that has been going forward here during the past winter we have seen no fanaticism. But I will tell you what I have seen. I have seen men who were so lifted up in themselves, and so stubborn, that their hearts were enshrouded in darkness. All the light that Heaven graciously sent them as interpreted to be darkness. ... 

The bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness, if received, would have illuminated the soul-temple, and driven out the buyers and sellers, the pride of opinion and the lust of the flesh. But there are some who have criticized and depreciated, and even stooped to ridicule, the messengers through whom the Lord has wrought in power. [12]

Such negative attitudes toward the message of 1888 spilled over into the area of church organization. Ellen White was shown the dangers that would threaten the church through "the formation of a confederacy that would make Battle Creek, like Rome," and thus affect the work around the world. [13] Men in responsible positions who would not "walk in the light" that God was sending "brought disaster upon the cause and reproach upon the people" through their baleful influence. [14]

Ten years later Ellen White would look back at the 1891 General Conference and record how "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," yet the brethren only "assented to the light." There were those "connected with our institutions, especially with the Review and Herald Office and the [General] Conference, who brought in elements of unbelief, so that the light that was given was not acted upon." This brought about such a condition of things that the power of God could not be revealed among His people. [15]

Amidst Ellen White's calls to accept the message of 1888 and reconsider organizational changes needed at the 1891 General Conference, a plan was born to send her--along with her workers and her son W. C. White--to Australia. [16] Years later, she would make it clear that the Lord was not in their leaving America. But powerful forces at the heart of the work were very willing to have them leave. As is always the case, the Lord did not force His hand but allowed His people to choose their own way:

The Lord was not in our leaving America. He did not reveal that it was his will that I should leave Battle Creek. The Lord did not plan this, but he let you all move after four own imaginings. The Lord would have had W. C. White, his mother, and her workers remain in America. We were needed at the heart of the work, and had four spiritual perception discerned the true situation, you would never have consented to the movements made. But the Lord read the hearts of all. There was so great a willingness to have us leave, that the Lord permitted this thing to take place. Those who were weary of the testimonies borne were left without the persons who bore them. Our separation from Battle Creek was to let men have their own will and way, which they thought superior to the way of the Lord. [17]*

ln Ellen White's absence, not only would the rebellion against the 1888 message continue for years to come among many in key leadership positions, but also against her heaven-sent counsel regarding almost every other area of the advent movement. Such disregard for heaven-sent counsel would result in enormous challenges to the church soon after Ellen White's return to American in 1901.

Not all was darkness, however, at the 1891 General Conference. As with the 1888 and 1889 Conferences, the Holy Spirit was brooding over the remnant people of God, seeking to enlighten and empower them for troublous times soon to come upon them and to prepare them to share the loud cry message with the world. Early morning meetings for the ministers were held from 5:30 to 6:30 each day. The Daily Bulletin announced that most who attended went away "feeling that they had received a special blessing from God, and that they could go out to their fields of labor with the assurance that more of the power of his Spirit would attend their labors in the future than in the past." Such evidence seemed to indicate that God was "waiting to greatly bless his people, that as soon as they place themselves in right relations to him, such showers of divine grace will fall upon them as will make the heart tender and give power in proclaiming the truths of the gospel." [18] Truly God wanted to pour out the latter rain to enlighten and empower His people.

Ellen White felt the same way, attending all but three of the early morning meetings and being able to speak "to the ministers with great freedom." She confidently declared that the Lord had been in their midst and that they had "seen of His salvation." In fact, she felt she had never attended meetings "where there was manifested as much of the Spirit of the Lord in the study of His word, as on this occasion." These meetings "were of a solemn character. There was depth of feeling, thanksgiving and praise, offered to God for His precious blessing bestowed in the searching of His word." [19] Some who had come to learn bore testimony of how they had finally come to believe that Christ had indeed "forgiven their sins." Ellen White expressed joy that even though it was "the eleventh hour to learn that," it was not too late for "wrongs to be made right." She admonished all to "put away every fiber of the root of bitterness" that had been "planted in so many hearts," primarily since the Minneapolis Conference. [20]

Other meetings were also held where the present truth message was intended to be shared. Because so many had been blessed through the Ministerial School held during the months before the General Conference, all Conference attendees where now invited to attend a one-hour Bible study each day "in order to give as large a number as possible some of the benefits of such a school." [21] W. W. Prescott and E. J. Waggoner were to be the primary presenters, which were scheduled to present at 9:00 A.M. each morning. However, because "so much interest was manifested on the part of the Battle Creek church, the students of the College, the helpers at the Sanitarium, and hands in the Review Office," the time was changed to 7:00 P.M., "in order to accommodate all." [22]

W. W. Prescott presented a series the first week on "the subject of the Bible as the inspired word of God." His emphasis was that "there can be no degrees of inspiration. We accept the entire word as coming alike from God." Prescott would go on to show that "as soon as we decide that one portion of the Scripture is more inspired than another, we have a man-made Bible, which is really no standard of right and wrong." Such a defective view of Scripture was leading to "a doubting faith," and robbing people of their "source of strength." [23]

Prescott was obviously responding to the false teachings of, among others, the former General Conference president G. I. Butler, who had not only written a series of articles in the Review, where he presented the concept that only portions of the Scriptures were fully inspired [24] but had also taught the same views at Battle Creek College. [25] Such erroneous concepts had also been applied to the Spirit of Prophecy, the writings of Ellen White, divesting them of their full inspiration and authority. Ellen White had responded by stating that "the Lord did not inspire the articles on inspiration published in the Review, neither did He approve their endorsement before our youth in the college." [26] The rejection of the counsel given by God at Minneapolis through Ellen White was due in part to such theories, which were "making them of none effect." [27]

The Beginning of the Loud Cry

Waggoner's sixteen presentations on the book of Romans followed Prescott's series and extended to the end of the General Conference. His theme was "justification by faith," based on the first eight chapters, "which were taken up in consecutive order." W. A. Colcord felt the "Bible study was much appreciated by all present, and was a very profitable feature of the Conference." [28]

In his last lecture on the book of Romans the closing night of the Conference, Waggoner proclaimed that "the power of the word of Christ also works righteousness in us. The preaching of the cross of Christ presents life and immortality to men. It is the preaching of the cross of Christ that warns men of destruction. It delivers us from the snares of the world, and gives us access into the grace wherein we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." This had been his theme throughout his sixteen lectures--presenting Christ in all of Adventism's distinctive doctrines:

While we are loyal to the third angel's message, and to all the doctrines that make us distinct from the world, let us determine to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. It is the power of God unto salvation. It is the everlasting gospel, which shall prepare men for the judgment which is even now set. And oh, if that first angel declared, "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come," how much more should we declare that message--the everlasting gospel--now, when that judgment is not only come, but even now nearly done.

I thank God that he is revealing the truths of his word to us, and that he has shown us that the third angel's message is the whole gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. Why do we know so much more about the word of God? Because God is revealing Christ to us, and in us. All we know of the power of Christ we know from the word, and by this we are made clean from sin. Our faith lays hold of Christ, and he becomes a reality in our own hearts and in our lives.

When we have strong faith that Christ is abiding in us, we can go forth to work for others with power, and join our voices with those of the angels in heaven, and then the message will go with a loud cry. The reason that it has not gone with a loud cry is because we have not grasped it in its fullness. In the past many of us have not had that kernel of the message that it is all Christ.

When we have Christ, we have everything, and we know the power that there is in him. Then we submit ourselves to him, and the power will rest upon us, and the word that we preach will go with power, and the loud cry of the third angel's message will be here. I rejoice to night in the belief that the loud cry is now beginning. [29]

Waggoner gave the true meaning of the message "it is all Christ"--a message that has been distorted in the modern mantra of "Jesus. All!" [3O]* He believed that an Adventist church filled with members rejoicing in and experiencing the message of righteousness by faith would be a church enlightened and empowered to give the same message with a loud cry to the world. This would only take place through the outpouring of the latter rain, which was in essence the result of an accumulation of the early rain experience. [31] Waggoner could rejoice in March of 1891 in the belief that the loud cry was then beginning.

The powerful gospel message that Waggoner presented wasn't lost on those alone in Battle Creek, but through the pages of The General Conference Daily Bulletin round its way around the world. A. G. Daniells later testified that "it was at the Conference of 1891, when the ministers who were preaching that message gave such stirring sermons," that the "mighty pulsations of four meeting here in this Tabernacle were felt all around the globe." The power of the message was felt in Australia, and when they got the Bulletins and began to read, their "hearts were stirred." Daniells recalled how he had "seen our brethren sit and read those messages with the tears streaming down their cheeks; I have seen them fairly convulsed with the power there was in the message, even though only printed in the Bulletin." But it wasn't his fellow workers alone who experienced life changes--Daniells himself was truly blessed:

I felt it myself. Just before the Bulletins came, my mind was very powerfully called to this ninth chapter of Romans. "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law." That scripture was sent to my mind for days and days before the first Bulletins came. It was all the time before me, and when the Bulletins came, and we began to read the message, O, how that message took hold of us. Our brethren used to get up very early in the morning, long before daylight, and take the Bulletins, and study those talks and Bible studies. Although they had not had their attention called to the message before, as they read the Bulletins, they went down on their knees, and round the righteousness which is of faith. [32]

In June of 1891, W. W. Stebbins encouraged readers to subscribe to the Review and "as many more of our periodicals as possible" and to "pray without ceasing; drink in the latter rain; help swell the loud cry of the third angel's message in its onward march around the world." He also encouraged his brethren to attend the upcoming camp-meetings and institutes, because, he stated, "It is reasonable to believe that in the very near future, at some of our general gatherings, when we are 'all with one accord in one place,' the latter rain will drop upon us in a marked degree. Indeed, there can be no question but that a 'sound from heaven' has already been heard, a glad herald of a glorious reviving." He knew that it was at these gatherings where church members could "catch more and more of the spirit of the message as it is today." [33]

But it wasn't just in the United States where it was evident that the power of God was at work. As P. T. Magan saw Christians in Russia breaking away from the traditions of the Orthodox Church at that very time and seeking for greater light from the Scriptures, he knew it was only by the power of God which was enabling them to take such forward steps. "Surely," he declared, "the closing work of the gospel begins to go with a 'loud cry,' and it soon will be cut short in righteousness." [34]

S. McCullagh wrote that "it seemed as though we were beginning to receive some of the showers of the latter rain" at some of the impressive meetings being held in New Zealand. And "why should we not receive great blessings now?" he asked: "We shall, if we will come where Jesus is calling us." [35]

Several camp-meetings scattered across the United States were characterized that summer "as the largest gathering" ever held among Adventists. At the Ohio camp-meeting held in late August, J. N. Loughborough, an early Adventist pioneer, shared "graphic pictures of earlier days, and of the power of God which attended the proclamation of the first message." A. T. Jones and W. W. Prescott also led out in the meetings, and the "subject of righteousness by faith was the one great and central theme of the meeting."

L. A. Smith reported that they had never "seen a camp so permeated and pervaded by the sentiment of praise to God. At the early morning meetings, at family worship, at all other meetings of a social nature, it was the theme of every testimony and the thought of every heart." [36] Loughborough, who had participated in the midnight cry of the Millerite movement, bore witness "that Ohio camp-meeting was the nearest approach to a pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit of God I have witnessed since 1844. Praise be to His holy name! As this dear people arose in response to the call of God's word, to dedicate themselves to Him, He indeed drew very near." [37]

The year 1891 had not even passed into the history books, when Ellen White declared that the loud cry had begun. Preaching at the Lansing, Michigan, camp-meeting in early September, she proclaimed that "the third angel's message is swelling into a loud cry, and you must not feel at liberty to neglect the present duty, and still entertain the idea that at some future time you will be the recipients of great blessing." "Today," she admonished, "you are to have four vessel purified that it may be ready for the heavenly dew, ready for the showers of the latter rain." [38]

O. A. Olsen felt the Lord gave Ellen White "great freedom and much power in speaking to the people." In fact, he didn't think he had "ever heard her speak with more force, clearness, and the power of God, than on this occasion." E. J. Waggoner and others also labored for the people, and "many who came to the meeting with an uncertain experience, went away rejoicing in the love of God." Yet, Olsen observed, "there was no special excitement in any way, but every heart was deeply affected, and there seemed to be a sense of God's presence that was remarkable." [39]

Adventists in Michigan were encouraged to attend general meetings during the winter months, where valuable instructions, "fitted for the present time," would be given. Considering world events taking place at the time, J. O. Corliss would suggest that they were then "being driven rapidly toward the time when the latter rain is expected, and it would not be surprising if some drops of it would be felt at these gatherings." [40] J. F. Ballenger expressed similar ideas in November 1891, asserting that drops of the latter rain seemed "to be already falling," and praying that the "Lord increase our faith." [41]

Notes:

1. Ellen G. White, "Sermon," Manuscript 2, March 16, 1890; in 1888 Materials, 640.
2. Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1 (Mt. Shasta, CA: 4th Angel Publishers, 3nd ed., 2014), 317-416.
3. Ellen G. White, "Sermon: Cherishing Faith, Not Doubt," Manuscript 2, March 16, 1890; in 1888 Materials, 616.
4. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 73, Nov. 25, 1890; in 1888 Materials, 734.
5. Ellen G. White, "Living Channels of Light," Review and Herald, May 27, 1890, p. 321; in 1888 Materials, 673. The same criticism of Jones and Waggoner exists even to this day and is found in the writings of several church historians who have dealt with the 1888 Conference and its aftermath. See comments in chapter 3, footnote 30.
6. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 116, Aug. 27, 1890; in 1888 Materials, 703.
7. Ellen G. White to Brethren Fulton and Burke, Letter 3, March 20, 1891; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 3, 194.
8. Ellen G. White, "Diary;' Manuscript 40, Jan. 1891; in Robert W. Olson, compiler, "The Salamanca Vision and the 1890 Diary," Ellen G. White Estate Document, 1983, 69.
9. Ellen G. White, "Diary;' Manuscript 40, Jan. 1891, section dated Jan. 11; in 1888 Materials, 877, 878.
10. Ellen G. White, "Christ Our Righteousness," Diary, Manuscript 21, Feb. 27, 1891; in 1888 Materials, 890, 896.
11. Ellen G. White "Article Read in the Auditorium of the Battle Creek Tabernacle to a Large Assembly, at the General Conference March 1891," Manuscript 30, 1890, in 1888 Materials, 911, 912, 915, 916.
12. Ellen G. White, "Our Present Dangers," Talk delivered March 24, 1891, General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891, 257, 260; in 1888 Materials, 901, 901.
13. Ellen G. White to The General Conference Committee and the Publishing Boards of the Review and Herald and Pacific Press, Letter 71, April 8, 1894; in The Publishing Ministry, 144.
14. Ellen G. White to A. R. Henry, Letter 41, May 16, 1898; in 1888 Materials, 1663, 1664.
15. Ellen G. White, "Remarks at [the 1901] General Conference," General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901, 23; in 1888 Materials, 1743.
16. "Proceedings of the Board of Foreign Missions," General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891, 256.
17. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 127, Dec. 1, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1622-1624. For more information on Ellen White's exile to Australia, see The Return of the Latter Rain, vols. 1 and 2.
18. W. A. Colcord, "The General Conference," General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891, 251.
19. Ellen G. White to Brethren Fulton and Burke, Letter 3, March 20, 1891; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 3, 194.
20. Ellen G. White, "Our Present Danger," sermon delivered at the General Conference, March 24, 1891; in General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891, 261, 257.
21. "Ministers' School," General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 6, 1891, 4.
22. "Bible Study," General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 6, 1891, 15.
23. Editorial Note, "Bible Study," General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 6, 1891, 15.
24. G. I. Butler, "Inspiration, No. 1-10," Review and Herald, Jan. 8, 15, 22, 29; Feb. 5; April 15, 22; May 6, 27; June 3, 1884, 24, 41, 57, 73, 89, 249, 265, 296, 345, 361.
25. Roger W. Coon, Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It Works, White Estate Shelf Document, 73, 74.
26. Ellen G. White to R. A. Underwood, Letter 22, Jan. 18, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 238.
27. Ellen G. White, "To Brethren Assembled at General Conference," Manuscript 15, Nov. 1888; in 1888 Materials, 173, 174. See also Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 14, Dec. 11, 1891; in 1888 Materials, 975, 976.
28. W. A. Colcord, "The General Conference," General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891, 251.
29. E. J. Waggoner, "Bible Study Letter to the Romans, No. 16," General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 25, 1891, 245, 246.
30. The One Project, through its Emerging Church philosophy, expresses concepts that are a counterfeit of the true 1888 message. See Ron Duffield, "The Emerging One Project?"--a ten-part PowerPoint presentation, available from the author at theemergingoneproject@gmail.com.
31. Percy T. Megan, "Our Future Work," Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, Feb. 15, 1891, 60.
32. A. G. Daniells, "Sermon, April 14, 1901," General Conference Bulletin, April 16, 1901, 272.
33. W. W. Stebbins, "Reflections Upon Visiting the Lonely ODes," Review and Herald, June 23, 1891, 386.
34. P. T. Magan, "Evangelical Dissent in the Russian Church," Review and Herald, May 26, 326.
35. S. McCullagh, "Palmerston and Napier, New Zealand," Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, July 1, 1891, 204.
36. L. A. Smith, "The Ohio Camp-meeting," Review and Herald, Sept. 1, 1891, 552, 553.
37. J. N. Loughborough, "Ohio Camp-Meeting," Review and Herald, Sept. 15, 1891, 571.
38. Ellen G. White, "'It Is Not for You to Know the Times and the Seasons,'" sermon at Lansing, Michigan, Sept. 5, 1891; in 1888 Materials, 958.
39. O. A. Olsen, "A Good Camp-Meeting," Review and Herald, Sept. 29, 1891, 601.
40. J. Fargo and J. O. Corliss, "To the Brethren in Northern Michigan," Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1891, 784.
41. J. F. Ballenger, "An Explanation," Review and Herald, Nov. 24, 1891, 723.
Chapter 3

1892 Camp meeting Revivals

"The Light Is Shining Now"

Soon after arriving in Australia in early 1892, Ellen White would write to S. N. Haskell one of the most ardent letters she had yet written on the implications of the most precious message of righteousness by faith sent to God's people. After considering all that was taking place in the world and in the church, which pointed to a culmination of last-day events, she expressed her desire for an enlightened and empowered people from the light of Revelation 18 which was then shining:

My heart is yearning for the people of God to awaken and see how the work has been hindered even in this country, by want of brotherly love. Envy and jealousy and self-uplifting will drive Jesus from the heart I want them to realize that they are on trial; God is proving them to see if they can become members of His family in Heaven...

What more can I say? My heart is filled to overflowing. Only those are fit for this work who are imbued with the Holy Spirit. The light has come; the light which will enlighten the whole earth with its bright rays, has been shining from the throne of God. Shall we fail to appreciate the most precious privileges that are brought within our reach? Shall we go on in our own weakness? Shall we walk in the sparks of our own kindling? The Lord means that these privileges and opportunities shall do a special work for us. Will we walk in the light? Will we let this light flash upon the pathway of others? How long will we disappoint Jesus by a cold, half hearted life destitute of love? Must the candlestick be removed out of its place? Christ declares that it will be unless we 'repent and do our first work'...

Oh, that the Lord would convict and convert souls, that the light now shining may not be removed from us because we do not walk in the light and lead others out of darkness. I feel intensely over this deadness and frivolity of God's people. I beg of them, rest not until their souls shall be all aglow with the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness. Those who make no use of the light which they have will not only fail to receive greater light, but they will lose that which now shines upon them. Like Capernaum they have been exalted to heaven in point of privileges; unless they respond to the light they will be left in complete darkness, and will not know at what they stumble.

I tell you God is testing us now, just now. The whole earth is to be lighted with the glory of God. The light is shining now, and how hard it is for proud hearts to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour; how hard to get out of the rut of legal religion; how hard to grasp the rich, free gift of Christ.

Those who have not accepted this offering will not understand anything of the light which fills the whole earth with its glory. Let every heart now seek the Lord. Let self be crucified, for rich and glorious blessings are waiting all who will maintain contrition of soul. With them Jesus can abide." [1]*

No less than seven times in this single letter Ellen White used present-tense language indicating that the loud cry message of Revelation 18 had already begun, and this could only be possible through the special endowment of the Holy Spirit. Writing only a few weeks later to S. N. Haskell, Ellen White continued this same theme: 

Will the church arise and put on her beautiful garments, the righteousness of Christ? Soon it is to be seen who are the vessels unto honor. 'After these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory [Rev. 18:1, 2]' '... But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in His wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall [Malachi 4:1, 2].' Here are brought plainly to view those who will be vessels unto honor; for they will receive the latter rain. Every soul who in the light now shining upon our pathway continues in sin will be blinded, and will accept the delusions that come from Satan. We are now nearing the close of this earth's history....

Those who have not accepted this offering will not understand anything of the light which fills the whole earth with its glory. Let every heart now seek the Lord. Let self be crucified, for rich and glorious blessings are waiting all who will maintain contrition of soul. With them Jesus can abide. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the church is looked forward to, as in the future; but it is the privilege of the church to have it now. Seek for it, pray for it, believe for it. We must have it, and Heaven is waiting to bestow it. [2]

Following Ellen White's admonition to Haskell--that these thoughts were shared with him that he might "present it to others" [3]--he wrote a six-part series for the Review titled: "Watchman, What of the Night?" ln these articles Haskell quoted largely from Ellen White's recent letters to him, which called the attention of his readers to the events taking place in the world, evidences of heaven's outpouring of light and the Spirit of God, and the beginning of the loud cry.

In his first article Haskell summarized "three events that would stand in immediate connection with the coming of Christ," which Seventh-day Adventists had looked forward to for more than forty years. The first was "the spreading of the truth in all the nations of the earth as a witness." The second was "the loud cry of the third angel's message ... clothing the word of God with special power," which would fulfill the prophecy of Revelation 18:1. Third, "a time would come when persecution would begin" in the United States because commandment keepers "would not worship the beast or his image." Haskell then asked the question: "Have we any indication that these events are now transpiring?" [4] He would answer that question over the next several articles published in the weeks to come.

In his second article Haskell covered the spreading of the third angel's message primarily through the publishing and canvassing work. [5] In his third article Haskell took up his second point covering the loud cry and the latter rain. He pointed out that the prophecy of Revelation 18:1 "refers to special light and power to attend this proclamation in its closing work; and as this light would come upon the people, success would be given to the preaching of the message, so that its closing work would be accomplished in a brief period of time." But rather than come "like a mighty, rushing wind, as on the day of Pentecost, and by some special miraculous interference of God's providence," men and women had a duty themselves in obtaining "an experience in the things of God that will fit them to receive the outpouring of his Holy Spirit." Just as the disciples had to be "enlightened as to the nature of the work" and have their hearts "in a condition to receive the Spirit of God," so it was with the remnant church. Haskell showed that the then-current message coming to the church was meant to accomplish this very work, and based on Ellen White's recent letters to him, which he quoted largely from, they were a sign of the beginning of the loud cry and the time of the latter rain:

The first movement necessary to fit the people to receive the outpouring of the Spirit of God is to realize that Christ is our personal Saviour, to make to ourselves a personal application of his promises, and to realize that the testimonies of inspiration are addressed to us personally; and in thus making a personal application of the promises of God, we are bringing Christ into the heart, which will fit us to take a part in the closing work; consequently, when our attention is more particularly turned to this phase of the work, and a personal application of the promises is made, it is really the beginning of the loud cry of the third angel's message. In a late testimony from sister White, she says:

"What more can I say? My heart is filled to overflowing. Only those are fit for this work who are imbued with the Holy Spirit. The light has come; the light which will enlighten the whole earth with its bright rays, has been shining from the throne of God.... I tell you God is testing us now, just now. The whole earth is to be lighted with the glory of God. The light is shilling now, and how hard it is for proud hearts to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour; how hard to get out of the rut of legaI religion; how hard to grasp the rich, free gift of Christ!..." [6]

It is evident, therefore, that none but those who experience this incoming of the Saviour into their hearts will be in a condition to receive and take partin the loud cry which is to be given in the immediate future. This is really the beginning of it, and is not this now taking place? Has not our attention been called more especially to this part of the work? It does not lessen the importance of any of the points of the truth which have been preached for the last fifty years, but it gives to the individual a living experience and vitality in the truth that has not been experienced by many in the past. Our experience has become too legal and formal. There has been altogether too much of the Pharisaical spirit and too little of the tender, melting Spirit of Christ. Self-righteousness has been too prominent. We therefore conclude that even in this, evidences are not wanting that we have reached the beginning of the loud cry of the third angel's message. Is there no limit to the time of the closing work? Do we not read that the work will be cut short in righteousness?... Who cannot discern even in this movement of especially calling the attention of our people to Christ as a personal Saviour, imparting present salvation, the "sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees"? if so, should we not "ask of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain"? which, if we do, he has promised to "make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field." Zech. 10:1. Has not the time come for this?--We verily believe it has. [7]

Haskell continued his series, covering America's reversion to the persecuting ways of Romanism thus setting up an image to the beast, [8] and a review of the three angels' messages in the history of Adventism. [9] His series ended with a summary of the third angel's message, showing that the world was on the very verge of the Second Coming. He confidently proclaimed that the "mighty angel has come down from heaven, and the light has begun to shine which will enlighten the earth with the glory of God." With such awesome realities in mind, Haskell declared: "It is now high time that the watchman should lift his warning voice, and give the trumpet a certain sound, that the people may prepare for the final conflict." [1O]

Camp-meeting Revivals

Such solemn thoughts could not help but make their way into the camp-meetings and conference meetings throughout the summer. Writing of their 1892 camp-meeting experiences, many church leaders and members ex-pressed thoughts of gratitude for the blessings that God was showering upon them. O. A. Olsen, W. W. Prescott, A. T. Jones, and others were cheered by what they were seeing in the camp-meetings that season: "We see very plain evidence that the message is rising. While we are glad for what we have seen of the Lord's working among his people, we are sure that it is our privilege to experience even more copious showers of divine grace." [11]

Following the Wichita, Kansas, camp-meeting in August, O. S. Ferren reported that "the power of God was manifested" and that "almost the entire congregation rejoiced that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." The praise meetings that followed led him to believe that truly "a shower of the latter rain fell upon us." [12]

O. J. Mason praised the Lord after the September camp-meeting in southern Illinois. As they were favored by the preaching of J. N. Loughborough and A. T. Jones, "many doubting, discouraged ones began to grasp the promises of God, and they began to realize that they are accepted in the Beloved." Seventeen were baptized following the camp-meeting, which led Mason to "praise the Lord for these droppings of the 'latter rain' which we have enjoyed, and expect more copious showers, as our faith grasps his promises more fully." [13]

The Michigan camp-meeting at Lansing was "such a one as has never before been witnessed by Seventh-day Adventists." Not only was it the largest gathering and the greatest number encamped on the ground, "but in many other features." J. N. Loughborough reported that the "mighty power of the Lord was there in a more marked degree than I have ever seen since the time I attended the advent meetings in 1843-44." They felt "truly that the 'times of refreshing' were beginning to 'come from the presence of the Lord," and that we were having a few drops of the latter rain." [14] Some of the other "old hands like Bro. Gurney and Bro. Whipple and others said that this was more like 1844 than anything they had seen since that time." [15]

Mrs. Peebles wrote poetically of her experience at the same camp-meeting: "With wonder we look about us, glad to see the same joy shilling from the countenances of others, that we feel in our own hearts, and we say to ourselves, What can it be? Is it a little shower of the latter rain, a little foretaste of the refreshing that is soon to come from the presence of the Lord? And we wonder if there has been a meeting like this since the Pentecost, and try to think what God has still in store for his people." [16]

But what was it that brought forth such descriptions from those who attended the camp-meeting? M. E. Kellogg gives us some insight. The preaching of O. A. Olsen, A. T. Jones, W. W. Prescott, J. O. Corliss, and others "was not done to please the ear or to exalt self, but to hold up Jesus Christ before the people, and to declare His gospel which is the 'power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.'" The rapid fulfilling of prophecy, and the duty in view of the "solemnity of this time was faithfully presented." But there was something else which moved the people along in their experience: "While this was the case all through the meeting, especially on the Sabbath, there was great searching of heart. From half-past tell in the morning, the meeting continued five hours, without intermission. The first part of the time was occupied by a discourse by Elder Olsen; then an invitation was giten for those to come forward who wished to seek the Lord anew. Hundreds responded to the invitation. Ministers and people came forward together; confessions were made, and tears of humble penitence and of holy joy were mingled together." [17]

O. A. Olsen described the Sabbath meeting by saying that "when an opportunity was given to sinners, backsliders, and all who wished to seek God anew, to come forward to the front seats, about six hundred responded. The power of God rested upon the congregation. Excellent confessions were made. It did seem to me that we had at this meeting some of the droppings of the latter rain." [18] Olson acknowledged that he had never been "in a meeting where the power of God was so manifest, yet" he exclaimed, "there was no excitement." Among those who came forward in this "long to be remembered" meeting were "several ministers." [19]

One of the most prominent ministers to come forward and make confession was H. Miller, who had played a notice able part in the dissension and unbelief following the Minneapolis meetings. Olsen described to Ellen White what happened: "First he spoke a while, and made some acknowledgements, and was quite broken; but it was evident that he did not reach the point. We were glad for this of course. He took his seat; but he had been there only a moment of time until he got up again, and said that he was not free. Then he took up the testimony that you gave him ... and he acknowledged it." [20] Ellen White had sent two Testimonies to Miller three years earlier, confronting him with the rejection ofheaven-sent light at Minneapolis and declaring that because of his Pharisaism, had he lived in the time of Christ he would have joined those in rejecting Him. [21] She had told him that "those who accept the message given, will heed the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans." [22] Now Brother Miller acknowledged it all.

But this was not the end of his confession. Now, in front of nearly 3,000 people, Adventists and visitors alike, Miller turned and "spoke to Bro. Jones and acknowledged the feelings that he had toward him. He was very much broken. He said that his great trouble was Miller. By the grace of God, he would get Miller out, and get Christ in." Such a confession, Olsen declared, "had a wonderful effect upon the congregation.... It rejoiced us all to hear this. I must say that I have never seen a Miller so broken before.... But Sr. White, the Spirit of God is at work, and the Lord's power is mighty." [23]

O. A. Olsen went on to describe to Ellen White how A. T. Jones had spoken twice on both Sundays, "setting forth the present situation, and the present developments. I do not know how to describe it only to say the Power of God was upon him; and again, this expression. He spake as one having authority, and not as the scribes."

Nearly 2,000 people attended the closing meeting held Sunday evening, October 2. Olsen stated he had “never attended such a meeting before, and never before saw such manifestations of the Lord’s power.” Yet, once again he declared that “there was no excitement.”[24] As with earlier meetings, the closing meeting ended with a time for attendees to share their personal testimonies of praise. The congregation “just rose up en masse all over the tent and began to speak.” Olsen requested the ministers that were present to go out in the congregation “and receive the testimonies, and so they did, and the result was that there were probably fifteen or twenty speaking at the same time. And while this might appear like confusion, yet there was no confusion there, but the spirit of praise was heard all over the tent as one voice.”[25] 

M. E. Kellogg shared his eyewitness account as well: “The farewell praise-meeting held Sunday evening after the close of the preaching service, was unlike anything we ever saw before. The great pavilion was filled with brethren and sisters, and nearly every one was full of praise to God. The ministers scattered through the congregation, and for about an hour and a half the speaking was continuous, many being upon their feet speaking at the same time, the only interruption being a verse of sacred song, which would for a moment blend all voices and hearts together. It was good to be there, and Elder Loughborough said that he had seen nothing like it since 1844.” [26] 

But while Olsen could rejoice about the results of the Lansing camp-meetng among the people, there was still a heavy burden on his heart—his burden for the ministry. Writing to Ellen White halfway through the meetings, Olsen described the situation: “As far as the people are concerned, they are doing all I could ask for in a general way. They are receiving the word with all cheerfulness. There is not the least opposition in any way. That which burdens me is the condition of the ministry. I feel greatly burdened for the fact is that the people are away in advance of the ministry.”[27] Olsen’s assessment was the same when the meetings came to a close: “My greatest anxiety is the ministry. The people are going ahead of the ministers in many instances.” Prominent among those whom Olsen was concerned about was Uriah Smith, who although he lived close by, had “not been present at the meeting at all.” [28] 

Olsen shared similar thoughts with S. N. Haskell: “That which burdens me the most is that here are some of the leading brethren, especially these at Battle Creek that are not receiving the benefits the Lord would have them receive from the outpouring of His Spirit at present. How I wish that Elder Smith and many others were here to take in this good camp-meeting.”[29] Unfortunately, it was many of these same prominent leaders who had chosen not to attend, who would later decide the revivals of 1892 and 1893 were nothing but the results of excitement, extremism, and fanaticism. [30]* 

The Loud Cry and the Righteousness of Christ 

Preaching to the many church members at the heart of the work in Battle Creek in late October, O. A. Olsen rejoiced for the “seasons of great refreshing” from the summer’s meetings, and sought to inspire his hearers with the thought that the loud cry had begun: “We have long been talking about the loud cry of the third angel’s message.... Well, has thetime come for that loud voice to be heard? Has the time come when that warning should be given with earnestness and power?--It certainly has.... Then don’t be looking forward to it any longer; don’t be expecting it at some place away off; realize that it is here, and that it means something.”[31] 

Others expressed the same earnestness for the work to be done and confidence that the loud cry had begun. Brother P. L. Hill, writing from New Zealand on October 16, 1892, acknowledged that “the development which this work has assumed now impresses me that we are in the loud cry or just entering it.” [32] A. P. Heacock, writing from the south in early November, where the work moved slowly, rejoiced “that God by his Spirit has been with us, and that even here we have been permitted to feel and see some of the droppings of the latter rain.” [33] Being blessed by the preaching of A. T. Jones during the summer camp-meetings, W. A. Colcord, secretary of the General Conference, believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the loud cry had already begun. [34] 

Finally, in late November, a two-part article from Ellen White was published in the Review on the perils and privileges of the last days. Here, amidst warnings of Satan’s attempts to squelch Bible truth and its practice, Ellen White confirmed the beginning of the loud cry and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit: 

The days in which we live are eventful and full of peril.... Let everyone who claims to believe that the Lord is soon coming, search the Scriptures as never before; for Satan is determined to try every device possible to keep souls in darkness, and blind the mind to the perils of the times in which we are living.... The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth. 

For it is the work of every one to whom the message of warning has come, to lift up Jesus, to present him to the world as revealed in types, as shadowed in symbols, as manifested in the revelations of the prophets, as unveiled in the lessons given to his disciples and in the wonderful miracles wrought for the sons of men. Search the Scriptures; for they are they that testify of him. 

If you would stand through the time of trouble, you must know Christ, and appropriate the gift of his righteousness, which he imputes to the repentant sinner. [35] 

One may be able to quote from the Old and the New Testament, may be familiar with the commands and promises of the word of God; but unless the holy Spirit sends the truth home to the heart, enlightening the mind with divine light, no soul falls upon the Rock and is broken; for it is the divine agency that connects the soul with God. Without the enlightenment of the Spirit of God, we shall not be able to discern truth from error, and shall fall under the masterful temptations and deceptions that Satan will bring upon the world.... 

But though the prince of darkness will work to cover the earth with darkness, and with gross darkness the people, the Lord will manifest his converting power. A work is to be accomplished in the earth similar to that which took place at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the days of the early disciples, when they preached Jesus and him crucified. Many will be converted in a day; for the message will go with power.... 

The work of the Holy Spirit is immeasurably great. It is from this source that powerand efficiency come to the worker for God; and the Holy Spirit is the comforter, as the personal presence of Christ to the soul. He who looks to Christ in simple, childlike faith, is made a partaker of the divine nature through the agency of the Holy Spirit. When led by the Spirit of God, the Christian may know that he is made complete in him who is the head of all things. As Christ was glorified on the day of Pentecost, so will he again be glorified in the closing work of the gospel, when he shall prepare a people to stand the final test, in the closing conflict of the great controversy.... 

Thus it was in the time of the early rain; but the latter rain will be more abundant. The Saviour of men will be glorified, and the earth will be lightened with the bright shining of the beams of his righteousness. He is the fountain of light, and light from the gates ajar has been shining upon the people of God, that they may lift him up in his glorious character before those who sit in darkness.... 

O that we as a people might humble our hearts before God, and plead with him for the endowment of the holy Spirit! If we came to the Lord in humility and contrition of soul, he would answer our petitions; for he says that he is more willing to give us the holy Spirit than are parents to give good gifts to their children. [36] 

Writing in response to Ellen White’s declaration, O. A Tait reported on the mounting conviction of the great work to be done during the loud cry under the outpouring of the Holy Spirit: “The impression seems to rest upon the brethren present with a great deal of force, that we have reached an important crisis in the history of the message, and that every individual that is now connected with Christ will feel a burden to labor for souls.... The message is rising, brethren and sisters, and the last week’s Review informs us in no uncertain language that the ‘loud cry’ is already begun. We are told, also, in recent testimonies, that the Holy Spirit ‘awaits our demand and reception.’ Who cannot see that the latter rain is about to be poured out upon us in great measure? Are we ready to receive it?” [37] 

O. A. Tait not only referred to Ellen White’s recent Review article, which stated that the loud cry had already begun, but he also referred to “recent testimonies” which specified that the Holy Spirit “awaits our demand and reception.” Tait was obviously referring to a recent pamphlet compiled by O. A. Olsen in which several heretofore unpublished statements from Ellen White were quoted. Under the heading of “The Power of the Holy Spirit Awaits Our Demand and Reception,” the following Testimony was quoted: 

Just prior to his leaving his disciples for the heavenly courts, Jesus encouraged them with the promise of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs as much to us as it did to them, and yet how rarely it is presented before the people, and its reception spoken of in the church.... This subject has been set aside, as if some time in the future would be given to its consideration. Other blessings and privileges have been presented before the people until a desire has been awakened in the church for the attainment of the blessing promised of God; but the impression concerning the Holy Spirit has been that this gift is not for the church now, but that at some time in the future it would be necessary for the church to receive it. This promised blessing, if claimed by faith, would bring all other blessings in its train, and it is to be given liberally to the people of God.... 

The church has long been contented with little of the blessing of God; they have not felt the need of reaching up to the exalted privileges purchased for them at infinite cost.... The power of God awaits their demand and reception. [38]*

The fact that Adventist believed generally that the loud cry was the immediate effect of the latter rain would naturally lead them to believe that if the loud cry had begun the inseparable latter rain must also have begun as well. But like the rising sun, the beginning is not to be compared with the full measure, and thus the counsel to seek for the full outpouring. 

Based on Bible study, historical research, Ellen White’s testimonies over the previous four years, accelerating world events during the same time period, and the same growing conviction as many of his brethren, A. T. Jones had arrived at the same conclusions. Following Ellen White’s November 22 Review article, which confirmed that which they already suspected, Jones preached “two stirring and profitable discourses” to an overflow audience in the Battle Creek Tabernacle. “The first was on the ‘Latter rain’ (Zech. 10:1), showing that, as ‘the loud cry of the third angel has already begun,’ as stated by sister White in her article in last week’s Review, so it is ‘the time of the latter rain,’ and it is now the duty and privilege of the church to ask of the Lord rain in this time, and he will make bright clouds, and pour down copious showers of spiritual blessings, which he is waiting to shed upon his people. The second discourse was upon ‘The Righteousness of Christ,’ which the Christian secures by faith in him.” [39] 

Just as the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy, and other Adventist pioneers had taught, the loud cry and latter rain were inseparably connected, and Jones presented them correctly together with the message of righteousness by faith. [40]* 

One day after her November 22 article was published in the Review, Ellen White wrote the most earnest letter to President O. A. Olsen, primarily in regard to the ministry. The illustration of the ten virgins was an appropriate symbol for that time, she stated: “Five of them were wise, five of them were foolish. The grand, life-giving truth of the Bible, if practiced, would make men wise unto salvation; but the acceptancy of the Holy Spirit is not felt to be a positive necessity.” Many in the ministry had enjoyed the privilege of the Ministerial Institutes over the past few years, yet they had not absorbed the truth and could not therefore give the truth to others: “Some speak in commendation, as though it were a horse or a cow they were inspecting with a view to purchasing, if the terms suited them. The truth needs to be brought into their very life experience, the Holy Spirit to bean abiding power in the life, sanctifying the soul day by day, and preparing, moulding, and fashioning the character after the divine model.” Men were satisfied with their own citizens’ garments instead of “robe of Christ’s righteousness, a free gift made to all,” and by such action they could not have offended Jesus in any more of a marked a manner: 

But it is essential that the great and grand truth,--the imparting of the Holy Spirit,should be brought into contact with, and impregnate little things, and supply the powerful motive to holiness, and lay out in clear lines, broad principles for the regulation of the character and conduct of every day, revealing Christ to the world.... Unless the Holy Spirit is with the worker, his efforts are without avail. Why! Have we not had the most ennobling, elevating truths? What more can we have than that we have had? And they are presented to us in the simplest form, that the ignorant and unlearned may grasp them.... 

The forgiveness of sins and iniquities and transgressions, belongs in a special sense to this time. We are in the anti-typical day of atonement, and every soul should now be humbling himself before God, seeking pardon for his transgressions and sins, and accepting the justifying grace of Christ, the sanctifying of the soul by the operations of the Holy Spirit of Christ;... Oh, what truths we have--full of power, andit is not possible to controvert these Bible doctrines. There is no truth in heaven or in earth that would affect some characters, although it might be presented in all powerand matchless purity and loveliness, because the heart does not love the practice of these holy sentiments. The truth we have set before us for the past few years, is immense in its importance, reaching into heaven and compassing eternity. [41]* Satan and his confederacy of evil have made every effort to cover up, to confuse minds, to make of none effect the precious, glorious truths of God’s word. We are living in strangely solemn times, and at the very time when the people of God should be wide awake, and many are asleep or dead spiritually.... 

We are now on the very borders of the heavenly Canaan. You know how it was with ancient Israel. Satan, through his agents, worked with his temptations, and licentiousness came into the camp in a very bold defiant attitude. The very harshest punishments alone could stop the bold advance of impurity and crime. Well, we are now on the borders of the heavenly Canaan, and those who are not now with all the advantages, all the light and evidences of truth shining upon us as a people, purifying their souls by living up to these advantages, are like the inhabitants of Sodom and the antediluvian world, walking in the imaginations of their own hearts. What guilt rests upon those who make this choice!... 

O, why do they delay? Why not lay hold now, without one moment’s delay? Why are they not seized by a terrific fear that it will be too late for them,--too late, no oil in their vessels with their lamps!... The end is near. We are on the very borders of the eternal world, and O, how tardy, how dilatory to secure the oil of grace to replenish the lamps that are going out! God help the sinners in Zion.[42] 

Consequently, while the loud cry had begun as the result of the outpouring of the beginning of the latter rain, Satan was seeking to turn away God’s people from the boarders of Canaan. His most effective means was through some in the ministry. But once again God would seek every possible means to reach His people. 

Notes:

1. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 10a, April 6, 1892, unpublished. For more than 120 years this portion of Ellen White's letter to S. N. Haskell has remained unpublished! Why? That stated, S. N. Haskell quoted largely from this portion of the letter in his articles mentioned below. Perhaps they should be republished as well.

2. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 15, June 25, 1892; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 176 and vol. 5, 334, 335.

3. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 10a, April 6, 1892, unpublished.

4. S. N. Haskell, "'Watchman, What of the Night?' No. 1; The Present Indications," Review and Herald, July 12, 1892, 441.

5. S. N. Haskell, "'Watchman, What of the Night?' No. 2; Our Canvassing Work," Review and Herald, July 19, 1892, 458.

6. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 10a, April 6, 1892. Haskell quoted larger portions from this letter than noted here.

7. S. N. Haskell, "'Watchman, What of the Night?' No. 3; The Loud Cry," Review and Herald, July 26, 1892, 474.

8. S. N. Haskell, "'Watchman, What of the Night?' No. 4; Work of the Two-horned Beast," Review and Herald, Aug. 2, 1892, 488.

9. S. N. Haskell, "'Watchman, What of the Night?' No. 5; Thoughts on the Message," Review and Herald, Aug. 16, 1892, 519.

10. S. N. Haskell, "'Watchman, What of the Night?' No. 6; The Third Angel's Message," Review and Herald, Aug. 23, 1892, 538.

11. O. A. Olsen, "South Dakota Camp-Meeting," Review and Herald, July 12, 1892, 443.

12. O. S. Ferren, "Kansas," Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1892, 796.

13. O. J. Mason, "Southern Illinois Camp-Meeting;' Review and Herald, Oct. 25,1892,667,668.

14. J. N. Loughborough, "Nebraska, Southern Illinois, and Michigan Camp-Meetings," Review and Herald, Nov. 1, 1892, 684.

15. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Sept. 28, 1892, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office.

16. Mrs. E. M. Peebles, "Reflections on the Camp Ground," Review and Herald, Nov. 22, 1892, 724.

17. M. E. Kellogg, "The Camp-Meeting at Lansing, Mich.," Reviewand Herald, Oct. 11, 1892, 635.

18. O. A. Olsen to Lewis Johnson, Oct. 4, 1892, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office.

19. O. A. Olsen to E. J. Waggoner, Oct. 17, 1892; Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office.

20. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Sept. 28, 1892, section dated, Oct. 2; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 213, 214.

21. Ellen G. White to H. Miller, Letter 5, Jun 2, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 330-335.

22. Ellen G. White to M. and H. Miller, Letter 4, July 23, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 414.

23. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Sept. 28, 1892, section dated, Oct. 2; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 213, 214.

24. Ibid., p. 214. 

25. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Sept. 28, 1892; Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

26. M. E. Kellogg, “The Camp-Meeting at Lansing, Mich.,” Review and Herald, Oct. 11, 1892, 635. 

27. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Sept. 28, 1892; Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

28. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Sept. 28, 1892, section dated, Oct. 4; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 214. 

29. O. A. Olsen to S. N. Haskell, Sept. 26, 1892; Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

30. Gilbert M. Valentine, William Warren Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator, Andrews University Dissertation (AnnArbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1982), 147, 148; J. H. Kellogg to W. C. White, July 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 264, 265. Similar attitudes and assumptions still exist today. In a magazine article describing the main purpose for writing his biography on A. T. Jones (From 1888 to Apostasy), George Knight unashamedly stated: “I was doing my best to demonstrate that Jones was aberrant from beginning to end.... The point that I was attempting to communicate was that throughout Jones’s ‘hero’ period, he was beset by serious character traits, in spite of Ellen White’s endorsement of him” (“A Spark in the Dark” Adventist Currents, April 1988, 43). 

Diligently sticking with his stated agenda, Knight could not pass up an opportunity to try and discredit Jones, even when writing about the Lansing camp-meeting. Commenting on O. A. Olsen’s report of Jones and Prescott weeping for joy as one of the speakers shared his growing experience in Christ, Knight takes another discrediting jab at Jones: “Charismatic Jones, as might be expected, was quite susceptible to emotional expression in religion. During the 1892 revival at the Michigan camp meeting, for example, Jones and Prescott wept for joy on the platform and praised God ‘aloud for what God was doing’” (From 1888 to Apostasy, 168). 

Pastor Wayne Willey responded to Knight’s biography with insights that would be helpful for us even today when dealing with what pastor Willey calls Knight’s “polemical” and “tainted” writings: “As I read Knight’s book, it soon became apparent that he had decided to write an ‘interpretive’ rather than an ‘objective’ biography.... Knight’s polemical purpose becomes very apparent with the liberal use of such prejudicial terms as apostasy, anarchy, extremist, and pantheism. Jones is painted as such an extremist that the reader may recoil from anything that bears his name or show seven the slightest resemblance to his teachings. Knight does not provide an adequate explanation of how such an ‘extremist’ or ‘anarchist’ could become for 15 years one of the most powerful leaders in Adventism. While reading the book, I wonder if Knight wrote this biography to discredit Jones.... A discredited Jones would limit the influence of those who make the ‘1888 message’--the teachings of Jones and Waggoner during the decade following the 1888 General Conference Session--the standard of ‘present truth’.... While there is…useful information in this book, that information seems so ‘tainted’ by ‘interpretation’ that it raises questions about its reliability or accuracy as biography” (“Knight Falls on Brother A. T. Jones,” Spectrum, vol. 19, no. 3, Feb. 1989, 61). 

Contrary to the exaggerated claims in Knight’s opening Preface, “A Word to the Reader,” his newest polemic book, A. T. Jones: Point Man on Adventism’s Charismatic Frontier, is not a major revising of his earlier biography, From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A. T. Jones. Rather, this book, published in 2011, is just a conveniently repackaged 1987 From 1888 to Apostasy, that has the added agenda to expose “an especially prominent aspect of the man [A. T. Jones]” by uncovering “his charismatic personality and beliefs” (9). This agenda is noted in the first chapter, not by any new evidence--for the chapter is paragraph by paragraph almost word for word the same--but by a new chapter title. In 1888 to Apostasy, the chapter title was “Young Man Jones” (15); in A. T. Jones: Point Man on Adventism’s Charismatic Frontier, the chapter title is changed to “Charismatic From the Beginning” (17). Knight’s comments on the Lansing camp-meeting are likewise found in simply a newly titled chapter, “Charismatic Emphasis From the Center: A. T. Jones at the Pinnacle of Power,” where he seeks to tie Jones to the nineteenth century’s Holiness Movement among Evangelicals and indict him as the instigator of the Holy Flesh movement in Adventism at the turn of the century. Jones and Prescott weeping for joy is supposed to be part of the evidence proving such claims (193). We will look more closely at some of Knight’s charges in this book, and with much greater detail in Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain series. 

31. O. A. Olsen, “Go Forward,” sermon delivered at Battle Creek, Oct. 29, 1892; in Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1892, 689. 

32. W. A. Colcord, “The Good Work Spreading,” The Home Missionary, Jan. 1893, 2, 3. 

33. A. P. Heacock, “Alabama,” Review and Herald, Nov. 22, 1892, 731. 

34. W. A. Colcord to R. C. Porter, Oct. 27, 1892; W. A. Colcord to W. H. Saxby, Oct. 31, 1892. 

35. Ellen G. White, “The Perils and Privileges of the Last Days,” Review and Herald, Nov. 22, 1892, emphasis supplied. 

36. Ellen G. White, “The Perils and Privileges of the Last Days (concluded),” Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1892. 

37. O. A. Tait, “Planning for Big Work,” Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1892, 752. 

38. Ellen G. White, “Power of the Holy Spirit Awaits our Demand and Reception,” Manuscript 20, Dec. 28, 1891; in Special Testimony to Our Ministers, No. 2, (1892), 24, 25, emphasis supplied. But it was not this recently published pamphlet alone that expressed the thought that the Holy Spirit awaited their “demand and reception.” A Review article published only one week before Ellen White’s well-known November 22 article stated similar thoughts: 

“The theme Christ chose to dwell upon in his last discourse to his disciples was that of the office of the Holy Spirit. He opened before them a wide tract of truth. They were to receive His words by faith, and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, was to bring all things to their remembrance. The consolation given by Christ in this promise was found in the fact that the divine influence was to be with his followers to the end. But this promise is not accepted and believed by the people today, and therefore is not cherished by them, nor is its fulfillment seen in the experience of the church. The promise of the gift of the Spirit of God, is left as a matter to be little considered by the church. It is not impressed upon the people, and the result is only that which might be expected,--spiritual drouth, spiritual darkness, spiritual declensionand death. Minor matters occupy the mind and soul, but divine power which is necessary for the growth and prosperityof the church, which would, if possessed, bring all other blessings in its train, is lacking, although it is offered to us ininfinite plentitude. Just as long as the churches are satisfied with small things, they are disqualified to receive the great things of God. But why do we not hunger and thirst after the gift of the Holy Spirit, since it is the means whereby the heart may be kept pure? The Lord designs that divine power shall co-operate with human effort. It is all-essential for the Christian to understand the meaning of the promise of the Holy Spirit just prior to the coming of our Lord Jesus the second time. Talk of it, pray of it, preach concerning it; for the Lord is more willing to give the Holy Spirit than parents are to give good gifts to their children. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ 

“We are living in the last days, when error of a most deceptive character is accepted and believed, while truth isdiscarded. The Lord will hold both ministers and people responsible for the light which shines in our day. God calls upon all who claim to believe present truth, to work diligently in gathering up the precious jewels of truth, and placing them in their position in the framework of the gospel. Let them shine in all their divine beauty and loveliness, that the light may flash forth amid the moral darkness. This cannot be accomplished without the aid of the Holy Spirit, but with the aid of the Spirit we can do all things. When we are endowed with the Holy Spirit, we by faith take hold of infinite power” (Ellen G. White, “Imperative Necessity of Searching for Truth,” Review and Herald, Nov. 15, 1892). 

39. “Editorial Notes,” Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1892, 752. 

40. In an apparent attempt once again to discredit A. T. Jones and minimize the significance of the events of 1892-1893, George Knight asks the question: “Is there in Ellen White’s writings, as there is in the publications of some Adventists, a strong connection between righteousness by faith and final events? No! In fact, the loud cry statement of 1892 ... is apparently the only place [Ellen White] explicitly ties the teaching of righteousness by faith to end-time events.... [A]ccording to the extensive doctoral research of Ralph Neall the 1892 loud cry statement is the only time in her post 1888 writings in which ‘she referred to righteousness by faith ... in connection with the final events.’” Knight goes on to state that “once again we find a case in which some of Ellen White’s interpreters with an interest in the 1888 message, influenced by the presentations of the misled Jones and Prescott ... have developed emphases not present in her writings but quite in harmony with their own agenda” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, 164, 165). 

In regard to Jones’ connecting the latter rain with the loud cry, Knight states: “To project into her statement latter rain concepts and to look back to it as a central text in Adventist history is to go beyond the facts of both the passage itself and the entire body of her writings. It is true that A. T. Jones did read a great deal into the loud cry statement, but that does not mean he was correct.” Knight elsewhere alleges that Ellen White’s November 22 statement “was vastly blown out of proportion in the excitement of the times” by Jones and Prescott (Angry Saints, 59, 127). But Jones’ and scores of other Adventists’ understanding of the loud cry and latter rain was not based on this Nov. 22 statement alone. Ellen White only confirmed that which many already believed and were already teaching, including A. T. Jones himself. 

George Knight offers his own interpretation of Ellen White’s November 22 statement, claiming that the loud cry was simply Adventist distinctives--the law and the Sabbath, etc.--along with the 1888 gospel message or “truths of evangelical Christianity” (Ibid., 128). Elsewhere, Knight insists “the concept of justification by faith that [Ellen White] agreed with in Jones and Waggoner’s preaching” is the “same as that taught by the evangelicals” (Search for Identity, 106)--and finally, that which “was being taught by the holiness preachers” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, 113). According to Knight, Adventists accepted this Evangelical message, but still await the “latter rain power of the Holy Spirit” 120 years later (Angry Saints, 128). One would be hard pressed to find an Adventist pioneer who didn’t see the inseparable connection between the latter rain and loud cry as Jones did, and who would instead accept the current views presented and taught by George Knight for more than thirty years. 

41. Dr. Fred Bischoff has traced the terminology--“reaching into heaven and compassingeternity”--as the “mother” source of thirty similar statements made between 1892 and 1913: “In an 1892 letter Ellen White used expansive terms of space and time to attempt to describe the magnitude of what truths God has given us. This letter’s setting is clearly rooted in the light that came in the years around Minneapolis. She continued using the same descriptive terms over the next 20 years to address principles of God’s word.” Dr. Bischoff’s research paper on this Ellen White statement may be found at www.scripturefirst.net. 

42. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 22, Nov. 23, 1892; in Pamphlets, No. 2, “Appeal and Suggestions to Conference Officers,” 1893, 23-28. Chapter 4

The Battle Creek Revival and Beyond 

In the fall of 1892, Battle Creek College president W. W. Prescott met with his faculty for the first time before the start of the school year. Based on the recent developments of the Sunday law movements in the United States and the rising Adventist message as a result during the previous summer, the faculty felt “that the time had come that there should be a change in our work.” It now appeared that a “new power should attend every branch of the work,” and that change “should be just as manifest in the educational work as in any other line.” Matters that in years before had largely occupied their attention were now given a more secondary place, and they at once began to present before the school body the situation of world events and their “special need in view of these developments.” Every opportunity was used to the best possible advantage toward advancing these goals, but as usual, the devil would seek to use any means to derail such noble aspirations. 

Matters continued as such until the middle of November--before Ellen White’s November 22 Review article--whereupon Prescott was called away to Union College and then Walla Walla College to assist in the dedication. Before leaving, however, Prescott told the faculty “that there was work which must be done before the week of prayer came [Dec. 17-24], or the school would be largely deprived of the blessings which God designed that that occasion should bring.” An effort was begun at once “to seek God for His special blessing that the work might be carried on in a way to meet the mind of the Spirit.” As always in such cases, the enemy seemed to make an effort to bring trouble into the school. [1] 

On Thanksgiving Day two couples, one of the young men being Prescott’s nephew, arranged for a clandestine sleigh ride together, with neither permission nor a chaperone. With only a couple weeks before the week of prayer was to begin, and concerned about wrecking the student morale, the faculty decided to delay action and pray for guidance, with the feeling “that a crisis was at hand and there was special need of help from God.” The student body was surprised. Two days after the faculty’s decision, both boys, without consulting each other, approached different faculty members seeking counsel. That evening, both of them gave their hearts to the Lord. [2] Prescott would later describe the events that followed: 

Although the occurrence was unknown to the other students at the time, it seemed to be a signal for a general move. There seemed to come upon the students intheir private rooms, during the evening study hour at which time these young menmade their move, such a spirit as they could not resist, and they were impelled to leave their rooms and seek help. Some were for a time in great distress of mind. The teachers who were at hand went to work at once to help those who desired help, and for several hours nothing else occupied the attention of both teachers and students. Without any pre-arranged plans, praise meetings were held in the private rooms and in the parlor and one after another yielded to the movings of the Spirit. 

There were some cases of very marked interest. Students ... were brought under deep conviction of sin, and gladly accepted the help which was offered to them through the forgiveness of their sins and peace which comes from believing in Christ, as a personal Saviour. The work went on until toward midnight, and closed in singing in a most hearty manner.[3] 

That very next day a letter from Ellen White arrived for W. W. Prescott. In his absence Mrs. Prescott decided to have portions of the letter read to the student body the next day during the chapel period. Some phrases seemed to powerfully encapsulate the Gospel: the Christian was one “content to receive without deserving,” Ellen White wrote, God’s eternal love was a “free and everlasting gift.” [4]* The words read took hold of young people’s hearts with wonderful power. It was evident to the faculty that there was a better work to be done than academic classes, and they chose to continue the religious meeting, which continued for four hours. During that time, “there were between forty and fifty who made practically their first start in the Christian life.” Of the 350 students in the chapel, more than 300 took part in the meeting; “as many as fifty or more on their feet at one time.” In the end almost the entire student body was drawn in, resulting in thirty baptisms. Yet, wrote W. W. Prescott, “there was no excitement, but the deep movings of the Spirit of God were plainly discerned.”[5] 

The revival spread from the college to the community of Battle Creek, as students began to share their new-found experience. W. A. Spicer reported that a “spirit of seeking the Lord for the outpouring of His Holy Spirit has taken possession of believers,” especially at the “College and Review Office.” He hoped that all “might experience some of the droppings of the blessed latter rain! It ‘awaits our demand and reception.’” [6] The Review noted that the “work was not the result of any particular efforts of a revival nature, but it seemed to spring up in places and in hearts where it was least expected,” as the people realized “rapid fulfillment of prophecy in our country, and the evidence that the time has come for the loud cry to be given.” [7] It was also noted that “the same work is going on in many other parts of the field, especially in Michigan. The refreshing is not to be confined to any one locality.” [8] 

W. A. Colcord reported that the Lord had “been wonderfully blessing His people,” and the “same good work seems to be spreading and springing up in other places.” Citing a letter written of the meetings held in early December in Graysville, Tennessee, Pastor J. W. Scoles testified of the blessings received by young and old: “I cannot begin to describe it, only it seemed more like my idea of Pentecost than anything I ever experienced. There was not the least spirit of fanaticism, and no excitement, but it just seemed as though wave after wave of the glory and power of the Spirit of God passed over and through the whole company.”[9] 

W. C. Wilcox shared the letter from a 15-year-old student who was converted at these very meetings. Writing home following the experience, he shared the good news: “Father, I have given my heart to the Lord.... Oh, how thankful I am!... I know the Spirit of God worked with power last Sabbath [Dec. 10, 1892]. The latter rain is here, and we have had some of it in Graysville.” [10] 

Other reports from around the states, as well as around the world, continued to come in. H. W. Reed told of meetings held at the same time in Springville, Tennessee: “The power and glory of God was greater than I had ever realized before,” he proclaimed. “The last part of the meeting was most glorious, and continued far into the night. We certainly had some of the latter rain at this good institute.” [11] M. C. Wilcox shared reports from as far away as Constantinople showing “how God is working for His people, and how the Spirit of the Lord is being poured out on His people. ‘Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain,...’ Zech. 10:1.” [12] 

The revival didn’t stop at this juncture but continued to build during the week of prayer, which was held December 17 through 24, during which nightly readings were shared in Adventist churches around the field. Writing a few days before their commencement, O. A. Olsen admonished members everywhere to “put forth special efforts to meet, if possible, with the nearest church or company of Sabbath-keepers during this important season. We look for great blessings from the Lord to be poured out upon our people at this time.”[13] 

On the opening night of the week of prayer, O. A. Olsen’s reading, which was assigned and written before November, [14] was shared with Adventists around the world. He called everyone’s attention to the “late campmeetings and other general meetings,” which gave “evidence that the message is rising, and that it is about to go with power, and that the earth is soon to be lightened with its glory.” Thus they “should seek for, and expect, the outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit.” [15]* 

As the week of prayer neared its end, Battle Creek College held its final chapel meeting before winter break. During the morning prayer service, W. W. Prescott, who had returned to campus from his travels out West, felt a deep conviction that he needed to make a statement of confession for some matters in his past. Standing before the student body, Prescott read a short portion from recent Testimonies received: “Breaking down in tears even as he read, the conscientious Prescott frankly confessed his past diffidence in responding to the ‘new light’--righteousness by faith.” [16] Even though he had repented a year earlier that he had not been as forthright in accepting the Minneapolis message, he now was moved to go even deeper in his repentance. [17] 

Prescott later shared that he had never known of a similar experience: “Such a sense of our utter sinfulness, our wretchedness and the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the need of that help which come through accepting Christ and His fullness, seemed to rest upon all hearts. Personally, I have never known such horror of sin as took hold upon me that day, and others felt the same way.” As a result of Prescott’s tearful confession, again the student body was moved and “although vacation was supposed to begin that afternoon, the meeting continued until six p.m.” Confessions were made by both teachers and students, “and the Spirit of God was present to witness to the character of the work.” After a break of an hour and a half, “the confession and testimony resumed again, finally ending at 10:15 p.m.” Yet Prescott was adamant that “there was nothing like a fanatical outbreak or anything to bring a reproach upon the cause of God. Everyone recognized it as the work of the Spirit, which while it convinced of sin, was still a Comforter.” [18] 

Following the week of prayer, Prescott wrote out a report of all the events that had taken place at the college and shared it with not only the college staff and faculty at Battle Creek, but also ith educators around the country. Sending a copy to Ellen White in Australia, Prescott rejoiced in God’s providential times of refreshing: “From every direction we hear reports indicating that God is working in a special manner for his people. We are taking fresh courage, and are praying daily for rain in the time of the latter rain.” [19] 

Olsen also wrote to Ellen White, informing her how the Lord had been working in Battle Creek “in a manner that I have not seen before. In the Review Office, at the Sanitarium, and at the College, a large number of young people have turned to the Lord and been converted.” Yet Olsen was crystal clear as Prescott had been, in stating that “there has been no special excitement, but a deep, earnest work. The church, too, has been greatly edified and encouraged. The week-of-prayer was a precious season.” [20] 

Others were of the same mindset. M. E. Kellogg wrote that he believed the influence of the week of prayer, “with its drops of the latter rain,” would extend “into the hearts and homes of many who shall read and hear of it, until copious showers are poured out upon others who in like manner prepare for it.” [21] Mrs. Peebles declared that there was “joy in heaven today among the angels” for those freed from sin. “The last notes of the last message of mercy are even now sounding through the earth,” she exclaimed; “more copious showers of the latter rain are falling.” [22] 

Once again, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not limited to those in Battle Creek. R. C. Porter, sharing about his work in the New England states, pronounced that “the Lord came very near, and all hearts were refreshed. The Lord is moving upon hearts all over the world. Droppings of the refreshing, latter rain for which we have been looking, begin to be seen. The message begins to swell into the loud cry. It is now high time to awake out of sleep.” [23] Yet, writing of the week of prayer meetings at the academy in South Lancaster, Porter was also confident that “there was no excitement; but the Holy Spirit was effectually working in answer to the prayers of faith ascending from believing hearts. Nearly all of the students gave their hearts to the Lord.... Truly it was good to be there, and as the sweet Spirit of Christ fell upon his people, all hearts were refreshed, and praise and gratitude flowed back to the Giver of all good gifts, from hearts that were rejoicing with a joy that was unspeakable and full of glory.” [24] 

W. S. Lowry acknowledged, of the week of prayer meetings in Springville, Tennessee, that he had “never witnessed such an outpouring of the Holy Spirit as we had during the whole time of the meetings.” The social meetings following each night grew better and better, and he had never seen “such great freedom as was manifested on the part of all present. Confessions were made, and souls revived.” [25] 

Writing from Kalamazoo, Michigan, J. L. Edgar praised the Lord that “truly the refreshing time has come, and the drops of the latter rain are falling upon his people.” He reported, however, that there was “but little excitement”; rather, a “solemn sense of our need of seeking God.” J. W. Collie wrote of the result of the week of prayer in Owatonna, Minnesota, attesting to the fact that “God sent rain in the time of the latter rain.... Fathers and mothers gave their children to the Lord, and children dedicated themselves to God.” [26] 

Once again these marvelous events were not confined to the United States alone. Pastor and Bible teacher G. B. Starr reported from Australia, where Ellen White, A. G. Daniells, and many other workers attended week of prayer meetings followed by annual meetings of the Australian Conference. In Melbourne the “attendance was good, and light and blessing came into our meetings,” Starr recalled. “We experienced the sweet and precious influences of the Holy Spirit.” [27] A. G. Daniells described how Ellen White spoke several times throughout the week, and on Sabbath she “spoke with much power on the duties of the present time.... Earnest prayers were offered to the LORD for ‘rain in the time of the latter rain.’ These petitions were heard, and much of God’s blessing came upon us.” [28] About this time, G. B. Starr wrote A. T. Jones, informing him that “‘Sister White says that we have been in the time of the latter rain since the Minneapolis meeting.’” [29]* Such an announcement would only confirm that which many others, including A. T. Jones, had already concluded. 

Unfortunately, not everyone rejoiced in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit or agreed with the many declarations that the loud cry and latter rain had begun, which was attended by revival and reformation in so many lives. Some of the same “leading brethren” from Battle Creek--who had chosen not to attend the Michigan camp-meeting several months before and did not receive the benefits “from the outpouring of His Spirit”--now decided the revival in Battle Creek was the result of excitement, extremism, and fanaticism. [30] Modern historian Gilbert Valentine points out that “by the time of the student revival at Battle Creek College in December of 1892, there was still, nonetheless, agreat deal of alienation among church leaders. The revival at the college, which was of dramatic proportions and resulted in thirty being baptized, was labeled as mere excitement by U. Smith and others. This put a dampening effect on the work.” [31] 

J. H. Kellogg, who had between sixty and seventy workers from the sanitarium attending the college, deemed it as merely a “very exciting and sensational time.” He “did not encourage the same effort” at the sanitarium, because he had “never seen good results from this sort of work.”[32] 

Just as he had after the Lansing, Michigan, camp-meeting, O. A. Olsen sadly remarked to Ellen White that the one thing he would have been happy to see more than he did in the work of revival and reformation at the heart of the work, was “more of the men in responsible positions [taking] a deep interest.” [33] But it was Ellen White who would explain the reasons for such disinterest. In an article published on December 13, 1892, she expressed the fearful result of rejecting light: 

At the time of the loud cry of the third angel those who have been in any measure blinded by the enemy, who have not fully recovered themselves from the snare of Satan, will be in peril, because it will be difficult for them to discern the light from heaven, and they will be inclined to accept falsehood. Their erroneous experience will color their thoughts, their decisions, their propositions, their counsels. The evidences that God has given will be no evidence to those who have blinded their eyes by choosing darkness rather than light. After rejecting light, they will originate theories which they will all “light,” but which the Lord calls, “Sparks of their own kindling,” by which they will direct their steps.[34] 

Notes:

[1]. W. W. Prescott, “The Work at Battle Creek College,” letter to college faculty and staff, Dec. 1892; in Document File 256, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

[2]. Ibid., Ron Graybill, “A.D. 1892: Revival Comes to Michigan,” Insight, March 30, 1971, 3-7. 

[3]. W. W. Prescott, “The Work at Battle Creek College,” letter to college faculty and staff, Dec. 1892; in Document File 256, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

[4]. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 19e, Oct. 26, 1892; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, 186. Just what letters were received by Mrs. Prescott is not certain, but in a later letter Professor Prescott mentions that the material was written October 26, 1892. If it was a letter addressed solely to Prescott, it is not extant. The only extant letter of that date which might have come also to him was one addressed to O. A. Olsen, General Conference president, Letter 19e, 1892. 

[5]. W. W. Prescott, “The Work at Battle Creek College,” Dec. 1892; in Document File 256, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

[6]. W. A. Spicer, Editorial comment, The Home Missionary, Dec. 1892, 288. 

[7]. Editorial Note, Review and Herald, Dec. 6, 1892, 768. 

[8]. Editorial Note, Review and Herald, Dec. 13, 1892, 784. 

[9]. W. A. Colcord, “The Good Work Spreading,” The Home Missionary, Jan. 1893, 2. 

[10]. M. C. Wilcox, “An Interesting Letter,” Signs of the Times, Feb. 6, 1893, 221. 

[11]. H. W. Reed, “Tennessee River Conference,” Review and Herald, Feb. 14, 1893, 108. 

[12]. M. C. Wilcox, Editorial note, Signs of the Times, Dec. 19, 1892, 112. 

[13]. O. A. Olsen, “Readings for the Week of Prayer,” Review and Herald, Dec. 13, 1892, 780. 

[14]. “General Conference Committee Meeting, Tenth Meeting,” March 23, 1892; in “Transcription of minutes of General Conference Committee, 1892 to 1896,” 10, General Conference Archives, Silver Spring, MD. 

[15]. O. A. Olsen, “The General Outlook and Survey of the Situation,” reading for Sabbath, December 17, 1892; in The Home Missionary Extra, November 1892, 3. This is one of numerous examples showing that the perception of the beginning of the loud cry and time of the latter rain had arrived, before Ellen White’s November 22 article was published in the Review. 

[16]. Gilbert M. Valentine, The Shaping of Adventism, 30. 

[17]. Ellen G. White, “Diary,” Manuscript 54, Dec 30, 1890; in 1888 Materials, 787. 

[18]. W. W. Prescott, “The Work at Battle Creek College,” Dec. 1892; in Document File 256, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office; Ron Graybill, “A.D. 1892: Revival Comes to Michigan,” Insight, March 30, 1971, 6, 7. 

[19]. W. W. Prescott to Ellen G. White, Dec. 28, 1892; Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

[20]. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Dec. 28, 1892: in Ellen G. White Received Letters File. 

[21]. M. E. Kellogg, “The Work at B. C. College,” Review and Herald, Jan. 10, 1893, 29. 

[22]. Mrs. E. M. Peebles, “Reflections in the College Chapel Meetings,” Review and Herald, Jan. 17, 1893, 45. 

[23]. R. C. Porter, “New England Conference,” Review and Herald, Jan. 3, 1893, 13, 14. 

[24]. R. C. Porter, “New England,” Report Jan. 2, Review and Herald, Jan. 17, 1893, 43. 

[25]. W. S. Lowry, “Tennessee,” Report Jan. 1, Review and Herald, Jan. 17, 1893, 43. 

[26]. O. A. Olsen, “Reports From the Week of Prayer,” Review and Herald, Jan. 31, 1893, 77. 

[27]. G. B. Starr, in A. G. Daniells, “The Week of Prayer,” The Bible Echo, Feb. 1, 1893, 48. 

[28]. A. G. Daniells, “The Australian Conference,” The Bible Echo, Feb. 1, 1893, 42. 

[29]. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message No. 16,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 24, 1893, 377. George Knight, however, in seeking to refute the genuine events of 1892 and 1893 and infer that they were the results of mere excitement, extremism, and fanaticism created by A. T. Jones and W. W. Prescott, contests G. B. Starr’s comments from Australia: 

“A first thing to note is that Ellen White did not say that the latter rain had begun with the preaching of Christ’s righteousness at Minneapolis. She plainly said it was the loud cry. Such men as Jones, Prescott, and G. B. Starr drew the latter rain conclusion. That interpretation was aided by a conceptual confusion between the two terms that is still prevalent among Adventists. When Starr and others read or heard that Mrs. White said that the “loud cry” had begun in 1888, they automatically substituted latter rain as a synonym. It was not the substitution of Ellen White, but that of her interpreters” (Angry Saints, 126-128). 

Knight makes similar claims elsewhere: “Did Ellen White claim that the latter rain had begun in either 1888 or around the time of the 1893 General Conference Session? Not that we know of from her own records! On the other hand, several preachers, including A. T. Jones, G. B. Starr, and W. W. Prescott, transformed her claim in November 1892 that the loud cry had begun into the idea that that latter rain had begun” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, 112). And of Jones and Prescott, Knight goes on to say: “We must emphasize again that neither Jones nor Prescott were entirely reliable guides in matters of the Holy Spirit by the time of the 1893 meetings” (Ibid., 128, emphasis in original). 

But there is no reason to doubt what G. B. Starr reported as Ellen White’s verbal statement, since he was by God’s own direction personally working with her in Australia, and in the character of his work gave no reason to question otherwise. Also, Ellen White would confirm the validity of Starr’s statement in later publications. We will address this point in greater detail in subsequent chapters in this book. For now we might note that while Knight questions Starr’s statement without any evidence for doing so, he freely quotes from Dan Jones as an authority on Ellen White’s positions on the Covenants, which were contrary to her own clear statements (Angry Saints, 93, 94). Furthermore, Dan Jones’ statements, which Knight quotes supportively, were made while Ellen White indicated he was “working ... for the devil” (1888 Materials, 596), and did “not believe in the testimonies” (Letter 86, 1891, unpublished). Nothing of the kind was ever written about G. B. Starr from Ellen White’s pen. For more on Dan Jones’ treatment of the 1888 message and messengers, and Knight’s usage of Dan Jones, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, chapter 15, especially end note 60. 

[30]. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Sept. 28, 1892; Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

[31]. Gilbert M. Valentine, William Warren Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator, Andrews University Dissertation (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1982), 147, 148. 

[32]. J. H. Kellogg to W. C. White, July 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 264, 265. 

[33]. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, Dec. 28, 1892: in Ellen G. White Received Letters File. 

[34]. Ellen G. White, “Let the Trumpet Give a Certain Sound (concluded),” Review and Herald, Dec. 13, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1079. 
Chapter 5

The 1893 Ministerial Institute 

Despite such negative responses from several in key leadership positions, the manifestations of the Holy Spirit continued into the momentous year of 1893. A three-week Minister’s Institute began on January 27, followed by three weeks of the General Conference session, starting February 17 and lasting until March 9. O. A. Olsen considered the upcoming Conference to be a very important meeting—“probably the most important ever held by our people.” Therefore it was expected that “each local Conference should be represented by as full a delegation as consistent with all the circumstances, and also that the delegates be present during the Institute as well.” Once again the majority of church leadership from around the country and the world, along with a “large number of both ministers and lay brethren” would attend and expectantly avail themselves of the benefits and blessings God had in store. It is no wonder that Olsen asked “our people everywhere to make the coming Institute and General Conference a subject of special prayer, that God’s blessing may be present in a large measure.” [1] 

S. N. Haskell, J. N. Loughborough, R. A. Underwood, A. T. Jones, W. W. Prescott, R. C. Porter, O. A. Olsen, and others, had been selected by the General Conference Committee in August of 1892, with topics assigned for the Bible lessons to be given to the hundreds of Adventists who would gather there in Battle Creek from around the world. [2] Two daily sessions were planned--forenoon and evening--during which two Bible lessons would be given during each sessionfor the inisterial Institute. The evening session would continue throughout the General Conference, as ell, all of which gave a significant amount of time during this six-week gathering to study the Bible together. [3] 

Ellen White, being thousands of miles away in Australia, had North America and the forthcoming General Conference much on her mind. Once again, General Conference leadership, delegates, ministers, colporteur leaders, Bible instructors, and laymen from around the country and the world would gather at this most important meeting. Not wanting to miss the opportunity to bring the Lord’s counsel before the vast assembly of Adventist leadership, Ellen White told E. J. Waggoner that she was led to write and send “about 200 (over 400 with manifolds) pages of matter in caligraph copy” to America. Out of this material a “large portion of it [was] to be used in the Conference.” [4] 

Thus, in Ellen White’s absence, the voice of God through the Spirit of Prophecy could be read and heard by all those meeting at the heart of the work. Complete Testimonies were read several times during the six-week period, and each of the several speakers had plenty of present truth counsel to read from during their Bible lessons. S. N. Haskell reported that as a result, “at this Conference the Testimonies are used more I think than you would have spoken were you here. A number have been converted. Some [from] the city, those who have scarcely heard a sermon. They were convicted of their sins and could not rest until they had given their hearts to God and then went around to their neighbors and told them what the Lord had done for them.” [5]* 

On Friday morning, January 27, the Ministerial Institute convened in the Tabernacle at Battle Creek, Michigan, with over 300 first attendees present. Although Uriah Smith had been assigned the first series of lessons on “The Study of the Bible,” he had resigned a short time before the Institute, and S. N. Haskell had been appointed to take his place. [6] Now Haskell began his lesson on the importance of personal Bible study, not to “find an argument to use against some other person,” but to “receive the word of God for our own benefit.” J. N. Loughborough followed with his opening lesson on the Spirit of Prophecy set in the context of early Advent history and “dwelt particularly upon their effect in producing unity among believers.” [7] There was perhaps no better place to start at the 1893 Ministerial Institute and General Conference than with these two subjects. 

On the opening weekend, and at the request of the General Conference Committee, W. W. Prescott had opportunity to read one of the recently received Testimonies from Ellen White to a packed Tabernacle audience in Battle Creek. [8]* Ellen White was seeking to arouse the church members in Battle Creek to their responsibility of supporting missionary efforts around the world. Rather than pouring money into a costly pipe organ for the Tabernacle, they should give sacrificially for churches to be built in other localities, like all of Australia, which had only one meeting house. The present truth message, “as it is in Jesus,” must be given to the world, and God was calling members to action: 

Brethren and sisters in Battle Creek, who have had those precious truths set before you, I ask you to think of the many, many souls who need to hear the message of redeeming love.... 

How can those who have been long in the faith, as at Battle Creek, expend more and more upon their own enjoyment, when they know, by actual representation of the case, the great necessities of the work in foreign countries?...

The whole earth is to be lightened with the glory of God’s truth. The Lord will not close up the period of probation until the warning message shall be more distinctly proclaimed.... Yet the work will be cut short in righteousness. The message of Christ’s righteousness is to sound from one end of the world to the other. This is the glory of God which closes the work of the third angel. 

Are the people in Battle Creek asleep? Are they paralyzed? Will the light that has been shining in new and clear rays, beam after beam, move them to action? You have long expected the wonderful startling events that are to take place just prior to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Now I ask, Are you prepared to give the trumpet a certain sound? Do you know that you are connected with God, and living in the light of his countenance?... 

The Lord is coming; the scenes of this earth’s history are fast closing, and our work is not done. We have been waiting in anxious expectancy for the co-operation of the human agency in advancing the work. All heaven, if I may use the expression, is impatiently waiting for men to co-operate with the divine agencies in working for the salvation of souls. [9] 

Once again, as Ellen White did numerous other times, she connected endtime events and the loud cry with the message of the righteousness of Christ then shining upon the church. [10]* 

On Monday evening, January 30, W. W. Prescott began his series of lectures on the “Promise of the Holy Spirit.” Ever since the subject was assigned him, he had been thinking of how it could be “studied in a way most practical.” It was his plan to “move along by easy steps to receiving the Spirit, and when the Spirit is received it will teach us more about itself that [sic] we can learn in any other way.” 

Toward the latter part of his lecture Prescott read Revelation 18:1, followed by portions of Ellen White’s November 22, 1892 Review article, where she unmistakably confirmed the beginning of the loud cry and time for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit--the latter rain. “The loud cry and the latter rain go together,” Prescott declared. “As the time has come for the loud cry it has also come for the latter rain, and we are to ask for it.... The Lord haslong been waiting to give us his Spirit. He is even now impatiently waiting that he maybe stow it upon us. How much longer shall he have to wait? Now we have been accustomed to turn to pentecost as the time when the Lord did the greatest work he ever did for his people. But now a work that will be greater than pentecost has begun, and there are those here who will see it. It is here, it is now we are to be fitted for the work.” 

Prescott also read from Historical Sketches, where Ellen White declared that Scripture was our only safeguard and that “‘indulgence of one known sin will cause weakness and darkness, and subject us to fierce temptation.’” In light of such a statement Prescott admonished that “we must overcome the disposition to sin or we cannot receive the latter rain. The light that is to lighten the earth with its glory has already begun to shine. What does this mean to us practically? It means that the shaking time is here and that God is going to make a separation in his own people, and those who do not have Jesus living in them will not be permitted to take any part in the work of God when it swells into a loud cry.” [11] 

The following morning, S. N. Haskell quoted the same loud cry statement from Ellen White’s November 22 article in his lecture on the study of the Bible. “Notice what follows,” Haskell pointed out, “‘for it is the work of every one to whom the warning message has come, to lift up Jesus, to present him to the world as revealed in types, as shadowed in symbols, as manifested in the revelations of the prophets, as unveiled in the lessons given to his disciples and in the wonderful miracles wrought for the sons of men. Search the Scriptures, for they are they that testify of him.’ I would like to know how much Bible is left outside of that.” Haskell knew that if they would take Christ into their souls, He would become in them “a well of water, springing up into everlasting life. Then we are prepared to search the Scriptures, which is the Spirit of revelation that is given to us; and it will fit us to stand in the coming storm.” [12] 

Those who came to the Ministerial Institute would not only be reminded from the various speakers that the loud cry had begun, but also through the various periodicals published by the church in Battle Creek. For instance, W. A. Colcord, writing in the January edition of the Home Missionary in reference to the same Ellen White Review article, asked the insightful question: “Why did the loud cry begin with a work for us rather than with a work from us? Why did it begin with ‘the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer’ among us, as stated by Sister White in the Review of Nov. 22, 1892, rather than with the cry from us to the world of the fall of Babylon?” Colcord’s answer to these questions should be of interest to us even today: “But the answer is easy. The Lord saw that we ourselves needed a fitting up before we were prepared to do the work he designed us to do. He saw that we needed to know what the gospel--the power of God unto salvation--is indeed, before we could preach the everlasting gospel in power and demonstration of the Spirit to others.” [13] 

On Tuesday evening, W. W. Prescott would introduce a new dimension in his lecture that would become an all-consuming theme for the remainder of the Institute and GeneralConference--a theme not only in his lectures but in every other speaker’s, as well. As Prescott began his second lecture in the series, he pointed out how Christ had been anointed or sealed by the Holy Spirit for His work because He had “loved righteousness and hated iniquity” (Heb. 1:9). Yet that hatred for sin did not keep Christ from the work He came to do in taking the sinner’s place. Now, at the very end of time during the “special outpouring of the Spirit” or sealing time, “we want to know what hinders its taking place immediately,” Prescott asked. “I say that the presence of sin and the practice of iniquity is what hinders it,” was his answer. 

But Prescott was also positive that “it is utterly impossible for us to separate sin from ourselves. God can do that thing; God can take sin from us, but he will not take that from us contrary to our will. When he tells us that that is sin, and that He wants to remove it, we must consent to it, or it will not be removed.” Now Prescott turned to the experience of the disciples and the lessons to be learned: 

What was the experience of the disciples as a preparation for this outpouring? Let us read a brief statement concerning it: 

“For ten days the disciples prayed before the Pentecostal blessing came. Then it required all that time to bring them to an understanding of what it meant to offer effectual prayer, drawing nearer and nearer to God, confessing their sins, humbling their hearts before God, and by faith beholding Jesus, and becoming changed into hisimage.”--Special Test., No. 2, p. 19. 

Now I want you to think of this. Those disciples had been with Christ for threeand a half years, had seen him after his resurrection, sat and spoke with him, but had not yet received the Holy Ghost, and even after his ascension, before this special blessing could come upon them, it required ten days of confession and repentance in order not to be consumed by that blessing. 

Now, if that was the case with them, what shall we say of ourselves? To my mind, the worst feature of the whole situation is just what the Laodicean message says, and the worst is we don’t see it. Now, if we don’t see it, let us take the word of God as it is, and say it is so, let us so continue. We have sinned and done iniquity, and there is no good thing in us. Day by day let us draw near to God by repentance and confession, and God will draw near to us with mercy and forgiveness. Now that is the point that I want to dwell specially upon, that the reason why the special outpouring of the Spirit of God does not come upon his people, is that they must repent, else they would be consumed by it. [14] 

The new dimension to which Prescott would seek to draw his listeners’ attention was the Laodicean message, and this would become one of the main themes for the 1893 Ministerial Institute and General Conference session. But before we proceed with Prescott’s lecture, we need to review briefly what the Laodicean message entailed and when it began to be applied to Advent believers. 

The Laodicean Message 

An understanding that the message to the Laodiceans was applicable to Seventh-day Adventists was nothing new. As early as 1852, years before the 1863 official organization of the church, God had sought to bring the attention of His people to this message. For years following the 1844 disappointment, the Laodicean message was applied to nominal Sunday-keeping Adventists by the Sabbath-keeping Adventists. [15] But this began to change when Ellen White indicated that as a people, Sabbath-keeping Adventists were “cold and formal, like the nominal church, that they but a short time since separated from. The words addressed to the Laodicean Church, describe their present condition perfectly.” [16] 

In July of 1856, James White would write for the last time the view that Philadelphia, the sixth church of Revelation 3, described Sabbath-keeping Adventists. [17] Through a series of events that summer, he as well began to realize the fact that Laodicea, the seventh church, was more applicable. He would publish his views in several articles run through the Review, [18] even connecting the patient knocking of the “True Witness” of Revelation 3 with the “Beloved” of Song of Solomon, chapter 5: “‘Behold I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.’ How careless many of you have been of the reproofs and warning which the dear Saviour has given for your benefit. He has been slighted and shut out by you till his locks are wet with the dew of night. O, open your hearts to him. Let your hard hearts break before him. O, let him in.” [19] 

Ellen White would note that same summer that a change had come over “the professed peculiar people of God” since 1844. She saw “the conformity to the world, the unwillingness to suffer for the truth’s sake.... [and] a great lack of submission to the will of God” as the cause of the problem. She even drew parallels between the children of Israel after leaving Egypt and the Advent people who were looking for the soon-coming Promised Land. [20] In February of 1857 Ellen White would have her first vision relating the Laodicean message to the Advent people. Their “present lukewarm state” was caused by “worldly-mindedness, selfishness, and covetousness,” fault-finding, and lack of church order. [21] 

In November of 1857, Ellen White would be shown her most comprehensive vision hitherto on the far-reaching ramifications of the Laodicean message. She was shown two groups of people--those who were actively seeking repentance and cleansing and those who were careless and indifferent. This illustrated the two responses to the Laodicean message, which would bring about a shaking among God’s people: “I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans.... Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God’s people.” When Ellen White asked what had made the great change between the agonizing, praying ones and those clothed with the armor speaking forth “the truth with great power,” the angel answered: “‘It is the latter rain, the refreshing from the presence of the Lord, the loud cry of the third angel.’” Thus those who accepted the Laodicean message took it to heart and repented and were themselves empowered and enlightened through the latter rain and the loud cry message. They were then enabled to “pour forth the straight truth” of the loud cry message to the world. This would bring about a rapid fulfillment of the final events and Christ’s Second Coming. [22] Because all of the final events hinged on the response to the Laodicean message, which was nothing short of true repentance, Ellen White would declare that it was the most “solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs.” [23] 

The reaction to James White’s articles and Ellen White’s Testimonies during 1856 and 1857 were life changing. From across the little church letters poured into the editor’s office at the Review confessing that the message had struck home. A powerful revival began to surge through Adventism. [24] Between November 1856 and December 1857, 348 articles, Testimonies, or editorial reports appeared in the Review and Herald on the Laodicean message--most of them by lay members--a very high percentage, considering that only about 2,500 members made up the entire church those days. [25] Ellen White stated that “as this message affected the heart, it led to deep humility before God. Angels were sent in every direction to prepare unbelieving hearts for the truth. The cause of God began to rise, and His people were acquainted with their position.” [26] Thus revivals began to break out in the large cities and towns among other Christian churches, not only in America but all over the world, as angels prepared the hearts of the people for the loud cry message. [27] 

Sadly, Adventist believers did not keep pace with the movements of God. By 1859 Ellen White would ardently state that “the message to the Laodiceans has not accomplished that zealous repentance among God’s people which I expected to see.” The message still applied to their condition at that time, and the reason it had “not accomplished a greater work is because of the hardness of their hearts.” God had given over two years for the message to do its work, but what had been the result? 

The heart must be purified from sins which have so long shut out Jesus. This fearful message will do its work. When it was first presented, it led to close examination of heart. Sins were confessed, and the people of God were stirred everywhere. Nearly all believed that this message would end in the loud cry of the third angel. But as they failed to see the powerful work accomplished in a short time, many lost the effect of the message. I saw that this message would not accomplish its work in a few short months. It is designed to arouse the people of God, to discover to them their backslidings, and to lead to zealous repentance, that they may be favored with the presence of Jesus, and be fitted for the loud cry of the third angel.... If thecounsel of the True Witness had been fully heeded, God would have wrought for His people in greater power.... 

Many moved from feeling, not from principle and faith, and this solemn, fearful message stirred them. It wrought upon their feelings, and excited their fears, but did not accomplish the work which God designed that it should. God reads the heart. Lest His people should be deceived in regard to themselves, He gives them time for the excitement to wear off, and then proves them to see if they will obey the counsel of the True Witness.... Those who come up to every point, and stand every test, and overcome, be the price what it may, have heeded the counsel of the True Witness, and they will receive the latter rain, and thus be fitted for translation. [28] 

In 1868 Ellen white lamented the “long night of gloom,” yet recognized that in mercy God deferred His coming because “so many would be found unready. God’s unwillingness to have His people perish has been the reason for the long delay.” [29] But such a statement neither placed the blame on God for the delay nor negated God’s call for Laodicea to repent before He could return. In fact, a failure to heed that call was the very reason His people’s eternal destiny was in jeopardy. If He were to return without delay, how many alive would have been saved? 

In 1873 Ellen White ran a four-part series on the Laodicean Church through the Review. [30] She declared that the message of the True Witness had not accomplished His purpose. The people continued to slumber in their sins while questioning why the Testimonies continually charged them with backsliding and grievous sins: “We love the truth; we are prospering; we are in no need of these testimonies of warning and reproof.” But this response demonstrated that the greatest reason why the people of God were found in a state of spiritual blindness was that they would “not receive correction. Many have despised the reproofs and warnings given them. The True Witness condemns the lukewarm condition of the people of God, which gives Satan great power over them in this waiting, watching time.” 

Ellen White was shown that “unbelief in the testimonies of warning, encouragement, and reproof” was “shutting away the light from God’s people.” She encouraged the ministers not to neglect the message to the Laodiceans, which was not a smooth message: “The Lord does not say to them, You are about right; you have borne chastisement and reproof that you never deserved; you have been unnecessarily discouraged by severity; you are not guilty of the wrongs and sins for which you have been reproved. The True Witness declares that when you suppose you are really in a good condition of prosperity you are in need of everything.” [31] 

Although the Laodicean condition is an individual malady, there are also community ramifications. The Church as a whole suffered under the ailment symptoms. At no place was this more noticeable than at the center of the work in Battle Creek. In 1875 Ellen White would describe this very situation: 

As the human heart throws its living current of blood into all parts of the body, so does the management at this place, the headquarters of our church, affect the whole body of believers. If the physical heart is healthy, the blood that is sent from it through the system is also healthy; but if this fountain is impure, the whole organism becomes diseased by the poison of the vital fluid. So it is with us. If the heart of the work becomes corrupt, the whole church, in its various branches and interests, scattered abroad over the face of the earth, suffers in consequence. 

Satan’s chief work is at the headquarters of our faith. He spares no pains to corrupt men in responsible positions and to persuade them to be unfaithful to their several trusts. He insinuates his suspicions and jealousies into the minds of those whose business it is to do God’s work faithfully. While God is testing and proving these helpers, and fitting them for their posts, Satan is doing his utmost to deceive and allure them, that they may not only be destroyed themselves, but may influence others to do wrong and to injure the great work. He seeks by all the means in his power to shake the confidence of God’s people in the voice of warning and reproof through which God designs to purify the church and prosper His cause. It is Satan’s plan to weaken the faith of God’s people in the Testimonies. [32] 

It is for this reason that the Laodicean message is directed to the “angel of the church”--the leadership--whose response and influence will permeate the entire flock. And it was for this reason that Satan fought so hard to divert the work of the True Witness which came to God’s people at the heart of the work in Battle Creek. And nowhere was his anger directed greater at the remnant church than toward the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is the Spirit of Prophecy (Rev. 12:17; 19:10). 

In 1882 Ellen White was shown again “that unbelief in the testimonies” had been steadily increasing “as the people backslide from God. It is all through our ranks, all over the field.” [33] Pharisaism would creep into the church during the 1870s and 1880s, through a false defense of the law, thus undermining both the law and the gospel. By 1886 Ellen White was warned that “a time of trial was before us, and great evils would be the result of the Phariseeism which has in a large degree taken possession of those who occupy important positions in the work of God.” [34] By 1888 she would declare that Pharisaism had been at work leavening the camp here at Battle Creek, and the Seventh-day Adventist churches were affected.” [35] 

Such conditions would inevitably continue to delay the return of Christ. In 1883 Ellen White would look back on the nearly forty years following the 1844 disappointment and the work God had committed to His people “to be accomplished on earth.” The third angel’s message was to be given, believers’ minds directed to Christ’s atoning work in the sanctuary, Sabbath reform carried forward, the world warned through the loud cry, and God’s people purified through obedience to the truth, enabling them to stand without fault at Christ’s coming. But now there had been a long delay for which God was not responsible: 

Had Adventists, after the great disappointment in 1844, held fast their faith and followed on unitedly in the opening providence of God, receiving the message of the third angel and in the power of the Holy Spirit [latter rain] proclaiming it to the world [loud cry], they would have seen the salvation of God, the Lord would have wrought mightily with their efforts, the work would have been completed, and Christ would have come ere this to receive His people to their reward.... 

For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord’s professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years. [36] 

In 1884 Ellen White would once again draw her readers to the “history of ancient Israel” as the “striking illustration of the past experience of the Adventist body.” Again she would indicate that Christ “would have come for the redemption of His people” if a united Advent movement had received the light and power of God and proclaimed the warning message to the world. [37] She would repeat these same thoughts in The Great Controversy, published in the spring of 1888. [38] But the fact that the Lord was ready to finish up the work before 1888 did not negate the need for the message He sent through Jones and Waggoner at the Minneapolis Conference. Their message was the culminating message to the Laodiceans--the beginning of the latter rain and loud cry message. God would have sent the message earlier if He’d had willing messengers. [39] The point is that the message that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory is the same message for all time. The message God sent through Jones and Waggoner would have been the same prior to their arrival and will be the same when it once again returns to the Advent people before Christ’s return. [40]* And the message is wrapped up in the repentance call to the Laodiceans. 

Thus, in 1888 the Lord “in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.” [41] But Ellen White also defined that message of justification by faith as “the work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to do for himself. When men see their own nothingness, they are prepared to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ.” [42] It is no wonder that Satan was “not willing that this truth be clearly presented; for he knows that if the people receive it fully, his power will be broken.” [43] And so it was through pharisaical attitudes, strife, unbelief, and doubting of the Testimonies of the Spirit of Prophecy, that Satan held the church captive in its Laodicean state. 

In December of 1888, just following the Minneapolis Conference, Ellen White would once again assert that “the Laodicean message is applicable to the people of God at this time.” Indifference to all of God’s counsel, a loss of zeal for the truth, and a disregard for the “light contained in the ‘Testimonies’” was part of the cause. [44] But as she would continue to draw attention to the Laodicean message during the 1889 summer camp-meetings, she connected the divine remedies with the message of Minneapolis. [45] 

By August 1890, following almost two years of battles fought over the precious message of righteousness by faith, she would express the generally declining condition in the church: “Since the time of the Minneapolis meeting, I have seen the state of the Laodicean Church as never before. I have heard the rebuke of God spoken to those who feel so well satisfied, who know not their spiritual destitution.... Like the Jews, many have closed their eyes lest they should see.” God had allowed light to shine on the ranks of Adventism, but those who “claimed to believe the truth” but did not act upon it, as well as those “who despised the divine grace,” were alike foolish virgins. Now the call of the True Witness took on a broader meaning than it ever had before. 

The state of the church represented by the foolish virgins, is also spoken of as the Laodicean state.... 

Those who realize their need of repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, will have contrition of soul, will repent for their resistance of the Spirit of the Lord. They will confess their sin in refusing the light that Heaven has so graciously sent them, and they will forsake the sin that grieved and insulted the Spirit of the Lord. They will humble self, and accept the power and grace of Christ, acknowledging the messages of warning, reproof, and encouragement. [46] 

Soon after arriving in Australia in December of 1891, Ellen White lifted up her voice again, directing God’s people to the high calling they had been given: “Jesus did not seek you and me because we were his friends; for we were estranged from him, and unreconciled to God. It was while we were yet sinners that Christ died for us. But he has promised to give us his Holy Spirit, that we might become assimilated to his nature, changed into his image.” Ellen White then proclaimed the divine remedies being offered the Laodicean church which would bring about these changes: “Buy faith and love, the precious, beautiful attributes of our Redeemer, which will enable us to find our way into the hearts of those who do not know him, who are cold and alienated from him through unbelief and sin. He invites us to buy the white raiment, which is his glorious righteousness: and the eyesalve, that we may discern spiritual things. O, shall we not open the heart’s door to this heavenly visitor?” [47] 

In numerous letters the following year Ellen White would continue to hold up the Laodicean message as the message for that time. In a letter to Uriah Smith in late August, 1892, Ellen White confronted him once again for his continued antagonism toward A. T. Jones and for running countering articles through the Review. She told Smith that “God bestows upon his people great blessings in giving them faithful, upright ministers.” God was empowering these messengers “by his Holy Spirit to cry aloud, to spare not, to lift up his voice like a trumpet” giving a decided message of warning to His people “that they may be aroused and convicted of their sins and be led to repent and reform.” But while this message was being given, others were at work “to counteract the working of God through his appointed agencies.” 

Ellen White ended her letter directing Smith’s attention to the call of the True Witness: “We should heed the counsel of the True Witness. When God’s people humble the soul before him, individually seeking his Holy Spirit with all the heart, there will be heard from human lips such a testimony as is represented in this scripture, ‘After these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.’” [48] The implications were evident; Smith was still working to counteract the work of Jones and Waggoner and the message God had sent through them. To answer the call of the True Witness meant to repent and accept His remedies, which would usher in the latter rain and loud cry in all its fullness. Ellen White would send the letter to Smith through the hands of A. T. Jones, with copies going to O. A. Olsen as well. [49] 

In September, Ellen White would once again send off a letter to Uriah Smith. This time she was even more explicit in regard to the Laodicean message and the connection with the Minneapolis message: 

The word of God cannot work effectually in the heart when it is barred out by unbelief. The message which the messengers have been proclaiming is the message to the Laodicean church. [Revelation 3:14-20, quoted.] This message has not had the influence that it should have had upon the mind and heart of the believers. The true state of the church is to be presented before men, and they are to receive the word of God not as something originating with men, but as the word of God. Many have treated the message to the Laodiceans as it has come to them, as the word of man. Both message and messenger have been held in doubt by those who should have been the first to discern and act upon it as the word of God. Had they received the word of God sent to them, they would not now be in darkness.... 

The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays. Elder Smith, had you been unprejudiced, had not reports affected you and led you to bar your heart against the entrance of what these men presented; had you, like the noble Bereans, searched the Scriptures to see if their testimony agreed with its instruction, you would have stood upon vantage ground, and been far advanced in Christian experience.... 

The many and confused ideas in regard to Christ’s righteousness and justification by faith are the result of the position you have taken toward the man and the message sent of God. But oh, Jesus longs to bestow upon you the richest blessings.... 

The Laodicean message has been sounding. Take this message in all its phases and sound it forth to the people wherever Providence opens the way. Justification by faith and the righteousness of Christ are the themes to be presented to a perishing world. Oh, that you may open the door of your heart to Jesus! [50] 

Ellen White could not have been clearer; Jones and Waggoner had been sent with the very message that was meant to open the floodgates of heaven. If accepted by leadership and laity alike, it would then go to the whole world. Two weeks prior, Ellen White made similar statements to S. N. Haskell in a letter dealing with the monumental times in which they were then living. After quoting from Revelation, chapter 3, Ellen White again expressed the great need for repentance, even stating that through God’s delegated messengers He was standing at the door and knocking: 

There is stern necessity of repentance when we consider what occasion we have given to the world to doubt the truth of Christianity. As those who have had great light we are today more guilty before God than any other people.... 

These warnings and invitations should no longer be regarded with cold indifference. The wares of heaven are offered to our churches.... 

Clothed with your own self-righteousness you feel whole, walking in the sparks of your own kindling, you do not discern your defects of character. You need the garments woven in the loom of heaven, that your nakedness may not disgrace you in the day of God. You are living in guilty, self-deception, because you keep yourselves away from the light and rich treasures of God’s grace. You imagine yourselves rich when you are bankrupt. Your whole life has been a lie. 

Open your doors, says the heavenly merchantman. The summons has been almost in vain. Every crevice of the heart has remained sealed. The self-satisfied Laodiceans have shut Jesus out. Worldliness, self-righteousness, pride, and lukewarmness have so long bound the souls in chains of unbelief that now when the Saviour’s voice is heard, through His messengers, rebellion and stubbornness of soul are added to deepen the guilt. Clad in their worthless garments of self-righteousness, they feel insulted when told that they are naked. The Saviour’s voice is heard, “Behold, through my delegated messengers I stand at the door and knock.” Will you let Him in? Will you open the heart to the sacred, softening, subduing influence of the grace of Christ? Can you keep your heart closed against His love and the riches of His grace? Shall Satan himself triumph in your terrible deception that you have need of nothing? [51]* 

As the 1893 General Conference appeared on the horizon, Ellen White once again sought to draw the attention of the ministry to the Laodicean message. “We are certainly living amid the perils of the last days,” Ellen White declared as she began her fifteen-page letter. Heart-searching truths had continued to be “passed by with indifference by the churches.” Now, the “only hope for our churches today is to repent and do their first work.” She pled with the “brethren who shall assemble at the [1893] General Conference to heed the message given to the Laodiceans. What a condition of blindness is theirs! This subject has been brought to your notice again and again, but your dissatisfaction with your spiritual condition has not been deep and painful enough to work reform.” Now Ellen White turned once again to the Minneapolis message and the messengers. What treatment had they received? We will quote a large section from this letter: 

I ask, What means the contention and strife among us? What means this harsh, iron spirit, which is seen in our churches and in our institutions, and which is so utterly unChristlike? I have deep sorrow of heart because I have seen how readily a word or action of Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner is criticized. How readily many minds overlook all the good that has been done through them in the few years past, and see no evidence that God is working through these instrumentalities. They hunt for something to condemn, and their attitude toward these brethren who have zealously engaged in doing a good work, shows that feelings of enmity and bitterness are in the heart. What is needed is the converting power of God upon hearts and minds. Cease watching your brethren with suspicion. [52]*... 

Many have been convinced that they have grieved the Spirit of God by their resistance of light, but they hated to die to self, and deferred to do the work of humbling their hearts and confessing their sins. They would not acknowledge that the reproof was sent of God, or the instruction was from heaven, until every shadow of uncertainty was removed. They did not walk out into the light. They hoped to get out of difficulty in some easier way than by confession of sin, and Satan has kept hold of them, and tempted them, and they have had but feeble strength to resist him. 

Evidence has been piled upon evidence, but they have been unwilling to acknowledge it. By their stubborn attitude they have revealed the soul malady that was upon them, for no evidence could satisfy them. Doubt, unbelief, prejudice, and stubbornness, killed all love from their souls. They demanded perfect assurance, but this is not compatible with faith. Faith rests not on certainty, but upon evidence. Demonstration is not faith. 

If the rays of light which shone at Minneapolis were permitted to exert their convincing power upon those who took their stand against light, if all had yielded their ways, and submitted their wills to the Spirit of God at that time, they would have received the richest blessing, disappointed the enemy, and stood as faithful men, true to their convictions. They would have had a rich experience. But self said, No. Self was not willing to be bruised. Self struggled for the mastery. 

And every one of these souls will be tested again on the points where they failed then. They have less clearness of judgment, less submission, less genuine love for God and for their brethren now than before the test and trial at Minneapolis. In the books of heaven they are registered as wanting. Self and passion developed hateful characteristics. 

Since that time, the Lord has given abundance of evidence in messages of light and salvation. No more tender calls, no better opportunities, could be given them in order that they might do that which they ought to have done at Minneapolis. The light has been withdrawing from some, and ever since they have walked in sparks of their own kindling. No one can tell how much may be at stake when neglecting to comply with the call of the Spirit of God. 

The time will come when many will be willing to do anything and everything possible in order to have a chance of hearing the call which they rejected at Minneapolis. God moved upon hearts, but many yielded to another spirit, which was moving upon their passions from beneath. Oh, that these poor souls would make thorough work before it is everlastingly too late. Better opportunities will never come, deeper feelings they will not have. [53] 

Notes:

1. O. A. Olsen, “The Conference,” The Review and Herald, Dec. 6, 1892, 768. 

2. “Minutes of the General Conference Committee, Third Meeting,” Aug. 1, 1892; in “Transcription of minutes of General Conference Committee, 1892 to 1896,” 14, 15, General Conference Archives, Silver Spring, MD. 

3. “Program for the Institute,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 27, 28, 1893, 1. 

4. Ellen G. White to E. J. Waggoner, Letter 78, Jan. 22, 1893, unpublished. 

5. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, Feb. 23, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 238. True to his stated objective for his biography on A. T. Jones (see chapter 3, footnote 30), George Knight insinuates that Jones is to be blamed for the large amount of Ellen White material used at the 1893 General Conference. Knight sets the stage with several preliminary accusations seeking to prove Jones’ misuse of Ellen White’s writings throughout his entire life: “The most basic error in Jones’s adherence to Ellen White’s writings in the 1890s was his position on their relationship to the Bible. At the 1893 General Conference session he used passages from her works as ‘texts’ to base some of his sermons on, a practice he approved of when ‘preaching to our own people’ but not when addressing non-Adventists. Four years later he would refer to Mrs. White’s writings as the ‘Word.’ The 1893 General Conference session saw a great deal of preaching from the writings of Ellen White. Haskell observed that they had heard more from her in her absence than if she had been there in person. That would all change at that 1895 session. In the wake of the Anna Rice crisis in 1894, Ellen White had counseled Jones and others not to rely so much on the gifts, but to get back to the Bible. As a result, the 1895 General Conference Bulletin is notable for the absence of uses of Ellen White as an authority, especially during the first half of the meetings” (1888 to Apostasy, 230). 

First, Jones used the word text two times to describe the material from Ellen White he planned to read from that particular evening: “I will take a text to-night that will last a week at least. It is a familiar statement to all, I think. It is as follows” (1893 GCDB, 30). “Now brethren, you remember I took a text last night that was to last a week. To-night I want to read another passage in the same line” (Ibid., 69). Jones was not discussing here his views of inspiration; he was only using a common term to describe a “passage” or “text” from which he was reading. Webster’s 1868 dictionary defines the word as “a discourse or composition on which a note or commentary is written.” Students all have “textbooks” to study from, but obviously they are not all books that are dealing specifically with the Bible. A quick word search of Jones’ writings reveals that he used the word text more than 500 times. But he used the term in quoting from documents from just about everyone, including the pope himself (American Sentinel, May 23, 1895, 164). 

In regard to Jones use of the Testimonies when “preaching to our own people,” we should allow him to speak for himself to see if Knight’s assessment is correct. Speaking at the 1893 Conference, from which Knight quotes, Jones had this to say: “We shall begin to-night just where we stopped the other evening, with the thought that was before us, that we would now proceed to study this subject as it is in the Bible. I could take the time and read it all from the Testimonies and Steps to Christ. I could preach from them as well as from the Bible on this. But I find this difficulty: the brethren seem so ready to be content with what we read in these, and will not go to the Bible to find it there. That is what the Testimonies and Steps to Christ are for; they are to lead us to see that it is in the Bible, and to get it there. Now I shall avoid these purposely, not as though there was anything wrong in using them; but what we want, brethren, is to get at it in the Bible, and know where it is there.... Now when we go and preach this message to people who do not know anything about the Testimonies, we have to teach them that the Bible says it, and we have to teach from that alone. If we were preaching to our own people, to use the Testimonies and all these other helps would be all well enough, but even then, if their minds were turned to these, and not brought by these to the Bible itself, then that use of the Testimonies is not what is intended by the Lord as the right use of the Testimonies” (1893 GCDB, 358). Thus it would appear that contrary to Knight’s far-fetched claims, Jones was already seeking to lead people back to the Bible. 

Second, in 1897 Jones presented a series of talks on the Spirit of Prophecy. During his first meeting, and before he began to read from a Testimony, Jones made the following comments: “I will begin and end with the Word. Here is something that tells us what to do when we come to such places as this: ‘If the Lord is in the midst of your councils, beholding your order and love and fear, and your trembling at his word, then you are prepared to do his work unselfishly [Ellen G. White, 1888 Materials, 1394].’... So if the Lord is in the midst of your councils, beholding your love and your fear, and your tremblings at his word, then you are prepared to do his work” (1897 GCDB, 3). 

It is obvious that Jones’ use of the word Word was taken from the Testimony he was reading. It was Ellen White who initially used the term to describe her own writings as the word of God, not Jones, who was only quoting from her. Many other examples can be found in which Ellen White uses similar phrases: “I was instructed that there was so manifest a disregard of the Word of God, given in the testimonies of His Holy Spirit, that the Lord would turn and overturn, visiting Battle Creek with His judgments” (PM, 172, 173). “God has been speaking to them by His Word, through His testimonies, by His Spirit. Why do they not take heed?” (17MR, 229). “The testimonies either bear the signet of God or that of Satan.... By their fruit ye shall know them. God has spoken. Who has trembled at his word?” (5T, 98). Once again, Knight’s accusations are not only unfounded but also appear dishonest and misleading. 

As is plainly seen in these examples above, Knight also falsely insinuates blame on Jones for the amount of material from Ellen White that was read at the 1893 conference. She was the one who saw the need in her absence to send that much material. As far as Knight’s claims regarding the Anna Rice situation, Jones’ use of the Testimonies at the 1895 General Conference, and whether these events led to a different view of Ellen White’s authority, we will deal with these accusations in great detail in the near future in The Return of the Latter Rain series. 

For now, we might end here by mentioning Ellen White’s counsel to Jones in 1908, after he had turned his back on the valid inspiration and authority of her gift: “I have been instructed to use those discourses of yours printed in the General Conference Bulletins of 1893 and 1897, which contain strong arguments regarding the validity of the Testimonies, and which substantiate the gift of prophecy among us. I was shown that many would be helped by these articles, and especially those newly come to the faith who have not been made acquainted with our history as a people. It will be a blessing to you to read again these arguments, which were of the Holy Spirit’s framing” (9MR, 278). Apparently the authoritatively inspired Ellen White saw something in Jones’ 1893 and 1897 sermons that the evidently prejudiced George Knight does not. 

6. “General Conference Committee Minutes, First Meeting,” Jan. 20, 1893; in “Transcription of Minutes of General Conference Committee, 1892 to 1896,” 18, General Conference Archives, Silver Spring, MD. 

7. S. N. Haskell, “The Study of the Bible, No. 1;” J. N. Loughborough, “The Study of the Testimonies, No. 1,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 27, 1893, 2, 3. 

8. The Battle Creek Tabernacle, built in the late 1870s, was designed to seat 3,200, but could hold as many as 3,600 when including the sanctuary, wings, and gallery (Milton. R. Hook, Flames Over Battle Creek, 77, 79). 

9. Ellen G. White to Brethren and Sisters in Battle Creek, Letter 2c, Dec. 21, 1892; in General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 28, 1893, 12, 14-16, emphasis supplied. See also, Testimonies, vol. 6, 19. 

10. This one statement alone refutes the claims of those who say Ellen White’s November 22, 1892 statement in the Review is the only place that she explicitly ties the teaching of righteousness by faith to end-time events (see chapter 3, footnote 40). 

11. W. W. Prescott, “Promise of the Holy Spirit, No. 1,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 30, 1893, 38, 39, emphasis in original. 

12. S. N. Haskell, “The Study of the Bible, No. 4,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 31, 1893, 58. 

13. W. C. Colcord, “Why?” The Home Missionary, Jan. 1893, 1, 2. 

14. W. W. Prescott, “The Promise of the Holy Spirit, No. 2,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 31, 1893, 62-65. 

15. R. L. Odom, “Philadelphians or Laodiceans? (Laodicean Church—1),” Review and Herald, Jan. 5, 1956, 4, 5. 

16. Ellen G. White, “To the Brethren and Sisters,” Review and Herald, June 10, 1852. 

17. James White, “The One Hundred and Forty and Four Thousand,” Review and Herald, July 3, 1856, 76. 

18. See: R. L. Odom, “Who Are the Laodiceans? (The Laodicean Church—3),” Review and Herald, Jan. 12, 1956, 5-7. 

19. James White, “The Seven Churches,” Review and Herald, Oct. 16, 1856, 189, 192. 

20. Ellen G. White, “The Two Ways,” Testimonies, vol. 1, 128, 129; May 27, 1856. 

21. Ellen G. White, “Be Zealous and Repent,” Testimonies, vol. 1, 141-146; Feb. 1857. 

22. Ellen G. White, “The Future,” Review and Herald, Dec. 31, 1857; in Testimonies, vol. 1, 179-183. See also: Ellen G. White, Early Writings, 269-273. 

23. Ibid., 181 and 270. See also Felix A. Lorenz, The Only Hope (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1976), 69. 

24. Lewis R. Walton, Morning’s Trumpet (Bakersfield, CA: Self Published, 2001), 138. 

25. Ron Clouzet, Adventism’s Greatest Need: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 2011), 47. 

26. Ellen G. White, “The Laodicean Church,” Testimonies, vol. 1, 186; June 3, 1859. 

27. Ron Clouzet, Adventism’s Greatest Need, 48-49; Lewis R. Walton, Morning’s Trumpet, 138-141. 

28. Ellen G. White, “The Laodicean Church,” Testimonies, vol. 1, 185-187; June 3, 1859. 

29. Ellen G. White, “Testimony for the Church at Olcott, N.Y,” Testimonies, vol. 2, 194; June 12, 1868. 

30. Ellen G. White, “The Laodicean Church,” Review and Herald, Sept. 16, 23, 30; Oct. 7, 1873. 

31. Ibid., Sept. 16, 1873; in Testimonies, vol. 3, 254, 255, 257. 

32. Ellen G. White, “Faithful Reproofs Necessary,” Testimonies, vol. 4, 211; Jan. 5, 1875. 

33. Ellen G. White, “The Testimonies Slighted,” Testimonies, vol. 5, 76; June 20, 1882. 

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

35. Ellen G. White, “Experience Following the Minneapolis Conference,” Manuscript 30, June, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 356. 

36. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 4, 1883; in Evangelism, 695, 696. 

37. Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 291; 1884. 

38. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, 1888 ed., 457, 458. 

39. Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, 42-44. 

40. Commenting on Ellen White’s 1883 statement, George Knight seeks to draw the following conclusions: “In 1883 Ellen White claimed that Jesus could have come soon after 1844, an idea that has astounding consequences for those who would make too much of Jones, Waggoner, or Prescott’s theology in 1888, 1893, or 1895. The implication is clear that Christ could have returned before 1888--that is, before Jones and Waggoner ever preached their interpretation of the gospel. For that reason it is not helpful to build too much on the basis of their distinctive theology. It is neither their message nor the particular interpretation that they placed upon the gospel that is important, but the gospel itself” (Angry Saints, 126-128). But the “gospel itself” was interpreted differently by Uriah Smith, G. I. Butler, and many others during the 1888 era, and it is misinterpreted by Evangelical and Catholic Christianity today. Only that gospel which contains the divine remedies of the True Witness will suffice. The very message God gave to Jones and Waggoner, which Ellen White supported, does matter. God is waiting for the same gospel message to be proclaimed today. 

41. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 57, May 1, 1895; in Testimonies to Ministers, 91, 92, and 1888 Materials, 1336. 

42. Ellen G. White to Brother and Sister Maxson, Letter, Oct. 12, 1896; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 20, 117. 

43. Ellen G. White, “Camp-Meeting at Rome, N.Y.” Review and Herald, Sept. 3, 1889. 

44. Ellen G. White, “Our Duties and Obligations,” Review and Herald, Dec. 18, 1888. 

45. Ellen G. White, “Christ and the Law,” Manuscript 5, Sermon, June 19, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 341-345; “Camp-Meeting at Ottawa, Kansas,” Review and Herald, July 23, 1889. 

46. Ellen G. White, “The Righteousness of Christ,” Review and Herald, Aug. 19, 1892, 497; “The Righteousness of Christ, (concluded),” Aug. 26, 1890, 513; in 1888 Materials, 695. For a fuller context of this article, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, 417-419. 

47. Ellen G. White, “Ye are Complete in Him,” Sermon, Dec. 19, 1891; in Bible Echo, Jan. 15, 1892, 18. 

48. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 25b, Aug. 30, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1004, 1008. 

49. Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, Letter 16j, Sept. 2, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1036; A.T. Jones to Ellen G. White, Oct 8, 1892; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 226. 

50. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 24, Sept. 19, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1051-1054. 

51. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 30a, Sept. 5, 1892, unpublished. As stated above, Ellen White had declared that the confused ideas on the teaching of righteousness by faith were the result of those opposing the 1888 message. Furthermore, she also stated that Jesus, through His delegated messengers (Jones and Waggoner, etc.), was standing at the door with the true remedies for the church. Now, 125 years later, modern Adventist historians such as Desmond Ford, Burt Haloviak, George Knight, and Woodrow Whidden inform us that it was in fact Jones and Waggoner who brought the message of confusion into the church, beginning as early as the year 1889. See Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, 239-241. 

52. Nothing could better describe the biographical work of some modern Adventist historians in their attempts to discredit both Jones and Waggoner today. Their works, however, show evidence of being driven more by their personal Evangelical theological agenda than by an honest and forthright examination of Adventist history. 

53. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 19d, Sept. 1, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1018, 1026-1031. 
Chapter 6

Heeding the Counsel of the True Witness 

Forty years of Laodicean history now lay before W. W. Prescott as he stood in front of those gathered in the Battle Creek Tabernacle that Tuesday evening in late January, 1893. Much of the material Ellen White had written on the Laodicean message both before and after Minneapolis 1888 had passed through Prescott’s hands and brought conviction and repentance to his own heart on more than one occasion. [1] In light of all that history and in its context, Prescott would now continue presenting his series on the promise of the Holy Spirit and the need to heed the Laodicean message. 

Prescott felt that the only message he could bring that night was for himself and everyone present “to begin to confess our sinfulness to God with humility of soul, with deep contrition before God to be zealous and repent.” They had come to the time “when the light has begun to shine, that is the light which is to light the earth with its glory,” and only those had “cleansed their souls from defilement; that is, they have repented of their sins, and God has removed them,” would be permitted to take a part in the closing work: 

I don’t know what it will take, I am sure, but it seems to me sometimes that there will be something to awaken us to the way that God looks at sin, and the way he looks at us. But we have refused the warning of the Spirit, and the instruction that he has sent, and the testimonies that he has sent us again and again right on this point: “Repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place.” For years this has been the warning, repent! repent! repent! But we have not heeded this testimony, but have come to that point where we say: “I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.” And yet I say that if ever there was a needy company, it is this company.... 

Now I am perfectly aware that I am speaking with great plainness, and I do not speak this without thought and prayer. I speak what I believe to be the message of God to our souls, mine and yours. I say that it is time for us to be zealous and repent that God’s special outpouring of his Spirit may come upon us without destroying us. If we don’t make this matter a matter of earnest prayer, I say it simply means death to you and to me.... 

We cannot come to this assembly, this institute and Conference and go day after day in an easy-going manner. It is time for every one to be trembling in earnest for his own soul’s salvation.... There is an individual work for every one of us to do in connection with this gathering, and that means solemn heart-searching before God, taking his word and repenting, that we may receive this power.... 

I enjoy the seasons of coming together, and of listening to these instructions, and the explanation of God’s word. This I enjoy very much. But I tell you, we might come and go here, week in and week out, year in and year out, and yet not meet the mind of God concerning this time. [2] 

Truly, they were living in solemn times. No sooner did Prescott finish his lecture than A. T. Jones took up once again his subject of the Third Angel’s Message. He continued to show the movements in the United States which were a fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the setting up of an image to the beast (Rev. 13 and 14). And at the very time in 1892 when the setting up of this image was taking place, word had come confirming that the “loud cry” of the third angel had begun to sound. Why could they not but conclude “that the loud cry is right at that time?” 

Jones finished his sermon by quoting from Ellen White’s letter to Uriah Smith the previous summer: “Suppose the attention should be turned away from every difference of opinion, and we should heed the counsel of the True Witness. When God’s people humble the soul before him, individually seeking his Holy Spirit with all the heart, there will be heard from human lips such a testimony as is represented in this Scripture,–-‘After these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.’ There will be faces aglow with the love of God, there will be lips touched with holy fire saying, ‘The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.’” [3] 

On Thursday evening, Prescott picked up where he had left off the night before, as he sought to bring conviction for their need of thorough repentance. Just as with Job and those listeners to the disciples’ words on the day of Pentecost, “a glimpse of the glory and purity of Jesus Christ,” brought an abhorrence of sinful self. So also with Ezra, the servant of God, who had a sense of sin as he led Israel in heartfelt prayer for their sins and the sins of their nation. But what about those gathered there in Battle Creek in 1893? 

Now, we are taught that the servants of God are to “weep between the porch and the altar and cry, Spare thy people, Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach.” But it seems to me, in considering this question, that before we can do that, we ought to weep for ourselves. Look over the record of the past three or four years and see what God has been doing for us, and then see where we stand now. God has been dealing with his people in a very remarkable manner.... What shall we do when God sends us word right here and now that he is waiting impatiently for us? How long did he wait for the fruit on the tree? He waited three years did he not? Then was he going to cut it down? No. He said just wait one more year, then if it does not bear fruit, let it go. How long has it been since God in a special manner began to send this light and this instruction and this reproof for you and me? Reckon it up. Four years. It is the fourth year since Minneapolis, and going on the fifth. 

Now, I say, these things are terribly solemn for us to face, and I know not what to say. But from my soul I can only say that we have come to a terrible, solemn time for us. God has waited and sent reproof, and waited and sent reproof—four years.... 

I have no disposition to try to crowd anyone, but I feel that it is my duty to present these things in the plainest manner possible, and to let the Spirit of God do its own work upon our hearts. That is all I can do.... Why, I tell you the simple fact when I say that if God would to-night let some additional rays of his Spirit shine in our hearts, we could not go home and rest easy, and sleep quietly, and take matters the same as usual. [4] 

Prescott had kindly brought them back to Minneapolis and the sins that still hung over them as a people. Would they sense the full implications of what was at stake? Would they appreciate the added window of time to repent? Prescott advised that now was not the time to say, “‘Lord, if I have sinned, I am sorry for it.’ Now, when God sends us word that we have sinned, it is an insult to high heaven to come to him and say: ‘If I have sinned.’ Well, if I have not sinned, He is a liar, because He has sent word to me that I have.” 

Drawing a comparison between such reluctant attitudes in the prayer of repentance and the prayer of Daniel, Prescott ardently declared: “You don’t find Daniel, the one greatly beloved, to whom the Lord sent that special word, ‘Thou art greatly beloved,’ confessing sin with an ‘if’ in it. Not at all.” Daniel had confessed forthrightly his sins and the sins of his people: “‘We have sinned and committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets.’” Prescott compared Daniel’s confession of Israel’s disregard of the warnings of the Old Testament prophets to Ellen White’s statement following Minneapolis: “‘Some criticize the message and the messengers. They dare even to reject the words of reproof sent to them from God through his Holy Spirit.’” 

Such statements led Prescott to conclude: “The fact is, as it seems to me, that we have become so accustomed to the idea of regarding or disregarding these things, as our interests are at stake, that we have utterly lost the sense of the sanctity of God’s Word and of his message. It is a fearful thing to disregard God’s word and message; yet we have become so accustomed to do this. Why? Because sin is there, and because God does not immediately send evils upon us, we disregard these warnings.” 

To those who might ask what they should confess, Prescott referred to a statement written in Gospel Workers: “‘We are just as accountable for evils that we might have checked in others, by reproof, by warning, by exercise of parental or pastoral authority, as if we were guilty of the acts ourselves.’” Such a statement almost took Prescott out of his chair: “If God does not have mercy upon us what will become of us?... What shall we say before God? Will it not be true that we shall be obliged with Ezra to say: ‘I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God’?” Prescott had faithfully called the attention of the leadership of the Adventist Church to the prayers of Ezra, Daniel, and Ezekiel, as they repented for their sins and the sins of their own nation. Was God also calling His Laodicean remnant people to such a prayer? [5] 

On Sabbath, February 4, S. N. Haskell preached the sermon in the Battle Creek Tabernacle, which was “crowded to its utmost capacity”; latecomers even using the stairways as “setting room.” Haskell spoke “with his usual freedom and power” as the congregation listened to the message on the plan of salvation. [6] Speaking of the responsibility to then share that gospel message with the world, Haskell professed: “The time in which we now live is the time for the outpouring of God’s Spirit. What then is our duty?... Our work is to take up the gospel and go to the uttermost parts of the earth.” After reading large portions from a testimony from Ellen White, Haskell declared: “Brethren, we are living in the most solemn time that has ever been seen since Adam fell. We are living in the closing scenes of this world’s history, and the question comes home to us, What part will we act?... We have not yet received that Spirit that he wants to give us. There must be a change in our hearts or we shall never enter the heavenly kingdom.”[7] 

Sabbath afternoon an overflow meeting, made up of the visiting brethren, ministers, licentiates, and other workers, was held in the east vestry of the Tabernacle. The meeting which started at half past two lasted “until sundown, almost wholly filled with testimonies of confession and humility, yet characterized by much faith, hope, and love.” According to E. W. Whitney, writing to his home church in Colorado, this seemed the result of the preaching and testimonies shared the previous days: “While the doctrine of ‘The righteousness of Christ,’ being the righteousness which we must possess through faith, is presented in the power and demonstration of the Spirit, the important features of repentance and good works are not neglected.” 

Writing also of the Sabbath meetings, M. B. Duffie declared that “the power of God was present, and from what was said, we believe that when these brethren leave for their respective fields of labor, they will [be] endowed with the Spirit of the Master.... Truly we are having a pentecostal season here at Battle Creek, and being refreshed by the droppings of the latter rain now descending upon this people.” [8] 

The following morning Haskell continued his series on the study of the Bible. After reading comments from an Ellen White Review article on the blessings of the Holy Spirit resting upon the diligent searcher for truth, Haskell attested: “Then, if we are disappointed, brethren, and do not receive the Spirit, who will be to blame? We will. Why will we not receive it? Because we cease to seek it.” Haskell went on to describe how the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples at Pentecost to take the place of the personal presence of Jesus and was poured out upon them because they knew their sins had been forgiven. So it would be during the latter rain: “God has promised blessings to his people. It is those whose sins have been forgiven and who know their Saviour that have a fullness they have not received before. This is the out-pouring of the Spirit of God. It is the loud cry of the third angel’s message. The first step is having the heart cleansed from sin. When the heart is cleansed by the blood of Christ, we will go right on in accomplishing the work that God has for us to do.” [9] 

That evening while speaking on the 144,000 and the end-time generation, R. C. Porter quoted extensively from Ellen White’s Nov. 22 Review article: “‘Let everyone who claims to believe that the Lord is soon coming, search the Scriptures as never before; for Satan is determined to try every device possible to keep souls in darkness, and blind the mind to the perils of the times in which we are living. Let every believer take up his Bible with earnest prayer, that he may be enlightened by the Holy Spirit as to what is truth, that he may know more of God, and of Jesus Christ whom he has sent. Search for the truth as for hidden treasures, and disappoint the enemy. The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun...’” Taking such counsel to heart, Porter admonished his listeners; “We should be praying to God for his Holy Spirit. We cannot go from this General Conference and do as we did before we came here. Are we studying the Bible with earnest prayer? Are we praying that God will lead the minds of the instructors? If not, we are on dangerous ground. The loud cry ‘has begun.’ Should not that arouse us?” [10] 

That same evening, A. T. Jones continued his series on the Third Angel’s Message. He told his hearers that what he had been preaching to them all along, he would have preached exactly the same to those “who never heard of a Seventh-day Adventist.” Drawing parallels between the disciples at Pentecost and the current situation surrounding the last-day church, Jones challenged them that “we should be gathered in companies praying for the Holy Spirit.” He also reminded them “that when the people of God individually seek for his Holy Spirit with all the heart, there will be heard from human lips the testimony that fulfills that word, ‘I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power, and the earth was lightened with his glory.’” The question naturally followed; were they praying for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? 

Then we have the word of the Lord that prayers are ascending daily. Are yours amongst them? Are mine amongst them? Now the day is going to come when the last prayer that will be necessary to bring that blessing will have ascended. Then what? It will come. The flood will burst, and out will pour the Holy Spirit [like] the day of Pentecost. Now, notice, the word is, as “Prayers are ascending to God daily” for this promise, “not one of those prayers put up in faith is lost.” There is the blessedness of that promise, you see. Yes; when God tells us to pray for a thing, why, that opens the door wide for us to pray for that thing with the most perfect confidence that we shall receive it. When he tells us to pray for a thing, that throws open the door wide, and there is not a single thing to hinder that prayer from finding a lodgment there. What is his word to us? That not one of those prayers put up in faith is lost. 

Well one of these days the last prayer needed will be lodged there, and out the blessing will be poured. And who will receive it? Those whose prayers have ascended to God for it. I do not care whether that man is in the center of Africa, and that outpouring is here in Battle Creek, he will receive it; because by our prayers for it, the channel is opened between us and the source of the blessing, and just as certainly as we keep that channel open by our prayers, when the Spirit is poured out it will reach the place where the prayers start from just as sure as can be, because the channel is open. [11] 

Such powerful presentations extended beyond those in the listening audience. An editorial note from the Review announced that “several numbers of the Conference Bulletin have now been issued, and in view of the remarkably excellent meetings that we are having in our Institute.” Yet, readers were admonished that the copies were being taken so fast, “the supply will soon be exhausted.” Such a response was indicative that “the Spirit of God is manifesting itself in a marked degree in our meetings, and we are doing all we can to give our people the benefit of them through the Bulletin.”[12] 

Tested Again on the Laodicean Message 

On Monday evening, February 6, A. T. Jones took up once again all the evidences showing that they were standing in the very presence of the events that would bring about Christ’s return. Evidences had been shown time and again from the Bible and the Testimonies, that at that very time they “must have the power by which alone the message may be given to the world.” Yet, Jones proposed that the greatest danger with the congregation and with Adventist people everywhere, was that they would not see the things which concerned them individually as of greatest importance-—that their own hearts were to be right with God--and would instead focus on “the things that are without.” There was also danger that they would “look more at these things as a sort of theory” than that they would seek “to have a living Christ within.” 

But as Jones took up the subject of his next two talks, he approached them cautiously: “To me this lesson and the next one are the most fearful of all that I have been brought to yet. I have not chosen them, and I dread them.” Jones as well was seeking to lead his listeners to the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. He would seek to emphasize the need for repentance in order for the full promise of the latter rain and the loud cry to be fulfilled. He would also connect God’s call for repentance to the events of Minneapolis and subsequent rejection of the outpouring of the most precious message of righteousness by faith. This would be a monumental task. But as Jones began, even being one of the messengers through whom God was knocking on the door, he did not remove himself from his brethren. He would seek repentance with them: 

I ask you, now to start with, do not place me up here as one who is separated from you, and above you, and as talking down to you, and excluding myself from the things that may be presented. I am with you in all these things. I, with you, just as certainly, and just as much, need to be prepared to receive what God has to give us, as anybody else on earth. So I beg of you not to separate me from you in this matter. And if you see faults that you have committed, I shall see faults that I have committed, and please do not blame me if things are brought forth that expose faults that you have committed; please do not blame me as though I were judging you, or finding fault with you. I shall simply state facts, and you who have a part in these things will each one know that it is a fact for himself; as when it concerns me and myself in these things, I shall know that it concerns me as a fact. What I want, brethren, is simply to seek God with you, with all the heart, (Congregation—“Amen.”) and to have everything out of the way, that God may give us what he has for us. [13] 

Jones reminded them that the thought had been before them in the meetings, that the time had come “when God has promised to give the early and the latter rain. The time has come when we are to ask for it and to expect it.” But the latter rain and the loud cry would only be given when they were “of one heart and mind.” Therefore, Jones instructed, “if there are any differences at all between you and any of the people on this earth--whether they are at this institute or not--it is time for you and me to get them out of the way.” Such preparation would enable God to fulfill His promises. This is what the disciples had done before Pentecost and what the Laodicean message was calling for. But backbiting and war against the brethren was the work of the devil and should be left to him alone. They were to love the brethren and defend the brethren, lest they separate themselves from God by turning their weapons of warfare against each other. It was now time for Seventh-day Adventists to confess their condition: 

Well, then, brethren, the thing for us to do is to come square up to that Laodicean message, and say that every word he says is so. When he says you and I are wretched, tell him, “It is so, I am wretched; miserable, it is so, I am miserable; poor, it is so; I am poor, a perfect beggar, I shall never be anything else in the world; blind, I am blind, and shall never be anything else; naked, that is so; and I do not know it; that is so, too. I do not know it at all, as I ought to know it.” And then I will say to him every day and every hour, “Lord, that is all so; but, oh, instead of my wretchedness, give me thine own satisfaction; instead of my misery, give me thine own comfort; instead of my poverty, supply all thine own riches; instead of my blindness, be thou my sight; instead of my nakedness, oh do thou clothe me with thine own righteousness; and what I know not, Lord, teach thou me.” (Congregation: “Amen.”) [14] 

Jones concluded his sermon by calling upon all to “stand together today, for it is God’s work that he wants to do with us.” Ambition for the highest place in the Conference or the Conference committee was not to be the focus of their hearts, but rather, “‘who shall do most to win souls to righteousness?’” This was the mind of the early church when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them, “‘The Spirit of Christ made them one. This is the fruit of abiding in Christ. But if dissension, envy, jealousy, and strife are the fruit we bear, it is not possible that we are abiding in Christ.’” [15] 

The following evening, Tuesday, February 6, R. C. Porter continued his series on the Mind of Christ, and he too directed his listeners to the Laodicean message in light of the great controversy: “In the statements I have read is unfolded the controversy between Christ and Satan. And, brethren, the principles underlying the third angel’s message are the principles God had in the very beginning. I wish I could make you all see it as God has unfolded it to my mind. If I could do it, there would not be a soul here but would say, ‘I can see that that applies to me.’ He says, ‘I know thy works.’ What kind of works are they? Poor, wretched, blind, and naked. Does he know our condition? Yes. Would it not be well for us to say, ‘I am full of sin, and there is no good thing in me’? What he says is true, even though I, in my blindness, fail to see it.” Porter himself had been studying his topic in the light of Christ’s righteousness, in the light of His love, and he now saw all his past life as “a failure, that what I have done was done from a wrong principle, a wrong motive. I want to tell you that everything the faithful and true witness has said is true in my case, and I did not know it.” 

After comparing the power of force used by Satan’s kingdom and the power of love used by Christ’s kingdom, Porter ended his lecture by turning to the events of Minneapolis: 

What are we doing in this Conference? God has said that it is time we were getting together and praying and pleading with God for his blessing. It is time we were seeking God with all our heart. I would that you all could see it as I now see it. Satan was an accuser of the brethren. Go back to Minneapolis. Were there accusations made against the brethren? I ask you in the name of my God of love, what kind of counsels have you been holding? It is time we were holding counsels of peace. Let us let the mind that dwelt in Christ dwell in us. 

I thank God I see the cloud rising; that we are beginning to see that we are poor and wretched and blind and naked. When he shows us the worst of our cases, he does it in connection with blessed words of help and salvation. When he describes our nakedness, he holds out the blessed garment of righteousness to cover all our sins. He does not want to make us ashamed. He puts beneath us the everlasting arms. O, if we could only see what God wants to do for us! May God open to us the counsels of peace. It is time to make acknowledgment of faults one to another. There is work for us to do, and may God give us wisdom for the discharge of every duty. O, my brethren, my brethren! hold counsels of peace before the time shall pass, and it will be too late. [16] 

The same evening, Jones continued his lecture where he had left off the night before. Some had obviously been questioning some of his comments from that lecture, for they wanted to know how someone could acknowledge himself miserable, poor, blind and naked and yet “at the same time be rejoicing in the Lord?” Jones responded: “I would like to know how anyone else can,” unless he recognizes his true condition. To bring out his point more clearly, Jones quoted Ellen White’s statement from Testimony 31: “‘Are you in Christ? Not if you do not acknowledge yourselves erring, helpless, condemned sinners.’” Jones then drew this conclusion: “That is what some of the brethren say they can’t see. They say, ‘I can’t see how, if I am in Christ, I am to acknowledge myself a helpless, undone sinner; I thought if I was in Christ, then I could thank the Lord I was good, sinless, entirely perfect, sanctified, and all that.’ Why no. He is. When you are in Christ, he is perfect, he is righteous, he is holy and never errs, and his holiness is imputed to you--is given to you. His faithfulness, his perfection is mine, but I am not that.” 

Now Jones took his audience back to Ellen White’s earliest statements about the Laodicean condition and the work that God was seeking to accomplish as early as 1859. When the message was first given, there were sins confessed, and many felt this would end in the loud cry. But when the work was not accomplished in a short time, many lost the effects of the message. Ellen White was shown that the message would not accomplish its work in a few short months but was designed to arouse God’s people to “‘their backslidings, and to lead to zealous repentance, that they may be favored with the presence of Jesus, and be fitted for the loud cry of the third angel.’” And at that very time in 1859, “‘angels were sent in every direction to prepare unbelieving hearts for the truth.’” To such a thought, Jones replied: “That is where we are [in 1893]. While that message is preparing us for theloud cry, God is sending angels everywhere to prepare people for the truth. And when we go forth from this Conference with this message as it is now, the people will hear it.” [17] 

Jones continued on the theme of the Laodicean message, quoting from various Testimonies written over the previous years. After quoting from a testimony written in 1885, where Ellen White said, “soon [the message] will go with a loud voice, and the earth will be lighted with its glory,” Jones responded by stating: “Now the word comes, not that it is soon to go, but that it is ‘begun’ and ‘goes’ with the loud voice.” And someone else too had already read “that as Israel was on the borders of Canaan,” so they were in 1893, as well. “Who shall go in?” Jones asked, “those who ‘make a strong report in favor of immediate action.’ They will go in; God says so. It may be that the doubting, fearful ones will linger, and cause the cause of God to linger; but do not be afraid; God has promised that we shall go in.” [18] 

Jones now turned to the Minneapolis message and compared it to the latter rain prophecy in the book of Joel, yet noted the sad reception the message received: 

You remember the other evening when I was reading that second chapter of Joel, ... Now all of you turn and read that margin. The 23rd verse says: ‘Be glad, then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God: for he hath given you the former rain, moderately.’ What is the margin? ‘A teacher of righteousness.’ He hath given you ‘a teacher of righteousness.’ How? ‘According to righteousness.’ ‘And he will cause to come down for you the rain;’ then what will that be? When he gave the former rain, what was it? ‘A teacher of righteousness.’ And when he gives the latter rain what will it be? ‘A teacher of righteousness.’ How? ‘According to righteousness.’ Then is not that just what the testimony has told us in that article that has been read to you several times? ‘The loud cry of the third angel,’ the latter rain has already begun, ‘in the message of the righteousness of Christ.’ Is not that what Joel told us long ago? Has not our eye been held that we did not see?... 

Well then the latter rain--the loud cry--according to the testimony, and according to the Scripture, is ‘the teaching of righteousness,’ and ‘according to righteousness,’ too. 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. 

Brethren, isn’t it too bad? Of course the brethren did not know they were doing this, but the Spirit of the Lord was there to tell them they were doing it, was it not? But when they were rejecting the loud cry, ‘the teaching of righteousness,’ and then the Spirit of the Lord, by his prophet, stood there and told us what they were doing,--what then? Oh, then they simply set this prophet aside with all the rest. That was the next thing. Brethren, it is time to think of these things. It is time to think soberly, to think carefully. [19] 

Thus Jones tied the latter rain together with the teaching of righteousness by faith, which is the loud cry. Well might he have read as well from the song of Moses in Deuteronomy, chapter 32: “My doctrine [teaching] shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: ... He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment [righteousness]: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he” (Deuteronomy 32:2, 4). [20]* 

Jones also described accurately the treatment that Ellen White received for standing by the message and the messengers. [21]* He went on to describe through the reading of many more Testimonies how some of the leading men criticized “‘the message and the messengers,’” and even rejected “‘the words of reproof sent to them from God through His Holy Spirit.’” He read from the Salamanca letter written in November 1890, which mentioned “‘the evidences given in the past two years of the dealings of God by his chosen servants.’” This counsel was undeniably speaking of the time since Minneapolis, Jones pointed out. And where had this left God’s people four years later? Yet once again Jones did not separate himself from his brethren--he was included with them: 

You know who it was. I do not mean for you to look to somebody else. You know whether you yourself were at it, or not. And, brethren, the time has come to take up to-night what we there rejected. Not a soul of us has ever been able to dream yet the wonderful blessing that God had for us at Minneapolis, and which we would have been enjoying these four years, if hearts had been ready to receive the message which God sent. We would have been four years ahead, we would have been in the midst of the wonders of the loud cry itself, to-night. Did not the Spirit of prophecy tell us there at that time that the blessing was hanging over our heads? Well, brethren, you know. Each one for himself--we are not to begin to examine one another, let us examine ourselves. Each one for himself knows what part he had in that thing; and the time has come to root up the whole business. Brethren, the time has come to root up the whole thing.... 

I want to read two paragraphs from this testimony that has not yet been published: “The false ideas that were largely developed at Minneapolis have not been entirely uprooted from some minds. Those who have not made thorough work of repentance under the light God has been pleased to give to his people since that time, will not see things clearly, and will be ready to call the message God sends, a delusion.”... 

Now this additional paragraph in the Special Testimonies: “The prejudices and opinions that prevailed at Minneapolis are not dead by any means; the seeds sown there in some hearts are ready to spring into life and bear a like harvest. The top shave been cut down, but the roots have never been eradicated, and they still bear their unholy fruit to poison the judgment, pervert the perceptions, and blind the understanding of those with whom you connect, in regard to the message and the messengers. When by thorough confession, you destroy the root of bitterness, you will see light in God’s light. Without this thorough work you will never clear your souls.” 

Brethren, will you thus clear your souls, and open the way for the Lord to send his Spirit in the outpouring of the latter rain? [22] 

Jones found much evidence from the Testimonies that the ill treatment of the Minneapolis message was responsible for delaying that loud cry message going to the world. Identifying the message as a delusion and treating it as such now required repentance before the latter rain could be poured out in its fullness. After reading Ellen White’s description of Baal worship being the religion chosen, and the true message of righteousness by faith being “‘denounced as leading to enthusiasm and fanaticism,’” Jones made another call for repentance. It was also time for taking a decided stance in favor of the message God was sending and not continuing an attempt to just ride the fence. There was no middle ground: 

Brethren, I do not say these things to find fault, or to condemn; but I say them in the fear of God, that each one of us may know where we stand. And if there be any of those roots from Minneapolis lingering these four years, or any caught from this and have been crops of this four years’ standing, let us see that we here and now root up the whole thing, and prostrate ourselves at the feet of Christ with only that one plea,--“I am wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and I do not know it.” That is where we are. 

I know that some there accepted it; others rejected it entirely. You know the same thing. Others tried to stand half way between, and get it that way; but that is not the way it is to be had, brethren; that is not the way it is received. They thought to take a middle course, and although they did not exactly receive it, or exactly commit themselves to it, yet they were willing to go whichever way the tide turned at the last; whichever way the body turned they were willing to go. 

Since that time others have seen that God is moving the body of the cause forward in this very line, and they have proposed to go along with the body, as they see it moving that way. Brethren, you need to get that righteousness of Jesus Christ nearer to your heart than that. Every man needs to get the righteousness of God nearer to him than simply weighing up things and compromising between parties, or he will never see or know the righteousness of God at all. 

Others have apparently favored it, and would speak favorably of it when everything was that way; but when in the fierceness of this spirit--this spirit described there as the persecuting spirit--when that spirit would rise up in its fierceness and make war upon the message of righteousness by faith, instead of standing nobly, in the fear of God, and declaring in the face of that attack, “it is the truth of God, and I believe it in my soul,” they would begin to yield and in an apologetic way, offer excuses for those who were preaching it, as though it were a matter only of men’s persons, to be held in advantage because of admiration. 

Brethren, the truth of God needs no apology. The man who preaches the truth of God needs no apology. The truth of God wants your faith; that is what it wants. All that the truth of God needs is that you and I shall believe it, and receive it into our hearts, and stand by it in the face of all the attacks that can be made upon it; and let it be known that you do stand by the messengers whom God sends to preach, not because they are certain men, but because God sends them with a message. [23] 

A Solemn Place in God’s Presence 

The following morning, General Conference President O. A. Olsen picked up where A. T. Jones left off the night before. Based on the lessons presented prior to that morning by Prescott, Porter, Haskell, Underwood, Jones, and others, there was a sense that God was truly coming near. The Laodicean message was touching hearts, yet they should not turn away, even if the Minneapolis meeting was once again brought before them. How would they respond?: 

This place is becoming more and more solemn on account of the presence of God. I presume that none of us have ever before been in quite such a meeting as we are having at this time. The Lord is certainly coming very near, and is revealing things more and more, things which we have not heretofore so fully appreciated nor understood. It is also evident that the message of the “True Witness” is being appreciated more than in the past. The great difficulty with us has been that while we have been just as the message declares, poor, miserable, blind, and naked, we did not know it. We thought we had the truth, and hence were “rich and increased in goods, needing nothing.” All these years, the Spirit of God has been appealing to us, and placing before us our condition; but we have not been able to see it, have not been willing to acknowledge it. 

I felt very solemn last evening [while A. T. Jones presented]. To me the place was terrible on account of God’s nearness, on account of the solemn testimony that was borne to us here. I am so glad that the Lord is working, and I expect to see great things as the result. I hardly know what to say this morning; but I have something which I will read to you. 

Some may feel tried over the idea that Minneapolis is referred to. I know that some have felt grieved and tried over any allusion to that meeting, and to the situation there. But let it be borne in mind that the reason why anyone should feel so is an unyielding spirit on his part. Just as quickly as we fully surrender, and humble our hearts before God, the difficulty is all gone. The very idea that one is grieved, shows at once the seed of rebellion in the heart. 

Brethren, God knew all about this meeting before we did. God is in this work, and he himself is leading out. God cannot manifest his love at this time in a more potent way than to show us our sins. For as has been stated here many times, it is sin that is in the way of God’s blessings. The sin must be removed before God’s Spirit can come in. I don’t care where it is, nor who it is, whether you have been a minister for a score of years, or whether you are the sinner just being awakened to the first sense of guilt. Sin is sin everywhere; and it is sin that must be taken away before God can come in; for it has been repeatedly said to us that Christ will not compromise with sin. He can’t do it. 

But if we fail at one time, the Lord will take us over the ground again; and if we fail a second time, he will take us over the ground again; and if we fail a third time, the Lord will take us over the same ground again. Why is he thus taking us over the ground again and again? For what purpose? It is that we may lay hold of his grace and overcome. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. So, instead of being vexed over the idea that the Lord is taking us over the same ground, let us thank him, and praise him unceasingly; for this is God’s mercy and compassion. Anything else than this is our ruin and destruction. The character and the mind of Christ must be developed in us before we are prepared to live with him. God be praised, then, that he is dealing with us so faithfully and plainly. 

The very idea that God is coming so near to us at this time, and showing us our sin in its true colors, is the surest indication that He has great blessings to bestow on his servants. Yes, there is nothing more encouraging. [24]* 

But Olsen didn’t stop here. After reading a testimony from Ellen White, he continued by expressing similar thoughts to Jones’ in regard to a mere assent to truth: “As a denomination, we have theoretically believed in the doctrine of ‘justification by faith;’ and those who were connected with the early experience of the message, knew a great deal of its power. But, as the work progressed, and the cause enlarged, it is a fact that we were resting more and more on the theory, and less and less on the power of the truth.” Olsen went on to say that ministers could present clear arguments on the Sabbath and other doctrines, “but with reference to leading sinners to Christ and preaching a death to sin and a living connection with heaven, they could not do it, because they had not the experience themselves.” This led Olsen to conclude that “justification by faith is not a theory, but an experience.” [25] 

Olsen’s solemn calls for repentance--along with the realization that God had even greater blessings to bestow--had a positive effect on those attending the meetings. Olsen wrote a most encouraging summary of the Minister’s Institute thus far for the pages of the Review. Attendance had steadily increased since the starting day, and Olsen could “hardly use language to convey the deep interest that is felt by all present. The Lord is coming very near. The Spirit of God is helping those who are giving the instruction, in a remarkable manner.” Olsen had not a word of criticism for the presenters, “Elders Haskell, Loughborough, Prescott, Jones, and Porter,” who were “taking a wider scope than at any of our previous institutes.... There are wonderful treasures in God’s holy word, and may the Lord open our understanding, that we may behold wonderful things out of his holy law.” 

Olsen felt that “the truth of God never looked so precious.” He knew they were living in a most interesting time: “Nothing can be more evident than the fact that the message is rising, and is about to go with great power to all the world. We are sure that this present institute and the Conference that is to follow, will mark a new era in the advancement of the third angel’s message. The time is here when the message is beginning to go with aloud voice, and it stands each in hand to relate himself to God so as not to be left behind in the rapidly advancing message.... The light of God is shining brighter and brighter, and the truth of God is unfolding in a marvelous manner; and it is of the utmost importance that every one, and especially the laborers, be in a position to appreciate the rapid progress of present truth. If this is not done, their work will be inefficient.” Olsen would conclude by stating that “this is the best and most precious occasion that we have ever had of this kind. If God is sought with humility of heart and contrition of spirit, great blessings will come to his people and to his servants.”[26] 

The same morning that Elder Olsen made his solemn appeal, R. A. Underwood preached on faithful stewardship and the need for self-sacrifice in giving. Some had been forced to leave the ministry, and others turned away, all because of a lack of funds through faithful giving of tithe. One of the biggest encouragements to the minister was a faithful, giving church which showed that Christ’s ownership had been taken to heart. 

Speaking of the time in which they lived, Underwood quoted from Ellen White’s November 22 Review article with rejoicing: “‘The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel, whose glory shall fill the whole earth....’ I am so glad to know that the revelation of the righteousness of Christ is the beginning of the angel that is to lighten the earth with his glory.” Underwood then asked an important question: “If this is the ‘beginning,’ are we not to receive ‘much more,’ even at this Conference, of the light and blessing of this angel, in lifting up the Son of man? ‘Bright clouds’ and ‘showers’ have already appeared here and there (Zech.10:1), yet Oh, how the parched church needs a general rain--the out-pouring of the Holy Ghost uponevery church, and individual. We are told that God is waiting to send this blessing upon us. How long shall he wait?” And that blessing would surely come when the church realized, as did the apostolic church, that they were not their own, and with unity of purpose believed and gave their all to the Lord.[27] 

On Thursday evening, A. T. Jones took up again the Laodicean message. That which they had been studying during the previous lessons, which had come before them “so constantly and so fully” was “that word sent to the Laodicean church.” That message had showed them their condition and how they did not know it, and the message had not come from A. T. Jones alone: “[It] has come to us from every point of the compass, hasn’t it, the last few days? It has come from every side, and from every mouth that has spoken, and the Lord with all the rest has spoken direct to us in the word that was read yesterday upon that very thing.” 

If they confessed that the True Witness’s assessment was true--“poor, wretched, miserable, blind and naked and do not know it”--then, Jones said, “we shall be ready to take his counsel and appreciate it, and will profit by His counsel,” because it is only those lukewarm Laodiceans to whom that counsel is given: “Well, having been brought to that place by the word and testimony, and in every way the Lord has dealt with us these days that are past, in all the lessons that have been given us, then he stoops down and counsels us. Isn’t that so? Then, brethren, let us not be so slow to take this counsel as we were the other.” Jones would now, night by night, go over the divine remedies offered by the True Witness, this night being the gold tried in the fire. [28] 

Friday evening, S. N. Haskell continued his series on How to Study the Bible. Coming to the end of his lecture, in which he described events in the lives of the disciples, Haskell asked: “Did you ever go to a meeting, and when you got there something came up that was not so agreeable or pleasant, and have you not felt that if you must do what is requested, you would?” Now Haskell brought up the Minneapolis meetings and the Testimonies that had been recently read in that regard: 

You know we had a meeting there, and there have been a great many confessions made about that meeting. I did not make a confession the other day, yet I think the testimony meant me. I was in sympathy with the views presented. I believed they had the truth on the argument that was to be discussed at that meeting. But, it was not a meeting to discuss theological points, that was not what the Spirit of God meant to teach us. The other day someone said: “I was not on this side,” and they confessed to being on the wrong side. What did the Lord want to teach us back there? He wantedto teach us the righteousness by faith, and had it been received we would have been so far in advance of where we are now. It was not to discuss the question of whether the third chapter of Galatians meant the moral law or the ceremonial law. Said one, “That is what I thought.” Of course, and so we got this idea before our minds precisely as the disciples got the way the Saviour was coming, before their minds, and they could not see anything else, and they could not get the eternal life that the Saviour wanted them to have. 

We have to come as children in order to get the light and truth that God has for us: and when the Lord brings us over the same road again, you may depend upon it, brethren, it is to test our judgment, to see whether we discern the Spirit of God or not. When God speaks to us, we want to lay aside our own ideas and views and ways, and our own plans, and come like babes, to take God’s word just as he reveals it in his sacred Bible, by his Spirit; and when we take that testimony, we will get that very blessing that God designed that his people should have had when they were back at the Minneapolis meeting. Of course many have been troubled ever since, as the disciples were when sent to sea; but do you suppose God has left his people? Never. When the disciples were out there, his eye followed them. [29] 

Although Christ had not walked away from His church, Haskell knew, based on Testimonies shared during the conference, that had the message of Minneapolis been accepted, they would have been “far in advance” of where they were. In fact, Haskell would later recall that had the message been accepted the world would have been warned and Christ could have returned in a short time.[30] 

On Monday evening, February 13, A. T. Jones continued his lecture on the divine remedies of the True Witness for the Laodiceans. This night he would take up the topic of the white raiment. “What is that raiment?” Jones asked, “(Congregation: ‘Righteousness.’) Whose righteousness? (Congregation: ‘Christ’s.’) Whose is that? (Congregation: ‘The righteousness of God.’) Whose are we to seek? (Congregation: ‘The righteousness of God.’) What is righteousness? (Congregation: ‘Right doing.’).” 

That right doing was according to the first commandment, which is loving God with all your heart and your neighbor as thyself: “‘On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’” So the right doing was the righteousness of God, manifest in Christ’s life: “That is what we are to find out in this lesson,” Jones declared. 

Turning next to Joel chapter 2, verse 23, Jones once again looked at the definition of the former and latter rain according to the marginal reading: 

What is the margin? “He hath given you the former rain?” What is that?--“A teacher of righteousness.”--“Given you the former rain moderately.” What is that, moderately? What was the former rain at Pentecost?--“A teacher of righteousness.” “He hath given you a teacher of righteousness according to righteousness.” Was that the former rain? And he will give you “the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain,” as at the first. What will the latter rain be?--“A teacher of righteousness” again. According to what? (Congregation: “Righteousness.”) But what is another expression for the latter rain? (Congregation: “The outpouring of the Spirit.”) What is another one? (Congregation: “The times of refreshing.”) What is the latter rain to the third angel’s message? (Congregation: “The loud cry.”) What is the latter rain in connection with the fall of Babylon?--It is the bestowal of that power, and that glory, with which the angel of Rev. 18 comes down and lightens the earth. [31] 

Jones read next from S. N. Haskell’s sermon found in the January 31, General Conference Daily Bulletin, where he quoted Ellen White’s Review article: “‘The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ.... This is the beginning of the light of the third angel, whose glory shall fill the whole earth.’” Jones next quoted from the Testimony W. W. Prescott read on January 28th: “‘The message of Christ’s righteousness is to sound from one end of the world to the other. This is the glory of God which closes the work of the third angel.’” Putting all these statements together, Jones concluded that “when we reach the time of the latter rain, the loud cry, the angel coming down from heaven having that great power, all these things coming together, as thus stated by the words of the Lord, we are simply brought to the same point where we were brought by the study of the things which are before us, and which led us to view what is coming upon us.” All these things pointed to the righteousness of Christ as the message that had come to the Church since Minneapolis: 

Well, the latter rain is the loud cry of the third angel’s message; it is the beginning of that message of glory that lightens the earth. But the latter rain is the teaching of righteousness. When did that message of the righteousness of God, as such, come to us as a people? (Congregation:—“Four years ago.”) Where? (Congregation: “At Minneapolis.”) Yes. This point was brought up the other night.... 

Now, that message of the righteousness of Christ is the loud cry. It is the latter rain. We have been praying for the latter rain here at this Conference already, haven’t we? Have you? (Congregation: “Yes sir.”) What were you looking for when your prayer was answered? Are you ready now to receive the latter rain? We have been praying here for the latter rain. Now there is the connection. The testimonies tell us what it is and Joel tells us what it is. I simply ask now, Are you ready to receive the latter rain? That is, are you ready to receive God’s message of righteousness, according to righteousness. Let us look at that a little further. Joel says, according to the margin, that it is a teacher of righteousness, that which brings the teaching of righteousness according to righteousness. Whose idea of righteousness? (Congregation: “God’s.”) No, mine. (Congregation: “No.”) Why? If I receive the righteousness of Christ according to my idea, is not that enough? Is not that receiving the latter rain? Is not that receiving the righteousness of Christ? (Congregation: “No sir, it is your own righteousness.”) But that is what is the matter with a good many people who have heard this message of the righteousness of Christ. They have received the message of the righteousness of Christ according to their own idea of what his righteousness is, and they have not the righteousness of Christ at all. [32] 

Jones then spoke of the different receptions the message had received through the past four years. Some “accepted it just as it was given, and were glad of the news that God had righteousness that would pass the judgment, and would stand accepted in his sight. A righteousness that is a good deal better than anything that people could manufacture by years and years of hard work. People had worn out their souls almost, trying to manufacture a sufficient degree of righteousness to stand through the time of trouble, and meet the Saviour in peace when he comes; but they had not accomplished it. These were so glad to find out that God had already manufactured a robe of righteousness and offered it as a free gift to every one that would take it, that would answer now, and in the time of the plagues, and in the time of judgment, and to all eternity, that they received it gladly just as God gave it, and heartily thanked the Lord for it.” Yet others “would not have anything to do with it at all; but rejected the whole thing.” A third group “seemed to take a middle position. They did not fully accept it; neither did they openly reject it. They thought to take a middle position and go along with the crowd, if the crowd went that way. And that is the way they hoped to receive the righteousness of Christ and the message of the righteousness of God.” 

So “all the way between open and free deliberate surrender and acceptance” of the message, to “open, deliberate, and positive rejection of it--all the way between--thecompromisers have been scattered ever since,” Jones mused. Would those who had taken that compromising position be any better prepared to discern what the true message of the righteousness of Christ was, without repentance? Jones himself had heard from some who openly opposed the message since the time of Minneapolis, say “‘amen’ to statements that were as openly and decidedly papal as the papal church itself can state them.” Jones would spend the remainder of his lecture comparing man’s idea of righteousness by faith with God’s high ideal of righteousness by faith. [33]* 

The following night Jones continued along the same line, comparing statements from the Bible and Steps to Christ with statements from an officially accepted book by the Catholic Church titled Catholic Belief. Jones would read portions from each, so that his audience would have two things: “the truth of justification by faith, and the falsity of it--side by side.” Jones wanted them to see what the Roman Catholic idea of justification by faith was, because he “had to meet it among professed Seventh-day Adventists the past four years right straight through. These very things, these very expressions that are in this Catholic book, as to what justification by faith is, and how to obtain it, are just such expressions as professed Seventh-day Adventists have made to me as to what justification by faith is.” Jones rightly wondered how the Church could then “carry a message to this world, warning them against the worship of the beast, when we hold in our very profession the doctrines of the beast. Can it be done? (Congregation: ‘No.’) And so I call your attention to this to-night so you may see just what it is.” After comparing many statements from Steps to Christ and Catholic Belief, Jones concluded by taking his listeners back to Minneapolis, where several attempts had been made to vote a creed on justification by faith that was in opposition to the message sent of God: 

Now, what is faith according to that [Catholic Belief statement]?--“The Faith ofthe Creed.”--They simply draw up a statement of stuff that they call the doctrine of God, and then you believe that and do your best, and that passes for justification by faith. Whether the creed is drawn up in actual writing, or whether it is somebody’s idea that they want to pass off by a vote in a General Conference, it makes no difference in principle, the creed is there, and subscription to it is just that kind of faith. And there are people here who remember a time--four years ago; and a place Minneapolis--when three direct efforts were made to get just such a thing as that fastened upon the third angel’s message, by a vote in a General Conference. What somebody believed--set that up as the landmarks, and then vote to stand by the landmarks, whether you know what the landmarks are or not; and then go ahead and agree to keep the commandments of God, and a lot of other things that you are going to do, and that was to be passed off as justification by faith. 

Were we not told at that time that the angel of God said [through Ellen White], “Do not take that step; you do not know what is in that”? “I can’t take time to tell you what is in that, but the angel has said, Do not do it.” The papacy was in it. That was what the Lord was trying to tell us, and get us to understand. The papacy was in it. It was like it has been in every other church that has come out from the papacy; they would run a little while by faith in God, and then fix up some man’s idea of doctrine, and vote to stand by that, and vote that that is the doctrine of this church, and then that is “the faith of the creed,” and then follow it up with their own doing. 

Is there anybody in this house who was there at that time that cannot see now what that was back there? Then, brethren, is it not time to cut loose, if it takes the very life out of us? It will take the very life out of us; it will crucify us with Jesus Christ. It will cause such a death to sin as we never dreamed of in our lives before. It will take all that papal mind out of us, all that iron spirit out of us, and it will put there the divine, tender, loving mind of Jesus Christ, that wants no creed, because it has Christ himself. [34]* 

Truly, the white raiment offered by the True Witness was that which was “woven in the loom of heaven [and] has in it not one thread of human devising.”[35] But would Laodicea recognize her nakedness and great need of such a robe? Thus Jones ended his last lecture at the Ministerial Institute with much more to come during the General Conference. 

Response to the Ministerial Institute 

The Ministerial Institute closed with a note of triumph. S. N. Haskell reported to Ellen White that “for a certainty God is pouring out His Spirit.” The Institute “was pronounced by the brethren a success,” and Haskell felt that God had given him and the other speakers “a degree of freedom” in their lectures. Haskell felt no need to write particulars, since she would receive copies of the Bulletins. He did however mention that a number of non-Adventist visitors had been converted listening to the lectures and Ellen White’s Testimonies read: “Some in the city those who have scarcely heard a sermon, they were convicted of their sins and could not rest until they had given their hearts to God and then went around to their neighbors and told them what the Lord had done for them. At once they began to keep the Sabbath although they had never heard a sermon on it or ever read anything on it.” [36] 

The Bible Echo reported similar evidence, stating that a Reverend Simonds, from the Independent Congregational Church in Battle Creek, asked for a series of meetings in his church. The brethren “‘were trying to get an opening there for Elder A. T. Jones, after the General Conference; but Mr. Simonds does not want to wait, so asks Bro. Prescott to begin, and let Elder Jones follow after General Conference.’” Thus an urgent invitation to hear the “Truth” came from a minister of one of the leading popular churches. Truly, the Echo professed, “‘this is, the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.’” [37] 

G. C. Tenney, who was sent to the Ministerial Institute and General Conference from New Zealand at W. C. White’s urging, indicated in his report that these meetings were “reckoned among the most important, and in many respects is entitled to first place” when compared to any other Conferences. Tenney felt that as investigation had gone on, “deeper truths and a better spiritual knowledge” had been gained. “The Spirit of the Lord has been speaking to us,” Tenney confessed, and the “speakers were able to bring out with an unwonted force their various lines of thought.” After giving a summary of several of the lecture series, Tenney declared that the “meetings have consequently been seasons of marked blessing. Many rejoice in the victories gained through faith in Christ; and as this work has begun at the ministry, there is good grounds to hope that it will not end with the institute, but will bear its fruits in all parts of the field and in all ranks of the people.” Tenney also suggested that the effects would extend around the world through the widely representative attendance, as the brethren returned to their homes. [38] 

O. A. Tait reminded the readers of the Review that if they wanted to get copies of Ministerial Institute lectures as found in the General Conference Bulletin, they needed to do so immediately. Although they had advertised the matter extensively before the meetings began and thought they would not print any extra copies of the Bulletin, so many orders began coming in when the Institute began that they had printed an extra 2,000 copies. However, even that number had almost been exhausted. Now was the time, then, to order the Bulletin for the General Conference as well, for Tait stated, “The testimony of all so far is that this General Conference Bulletin is the most important one ever issued. We trust that none of our friends in the field will fail to avail themselves of its benefits.” [39] 

“The solemnity that has rested upon those in attendance at the institute has been very marked,” wrote William Covert for the Review. This conclusion was drawn in part while interviewing Elder Grant, an older minister who had passed through the 1844 disappointment. Grant expressed the thought that when they came up to that time in 1844, “they thought their work was done. They had confessed their sins, and the warfare was ended.” But at the present Institute the work “seemed like the judgment hour to us, and really it is. While associated with this same thought is the solemn work of bearing the judgment message to the world, with an angry foe to meet, [and] the question yet is being asked, ‘Who will be faithful?’” Still, with all this solemnity, Grant felt “there is blessed rest in the Saviour.” [40] 

Yet amidst all the positive talk of the Ministerial Institute and the General Conference to come, there was still a sense that not a few remained at odds with the message of the meetings. Haskell informed Ellen White that although many were “getting into the light,” some had “not come out as yet who it seems they do not receive the blessing that some of the others do.” Haskell mentioned Captain Eldridge and Frank Belden by name. [41] Even Dr. J. H. Kellogg, who himself was at odds with Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott, admitted that “a number of persons” at the Ministerial Institute “had been in opposition to Eld. Jones and his work.” [42] 

O. A. Olsen was sorry that not all the delegates came to the Institute from the beginning, stating: “They do not realize what they are losing.” [43] Olsen did not state why these delegates were not present, but he later told Ellen White that Uriah Smith “goes along about in the old way.” And while Olsen was glad for the advancement that had been made with some, he would acknowledge: “Still my soul is in deep sorrow over many that are still in great darkness.” [44] 

Uriah Smith would write about the Institute himself for the Review. Although his article was full of facts, it seemed to lack the feeling of personal benefit. He wrote of the meetings “moving off with the regularity of clock work” and all “having the privilege of attending who wish to do so.” Smith mentioned the evening meetings where Elder Haskell and Elder Loughborough gave their lessons. But he did not “attempt to give even a synopsis of the matter which has been brought out,” because each lesson was reported in the Bulletin. Of course, he failed even to mention A. T. Jones, who had presented more than half the evening meetings. [45] Such examples of apparent continued prejudice are ample reasons that S. N. Haskell would inform Ellen White that he “had great hopes that brother Smith would get out free but somehow he did not as far as I know.” [46]

Notes:

 1. Ellen G. White to J. S. Washburn and Wife, Letter 32, Jan. 8, 1891; in 1888 Materials, 850; Gilbert M. Valentine, The Shaping of Adventism, 30. 
 
 2. W. W. Prescott, “The Promise of the Holy Spirit, No. 2,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 31, 1893, 65-67. 
 
 3. A.T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 3,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 31, 1893, 71, 74. 
 
 4. W. W. Prescott, “The Promise of the Holy Spirit, No. 3,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 2, 1893, 104, 105. 
 
 5. Ibid., 105, 106. 
 
 6. M. B. [Duffie], “Meetings in Battle Creek,” Review and Herald, Feb. 7, 1893, 96. 
 
 7. S. N. Haskell, “The Sermon,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 4, 1893, 131, 133. 
 
 8. E. W. Whitney, “To the Church at Boulder,” Review and Herald, Feb. 14, 1893, 109; M. B. [Duffie], “Meetings in Battle Creek,” Review and Herald, Feb. 7, 1893, 96. 
 
 9. S. N. Haskell, “The Study of the Bible, No. 8,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 5, 1893, 136. 

10. R. C. Porter, “The Mind of Christ, No. 5,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 5, 1893, 145. 

11. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 7,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 5, 1893, 149. 

12. Editorial Note, Review and Herald, Feb. 7, 1893, 96. 

13. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Messages, No. 8,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 6, 1893, 164, 165. 

14. Ibid., 165, 166. 

15. Ibid., 169, emphasis in original. 

16. R. C. Porter, “The Mind of Christ, No. 6,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 7, 1893, 176, 178. 

17. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Messages, No. 9,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 7, 1893, 178, 179, emphasis original. 

18. Ibid., 181. 

19. Ibid., 183, emphasis original. 

20. A. T. Jones was not the first to identify the latter rain as a “teacher of righteousness.” Percy T. Magan had done so in1891: “Our Future Work,” Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, Feb. 15, 1891, 60. Others have also done so since 1893: Taylor R. Bunch, “The Sealing and the Latter Rain,” unpublished document, n.d., 13, in Document File, Ellen G. WhiteEstate, Loma Linda Branch Office; Meade MacGuire, “The Early and Latter Rain--No. 2,” Ministry Magazine, Oct. 1939, 19; Jerry Finneman, “The Latter Rain is the Message of Christ and His Righteousness--Part 1,” New England Pastor, Nov/Dec 2009, 11, 12; Ron Clouzet, Adventism’s Greatest Need: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, 180, 181. 

21. Ellen White’s treatment both before and after Minneapolis has been and will be covered in detail in The Return of the Latter Rain series. 

22. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Messages, No. 9,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 7, 1893, 183, 184, emphasis original. 

23. Ibid., 184, 185, emphasis original. 

24. O. A. Olsen, “The Ministry, No. 1,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 8, 1893, 188. It seems that Olsen was in total support of the calls to repentance by Jones and other speakers up to this point in the meetings. There appears to be noevidence that Olsen felt Jones’ lectures were “vehement” attacks against the brethren, as some Adventist historians haveclaimed (see chapter 8, footnote 15). 

25. Ibid., 188, 189. 

26. O. A. Olsen, “The Institute,” Review and Herald, Feb. 7, 1893, 92. 

27. R. A. Underwood, “Christ’s Ownership, No. 1,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 8, 1893, 186, emphasis original. 

28. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 10,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 9, 1893, 200. 

29. S. N. Haskell, “The Study of the Bible, No. 10,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 10, 1893, 217, 218. 

30. S. N. Haskell, “Bible Study: The Third Angel’s Message,” Australasian Union Conference Recorder, Special No. 4, July 17, 1899, 9, 10. 

31. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 11,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 13, 1893, 242. 

32. Ibid., 242, 243. 

33. Ibid., 243-246. Jones was not out of line in this statement, for Ellen White herself had stated in the context of the controversy over the Minneapolis message: “Should faith and works purchase the gift of salvation for anyone, then the Creator is under obligation to the creature. Here is an opportunity for falsehood to be accepted as truth. If any man can merit salvation by anything he may do, then he is in the same position as the Catholic to do penance for his sins. Salvation, then, is partly of debt, that may be earned as wages. If man cannot, by any of his good works, merit salvation, then it must be wholly of grace, received by man as a sinner because he receives and believes in Jesus. It is wholly a free gift. Justification by faith is placed beyond controversy. And all this controversy is ended, as soon as the matter is settled that the merits of fallen man in his good works can never procure eternal life for him” (“Danger of False Ideas on Justification by Faith,” 1888 Materials, 812). 

34. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 12,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 14, 1893, 261, 262, 265. Jones’ comments in regard to attempted votes at the 1888 General Conference session and the papal attitudes exhibited thereby some are not farfetched. See Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, 110-120, 132-134, 137-139. 

35. Ellen G. White, Christ Object Lessons, 311. 

36. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, Feb. 23, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories, 238. 

37. Editorial note, The Bible Echo, Feb. 15, 1893, 64. 

38. G. C. Tenney, “The Ministerial Institute,” The Bible Echo, April 15, 1893, 120. 

39. O. A. Tait, “The ‘Bulletin’ Again.—Last Call,” Review and Herald, Feb. 14, 1893. 

40. William Covert, “The Institute,” Review and Herald, Feb. 21, 1893, 128. 

41. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, Feb. 23, 1893; portions in Manuscripts and Memories, 238. 

42. J. H. Kellogg to W. C. White, July 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories, 266. 

43. O. A. Olsen, “The Institute,” Review and Herald, Feb. 7, 1892, 92. 

44. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, June 13, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 261. 

45. Uriah Smith, “The Institute,” Review and Herald, Feb. 7, 1893, 88. 

46. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, June 30, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 262. 

Chapter 7

The 1893 General Conference 

The opening meeting of the thirtieth session of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference was held in Battle Creek, Michigan, on Friday, February 17, 1893. There were 120 delegates in attendance at the Conference, only six of whom were not present at the opening meeting. Besides the full delegation from different parts of the North American continent, representatives from Australia, Great Britain, Central Europe, Scandinavia, and South Africa were present. [1] The Ministerial Institute and the General Conference, each three weeks long, “were so closely related that a separation can hardly be made. The General Conference Bulletin for 1893 carried full reports of both in its 524 double-column pages.” [2] The General Conference would continue to have devotional meetings each morning, except Sabbath, and two evening Bible study meetings, which would be taught primarily by W. W. Prescott and A. T. Jones. [3] 

On the evening of the opening of the General Conference session, A. T. Jones took up again the subject of the white raiment, showing “the difference between satanic belief and the faith of Jesus Christ; the difference between justification by works under the heading of justification by faith ... and justification by faith as it is.” This study had brought them to the subject that would ever be before them: “that we must have the teaching of righteousness according to righteousness. And this can be, as we have found, only according to God’s idea of righteousness, and not our own; and in order to have God’s idea of righteousness instead of our own, we must have the mind that can comprehend it, and that alone is the mind of Jesus Christ.” 

Comparing again the different teachings of justification by faith, Jones then sought to place faith and works in their proper spheres: “The man that is so anxious and so dreadfully afraid that you will not let him have any works to do, and that you are going to destroy all his works--if Christ is dwelling in his heart, he will find works to do. Brethren, don’t be so anxious about works; find the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will find work, more than you can do. (Congregation: ‘Amen!’) But the difficulty is, when the people get their minds on works, and works, and works, instead of upon Jesus Christ in order to work, they pervert the whole thing.” Jones would end his comparison by quoting from Steps to Christ: 

Now let us have this word, and that will be the best close I could make to the whole thing to-night. Steps to Christ, page 79: “The heart that rests most fully upon Christ will be the most earnest and active in labor for him.” Amen. (Congregation: “Amen.”) Do not forget that now. Do not think that the man who says that he rests wholly upon Jesus Christ is either a physical or a spiritual loafer. If he shows this loafing in his life, he is not resting on Christ at all, but on his own self. 

No, sir; the heart that rests most fully upon Christ will be most earnest and active in labor for him. That is what real faith is. That is faith that will bring to you the outpouring of the latter rain; that is faith that will bring to you and me the teaching of righteousness according to righteousness--the living presence of Jesus Christ--to prepare us for the loud cry and the carrying of the third angel’s message in the only way in which it can be carried from this Conference. [4]* 

On Sabbath morning, O. A. Olsen delivered the 11 o’clock sermon. He was deeply impressed with “the importance and responsibility of this gathering of our people.” This was by far “the largest and most important gathering that has taken place in the history of our denomination,” Olsen stated. The manner in which the prophecies of Revelation 13 and 14 were being fulfilled and “the way that we see the situation opening and presenting itself in every part of the world, declares this gathering of more than ordinary interest.” Olsen feared, however, “that many who have had a nominal connection with the truth do not fully appreciate these things. If they did, it would be sought as never before. There would be an abandonment of self, a laying hold of the divine power, and a seeking for a living connection with God that would take no denial. We pray that this may be more and more impressed upon every heart.” 

Olsen declared that the “Lord has come near to us in our councils and Bible study, and our souls have been made to rejoice as the word of God is being unfolded to our understanding.” Yet he knew that there was a great need for consecrated laborers who recognized their total dependence upon God: 

But there has been one great trouble with us as individuals, and it has been plainly set before us in the Laodicean message. We have felt ourselves so rich and increased with goods, and we have felt such an abundance of efficiency, that we have not realized our need of God. O that a sense of soul poverty might come to every heart! That is the redeeming quality, brethren. “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” says the Saviour. When we come to realize that we have nothing; when we sincerely confess, “I am wretched, and poor, and blind, and naked,” then there is help and light in the situation. Our goodness, our wisdom, our ability, are nothing; but God can work, and God will work. But with whom will God work? For whom will God work? Where will God show himself powerful?--It is with the individual whose heart is perfect toward him. That is a heart which is emptied of self, a heart that has made no reserve, but has yielded all to God, and laid all upon his altar. [5] 

Olsen’s sermon reached many hearts. In the afternoon social meeting held in the Tabernacle some confessions were made, even confessing wrongs committed at Minneapolis. 

On Monday evening, Jones continued his series, showing where the natural mind of self would be found in the religion of works in paganism, the papacy, and the modern image to the beast, which also incorporates spiritualism. These same groups were also described in Revelation 16, as the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. And the only escape from the lukewarm works described in the last-day true Church were the remedies freely offered: 

The first thing he says is, “I know thy works;” and the last, “Be zealous therefore, and repent.” Are you ready to repent of your works now? Are you? Are you ready to admit that your works that you have done, are not as good as Jesus Christ would have done them if he had been here himself and done them instead of you? (Voice: “Yes, athousand times.”) Good. How much good are these works going to do you? Are they perfect? Are they righteous works?... 

Do not forget that garment that we are to buy—that garment “woven in the loom of heaven, and not one thread of human invention” in it. Then if you and I have stuck up a single thread of our invention in that life that we have professed to beliving in Christ, we have spoiled the garment. Brethren, do you suppose you and I have gone on these fifteen or twenty years so absolutely perfect that we have never got a thread of human invention into our character by our deeds? (Congregation; “No.”) Then we can repent of that, can’t we? (Congregation: “Yes.”).... 

What is our condition? You know well enough that our efforts at that have not accomplished much. Everyone has tried to do his very best--you know yourself that it was the most discouraging thing that you ever tried to do in this world. You know yourself that you have actually sat down and cried because you could not do well enough to risk the Judgment. (Voice: “Could not do well enough to satisfy ourselves.”) No; we ourselves were able to see our nakedness when we had tried our best to cover ourselves. You know that is so. Now, brethren, the Lord said so, didn’t he? (Congregation: “Yes, sir.”) Is it not time that we said, “Lord, that is so”?... 

Now the Lord wants us to be covered; he wants us to be covered, so that the shame of our nakedness shall not appear. He wants us to have his perfect righteousness according to his own perfect idea of righteousness. He wants us to have that character that will stand the test of the judgment without a hitch, or a question, or a doubt. Let us accept it from him as the free blessed gift it is. [6] 

As Jones began his meeting the following night, he sought to impress upon the minds of his listeners the fact that although he had read much from the Testimonies and Steps to Christ, these truths were found in the Bible. In fact, the purpose of the Spirit of Prophecy was “to lead us to see that it is in the Bible, and to get it there.” Jones stated: “Now I shall avoid these purposely, not as though there was anything wrong in using them; but what we want, brethren, is to get at it in the Bible.” Now Jones turned to one of the holiness books of the day and clarified where his religious ideas had not come from: 

Now I have seen this same thing working another way. There is that book that a great many make a great deal of, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. I have seen people who have read that book, and got considerable good out of it, as they thought, and what was to them great light, encouragement and good; but even then they could not go to the Bible and get it. Brethren, I want every one of you to understand that there is more of the Christian’s secret of a happy life, in the Bible, than in ten thousand volumes of that book. (Congregation: “Amen!”) I did not see that book for along time. I think it was about five or six years ago when I first saw it. Somebody had it and was reading it, and asked me if I had seen it. I said, “No.” I was asked if I would read it. I said, “Yes I will read it;” and I did. But when I did read it, I knew that I had already got more of the Christian’s secret of a happy life out of the Bible, than there is in that book to begin with. I found that I got more of the Christian’s secret of a happy life in the Bible than she has in that book. I wish people would learn to get out of the Bible what is in it, direct. (Congregation; “Amen!”) If that book helps people to get that secret in the Bible, with a good deal more of it, all right. But I knew that that book has nothing like the Christian’s secret of a happy life, that everyone can get in the Bible. 

Oh I did hear once, I did get the news once, that I got my light, out of that book. There is the Book where I got my Christian’s secret of a happy life (holding up the Bible), and that is the only place. And I had it before I ever saw the other book, or knew it was in existence. And I say again, When I came to read the other I knew I had more of the Christian’s secret of a happy life than there is in that book to begin with. And so will everyone else, who will read the Bible and believe it. [7]* 

Jones now moved on to summarized the conclusions they had come to in the study of the Third Angel’s Message thus far: “Then the latter rain being the righteousness of God, his message of righteousness, the loud cry, it all being that, and that to come down from heaven: we are now in the time of it, we are to ask for it, and receive it. Then what is to hinder us from receiving the latter rain now? (Congregation: ‘Unbelief.’).” To show that unbelief had indeed been an ongoing problem, Jones next read from “Danger in Adopting a Worldly Policy”--a pamphlet made from Ellen White’s Salamanca vision of November 1890: “‘But not all are following the light. Some are moving away from the safe path, which at every step is a path of humility. God has committed to his servants a message for this time. ... I would not now rehearse before you the evidences given in the past two years (four years now) of the dealings of God by his chosen servants; but the present evidence of his working is revealed to you, and you are now under obligation to believe.’” 

“Believe what?” Jones asked, “What message is there referred to that God has given to his servants for this time? (Congregation: ‘The message of righteousness.’) The message of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is a testimony that had been despised, rejected, and criticized for two years, and two years have passed since that time. But now the present evidence of his working is revealed, and now what does God say to every one of us? ‘You are now under obligation to believe’ that message.” Jones moved on to share the personal blessings of that message and the wonderful possibilities of accepting it then and there: 

A sister told me not long ago that before that time four years ago she had just been lamenting her estate, and wondering how in the world the time was ever going to come for the Lord to come, if he had to wait for his people to get ready to meet him. For she said the way she had been at it--and she had worked as hard as anybody in this world, she thought--she saw that she was not making progress fast enough to bring the Lord in any kind of reasonable time at all; and she could not make out how the Lord was going to come. 

She was bothered about it; but she said when the folks came home from Minneapolis and they said, “Why the Lord’s righteousness is a gift, we can have the righteousness of Christ as a gift, and we can have it now.” “O,” said she, “That made me glad; that brought light; for then I could see how the Lord could come pretty soon. When he himself gives us the garment, the clothing, the character, that fits us for the judgment and for the time of trouble, I could then see how he could come just as soon as he wanted to.” “And,” said she, “it made me glad, and I have been glad ever since.” Brethren, I am glad of it too, all the time. 

Now there is sense in that thing to-day. You know we have all been in that same place. You know the time was when we actually sat down and cried because we could not do well enough to satisfy our own estimate of right doing; and as we were expecting the Lord to come soon, we dreaded the news that it was so near; for how in the world were we going to be ready? Thank the Lord he can get us ready. (Congregation: “Amen.”) He provides the wedding garment. The master of the wedding feast always provided the wedding garment. He is the Master of the wedding supper now; and he is going to come pretty soon; and he says, “Here is clothing that will fit you to stand in that place.” Now there will be some folks that cannot attend that feast, because they have not on the wedding garment, but the Lord offers it as a free gift to all, and as to the man who does not take it--who is to blame? [8] 

W. W. Prescott followed Jones with his seventh lecture on the Holy Spirit. He closed his talk by suggesting that perhaps they had been waiting for a blessing afar off, when it was in fact right there: “It has seemed to me as we have taken up this study, that some of us were waiting for something beyond, without taking the blessings that are right here. They are just as full of light and glory and power as they can be. Now, the Lord wants us to receive his Spirit right, now; he wants our hearts open all the time to receive it. The heart is opened by confession and repentance of our sins, by a spirit of contrition, by a permanent sense of unworthiness, and not being lifted up when he gives us of his grace and his power. And we are to receive the Spirit in that fullness that we are to rejoice in the Lord all the time.” [9] 

Heartfelt Confessions 

Such presentations throughout the Ministerial Institute and now General Conference session, pointing church leaders and laity to the Laodicean message and calling for repentance and reformation, were not without effect. I. D. Van Horn, brother-in-law to A. T. Jones, had been one of many main individuals who had so strongly opposed the message at Minneapolis and during the years that followed. In fact, I. D. Van Horn was among the brethren who returned to their rooms at the 1888 Conference to criticize the message and the messengers. 

Ellen White would describe several times how she was taken to these rooms by her heavenly messenger and “heard ridicule, criticism, jeering, laughter. The manifestations of the Holy Spirit were attributed to fanaticism.” [10] Ellen White’s Testimonies were scorned, W. C. White was “presented in a most ridiculous light,” [11] but the brethren “thought and said worse things of Brethren Jones and Waggoner.” [12]* 

Although Van Horn had been seemingly unaffected by the numerous Testimonies and letters sent out since the Minneapolis meeting, which called for confession and repentance, he began to see himself differently at the 1893 gathering in Battle Creek. As he “saw so much of the power of God resting on brethren Jones, Prescott, and Haskell as they unfolded before me the light and glory of the message as it now should go to the world,” Van Horn realized that “repentance and confession was the only way out of sin and darkness.” In the social meeting the previous Sabbath afternoon, Van Horn confessed his “great wrong at Minneapolis, and the wrong all the way from that time” till the 1893 Conference. Van Horn later related that God in His mercy was just preparing him to receive further reproof. 

Three days after his Sabbath confession, Van Horn received a Testimony from Ellen White, sent January 20 from Australia. Going to his room that evening, he read it “three times over with much weeping, accepting it sentence by sentence” as he read: [13] 

Dear Brother Van Horn, ... I want to say a few words to you, to tell you some things which burden my heart. You are represented to me as not walking and working in the light as you think you are doing. Again and again has the Lord presented before me the Minneapolis meeting. The developments there are but dimly seen by some, and the same fog which enveloped their minds on that occasion has not been dispelled by the bright beams of the Sun of righteousness. ... 

I know that Elder Smith, Elder Butler, and Elder Van Horn have been losing the richest privileges of heavenly enlightenment, because the spirit and impressions that were entertained before the Minneapolis meeting and in a large degree cherished since that time have kept them in a position where, when good cometh, they have had little appreciation of the same. ... 

Had the divine Spirit anything to do with your prejudice at Minneapolis? anything to do with the spirit that led to action there? No; God was not in that work. I was led from room to room occupied by our brethren at that meeting, and heard that of which everyone will one day be terribly ashamed, if it is not until the judgement, when every work will appear in its true light. In the room occupied by you there was a Witness, and in the rooms of others, there was a Witness to every remark made, the ungodly jest, the satire, the sarcasm, the wit; the Lord God of heaven was displeased with you, and with everyone who shared in the merriment, and in the hard, unimpressible spirit. An influence was exerted that was Satanic. Some souls will be lost in consequence. 

Why did you not receive the testimony the Lord sent you through Sister White? Why have you not harmonized with the light God has given you? Is this spirit to continue to the end of probation? Is there nothing that will be evidence to you as to where God is at work? Can you not discern who has the message to give to the people for this time? ... 

If Elder Smith was standing in the clear light, he would give the trumpet a certain sound in perfect harmony with the angel of Revelation 18, who is to lighten the earth with his glory. Now is the time when we may look for just such a message as has been coming to us. ... 

The light is shining; it will not, cannot be eclipsed. It will continue to shine brighter and brighter unto the perfect day; but those who close their eyes that they shall not see, and their ears that they shall not hear, and harden their hearts that they shall not receive the rays of heavenly light, will be left to walk in darkness; and he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. He thinks he is walking in safe paths, but he deceives his own soul. [14] 

Such cutting yet loving words had a deep effect on Van Horn. After reading the letter, he “bowed before the Lord in prayer and confessed it all to Him. He heard my earnest plea, and for bitterness of soul He gave me peace and joy.” The next morning Van Horn attended the morning Ministers’ meeting, in which O. A. Olsen led out, often reading from Testimonies received from Ellen White. Here Van Horn “made a more earnest and extended confession” of his wrong before the brethren who knew of his course. He rejoiced that such a confession “brought great light and blessing into my soul. I am now a free man again, thank the Lord, having found pardon and peace.” [15] S. N. Haskell reported to Ellen White that the morning meetings had “been excellent, many are getting into the light.” He shared how “Brother Van Horn made a good confession. Such a one that I never heard him make before. It affected the entire congregation.” [16] 

Writing to Ellen White after the Conference, Van Horn continued to confess his past wayward course and share with her his newly found freedom in heeding the Laodicean call: 

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 in since the Minneapolis meeting, and this reproof from the Lord is just and true. Since it came I see more than ever before the great sin it is to reject light. And this is made doubly sinful by my own stubborn will holding out so long against the light that has shone so brightly upon me. I did not realize how great was the darkness that enveloped me, and how strongly I was held under Satan’s power, till I received this token of God’s love to me which has opened my eyes. 

I am now heartily ashamed of the part I took in the “merriment,” the “satire,” “sarcasm” and “wit,” that was so much indulged in by myself and others in the same room at that Minneapolis meeting. It was very wrong--all wrong--and must havebeen displeasing to the Lord who witnessed it all. I wish it all could be blotted from my memory. ... 

But I begin to see how much I have lost in these four years of darkness and unbelief. I will now make haste and “buy the gold,” the “white raiment,” and the “eyesalve,” that I may stand before my fellow men, not in my own strength with a fewset discourses, but with the righteousness of Christ, and the rich provisions of His grace to give them the “meat in due season.” I will arise, and in the fear of the Lord, go forward with the advancing light of the message. I will walk softly before the Lord, and will cherish His presence in my heart, that I may have power from Him, who has all power, to resist Satan, shun his snares, and gain the victory at last. [17] 

Living in the Time of the Latter Rain 

On Thursday February 23, W. W. Prescott started off the evening meetings with his lesson on the Holy Spirit. After having studied this topic for nearly four weeks, Prescott felt “seriously anxious over our work now.” They had studied what might hinder “receiving an unusual degree of the outpouring of the Spirit of God. Very close testimonies were borne and were heard here and they seemed to make a deep impression upon our minds and hearts.” Although he appreciated very much the blessing that they had received together and the presence of God and His Spirit with them, “yet I shall be greatly disappointed if this meeting closes without a fuller outpouring of the Spirit of God than we have experienced yet.” 

Prescott reminded his audience that “when the disciples received this outpouring of the Spirit after ten days earnest seeking, by confession of sin, by humbling their hearts before God, by viewing steadily Jesus Christ, and being changed into his image, then they had the power for the work which the Saviour had committed to them.” The disciples then went out with power, and multitudes were converted in a day. They had power over evil spirits and diseases, they healed the sick, and God wrought many signs and wonders. “Now those things do not want to be looked at as a sort of fairy tale,” Prescott remarked, “Why? We are to repeat the very same experience!” Prescott now moved once again to the experience of the past four years: 

God wants to seal a people for the kingdom: but the people who are sealed for this kingdom and who are ready for translation, must be those in whom Christ dwells; must be those that receive the righteousness and the character of Christ. But when we receive the righteousness of Christ in its fullness, just as God wants us to receive it, right with that comes the fullness of the Spirit, and there is the outpouring of the Spirit. Now, it is of no use whatever for us to pray and pray for the outpouring of the Spirit apart from the righteousness and character of Christ. Think how this matter has stood here for three or four years, and what we have been doing all this time! God wanted to pour out his Spirit on his people years ago; but we cannot help that now: do not add another day to that time. 

What can I say about this matter? Here we are together. These things are just asplain as A, B, C, that righteousness is the gift of God; that all in the world he asks us to do is to submit to the receiving of it, to open the door. How? By confession and repentance, by closing every door to Satan, and opening the door wide to Christ, and accepting him in simplicity. Now, it does not make any difference about our age or our standing: whether we are ministers or not; whether we are licentiates or not; we are all on the same level. You and I are to receive this in the same way, just as little children, and just thank God for it all the time, and rejoice in it all the time. ... 

Now, do you know any reason why we should not know something about that tonight? I have been thinking about it somewhat in this way; If we were just to stop all questioning about one another, about Brother A. and Brother B., and whether he has accepted it or opposed it, and stop hunting around, and sit right down here in the simplicity of it just as a child, so glad to know that it is so, we could take it. ... 

His disciples prayed earnestly ten days for it continuously, with confession of sin, repentance, looking to Christ all the time. Now why should we not get it in the same way? We only have about ten days left in the Conference. Now brethren, isn’t it time to begin on that very thing? Are not these things all clear to every mind, what righteousness is, and what the Lord wants to do for us at this Conference? Are we not now within ten days of the time, and ought we not to seek the Lord as we never have sought him before? [18] 

Following Prescott’s lecture, A. T. Jones continued his series and opened his presentation by reading from a letter he received “a little while ago from Brother Starr in Australia.” G. B. Starr had most likely sent the letter following the Australian week of prayer meetings in early January. But the letter offered no new information; it only confirmed that which they had already found by their study of the Bible and Ellen White’s writings: 

“Sister White says that we have been in the time of the latter rain since the Minneapolis meeting.” That is just what we have found in our own study of these lessons, is it not? Brethren, how much longer is the Lord going to wait before we will receive it? He has been trying these four years to have us receive the latter rain, how much longer is he going to wait before we receive it? Now this subject will join right on to Brother Prescott’s, and his talk is simply the beginning of mine; and what he called upon everyone here to do is what everyone should have done four years ago. 

And the fact of the matter is, something is going to be done. Those who will seek the Lord that way, who will receive his message that way, will get what he wants to give. Those who will not do that will be left to themselves, and when that is done it will be forever. And that is the fear-fullness of the situation at this meeting; that is what lends to this meeting its fearful character. The danger is that there will be somehere who have resisted this for four years, or perhaps who have not resisted it that long, who will now fail to come to the Lord in the way to receive it, and fail to receive it as the Lord gives it, and, will be passed by. A decision will be made by the Lord, by ourselves in fact, at this meeting. On which side are you going to be found? [19]* 

Jones’ words were solemn indeed. But again, the concept that they had been “in the time of the latter rain since Minneapolis,” was not based on G. B Starr’s letter from Australia. Starr’s reference to Ellen White’s oral statement only confirmed that which they had already seen themselves in the study of the Bible and many other statements of Ellen White. 

G. B. Starr would refer to these facts for years to come. Writing for the Review many years later, Starr indicated that at the 1888 General Conference “a statement was made by the servant of the Lord that the presentation of the righteousness of Christ,” as then brought to them, “marked the beginning of the loud cry of the third angel’s message, and joining with the third angel of that other angel mentioned in Revelation 18:1, whose glory was to fill the whole earth.” These verbal utterances made at the 1888 meeting, Starr stated, “were soon afterward presented in writing and printed.” [20] In an unpublished manuscript describing his years of working side by side with Ellen White, Starr makes similar remarks in regard to the 1888 Conference: “Sister White was present, and daily threw her influence in decided words with the presentation of this subject [of righteousness by faith]. She stated that this marked the beginning of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry of the Three Angel’s Messages.” [21] 

Of course, this all lined up with other published statements by Ellen White. In late 1892, O. A. Olsen printed a pamphlet with several heretofore unpublished statements from Ellen White. Under the heading of “The Power of the Holy Spirit Awaits Our Demand and Reception,” part of the following testimony was quoted: 

Christ, the Great Teacher, had an infinite variety of subjects from which to choose, but the one upon which He dwelt most largely was the endowment of the Holy Spirit. What great things He predicted for the church because of this endowment. Yet what subject is less dwelt upon now? What promise is less fulfilled? An occasional discourse is given upon the Holy Spirit, and then the subject is left for after consideration. ... [22] 

Just prior to his leaving his disciples for the heavenly courts, Jesus encouraged them with the promise of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs as much to us as it did to them, and yet how rarely it is presented before the people, and its reception spoken of in the church. In consequence of this silence upon this most important theme, what promise do we know less about by its practical fulfillment than this rich promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit, whereby efficiency is to be given to all our spiritual labor? The promise of the Holy Spirit is casually brought into our discourses, is incidentally touched upon, and that is all. Prophecies have been dwelt upon, doctrines have been expounded, but that which is essential to the church in order that they may grow in spiritual strength and efficiency, in order that the preaching may carry conviction with it, and souls be converted to God, has been largely left out of ministerial effort. This subject has been set aside, as if some time in the future would be given to its consideration. Other blessings and privileges have been presented before the people until a desire has been awakened in the church for the attainment of the blessing promised of God; but the impression concerning the Holy Spirit has been that this gift is not for the church now, but that at some time in the future it would be necessary for the church to receive it. This promised blessing, if claimed by faith, would bring all other blessings in its train, and it is to be given liberally to the people of God. ... 

The church has long been contented with little of the blessing of God; they have not felt the need of reaching up to the exalted privileges purchased for them at infinite cost. Their spiritual strength has been feeble, their experience of a dwarfed and crippled character, and they are disqualified for the work the Lord would have them to do. They are not able to present the great and glorious truths of God’s holy word that would convict and convert souls through the agency of the Holy Spirit. The power of God awaits their demand and reception. A harvest of joy will be reaped by those who sow the holy seeds of truth. [23] 

In 1897, Ellen White would admonish the church: “Let us, with contrite hearts, pray most earnestly that now, in the time of the latter rain, the showers of grace may fall upon us.” [24] Two years later she would remind the brethren that “years ago the time came for the Holy Spirit to descend in a special manner upon God’s earnest, self-sacrificing workers.” [25] Certainly then, at the 1893 General Conference, they were living “in the time of the latter rain,” as Ellen White had stated and as G. B. Starr had reported. [26]* The question was whether they would truly heed the counsel of the True Witness and repent, that the showers might be poured out upon them. Some had done so and received great personal blessings. But what of the church in general? 

Notes:

[1]. G. C. Tenney, “The General Conference,” The Bible Echo, April 15, 1893, 124. 

[2]. Arthur L. White, The Australian Years: 1891-1900, 59. 

[3]. “Program for the General Conference: February 17 to March 6,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 13, 246. 

[4]. A. T. Jones, The Third Angel’s Message, No. 13,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 20, 1893, 296, 298, 302. Because the Bulletin was produced every day but Sabbath for the General Conference session, allowing minutes from the previous day to be available for the delegates the following day, some of the lectures were apparently printed several days later because of time constraints. The Friday, Feb. 17 date attributed here to this lecture is based on the schedule posted on page 246 of the Bulletin, which fits more accurately with other Conference proceedings than with the February 20th printing date. All subsequent lectures referenced here will be dated according to the same method. 

[5]. O. A. Olsen, “Sabbath Sermon,” Feb. 18, 1893, Review and Herald, March 7, 1893, 147. 

[6]. A. T. Jones, The Third Angel’s Message, No. 14,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 22, 1893, 342, 346, 347. 

[7]. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 15,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 23, 1893, 358, 359, emphasis supplied. In his book, Ellen White’s World, a book on the times in which Ellen White lived, George Knight tries to connect A. T. Jones with the fanatical aspects of the “holiness movement” of the day, stating: “Seventh-day Adventists were not ignorant of developments in the holiness movement. For example Hannah Whitall Smith’s Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life was referred to at the 1893 General Conference session by A. T. Jones, advertised in the Review and Herald, and marketed by both North American Adventist publishing houses. Beyond that, Jones indicated in 1898 that he approved of many of the leading British holiness movement’s ideas on Christian living” (99). Of course, Knight gives no references for his many claims and seems to hope his readers will just take his word for it and believe that Jones promoted Hannah Smith’s book at the 1893 Conference. 

In his book, From 1888 to Apostasy, Knight makes another litany of similar accusations: “Jones and his colleagues were quite aware of the trends in the larger religious world. Adventists, for example, were familiar with Hannah Whitall Smith’s Christian Secret of a Happy Life. Jones discussed it at the 1893 General Conference session, and the Review had a hand some advertisement for it in 1896. By that time both the Pacific Press and the Review and Herald Publishing Association were marketing the book, which was rapidly becoming a holiness classic. In 1898 Jones also indicated tha the had been studying the Keswick movement (the leading holiness group in England) and Frederick B. Meyer’s ideas for two or three years. Their teachings on Christian living, he suggested, were just good Adventist ideas with fancy names. He also included frequent excerpts from The King’s Messenger (a holiness journal related to Methodism) in the Review. The King’s Messenger was by far the most quoted non-Adventist journal during his editorship” (168). 

But any unbiased reader of the 1893 Bulletin will realize that Jones’ reference to Hannah Smith’s book was anything but supportive or promotional in nature. And Jones had nothing to do with the 1896 ad in the Review, which was during Uriah Smith’s editorship, nor with the marketing of her book by both publishing houses. Hannah Smith’s book was never advertised during Jones’ editorship of the Review, from 1897-1901, a point Knight fails to mention. 

Jones’ mention of the Keswick movement in 1898, referred to by Knight, was in a single-paragraph editorial note in the Review, which again, was anything but a promotion of the movement: “Much is being made of what is called the ‘Keswick movement’ in Christian living. It is so called because it originated in Keswick, England. Dr. F. B. Meyer, of London, who was lately in the United States, and as far west as Chicago, is one of its chief exponents. We have been watching it for two or three years, and studying what, by its chief friends and exponents, it is said to be. And we personally know that all that it is claimed to be in Christian living has been for years the positive teaching of the Seventh-day Adventists; ... All this emphasizing of special ‘movements,’ ‘higher Christian life,’ etc., etc., betrays an uttermisconception of what the Christian life really is” (Review and Herald, March 15, 1898, 172, emphasis supplied). Simply put, Jones and the other editorial staff had been “watching” the movement for a couple years to see what it was about. 

Five months later Jones would again mention the Keswick movement at the end of one of his short articles on David with Saul’s armor: “If the Christian that has been trying to imitate the Keswick movement, the Salvation Army movement, or aspiring to be a Moody, a Meyer, or some other successful laborer, would go to the Lord for direction, as did [David], he would be able to do more with his little sling than with all the methods of the best men on earth. A man’s methods are never considered of any special value until he has made them work successfully. Often it is not a man’s methods that give him success, but the power of God that enables the man to produce successful methods. Those who study that man’s methods, and do not know his power, fail to realize satisfactory results” (Review and Herald, Aug. 23, 1898, 540, emphasis original). Once again, nothing is seen here, as Knight purports, of Jones promoting a fanatical Keswick holiness movement. 

The King’s Messenger that Knight mentions was a quarterly magazine founded and edited by Virginia Knight Johnson in 1896, who was a member of the First Methodist Church. The magazine’s primary purpose was to bring attention to Johnson’s work in opening a shelter home for young women in Texas who had or were being pulled into prostitution work <http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fjoal>. Jones himself never quoted from The King’s Messenger, even once, in any of his articles that he ever wrote over his entire writing career. During his editorship of the Review, nevertheless, excerpts from The King’s Messenger were published in the Review. For example, during his first year as editor, fourteen excerpts may be found. Five of these were short poems commonly found on the front cover (Oct. 19,1897, 657; Nov. 9, 1897, 705; Dec. 21, 1897, 805; Jan. 4, 1898, 1; March 29, 1898, 197). The remaining nine excerpts were short filler articles, sometimes as short as one paragraph (“He Has Come,” Oct. 26, 1897, 675; “Hearken,” May 3,1898, 278; “Guide,” June 14, 1898, 374; “Careful For Nothing,” June 21, 1898, 390; “Poor in Spirit,” June 28, 1898, 406; “The Secret,” July 5, 1898, 422; “His Counselor,” Sept. 6, 1898, 566; “The God-Man,” Sept. 20, 1898, 598; “Beware,” Oct. 11, 1898, 648). None of these excerpts, however, give the slightest hint of promoting a “holiness movement,” fanatical orotherwise. 

Incidentally, Herbert E. Douglass takes a different view than Knight’s idea that Jones’ message came from Hannah Smith’s book: “Further, [Ellen White’s] messages clearly demonstrated that this ‘precious message’ [of Jones and Waggoner] was not a mere recovery of a sixteenth-century Methodist accent, such as represented by Hannah Whitall Smith’s The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. ... [Ellen White] saw certain aspects of the ‘precious message’ as fresh, timely, and part of the increasing light she called ‘present truth’” (Messenger of the Lord, 197). Furthermore, Ron Clouzet offers yet another valuable opinion of the Keswick movement, in a section of his chapter on revival and reformation labeled “The Last Worldwide Revival”: “This Holiness Movement resulted from sincere Christians growing weary of legalistic, dry, intellectual religion, much like what Seventh-day Adventists were experiencing in the 1870s and 1880s. ... Perhaps God was preparing the world so that His remnant people might offer the final warning in the power of the Spirit before His return” (Adventism Greatest Need: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, 65, 67). Sadly, God’s “remnant people” were unprepared to share that message which they themselves had failed to fully accept, too often being found in opposition to the messengers He had sent. 

One thing is for certain, Knight’s seeking to place Jones in the camp of fanatical holiness people at the 1893 General Conference is without any historical support. Just as hatred for Jones 120 years ago led men to try to discredit him, so it seems Knight seeks to do the same today. 

[8]. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 15,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 23, 1893, 359, 361. 

[9]. W. W. Prescott, “The Promise of the Holy Spirit, No. 7,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 23, 1893, 368, 369. 

[10]. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 81, May 31, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1565. 

[11]. Ellen G. White to J. Fargo, Letter 50, May 2, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 296, 297. 

[12]. Ellen G. White to Children of the Household, Letter 14, 1889; in 1888 Materials, 323. See also 140, 278, 298, 308, 322, and 517. Meade MacGuire relates G. B. Starr’s remembrance of these events in a letter to L. E. Froom: “Another interesting experience Eld. [G. B.] Starr told me was an incident that took place at Minneapolis in 1888. The basement under a large building was rented and a number of delegates roomed there at night. A large curtain was hung across the room and Eld. Starr and wife slept in one end, while four or five ministers occupied the other end. One night Eld. Jones had given a powerful discourse, which Eld. Starr and wife appreciated very much. They came to their room deeply impressed and after prayer went to bed. After a while the men came to their apartment, talking and laughing, and rather ridiculing Eld. Jones’ statements. One of the men, Eld. C., called Eld. Jones by some unfavorable name (I have forgotten that detail) but it shocked the Starrs. He did not mention it to anyone, but the next morning Sister White spoke, and during her talk made remarks about the attitude of some of the workers. I think that was the time she said an angel took her from room to room. Anyway, she finally pointed her finger at Eld. C. and said, Eld. C. I am ashamed of you, to call one who is giving a message from the Lord, by such a name ‘___’. It was the name that Eld. Starr had heard the man use the night before” (Meade MacGuire to L. E. Froom, Sept. 7, 1961). 

[13]. I. D. Van Horn to Ellen G. White, March 9, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 240. 

[14]. Ellen G. White to I. D. Van Horn, Letter 61, Jan. 20, 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1136-1140, 1142. 

[15]. I. D. Van Horn to Ellen G. White, March 9, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 240. 

[16]. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, Feb. 23, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 238. 

[17]. I. D. Van Horn to Ellen G. White, March 9, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 240, 241. 

[18]. W. W. Prescott, “The Promise of the Holy Spirit, No. 8,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 24, 1893, 384, 386, 388, 389. 

[19]. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 16,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 24, 1893, 377. Internal evidence indicates that this lecture actually followed Prescott’s No. 8, mentioned above. Jones quoted from Galatians 3 as Prescott had done (383, 387). 

[20]. G. B. Starr, “Increased Light Since 1888: A prediction in Process of Fulfillment Now,” Review and Herald, July 24, 1930, 6. 

[21]. G. B. Starr, “Sixty-two Years in the Highest University: And Personal Experiences with the Prophetic Gift,” unpublished document, n.d., 8; in Document File 496C, Ellen. G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

[22]. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 20, Dec. 28, 1891; in Selected Messages, book 1, 156, 157. 

[23]. Ellen G. White, “Power of the Holy Spirit Awaits our Demand and Reception,” Manuscript 20, Dec. 28, 1891; in Special Testimony to Our Ministers, No. 2, (1892),” 24, 25, emphasis supplied. 

[24]. Ellen G. White, “Pray for the Latter Rain,” Review and Herald, March 2, 1897, emphasis supplied. 

[25]. Ellen G. White, “The Need for Greater Consecration,” Manuscript 2, Jan. 24, 1899; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 175, 176. 

[26]. George Knight contests G. B. Starr’s statement, claiming “the source of that information [was] not Ellen White but G. B. Starr” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, 112). For more details on this point, see chapter 4, footnote 29. 
Chapter 8

“Oh, How My Heart Rejoices!” 

The Ten Witnesses 

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

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

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

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

There is going to be another company there that day--a great multitude that noman can number--all nations, and kindreds, and tongues, and people; and they will come up to enter in. And if any one should ask them that question, “What have you done that you should enter here? What claim have you here?” The answer would be: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Confessions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1893 Conference Draws to a Close 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Oh How My Heart Rejoices” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

4. Ibid., 417. 

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

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

7. Ibid. 

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

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

10. Ellen G. White to J. H. Morrison, Letter 47, Dec. 22, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1084, 1085. 
 
11. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, March 21, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 245. 
 
12. C. H. Jones to W. C. White, March 30, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 248. 
 
13. O. A. Olsen to W. C. White, March 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 242, 243. 
 
14]. A. T. Jones to Brother Holmes, May 12, 1921; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 330. Within a year of the1893 General Conference, J. H. Morrison moved back to Lincoln, Nebraska, where he lived out the rest of his life. Itwould appear that his confession was genuine and that his bitterness against the Minneapolis message had been putaside. However, he may not have ever changed some of his strong doctrinal opinions. M. L. Andreason shares somebackground insights into Morrison’s later years. As a new convert, Andreason was given the opportunity to sit in onmeetings and councils held at Union College where Morrison was present: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16]. W. W. Prescott, “The Promise of the Holy Spirit, No. 10,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 3, 1893, 463. Unfortunately, Prescott’s optimism that the Church would move on with the outpouring of the latter rain was never realized during his lifetime and still waits fulfillment today. 
 
17]. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 22,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 7, 1893, 494. 
 
18]. “General Conference Proceedings; Twentieth Meeting,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 7, 1893, 493. 
 
19]. W. A. Spicer to W. C. White, March 24, 1893, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 
 
20]. C. H. Jones to W. C. White, March 30, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 248. 
 
21]. O. A. Olsen to W. C. White, March 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 242. 
 
22]. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, March 21, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 244, emphasis supplied. Olsen seems to have missed what modern historians claim about Jones’ attitude during his lectures. See footnote 15. 
 
23]. W. W. Prescott to Ellen G. White, March 23, 1893, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 
 
24]. G. C. Tenney, “The General Conference,” The Bible Echo, May 1, 1893, 152. 
 
25]. W. C. White to G. C. Tenney, May 5, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 257. 
 
26]. Mrs. E. M. Peebles, “Thoughts Suggested at the Close of the Institute and Conference,” Review and Herald, March 21, 1893, 189. 
 
27]. O. A. Olsen, “The Year’s Work and the Outlook,” The Home Missionary Extra, Nov. 1893, 2. 
 
28]. I. D. Van Horn to Ellen G. White, March 9, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 239. 
 
29]. L. T. Nicola to Ellen G. White, March 24, 1893; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 247. Unfortunately, Nicola’s repentance did not apparently last very long. By June of 1895, Ellen White chided O. A. Olsen for “putting somuch dependence on A.R. Henry, Leroy Nicola, and others I might name, who in a crisis will be on the wrong side?” (Letter 65, June 19, 1895; in 1888 Materials, 1404). 
 
30]. Ellen G. White, “Diary,” Manuscript 80, April 24, 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1170. 
 
31]. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 41a, May 12, 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1184. 
  
[32]. Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, Letter 230, July 25, 1908; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 9, 278, emphasis supplied. Is itpossible that Ellen White’s heavenly informant was unaware of what our modern-day historians seem so readily to findin Jones’ 1893 sermons? See chapter 5, footnote 5. 

Chapter 9

Satanic Strategies Against the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry

The Spreading Results of the General Conference Revival 

Following the General Conference were the many annual camp-meetings and conferences scattered around the United States and in other countries. O. A. Olsen was well aware that at the 1893 Conference there was a “season of refreshing from the presence of the Lord. The Spirit of God rested on ministers and people.” He also knew that the “blessings were not confined to the delegates and those assembled in Conference, but extended to many other places at the same time.” Now, Olsen reported, “most of our people had heard of the nature of the General Conference meetings, and rightly expected that some of the same blessing would attend their own [camp-meetings and] Conferences.” By the end of the camp-meeting season, Olsen could testify “to the praise of the Lord that this has been so.”[1] 

Such reports from the camp-meetings and conferences were scattered throughout church papers during the following months. W. W. Stebbins reported from meetings in Kansas, that the “Lord gave us His signal blessing, uniting our hearts in the bonds of love and peace, causing mistakes and disunion to melt away before the power of his Spirit.” He also stated that “some have found peace for the first time, and we can testify to droppings of the latter rain.”[2] 

D. T. Shireman, upon leaving Battle Creek, had a more intense appreciation for the beauties of creation around him. When he came home to North Carolina the faces of his brethren were already “shining with the blessing of the Lord.” This led Shireman to proclaim: “They have been receiving the latter rain.”[3] 

L. Johnson, after vising Iowa, Nebraska, Dakota, and Minnesota, declared that some of the members “are rejoicing in the Lord, and receiving the latter rain.”[4] N. P. Nelson, writing from South Dakota, recalled that “since our last camp-meeting, we have had somedrops, yes, even showers of the latter rain;” but, he questioned, “may we not confidently look for much greater blessing at our annual feast of 1893?”[5] 

The Darkness That Followed 

Such reports should cause rejoicing as we review our history, if it weren’t for the rest of the story. Certainly we can learn from the victories gained, but ultimately if the latter rain began, and was not hindered, would not Christ have returned long ere this? So it is that Satan, fearing for his very existence and continuing in his insidious rebellion, brought several strategies against the church of 1893 to make of none effect the beginning of the latter rain and the resultant loud cry: 

1. Through fanatical criticism against the church. 
2. Through worldliness in the church and in our schools. 
3. Through mistakes of the messengers themselves. 
4. Through pharisaical blindness which continued to fight against the Minneapolis message and its messengers--even attributing the very work of the Holy Spirit to extremism, excitement, and fanaticism--Satan succeeded in bringing about a delay. We will take a brief look at each of these examples. 

The first two of these satanic strategies, we will examine in this chapter--the remaining two in the chapter to follow. 

1. “The Church is Babylon”: Fanatical Criticism Against the Church During the summer of 1892, A. W. Stanton, secretary for the Montana Tract Society, had become disgusted with certain wrongful actions among other Adventist workers. This disgust soon grew into open criticism of the church, to the point that he began proclaiming the Adventist church had become part of “Babylon.” In early 1893, Stanton published a 64-page tract called, “The Loud Cry!” which sought to present the spiritual bankruptcy of the Adventist Church and proclaim the ensuing call to “come out of her.” His tract was largely composed of misapplied Testimonies of Ellen White, even seeming to apply some of her positive comments written about the Minneapolis message and messengers to himself. Stanton sent his tract broadcast; some of his supporters making sure all the delegates to the 1893 General Conference Session could receive a copy. 

W. F. Caldwell, on the other hand, was a recent convert to the Adventist Church and an active lay member. After a week of intensive Bible study, he was convinced that the church was in a “death sleep” and not living up to the light it had. Upon attending the 1893 General Conference, Caldwell received a copy of Stanton’s “The Loud Cry” tract, which only seemed to confirm his findings. He soon met with Stanton, and both men assured themselves that they were on the right track. As a result, Caldwell immediately traveled to Australia, at Stanton’s request and expense, to proclaim their “loud cry” message.[6] 

Ellen White was quick to respond to the new movement, showing the utter fallacies of these men’s claims, especially in the light of the outpouring of God’s Spirit at the 1893 General Conference. Such misuse of her Testimonies of rebuke, originally written to bring people to repentance and reform--not to call them out of the Church--would tend to gather only a few followers under Stanton and Caldwell’s banner. But much more damage would be done by making of none effect the true purpose of Ellen White’s counsel, which now had been carried to an extreme. In a letter to Stanton, Caldwell, and friends, Ellen White asked some heart-searching questions, which also shed light upon what was really taking place at the 1893 General Conference: 

I understood that both these men were at the [1893] General Conference. ... Could they not discern there the revealings of the Spirit of God? Could they not see that God was opening the windows of heaven and pouring out a blessing? Why was this? Testimonies had been given correcting and counseling the church. And many had made a practical application of the message to the Laodicean Church, and were confessing their sins and repenting in contrition of soul. They were hearing the voice of Jesus, the heavenly Merchantman. ... 

These brethren who claimed to have this wonderful light had the very same work of repentance and confession to do, thus clearing the rubbish from the door of their own hearts, and opening the door of their hearts to welcome the heavenly guest. Had they placed themselves in the channel of light, they would have received the most precious blessing from heaven. They would have seen that the Lord was indeed graciously manifesting Himself to His people and that the Sun of Righteousness had risen upon them. This was precious merchandizing actively carried on. The counsel of Christ to the Laodicean Church was being acted upon and all who were feeling their poverty were buying gold (faith and love), white raiment (the righteousness of Christ), and eyesalve (true spiritual discernment). 

Why did not these brethren fall into line, and place themselves in the channel of light? They were poverty stricken and knew it not. They were not working in Christ’s lines, were not humbled and subdued by His Holy Spirit, and were so blinded that they could not see the strong beams of light that were coming from the throne of God upon His people. 

O why did they not open the door of their hearts to Jesus? Why not have removed right there all that obstructs the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness that they might shine to the world? While God’s blessing was penetrating everywhere, while His presence was consecrating and sanctifying souls unto Himself, why did they not place their souls in the channel of light? ... How could they come from that meeting where the power of God was revealed in so marked a manner, and proclaim that the loud-cry was that the commandment-keeping people were Babylon?[7] 

Throughout the following summer Ellen White continued to write articles seeking to counteract the work of Stanton and Caldwell and their false “loud cry.” She attested that this work of Satan would be “sounding at the very time when God is saying to his people, ‘Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.’”[8] Ellen White also knew that such misuse of her writings would result in “unbelief in the testimonies, and as far as possible, they will make of none effect the work that I have for years been doing.” Because, “when it is made manifest that their message is error, then the testimonies brought into the companionship of error, share the same condemnation; and people of the world ... present these matters as evidence that my work is not of God, or of truth, but falsehood.”[9] 

Ellen White’s strong calls to repentance for the rebellion against the Minneapolis message would be nullified by having the Testimonies taken to an extreme by those who were calling the Church Babylon.[10]* Once again, she asked searching questions through her articles in the Review: 

Why were these men so full of zeal for the cause, not present at the [1893] General Conference held at Battle Creek, as were the devout men at Jerusalem at the time of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? At the great heart of the work, men opened their treasures of light, and while the Lord was pouring out his Spirit upon the people, did these men receive of the heavenly anointing? While the deep movings of the Spirit of God were made manifest among the people, and souls were being converted, and hard hearts broken, there were those who were listening to the suggestions of Satan, and they were inspired with zeal from beneath to go forth and proclaim that the very people receiving of the Holy Spirit, who are to receive the latter rain and the glory that is to lighten the whole earth, were Babylon. Did the Lord give these messengers their message? No; for it was not a message of truth.[11] 

When men arise, claiming to have a message from God, but instead of warring against principalities and powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world, they form a hollow square, and turn the weapons of warfare against the church militant, be afraid of them. They do not bear the divine credentials. God has not given them any such burden of labor. They would tear down that which God would restore by the Laodicean message. He wounds only that he may heal, not cause to perish. ... 

How glad my heart was made by the report from the [1893] General Conference that many hearts were softened and subdued, that many made humble confessions, and cleared away from the door of the heart the rubbish that was keeping the Saviour out. How glad I was to know that many welcomed Jesus in as an abiding guest. How is it that these pamphlets [“The Loud Cry”] denouncing the Seventh-day Adventist Church as Babylon were scattered abroad everywhere, at the very time when that church was receiving the outpouring of the Spirit of God? How is it that men can be so deceived as to imagine that the loud cry consists in calling the people of God out from the fellowship of a church that is enjoying a season of refreshing? O, may these deceived souls come into the current, and receive the blessing, and be endued with power from on high.[12] 

2. Worldliness in the Church 

Although the false “loud cry” had a negative effect on the church, the worsening conditions at the heart of the work in Battle Creek had even more. One thing was certain though for Ellen White--God had indeed poured out His Spirit in a great measure upon Adventist institutions, schools, camp-meetings and the 1893 General Conference. The question was, however, what response had that outpouring received and what would the lasting results be? 

W. W. Prescott reported in July 1893 that “there had been a negative reaction following the 1892 revival [at Battle Creek College]. A lack of unity and loyalty among some of the faculty had spread to the students.”[13] In fact, just before the college closed for the summer, Prescott was purported to state that the condition “of things among the students, and all around at the College, regarded from a religious standpoint, was worse than he had everknown it before.” One of the faculty members went so far as to claim that “every one of the students who had made a start during the special season at the College last winter, had backslidden and had gone back into a position worse than before.”[14] 

Although there were varying claims as to why this was the case, Ellen White was directed to the true causes of the problem. During 1893 the “grace and mercy of God” had been “abundantly bestowed” on those in Battle Creek, in a “heaven-sent refreshing of the shower of Grace,” she declared. But while the youth were being “moved upon by the Holy Spirit so that they might use the rich blessing aright, and progress from light to a greater light, nearly all the educators at Battle Creek had lost their clear spiritual discernment, because they did not maintain the victory by determined watchfulness.” Ellen White lamented at “how easily they can grieve the Holy Spirit away, by walking contrary to its ennobling, sanctifying, sacred influence. O, how the gift has been abused!”[15] 

During the summer Ellen White was anxious that the recent outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the Conference and the moves toward revival and reformation would not become stagnant, as people fell back into worldliness with a lack of interest for missionary work around the world. This was especially a concern for Battle Creek at the heart of the work. Writing to the brethren in America, she amply expressed these concerns: 

If men and women have received increased light, what are they doing? What are they doing to warn men and women who do not understand that the Lord is soon coming? ... Who will leave pleasant homes and dear ties of relationship, and carry the precious light of truth to lands afar off. ... 

Did the Lord open to you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing at the last Conference? What use have you made of the gift of God? He has supplied the motive forces of which he has made a lodgement in your hearts, that with patience and hope and untiring vigilance you might set forth Jesus Christ and him crucified, that you might send the note of warning that Christ is coming the second time with power and great glory, calling men to repent of their sins. If the brethren in Battle Creek do not now arouse and go to work in missionary fields, they will fall back into death-like slumber. How did the Holy Spirit work upon your hearts?[16] 

In articles published during the summer Ellen White continued to express the same concerns. Would God’s remnant people take advantage of the great light they were given, or would they slumber, while at the same time condemning other non-Adventist churches around them? 

The Lord is waiting to be gracious to his people, to give them an increased knowledge of his paternal character, of his goodness, mercy, and love. He waits to show them his glory; and if they follow on to know the Lord, they shall know that his goings forth are prepared as the morning. ... 

Many have looked upon those belonging to other churches as great sinners, when the Lord does not thus regard them. Those who look thus upon the members of other churches, have need to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God. Those whom they condemn may have had but little light, few opportunities and privileges. If they had had the light that many of the members of our churches have had, they might have advanced at a far greater rate, and have better represented their faith to the world. Of those who boast of their light, and yet fail to walk in it, Christ says, “But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum (Seventh-day Adventists, who have had great light), which art exalted unto heaven (in point of privilege), shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.”[17] 

Ellen White continued her article by writing of the Adventist institutions God had raised up for the purpose of sharing light with the world, yet counsel and reproofs against running them like the world had gone unheeded. She then quoted large portions from Jeremiah, including chapter 3:3, 4: “‘Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain. ... Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth.’”[18] 

In a similar article run in the Signs, Ellen White again quoted Christ’s words to Capernaum and concluded with these thoughts: “the worst feature of the iniquity of this day is a form of godliness without the power thereof. Those who profess to have great light are found among the careless and indifferent, and the cause of Christ is wounded in the house of its professed friends. Let those who would be saved, arouse from their lethargy, and give the trumpet a certain sound; for the end of all things is at hand.”[19] Once again, in 1893, Christ was being wounded in the house of His friends. 

Competitive Sports 

But there is more to the story. In 1867, not long after the American Civil War, Princeton College was the first to establish rules for what was to become American football. As the sports programs developed in the schools of the world, it also began to creep into Adventist colleges, primarily at Battle Creek in the summer of 1893. For example, when a Battle Creek college football team ended one of its games in a tie with the local high school team because of a last-minute penalty assessed against them, the combative spirit of the world was also readily roused. Not willing to end in a tie, the college team and its Adventist supporters protested the call vehemently, but to no avail. A rematch was planned, and students went back to their dorms discussing the injustice of the call to those who were unable to attend. 

Local newspapers reported on the match and gave special attention to the fierce disagreement at the end. The papers also reported on a special football competition between the American and British students of Battle Creek College. When the game was played, it was attended by a large number of Adventists and people from the community in Battle Creek. After the British won the game, it was touted in the paper as “The Great International Football Game.” One of the British students sent a copy of the newspaper’s game coverage, along with reports of boxing matches being held on campus, home to his parents in Australia, who had at great expense sent him to this hallowed college for a Christian education. The parents were troubled, to say the least, and showed the newspaper articles to Ellen White.[20] 

It was not long before Ellen White was moved to respond to such events through several letters and manuscripts. She felt constrained by the Spirit of God to write warnings of where such activities would lead. In letters to Prescott and the teachers and students of Battle Creek she expressed these concerns, especially in the light of the recent manifestations of the Holy Spirit during the previous year: 

Has the Lord graciously opened to you the windows of heaven and poured you out a blessing? Oh! Then, that was the very time to educate the teachers and students how to retain the precious favor of God by working in accordance with increased light, and sent its precious rays to others. Has heaven’s light been given? And for what purpose has it been given? That the light should shine forth in practical works of righteousness. ... 

Has not the playing of games, and rewards, and the using of the boxing glove been educating and training after Satan’s direction to lead to the possession of his attributes? What if they could see Jesus, the man of Calvary, looking upon them in sorrow, as was represented to me. Things are certainly receiving a wrong mold, and are counteracting the work of the divine power which has been graciously bestowed. ... 

The time is altogether too full of tokens of the coming conflict to be educating the youth in fun and games. It pains my heart to read letters where these exercises are spoken about, and where they write such expressions as “O, we had so much fun” and such expressions.[21] 

Moses had gone up into the mount to receive instruction from the Lord, and the whole congregation should have been in humble attitude before God: but instead of that they ate and drank and rose up to play. Has there been a similar experience in Battle Creek? ... Thus Satan and his angels are laying their snares for your souls, and he is working in a certain way upon teachers and pupils to induce them to engage inexercises and amusements which become intensely absorbing, but which are of a character to strengthen the lower powers, and create appetites and passions that will take the lead, and counteract most decidedly the operations and working of the Holy Spirit of God upon the human heart. 

What saith the Holy Spirit to you? What was its power and influence upon your hearts during the [1893] General Conference, and the Conferences in other states? Have you taken special heed to yourselves? Have the teachers in the school felt that they must take heed? ... The amusements are doing more to counteract the working of the Holy Spirit than anything else, and the Lord is grieved.[22] 

After the outpouring of the Spirit of God in Battle Creek [in late 1892 and early 1893] it was proved in the college that a time of great spiritual light is also a time of corresponding spiritual darkness. Satan and his legions of satanic agencies are on the ground, pressing their powers upon every soul to make of none effect the showers of grace that have come from heaven to revive and quicken the dormant energies into decided action to impart that which God has imparted. Had all the many souls, then enlightened, gone to work at once to impart to others that which God had given to them for that very purpose, more light would have been given, more power bestowed.[23] 

Writing once again to W. W. Prescott in October 1893, Ellen White lamented that she had been “pained to see that the precious light given in Battle Creek at the last General Conference [1893] was not so cherished that every lamp was kept trimmed and burning, because supplied with the oil of grace.” The “enemy was allowed to come in and lead minds ... to turn from the precious light and the deep movings of the Spirit of God,” she declared. Considering the Sunday law crisis and “the close of this earth’s history so close upon us, there should have been, on the part of all, works corresponding to the light given.” Instead, Ellen White reported, “among the youth the passion for football games and other kindred selfish gratifications have been misleading in their influence.” However, Ellen White obviously understood that it wasn’t just the students at fault but the teachers as well: 

The instructors ought to have had wisdom to follow the indications of the Holy Spirit, and go on from grace to grace, leading the youth to make the most of the light and grace given. They should have taught the youth that the Holy Spirit, which was imparted in great measure, was to help them to use their time and ability to do the very highest service for the Master, showing forth the praises of Him who had called them out of darkness into His marvelous light. But instead of this, many went more eagerly in pursuit of pleasure. ... 

A great mistake has been made in following the world’s plans and ideas of recreation in indulgence and pleasure-loving. This has resulted in loss every time. ... It is so easy to drift into worldly plans and methods and customs, and have no more thought of the time in which we live and the great work to be accomplished than had the people in Noah’s day. ... 

The end of all things is at hand. There is need now for men armed and equipped to battle for God. Please read Ezekiel 9. Who bear the sign, the mark of God in their foreheads?--The men that sigh and cry for the abominations done in the midst of Jerusalem,--among those that profess to be God’s people--not those who are engrossed in games for their selfish amusement.[24] 

In a letter to Uriah Smith a month later, Ellen White reiterated the same concerns. She had “not one doubt” but that God had abundantly blessed the students in the school and the church. But “a period of great light and the outpouring of the Spirit is quite generally followed by a time of great darkness.” Why? Because Satan had come in with “all his deceiving energies to make of none effect the deep movings of the Spirit of God.” Once again, Ellen White got to the point: 

When the students at the school went into their match games and football playing, when they became absorbed in the amusement question, Satan saw it a good time to step in and make of none effect the Holy Spirit of God in molding and using the human subject. ... Had these students allowed the Holy Spirit to use them, they would have aroused as living missionaries to work in Christ’s lines. They could not [but] have considered their individual responsibility to work in every way possible in harmony with Christ their Pattern to save souls ready to perish. Instead ... they threw wide open the gates and invited the enemy to come in.[25] 

In a Review article published only a short time later, Ellen White continued to proclaim the fact that indeed, “the Lord has condescended to give you an outpouring of his Holy Spirit. At the camp-meetings, and in our various institutions, a great blessing has been showered upon you.” Yet, she grieved, “Among the students the spirit of fun and frolic was indulged. They became so interested in playing games that the Lord was crowded out of their minds.” Then, quoting from the solemn words spoken to the Jewish nation, Ellen White declared: “Jesus stood among you in the playground, saying, O that thou hadst known, ‘even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!’ ‘Ye also have seen me, and believed not.’ Yes; Christ revealed himself to you, and deep impressions were made as the Holy Spirit moved upon your hearts; but you pursued a course by which you lost these sacred impressions, and failed to maintain the victory.”[26]* 

Once again, the problem was not just with the college staff and students, but with the Church “in America, and especially Battle Creek”--the center of Adventism and the heart of the work. Here, Ellen White declared, “where the greatest light from heaven has been shining upon the people, can become the place of greatest peril and darkness because the people do not continue to practice the truth and walk in the light.” If the church, “who has had great light, ... does not walk in the light, and put on her beautiful garments, and arise and shine; darkness will becloud the vision, so that light will be regarded as darkness, and darkness as light.”[27] 

Thus Ellen White recognized that part of the problem was with school boards and other influences there in Battle Creek. She was certain that God had different plans if only church leadership had been open to His principles: “The work of the General Conference might have given character to the school at Battle Creek if all had been under the working of the Holy Spirit, making it as the school of the prophets. ... We need now to begin over again. It may be essential to lay the foundation of schools after the pattern of the schools of the prophets.”[28] 

Others also recognized the great blessings God had in store for the church and the result of not receiving them in full. O. A. Olsen, writing for the 1893 week of prayer to be held in December, recalled that “the last General Conference and the Bible Institute connected with it was a season of refreshing from the presence of the Lord. The Spirit of God rested on ministers and people.” Yet, he bemoaned, “We must admit that much greater blessings were in store for us than were received. We are satisfied too soon. We let go the arm of the Lord. There is yet too much unbelief cherished in the heart. ... Our unbelief has prevented the Lord from doing more for us.” Considering the world events then taking place, Olsen suggested that the only thing holding up progress was God’s being forced to wait for His people to be “‘sealed in their foreheads.’ If this were now done, the story of earth’s history would at once close. God is waiting for us.” Then in words that ring prophetic, Olsen declared that although God is longsuffering, “soon the opportunity may be forever past. He may soon take us at our word, as he did the children of Israel,” which resulted in “leanness to their souls” as they wandered in the wilderness for forty years.[29] 

W. A Spicer, writing for the same week of prayer and drawing from Ellen White’s 1892 letter to S. N. Haskell,[30] unabashedly stated: “The latter rain has come and the true light now shineth, and the Lord only wants to tell it out among the nations.” Spicer then quoted from Ellen White’s July 11, 1893 Review article: “‘If those to whom light has come, had received, appreciated, and acted upon it, they would have been placed in connection with God, and would have been channels by which his blessing would flow to the world. ...’” To such a statement, Spicer simply replied: “This is what might have been.”[31] 

Notes:

1. O. A. Olsen, "The Year's Work and the Outlook," The Home Missionary Extra, Nov. 1893, 2, 3. 

2. W. W. Stebbins, "Kansas," Review and Herald, March 21, 1893, 187. 

3. M. C. Wilcox, "Field Notes," The Signs of the Times, April 3, 1893, 349. 

4. L. Johnson, "Iowa, Nebraska, Dakota, and Minnesota," Review and Herald, April 18, 1893, 252. 

5. N. P. Nelson, "South Dakota Camp-Meeting," Review and Herald, May 9, 1893, 302. 

6. North American Division Officers and Union Presidents, Issues: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries (North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, 1992), 56-58. 

7. Ellen G. White, "To Those Who Have Published the Loud Cry," Manuscript 21, June 12, 1893; in Review and Herald, Nov. 08, 1956, 4, 5. 

8. Ellen G. White, "The Remnant Church Not Babylon (continued)," Review and Herald, Aug. 29, 1893, 546, 547. 

9. Ellen G. White, "The Remnant Church Not Babylon (continued)," Review and Herald, Sept. 5, 1893, 563. 

10. Attempting to identify the Adventist Church as part of Babylon is not just a historical problem. The SDA Reform movement, by the early 1920s, began making claims that 1888 was the starting point from which the organized Adventist Church became part of Babylon. Consequently, when Taylor Bunch in 1930 drew a parallel between the 1888 episode and the Kadesh-Barnea experience of ancient Israel resulting in their forty years of wilderness wanderings, some of the leading brethren took offense. D. E. Robinson, A. T. Robinson, and C. McReynolds all wrote papers in early 1931 seeking to defend the Church from what they saw as extreme misrepresentations by Taylor Bunch regarding the Minneapolis Conference and the rejection that followed. There is evidence, however, that some of these brethren had been working to answer the SDA Reform Movement's accusations, and quite possibly they wrongly assumed Taylor Bunch was following in the same footsteps. Thus once again, Ellen White's true counsel regarding the 1888 episode was made of none effect by the extremes of the Reform movement and the corresponding action of the leading brethren. See references listed in chapter 14, footnotes 9 and 10. 

The 1940s produced three other defenses of the church from N. F. Pease, L. H. Christian, and A. W. Spalding, men who likewise felt that charges of a latter rain rejection were an attack on the church. There is also evidence that some of these men were influenced by, and were reacting to, their prior dealings with offshoot groups such as Shepherd's Rodand the Rogers Brothers. These movements both pointed to 1888 as the starting point from which the church became "Babylon." 

As Lowell Tarling points out, "most of the [offshoot] movements which have separated from the [Adventist] church" since the early 20th century have pointed to the 1888 episode and Ellen White's strong letters of rebuke, claiming that "the Holy Spirit is now withdrawn from the Seventh-day Adventist Church." "Most of the movements have used these quotations in this way" (The Edges of Seventh-day Adventism, Kindle edition, 2012, locations 4409-4412). None of these offshoot movements however, give us a valid reason to deny what really took place in 1888 and the following years. See references listed in chapter 14, footnote 10. 

11. Ibid., 562. 

12. Ellen G. White, "The Church the Property of God," Review and Herald, Oct. 17, 1893, 646. 

13. Gilbert M. Valentine, William Warren Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator, Andrews University dissertation, 183. 

14. J. H. Kellogg to W. C. White, July 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 265. 

15. Ellen G. White, "Peril of Resisting the Holy Spirit," Review and Herald, Feb. 13, 1894. 

16. Ellen G. White to Brethren in America, Letter 9a, Aug. 1, 1893; in "The Call from Destitute Fields," The Home Missionary, Nov. 1, 1893, 37, 38. 

17. Ellen G. White, "Vital Connection with Christ Necessary," Review and Herald, Aug. 1, 1893, 481. 

18. Ibid. 

19. Ellen G. White, "The Doom of Sodom a Warning for the Last Days," Signs of the Times, Oct. 16, 1893. 

20. See Gilbert M. Valentine, William Warren Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator, 1982 dissertation, 183, 184; Larry Kirkpatrick, "Intersection Between Sport and Christianity Climax at its Infiltration into the Remnant Church: Timeline," Nov. 6, 2003, <http://www.greatcontroversy.org/pdf/cstimeline.pdf>; Emmett K. Vande Vere, The Wisdom Seekers (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1972), 63; Arthur L. White, "Sports in Seventh-day Adventist Academies and Colleges," Ellen G. White Estate Shelf Document, May 21, 1959, 2. 

21. Ellen G. White to W. W. Prescott, Letter 46, Sept. 5, 1893, portions in Selected Messages, book 1, 132, 133; and in "A Sheaf of Correspondence Between E. G. White in Australia and W. W. Prescott Regarding School Matters at Battle Creek, Particularly Sports and Amusements," Ellen G. White Estate Shelf Documents, No. 249a, 3-7, at <http://drc.whiteestate.org/files/130.pdf>, accessed Nov. 25, 2011. 

For more recent considerations of the effects of competitive sports on Christian experience, see "Competitive Christianity: Wes Peppers Story," produced by Little Light Studios <http://vimeo.com/ondemand/competitivechristianity/77252608>. See also Tim Ponder, "How Much Do the Games Cost?" Adventist Review, Jan. 24, 2014. 

22. Ellen G. White, "To Teachers and Students of Battle Creek College and All Educational Institutions," Manuscript 51, Oct. 1893; in Spalding and Magan Collection, 69, 70. 

23. Ellen G. White, "Education Advantages Not Centered in Battle Creek," Manuscript 45, 1893; in Selected Messages, book 1, 129. 

24. Ellen G. White to W. W. Prescott, Letter 47, Oct. 25, 1893; portions in Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 346, vol. 6, 127, and in "A Sheaf of Correspondence ..." op. cit., 16-24. The last paragraph of this letter, a portion quoted here, was not included in Arthur White's document and still remains unpublished today. 

25. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 58, Nov. 30, 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1210-1212. 

26. Ellen G. White, "Danger of Light Becoming Darkness," Review and Herald, Jan. 30, 1894. The following words from Arthur White should be thoughtfully considered: "Sister White's statement in which she says, 'I do not condemn the simple exercise of playing ball,' should be carefully noted. In other words, there was nothing inherently wrong in playing a game in which a ball was used. But after making this statement she lays out the perils in the sports program. ... There is no question but what recreation is essential, but as Ellen White saw it, as young people grew older, this recreation could be found in some useful occupation which left something worthwhile in its wake" (Arthur L. White, "Sports in Seventh-day Adventist Academies and Colleges," Ellen G. White Estate Shelf Document, May 21, 1959, 3, 4). 

27. Ellen G. White to I. H. Evans & Battle Creek, Letter 23c, July 20, 1894; in "Special Testimonies-Relating to Various Matters in Battle Creek," Ellen G. White Pamphlet No. 84, 2, 5. 

28. Ellen G. White to W. W. Prescott, Letter 47, Oct. 25, 1893; in "A Sheaf of Correspondence ..." op. cit., 18. 

29. O. A. Olsen, "The Year's Work and the Outlook," The Home Missionary Extra, Nov. 1893, 2, 5, 6. 

30. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 10a, April 6, 1892, unpublished, see comments in chapter 3, footnote 1. 

31. W. A. Spicer, "The Work in the Regions Beyond," The Home Missionary Extra, Nov. 1893, 21, emphasis supplied. 
Chapter 10

Another Prophet And Charges of Fanaticism

3. Messengers Overthrown by Temptation 

One of the ways Satan has always worked to try to bring discredit to the message of God is through the failures of the messengers themselves. This was also the case in the 1888 aftermath, not only with Jones’ and Waggoner’s departure from the Church after the turn of the century, but also in Jones and Prescott’s acceptance of Anna Rice as a second prophet to the remnant church.[1]* 

During the summer of 1892, Ellen White wrote at least two letters where she mentioned the possibility that Jones and Waggoner might fall under temptation. Writing to O. A. Olsen because of the ongoing opposition to the most precious message, Ellen White asked: “Should the Lord’s messengers, after standing manfully for the truth for a time, fall under temptation, and dishonor Him who has given them their work, will that be proof that the message is not true?” Her answer was an emphatic “No, because the Bible is true. ... Sin on the part of the messenger of God would cause Satan to rejoice, and those who have rejected the messenger and the message would triumph.” 

But Ellen White also indicated where a large part of the blame would lay: “I have deep sorrow of heart because I have seen how readily a word or action of Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner is criticized. How readily many minds overlook all the good that has been done through them in the few years past, and see no evidence that God is working through these instrumentalities. They hunt for something to condemn.”[2] 

To Uriah Smith, Ellen White wrote similar thoughts: “Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy.” Yet once again, Ellen White foresaw the sad results among those who were already fighting against the heaven-sent message. If Jones and Waggoner were to fall, “this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. ... I know that this is the very position many would take if either of these men were to fall.”[3] 

Writing just before the beginning of the 1893 General Conference, Ellen White again dealt with this theme: “It is not the inspiration from heaven that leads one to be suspicious, watching for a chance and greedily seizing upon it to prove that those brethren who differ from us in some interpretation of Scripture are not sound in the faith. There is danger that this course of action will produce the very result which they are seeking to avoid, and to a great degree the guilt will rest upon those who are watching for evil.” It was not the opposition from the world, but “the opposition in our own ranks has imposed upon the Lord’s messengers [Jones and Waggoner] a laborious and soul-trying task; for they have had to meet difficulties and obstacles which need not have existed.”[4] All of this must be kept in mind while dealing with the Anna Phillips Rice episode. 

Anna C. Phillips was born in England, May 6, 1865. When she was 6 years of age, she accompanied her widowed mother to Cleveland, Ohio, where she was introduced to Adventism in her early 20s through the Sign of the Times. Suffering from poor health, she was almost an invalid until she was fully restored in answer to prayer at the Mt. Vernon camp-meeting during the summer of 1891. With new-found health and the ability to think and study more readily, Anna decided at the suggestion of G. A. Irwin to attend the three month Chicago Bible School which began in November of 1891.[5] 

E. J. Waggoner, Miss Parmelee, J. N. Loughborough, W. W. Prescott, and G. B. Starr were all associated with the Bible school at the time.[6] Anna had such a rich experience at the school that at the end of the three months, she wanted to be a Bible worker. She received calls from the Ohio Conference and also from Elder Rice, a minister from Ogden, Utah. After much struggle, she decided to go out west, but upon arriving in Utah in the spring of 1892, she was received very coldly by Brother Rice. Instead of being used as a Bible worker in the area, she was put to work in his home as more of a housemaid, her stipend money and Bible materials being taken by Brother Rice for his personal use. Although Sister Rice was very kind and would eventually encourage the adoption of Anna into the Rice family, she was afraid of her husband and did only that which she was told. 

These conditions continued for several months until August, when Anna had her first dream or vision in regard to Brother Rice himself. She describes the event and subsequent results as follows: “I had a struggle over it not knowing what to do. I told Sr. Rice and she advised me to write it out, and then pray over the matter, and then hand it to Mr. Rice and if the Lord wanted him to have it he would prepare him to receive it. I did so and after a day or two gave it to him. He said it was all true, and it seemed to make a change in his work.” Shortly after this, “more came” to Anna, which she verbally shared with Sister Rice, with the idea that it would also be shared with her husband. The counsel and correction was mostly practical and when immediately accepted brought about a change in Brother Rice and in the home. He began having family worship, reading the Testimonies, living more closely the health message, going to bed at “ten o’clock instead of one or two” and rising in the morning, instead of noon, and also treating his wife with more kindness. 

Although her life became more peaceful, this was very short-lived for Anna, for shortly thereafter, Brother Rice shared the recent happenings with a Brother Harper from California and Bro. Lamb and Bro. Shaffer from Salt Lake. Soon Harper wanted Anna Rice to give up her work in Utah, start writing out counsel, and travel with him to California. He even wanted to have his picture taken with her, which seemed to be the final straw. All of this Anna refused to do. For several months she was totally distraught as Brother Rice and others pushed her to write out her dreams so that they could share them with others.[7] 

It was at this very time that Anna “felt so impressed” that she “must talk with some of the leading Brethren and get their advice and counsel.” So in her own words, Anna states that “on the fourteenth of Dec., 92 I started for Chicago.”[8] The sequence of events and the date of Anna Rice’s arrival are very important to note, for the 1892 camp-meeting revivals had already taken place, and the Battle Creek College and week of prayer revivals had already begun. Two important Testimonies from Ellen White had already been published--Special Testimony to Our Ministers No. 2, indicating it was time to pray for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which “awaits our demand and reception,” was published in early November[9]--as well as her November 22 Review article confirming the beginning of the loud cry of the third angel “in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ.”[10] A. T. Jones and many of the brethren had already arrived at the same conclusions in regard to the latter rain and the loud cry. Following Ellen White’s November 22 Review article, Jones had preached “two stirring and profitable discourses” to an overflow audience in the Battle Creek Tabernacle on November 26. The first discourse was on the latter rain and loud cry, showing that it was now “the duty and privilege of the church to ask of the Lord rain in this time.” The second discourse “was upon The ‘Righteousness of Christ,’ which the Christian secures by faith in him.”[11] 

Thus, when Anna Rice arrived in Chicago at the Bible school in the middle of December, all the above events had already taken place, and neither she nor her “visions” could possibly be responsible for the providential movements that occurred before her arrival. In fact, it seems obvious that the devil was seeking to bring about a situation that would discredit and thwart the genuine movements of the Holy Spirit then in progress. Unfortunately, discrediting these genuine movements in our Adventist history is a fact that is true even to this day.[12]* 

A. T. Jones and J. N. Loughborough were the main instructors at the Bible school when Anna arrived; Jones, however, was there only through the end of the week so he could head back to Battle Creek in time for the week of prayer starting December 17.[13] Anna stated that she related her “experience to Bro. A. T. Jones and Bro. Loughborough, asking them what they thought and what I should do.” Both advised her to write out her experiences, “saying that the test would be in the writings.” Around the same time Anna also wrote to S. N. Haskell, California Conference president, and earlier, to F. M. Wilcox, sending him a document to possibly be published in the children’s Sabbath School lessons. But when Brothers Harper, Lamb, and Shaffer got word she had gone to Chicago instead of staying to work in Utah and California, they sent word to Anna that she was “possessed with a devil.” They also went to the Rice home and wrote to Haskell, denouncing her and her visions. Their actions were so vehement that it seemed only to support the validity of her dreams, for which she was now being persecuted.[14] 

Although A. T. Jones left Chicago, Anna stayed at the Bible school six or seven weeks till its close. Though encouraged to write out her dreams while at the school, she delayed doing so until mid-January, 1893, when she wrote out a personal experience and dream she had, which had helped her trust in God more fully. J. N. Loughborough, although having been long in the work and familiar with fanatical movements from the early Advent years, was fine with reading Anna’s account to the entire Bible class on Tuesday, January 17, the last day of the Bible school. Thus, while Anna was being represented in the worst possible light by Brothers Harper, Lamb, and Shaffer, according to her, Brothers Loughborough, Johnson, Haskell, Jones, and “several others” were encouraging her. Of interest is the fact, however, that in her long correspondence with Ellen White a year later, while going over the details of the events, she never mentioned W. W. Prescott.[15]* 

Haskell wrote to Ellen White in early January, 1893, and amidst several pages dealing with other matters, mentioned Anna Rice. Haskell stated that the article he had read, sent by Anna to the Sabbath School department, “was very good, and no fault could be found with it; but it was thought it would not be appreciated, and so it was not published.” But Haskell had also received negative reports from Bother Harper. Haskell’s opinion was that Anna was “a simple minded, quiet inoffensive, earnest Christian,” but based primarily on Harper’s report, he “looked upon it with a degree of suspicion.”[16] In all of Ellen White’s letters to Haskell the remainder of 1893, however, she never mentioned the Anna Rice situation. 

Although A. T. Jones had also urged Anna to write out what she had been shown and to send him a copy, she did not do so until February 7th, 1893. Even so, while Jones was speaking at the Ministerial Institute on February 5th, at the end of his lecture where he had compared the events of Pentecost to the time of the latter rain, he read from Joel chapter 2: “‘And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions! ... And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit’” (Joel 2:28, 29). Based on the fact that Peter had quoted this prophecy in Acts 2:17, 18, during Pentecost, and based on the times they were living in, Jones confidently proclaimed: “Thank the Lord, he is not going to be content much longer with one prophet! He will have more. He has done a wonderful work with one. And having done such a great work with one, what in the world will he do when he gets a lot of them?” Jones was unmistakably anticipating the fulfillment of Joel chapter 2, although Ellen White would later caution him for such a broad interpretation of this prophecy, as not all who “prophesy” would necessarily hold the office of a prophet.[17] 

Two days later, on February 7th, Anna Rice wrote a note to A. T. Jones and gave him the first of two “testimonies.” But this first testimony was that which she had been “shown” for Brother and Sister Rice in August of 1892, and was primarily of a personal nature. Although Jones may have been persuaded that this “testimony” was genuine, based on the results in the Rice home which Anna had already reported to him, it is unlikely that he would have wanted to share this more personal “testimony” publicly at the Conference.[18] 

Finally, on Feb. 21, just two weeks before the General Conference meetings ended, Anna Rice wrote out the second “testimony” and sent it to A. T. Jones. This particular “testimony” was much more of a general nature and directed toward the entire church. It called for repentance and reformation, putting away worldliness, and getting ready for the Second Coming by supporting the cause.[19] Most likely, it was this testimony that, according to C. McReynolds, Jones wished to read at the 1893 Conference, but O. A. Olsen had opposed such an idea when Jones requested it.[20]* 

Although A. T. Jones and others may have considered at this time that Anna Rice was the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in God giving visions to young men and young women, there is no credible evidence that their lectures--which were assigned six months earlier--or the manifestations of the Holy Spirit at the 1893 Ministerial Institute and General Conference, were brought about by such a belief or through Anna Rice’s influence. Likewise, there is no evidence that the revivals of 1892 and 1893 were the result of extremism, excitement, and fanaticism caused by a belief in Anna Rice’s testimonies.[21]* Neither is there any evidence that W. W. Prescott was promoting Rice’s testimonies at this point in time, which apparently only happened after the Conference.[22]* 

During the summer of 1893, Jones and Prescott did take steps in promoting the few “testimonies” Anna Rice had written; though L. T. Nicola later stated that “except the frequent mentions of the duty of ‘knowing the voice for ourselves,’ there was scarcely anything said about the Rice testimonies.”[23] Jones, however, did quote from them at a couple camp-meetings, but unbeknown to his audience. 

The Anna Rice episode came to a head on December 30, 1893, at the Battle Creek Tabernacle. After Ellen White’s week of prayer reading, “The Call from Destitute Fields,” was read from the Home Missionary Extra,[24] A. T. Jones read from what he called “an unpublished testimony” which was actually the “testimony” Rice had sent him on Feb. 21, during the General Conference. Jones reported that “the unpublished testimony read insisted on entire separation from the world and worldliness, from pride and outward adorning, and that there should be plainness of dress, and especially a ‘tearing off’ of gold, etc., instead of wearing it on the body, ‘as the heathen do.’” As a result of both readings, a revival service broke out, as people began taking off their gold and jewelry and donating it to the cause of God.[25] Seventy individuals requested baptism as a result of the revival meeting, the number swelling to nearly 150 by the following week. The next Sabbath afternoon W. W. Prescott conducted the praise service in the Tabernacle, “filled to its utmost capacity,” during the baptismal service.[26] 

Such an experience only seemed to prove the validity of Anna’s “testimonies.” Prescott also continued to promote them in a subtle way during a series of meetings on “The Spirit of Prophecy in the Church,” in the months of January and early February, 1894. He did so by presenting the idea that all were to have the gift of prophecy, not necessarily in exercising the gift themselves, but in being able to discern the gift wherever it is manifested.[27] But the movement came to an abrupt halt when a Testimony arrived from Ellen White in A. T. Jones’ mailbox in mid-February. Ellen White sought to put things back in proper order: 

I have received letters from some in America stating that you have endorsed Anna [Rice’s] revelations, and that you read them to the people, giving the people the impression that you are reading from the testimonies of Sister White. ... The spurious and the counterfeit are in the field, and minds must be under the constant control of the Spirit of God in order to detect the counterfeit from the genuine. ... 

God has in a special manner used you and Brother Waggoner to do a special work, and I have known this. I have given all my influence in with yours, because you were doing a work of God for this time. I have done all that it was possible for me to do in Jesus Christ to stand close to you, and help you in every way; but I am very sorrowful when I see things that I cannot endorse, and I feel pained over the matter. ... 

Let not you nor Elder Waggoner be incautious now, and advance things that are not proper, and not in accordance with the very message God has given. Should you be led into any error, reflection would be cast upon the work God has given me to do, as well as upon the work you have both been doing which has always been held insuspicion and opposition by a certain class. Should you fall into any mistakes, they will [28]* feel justified in their past ideas and jealousies, their watching and suspicions.

A. T. Jones repented immediately, not even leaving the post office before he shared Ellen White’s letter of reproof to him with O. A. Tait. The very next Sabbath Jones read to the congregation at the Battle Creek Tabernacle portions from the Testimony Ellen White had just sent him. He readily acknowledged, “‘I am wrong, and I confess it.’”[29]* Writing to Ellen White a short time later, O. A. Olsen reported that he “was told that when Brother Jones received your communication, he wept like a child.”[30] F. M. Wilcox also stated that “when Elder Jones received the letters he felt very bad indeed.” [31]* ’ 

But Jones didn’t stop here, doing his best to personally correct the mistake he had made. After receiving the Testimony from Ellen White, he “began at once to stop the circulation of the Rice testimonies, asking that they be called in and burned.”[32] Jones also went to a number of the leading brethren in the Battle Creek church, stating that “Sister White had condemned Sister Rice’s work.” He planned to make public the entire Testimony sent him by Ellen White, but thought it wise to first seek advice from leading brethren during the Spring Council, lest he “make a worse blunder in trying to remedy the matter than he did in advocating the testimonies” of Rice in the first place.[33] 

W. W. Prescott responded the same way when a copy of Ellen White’s letter was passedon to him while in Walla Walla, Washington, in late February. S. N. Haskell reported that Prescott “at once accepted the Testimony and said, ‘Now I shall at once undo everything I have done in favor of them as far as I could.’”[34]* Both Jones and Prescott wrote Ellen White letters of apology for the problems they had caused, asking her for counsel and evidence in Rice’s testimonies that should have alerted them to their dangers.[35]* Ellen White later recounted to Jones how he had expressed “deep regret over the part” he had taken in this unwise movement and had “appealed to [her] for instruction,” that he “might ever avoid such mistakes.”[36] 

Ellen White answered in part the question about not finding “particularly objectionable sentiments” in Rice’s testimonies by stating that there was “nothing so very apparent, in that which has been written.” She went on to state that “deceptions will come, and of such a character that if it were possible they would mislead the very elect. If marked inconsistencies and untruthful utterances were apparent in these manifestations, the words from the lips of the Great Teacher would not be needed.”[37] She also acknowledged to Jones that “many things in these visions and dreams seem to be all straight, a repetition of that which has been in the field for many years; but,” she continued, “soon they introduce a jot here, a tittle of error there, just a little seed which takes root and flourishes, and many are defiled therewith.” Thus Satan was seeking to bring his deceptions into the church, while undermining and discrediting the work of revival and reformation instigated through the genuine manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Jones and Prescott would now seek to backtrack and remove the confusion they had caused. 

Unfortunately, not everything could be undone, including the reproach upon the work that Jones, Waggoner, and also Prescott had been given to do. Now, that “certain class” which had “always held their work in suspicion and opposition” would, according to Ellen White, “feel justified in their past ideas and jealousies, their watching and suspicions.”[38] Yet some men, such as F. M. Wilcox and S. N. Haskell, were willing to admit they were just as liable to make mistakes.[39] Haskell even suggested that if Prescott and Jones, who were without the experience of the earlier years of Adventism, had been able to consult with Uriah Smith or other older brethren, they might not have made the mistake.[40] However, J. N. Loughborough had given the “testimonies” of Anna Rice his initial support, and he was one of the early pioneers. Uriah Smith, on the other hand, was one of the brethren who was still in such a state of opposition to Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott, that when he got word of the situation, and Ellen White’s reproof, he rejoiced, stating that he “‘was glad to see that Jones element getting a whack in the snout.’”[41] These same feelings were held by not a few in Battle Creek. 

F. M. Wilcox expressed concern that the mistake of Jones and Prescott would be misused as an excuse to continue the “fight” against the principles of righteousness by faith and religious liberty that Jones had taught. Wilcox declared that many were already reasoning this way only a couple weeks after Jones received Ellen White’s letter of reproof. [42] O. A. Olsen conveyed comparable concerns to W. C. White, stating that “any mistakes that [Jones and Prescott] make are made the most of by some on the other side. ... And of course the enemy is bound to make all that he can out of all such things.[43] Olsen also informed Ellen White that it seemed to him that “nothing would please Satan more at this present point than to destroy the force” of Jones and Prescott’s powerful witness.[44] 

S. N. Haskell expressed similar thoughts to Ellen White, stating: “I do not think that there are any two individuals that more deeply regret the move than Brethren Jones and Prescott. I believe they have sincerely repented and done all in their power to retract their influence according to their judgment. And I sincerely hope from the depths of my soul that our brethren will not be let loose on those two brethren.”[45] Ellen White responded to such concerns by writing a fifteen-page response to S. N. Haskell to try and stop such a backlash: 

I have nothing but tender feelings toward [Anna Rice]. I am indeed sorry both for brother Prescott and brother Jones. ... I have more confidence in them today than I have had in the past, and fully believe that God will be their helper, their comfort and their hope. ... 

I have the most tender feelings toward our brethren who have made this mistake, and I would say that those who depreciate the ones who have accepted reproof, will be permitted to pass through trial which will make manifest their own individual weakness and defects of character. Bro. Jones and Prescott are the Lord’s chosen messengers, beloved of God. They have co-operated with God in the work for this time. While I cannot endorse their mistakes, I am in sympathy and union with them in their general work. ... These brethren are God’s ambassadors. They have been quick to catch the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness, and have responded by imparting the heavenly light to others. If they have felt afraid to refuse that which bore the appearance of being light, if they have grasped too eagerly that which has been misleading, believing it to be the counsel of God, should anyone be disposed to find fault, to criticize or complain, when they now acknowledge that they have not been as careful as they should have been to distinguish the tendency of a testimony that had an appearance of being divine?[46] 

Ellen White also suggested that the experience might prove to be a great benefit to Jones and Prescott and to others who had placed them “where only God should be.” Some people had too easily accepted everything they said without studying and carefully seeking God’s counsel for themselves. But when Ellen White compared Jones’ and Prescott’s actions to those who had been fighting against truth for so long, she gave no excuse for their continued rebellion: 

Shall those who have been manifestly refusing to accept real light, refusing to accept the power of the Holy Spirit, strengthen themselves in their resistance of light, and apologize for their hardness of heart, which has brought to them only darkness and the displeasure of God, because some other brethren who have receive the light of God’s Holy Spirit, have made a misstep? ... 

Every inch of the ground had to be fought in presenting the present message, and some have not been reconciled with the providence of God in selecting the very men whom he did select to bear this special message. They ask, why it is that he has not chosen the men who have been long in the work? The reason is that he knew that these men who had had long experience would not do the work in God’s way, and after God’s order. God has chosen the very men he wanted, and we have reason to thank him that these men have carried forward the work with faithfulness, and have been the mouth-piece for God. Now because they have not seen all things distinctly, because they were in danger, the Lord sent them a warning, ... thank the Lord that they did not resist the message of warning that the Lord saw fit to give them, and thus they did not repeat the grave error that some have made for years in resisting the Spirit of God. ... 

Let not those who have neglected to receive light and truth take advantage of the mistake of their brethren, and put forth their finger, and speak words of vanity, because the chosen of God have been too ardent in their ideas, and have carried certain matters in too strong a manner. We have need of these ardent elements; for our work is not a passive work; our work is aggressive. ... 

The chosen agents of God would have been rejoiced to link up with the men who held aloof from them, questioning, criticizing, and opposing. If the union had existed between these brethren, which Christ in his lessons has enjoined upon his disciples, some mistakes and errors which have occurred would have been avoided. But if the men who should have used their experience in furthering the work, have labored to hinder it, and mistakes have occurred that would not have occurred if they had stood in their allotted place, whom will God hold accountable for these late errors? He will hold the very men accountable who should have been gathering light and united with the faithful watchmen in these days of peril. But where were they?--They were holding themselves in the position of those who were non-receivers of the light for themselves, and intercepting the light that God would send to others.[47] 

Thus the blame was laid at the feet of those who had been fighting against the truth for so long, who otherwise would have been able to benefit Jones and Prescott with their past experience. One issue concerned Ellen White more than any other, however--that of identifying the true manifestations of the Holy Spirit as fanaticism and trying to excuse such a stance because of the mistake of Jones and Prescott: 

That which is essential for the promulgation of truth is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is to guide and lead and to keep the soul from Satan’s deceptive power in these last days of snare and delusion. The Holy Spirit must do a work for human intelligences that is scarcely yet comprehended by human minds. New aspects of truth are to be opened to our view. O the riches of the word of God are but dimly appreciated. Unless the Holy Spirit shall do its office work upon the human heart, the character will not be developed after the divine similitude. ... 

The baptism of the Holy Ghost as on the day of Pentecost will lead to a revival of true religion, and to the visitation of angels and the performance of many wonderful works. Heavenly intelligences will come among us, and men will speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit of God. But should the Lord work upon men as he did on, and after the day of Pentecost, many who now claim to believe the truth, would know so very little of the operation of the Holy Spirit, that they would cry, “Beware of fanaticism.” They would say of those who were filled with the Spirit, “These men are drunk with new wine.” ... The great sin of those who profess to be Christians is that they do not open the heart to receive the Holy Spirit. When souls long after Christ, and seek to become one with him, then those who are content with the form of godliness, exclaim “Be careful, do not go to extremes.” ... 

I know that the Lord has wrought by his own power in Battle Creek. Let no one attempt to deny this; for in so doing they will sin against the Holy Ghost. Because there may be need to warn and caution everyone to walk carefully and prayerfully, in order that the deceptive influence of the enemy shall not lead men away from the Bible, let no one suppose that God will not manifest his power among his believing people; ... “After these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.” Some souls will see and receive the light; but those who have stood long in resistance of light, because it did not come just in accordance with their ideas, will be in danger of calling light darkness, and darkness light.[48] 

Sadly, nothing Ellen White said at the time stopped some from continuing to express the opinion that the 1892 and 1893 revivals, with the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, were simply the results of fanaticism and excitement. Unfortunately, the same notion is still expressed and promoted today.[49]* 

4. The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit Is Fanaticism! 

Of all the tactics Satan used to derail the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry, his inciting of those in responsible positions to identify the 1892 week of prayer and 1893 General Conference session revivals as merely the results of fanatical excitement, extremism, and fanaticism brought his devilish plans the most success. Identifying the work of the Holy Spirit with fanaticism at Minneapolis in 1888 had brought four years of struggle, conflict, rebellion, and delay. Now the call for Laodicean repentance had been visited with manifestations of the Holy Spirit, especially during 1892 and 1893. To respond to such manifestations with the same accusations of excitement, extremism, and fanaticism would prove detrimental to God’s remnant movement. 

Uriah Smith, J. H. Kellogg, and many others leveled such charges against the revivals.[50] A few likely shared such a viewpoint, because certain ones, such as Stanton and Caldwell, had carried matters to an extreme in calling the Church Babylon in 1893. Some were led to adopt the fanaticism charge because of the worldliness that followed the 1892-1893 revivals. Others were led to make such accusations in 1894, because of the mistake of A. T. Jones and W. W. Prescott in promoting the visions of Anna Rice. However, many others were simply continuing to sanction such charges long held in their sustained rebellion against Jones, Waggoner, and now Prescott, and the message of righteousness by faith taught since 1888. To all of these excuses, Ellen White gave a response. 

In July of 1893, J. H. Kellogg complained to W. C. White about the events before and during the 1893 General Conference, along with his continued concerns regarding Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott. He stated that for “a short time prior to the Conference there was a very exciting and sensational time among the students at the College, and things were carried on under very high pressure for some time.” Of course, Kellogg “did not encourage the same effort” at the Sanitarium, because he had “never seen any good results from this sort of work, and the results at the College were no better than usual.” In response to the declining spiritual condition at the college, Kellogg offered White his own view of the cause: “I feel sure that when an iron has been heated to a white heat by turning on the full force of the furnace and bellows, it is very difficult to make it very much hotter. It is impossible to keep up a religious interest at fever heat perpetually. There must be a reaction.” In reality, Kellogg considered the movements of the past few months the result of excitement and fanaticism.[51] 

But the stimulus for Kellogg’s view was partly due to the ongoing tension between him and his ministerial brethren in regard to medical missionary work. He took the opportunity, in his letter to W. C. White, to also express his displeasure with some of the content in recent letters he had received from both W. C. and his mother, which had cautioned him for his negative attitude toward Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott. For example, in January, 1893, Ellen White had plainly expressed her concerns to Kellogg: “My brother, I am not pleased to have you feel as you do in regard to Brethren Waggoner, Jones, and Prescott. Had these men had the cooperation of our ministering brethren, and had they drawn in even cords, the work would be years in advance of what it is now. It is not pleasing to the Lord for you to retain the feelings you do in these matters. You have a special branch of the work, which is your part of the vineyard to cultivate according to your ability. And to these men the Lord has given their work.”[52] 

Now Kellogg’s response to W. C. White was anything but accepting: “I was sorry to see by your letter that you had somehow gotten a wrong impression of my influence. ... I have not been an opposer of the work of Eld. Jones and Prof. Prescott. ... I have never been on the side of opposition. It seems evident from what you wrote me, and from your mother’s letter that someone has communicated to you a false impression respecting my position. ... I do not like to be put in the attitude of an opposer and a bitter and jealous disturber of the peace when this is not my attitude at all. I may be so blind that I cannot see the facts. If I am, I shall be glad to have the facts pointed out to me.” But the problem was that both W. C. and Ellen White had pointed out the “facts” to Kellogg, and he was not adequately interested in listening.[53]* 

Others were suffering from a similar condition. If Ellen White’s articles in the Review a month after the General Conference were any indication of the real cause of the problems in Battle Creek, Kellogg and others did not have a foot to stand on. Ellen White was concerned for the churches in America but especially in Battle Creek, where “rich feasts have been provided for the people.” People had been convicted they needed to be laborers for God but they were not necessarily converted to the idea. The truth of that very time had been presented and “witnessed by the power of the Holy Spirit. It has been clearly shown that in the righteousness of Christ is our only hope of gaining access to the Father. How simple, how plain has the way of life been made to those who have a disposition to walk therein.” Yet, would any more evidence make a difference? Had more evidence made a difference with the Jews? 

Would greater evidence, more powerful manifestations, break down the barriers that have been interposed between the truth and the soul?--No. I have been shown that sufficient evidence has been given. Those who reject the evidence already presented would not be convinced by more abundant proof. They are like the Jews. ... There is less excuse in our day for stubbornness and unbelief than there was for the Jews in the days of Christ. They did not have before them the example of a nation that had suffered retribution of their unbelief and disobedience. But we have before us the history of the chosen people of God, who separated themselves from him, and rejected the Prince of life. ... 

Many say, “If I had only lived in the days of Christ, I would not have wrested his words, or falsely interpreted his instruction. I would not have rejected and crucified him as did the Jews;” but that will be proved by the way in which you deal with his message and his messengers today. The Lord is testing the people of today as much as he tested the Jews in their day. When he sends his messages of mercy, the light of his truth, he is sending the spirit of truth to you, and if you accept the message, you accept of Jesus. Those who declare that if they had lived in the days of Christ, they would not do as did the rejectors of his mercy, will today be tested. Those who live in this day are not accountable for the deeds of those who crucified the Son of God; but if with all the light that shone upon his ancient people, delineated before us, we travel over the same ground, cherish the same spirit, refuse to receive reproof and warning, then our guilt will be greatly augmented, and the condemnation that fell upon them will fall upon us, only it will be as much greater as our light is greater in this age than was their light in their age.[54] 

One week later, Ellen White’s article concluded, comparing the history of the Jews to the modern treatment of His message and messengers. She quoted largely from Christ’s plea to the Jews as He stood on the brow of the hill overlooking Jerusalem. Yet Christ’s pleading went unheeded by the unbelieving Jews, who only saw Him as an imposter. But how was it with God’s remnant people? 

Those who are filled with unbelief can discern the least thing that has an objectionable appearance, and by beholding the objectionable feature, they can lose sight of all the evidence that God has given in manifesting his abundant grace and power, in revealing precious gems of truth from the inexhaustible mine of his word. They can hold the objectionable atom under the magnifying glasses of their imagination until the atom looks like a world, and shuts out from their view the precious light of heaven. But instead of placing that which appears objectionable beneath the eyes, why not bring before the soul the precious things of God? Why make the things of priceless value of little esteem, while the worthless things are made much of? Why take so much account of that which may appear to you as objectionable in the messenger, and sweep away all the evidences that God has given to balance the mind in regard to the truth? 

With the history of the children of Israel before us, let us take heed, and not be found committing the same sins, following in the same way of unbelief and rebellion.[55] 

Such unbelief in the message that God had sent was often accompanied with accusations of excitement and fanaticism, which only resulted in a deepening Laodicean state. By October 1893, Ellen White wrote to W. W. Prescott in response to concerns about the declining condition of the college and the work in Battle Creek. Addressing the question of the genuineness of the outpouring of Holy Spirit at the 1893 General Conference, she unhesitatingly stated that “all the revelations of God at the Conference, I acknowledge as from Him. I dare not say that work was excitement, and unwarranted enthusiasm. No, no. God drew near to you, and His Holy Spirit revealed to you that He had a heaven full of blessings, even light to lighten the world.”[56]* Yet Ellen White explained how worldliness had come in and now “a reaction came, and in the minds of many there was left a feeling of contempt, an impression that they might have been deceived, that they were too ardent.” Of course these ideas were amplified by those who had been questioning the movement all along: 

Had the manifestation of the Holy Spirit been rightly appreciated, it would have accomplished for the receiver that which God designed it should,--a good work in the perfecting of the character in the likeness of Christ. But there was a want of consecration to God, a lack of self-denial and humiliation, and through misapplication and misappropriation the work has given rise to doubt and unbelief. It is even questioned whether it was the work of God, or a wave of fanaticism. And O how Satan exults![57] 

Writing to Uriah Smith a short time later, who himself had been instrumental in laying the charge of fanaticism against the 1892-1893 revivals, Ellen White strictly cautioned him from taking such a stance: “There have been things written to me in regard to the movings of the Spirit of God at the last Conference, and at the College, which clearly indicate that because these blessings were not lived up to, minds have been confused, and that which was light from heaven has been called excitement. I have been made sad to have this matter viewed in this light. We must be very careful not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in pronouncing the ministration of His Holy Spirit a species of fanaticism.” Ellen White knew that “God had wrought in a marked manner” and warned that no one should “venture to say this is not the Spirit of God.” In fact, she counseled that “it is just that which we are authorized to believe and pray for, for God is more willing to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him than parents are to give good gifts unto their children.” 

Ellen White explained to Smith that Satan had led many to fall to temptation, that he “could make his suggestions to many minds, that the light sent from heaven was only fanaticism, excitement.” But the deteriorating conditions in Battle Creek were “not because of fanaticism, but because those who were blessed did not show forth the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.” Ellen White was now concerned that when God sends His Holy Spirit “there are those who do not understand its operations and how to appreciate the glory of God shining upon them, and unless they do discern the movings of the Spirit of God, they will call light darkness, and darkness will be chosen rather than light.” To such a condition Ellen White bemoaned, “I have been afraid, terribly afraid that those who felt the bright beams of the Sun of righteousness--for I have not one doubt but that they did receive the Holy Spirit--will come to the conclusion that God’s heaven-sent blessings are a delusion.”[58] 

In several Review articles published in early 1894, Ellen White’s counsel was printed in regard to the education work in Battle Creek. In this series of articles, obviously written in 1893, Ellen White continued to share God’s counsel on the danger of identifying the true workings of the Holy Spirit as fanaticism, but now that counsel was directed to the entire church. She indicated that the “world” was looking to see what would be “the after influence of the work of revival that came to the College, the Sanitarium, the Office of publication, and to the members of the church in Battle Creek” in 1892 and 1893. She indicated that some were “already questioning the work that was so good, and that should have been most highly appreciated. They are looking upon it as a certain species of fanaticism.” She admitted that it wouldn’t be surprising if there was not some fanaticism that the devil would try to work in, “for whenever and wherever the Lord works in giving a genuine blessing, a counterfeit is also revealed.”[59] 

But the fact of the matter was that God had “given the Holy Spirit to those who have opened the door of their hearts to receive the heavenly gift.” Now was not the time to “yield to the temptation afterward to believe that they have been deceived.” Ellen White was deeply concerned how some would look back on the wonderful manifestations of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church in 1892 and 1893: 

The sin for which Christ reproved Chorazin and Bethsaida was the sin of rejecting evidence that would have convinced them of the truth, had they yielded to its power. The sin of the scribes and Pharisees was the sin of placing the heavenly work which had been wrought before them in the darkness of unbelief, so that the evidence which should have led them into a settled faith was questioned, and the sacred things which should have been cherished were regarded as of no value. 

I fear that the people have permitted the enemy to work along these very lines, so that the good which emanated from God, the rich blessing which He has given, have come to be regarded by some as fanaticism. If this attitude is preserved, then when the Lord shall again let His light shine upon the people, they will turn from the heavenly illumination, saying, ‘I felt the same in 1893, and some in whom I have had confidence, said that the work was fanaticism.’ Will not those who have received the rich grace of God, and who take the position that the working of the Holy Spirit was fanaticism, be ready to denounce the operations of the Spirit of God in the future? ...[60] 

Continuing along the same line the following week, Ellen White explained how Satan would lead those who had experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives to fall away in their experience. Then he would declare to them that it was no use to try “living a Christian life.” Furthermore Satan would suggest that “‘the experience you thought was of God was only the result of undue emotion and impulse.’” As soon as these ideas where entertained, Ellen White mused, they would “begin to appear plausible, and then those who ought to know better, who have had a longer experience in the work of God, second the suggestions of Satan, and the Holy Spirit is grieved from the soul.” She now sounded awarning that is applicable even to our very day: 

Let not one ray of light from heaven be held in questioning and doubt. In great power the Lord has revealed to you his grace, his mercy, and his love; and he who charges the work of God to undue excitement, and calls it fanaticism, is certainly standing on dangerous ground. If such do not retrieve their steps, their consciences will become less and less sensitive, and they will have less and less appreciation of the Spirit of God. It will become harder and harder for them to understand the messageof God. Why?--Because they are sinning against the Holy Ghost; and as a result of their resistance, they place themselves where they cannot recognize the Spirit of God, but set themselves against every instrumentality that God might use to save them from ruin. ... 

It is a dangerous thing to doubt the manifestations of the Holy Spirit; for if this agency is doubted, there is no reserve power left by which to operate on the human heart. Those who attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to human agencies, saying that an undue influence was brought to bear upon them, are cutting their souls off from the fountain of blessing. Whatever may be the sin, if the soul repents and believes, guilt may be washed away by the atoning blood of Christ; but he who rejects the revealings of the Spirit of God, and charges the work of God to human instrumentalities, is in danger of placing himself where repentance and faith will not come to him. 

He refuses to permit the Holy Spirit to melt his heart into tenderness and contrition, and that which should have softened him is looked upon as fanaticism; thus he is led to refuse the heavenly gift. Whatever plan God may devise by which to impress his heart, will be thwarted through this suggestion of Satan. The evil one casts his hellish shadow between the soul and God, and the work of God is looked upon as excitement and delusion. The Spirit strives in vain; for all the sufficiency of the gospel is inefficient to subdue the soul and correct the error. The habit of resistance is so fixed, he has so long interpreted light to be darkness and fanaticism, that the most manifest working of God’s Holy Spirit becomes to him not a savor of life unto life, but through his unbelief, a savor of death unto death. ... 

I have a burden upon my soul that does not seem to grow lighter, but heavier, as I converse with responsible men and women in Battle Creek. In the night season I am engaged in giving the most earnest appeals to those who ought to be far in advance of what they are at the present time, because of the mercy and grace that the Lord has bestowed upon them.[61] 

Ellen White’s counsel, sent from heaven, could not have arrived at a better time, as the Adventist church, particularly at the headquarters in Battle Creek, would once again be challenged in regard to the genuine message sent from heaven. It is no wonder Ellen White’s burden was growing heavier. 

Burden Growing Heavier 

Ellen White’s concern for those in Battle Creek, the very heart of the work, did not grow lighter with each passing month. During the 1893 week of prayer revival, which had ended in the reading of the “unpublished testimony” from Anna Rice on December 30, a large offering had been given as people took off their extravagant belongings, donating them to help forward the work around the world. The revival meetings also culminated with 142 being led into the baptismal tank in the Tabernacle the following Sabbath; for most, this was their very first time.[62] 

After counsel arrived from Ellen White that Jones and Prescott had been too quick to support the “testimonies” of Anna Rice, some decided that the whole week of prayer revival was the result of fanaticism and therefore wanted their donations returned. As F. M. Wilcox explained in a letter to O. A. Olsen, others were then being led to question the legitimacy of their conversion experience, which had resulted in the large number of baptisms: 

A good many are beginning to reason in this way: that the large donation [taken up at the end of the week of prayer] was the result of Sister Rice’s testimony, and now if the testimony was a fraud, they were wrongly influenced to donate, and should take back the donations they gave. Some, acting on this principle, have already called for a return of the articles they donated. 

The worst feature of this argument is that by the same logic, and on the same basis, those who made a start to serve the Lord at that time, will have thrown over their religious experience a cloud, and be led to doubt the call of the Lord to them. It seems to me that we should stand very stiffly with reference to this matter, and while we maintain that the work wrought here was of God, the credit should not be given to the testimonies of Sister Rice. The movement of the last Sabbath was but a combination of the whole Week of Prayer. The people were ready for a forward movement, and I do not believe that the testimonies of Sister Rice should be given credit for what doubtless would have been accomplished just the same, if they had not been read.[63] 

L. T. Nicola agreed that the week of prayer meetings were already resulting in a work of revival, even before Anna Rice’s testimony was read: “The week of prayer progressed very nicely, all the leaders of the different departments of the work engaging heartily in the effort that was made to get nearer the Lord. Special meetings had been held for the young people, visiting had been carried on from house to house, many of the young were under conviction, backsliders were being reclaimed, and everything was in readiness for a successful revival meeting.”[64] O. A. Olsen alerted Ellen White of the desire of some to “recall their contributions.” But he assured her that “nothing of the kind has been done,” for through the work of some of the brethren “the matter has been hushed.”[65] 

Even before Ellen White got word that some were questioning the contributions made and conversions experienced following the week of prayer, she was led to write counsel that would answer such reactions. In her series of Review articles, written at the close of 1893, Ellen White warned those who might question the good work of the Holy Spirit in Battle Creek over the past year and attribute it to fanaticism. Although, she allowed that “it would not be surprising if there were not some” who might speak or act indiscreetly; “for whenever and wherever the Lord works in giving a genuine blessing, a counterfeit is also revealed, in order to make of none effect the true work of God.”[66] 

When Ellen White was made more aware of the Anna Rice situation during the following weeks, she repeated the same counsel, stating that if possible Satan would seek to “mingle the counterfeit with the genuine so that, in an effort to separate the two, souls will be imperiled. Whenever and wherever God works,” she declared, “Satan and his angels are on the ground.”[67] Writing to Jones several weeks later, Ellen White described the “severe ordeal of mental suffering” she had been going through as she was “impressed with the advantage some will take, and thus imperil their souls, because they will take a false position in reference to the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human agent,” on account of the mistake Jones and Prescott had made.[68] 

In a letter to S. N. Haskell the same week, defending the repentant Jones and Prescott, Ellen White unhesitatingly affirmed, “I know that the Lord has wrought by His own power in Battle Creek. Let no one attempt to deny this; for in so doing they will sin against the Holy Ghost.” Because there had been a need “to warn and caution everyone to walk carefully and prayerfully, in order that the deceptive influence of the enemy shall not lead men away from the Bible,” there was no reason to “suppose that God will not manifest His power among His believing people.” Ellen White admonished that “not one ray of light be resisted, let no operation of the Spirit of God be interpreted as darkness.”[69] 

When Ellen White received word that some were seeking the return of their donated items from the offering collected at the conclusion of the week of prayer, she responded in a letter to those in Battle Creek. She first addressed the extravagance being displayed in the “bicycle craze” that had now come into Battle Creek, suggesting that even “the notices given in our papers extolling bicycles might better be cut out and in their place the destitute foreign fields be represented.” She then took up the issue of the large offering collected during the week of prayer. She didn’t question the true movements of the Holy Spirit that had prompted people to give sacrificially for the cause, nor attribute such movements to fanaticism: 

America, and especially Battle Creek, where the greatest light from heaven has been shining upon the people, can become the place of greatest peril and darkness because the people do not continue to practice the truth and walk in the light. What was the meaning of the movement last winter [1893-94] in giving up jewelry and ornaments? Was it to teach our people a lesson? Were they prompted by the Holy Spirit to do those things, and to use the avail in the advancement of the work of God in foreign countries? And has Satan been counteracting the movement of the Holy Spirit upon human hearts, that reaction shall be allowed to take place, and another evil exist? The present manifestation [of the bicycle craze] is strikingly inconsistent with that movement of stripping off the ornaments and giving up selfish indulgences which absorb the means, the mind, and the affections, diverting them into false channels. ... 

It is time that there was a different order of things in Battle Creek, else the judgments of God will surely fall upon the people. His blessing has rested upon you in large measure; has it made you laborers together with him? Are not our people in Battle Creek demonstrating to unbelievers that they do not believe the truth which they claim to advocate? God has been calling them away from every species of self-indulgence, and all manner of extravagance. When the church has had great light, then is her peril if she does not walk in the light, and put on her beautiful garments, and arise and shine; darkness will becloud the vision, so that light will be regarded as darkness, and darkness as light.[70]* 

Notes:

1. The entire Anna Rice episode will be dealt with in detail in The Return of the Latter Rain series. We will only briefly cover this topic here. 

2. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 19d, Sept. 1, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1025, 1026. 

3. Ellen G. White to U. Smith, Letter 24, Sept. 19, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1044, 1045. 

4. Ellen G. White to W. Ings, Letter 77, Jan. 9, 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1127, 1128. 

5. Glen Baker, “Anna Phillips--A Second Prophet?” Adventist Review, Feb. 6, 1986, 8; Anna C. Rice to Ellen G. White, March 18, 1894; in Document Files, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

6. G. B. Starr, “The Central Bible School in Chicago,” Review and Herald, Nov. 3, 1891, 686; Uriah Smith, “Close of the Conference,” Review and Herald, March 31, 1891, 200. 

7. Anna C. Rice to Ellen G. White, March 18, 1894; in Document File 363, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

8. Ibid., 15. 

9. Ellen G. White, “Power of the Holy Spirit Awaits our Demand and Reception,” Manuscript 20, Dec. 28, 1891; in Special Testimony to Our Ministers, No. 2, (1892),” 24. 

10. Ellen G. White, “The Perils and Privileges of the Last Days,” Review and Herald, Nov. 22, 1892; in 1888 Materials, 1073. 

11. “Editorial Notes,” Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1892, 752. 

12. As will be seen, the Anna Rice episode plays a major role in George Knight’s thesis of 1888 and its aftermath. In fact, scattered throughout his many books on the history of 1888 are allusions to the Anna Rice incident, but with few or distorted details. The purpose of using this episode is, of course, to discredit Jones (and Prescott), especially during the events of 1892 and 1893. One of the first claims Knight has tried to establish is that Jones’ and Prescott’s ideas about the loud cry and latter rain were the result of acceptance of Anna Rice as a second prophet. 

In 1987 Knight stated the following in his biography on Jones: “Jones had been Anna’s confidant from the beginning. Her first testimony alluded to him as an authority in the church, and in the latter half of December 1892 she sought to validate her prophetic claim through his approval” (From 1888 to Apostasy [1987], 108, emphasis supplied). In the endnotes Knight references Anna Rice’s letter to Ellen White, where Anna gives the exact date in December that she traveled to Chicago to see Jones and the other brethren. 

Two years later, Knight makes the following statement in his new book: “[A] fifth thing that we can be positive of is that A. T. Jones had already accepted Anna Rice ... as a second Adventist prophet before the [1893] meetings began. ... Late in 1892 Miss Rice had traveled to Chicago to discover if she was a true prophet” (Angry Saints [1989], 124, emphasis supplied). Knight changes his specific wording of Anna’s travel date, from “latter half of December” to “late in 1892” and drops the reference of Anna Rice’s letter, which gives the specific date. 

Nearly a decade later, in his book to answer all questions on 1888, Knight makes an even bigger adjustment in describing the date of Anna’s travels: “Sometime in 1892 Rice began to have visionary experiences. It was only natural for her to wonder if they were genuine. As a result, in the latter half of 1892 she traveled from the West Coast to Chicago to meet with Jones to determine whether she was a true prophet” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message[1998], 125, emphasis supplied). In his statements Knight has gone from “latter half of December,” to “late in 1892,” and now “in the latter half of 1892,” in describing when Anna Rice came to see Jones. Why? 

The answer lies (pun intended), in Knight’s following statements from the same book: “Ellen White’s November 22 loud cry statement would be the dominating ‘text’ of those [1893 General Conference] meetings. But the Sunday crisis and Ellen White’s loud cry statement were not the only reasons the 1893 revivalists (Jones and Prescott) were excited about the latter rain. They had also received a testimony from a woman whom they had already come to accept as a prophet” (Ibid., emphasis in original). On the next page Knight continues his train of thought: “Soon after Jones acceptance of Anna’s work in 1892, Ellen White came out with her statement that the loud cry had already begun. It was only natural that Jones should see Anna Rice’s visions in the light of that statement and conclude that the latter rain had begun” (Ibid., 126, emphasis supplied). 

Thus, Knight is willing to purposely move Anna Rice’s date of travel to meet Jones from late December to at least early November, in order to try and support his thesis; that the 1892 and 1893 revival was based primarily on the fanaticism and excitement of Jones and Prescott after accepting Anna Rice as a second prophet and consequently misinterpreting Ellen White’s November 22 Review statement on the loud cry. What license has George Knight for such apparent dishonesty and his rewriting of Adventist history? Are there other areas where he has seemingly been willingly dishonest when trying to re-depict our Adventist history? 

13. J. N. Loughborough, “Chicago Training School,” Review and Herald, May 17, 1892, 317; “Chicago Training School,” Review and Herald, Oct. 18, 1892, 656. 

14. Anna C. Rice to Ellen G. White, March 18, 1894; in Document File 363, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

15. Ibid. There appears to be no primary evidence that Prescott had “accepted” Anna Rice as a prophet before the 1893 Conference. Although George Knight seems to have realized this in some of his earlier books on 1888, but some years later he makes a point of adding Prescott to the list in A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message (1998): “Contrary to that interpretation, the facts indicate that Jones and Prescott had been “deceived” before the beginning of the 1893 meetings. ... We must emphasize again that neither Jones nor Prescott were entirely reliable guides in matters of the Holy Spirit by the time of the 1893 meetings” (128, emphasis in original). “It is important to note, however, that Jones and Prescott had other reasons to believe that the latter rain had begun by the 1893 General Conference session. After all, at that verytime they had in their possession testimonies from a second Adventist prophet that they hoped to use to bring about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit before the session was over” (Ibid., 112). 

16. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, Jan. 4, 189[3]; Document Files, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

17. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No. 7,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 5, 1893, 153. 

18. Anna C. Rice to A. T. Jones, Feb. 7, 1893; Anna C. Rice to Ellen G. White, March 18, 1894, 13; Anna C. Rice to Brother and Sister Rice, given Aug. 10, 1892, written Feb. 1893; in Document File 363, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

19. Anna C. Rice to A. T. Jones, Feb. 21, 1893; Anna C. Rice to Ellen G. White, March 18, 1894, 13, 23; in Document File 363, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

20. C. McReynolds to L. T. Nicola, March 22, 1894. Once again, George Knight misrepresents the facts and the sequence of events at the Conference, in his biography on Jones: “In the midst of the conference, [Jones] had received a testimony from [Anna Rice] that he desperately wanted to present to the assembled delegates. O. A. Olsen, however had forbidden him to read it publicly. Jones, therefore, could only hint that great things were coming. ‘Thank the Lord,’ he told the delegates about a week into the meetings, ‘he is not going to be content much longer with one prophet! ...’” (From 1888 to Apostasy, 98, emphasis original). There is one big problem, though. Jones didn’t receive a “testimony” from Anna Rice until after he preached his February 5 sermon, and there is no evidence, even from Knight’s references, that Jones talked with O. A. Olsen any earlier than February 21, after receiving Rice’s second letter. There is also no primary evidence that Jones “desperately” wanted to present either letter at the Conference. Why the need to misrepresent or manufacture the facts? 

Never seeming to want to pass up an opportunity for putting Jones in the worst possible light, Knight summarizes this incident in the following way: “Adventists can be thankful that Jones did not receive a free hand at the 1893 session [by being allowed to read Anna Rice’s letter], since by that time he was not a totally reliable guide. His ‘latter rain revival’ might have led Adventism down strange paths indeed, and it could have changed the nature of the Seventh-day Adventist Church by moving it closer to the then-developing Pentecostalism. (Along that line, it is of more than passing interest that Jones’s last religious affiliation would be with a group of tongues-speaking, Sabbath keeping Pentecostals. He never did escape his desire for the charismatic.)” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, 127). 

Having stated such, it is of interest in light of Jones conclusions from Joel chapter 2, what Knight states about the text himself--especially after seeking to vilify Jones: “The church needs to be aware of making the opposite mistake if spiritual gifts ever manifest themselves in its midst again. It is not impossible, for example, for God to reactivate the genuine gift of prophecy to challenge or correct tradition or administrative authority. In fact, on the basis of Joel 2:28-32, it appears that we can even expect the prophetic gift in the future. At such a time an understanding of the experience of Jones and Prescott in 1894 will be of special value” (From 1888 to Apostasy, 115, 116). But how will we benefit from the “experience of Jones and Prescott” if historians blatantly misrepresent the facts about the Anna Rice event? 

Knight made similar statements in a presentation at the 2000 General Conference in Toronto: “If I were the devil, I would make Adventists fearful of the Holy Spirit. Too many of us fear Pentecostalism when we think of the topic of the Holy Spirit. ... Some years ago I noted at a General Conference presentation that Adventists don’t really believe the 27 fundamental beliefs. Especially the one about spiritual gifts. We believe in spiritual gift rather than gifts, and most of us restrict that gift to one person who’s been safely in her grave for the past 85 years. What would it be like if suddenly today in the pulpit I got the gift of tongues, a true gift? I might be carried off. What if I got a true gift of prophecy? There would most likely be a massive committee to study the situation for the next 10 years. Now, I have to admit that even talking about such things makes me nervous, because the Spirit is impossible to control. On the other hand, we have the promise in Joel 2 of the spiritual outpouring in the last days, a spiritual outpouring that will most likely split the church right down the middle. How much do we really think about the Holy Spirit and the outpouring of the latter rain?” (“If I Were the Devil”; at <http://www.adventistreview.org/2000-1546/devil.html>). Perhaps, however, the devil has already created more havoc in our ranks from the misrepresentation of our own history? 

21. George Knight seeks, however, to establish this as a fact several times in his book, A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message: “But the Sunday crisis and Ellen White’s loud cry statement were not the only reasons the 1893 revivalists (Jones and Prescott) were excited about the latter rain. They had also received a testimony from a woman whom they had already come to accept as a prophet. 

“46. What part did Anna Rice excitement play in the latter rain expectations of 1893? Anna Rice (sometimes called Anna Phillips) played a significant role in the 1893 expectations even though few have understood her part. Her influence, however, was not direct. Rather it came through the agencies of A. T. Jones and W. W. Prescott” (125, emphasis in original). 

Several pages later, Knight continues with similar thoughts: “47. What kind of atmosphere pervaded the 1893 General Conference meetings? It was charged with an immediate anticipation of the Second Coming. Jones and Prescott were especially ebullient [enthusiastic, jolly, jovial, bouncy] throughout the meetings. With the Sunday law crisis, Ellen White’s loud cry statement, and the revelation of a new prophet in hand they were certain they were in the final days of earth’s history” (129). 

Knight reiterates the same thoughts toward the end of his book: “But as we saw in question 40 and 46, Jones’s impressions that God was pouring out the latter rain derived largely from his false belief in Anna Rice as a second Adventist prophet. Such a gift hardly supports his latter rain claims” (152). On the other hand, any reader of the 1893 General Conference Daily Bulletin will readily be able to decide if Knight’s claims are correct or exaggerated revisions of Adventist history.

22. See footnotes 15 and 20 above. 

23. L. T. Nicola to O. A. Olsen, March 2, 1894. 

24. Ellen G. White, “The Call From Destitute Fields,” The Home Missionary Extra, Week of Prayer Readings, Nov. 1893, 36-38. 

25. A. T. Jones, “Sabbath, Dec. 30, in Battle Creek,” Review and Herald, Jan. 2, 1894, 11. 

26. Editorial note, “What Hath God Wrought?” Review and Herald, Jan. 9, 1894, 32. 

27. Editorial note, Review and Herald, Jan. 30, 1894, p. 80; Editorial note, Review and Herald, Feb. 6, 1894, 96. 

28. Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, Letter 37, Jan. 14, 1894; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, 200, 201, last paragraph unpublished, emphasis supplied. Along with the above letter sent to Jones, Ellen White included a copy of her December 23, 1893 letter written to “Brethren and Sisters” in California, which had been sent to clear up their confusion over Anna’s testimonies (Letter 4, 1893; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, 189-199). See also, Glen Baker, “Anna Phillips--Not Another Prophet,” Adventist Review, Feb. 20, 1986, 8. 

29. W. M. Adams, “The Spirit of Prophecy Test,” Review and Herald, July 7, 1949, 10, 11. Adam’s account fifty-five years later is accurate in nearly all respects when compared to all the primary evidence, except for stating it was the month of April, instead of February, when Jones received Ellen White’s first letter. See also Tim Poirier, “Some Key Correspondence Relating to the Reception of Ellen White’s Testimonies Regarding Anna Phillips;” in Document File 363a, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

30. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, March 29, 1894; in Ellen G. White’s Letters Received File. 

31. W. M. Adams, “The Spirit of Prophecy Test,” Review and Herald, July 7, 1949, 10, 11; O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, March 29, 1894; F. M. Wilcox to Dan T. Jones, Feb. 27, 1894. Unfortunately, the instances when Jones readily repented for mistakes he made after receiving counsel from Ellen White have sometimes been lost sight of, and his later years of resentment toward her have been read back into his earlier experience. In a letter housed at the Ellen G. White Estate, written to William Armstrong in 1923, the case of A. T. Jones is thus falsely described. Although the letter more correctly depicts some of Jones’ attitudes during his later years, it incorrectly portrays the aftermath of the Anna Rice episode: “The proof that A. T. Jones lost the good spirit of God that had been with him up to this time [in 1893], was shown in his endorsement of Anne Phillips [Rice] as a prophetess. This he did in public meetings in the tabernacle. When reproved for this by Sister White in a vision given her of the Lord in Australia, he turned against Sister White, throwing away all the precious volumes written by [the] testimony of Jesus. ... This to me, Brother Armstrong, was not the working of the spirit of God” (Letter to William Armstrong, Sept. 18, 1923; in Document File 53, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office.) 

It is also unfortunate that often when A. T. Jones is mentioned in modern times, it is only with a passing derogatory comment, thanks in part to years of depicting him negatively by some Adventist historians. One example of this type of mischaracterization was reported from the recent 150th year anniversary celebration of Adventism’s formal organization: “Bill Knott, editor and executive publisher of Adventist Review and Adventist World magazines ... discussedthe lives and church careers of Hull, an Adventist for only six years, and A. T. Jones, whose involvement spanned decades and included some of the church’s most influential roles. For all his energy and skill, however, ‘the mind that could never grasp the shades of grey was just as unwilling to be counseled by anyone named White,’ Knott explained, referring to much counsel given by church co-founder Ellen White to Jones” (Mark A. Kellner and Elizabeth Lechleitner, “Adventist Leaders Hear Fresh Perspectives on Adventist Church History,” Adventist World, June 2013, 6, 7). 

But such potshots at Jones don’t add much to the claimed “fresh perspectives on Adventist church history;” neither do they take into account the times he readily repented after receiving counsel from Ellen White. Why is there such an inclination to make Jones look so bad? 

32. L. T. Nicola to O. A. Olsen, March 2, 1894. 

33. F. M. Wilcox to D. A. Robinson, March 8, 1894; in Document File 363a, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. 

34. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, March 31, 1894; in Ellen G. White Received Letters File. Ellen White’s letter arrived the day Prescott had planned to read one of Rice’s testimonies to the faculty and students at Walla Walla College, thus revising his plans. See also S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, March 9, 1894. 

35. Unfortunately, Jones’ and Prescott’s letters to Ellen White are apparently not extant today. They are, however, referred to or mentioned in the following letters: Ellen G. White to W. W. Prescott and A. T. Jones, Letter 68, April 16, 1894; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, 184; Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, Letter 38, April 14, 1894; in The Kress Collection, 33; A. T. Jones to Anna C. Rice, May 24, 1894. 

It should be noted that Jones and Prescott were not alone in receiving the counsel of Ellen White. Anna Rice herself, Mrs. Rice and Elder J. D. Rice to some extent, accepted Ellen White’s reproof: “Immediately Anna’s supposed visions stopped. She later became a faithful Bible worker, serving the denomination for many years” (Glen Baker, “AnnaPhillips—Not Another Prophet,” Adventist Review, Feb. 20, 1986, 10). 

Glen Baker goes on to state that, “Elder Jones and Anna Phillips could easily have blamed each other, but they never did: instead, they maintained their friendship for many years. After accepting Ellen White’s reproof, Elder Jones wrote at least two letters of support and comfort to Anna to strengthen her faith and assure her of his friendship. Doubtless this demonstration of kindness helped to sustain her through this difficult period and aided her in becoming a successful worker for the church” (Ibid). 

George Knight also notes Jones’ treatment of Anna Rice during the aftermath of this episode: “Jones demonstrated that he was truly responsible and caring person to the major victim of the whole episode--Anna Rice. ... [He] showed himself at his best, not only as a caring person but also as a courageous Christian (1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A. T. Jones, 111, 112). However, in response to a defense of Jones in a book review of 1888 to Apostasy by Dennis Hokama, Knight shows his true colors: “[Hokama] failed to grasp my suspicions that Jones comforted Rice less out of gallantry than from the fact that he never passed up the chance for a public confrontation. ... Jones thrived on unpopular causes throughout his career” (George R. Knight, “A Spark in the Dark: A Reply to a Sermonette Masquerading as a Critique, George Knight Answers Hokama,” Adventist Currents, April, 1988, 44). 

36. Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, Letter 242, July 3, 1906; in The Kress Collection, 33. 

37. Ellen G. White to W. W. Prescott and A. T. Jones, Letter 68, April 16, 1894; in Selected Messages, bk. 2, 94, 95. 

38. Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, Letter 37, Jan. 14, 1894, unpublished portion of letter. 

39. F. M. Wilcox to N. Z. Town, March 8, 1894; S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, May 26, 1894; in Ellen G. White Received Letters File. 

40. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, April 20, 1894; in Ellen G. White Received Letters File. 

41. O. A. Tait to W. C. White, Oct. 7, 1895: in W. C. White Received Letters File. 

42. F. M. Wilcox to A. T. Jones, March 1, 1894. 

43. O. A. Olsen to W. C. White, May 31, 1894; in W. C. White Received Letters File. 

44. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, April 16, 1894; in Ellen G. White Received Letters File. 

45. S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, April 22, 1894; in Manuscript and Memories of Minneapolis, 275, 276. 

46. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 27, June 1, 1894; in 1888 Materials, 1240, 1241, 1242. 

47. Ibid., 1242, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248. 

48. Ibid., 1249, 1250, 1251, 1254, 1255. 

49. George Knight has made this charge for more than twenty-five years, claiming that the 1892-1893 revival movement was based on fanatical excitement, as the result of Jones and Prescott falsely interpreting Ellen White’s November 22 statement, which was the consequence of accepting Anna Rice as a prophet: “It was Jones and Prescott, rather than Mrs. White, who built the 1893 excitement into grand proportions by exegeting her November 1892 statement in light of their interpretation of the formation of the image to the beast in the summer of 1892. ... [A] person faces the brutal fact thatthe ever-excitable Jones was not altogether a safe leader in 1893. Even though he had a timely Christ-centered message, he had also accepted the visions of Anna Rice and would have presented her testimonies as a spur to revival in his loud cry message of the 1893 General Conference session if Olsen had not prohibited him from doing so. ... We should neverforget that he had the perennial problem of extremism. ... In the wake of the Rice debacle, Ellen White would call Adventism away from a concentration on excitement and back to the gospel of salvation as found in the Bible” (From 1888 to Apostasy, 100, 101, emphasis supplied). 

“That conclusion brings us back to Ellen White’s November 1892 statement that claims that the loud cry began in 1888. Since that quotation served as the focal point of the latter rain excitement at the 1893 meetings, it deserves careful analysis. ... A second item ...‘the now-famous statement’ of November 22 was not made ‘famous’ by Ellen White, but by Jones, Prescott, and their present-day followers on the meaning of the loud cry statement. ... One is left with the distinct impression that the ‘now-famous statement’ was vastly blown out of proportion in the excitement of the times” (Angry Saints, 126, 127, emphasis supplied). 

“The exuberant Jones, unfortunately, misread that statement, confused the loud cry (a message) with the latter rain (the power to propel the message), and whipped up quite an eschatological excitement at the 1893 General Conference session. Part of the reason for Jones’s excitement was that he had already accepted Anna Rice as a second Adventist prophet and thus her ministry as a sign of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, she proved to be a false prophet, but that wasn’t evident until Jones and Prescott had stirred up Adventism on the topic in 1893 and 1894. Jones in his characteristic enthusiasm had failed not only to discern the problems with Miss Rice but also the not so subtle difference between the loud cry and the latter rain.” (A Search for Identity, 109). 

“Contrary to that interpretation [that 1893 marked the withdrawal of Heaven’s gift of the latter rain], the facts indicate that Jones and Prescott had been ‘deceived’ before the beginning of the 1893 meetings. ... We must emphasize again that neither Jones nor Prescott were entirely reliable guides in matters of the Holy Spirit by the time of the 1893 meetings. While we do not know all the reasons for the delay of the Second Advent, it was apparently not a rejection of A. T. Jones’s version of the latter rain in 1893.” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, 128, emphasis in original). 

50. See, for example, Gilbert M. Valentine, William Warren Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator, Andrews University dissertation, 148. 

51. J. H. Kellogg to W. C. White, July 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 264, 265. 

52. Ellen G. White to J. H. Kellogg and Wife, Letter 86a, Jan. 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1147. 

53. J. H. Kellogg to W. C. White, July 17, 1893; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 264, 265, 267. Dr. Kellogg had been entrusted by God with a practical knowledge of medical missionary work which was to be supported and sustained by the church. He had given eight presentations on medical missionary work at the 1893 General Conference. But presumably, his opposition to Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott, prior to the conference, led him to voice opposing viewpoints in regard to the loud cry, especially during his fifth and sixth talks, “Special Light About Missionary Work.” Here Kellogg expressed unbelief that the loud cry could have begun, as Ellen White had so clearly stated the prior November, because the church had not first taken up the medical missionary work as he was presenting it (The Medical Missionary Extra, no. 1, March 1893, 19-34). 

As Dr. Fred Bischoff has pointed out, “the gospel message is what leads to conversion, before any possibility exists of us living in harmony with the law.” Thus, in considering Kellogg’s references to the loud cry at the 1893 Conference, “we note confusion over the order” of events. It appears that Kellogg “did not appreciate as he should have the gospel root.” Although “Kellogg rightfully recognized a lack of benevolence [work] and law keeping, [he] missed seeing the unbelief in the gospel messages as the very reason for this lack.” Consequently, Kellogg’s “weakness in failing to confess the beginning of the Loud Cry revealed unbelief in the explicit statement of EGW made the previous fall;” that “the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ” (1888 Materials, 1073). His “grasp of the significance of what had already begun was woefully lacking,” and his “failure to see that the foundation of salvation [as] ‘the most important thing for us to know’ actually undermined the whole of his benevolent work.” Dr. Bischoff concludes, “We must come to face the power that was in the beginning of the Loud Cry, and recognize that the lack of a faith response to that message is what perpetuates a Laodicean condition. For the Loud Cry’s beginning encompassed a sounding of the Laodicean message” (“Reflections on Kellogg’s View of the Loud Cry in His 1893 Talks,” 2013; at <http://www.fredbischoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kellogg-Loud-Cry.pdf, 1, 7, 6, 2, 6, emphasis inoriginal>, accessed Jan. 4, 2014.) 

Thus Kellogg’s resistance to the loud cry message, and the messengers that brought it, hindered the implementation of the special work he had been given. His slowness to accept reproof from Ellen White in this regard would ultimately lead to his downfall. We will explore this subject in much more detail in The Return of the Latter Rain series. In the meantime, it suffices to say that as we take up the task today of promoting the great medical missionary work Kellogg emphasized, that we not start where he did in 1893--in seeking to undermine the beginning of the loud cry message of 1888. 

54. Ellen G. White, “Address to the Church,” Review and Herald, April 11, 1893. 

55. Ellen G. White, “Address to the Church, (concluded),” Review and Herald, April 18, 1893. 

56. Ellen G. White to W. W. Prescott, Letter 47, Oct. 25, 1893; in Manuscript Release, vol. 10, 346, emphasis supplied. Theinference here is to Revelation 18:1, speaking of the loud cry under the direction of the latter rain. 

57. Ellen G. White to W. W. Prescott, Letter 46, Sept. 5, 1893 and Letter 47, Oct. 25, 1893; in Selected Messages, book 1, 132, 133; and in “A Sheaf of Correspondence Between E. G. White in Australia and W. W. Prescott Regarding School Matters at Battle Creek, Particularly Sports and Amusements,” Ellen G. White Estate Shelf Documents, No. 249a, 3-7, at <http://drc.whiteestate.org/files/130.pdf>, accessed Nov. 25, 2011. 

For more recent considerations of the effects of competitive sports on Christian experience, see “CompetitiveChristianity: Wes Peppers Story,” produced by Little Light Studios <http://vimeo.com/ondemand/competitivechristianity/77252608>. See also Tim Ponder, “How Much Do the Games Cost?” Adventist Review, Jan. 24, 2014. 

58. Ellen G. White to U. Smith, Letter 58, Nov. 30, 1893; in 1888 Materials, 1210-1213. 

59. Ellen G. White, “Was the Blessing Cherished?” Review and Herald, Feb. 6, 1894. 

60. Ibid. 

61. Ellen G. White, “Peril of Resisting the Holy Spirit,” Review and Herald, Feb. 13, 1894. 

62. A. T. Jones, “Sabbath, Dec. 30, in Battle Creek,” Review and Herald, Jan. 2, 1894, 11; Editorial note, “What Hath God Wrought?” Review and Herald, Jan. 9, 1894, 32. 

63. F. M. Wilcox to O. A. Olsen, March 7, 1894; in in Document File 363a, Ellen. G. White Estate. 

64. L. T. Nicola to O. A. Olsen, March 2, 1894. 

65. O. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, March 29, 1894; in Ellen G. White Received Letters File. 

66. Ellen G. White, “Was the Blessing Cherished?” Review and Herald, Feb. 6, 1894. 

67. Ellen G. White to Brethren and Sisters, Letter 6a, March 16, 1894; in The Paulson Collection, 130. The Ellen G. White Writings Comprehensive Research Edition CD lists this letter as dated March 15. 

68. Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, Letter 39, June 7, 1894; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 6, 199, 200. 

69. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 27, June 1, 1894; in 1888 Materials, 1254, 1255. 

70. Ellen G. White to I. H. Evans & Battle Creek, Letter 23c, July 20, 1894; in “Special Testimonies--Relating to Various Matters in Battle Creek,” Ellen G. White Pamphlet No. 84, 1-5. Ellen White’s counsel on bicycles has sometimes been misunderstood. At the time this letter was written, bicycles cost as much as $150, a large sum of money for that day. Yet numerous Adventists were purchasing bicycles as “the fad quickly swept Battle Creek. ... Cyclists staged races, carnivals, and parades. One evening in May, 1894, some 250 cyclists paraded from the college campus through the suburbs and city, their wheels decorated with flags and Japanese lanterns” (Emmett K. Vande Vere, The Wisdom Seekers, 64). All this while calls were continually coming through the Testimony of Jesus for sacrificial giving to support the struggling missionary work around the world. It was in this context that Ellen White wrote her letter to Battle Creek in the aftermath of the Anna Rice episode that brought false accusations against the genuine manifestations of the Holy Spirit, which had resulted in sacrificial giving. 

Chapter 11

Achan in the Camp

That which had brought the most darkness into the church was the turning away from heaven-sent light and consequently attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to fanaticism. Of all those who had taken a leading role in such a stance ever since the Minneapolis Conference, Archibald R. Henry and Harmon Lindsay stood among those in the forefront. A. R. Henry joined the Adventist church in 1882 and shortly thereafter was called to assist in the financial management as treasurer of the SDA Publishing Association in Battle Creek. His responsibilities soon multiplied as he held positions during the ensuing years as treasurer of the General Conference; president, vice-president, auditor and treasurer, as well as a trustee and member of the executive committee of the General Conference Association. But he also was simultaneously “a member of the governing boards of nearly all early SDA medical and educational institutions in the Central and Western States.”[1] 

Harman Lindsay, also a financial administrator, served in very similar capacities alongside A. R. Henry, for the General Conference and many other Adventist institutions during the 1880s and 1890s.[2] Although neither Lindsay nor Henry were pastors or theologians, their influence, for good or for bad, had an enormous impact on the church at large following the Minneapolis Conference because of the multitude of positions they held. Their influence impacted the decisions made in the areas of finance, management, education, publishing, colporteuring, medical work, evangelism, general organization, as well as theological issues that faced the church during their years in office. The fact that they both doubted the Testimonies and prophetic calling of Ellen White, all the while carrying on an almost constant undermining influence against the Minneapolis message and messengers A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, made their cases the more serious. 

At the General Conference in 1891, A. R. Henry was placed on the General Conference Association Executive Board, a committee of twenty-one, which would have charge of the work around the world. Ellen White had warned for years against setting up a “confederacy” that would take the church in the wrong direction, and she had done so most forcefully at the 1891 session.[3] Within ten days of the close of the General Conference, the Board of Foreign Missions would vote to send Ellen White, along with her workers and W. C. White, to Australia.[4] 

Before leaving Battle Creek for the last time, previous to heading off to Australia, Ellen White placed in the hands of General Conference president O. A. Olsen, Testimonies that addressed the “existing evils” at the heart of the work. Now in November of 1894, she reminded Olsen that she had enjoined upon him “to have a most faithful work done in reading the Testimonies to those concerned.” But Olsen “did not follow the directions, and the same things went on accumulating in their objectionable features” in the Councils and Board meetings of the Church: 

[Y]ou did not read the Testimonies to those concerned and decidedly point out their errors. Here you failed to do your duty as President of the General Conference. You were presented to me in Council meetings, listening to the statement and decisions of strong minded and hard-hearted men who were not under the controlling influence of the Spirit of God. You knew that these decisions were not according to God’s order, yet you did not protest against them, and thus suffered them to pass as having received your sanction. Thus things have been going according to the will and impulse of men who are opposed to God’s will and are bringing in an order of things that God cannot accept or sanction. 

You thought that you would deal with these matters in your discourses by dwelling upon general principles, and hoped that this would prove the best method of correcting the wrongs. But you should have spoken in the Board and Council meetings. The wrong principles advanced should not have been permitted to takeform in wrong practice because you held your peace or gave such a feeble protest that those who were pursuing the wrong course thought you were with them. The sanction which you gave by your silence strengthened their hands in an evil work.[5] 

Ellen White’s burden for the conditions in Battle Creek and those at the head of the work seemed only to increase when the next year rolled around. Writing once again to O. A. Olsen in 1895, Ellen White would continue to express her concerns regarding the direction the General Conference was being led: 

A net has been spread to involve the Conference--a net that the people know not of, and that very few suspect the existence of. The condition of things is binding your hands and hindering the work. The crisis will soon be reached. The state of things is not fully revealed to me, but this much I know: to a great degree the management of finances has been conducted on wrong principles. While all is supposed to be prosperous, there is peril. 

You have connected with you men who have no living connection with God. You fear to exercise your judgment, lest there shall be an explosion. This is why I feel so sad. I have written out matters that I dared not send to you unless there were persons of a firm, decided character who would stand by your side as true yoke fellows to sustain you. The two men [A. R. Henry and H. Lindsay] who have been especially associated with you should, in their present spiritual condition, have no part in planning and carrying forward the work of God in any of its various lines. If they were to see themselves as God sees them, and fall upon the Rock and be broken, a decided change would appear in them. Confessions would be made to free their souls from every corrupting influence. 

These men are saying in their hearts, “My Lord delayeth His coming,” and the thought is expressed not only in action but in words.[6] 

But not only were men living as if the Lord’s coming was delayed, they were oppressing their fellow brethren all the while. Ellen White now picked up this theme in her letter to Olsen, of how the Minneapolis message and the two messengers, Jones and Waggoner, had been and were even then being treated: “Some have been cultivating hatred against the men whom God has commissioned to bear a special message to the world. They began this satanic work at Minneapolis. Afterward, when they saw and felt the demonstration of the Holy Spirit testifying that the message was of God, they hated it the more.” Now these rejecters were “zealously declaiming against enthusiasm and fanaticism.” Even the faith “that calls upon God to relieve human suffering, faith that God has enjoined upon His people to exercise, is called fanaticism.” And how had the loud cry message brought about by the manifestations of the Holy Spirit been treated? 

What is the message to be given at this time? It is the third angel’s message. But that light which is to fill the whole world with its glory, has been despised by some who claim to believe the present truth. Be careful how you tread. Take off the shoes from off your feet; for you are on holy ground. Beware how you indulge the attributes of Satan, and pour contempt upon the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. I know not but some have even now gone too far to return and to repent. ... 

Yet many have listened to the truth spoken in demonstration of the Spirit, and they have not only refused to accept the message, but they have hated the light. These men are parties to the ruin of souls. They have interposed themselves between the heaven-sent light and the people.[7] 

Continuing her letter to Olsen, Ellen White referred him to the story of Achan, where one man’s sin brought devastating results to the whole nation of Israel. Thus, Ellen White stated, “when you sanction or carry out the decisions of men who, as you know, are not in harmony with truth and righteousness, you weaken your own faith and lessen your relish for communion with God. You seem to hear the voice which was addressed to Joshua: ‘Wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. ... There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel.’” The application seems obvious. By Olsen’s keeping those in key positions in the work who were openly opposed to the messengers and the message sent from God, and by failing to pass on to them inspired counsel from heaven, he was allowing the sin of Achan in the camp. Would the result be any different? 

Immediately after these comments, Ellen White shared one of her most well-known s tatements regarding the Minneapolis message, defining its significance and content, yet in contrast to the way the message was being treated: 

The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person, His merits, and His changeless love for the human family. All power is given into His hands, that He may dispense rich gifts unto men, imparting the priceless gift of His own righteousness to the helpless human agent. This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the thir dangel’s message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice [loud cry], and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure [latter rain].[8] 

Ellen White could not have made it clearer! The “most precious message” was the very message of the loud cry, which was to be attended with the latter rain itself. Yet, as she continued her long letter to Olsen, which was directed to leaders in America, she unequivocally declared that even in 1895 the loud cry, latter rain message was still being treated with contempt: 

I would speak in warning to those who have stood for years resisting light and cherishing the spirit of opposition. How long will you hate and despise the messengers of God’s righteousness? God has given them His message. They bear the word of the Lord. There is salvation for you, but only through the merits of Jesus Christ. The grace of the Holy Spirit has been offered you again and again. Light and power from on high have been shed abundantly in the midst of you. Here was evidence, that all might discern whom the Lord recognized as His servants. But there are those who despised the men and the message they bore. They have taunted them with being fanatics, extremists, and enthusiasts. Let me prophesy unto you: Unless you speedily humble your hearts before God, and confess your sins which are many, you will, when it is too late, see that you have been fighting against God. Through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, no longer unto reformation and pardon, you will see that these men whom you have spoken against have been as signs in the world, as witnesses for God. Then you would give the whole world if you could redeem the past, and be just, zealous men, moved by the Spirit of God to lift your voice in solemn warning to the world; and like them, to be in principle firm as a rock. Your turning things upside down is known of the Lord. Go on a little longer as you have gone in rejection of the light from heaven, and you are lost. ... 

If you reject Christ’s delegated messengers, you reject Christ. Neglect this great salvation kept before you for years, despise this glorious offer of justification through the blood of Christ and sanctification through the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, and there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.[9] 

At least one main theme seemed to be borne out in Ellen White’s letters since Minneapolis to those who continued to oppose the light. They were still attributing the true work of the Holy Spirit to fanaticism, and baleful were the results. 

Six months later, writing to “the brethren who occupy responsible positions in the work” in early 1896, Ellen White would once again write words of warning to those who were showing “contempt for the manifestations of His Holy Spirit.” She reminded them that “the Comforter is to reveal himself, not in any specified, precise way that man may mark out, but in the order of God; in unexpected times and ways that will honor His own name.” This was to be kept in mind because God had “revealed himself again and again in a most marked manner in Battle Creek,” by pouring out the Holy Spirit upon them. 

Then in what is perhaps one of the more significant statements Ellen White made in post-1888 history, she once again addressed the large donations made following the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in Battle Creek and the subsequent unbelief that soon followed; the most notable episode happening during the Anna Rice situation in late 1893. This statement is especially of interest based on some of the claims made today by some Adventist historians: 

God has revealed himself again and again in a most marked manner in Battle Creek. He has given a large measure of his Holy Spirit to the believers there. It has come unexpectedly at times, and there have been deep movings upon hearts and minds; a letting go of selfish purposes, and a bringing into the treasury many things that you were convicted God had forbidden you to have. This blessing extended to large numbers, but why was not this sweet, holy working continued upon hearts and minds? Some felt annoyed at this outpouring, and their own natural dispositions were manifested. They said, This is only excitement; it is not the Holy Spirit, not showers from heaven of the latter rain. There were hearts full of unbelief, who did not drink in of the Spirit, but who had bitterness in their souls. 

On many occasions the Holy Spirit did work, but those who resisted the Spirit of God at Minneapolis were waiting for a chance to travel over the same ground again, because their spirit was the same. Afterward, when they had evidence heaped upon evidence, some were convicted, but those who were not softened and subdued by the Holy Spirit’s working, put their own interpretation upon every manifestation of the grace of God, and they have lost much. They pronounced in their heart and soul and words that this manifestation of the Holy Spirit was fanaticism and delusion. They stood like a rock, the waves of mercy flowing upon and around them, but beaten back by their hard and wicked hearts, which resisted the Holy Spirit’s working. Had this been received, it would have made them wise unto salvation; holier men, prepared to do the work of God with sanctified ability. 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 in which the Jews treated Christ. 

What moved the people at Battle Creek when they humbled their hearts before God, and cast away their idols? In the days of Christ, when he proclaimed his mission, all bare witness, and wondered at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth. But the unbelief whispered by Satan began to work, and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”[10] 

Even with the mistakes of Jones and Prescott in the Anna Rice episode, Ellen White did not excuse those who claimed the movements of the Holy Spirit were all the result of fanaticism. Yet today, 125 years later, even while we “celebrate” 1888, the same sentiments are echoed: This was only excitement; it was not the Holy Spirit, not showers from [11]* heaven of the latter rain.

Similar thoughts were also written by Ellen White to Harmon Lindsey, who in 1896, continued to war against the Minneapolis message while still under the wings of O. A. Olsen. Ellen White addressed heaven’s words to him: “‘[Harmon Lindsay] cannot now see the light of the Holy Spirit which he has quenched in his soul. He is left as blind as were the Jews, who closed their eyes lest they should see, and their hearts lest they should feel. He has called the manifestations of the spirit fanaticism. His finite lips have expressed sentiments that revealed the working of the power within him. His perception is so perverted that he calls light darkness, and darkness light.’”[12] 

Writing to S. N. Haskell a month later, Ellen White declared that “the church needs to be converted,” and that “representatives of the church” needed with contrite hearts to “make earnest supplication that the Holy Spirit shall be poured out upon us from on high.” Nonetheless, they should also pray that they might “have discernment to understand that it is from God.” Because, she admonished, “some have treated the Spirit as an unwelcome guest, refusing to receive the rich gift, refusing to acknowledge it, turning from it, and condemning it as fanaticism.”[13] 

In an article written a few days earlier on the history of the idolatry of Israel and the golden calf, Ellen White asked those at the heart of the work in America to “review the experience” of the past years and see if the words well done could be spoken: “Have you not been afraid of the Holy Spirit?” she asked. “At times it has come with all-pervading influence into the school at Battle Creek, and into the schools at other localities. Did you recognize it?” Then in a somewhat rhetorical declaration, she stated: “If you have in this way restricted and repulsed the Holy Spirit of God, I entreat you to repent of it as quickly as possible.” 

Ellen White knew “this heavenly guest,” and that the “Holy Spirit was brooding over the youth.” But some “hearts were so cold and dark ... the light of God was withdrawn.” It’s no wonder that she felt “indignation of spirit, that in our institutions so little honor has been given to the living God. ... The Spirit of God is not acknowledged and respected; men have passed judgment upon it, its operations have been condemned as fanaticism, enthusiasm, undue excitement.”[14] 

Notes:

1. Don F. Neufeld, ed., “Henry, Archibald R.,” Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, vol. 10, 581. 

2. Ibid., 789. See also the Seventh-day Adventist Year Book for the years 1888 through 1898. 

3. “Afternoon Meeting,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 19, 1891, 163; White Estate, “Confederation and Consolidation: Seventh-day Adventist History and the Counsels of the Spirit of Prophecy,” April 6, 1977; in Document File 24, Ellen G. White Estate, Loma Linda Branch Office. See also Ellen G. White, 1888 Materials, 278, 322, 581, 650, 797, 826, 848, 903, 917, 951, 1017, 1033, 1161, 1227, 1262, 1360, 1383, 1392, 1582. 

4. “Proceedings of the Board of Foreign Missions,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891, 256. For more information on Ellen White’s exile to Australia, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vols. 1 and 2. 

5. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 58, Nov. 26, 1894; in 1888 Materials, 1316, 1317. 

6. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olson, Letter 57, May 1, 1895; in 1888 Materials, 1322, 1323. 

7. Ibid., 1325, 1326, 1335, 1336. 

8. Ibid., 1336, 1337, bracketed words supplied. 

9. Ibid., 1341, 1342. 

10. Ellen G. White to Brethren Who Occupy Responsible Positions in the Work, Letter 6, Jan. 16, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1478, 1479, emphasis supplied. 

11. George Knight has made this charge for more than twenty-five years, claiming that the 1892-1893 revival movement was based on fanatical excitement, as the result of Jones and Prescott falsely interpreting Ellen White’s November 22 statement, which was the consequence of accepting Anna Rice as a prophet: “It was Jones and Prescott, rather than Mrs. White, who built the 1893 excitement into grand proportions by exegeting her November 1892 statement in light of their interpretation of the formation of the image to the beast in the summer of 1892. ... [A] person faces the brutal fact that the ever-excitable Jones was not altogether a safe leader in 1893. Even though he had a timely Christ-centered message, he had also accepted the visions of Anna Rice and would have presented her testimonies as a spur to revival in his loud cry message of the 1893 General Conference session if Olsen had not prohibited him from doing so. ... We should never forget that he had the perennial problem of extremism. ... In the wake of the Rice debacle, Ellen White would call Adventism away from a concentration on excitement and back to the gospel of salvation as found in the Bible” (From 1888 to Apostasy, 100, 101, emphasis supplied). 

“That conclusion brings us back to Ellen White’s November 1892 statement that claims that the loud cry began in 1888. Since that quotation served as the focal point of the latter rain excitement at the 1893 meetings, it deserves careful analysis. ... A second item ...‘the now-famous statement’ of November 22 was not made ‘famous’ by Ellen White, but by Jones, Prescott, and their present-day followers on the meaning of the loud cry statement. ... One is left with the distinct impression that the ‘now-famous statement’ was vastly blown out of proportion in the excitement of the times”(Angry Saints, 126, 127, emphasis supplied). 

“The exuberant Jones, unfortunately, misread that statement, confused the loud cry (a message) with the latter rain (the power to propel the message), and whipped up quite an eschatological excitement at the 1893 General Conference session. Part of the reason for Jones’s excitement was that he had already accepted Anna Rice as a second Adventist prophet and thus her ministry as a sign of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, she proved to be a false prophet, but that wasn’t evident until Jones and Prescott had stirred up Adventism on the topic in 1893 and 1894. Jones in his characteristic enthusiasm had failed not only to discern the problems with Miss Rice but also the not so subtle difference between the loud cry and the latter rain.” (A Search for Identity, 109). 

“Contrary to that interpretation [that 1893 marked the withdrawal of Heaven’s gift of the latter rain], the facts indicate that Jones and Prescott had been ‘deceived’ before the beginning of the 1893 meetings. ... We must emphasize again that neither Jones nor Prescott were entirely reliable guides in matters of the Holy Spirit by the time of the 1893 meetings. While we do not know all the reasons for the delay of the Second Advent, it was apparently not a rejection of A. T. Jones’s version of the latter rain in 1893.” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, 128, emphasis in original). 

12. Ellen G. White to H. Lindsay, Letter 63, April 20, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1505. 

13. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 38, May 30, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1540. 

14. Ellen G. White, “Experience of the Golden Calf an Example for God’s People Today,” Manuscript 16, May 10, 1896; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 19, 113, 114, emphasis supplied. 

Chapter 12

Christ's Return Delayed

In May, 1896, Ellen White once again sent a long communication to O. A. Olsen. She shared once more heaven-sent rebukes and counsel in regard to his continuing to allowmen such as Harmon Lindsey and A. R. Henry--who were in open rebellion against the Minneapolis message--to be his trusted counselors. She again inferred that allowing such men a place at the heart of the work was as the sin of Achan and that this would have the same results in Battle Creek, as it did with Israel when they went up against Ai. She also inferred that Olsen had acted the part of Aaron, who gave in to rebellious Israel and built the golden calf. Olsen was himself being led “to view things as men viewed them who had resisted the Holy Spirit.” These spiritually blind men had dismissed “the Holy Spirit from their counsels, and then, under the power and name of the General Conference, they invent regulations through which they compel men to be ruled by their own ideas and not by the Holy Spirit.” Ellen White then got to the heart of the matter and the significance of such actions: Satan was seeking to muffle the loud cry and delay the Second Coming: 

“The third angel’s message is to be sounded by God’s people. It is to swell to the loud cry. The Lord has a time appointed when he will bind off the work; but when is that time? When the truth to be proclaimed for these last days shall go forth as a witness to all nations, then shall the end come. If the power of Satan can come into the very temple of God, and manipulate things as he pleases, the time of preparation will be prolonged. Here is the secret of the movements made to oppose the men [Jones and Waggoner] whom God sent with a message of blessing for his people. These men were hated. The men and God’s message were despised, as verily as Christ himself was hated and despised at his first advent. Men in responsible positions have manifested the very attributes that Satan has revealed.”[1] 

Thus there was a reason for Satan’s actions. More than just individual sins were involved. If those in leadership positions directed the work in the wrong way, others would follow, the disease would spread, and ultimately Christ’s coming would be delayed.[2]* 

Three months later, Ellen White was even more candid in her letter to A. O. Tait in Battle Creek, in regard to her concerns for Olsen and the effect his decisions were having on the church at large. Although she felt “very sorry for brother Olsen,” it was a mystery to her why he had “not acted upon the light given” through the Testimonies she had sent: 

While travelling from place to place he has linked with him as companions men whose spirit and influence should not be sanctioned, and the people who repose confidence in them will be misled. But notwithstanding the light which has been placed before him for years in regard to this matter, he has ventured on, directly contrary to the light which the Lord has been giving him. All this confuses his spiritual discernment, and places him in a relation to the general interest, and wholesome, healthy advancement of the work, as an unfaithful watchman. He is pursuing a course which is detrimental to his spiritual discernment, and he is leading other minds to view matters in a perverted light. He has given unmistakable evidence that he does not regard the testimonies which the Lord has seen fit to give his people as worthy of respect or as of sufficient weight to influence his course of action. 

I am distressed beyond any words my pen can trace. Unmistakably, Elder Olsen has acted as did Aaron, in regard to these men who have been opposed to the work of God ever since the Minneapolis meeting. They have not repented of their course of action in resisting light and evidence. Long ago I wrote to A. R. Henry, but not a word of response has come from him to me. I have recently written to Harmon Lindsay and his wife, but I suppose he will not respect the matter sufficiently to reply. 

From the light God has been pleased to give me, until the home field shows more healthful heart beats, the fewer long journeys Elder Olsen shall make with his selected helpers, A. R. Henry and Harmon Lindsay, the better it will be for the cause of God. The far away fields will be just as well off without these visits. The disease at the heart of the work poisons the blood, and thus the disease is communicated to the bodies they visit. Yet, notwithstanding the sickly diseased state of things at home some have felt a great burden to take the whole of believing bodies under their parental wings.[3]* 

Unfortunately, the contagious disease of rejection and indifference to the most precious message was spreading from the heart of the work in Battle Creek to almost every other area of the church around the world. One way in which the opposition had spread since 1888 was through the influence of Uriah Smith as editor of the Review and Herald. For all the good Smith had accomplished in years past, his antagonism to the message and even the Testimonies of Ellen White, made his influence the more detrimental. In June of 1896, Ellen White was led to write to Smith, summarizing the controversy over the law in Galatians that had led to a large share of the opposition to Jones and Waggoner in 1888. Not only did Ellen White fully endorse Jones’ and Waggoner’s view on the schoolmaster of Galatians 3:24, but in looking back to the great possibilities of the Minneapolis session from the year 1896, she could unquestionably state that the loud cry and latter rain had in a great measure been shut away from our people: 

“The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” [Galatians 3:24] In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ, and to flee unto him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 

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 enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world [latter rain], as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory [loud cry] was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world.[4]* 

Without a doubt, Ellen White had unhesitatingly stated in 1896 that the latter rain and the loud cry, which had begun in 1888, had through the actions of our own brethren been hindered and ultimately thwarted. As such, an aborted latter rain would surely lead to a delay in Christ’s second coming. But Ellen White was not the only one who recognized the sad results of Satan’s successful ongoing assault on the most precious message. Nearly three months later, O. A. Olsen would summarize in a letter to W. W. Prescott his thoughts on the darkness that had settled over Battle Creek and its institutions. As Olsen saw it, 1892 “was a remarkable year in many ways.” During that year much of the open opposition to righteousness by faith “gave away, and our people and ministry generally fell in with that truth. You call to mind the wonderful experience that we had at the [Lansing] Michigan camp-meeting that same year. Then followed the General Conference early in the year 1893, which was a remarkable meeting. At that time it was first advocated that the latter rain had commenced, and that the message was going with a loud voice.” 

Olsen went on to describe how, “from a financial standpoint,” the years 1892 and 1893 were “the most favorable,” and they “had an abundance for everything that was needed to advance [the] cause.” Then, Olsen recalled, by the end of 1893, “it seems to me, as I look over the situation, that from that time on, things have been going the other way. The darkness has been pressing closer and closer upon the church at Battle Creek, and the insinuations and doubts that have been expressed by different ones, have permeated a larger portion of our people in various places. The contributions have steadily fallen off in somelines.” Olsen didn’t attribute this drop in funds to the “financial conditions of the country” but to “the spiritual declension that exists in the church.”[5] Regrettably, Olsen had yet to come to grips with the fact that his own actions were playing a part in the spiritual declension. 

In November of 1896, and in response to Ellen White’s candid reproofs and explanations of Satan’s tactics to delay Christ’s return, O. A. Olsen compiled a series of letters and messages from her pen that spoke most directly to the ill treatment the outpourings of the Holy Spirit had received since the Minneapolis Conference. All of the messages in the new pamphlet addressed in some respect the results of attributing the manifestations of the Holy Spirit to fanaticism.[6]* 

In his introductory comments to Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church, Olsen stated that the pamphlet contained matter of the “greatest importance to the Battle Creek church and the institutions located here.” Although “very solemn and important messages of warning and instruction” had been received in the past, Olsen admitted “these messages have not received careful attention they deserve, and the reformation they called for has not been made.” Now the messages had come again, and they had an opportunity for careful study: “God has great blessings in store for his people, and he is ready to work for us here in Battle Creek in a marked manner. At different times in the past the Lord has wrought for his people, and we have witnessed the Spirit of God poured out in large measure; but instead of making the best use of these blessings and privileges, there has been a spirit of departing from God, which has brought about darkness and much evil work.” Olsen was entreating “all to seek the Lord most earnestly, confess the wrong, repent of sin, turn to God with all the heart.” If they did this, Olsen assured, “God will come near, and we shall see the glorious power of his salvation manifested in our midst.”[7] 

Confessing Sins As Daniel Did 

A. F. Ballenger, who had been and Adventist minister since the 1880s, worked in the Religious Liberty Department of the Church for several years, had a reconversion experience in 1891, and was instrumental in revival meetings from 1897 to 1900.[8]* When Ballenger read the newly released Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church in 1897, his heart was deeply troubled. In a sermon he preached at the Battle Creek Tabernacle, September 25, 1897, Ballenger drew the attention of the hundreds of Adventists gathered there to Ellen White’s biblical call to repentance found in the pamphlet. Referring to the prayer of Daniel, chapter 9, Ballenger suggested it was the “prayer which every one of those who sorrow for the suffering cause in Battle Creek should pray.” Here in chapter 9, Daniel had prayed for his sins and the sins of his people, acknowledging as well the punishment of seventy years of desolation that had resulted from hundreds of years of rebellion.[9] 

As he continued his sermon, Ballenger drew attention to an Ellen White statement that had come out in the Review a few months previous, admonishing the Church to “pray most earnestly that now, in the time of the latter rain, the showers of grace may fall upon us.”[10] Ballenger felt there was nothing more certain than this fact but also felt that it was “just as true that the Spirit will not be poured out where there is not sincere confession and putting away of sin.” But as Ballenger recalled some of the camp-meetings in the past, he recounted how the greatest blessings came when “the ministers and responsible men had humbled their hearts before the Lord, and pleaded with Him to roll away the reproach from His watchmen.” He hoped to see the whole “church as one man prostrate before the Lord, seeking for the baptism of His Spirit,” but there was yet “sin in the camp.” That sin, Ballenger went on to state, based on his reading of Ellen White’s material, was the treatment the Minneapolis message and the manifestations of the Holy Spirit had received since that time: 

We have rejected the blessing of righteousness by faith; and when the Lord in 1893 began to pour out his Spirit upon those who had accepted the righteousness of God by faith, here it was that that Spirit was declared to be fanaticism. The rejection of the blessed Comforter then, has worked ruin and death since that time. 

Ministers and workers at the camp-meetings have confessed that they attended that General Conference and rejoiced to see the manifestation of the Spirit, but when cautioned by men of influence in the denomination, and told by them that it was ‘only excitement and fanaticism,’ they were perplexed, and knew not what to say or think. When they returned to their field of labor, and the brethren who had read the Bulletin and learned of the Lord’s doings at the Conference, came to them to learn more concerning the gracious gift, these laborers in turn warned them to beware of this manifestation of the Spirit as fanaticism, and the poor brethren and sisters have thus been hearing two conflicting voices from the Lord’s professed watchmen. As aresult, the trumpet has given an uncertain sound, and both the church and the world have come to realize it. O that the people of Battle Creek would repent!... 

The message of justification by faith, which for seven years has been pressed home upon the hearts of the people, is it of the Lord or not? Who is on the Lord’s side? Did the Lord pour his Spirit upon the General Conference in 1893? or was it fanatical excitement? Who is on the Lord’s side?[11] 

Ballenger went on to say that for years, “we have promised the world, in the hundreds of thousands of books and periodicals we have distributed and in the sermons preached during the last fifty years, that this message would close up speedily under the refreshings of the latter rain. But the years have rolled by, and the world has not seen it.” In light of such facts, Ballenger addressed those who thought the sins of the church shouldn’t be talked about: 

Someone will object to this presentation of the subject at this time and place, on the ground that we ought not to make public the sins of God’s people. They are already public. According to the Spirit of God, “The conviction is gaining ground in the world that Seventh-day Adventists are giving the trumpet an uncertain sound, that they are following in the path of worldlings.”[12] 

Brethren, our sins have gone to the world, and the next report that should go to the world is that we are confessing our sins. If the Battle Creek church humbles itself before God, with earnest confession of sin, I would like to see the report printed in every newspaper in the world.[13] 

In light of such possibilities, Ballenger concluded: “Every Seventh-day Adventist should now, like Daniel, confess his sins and the sins of his people.”[14]* The Review reported that after the sermon, “a call was made for those who felt like dedicating themselves to God by confession and repentance, the acknowledgment of personal sins and the sins of the people, to meet in the afternoon. It was a matter of glad surprise to see nearly the whole congregation out ... and there was a deep earnestness to get right before God.”[15]* 

But Ballenger was not the only one who felt that there had been a failure to receive what God had in store for his people in 1893. Others reached the same conclusion, and during the years that followed, expressed them openly. E. A. Sutherland would insistently claim in 1898 that “The latter rain would have come in 1893 if our people had moved out in all the truth.”[16] 

In 1899, at the Australasian Union Conference held at Avondale College, G. A. Irwin, the newly elected General Conference president, preached a stirring Sabbath sermon on the Second Coming. Irwin suggested that if Adventists had followed God’s providence, “we would have been infinitely further along in the message than we are to-day.” Speaking of Ellen White’s November 22, 1892 loud cry statement and the disappointing results that followed, Irwin declared that it wasn’t God who had made the mistake but “we who make the mistakes”: 

“We had some droppings of the latter rain the next year [1893] after that testimony was written. That sound was given in the United States from one end of the country to the other. Do not misunderstand me to say that that is all there is to the loud cry, but that was the beginning of the loud cry. And if we had a sense of the terrible time in which we are living we would confess our sins and humble our hearts before God, so that the spirit of God might rest upon us in mighty power. Then the loud cry would go from this meeting and would never stop till it had finished its work. I wanted to impress that upon our minds, that the Lord had told us that the loud cry had already begun, and that we are now ten years into the loud cry, with which the final work of the gospel is to close. If we had followed on from that time I believe I am safe in saying that the message would be finished now, at this time.”[17] 

Ellen White, who was also attending the meetings, had taken the opportunity to answer many of Irwin’s “perplexing questions” about the work in America during his visit to Australia. This had opened the door for her to share counsel for the benefit of the people at the heart of the work. It is evident that Irwin’s sermon was right in line with statements that Ellen White had made for years in regard to the delay of the Lord’s coming, which was a result of the unbelief of God’s people.[18] 

Several days later, on July 17, 1899, S. N. Haskell, who was also present at the gathering, presented a lesson on the Third Angel’s Message. Here Haskell took up the subject of the final generation and went through the well-known time prophecies and end-time events that pointed to Christ’s imminent return. Picking up Irwin’s theme of the loud cry, Haskell asked: “Do you think we are in the last days? We are in the last days of the very last generation. We are ten years in the loud cry of the Third Angel’s Message.” Then Haskell recalled the 1893 General Conference session, where concepts had been expressed that Christ could have come ere this: “There is a testimony in the Bulletin, published in 1892, which says: ‘If the people of God had gone to work as they should have gone to work right after the Minneapolis meeting in 1888, the world could have been warned in two years, and the Lord would have come.’” Unfortunately, Haskell either stated the wrong date in this talk, or the stenographer took down the wrong date for the 1893 Bulletin; and quotation marks were placed on Haskell’s statement as if it was an exact quote from Ellen White.[19] 

But regardless, the concept is still easily understood; if the 1888 message had been readily accepted, the world would have been warned in a short time and Christ could have come. Haskell was probably remembering A. T. Jones’ fifteenth sermon at the 1893 General Conference, in which he quoted several Ellen White statements from 1890 where she mentioned the Minneapolis message and the lack of reception over the “past two years.”[20] And he was probably recalling the then newly received Ellen White statement read just four days later at the Conference, which stated plainly: “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.”[21] Undeniably, Ellen White made many similar statements both before and after the 1888 Minneapolis session, indicating that Christ could have come ere this, which was Haskell’s point at the 1899 Australasian Union Conference session. 

For instance, Ellen White had written in 1894 that if “those who claim to have a living experience in the things of God had done their appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would have been warned, and the Lord Jesus would have come to our world with power and great glory.”[22] The same statement was repeated in the Review in late 1896.[23] In 1898 Ellen White made the similar statement: “Had the purpose of God been carried out by His people in giving the message of mercy to the world, Christ would have come to the earth, and the saints would ere this have received their welcome into the city of God.”[24] The newly published Desire of Ages also presented the same thought: “Had the church of Christ done her appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would before this have been warned, and the Lord Jesus would have come to our earth in power and great glory.”[25]* 

Haskell was probably familiar with all of these quotes on the delay of Christ’s coming, and that’s why he would summarize his sermon thoughts in 1899 by stating, “God designed to close the work just in proportion as His people felt the importance and sacredness of the work and the zeal with which they took hold of it.”[26] But sadly, the work had not been taken up, and Christ’s coming had been delayed even longer. 

Ellen White’s understanding of the delay of Christ’s coming took on a new dimension while she was in Australia before the turn of the century. In a vision of the night in 1898, Ellen White was led to the understanding that she would not live to see Christ’s coming but would be laid to rest instead. She was then encouraged to do all she could to prepare books for future generations from the counsel and Testimonies she had received. In 1913, W. C. White shared the story of this experience at the General Conference session: 

About fifteen years ago, in one of her night visions, she came out of a very dark place into the bright light, and father [James White] was with her. When he saw her by his side he exclaimed in great surprise, “What, have you been there too, Ellen?” She always understood that to mean that the Lord would let her rest in the grave a little while before the Lord comes. She has been trying to work with reference to that. Oftentimes she has had messages to hasten her work--the work of preparing her books--because she had but a short time in which to work. She has been endeavoring to get her writings into book form, so that they may be of service to the church.[27] 

G. B. Starr, who also worked side by side with Ellen White during her years in Australia, reported, several years later, a very similar experience he had while in conversation with Ellen White sometime after 1897: 

One day, while in Sister White’s home in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, a company of five or six persons were conversing with her; when some one of the company inquired: “Sister White, do you think that you will live until the Lord comes?” To which she replied: “I hardly think so, but the Lord has not definitely revealed that matter to me yet.” “But suppose you should die, do you think that the Lord will raise up others to write testimonies?” “I can only tell you,” she replied, “what the Lord showed me about that.” We replied, “That is just what we wish to know.” “Well,” she said, “the angel of the Lord opened the Bible to Zechariah 4:9, and pointing to the verse said; ‘This applies to you and your work. “The hands of Zerubbable have laid the foundations of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you.”’” “But would that not imply that you might live through to the end?” someone asked. “No,” she replied, “I did not get that impression. ‘His hands shall finish it,’ I thought referred to the writings; that they would be sufficient to carry the people of God through to the end.”[28]* 

Such an understanding of her mortal life led to a change in emphasis for Ellen White as she returned back to America after spending ten years in Australia. She not only began a much more concerted effort to publish more of her inspired material, but she also began a renewed call for the works of any living Adventist pioneers to be placed before the people. With a lengthening delay in Christ’s return and incredible challenges facing the church after the turn of the century, God would bolster up the foundations to withstand such tempests when “no pioneer would remain alive.”[29] Yet there was still hope that the revival and reformation which God had been calling for during the past fifteen years might take place. Would the 1901 General Conference bring about the needed changes? 

Notes:

[1]. Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 83, May 22, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1521, 1525, emphasis supplied. 

[2]. Yes, many leading men as individuals were committing sin, but the effects of their sins were far reaching in their influence. Writing during the 1890s in regard to Jewish nation, Ellen White stated: “For the rejection of Christ, with the results that followed, they [the Scribes and Pharisees] were responsible. A nation’s sin and a nation’s ruin were due to the religious leaders” (Christ’s Object Lessons, 305). Could the same principle hold true in her day? This gives no license to laity, or to off-shoot groups that point to the church as Babylon. But it does show the awesome responsibility that leadership carries, which is one good reason we should uphold them in prayer and join them in seeking the Lord. 

[3]. Ellen G. White to A. O. Tait, Letter 100, Aug. 27, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1607, 1608. After Olsen had been replaced asGeneral Conference President, Ellen White continued to express concern for the sad results of his failure to pass onheaven-sent counsel. In a letter to I. H. Evans in late 1897, she revealed how “light came to me from the Lord that ElderOlsen had rejected the trust given him, and had failed in doing his duty to read the things that I had given him, to the ones who must have them (Letter 51, Nov. 21, 1897, unpublished). Before sending copies of the letter out, Ellen Whitechanged the word “rejected” to “neglected,” still expressing a redemptive attitude toward the ex-president who hadfaced such big challenges. 

But Olsen’s “neglect” of the Testimonies went beyond failing to share them with other leaders as he had beenentrusted, which fueled the continued rebellion against the Minneapolis message and messengers. Olsen also misusedsome of the Testimonies sent to him, as a result of the negative influences surrounding him, and joined in theoppression of Jones and Waggoner. All the while Olsen was giving the impression that he was a faithful supporter of themen and the message. 

After being sent to England in 1892, Waggoner became aware of the fact that “the official brethren in Americaacquiesced in my leaving America, because they did not want my teaching and influence there” (E. J. Waggoner to A. G. Daniells, July 24, 1903). Confirmation came from Ellen White, who had “been shown” that “some of our people werewell pleased to have [Waggoner] removed from the work at Battle Creek by his appointment to work in England” (W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, May 30, 1902). Unfortunately, the opposition didn’t stop after Waggoner arrived in England. Soon attempts were made to curtail his work abroad as well. Waggoner explains: 

“But it was not very long before the brethren in America were dissatisfied with the situation here [in England], andefforts were made to break up what was thought to be my hold on this field. It was thought that D. A. Robinson was toomuch under my influence, and he was, in the regular order, sent to India, as being ‘the very man for the place,’ etc., although he well knew that he was sent, not because he was wanted in India, but because he was not wanted in England. (I do not mean that the English people did not want him.) Then H. E. Robinson came over with a commission to breakup my influence, and to ‘give tone to the work in England.’ He had a free hand, and the backing of the GeneralConference” (E. J. Waggoner to A. G. Daniells, July 24, 1903). 

J. S. Washburn, who worked alongside Waggoner in England for many years, would summarize in a long letter toEllen White the part that O. A. Olsen played, as General Conference president, in the underhanded work of seeking tohold Waggoner at bay and how his actions affected the entire work in England: 

“Brother Waggoner has been misrepresented and worked against in an underhanded way. Brother Olsen has talkedand written to Brother Hope and to Brother O. O. Farnsworth and talked to me against D. A. Robinson and BrotherWaggoner, and yet not a word directly to them. There has been double dealing, treachery and things that looked to melike falsehood, until they got rid of Brother D. A. Robinson and this all in the name of order and organization, while itwas really anarchy and Brother Waggoner has been cruelly misrepresented and treated as a dangerous man who neededto be watched and suspicion cast upon about all he has said or taught—I mean, by the leaders, not D. A. Robinson. No one believes more in true order or organization than Brother Waggoner. I have never heard him say a word that wouldindicate he did not believe in order and organization as taught in the Bible and the Testimonies. But he does not believein double dealing policy, or tyranny. 

“But even before I left Washington, D. C. and came to England [1891], Brother Olsen told me that Jones andWaggoner were not practical men, intimated that they were not safe and this was while he was sending them around, allover the United States to hold institutes. Whether they are safe or practical, I know the doctrine which they and youteach is life and salvation to me.... 

“I have spoken of Brother Olsen’s talking to others against Brother Waggoner and D. A. Robinson by intimation, buthe would say nothing to them directly till they spoke to him about it. Brother Olsen had a long talk on those things withme before his talk with them. I was astonished at some things he said. He said that what the General Conference didwas the mind of the Holy Spirit. They asked for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of course they had it so what theydid was right—could not be otherwise; now that is only the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and I told him so.... 

“Then H. E. Robinson was sent over to England from the Atlantic Conference.... Brother Olsen told them they weresent over to England to give ‘Tone’ to the work.... [H. E. Robinson] kept criticizing Brother Waggoner to me and evenusing testimonies he said Brother Olsen sent him to use ‘judiciously.’ He said, ‘Whoever is right, we know Dr. Waggoneris wrong on this’” (J. S. Washburn to Ellen G. White, Feb. 10, 1897; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 302, 303, portions unpublished) 

Any response to Washburn’s letter by Ellen White is not extant today, but a year later Ellen White would respondwith sympathy to Waggoner: “How much pleased I would be to see you and visit with you. I have so much desired thatyou would visit us in Australia; but it has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voiceof God, and therefore I feel no desire to write, although again and again I have come to the point of requesting you tomake a visit to Australia. Cannot you do this? Please write us whether you can. 

“When I learned that Brother [H. E.] Robinson and his wife had been sent to England, I said, It is a mistake. He hasnot the qualifications that would be of use and benefit in Europe; for unless he can rule, he would ruin.... Who placedhim in power? Why did they place him in that position? He has left his mark where it has done harm that will not beeasily effaced. The Lord help and strengthen you against all such influences. 

“What is Elder Olsen doing in Europe now? I feel very sorry for him. I cannot feel in union with him, as I formerlydid. He did not use aright the Testimonies given me for him. He gave wrong impressions by selecting portions of theTestimonies and making strong use of them, passing over the reproofs given to him and to others. I cannot placeconfidence in him. He has oppressed his brethren by bringing in elements to work against those whom God was using to do His work. Will not God judge for these things? I hope that something will take place that will give me stronger faiththan I now have in Battle Creek and the working of the cause of God in the institutions there” (Ellen G. White to E. J. Waggoner, Letter 77, Aug 26, 1898; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, 216, 217). 

One year later Ellen White would again take up her pen and write “words of counsel regarding the management ofthe work of God.” Again she recalled the sad results of placing so much responsibility on the shoulders of Elder Olsenwith unconverted counselors at this side: 

“At the very heart of the work erroneous principles were pressing for recognition. All matters should have been laidbefore the people. The Lord should have been sought in humble prayer. Then the Holy Spirit would have been theirteacher. But the Conferences at large were not enlightened in regard to what was being done. Men were linked up withElder Olsen who led him and imbued him with their spirit. Unrebuked, corruption was going on at the heart of thework. The cause of God in our institutions was being perverted. Men were exalted, regardless of the advice God wasgiving. Covetousness held sway. Judas-practices were contaminating the workers. No language can be framed todescribe the result of placing unfaithful, unconverted men in holy places” (Manuscript 91, June 19, 1899; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, 183). 

Although we would not wish to discredit the good work of Elder Olsen, underestimate the severe trials he faced, passjudgment upon him, or fail to recognize our own weaknesses, a dishonest appraisal of the mistakes of our past as apeople only guarantees our continued Laodicean blindness today. Many denominationally published historical accountsof Olsen’s presidency have sought to present his years of service as ones of total victory and success, ignoring the eternalresults of his disregarding heavenly counsel. L. H. Christian glossed over Olsen’s presidency, stating that “the newlyelected president of the General Conference” along with other mighty men, “started a series of revival meetings in everypart of America” following the Minneapolis meetings. For eight years Olsen was “largely responsible under God for thestrong revival work which was carried on” (The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts [1947], 237, 220). Arthur W. Spalding followsa similar course in describing the victorious years following the Minneapolis Conference. Of Olsen, he states simply that“his calm and gracious spirit was most effective in unifying the church during the crucial years of his presidency, to1897” (Captains of the Host [1949], 367). 

A. V. Olson, with help from Arthur L. White and the White Estate, admits that controversy followed the Minneapolismeetings, but describes Olsen’s presidency as one of submission and support of Spirit of Prophecy counsel, resulting inultimate victory: “Elder Olsen was a God-fearing man, and his soul was troubled over what he saw and heard in BattleCreek. With the help of God, he labored to bring about peace and harmony. He gladly supported Sister White in hernoble and persistent efforts to improve the situation, and he rejoiced with her, as we have noted in a previous chapter, when men began to surrender and to confess their wrongs” (Through Crisis to Victory: 1888-1901 [1966], 116). 

Similar thoughts have also been purported in Ellen White compilations published by the White Estate. In 1923Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers was published by the White Estate, being one of the first compilationsissued following Ellen White’s death. Included in the book are portions from several Testimonies sent to Battle Creekduring the 1890s. In 1962 a third edition of Testimonies to Ministers was published with an added twenty-two–page“Historical Foreword” written by Arthur L. White, for the stated purpose of giving the reader “knowledge of thecircumstances which prevailed at the time the messages were written.” Although the book contains Testimonies writtenprimarily during the years of 1890 through 1915—the year Ellen White died—the majority of the Foreword seeks todeal with issues revolving around the 1888 Minneapolis Conference and its aftermath, through the turn of the century. It seems that the Foreword was written as a response to the newly sparked interest in 1888 following Robert J. Wielandand Donald K. Short’s submission of “1888 Re-examined” to the General Conference. As such, it is of interest to notethat the Foreword in Testimonies to Ministers follows very closely the concepts found in A. V. Olson’s book, Through Crisis to Victory: 1888-1901, published in 1966. This is quite understandable, since Olson died in 1963, at which time thebook came under the sponsorship of the Ellen G. White Estate Board, with Arthur L. White as Secretary. 

All of this information brings us to this point. Amidst the Foreword, in which some of the problems that followed theMinneapolis meeting are addressed, the following is stated about O. A. Olsen, former president of the GeneralConference: “Elder Olsen, man in full sympathy with the emphasis placed on the truth of righteousness by faith, and onewho was ever loyal to the Spirit of Prophecy counsels, found it difficult to meet certain of the problems at Battle Creek” (“Historical Forward,” in Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, xxvi). The certain problems at Battle Creek areprimarily laid at the feet of only a few men, which Elder Olsen “in his hope that he could stay the evil work of suchinfluences, made available to the ministers of the church many of the messages of counsel which came to him and otherleaders in Battle Creek during this critical period” (Ibid., xxix). Thus, Olsen’s presidency is seenultimately as a positive period where only individual mistakes were made by a few opponents of the Minneapolismessage, which was finally overturned by a victorious 1901 General Conference. 

LeRoy E. Froom was quite adamant as he continued to advance similar concepts in his highly profiled historic work. He not only wrote very positively about Olsen’s presidency but tried to remove any intimation that it could be anythingotherwise: “Now, the record of Olsen’s spiritual leadership is clear and loyal, and his definite support of, and undeviatingleadership in, the broad field of Righteousness by Faith is openly before us.... Olsen’s Leadership Years Marked byLoyalty and Advance.... A period of blessed revival and reformation began.... Many were still in deep perplexity andanxiety. But Olsen seemed to sense the spiritual bearings of the questions at issue, and gave quiet but effectiveleadership to their solution....Olsen’s calm and kindly spirit helped to bind the Church together at this most difficulttime, and to advance the message of Minneapolis during those nine crucial years of his presidency following ‘88—that is, from 1888 to 1897. His was a healing, unifying, and helpful influence, following the tensions of the stormy Session.... Olsen’s tenure of office was a time of awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction and self-reliance, a renewal broughtabout through the growing acceptance of the message of Righteousness by Faith” (Movement of Destiny [1971], 360-363) 

Froom would also point to the 1890s as a time of great revival, without the possibility that the message was beingthwarted in any way: “So it cannot, with any show of right, be said that Olsen personally rejected or subdued themessage of Righteousness by Faith, or led or aided and abetted in such a direction. Rather, those were the years of itssteady early advance and spread through revivals in colleges, churches, institutes, and camp meetings.... That surelycannot be construed as rejection. Indeed, it was the precise opposite. And Waggoner and Jones were, during the decadefollowing 1888, the leading denominational Bible teachers—and this by action of the leadership of the Church. That wasnot rejection” (Ibid., 363, 364). 

Froom would go on to claim that any suggestion of a “rejection of the message of Minneapolis” or of a negativeimpact on the progress of the message by Conference leadership, “actually amounts to defamation of the characters ofthe dead.” Froom also reminded his readers that his was not the only “testimony of [the] best informed.” Such men as“Oliver Montgomery, L. H. Christian, A. W. Spalding, A. V. Olson, Norval Pease, A. L. White, R. L. Odom, and others, including this writer—are a unit in rejecting the charge of infidelity to truth and trust on the part of the post-1888 leaders” (Ibid., 364, 370). 

George R. Knight has promoted the same view for decades in regard to the General Conference leadership during the1890s: “In fact, as we have noted several times previously, the General Conference administrations of O. A. Olsen(1888-1897) and G. A. Irwin (1897-1901) did everything in their power to put Jones and Waggoner at the forefront ofAdventism from 1889 up through the end of the century. Thus they were not only the featured speakers at everyGeneral Conference session during the 1890s, but they had broad access to the denomination through its publishinghouses.... It is hard to imagine more supportive administrations to the 1888 messengers. Officials of the General Conference have given no other theologians in the history of the denomination more prominence than Jones or Waggoner. They were anything but rejected by the post-1888 administrations” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message [1998], 145-150, emphasis original). 

But the claims of all these men combined cannot eliminate the Testimonies of Ellen White, to which all of thesemen had free access yet somehow turned a blind eye. While we should walk softly as we consider the challenges Olsenfaced and victories he won, honesty with his failures and the failures among leaders and administrators of the Churchduring those crucial years is of utmost importance for us today. All the shrouded dishonesty about our history, whichseeks to paint too rosy a picture of our past and ignore the full Testimony of Jesus, only condemns us to our Laodiceancondition of “rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing” (Revelation 3:17). 

[4]. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 96, June 5, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1575, emphasis and bracketed words supplied. This letter from Ellen White addressed to Uriah Smith, was transcribed by Marian Davis with the following notation: “The enclosed pages present a few points which were opened to Sister White last night, and which she wished sent to you. She has for some days been suffering from the effects of cold and overwork, and is today unable to read or write.” The letter was not published until 1952, in “The Law in Galatians: Two Significant Statements,” Review and Herald, March 13, 1952, 6. 

For more information regarding the law in Galatians controversy and for modern depictions of what took place in1888 and following, which depict victory and acceptance of the message instead, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, chapter 1, “The Latter Rain and Loud Cry Soon to Come,” 58-82; chapter 6, “Three Responses,” 163178. 

[5]. O. A. Olsen to W. W. Prescott, August 3[0], 1896, 4, 5, emphasis supplied. 

[6]. Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church (1896), included at that point in time, several unpublished letters andmanuscript (most of which we have quoted from above): Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 38, May 30, 1896; Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 57, May 1, 1895; “Experience of the Golden Calf an Example for God’s People Today,” Manuscript 16, May 10, 1896; Ellen G. White to Brethren in Responsible Positions in America, Letter 5, July 24, 1895. 

[7]. O. A. Olsen, introductory remarks, November 18, 1896, Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church, pamphlet no. 154, 1, 2. 

[8]. See Don F. Neufeld, ed., “Ballenger, Albion Fox,” Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, vol. 10, 121. For information on Ballenger’s conversion experience, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, chapter 17, 437-469. For an exampleof his work with A. T. Jones in regard to religious liberty, see A. F. Ballenger, “Lessons From the Closing of the MarloweTheater,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 6, 1893, 487-489. Some evidence exists that extreme views cameinto Ballenger’s “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost” revival meetings at the turn of the century, yet in 1899 Ellen Whitedeterred Ballenger from taking a position that involved financial work rather than evangelism, stating: “Your work isappointed you by God. Ministry as an evangelist is your calling, and in no case should you trifle with your moralresponsibilities” (Ellen G. White to A. F. Ballenger, Letter 90, June 6, 1899; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, 47). Sadly, Ballenger began to stray from Adventist foundational teaching on the sanctuary after the turn of the century and soonleft the church, shortly after 1905. 

[9]. A. F. Ballenger, “Who is on the Lord’s Side?” A sermon delivered in the Battle Creek Tabernacle, Sabbath, Sept. 25, 1897; in Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1897, 629. 

[10]. Ellen G. White, “Pray for the Latter Rain,” Review and Herald, March 2, 1897, emphasis supplied. 

[11]. A. F. Ballenger, “Who is on the Lord’s Side?” Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1897, 629. 

[12]. Once again Ballenger was quoting from Ellen White’s Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church (1896), 30. 

[13]. A. F. Ballenger, “Who is on the Lord’s Side?” Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1897, 629. 

[14]. Ibid. Ellen White would echo such thoughts on the prayer of Daniel in 1902, in the context of the work for the South: “There is need of prayer such as Daniel offered. If ever a people needed to offer such a prayer, it is Seventh-day Adventists. There is among them such self-confidence, such presumption. The Lord has been sending light to His people, but the Testimonies have not been heeded” (Ellen G. White to A. G. Daniells, Nov. 16, 1902, unpublished; a similar statement is made in Spaulding and Magan Collection, 346). 

[15]. Editorial Notes, Review and Herald, Sept. 28, 1897, 634. There seems to be an effort among some historians todiscredit the entire Ballenger “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost” movement that started in the summer of 1897, because offanaticism that came in later years. See for example, Bert Haloviak, “Pioneers, Pantheists, and Progressives: A. F. Ballenger and Divergent Paths to the Sanctuary” (unpublished manuscript, Office of Archives and Statistics, GeneralConference of Seventh-day Adventists, Washington, D.C.: June, 1980), 2-10; George R. Knight, 1888 to Apostasy, 169, 170. Ron Clouzet, however, offers a balancing view by stating: “To be fair, much of what Ballenger shared in those yearswas correct biblical teaching—even if a bit extreme—and it led many people to surrender to God” (Adventism’s Greatest Need: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, 190). 

[16]. E. A Sutherland, “The Illinois and Indiana Camp-Meetings,” Review and Herald, Sept. 27, 1898, 622. 

[17]. G. A. Irwin, “Sermon,” Sabbath morning, July 8, 1899; in Australasian Union Conference Record, Special No. 1, July 10, 1899, 10-12, emphasis supplied. 

[18]. Ellen G. White to S. M. I. Henry, Letter 96, June 21, 1899; in Selected Messages, bk. 3, 51; Ellen G. White, “The Close of the Conference,” Australasian Union Conference Record,” July 28, 1899, 13. 

[19]. S. N. Haskell, “Bible Study: The Third Angel’s Message,” Australasian Union Conference Recorder, Special No. 4, July 17, 1899, 9, 10. 

[20]. A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No 15,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 23, 1893, 359. 

[21]. Ellen G. White to W. Ing, Letter 77, Jan. 9, 1893; in General Conference Daily Bulletin, 419, 420. 

[22]. Ellen G. White to Emma and Edson White, Letter 84, Nov. 14, 1894; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, 38. 

[23]. Ellen G. White, “Whosoever Will, Let Him Come,” Review and Herald, Oct. 6, 1896. 

[24]. Ellen G. White, “The Loving Watchcare of Jesus,” Union Conference Record (Australasian), Oct. 15, 1898. 

[25]. Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages (1898), 633, 634. Unfortunately, in the Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White, Haskell’s 1899 statement is found under the heading, “Statements Mistakenly Attributed to Ellen G. White,” with only thefollowing short explanation: “Elder S. N. Haskell provided that reference from memory in a talk published in 1899. NoBulletin was published in 1892, nor has the statement been found in any other published or unpublished source.” (vol. 3, 3192; at <http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-mist.html#mistaken-section-d11>, accessed Jan. 30, 2012). It wouldhave been more helpful if readers had been directed by the White Estate to the 1893 Bulletin and a simple explanation given. 

[26]. S. N. Haskell, “Bible Study: The Third Angel’s Message,” Australasian Union Conference Recorder, Special No. 4, July 17, 1899, 10. 

[27]. W. C. White, “Bible Study Hour: Confidence in God,” May 30, 1913; in General Conference Daily Bulletin, June 1, 1913, 219. See also Arthur L. White, The Later Elmshaven Years: 1905-1915, 445. 

[28]. G. B. Starr, Fifty Years With One of God’s Seers, unpublished manuscript [ –1928], 105. Ellen White apparently did not have a home in Sydney until after February, 1897, where she occupied a furnished rented room set up for when she visited the city (see Arthur L. White, The Australian Years: 1891-1900, 291). 

G. B. Starr went on to quote the following Ellen White statement from 1903: “Physically, I have always been as a broken vessel; and yet in my old age the Lord continues to move upon me by His Holy Spirit to write the most important books that have ever come before the churches and the world. The Lord is evidencing what He can do through weak vessels. The life that He spares I will use to His glory. And, when He may see fit to let me rest, His messages shall be of even more vital force than when the frail instrumentality through whom they were delivered, was living (Ellen G. White, “The Time of the End,” Manuscript 122, Oct. 9, 1903; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, 428). 

[29]. Fred Bischoff, “A Second Look at—The Importance of the Adventist Pioneers, part 4 (conclusion),” Lest We Forget, Fourth Quarter, 2001, 2; at <http://www.aplib.org/files/lwf/LWFV11N4.pdf>. 

Chapter 13

The 1901 General Conference

At the 1901 General Conference, Ellen White had just returned from her ten years of exile to Australia. Although the Lord had abundantly blessed her work there, at the hub of the Church in Battle Creek there had been ever-growing problems. On the opening day of the General Conference, Tuesday, April 2, following the president’s address by G. I. Irwin, the Conference was formally opened. No sooner had Irwin asked the question, “What is your pleasure,” than Ellen White came forward to speak: 

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 [1891], 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 the [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. 

The light then given me was that this people should stand higher than any other people on the face of the whole earth, that they should be a loyal people, a people who would rightly represent truth. The sanctifying power of the truth, revealed in their lives, was to distinguish them from the world. They were to stand in moral dignity, having such a close connection with heaven that the Lord God of Israel could give them a place in the earth. 

Year after year the same acknowledgment was made, but the principles which exalt a people were not woven into the work. God gave them clear light as to what they should do, and what they should not do, but they departed from that light, and it is a marvel to me that we stand in as much prosperity as we do today. It is because of the great mercy of our God, not because of our righteousness, but that his name should not be dishonored in the world.[1] 

The message of righteousness by faith, which had come to the church leadership at the 1888 Minneapolis session and had been convincingly proclaimed far and wide for many years after, would have if fully accepted brought a positive change into every area of individual experience and organized Church work. Through a deeper Christian experience not only would there be a maturing of experiential theological understanding, but positive changes would be seen in organization, finances, publications, education, evangelism, health reform, medical missionary and ministerial work and the general work of beneficence. Nevertheless, through elements of unbelief the light from heaven had only be assented to and the life changing principles were not woven into the work. The prosperity and growth in church membership and expanding institutions was not an indication of an accepted message or of the counsel given, but a reflection of the great mercy of God. 

Ellen White continued her comments at the Conference by speaking of some of the problems that still existed in the different institutions in Battle Creek. She stated that “men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be,—that is past. What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle.” But it was more than just a structural reorganization that Ellen White was calling for—it was new operating “principles” that were to guide the men leading the Church. The changes would not take place, however, “by entrusting responsibilities to men who have had light poured upon them year after year for the last ten or fifteen years, and yet have not heeded the light that God has given them.”[2]* Through the remainder of the Conference, Ellen White would push for both structural and experiential changes. 

Both A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner would describe similar conditions that resulted from a mere assent to light and truth, which had not been truly taken to heart in a way that would bring about a change in the life. At the 1893 General Conference Jones had summarized the response to the message of righteousness by faith up to that time: 

[W]hen it was presented four years ago [in 1888], and all along since, some accepted it just as it was given, and were glad of the news that God had righteousness that would pass the judgment. ... Others would not have anything to do with it at all but rejected the whole thing. Others seemed to take a middle position. ... And so, all the way between open and free deliberate surrender and acceptance of it, to open, deliberate, and positive rejection of it—all the way between—the compromisers have been scattered ever since; and those who have taken that compromising position are no better prepared tonight to discern what is the message of the righteousness of Christ than they were four years ago.[3] 

Years later Jones would once again summarize the response of those who only assented to the message: “But as you know Sr. White stood out openly and strongly all the way for righteousness by faith; and after the [1888] conference was over the preaching of righteousness by faith was followed up by her and Bro. Waggoner and me. ... This went onthrough the winter and spring. Than when campmeeting time came we all three visited the campmeetings with the message of righteousness by faith and religious liberty; sometime all three of us being in the same meeting.” The result of their combined labors were well noted, but this did not seem to bring about lasting change. Jones explains: “This turned the tide with the people, and apparently with most of the leading men. But this latter was only apparent; it was never real, for all the time in the General Conference Committee and amongst others there was a secret antagonism always carried on.”[4] 

Waggoner would also echo the comments Ellen White made at the 1901 conference. Writing to A. G. Daniells in 1903, Waggoner recalled the conditions in America during the years Daniells was in Australia: 

Meanwhile things got no better in America [in the 1890s], as you know. ... It wassolely due to the fact that while, after much opposition, the denomination had officially accepted the advance truth of the message, they had not taken into practically. They took it in as one of the things that “we as a people believe,” but not as a thing by which to conduct business, teach the sciences, etc. They did not see in the light that the Lord sent, a principle that was to solve every problem, and reorganize, or rather, organize, put life into it, the entire work. Worst of all, they did not accept the advancing light of the message. Having made one move, they felt irritated at the intimation that they ought to go on. They thought that they were entitled to credit for great enterprise for getting out of one rut into another. ... 

No man ever had a better opening, or started in better, than Brother Olsen did, fourteen years ago last spring. [1889] But he could not stand against the old guard. Then Brother [Irwin] started in under an exceptionally favorable circumstances; and his inistration was speedily demonstrated to be a failure. It is useless to say that the fault was in the man; that is, that they were not good men; they were just as goodmen and just as sincere Christians as any. ... All that there was wrong about the men if [any] was their inability to see a principle of truth that could solve every problem, and crop every difficult situation. And [so] the old leaven remained and worked.[5] 

A. G. Daniells, who would be voted in as president at the 1901 Conference, preached the evening sermon on Sunday, April 14. He spoke of the message of Christ’s righteousness that was to go to the world from the Adventists scattered around the globe. “O, that God would touch our lips with a live coal from off his altar!” Daniells proclaimed, “until the righteousness thereof—that righteousness we have talked so much about during the last ten or twelve years—go forth as a lamp that burneth.” But while that message had been talked about much, Daniells feared that “somehow we have not laid hold of it as we might, as we ought to. I fear that it has been too much in theory! But I know there is blessed power in it.”[6] Daniels would continue to express such thoughts for years to come. The unlimited power of the loud cry and latter rain message had not been realized, although the message had been emphasized for over a decade. 

The following evening, April 15, W. W. Prescott would also share his ever-growing convictions of the monumental times in which they lived. He spoke of the examples of history from which lessons could be learned. Knowing that “history repeats itself,” Prescott presented from the light of God’s Word, “three times when the same set of circumstances led to the same experiences.” He covered the time period just before God’s people “were carried off into Babylon,” the time “just before the destruction of Jerusalem,” and the “present time” in 1901. Each of the three periods he covered had been proceeded by the message of righteousness by faith, dire results from rejecting that message, and calls for acknowledgement, confession and repentance to remedy the divine punishment that followed. “And now we are passing the same circumstances over again,” Prescott declared. The church was “threatened with destruction. And why?—For the very same reason as in the olden time—because they had refused the truth, because they had refused the message of God, because they had turned away from heart service, and had accepted form and ceremony in place of that working of God’s life in the heart and soul.”[7] 

Prescott now referred his audience back to the law-oriented 1880s and reminded them that “thirteen years ago at Minneapolis, God sent a message to this people to deliver them out of that experience.” But getting to the heart of his sermon, Prescott summarized the history of the treatment of that message ever since 1888, and the implications that such treatment called for in 1901: 

What has been the history of this people and this work since that time? Where do we stand now with reference to this message? How far has that truth been received—not simply assented to, but actually received?—Not far, I tell you. How far has the ministry of this denomination been baptized into that Spirit?—Not far, I tell you. For the past thirteen years this light has been rejected and turned against by many, and they are rejecting it and turning from it to-day; and I say to every such one, ‘Beware lest that come upon you which was spoken of the prophets, Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish.’” 

What is the remedy?—The very same as of old, and no other—repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. When John the Baptist came to prepare the way of the Lord under those circumstances that I have set forth, what was his message? “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” When Christ himself appeared, and began his work, what did he say?—“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” When he sent out his disciples, the apostles, in his stead, to carry on his work after he ascended, what did they preach?—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted.” What are the messages to the churches?—Repent, repent, repent. What is the message to the Laodicean church?—“Be zealous therefore and repent.”[8] 

Yet as Prescott had observed during the Conference, which was now nearing the final week, the repentance God was calling for had not taken place. Were they following in the footsteps of the first two examples found in Scripture? 

I have not seen and do not see now in this Conference, that real response to the message that God has sent to us, that will be of any effective result in his work. I am willing to face the fact, but it is a fact. I say that there ought to come upon us ministers of the word of Jesus Christ, such a spirit of repentance as many of us have not known for many years. There ought to be a work wrought at this Conference that we have seen no signs of yet. I have prayed and prayed, that God would work it; and he is the only one who can work it. I say to my brethren in the ministry, as well as to others, If we go away from this Conference, this crisis in God’s work, this time when we, God’s people, stand for the third and the last time facing that very experience that we have studied in the scripture—if we go away from this Conference without a decided and most marked change coming over us different from what we have had—may God pity his people and work! 

Perhaps you think I am speaking too plainly, but I say to you, my brethren, my soul is burdened under this, and I must deliver my message. I believe that God by the messages from his word, by the messages from his servant [Ellen White], has spoken here words that ought to make ears tingle. If the word that has been spoken here ought not to make our ears tingle and bring us down in repentance and humility before God, what ever can do it? Yet it has not come, and here we are, two thirds of the way through this Conference. Is it going on in this way until the close of this Conference? Are we going back without power, without new light? Are we going back to go through these same experiences over again?[9] 

As Prescott neared the close of his sermon, he assured his ministerial brethren that the message was the same after thirteen years: righteousness by faith. Yet not as a theory but as an experience that will change the heart. Thus the changes that were needed in organization would not bring about the desired changes if they didn’t include an inward change. Was it not the duty of the ministers to lead the way? 

The message is just as simple. “The just shall live by faith.” ... That is the message now. That is the message which came to this people thirteen years ago, and it has been held off and been held off as if it were not the message; and it is the message. And those who have been shutting their eyes to it, lo these many years, I fear that they will never see it clearly. I fear that there are those who have actually lost the power of discernment so they will not be able to know the message now, to discern the truth; but can this work, and this people be led out of its present confused, dark, and discouraged condition by any such leading [men] and teaching as that? I tell you no. God must work. He must put the power on someone who is willing to receive it, who will stand forth and give the message with clearness and power and lead the way out of the confusion and darkness. 

It will not be by outward form of organization. Our minds have been busily occupied during the last week formulating plans for organization, and my own spiritual sense has said to me that we have been losing ground in the work of organization. Do not think that it will be by change of plan, by change of administration, by a new way of doing things. The change that is needed is a complete change of heart. When a complete change of heart comes to God’s ministry, the power that is in that will sweep away all these extraneous things. ... It is not in this outward form and plan of operation. That is all right, it ought to be changed; but if our minds are resting upon that, the work will not be accomplished that way. ... 

If God does not help us, who will? and if he does not give us his Spirit of true repentance and of turning to him, who will? My brethren in the ministry, shall we not lead the way for the people? I ask every one here, every minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, called to a high or a low calling, Shall we not lead the people in the way they should go? Is it not time for us to take God’s message to our own selves, and to know that he is speaking to us, and means us, and is waiting for a response from us?[10] 

Prescott’s concern about outward organizational changes being made without a heart change should be well noted. Although such changes would be beneficial to the church for years to come, they would not answer the underlying conditions which were holding back the promises of God. The 1901 conference ended one week later on April 23, and with great organizational changes, at least structurally speaking. 

Ellen White who had feared greatly for the outcome of the Conference stated on the final day that she “was never more astonished in my life than at the turn things have taken at this meeting. This is not our work. God has brought it about.” How had this taken place? God had sent his angels to give them “right and peaceable minds. They have been among us to work the works of God, to keep back the powers of darkness, that the work God designed should be done should not be hindered.”[11] Although the 1901 General Conference ended with a note victory, it would soon be seen that the changes Ellen White was really hoping for—and all heaven too, for that matter—had not taken place.[12]* 

1901 in Retrospect 

In December of 1901, Ellen White gives a hint that still, even after the changes made at the General Conference, all was not well. Writing to P. T. Magan during his early endeavors to reestablish the college from Battle Creek to Berrien Springs, Michigan, she reminded him amidst his struggles that “the hand of providence is holding the machinery.” And it was only when His hand “starts the wheel then all things will begin to move.” However, Ellen White also made it clear as she surveyed the past, that it wasn’t God’s fault that the wheel of progress was being held back: 

His people have been far behind. Human agencies under the divine planning may recover something of what is lost because the people who had great light did not have corresponding piety, sanctification, and zeal in working out God’s specified plans. They have lost to their own disadvantage what they might have gained to the advancement of the truth if they had carried out the plans and will of God. Man cannot possibly stretch over that gulf that has been made by the workers who have not been following the divine Leader. 

We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel, but for Christ’s sake, His people should not add sin to sin (Isa. 30:1) [13]* by charging God with the consequence of their own wrong course of action.[14] 

That wrong course of action and insubordination included much more than just that which had taken place in the educational work at Battle Creek—which Magan and others were now trying to remedy. It especially included the course of action taken at Minneapolis and following, which had affected so many other areas of God’s work in the church over the years. Yet all of these problems could have been resolved had there been Laodicean repentance and an accepting of God’s true remedies. Writing to the new General Conference Committee and the Medical Missionary Board the following summer, Ellen White expressed these very thoughts in the context of the 1901 General Conference: 

A wonderful work could have been done for the vast company gathered in Battle Creek at the General Conference of 1901, if the leaders of our work had taken themselves in hand. Had thorough work been done at this conference; had there been, as God designed there should be, a breaking up of the fallow ground of the heart by the men who had been bearing responsibilities; had they, in humility of soul, led out in the work of confession and consecration, giving evidence that they received the counsels and warnings sent by the Lord to correct their mistakes, there wouldhave been one of the greatest revivals that there has been since the day of Pentecost. 

But the work that all heaven was waiting to do as soon as men prepared the way, was not done; for the leaders in the work closed and bolted the door against the Spirit’s entrance. There was a stopping short of entire surrender to God. Hearts that might have been purified from error were strengthened in wrong doing. The doors were barred against the heavenly current that would have swept away all evil. Men left their sins unconfessed. They built themselves up in their wrong doing, and said to the Spirit of God, “Go thy way for this time; when I have a more convenient season, I will call for thee.” 

The Lord calls for the close self-examination to be made now, that was not made at the last General Conference, when He was waiting to be gracious. The present is our sowing time for eternity. We must reap the fruit of the evil seed we sow, unless we repent the sowing, and ask forgiveness for the mistakes we have made. Those who, given opportunity to repent and reform, pass over the ground without humbling the heart before God, without putting away that which He reproves, will become hardened against the counsel of the Lord Jesus.[15] 

Ellen White made it evident that if the proper work had been done in 1901, a thorough repentance would have taken place for the mistakes that had been made over the last decade, and the Holy Spirit would have been poured out in Pentecostal measure. But alas, that work had not been done. 

In February of 1902, Uriah Smith, reinstated editor of the Review, made it obvious that old controversies had not yet been laid to rest and unbelief was still being directed toward the Minneapolis message. Smith ran a three-part series in the Review by W. M. Brickey, which once again brought into question the positions of Jones and Waggoner on the law in Galatians and the covenants—key components to the 1888 message which Ellen White had supported.[16]* A. G. Daniells, General Conference president, declared to W. C. White that the articles were “as crooked and unsound as they could be,” and that they “were an open and vicious attack on the message of righteousness by faith presented at Minneapolis.” He could not understand how Smith could “proclaim his unbounded confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy, and reject the Minneapolis message” at the same time. Yet it wasn’t just Smith that Daniells was concerned about, but “the whole brood of old-covenant men who are continually raising doubts and unbelief regarding the light that came at the Minneapolis meeting.”[17]* 

Ellen White would eventually respond to the threatening controversy in November, 1902. Years before, she had related heaven-sent counsel to Smith, informing him that an unwillingness to accept the truth that the law in Galatians was primarily speaking of the moral law, lay at the foundation of the opposition to the message as presented by Jones and Waggoner. By such actions Satan had succeeded in shutting away the latter rain power which would have enabled them to share the loud cry message with the world. And the very light of the loud cry message had in a great degree been resisted by many of the brethren, in which Smith played a significant part.[18] Now was not the time to revive old controversies and make this a test question of church fellowship, and over an issue that had already thwarted the Holy Spirit and delayed the Lord’s return. 

Ellen White ardently warned the brethren: “Never should that which God has not given as a test be carried as was the subject of the law in Galatians. I have been instructed that the terrible experience at the Minneapolis Conference is one of the saddest chapters in the history of the believers in present truth.”[19] 

One month later, Ellen White was still losing sleep at night as the condition of God’s people, “both ministers and lay members,” was brought to her attention. In a long manuscript written to those in the ministry, Ellen White declared that in “every church in our land” there was need for “confession, repentance, and conversion.” Unless this was to take place “speedily,” the deceptions of the last days “would overtake them,” and light would soon become darkness and darkness light: 

God calls for repentance without delay. So long have many trifled with salvation that their spiritual eyesight is dimmed, and they cannot discern between light and darkness. Christ is humiliated in His people. The first love is gone; the faith is weak, there is need of a thorough transformation. ... 

Self-righteousness is not the wedding garment. A failure to follow the clear light of truth is our fearful danger. The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people. Give heed to this message. [Revelation 3:14-18 quoted.] 

Oh, what a description! How many there are in this fearful condition. I earnestly entreat every minister to study diligently the third chapter of Revelation, for in it is portrayed the condition of things existing in the last days. Study carefully every verse in this chapter, for through these words Jesus is speaking to you. 

If ever a people were represented by the Laodicean message, it is the people who have had great light, the revelation of the Scriptures, that Seventh-day Adventists have received. In the place of exalting self by manifesting pride, self-reliance, and self-importance; in the place of revealing personal weakness of character by remaining proud, boastful, and unconverted; God’s professed people should realize their need of the graces of the Spirit of truth and righteousness.[20] 

To continue in the Laodicean condition, refusing to repent, was not only a detriment to the people of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it was humiliating to Christ. Such a condition would only continue to prolong the great controversy with Satan, with all his accusations against the government of God. In what might be one of the most heart wrenching statements Ellen White ever wrote in regard to the feelings of Jesus over our continued Laodicean condition, she positively declared: “the disappointment of Christ is beyond description.” 

Although Ellen White had an intense desire to see the church “walking in the light, as Christ is in the light,” and prayed most earnestly for the brethren to this end, she did not “fail to see that the light God has given me is not favorable to our ministers or our churches.” Such attitudes toward the work God had given her to do revealed that needed changes had not taken place at the 1901 Conference. She now indicated she no longer had a desire to attend the next General Conference, in March of 1903: 

My brethren, I feel great sorrow of heart. I shall not appear before you again in our general gatherings unless I am impressed by the Spirit of God that I should. The last General Conference that I attended [in 1901] gave you all the evidence that you will ever have in any meeting that shall be convened. If that meeting did not convince you that God is working by His Spirit through His humble servant, it is because the candlestick has been removed out of its place. I thought that after the last General Conference there would be a change of heart, but during that meeting the work was not done that ought to have been done that God might come in, nor has this work been done since that time. God is knocking at the door of the heart; but as yet the door has not opened to let Him enter and take full possession of the soul-temple.[21] 

So it was that nearly two years after the 1901 General Conference, the heart work that should have been done had still been left undone, and primarily due to a reluctance to listen to the True Witness’ call to repentance given through His Testimonies. Two weeks later, Ellen White would once again be brought to realize the enormity of such conditions, this time through a dream she had while writing on the failed reform following the 1901 General Conference: 

One day at noon I was writing of the work that might have been done at the last General Conference if the men in positions of trust had followed the will and way of God. Those who have had great light have not walked in the light. The meeting was closed, and the break was not made. Men did not humble themselves before the Lord as they should have done, and the Holy Spirit was not imparted. I had written thus far when I lost consciousness, and I seemed to be witnessing a scene in Battle Creek. 

We were assembled in the auditorium of the Tabernacle. Prayer was offered, a hymn was sung, and prayer was again offered. Most earnest supplication was made to God. The meeting was marked by the presence of the Holy Spirit. The work went deep, and some present were weeping aloud. 

One arose from his bowed position and said that in the past he had not been in union with certain ones and had felt no love for them, but that now he saw himself as he was. With great solemnity he repeated the message to the Laodicean church: “‘Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.’ In my self-sufficiency this is just the way I felt,” he said. “‘And knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.’ I now see that this is my condition. My eyes are opened. My spirit has been hard and unjust. I thought myself righteous, but my heart is broken, and I see my need of the precious counsel of the One who has searched me through and through. Oh, how gracious and compassionate and loving are the words, ‘I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.’” Revelation 3:17, 18. 

The speaker turned to those who had been praying, and said: “We have something to do. We must confess our sins, and humble our hearts before God.” He made heartbroken confessions and then stepped up to several of the brethren, one after another, and extended his hand, asking forgiveness. Those to whom he spoke sprang to their feet, making confession and asking forgiveness, and they fell upon one another’s necks, weeping. The spirit of confession spread through the entire congregation. It was a Pentecostal season. God’s praises were sung, and far into the night, until nearly morning, the work was carried on.[22] 

Ellen White no doubt had feelings of unutterable joy as she witnessed such a scene, as the work of confession went on: “No one seemed to be too proud to make heartfelt confession, and those who led in this work were the ones who had influence, but had not before had courage to confess their sins. There was rejoicing such as never before had been heard in the Tabernacle.” As Ellen White aroused from her unconsciousness, for a short while she could not think of where she was. Her pen remained in her hand. And then the words were spoken: “‘This might have been. All this the Lord was waiting to do for His people. All heaven was waiting to be gracious.’” Ellen White “thought of where we might have been had thorough work been done at the last [1901] General Conference, and an agony of disappointment came over me as I realized that what I had witnessed was not a reality.”[23]* 

Two weeks later, Ellen White wrote to Jude Jesse Arthur, a man who had little experience with her gift of prophecy. In the course of encouraging him not to be pulled in with the questioners of that gift, she assured him of how God had been sustaining her in her work: 

His power was with me all the way through the last General Conference, and had the men in responsibility felt one quarter of the burden that rested on me, there would have been heartfelt confession and repentance. A work would have been done by the Holy Spirit such as has never yet been seen in Battle Creek. Those who at that time heard my message, and refused to humble their hearts before God, are without excuse. No greater proof will ever come to them. 

The result of the last General Conference has been the greatest, the most terrible, sorrow of my life. No change was made. The spirit that should have been brought into the whole work as the result of that meeting was not brought in because men did not receive the testimonies of the Spirit of God. As they went to their several fields of labor, they did not walk in the light that the Lord had flashed upon their pathway, but carried into their work the wrong principles that had been prevailing in the work at Battle Creek. 

The Lord has marked every movement made by the leading men in our institutions and conferences. It is a perilous thing to reject the light that God sends. To Chorazin and Bethsaida heaven’s richest blessings had been freely offered. ... But they refused the heavenly Gift. ... So today upon those who have had light and evidence, but who have refused to heed the Lord’s warnings and entreaties, heaven’s woe is pronounced.[24] 

Ellen White was obviously not talking about structural changes in organization, which did take place in 1901. She was talking about the “spirit that should have been brought into the whole work.” 

On February 18, 1902, the main Battle Creek Sanitarium building—the hospital—had burned down. Ten months later, on December 30, 1902, the Review and Herald experienced the same fate. Ellen White was led, against her earlier feelings, to attend the General Conference a few months later in Oakland, California. While there her attention was drawn in the night season to the story of Josiah, which was presented to her as a lesson that she “should bring to the attention of [the] Conference.” She would thus share these thoughts before the General Conference on April 1, 1903. 

King Josiah was true to the God of Israel. “He did not repeat his father’s sin in walking in the way of unrighteousness,” Ellen White instructed. He had chosen not to walk in the errors of his ancestry but to try and build up the worship of God. When Josiah found the book of the law (Deuteronomy) and read for the first time the blessings and curses, he rent his clothing, realizing that Israel for centuries had walked contrary to God’s commandments. He realized that the cumulative sins of the nation were about to bring upon them the speedy judgments of God. As Ellen White continued to share the story to those gathered before her at the Conference, she drew parallels to Adventism in their day: 

As [Josiah] had in the past seen the idolatry and the impiety existing among them, he had been much troubled. Now as he read in the book of the law of the punishment that would surely follow such practices, great sorrow filled his heart. Never before had he so fully realized God’s abhorrence for sin. ... 

The king did not pass the matter by as of little consequence. To the priests and the other men in holy office he gave the command, “Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that is written concerning us.” Josiah did not say, “I knew nothing about this book. These are ancient precepts, and times have changed.” He appointed men to investigate the matter, and these men went to Huldah, the prophetess. ... 

Today God is watching His people. We should seek to find out what He means when He sweeps away our sanitarium and our publishing house. Let us not move along as if there were nothing wrong. King Josiah rent his robe and rent his heart. He wept and mourned because he had not had the book of the law, and knew not of the punishments that it threatened. God wants us to come to our senses. He wants us to seek for the meaning of the calamities that have overtaken us, that we may not tread in the footsteps of Israel, and say, “The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are we,” when we are not this at all.[25] 

As Ellen White continued, she applied such counsel to the work that should have been done at the last General Conference in 1901, which was still waiting to be done then: 

In every institution among us there needs to be a reformation. This is the message that at the last General Conference I bore as the word of the Lord. At that meeting I carried a very heavy burden, and I have carried it ever since. We did not gain the victory that we might have gained at that meeting. Why?—Because there were so few who followed the course of Josiah. There were those at that meeting who did not see the work that needed to be done. If they had confessed their sins, if they had made a break, if they had taken their stand on vantage ground, the power of God would have gone through the meeting, and we should have had a Pentecostal season. 

The Lord has shown me what might have been had the work been done that ought to have been done. In the night season I was present in a meeting where brother was confessing to brother. Those present fell upon one another’s necks, and made heart-broken confessions. The Spirit and power of God were revealed. No one seemed too proud to bow before God in humility and contrition. Those who led in this work were the ones who had not before had the courage to confess their sins. This might have been. All this the Lord was waiting to do for His people. All heaven was waiting to be gracious.[26] 

A short time after the fire had destroyed the Review and Herald Office, an article by Ellen White was printed in the Review, “in which it was plainly stated that the destruction of the Sanitarium and the Review Office by fire was a visitation from God on account of the persistent departure from his ways, and the failure to act upon the warning and instruction which had been given for many years through the spirit of prophecy.”[27] Ellen White pled with those in Battle Creek who had “resisted light and evidence, refusing to listen to God’s warnings,” that they would see in the “destruction of the Review and Herald Office an appeal to them from God to turn to Him with full purpose of heart.”[28] Yet, a short time after the 1903 General Conference session, at a “meeting of the stockholders of the Review and Herald, the statement was reiterated before a public audience that these fires were not the judgments of God.”[29] 

Shortly after the above meeting occurred, W. W. Prescott spoke to a large gathering atthe Battle Creek Tabernacle on Sabbath, May 9. Here, he directed the Adventist audience to the book of Jeremiah, “dealing with the experience connected with the destruction and overthrow of Jerusalem, with the hope that we may mark well the real cause of its overthrow and the captivity of the people.” As Prescott got to the heart of his message, he recalled for his listeners the dealings of God with His people since the Minneapolis session: 

Those who are familiar with the circumstances of our work and our institutions here, especially for the last ten or fifteen years, need not be reminded of the many words of warning and instruction which the Lord has sent to us through His chosen mouthpiece, until the judgment of God has fallen upon us for our failure to obey, and it is utterly useless, and worse than useless, to attempt to hide this from our own eyes or from the eyes of the world. What we might have saved by heeding the words of instruction and warning has now become a public calamity upon us, but in spite of all this there are still voices raised which say this is no judgment upon us. Now it is time for those who fear God to respond to His instruction, and warning, and counsel. [Voices, “Amen.”] I believe it is time for God’s people to rise up in response, and make answer that they believe in the Lord their God, even when He visits them with judgments. I believe it is time that this people and this church openly and publicly should take their stand in response to these words of instruction and warning, and acknowledge before God and the world that the Lord has visited us in judgment, and that we do repent and turn to Him.[30] 

The attitudes and actions of those who had refused the Minneapolis message over the previous decade had spread a debilitating effect on the success of the Church in nearly every capacity. The greatest evil had resulted from the disregard of heaven-sent counsel, given for every aspect of life and church responsibility, due to the growing unbelief in the Spirit of Prophecy following the Minneapolis rebellion. One thing was certain—although great changes in organizational structure were brought about at the 1901 General Conference, changes which remain with us today, the Laodicean repentance and latter rain experience never occurred. By 1903 challenges of every kind faced the church. Unfortunately, the two Minneapolis messengers, Jones and Waggoner, soon fell away from the church, largely due to the constant opposition which they had endured since 1886. Both had unfortunately become caught up with the departing Kellogg. Waggoner had imbibed Kellogg’s pantheistic ideas by 1899, and Jones had joined him in his rebellion against the organized church by 1905, both no longer listening to the counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy through Ellen White.[31]* Even Prescott, who had worked so powerfully in the 1890s, began to question the validity of Ellen White’s gift shortly before her death.[32] Ellen White would go to her death in 1915, without living to see the Second Coming she had long awaited; the blessed latter rain having been thwarted and ultimately withdrawn. 

Notes:

1. Ellen G. White, “Remarks at 1901 General Conference,” General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901, 23, emphasis supplied. 

2. Ibid., 25. “Ten or Fifteen years” would date back to the 1886 General Conference, the time from when much counselhad been given by Ellen White in regard to organizational changes needed. But it was also the time in which Jones andWaggoner’s concepts on righteousness by faith and the book of Galatians were first presented. 

3. A. T. Jones, “Third Angel’s Message, No. 11,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 13, 1893, 243-244. 

4. A. T. Jones to Bro. Holmes, May 12, 1921; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 329, emphasis supplied. 

5. E. J. Waggoner to A. G. Daniells, July 24, 1903. 

6. A. G. Daniells, “Sermon, April 14, 1901,” General Conference Bulletin, April 16, 1901, 272. 

7. W. W. Prescott, “Sermon,” April 15, 1901; in General Conference Bulletin, April 17, 1901, 303, 304, emphasis in original. 

8. W. W. Prescott, “Sermon,” (conclusion), April 15, 1901, General Conference Bulletin, April 18, 1901, 321. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Ibid., 321, 322, emphasis in original. 

11. Ellen G. White, comments made in “Missionary Farewell Service,” April 23, 1901; in General Conference Bulletin, April 25, 1901, 464, 463. 

12. As with the 1889 and 1891 General Conference sessions, at which Ellen White was personally present, statements canbe cited and used today to suggest total victory and success for the 1901 Conference, while at the same time denying any defeat or failure which might possibly have left lasting negative results (see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, chapter 10, “Baal Worship,” 253-274). One example is found in the Foreword of A. V. Olson’s book, Crisis to Victory, which claims that “the thirteen years between Minneapolis, 1888, and the General Conference session of 1901were in some ways the most progressive years of the Advent Movement up until that time.” While admitting that theseyears were “fraught with conflict and clashes over organizational ideas and theological views,” the final analysis is that“it was a period over which Providence could spell out the word victory” (Arthur L. White, in Crisis to Victory: 18881901, 7, emphasis in original). 

Similar sentiments have been shared by many other authors since 1901, yet it would seem that no other evidence isneeded than the calendar hanging on our walls to show the utter fallacy of this oft-presented theory. If 1901 were thevictory many have proposed, ending the negative results of the Minneapolis Conference and ushering in an era whererighteousness by faith was fully accepted, would not have Christ returned long ago? It is for the purpose of answeringthese questions that we will now take a more in-depth look at the events that took place shortly after the 1901Conference, in order to ascertain Ellen White’s final pronouncement on its success or failure. 

13. “‘Ah, stubborn children,’ declares the LORD, ‘who carry out a plan, but not mine, and who make an alliance, but not ofmy Spirit, that they may add sin to sin.’” (Isa. 30:1, ESV) 

14. Ellen G. White to P. T. Magan, Letter 184, Dec. 7, 1901; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, 277, 278. 

15. Ellen G. White to General Conference Committee and the Medical Missionary Board, Letter 129, Aug. 11, 1902; inKress Collection, 95, emphasis supplied. 

16. W. M. Brickey, “Notes on Galatians, No. 1-3,” Review and Herald, Jan. 21, Jan. 28, Feb. 4, 36, 52, 67-68. Ellen White’s support of Jones and Waggoner on their presentations of the law in Galatians and the covenants can be found in: Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 59, March 8, 1890, and Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 96, June 6, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 604, 1575. For more details on the subject, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, chapters 12to 16. This particular episode in 1902 with the articles on Galatians, would lead once again to the demotion of Smith aschief editor. 

17. A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, April 14, 1902; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 318, 321. Eugene F. Durandwrites in his biography of Uriah Smith: “It is obvious that Uriah Smith’s views on righteousness by faith and the law inGalatians changed not one whit throughout his lifetime. His tearful promise to Ellen White in 1891 proved to be morethan he could keep. Yet he did not withdraw from church fellowship as did Jones and Waggoner, but remained as one ofthe ‘loyal opposition’ on this point” (Yours in the Blessed Hope, Uriah Smith [Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1980], 268). Although Durand’s work offers an invaluable resource in the depiction of the enormous contributionpioneer Uriah Smith brought to the Adventist Church, his biases in favor Smith and sometimes derogatory depiction ofJones and Waggoner, led him to make some rather outlandish conclusions. While we would not call into question UriahSmith’s eternal destiny, the concept that one can have “loyal opposition” to the loud cry message without lastingconsequences, has left us as a people reluctant to acknowledge the mistakes of the past and blind to the cause of Christ’slong delay. 

18. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 96, June 6, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1575. 

19. Ellen G. White to C. P. Bollman, Letter 179, Nov. 19, 1902; in 1888 Materials, 1796. 

20. Ellen G. White, “Heed the Message to Laodicea,” Manuscript 166, Dec. 17, 1902; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 18, 192, 193, 194. Two years later, portions of this manuscript were published in the Review: “A Call to Repentance,” Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1904. 

21. Ibid., 192, 195, 196. 

22. Ellen G. White to A. G. Daniells (Battle Creek Church), Letter 7, Jan. 3, 1903; in Testimonies, vol. 8, 104, 105. 

23. Ibid., 105, 106, emphasis supplied. Ellen White obviously did not consider 1901 a grand victory. One can rightlywonder how A. V. Olson could write a book and title it Through Crisis to Victory: 1888 to 1901. However, the book waspublished in 1966, while A. V. Olson died three years before, in 1963, at which time the book came under thesponsorship of the Ellen G. White Estate Board, with A. L. White as Secretary. Olson, however, may not have picked thetitle himself. 

24. Ellen G. White to Judge Jesse Arthur, Letter, Jan. 14, 1903;in Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, 122, 123, emphasis supplied. 

25. Ellen G. White, “Lessons from Josiah’s Reign,” Sermon given March 30, 1903; in General Conference Bulletin, April 1, 1903, 29-31, emphasis supplied. 

26. Ibid., emphasis supplied. 

27. Editorial note, “Instruction and Response,” Review and Herald, May 19, 1903, 8. 

28. Ellen G. White, “The Meaning of God’s Providences,” Review and Herald, Jan. 27, 1903, 8. 

29. Editorial note, “Instruction and Response,” Review and Herald, May 19, 1903, 8, emphasis supplied. 

30. W. W. Prescott, in “Instruction and Response,” Review and Herald, May 19, 1903, 8, 

31. Some will be disappointed that we do not offer greater detail on the major downfall of both Jones and Waggoner. We plan to do so with much detail in The Return of the Latter Rain series. But for the overall topic of this book, Jones’ andWaggoner’s failures do not change the call to Laodicean repentance for us today. 

32. See Arthur L. White, “The Prescott Letter to W. C. White: April 6, 1915,” White Estate Shelf Document, June 15, 1981. 
Chapter 14

Minneapolis Not Forgotten

As the years of the twentieth century began to roll by, reminders of the Minneapolis Conference continued to resurface. In July, 1912, former General Conference President G. A. Irwin directed the readers of the Review to the seven churches of Revelation. In the history of these churches the two striving forces of good and evil could be seen. Neither side had changed in their tactics to gain the hearts of men. Salvation in sin or through man’s good works, has always been at the “foundation of all heathen religions, and is the principle of the Papacy still,” Irwin declared. The message of justification by faith, on the other hand, had always been the “secret of the overcoming life.” And it was this preaching of the message or justification by faith that had marked the beginning of the loud cry, which Ellen White had written about in November 1892. But what had been the history of this message? Irwin would give an answer: 

If the preaching of righteousness by faith as a special message in this denomination was the beginning of the loud cry, and of the “light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth,” God evidently did not intend that this message should cease until the whole earth was lightened with the glory of the Lord. 

That the message did not go as designed is evident from the following statements by the Lord’s servant: “The churches are lukewarm. ... The doctrine of justification by faith has been lost sight of by many who have professed to believe the third angel’smessage.” 

The question will doubtless arise in the mind of the reader why a message of such vital importance to individuals, a message that was the beginning of the loud cry, should be lost sight of. The answer to this question is found in the following statement by the same writer: “The enemy of man and God is not willing that this truth should be clearly presented; for he knows that if the people receive it fully, his power will be broken. If he can control minds so that doubt and unbelief and darkness shall compose the experience of those who claim to be the children of God, he can overcome them with temptation.” 

When the message of justification by faith (which the servant of the Lord said “is the third angel’s message in verity”) began to be preached in this denomination, the enemy was deeply stirred, and made a strong effort to stop its spread. ... 

It is perfectly safe ... to say that we are years behind where we might have been and ought to have been in the progress of this work ... and when I read that only “those who are clothed with Christ’s righteousness will in that day stand firm to truth and duty,” and that “all those who have trusted in their own righteousness will be ranged under the black banner of the prince of darkness” I am persuaded that the time has fully come for the message of justification by faith to become again a prominent message in this denomination.[1] 

It was evident to Irwin that the message of righteousness by faith had not accomplished that which was intended when it was given in 1888. Nearly twenty-five years later--and the Lord was still waiting. 

In 1924, nine years after the death of Ellen White, the Ministerial Association Advisory Council voted to have Elder A. G. Daniells, former General Conference President, arrange a compilation of her writings on the subject of justification by faith. As he began his “exhaustive research,” he was “amazed and awed at the solemn obligation resting” upon him. This study of the subject of righteousness by faith from the writings of Ellen White led Daniells to the “settled conviction” that her instruction presented “two aspects: primarily, the great amazing fact that by faith in the Son of God sinners may receive the righteousness of God; and secondarily, the purpose and providence of God in sending the specific message of receiving the righteousness of God by faith to His people assembled in General Conference in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the year 1888.”[2] 

Quoting from Ellen White’s November 22, 1892, Review article and Early Writings, 85 and 86, Daniells concluded that it “places the latter rain visitation with the loud cry, the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, and the flooding of the earth with the light of the third angel’s message.” It was evident to Daniells that “the beginning, or opening, of all these events is at the same time. The appearance of one is a signal for all to appear.”[3] Yet, as Daniells surveyed the thirty-eight years since the Minneapolis message, he was led to a sorrowful conclusion: 

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. The seriousness of exerting such an influence is indicated through the reproofs that were given. These words of reproof and admonition should receive most thoughtful consideration at this time [in 1926].... 

O that we had all listened as we should to both warning and appeal as they came to us in that seemingly strange, yet impressive, way at the Conference of 1888! What uncertainty would have been removed, what wanderings and defeats and losses would have been prevented! What light and blessing and triumph and progress would have come to us![4] 

Only a few years after Daniells’ book was printed, Taylor Bunch, pastor, Bible teacher, and author, produced a pamphlet titled, Forty Years in the Wilderness in Type and Antitype, which put forth similar views on the latter rain and loud cry.[5] In this pamphlet, Bunch presents the parallels between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the children of Israel in their journey from Egypt to Canaan. With the help of his wife, Taylor Bunch presented the fall and spring weeks of prayer at Pacific Union College during the 1930-1931 school year, where he presented the subject matter from his pamphlet.[6] Several years later in 1937, Bunch presented a similar series of thirty-six sermons at the Battle Creek Tabernacle during the Sabbath afternoon vesper services. These sermons were published in book form under the title The Exodus and Advent Movement in Type and Antitype, for “the special accommodation of those who heard them, and also because of requests from ministers and other gospel workers who desire them.”[7] 

In his studies, Bunch went into more detail than Daniells had. When he came to the Kadesh-Barnea experiences of ancient Israel, Bunch applied it to the 1888 Minneapolis Conference and its aftermath and the Church’s turning back into the wilderness of wandering. Bunch claimed that “the message of righteousness by faith was preached with power for more than ten years during which time the Minneapolis crisis was kept before the leaders.” Quoting from Ellen White’s November 22, 1892 Review article, Bunch declared that the “message brought the beginning of the latter rain. ... Why did not the latter rain continue to fall? Because the message that brought it ceased to be preached. It was rejected by many and it soon died out of the experience of the Advent people and the loud cry died with it. It can begin again only when the message that brought it then is revived and accepted.” Just as Israel, standing on the borders of Caanan, had to come to grips with their past, so Adventism, Bunch suggested, must “get a vision” of their past: 

“Just before the end the Advent people will review their past history and see it in a new light. We must study and understand the antitypes of the two Kadesh-Barnea experiences of ancient Israel and profit by the mistakes of our fathers especially during the 1888 crisis. We must acknowledge and confess the mistakes of our fathers and see to it that we do not repeat them and thus further delay the final triumph of the Advent Movement. The history of the past must be reviewed and studied in the light of these mistakes and their consequence in a long delay of the coming of Christ. Such a vision will explain many puzzling questions and will greatly strengthen our faith in the divine leadership of the Advent Movement.”[8] 

Following Bunch’s 1930 fall week of prayer at Pacific Union College, it did not take long for news to travel down to Elmshaven, where the White Estate was located at the time. D. E. Robinson, one of the White Estate staff, sent a letter to Bunch, and although writing cordially, took exception to several of Bunch’s comparisons and conclusions between ancient Israel and the Advent movement.[9]* This began an era of seeking to free Adventism from charges that the 1888 rejection and years following had brought about a delay in Christ’s return.[10]* 

Written for Our Example 

The Bible has been given to us to teach us lessons from its inspired stories; lessons that are applicable to our own day. In Leviticus, chapter 26, Moses recorded for the children of Israel the promises of blessings or cursings for following or departing from God and His counsels. Found in the list of blessings are promises for the early and latter rains, but in the cursings, that heaven would become like iron and the earth like brass (26:4, 19). Also found in this chapter are the inspired remedies if the curses were brought upon the nation: “And they that are left of You shall pine away in their iniquity in Your enemies’ lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them. If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.” (26:39-42, all emphasis in Bible texts supplied). 

Thus, in order to be restored to their land, Israel would have to confess and acknowledge their own sins and the sins of their fathers, which they had perpetuated, acknowledging that these combined had brought upon them their punishment of captivity in a foreign land. The same concepts were reiterated in the book of Deuteronomy and repeated to Israel before they crossed over into the Promised Land (Deut. 9:1-29; 11:13-21; 12:3-8; 28:1-68; 30-32). Solomon repeated these biblical truths at the coronation of the temple during his kingship (2 Chron. 6:12-40; 7:1-15). 

Not more than a century after Solomon passed to his death however, we find Elijah calling the people away from Baal worship, which had ultimately caused no dew or rain to fall upon the land, just as Moses had written. In response to the accusations of the king that Elijah was the troubler or cause of problems for Israel, he replied that it was the fault of the king and his father’s house (2 King 18:18). 

We find that King Hezekiah sought to bring revival and reformation to Judah by following the admonitions found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: “And [Hezekiah] said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the LORD God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place. For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD our God, and have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the LORD, and turned their backs. ... For, lo, our fathers have fallen by the sword, and our sons and our daughters and our wives are in captivity for this” (2 Chron. 29:5-9). Incidentally, Ellen White states that the leaders in Hezekiah’s day were “seeking forgiveness for the sins of the nation.”[11] 

King Josiah recognized that Judah was in grave danger after he read the book of Deuteronomy, because “our father have not kept the word of the lord, to do after all that is written in this book” (2 Chron. 34:1-30). He thus confessed his sins and the sins of his fathers and sought to avert the punishment pronounced by God through the writings of Moses. 

Jeremiah, who foresaw the coming destruction of Jerusalem, recognized that results of harlotry or Baal worship had brought about the curses: “Thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed” (Jeremiah 3:2, 3). His call was to “only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God ... for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God” (Jeremiah 3:13, 25). 

Ellen White confirms that Jeremiah was following the counsel of Deuteronomy: “And in addition to these wonderful pleadings [Jeremiah 3:12-14, 19, 22], the Lord gave His erring people the very words with which they might turn to Him. They were to say: ‘Behold, we come unto Thee ... for we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God.’ ... Jeremiah called their attention repeatedly to the counsels given in Deuteronomy. More than any other of the prophets, he emphasized the teachings of the Mosaic law and showed how these might bring the highest spiritual blessing to the nation and to every individual heart.”[12] When destruction finally came, Jeremiah would lament “Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities ... woe unto us, that we havesinned” (Lam. 5:7, 16). 

Daniel recognized that Judah had been carried off to Babylon in fulfillment of the curses spoken of in Deuteronomy. Accordingly, he prayed the prayer of confession for his sins and the sins of his fathers and acknowledged the just punishment which had been brought upon them: “Because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us” (Dan. 9:16). 

When the seventy-year captivity was ended, God orchestrated the return of the Israelites to their homeland. But this did not take place until there was confession and acknowledgement of the sins that had brought them there: “Zerubbabel and his associates were familiar with these [Deut. 28 and Deut. 4] and many like scriptures; and in the recent captivity they had evidence after evidence of their fulfillment. And now, having repented of the evils that had brought upon them and their fathers the judgments foretold so plainly through Moses; having turned with all the heart to God, and renewed their covenant relationship with Him, they had been permitted to return to Judea, that they might restore that which had been destroyed.”[13] 

When Nehemiah heard that Jerusalem was still in ruins, he prayed the prayer of Leviticus and Deuteronomy: “I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven, And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments: Let thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before thee now, day and night, for the children of Israel thy servants, and confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have sinned against thee: both I and my father’s house have sinned. We have dealt very corruptly against thee and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandedst thy servant Moses.” (Nehemiah 1:4-8). 

Ellen White confirms that Nehemiah faithfully “made confession of his sins and the sins of his people. ... See Deuteronomy 4:29-31. This promise had been given to Israel through Moses before they had entered Canaan, and during the centuries it had stood unchanged. God’s people had now returned to Him in penitence and faith, and His promise would not fail.”[14] Nehemiah would lead similar calls to repentance, as is found in chapter 9. Ellen White also confirms once again the basis for such events: “As they had listened from day to day to the words of the law, the people had been convicted of their transgressions, and of the sins of their nation in past generations. They saw that it was because of a departure from God that His protecting care had been withdrawn and that the children of Abraham had been scattered in foreign lands, and they determined to seek His mercy and to pledge themselves to walk in His commandments. ... As the people prostrated themselves before the Lord, confessing their sins and pleading for pardon, their leaders encouraged them to believe that God, according to His promise, heard their prayers. They must not only mourn and weep, and repent, but they must believe that God pardoned them. They must show their faith by recounting His mercies and praising Him for His goodness.”[15] 

Nearly 500 years later, John the Baptist would come on the scene with his heaven directed message to prepare the way of the Lord: “Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). “With the spirit and power of Elijah he denounced the national corruption, and rebuked the prevailing sins.” He also “proclaimed the coming of the Messiah, and called the people to repentance.”[16] But although many listened to his call for repentance, and in whose hearts the way was prepared to accept the Messiah, Israel as a nation would choose Barabbas instead. 

Following the crucifixion of their own Messiah, the disciples spent ten days in fasting and prayer, repenting for their own sins and the sins of their nation, who had so treacherously dealt with Jesus. Only after this heaven-ordained process were they prepared for the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And their preaching the same morning, calling for repentance of the sins of the nation, brought 3,000 souls into the Christian faith (Acts 1 and 2). 

Three and a half years later, Stephen tried to instruct the leaders of the Jewish nation of the authenticity of Christ as the true Messiah and to avert the coming destruction of Jerusalem. He directed their attention to the past mistakes of the nation which led them to crucify Christ. Notwithstanding God’s long forbearance and Stephen’s final call for repentance for their sins and the sins of their nation, they sealed their probation with his death. By their national pride and stiff-necked response, the Jewish leaders brought upon themselves and their nation the blood of all the righteous slain, from Abel to Zechariah the prophet, and now, the Messiah Himself (Acts 7; Matt. 23:35, 36).[17]* 

What About Us? 

The last-day church of Laodicea is represented as “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked,” yet claiming to be “rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). For more than 150 years the Laodicean call has been sounding. The Lord has made it clear that if the message were heeded, the work would be cut short in righteousness. Christ could have come before 1888. Yet when that didn’t occur, the most precious message--the divine remedy--was sent to the church in 1888. But when many of our fathers rebelled against the message, they added that sin to the Laodicean condition. The refusal to admit such in the years following only brought about worsening conditions. The identification of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit as fanaticism ultimately drove the beginning of the latter rain and loud cry away. But denominational pride has kept us from admitting that the beginning of the latter rain was really aborted and that a long delay has been the result of our sins and the sins of our fathers. 

The response to Taylor Bunch’s call to Laodicean repentance was one of defense by some in leadership positions. That defense has grown and continued to this very day. When twenty years later, Donald K. Short and Robert J. Wieland stated that 1888 needed to be reexamined and pointed to the True Witnesses’s call to repentance, the official responses became more malicious. Seventy-seven years have passed since Taylor Bunch presented his series of sermons in Battle Creek. We have recently celebrated 150 years of existence of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[18] And now we have celebrated 125 years since the historic 1888 Minneapolis General Conference, which Ellen White said was the beginning of the loud cry and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as the beginning dew of the latter rain. 

Some, it would seem, would like the 125th celebration to be the time when we finally put 1888 to rest. Yet many others, while wondering if such landmarks are worth celebrating, are also asking the question, where is the latter rain? And what has caused the long delay? Surely the Lord’s promises have not changed! But alas, if the latter rain is to return once again to us as a people, as it did at the Minneapolis Conference and the years following, how will it happen without our recognizing the Laodicean charges for our sins and the sins of our fathers, and acknowledging the long delay as a result? How will we respond if we have not learned the lessons of the past, or if we have rewritten our history to fit our lukewarm denominational claims? How long will we continue to wound Christ in the house of His friends? 

Ellen White’s words ring just as true today as when she wrote them in 1892: “We have nothing to fear for the future except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.”[19] It is the prayer of the author that this book which you hold in your hands, will help us understand better our history. 

Notes:

1. G. A. Irwin, “The Message for This Time,” Review and Herald, July 4, 1912, 5. 

2. A. G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness (Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Assn. of Seventh-day Adventists, 1926), 5-7. 

3. Ibid., 56, 59, 62. 

4. Ibid., 47, 69. 

5. Taylor G. Bunch, Forty Years in the Wilderness: In Type and Antitype (ca. 1928). 

6. See The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, March 21, 1931, 24, 25. 

7. Taylor G. Bunch, The Exodus and Advent Movements in Type and Antitype (privately published facsimile, cir. 1937), i. 

8. Ibid., 107, 168. 

9. D. E. Robinson to Taylor G. Bunch, Dec. 30, 1930; in Manuscripts and Memories, 333-335. This letter was written by D. E. Robinson, who was born in 1879 and was not present at the Minneapolis conference, and who wrote to Taylor Bunchwhile on staff and doing indexing at the White Estate in 1930. Robinson took offense to Bunch’s comparison and soughtto defend the church from what he saw as unwarranted attacks that would only lead to more offshoot groups. It is thisepisode that also sparked written responses from A. T. Robinson (D. E. Robinson’s father), and C. McReynolds(Manuscripts and Memories, 136-142). 

A copy of D. E. Robinson’s original letter can be found in Document File 371, at the Ellen G. White Estate, in SilverSpring, MD. At some point, Robinson’s letter was retyped, one paragraph being removed which clarified him as thewriter, and A. L. White’s name was penciled in. A. L. White’s name was then erased and replaced with W. C. White’sname, in what appears to be A. L. White’s handwriting. The original copy of this retyped letter is found in Document File 331 and is the copy published in Manuscripts and Memories, 333-335, and attributed to W. C. White (Tim Poirier from the White Estate verified these findings). 

It seems that this letter, falsely attributed to W. C. White, did not surface until it appeared as “Appendix D” inThirteen Crisis Years: 1888-1901, in 1981. This book was a reprint of A. V. Olson’s book, Through Crisis to Victory: 1888-1901, first published in 1966 under the sponsorship of the Ellen G. White Estate Board, with A. L. White asSecretary. The 1981 reprint was published under the same auspices. In Appendix D, Arthur White makes the claim that W. C. White wrote the letter to deal with “the unsupported conjecture from the pen and lips of one [Taylor Bunch] whowas at the time [of the Minneapolis Conference] a child of three” and who had presented “such a distortion of historyand such a forecast” (Thirteen Crisis Years, 331). 

Although we should not attribute any malicious intent on the part of D. E. Robinson, or even A. L. White—perhapsboth thinking to defend the church from what they thought were false accusations—we should realize that only thefather of lies could weave this web into what it has become today, thereby distorting what really took place in 1888 andits aftermath. 

10. See A. T. Robinson, “Did the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination Reject the Doctrine of Righteousness by Faith?” Jan. 30, 1931; C. McReynolds, “Experience While at the General Conference in Minneapolis, Minn. in 1888,” n.d., 1931; all in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis 1888, 333-342. 

N. F. Pease, “Justification and Righteousness by Faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church Before 1900” (unpublishedmaster’s thesis, 1945); L. H. Christian, The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1947); A. W. Spalding, Captains of the Host (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1949). 

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, “First General Conference Committee Report,” Dec. 4, 1951, in A. L. Hudson, A Warning and its Reception (privately published., n.d.); General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The Story of Our Church (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1956); General Conference of Seventh-dayAdventists, “Further Appraisal of the Manuscript ‘1888 Re-Examined,’” Sept. 1958, in A. L. Hudson, A Warning and its Reception (privately published., n.d.). 

A. W. Spalding, Origin and History of Seventh-day Adventists (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1962); N. F. Pease, By Faith Alone (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1962); A. V. Olson, Through Crisis to Victory 1888-1901 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1966); N. F. Pease, The Faith That Saves (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1969). 

Leroy E. Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1971); Desmond Ford, The Doctrinal Decline of Dr. E. J. Waggoner: Its Relationship to the Omega Apostasy, (located at Adventist Heritage Center, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, 1970s); 

Bert Haloviak, “Ellen White and A. T. Jones at Ottawa, 1889: Diverging Paths from Minneapolis,” (Archives of theGeneral Conference Seventh-day Adventists, Washington, D.C., 1981); A. L. White, Ellen G. White: The Lonely Years (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1984); George R. Knight, From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A. T. Jones (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1987); Arthur J. Ferch, Ed., Towards Righteousness by Faith: 1888 in Retrospect (New South Wales: South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists, 1989); George R. Knight, Angry Saints: The Frightening Possibility of Being Adventist Without Being Christian (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1989). 

Roy Adams, The Nature of Christ: Help For a Church Divided Over Perfection (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1994); Woodrow W. Whidden, Ellen White on Salvation (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1995); George R. Knight, A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1998). 

George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2000); Woodrow W. Whidden, E. J. Waggoner: From the Physician of Good News to Agent of Division (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2008). 

11. Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings, 333. 

12. Ibid., 410, emphasis supplied. 

13. Ibid., 569, 570, emphasis supplied. 

14. Ibid., 629, 630, emphasis supplied. 

15. Ibid., 665, 666, emphasis supplied. 

16. Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, 104. It should be of interest to note that while Zacharias, John the Baptist’s father, was fulfilling his week-long course of service in the temple at Jerusalem at the time of the birth announcement, “it wasthe duty of the priest in this service to pray for the pardon of public and national sins, and for the coming of theMessiah” (Ibid., 99). Also of interest is the fact that Zacharias was the descendant of Abijah the priest, who hadparticipated in the services under Nehemiah when the inhabitants of Jerusalem had gathered to repent for their sins andthe sins of their fathers (Luke 1:5; Nehemiah 10:1, 26; 12:4). 

17. Writing of the destruction of Jerusalem, Ellen White makes the following statement about sins of the fathers: “Thechildren were not condemned for the sins of the parents; but when, with a knowledge of all the light given to theirparents, the children rejected the additional light granted to themselves, they became partakers of the parents’ sins, andfilled up the measure of their iniquity” (The Great Controversy, 28). 

18. Mark A. Kellner and Elizabeth Lechleitner, “Adventist Leaders Hear Fresh Perspectives on Adventist Church History,” Adventist World, June 2013, 6, 7. 

19. Ellen G. White to Brethren of the General Conference, Letter 32, Dec. 19, 1892; in “Council Meeting,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 29, 1893, 24.