HOW CAN IT BE? by Donald K. Short Is it possible for two persons to look at the same clock at the same time and then proclaim completely different hours of the day? Can two guests at a banquet sit beside each other and eat the same food but then deny they had the same menu? We as a people, Seventh-day Adventists, have been taken into this kind of quandary. How can it be? Our problem is all too much like the dilemma the Jews face. Messiah did come as foretold in the Old Testament. Notwithstanding New Testament evidence and history, the orthodox Jew says, "No, we continue to look for Messiah to come." There is in Seventh-day Adventist history a record that sets forth plainly our past experience, yet we say, "No, the record does not mean what it says." Why do the Jews deny all the evidence? Why do we not only refuse the evidence but reject what the Lord says about the evidence? This brings forth from the True Witness His pleadingly sad call, "Thou... knowest not... .Be zealous therefore and repent." How can it be? For nearly one hundred years following the Minneapolis General Conference session, our beloved Seventhday Adventist church has been on a strange detour. This detour has grown out of a rejection of truth as surely as the ancient Israelites wandered forty years in the wilderness because they accepted an "evil report." So it has been with us. How can it be?

How Can It BeA "False Report"? The thoughtful account of the 1888 General Conference session made in 1926 by A. G. Daniells in his book, Christ Our Righteousness, makes clear that "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."1 His book came to a generation of Adventists passing off the scene from among those who had witnessed the beginning rays of light in the "most precious message" God sent to His people in 1888.2 By 1926 there had been thirty-seven years of history wherein "resisting light and cherishing the spirit of opposition"3 had become an unconscious condition. Daniells’ book had been preceded by Testimonies to Ministers published in 1923. If we had nothing else in print, this first edition would make it clear that something terrible happened at Minneapolis. There are pages regarding "the spirit which ran riot at Minneapolis," a "satanic work" begun there.4 "The true religion, the only religion of the Bible, that teaches forgiveness only through the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour, that advocates righteousness by the faith of the Son of God, has been slighted, spoken against, ridiculed, and rejected."5 At this date the 1923 edition of Testimonies to Ministers is very scarce. This was followed by the 1944 edition, but this too, after forty years, is in the hands of comparatively few members. And then came the 1962 edition! The bold attempt to pre-condition the reader in this 1962 edition can only be appreciated by a careful comparison with the two previous editions. This 1962 edition endeavors to bend Adventist history to suit a manmade theory. There is a five-page preface plus a "Historical Forward" of twenty-two pages, and an "Appendix" of fourteen pages having over forty separate entries. None of these "helps" are found in the two previous editions. Why should this edition need such? The preface says: "These notes will aid the reader in ascertaining correctly the intent of the author in the messages here presented."6 Does the Lord need additional notes to make plain the messages He sends through His servant? A careful study of the "notes" to "aid the reader" makes it clear that this is indeed one purpose or intent of the forty-one extra pages in this 1962 edition, to pre-condition and to promote the idea that the Lord’s messenger did not really mean what she said. Thus we are now led to believe when she said the message was "slighted, spoken against, ridiculed, and rejected," actually it was accepted! Yet the "Historical Forward" says: "It is not the work of the custodians of the Ellen G. White writings to explain or interpret the counsels which have been given." How can it be?

How Can a "Vote" Make Truth or Error? In three major books published since 1962 the proposal is (3).made that there could have been no rejection of light in 1888 because there was no committee action, no vote to reject. The "Historical Forward" says: "No action was taken on the Biblical questions discussed."7 In 1966, Through Crisis to Victory, 1888-1901, was published. The entire book makes the tragedy of 1888 appear as a "victory"; the message was supposedly "accepted." In support of this theory, the statement is made

1

early in the book, "No action whatever was taken by vote of the delegates to accept or to reject it."8 This must be important in trying to build the "victory" theory. We now have two assertions of "no-vote." Early in 1971, an "unprecedented" volume was published. "There is nothing like it in all our annals-or any other annals for that matter."9 The credentials of the book, Movement of Destiny, are without parallel in our history. The book professes to have been "initiated and commissioned by former General Conference President A.G. Daniells back In 1930; as the search went on it was approved by five General Conference presidents in succession, and many consultants. Its realization was made possible by the contribution of hundreds of priceless documents from individual and institutional donors, archivists, librarians, and collectors, as well as by the affidavits of actual participants in the 1888 Minneapolis Conference, and rare documents from descendants of pioneers."10 Finally, the manuscript "was read critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars-specialists in denominational history and Adventist theology... .Doubtless no volume in our history has ever had such magnificent prepublication support."11 Much courage would be required to question this dazzling array of scholarship. Nevertheless there are theological distortions presented in the work which require separate careful study and exposure. The thesis of the book will not bear analysis. And the thesis is-"1888 was not a point of defeat but a turn in the tide for ultimate victory."12 Thus to try to find some support for this premise, the "no vote" syndrome is again presented. Accordingly a fourteen-point summation is made beginning on page 370. The "leadership in particular, did not reject the message and provisions of Righteousness by Faith in and following 1888."13 And then: "No vote was taken by the delegate leadership, at Minneapolis, rejecting the teaching of Righteousness by Faith. Indeed, no Conference vote of any kind was taken on the issue."14 Then follow thirteen further rationalizations, all to try to sustain that which historical records will not support. Actually this is the second reference in the book to "no vote." Beginning on page 221 there is an array of words and phrases from the pen of Ellen White. The reference sources are not given. This continues for twelve pages-over one-hundred fragmentary quotes-single words, two words, three words, phrases, half-sentences, leaving out vital meaningful portions, omitting contextual sentences which would demolish the entire "victory" theory.15 This comes to the summation on page 233: "No vote on Righteousness by Faith was taken."16 Could a "vote" have any spiritual significance in preparing a people for the final atonement? Could a vote send or withhold the Latter Rain? Will a vote have anything to do with the Bride making herself ready for the ultimate second coming of Christ? The fact is that in the spiritual blindness which prevailed at the 1888 conference a vote was taken. This will be documented. But there is a further record which must be considered first. Following a lapse of about thirteen years since the publication of Movement of Destiny, yet another volume was published which contains much about the 1888 session. Volume three of the six-volume biography of Ellen G. White, released in 1984 is entitled, The Lonely Years, 1876-1891. In the chapter, "Potential of the 1888 Session," pages 385-397, there are fourteen "Points Worthy of Note." These are to support the premise that the idea of rejection is "without foundation and was not projected until forty years after the Minneapolis meeting." Furthermore, "contemporary records yield no suggestion of denominational rejection. There is no E.G. White statement anywhere that says this was so."17 Point number seven of the fourteen reiterates the position of 1962: "No official action was taken in regard to the theological questions discussed."18 This makes five published statements of "no vote." What do the contemporary historical records actually say?

"Rejection"How Can It Be? First it must be noted that the General Conference Session in 1893 recognized that there had been a rejection of the message at Minneapolis. The General Conference Bulletin of 1893 presents a solemn review of 1888. A. T. Jones gave a series of twenty-four studies on the "Third Angel’s Mes-sage." When he reached the ninth study he reviewed the historical stand that had been taken by the session in 1888. After drawing lessons from the second chapter of Joel, he goes into dialogue with the delegates and congregation present: "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

2

The speaker proceeded by quoting from what he called the Testimony, that is, Ellen White: "God has committed to his servants a message for this time; but this message does not in every particular coincide with the ideas of all the leading men, and some criticize the message and the messengers. They dare even reject the words of reproof sent to them from God through his Holy Spirit."20 Not only the delegates, not only the speaker, but Ellen White also confirms this rejection. The speaker then adds, "The time has come to take up to-night what we there rejected."21 He continued to refer to Minneapolis and Ellen White’s appraisal of the bitter fruits that followed. He pointed out that at a subsequent meeting many present at this session had "heard the Spirit of God reprove and rebuke in open words the Minneapolis spirit... and said plainly it was ‘the spirit of Satan.’"22 When the General Conference delegates of that generation in session publicly declare "we" rejected the latter rain and loud cry at Minneapolis in 1888, how dare we at this date deny their testimony?

How Can It BeThere Was a Vote? Our understanding of history must be based upon written records, and it the written contemporary records of the church in the 1888 era which portray the rejection and tragic loss. In the series of studies that A.T. Jones gave at the 1893 General Conference session, there are numerous references to Minneapolis. In his eleventh study he and the delegates carry on a meaningful dialogue regarding the latter rain and loud cry. The speaker points out the peril of not distinguishing between the true righteousness of Christ and heathen or papal concepts: "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, and can be read again in Bulletin No. 7, p. 183. I do not know that we can state it any more clearly than we did that night. "Now, that message of the righteousness of Christ is the loud cry. It is the latter rain."23 He proceeds then to show the confusion that had existed and the poor discernment that seemed prevalent: "Some of these brethren, since the Minneapolis meeting, I have heard, myself, say ‘amen’ to preaching, to statements that were utterly heathen, and did not know but that it was the righteousness of Christ. Some of those who stood so openly against that at that time, and voted with uplifted hand against it, and since that time I have heard say ‘amen’ to statements that were as openly and decidedly papal as the papal church itself can state them."24 Here is specific reference to a "vote," and it deals clearly with the essence of the 1888 session, "the righteousness of Christ." But this is only the first public acknowledgment of such a vote. In the next study the speaker continues to enlarge the subject of the whole series. He points out that, "to have the righteousness of God--which is the latter rain, which is the preparation for the loud cry," requires that we have the mind of Christ.25 The peril of confusion is emphasized by drawing twelve to fifteen comparisons between papal theology and the truth presented in Steps to Christ. One is man-made, the other heaven-inspired. The speaker again presses home the danger of the attempt to stifle the message and seal the wrong concepts with a "vote." Read prayerfully:"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 the subscription to it is just that kind of faith. And there are people here who remember a time-four years ago; and a place-Minneapoliswhen 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 passed off as justification by faith."26 Time: 1888. Place: Minneapolis. Action: Not once, not twice, but "three direct efforts" to get a negative "vote" by the General Conference regarding "justification by faith."

How Can It BeThe Attempt Failed! After three direct attempts to get a negative vote, why did the effort fail and nothing get recorded in the minutes? The answer is clear. The Lord’s messenger was there. She had a direct message from Heaven. Discern carefully what the speaker said in his very next sentence: "Were we not told at that time that the angel of God said, ‘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

3

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."27 "The angel said, ‘Do not take that step.’" What terrible presumption for mortal man to say there was "no vote." The attitude of rejection was determined; there was every intention of recording a vote! Only Ellen White saved "us" from such a suicidal action. But even this is not all that we need to understand, for it is not the whole picture!

How Can It BeA Vote Against the Lord’s Messenger The atmosphere of "the tug of war" at this historic conference grieved the heart of Ellen White. She reached the place where she proposed to leave the session, but I it was not to be. The "spirit of contempt and unkindness and want of love" brought fear to her heart. It was then that Heaven intervened and she could not do that which she proposed personally. The Lord had other plans: "When I proposed to leave Minneapolis, the Angel of the Lord stood by me and said: ‘Not so: God has a work for you to do in this place. The people are acting over the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. I have placed you in your proper position, which those who are not in the light will not acknowledge; they will not heed your testimony; but I will be with you; My grace and power shall sustain you. It is not you they are despising, but the messengers and the message I sent to My people. They have shown contempt for the word of the Lord. Satan has blinded their eyes and perverted their judgment; and unless every soul shall repent of this their sin, this unsanctified independence that is doing insult to the Spirit of God, they will walk in darkness.’"28 When the records of this meeting are read for all they say, it is not difficult to see why Ellen White had a desire to leave. The brethren were openly opposing her. She frankly says: "When men in high positions of trust will, when under pressure, say that Sister White is influenced by any human being, they certainly have no more use for messages that come from such a source. This was freely spoken at the Minneapolis meeting... .Why were not these men who know these things, afraid to lift their hand against me and my work?... Hearts …were padlocked by prejudice and unbelief... .I must go away and see what the Lord has for me to do elsewhere."29 The full implications of these two different statements of Ellen White do not appear on the surface. But she knew where she stood and had every reason to ask "why" this opposition to "lift their hand" in vote against me. She was constrained to stay there through the entire meeting, for the "Angel of the Lord" had spoken. At the beginning of the institute before the session proper opened, she was taken to task by the General Conference president in a thirty-nine page letter. This extraordinary letter she called "a most curious production of accusations and charges against me."30 This information she sent to Mary, wife of W.C. White, on October 12 only two days after the opening day of the institute. Twenty-three days later as the meeting closed on November 4, she again wrote to Mary. This letter is a revealing brief account of the entire session. It must be noted at length for it not only summarizes the "tug of war" and "emergency" that prevailed, but it confirms that which our historians denied. There were attempts to get a "vote." Note her testimony: "This has been a most laborious meeting, for Willie and I have had to watch at every point lest there should be moves made, resolutions passed, that would prove detrimental to the future work... .My courage and faith have been good and have not failed me, notwithstanding we have had the hardest and most incomprehensible tug of war we have ever had among our people. The matter can not be explained by pen unless I should write many, many pages. …We are determined to do all we can in the fear of God to help our people in this emergency. "A sick man’s mind has had a controlling power over the General Conference Committee and the ministers have been the shadow and echo of Elder Butler about as long as it is healthy and for the good of the cause. Envy, evil surmisings, jealousies have been working like leaven until the whole lump seemed to be leavened... .I am grateful to God for the strength and freedom and power of His Spirit in bearing my testimony although it has made the least impression upon many minds than at any period before in my history. Satan has seemed to have power to hinder my work in a wonderful degree, but I tremble to think what would have been in this meeting if we had not been here."31 This letter to a member of the family is unique. Can we appreciate the full meaning of having "to watch at every point lest there should be moves made, resolutions passed, that would prove detrimental to the future work"? "Resolutions" are passed by a vote! The evidence indicates clearly that negative actions detrimental to the work were taken, voted, but Ellen White intervened and by a "most incomprehensible tug of war" overcame the "emergency" and refused to let the resolutions be recorded. The last sermon Ellen White gave at the session shows her concern about the "vote" endeavor. She calls it making a "decision"; her meaning is clear. A negative vote would have been recorded had she not intervened: "There are some who desire to have a decision made at once as to which is the correct view on the point under discussion. As this would please Elder B(utler), it is advised that this question be settled at once. But are minds prepared for such a decision? I could not sanction this course, because our brethren are exercised by a spirit which moves the feelings, and stirs their impulses, so

4

as to control their judgment. While under so much excitement as now exists, they are not prepared to make safe decisions... .The messages coming from your president at Battle Creek are calculated to stir you up to make hasty decisions and to take decided positions; but I warn you against doing this... .It is perilous to make decisions upon any controverted point without dispassionately considering all sides of the question."32 Many years later the proceedings of the session were reviewed in public. One to whom Ellen White had often referred to as a "messenger" with a "most precious message" sent by the Lord made a lengthy presentation to the Sanitarium Sabbath School in Battle Creek, July 20, 1907. The burden of his talk was the confusion in the denomination concerning righteousness by works and righteous "which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Phil. 3:9.) A.T. Jones made an earnest plea for a correct understanding. This was many years after the "confessions" had been made by leading brethren and supposedly "the enemy was defeated."33 This untenable assumption is fully exposed by Jones who was, of course, one of the chief speakers at the- 1888 session. He was a delegate; he was an "eyewitness." His words should have significance: "Twenty years ago God sent to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination the message of the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to deliver them from any appearance of liability to the charge of legalism. This righteousness of God, which is by faith, was then treated with contempt by the ‘administration’ of the ‘organized work of the denomination.’ By the then president of the General Conference it was flouted as ‘the much-vaunted doctrine of justification by faith.’ At Minneapolis, in 1888, the General Conference ‘administration’ did its very best to have the denomination committed by a vote of the General Conference to the covenant of ‘Obey and Live,’ to righteousness by works. The attempt failed then; but from that day to this, that spirit and that element have never ceased that endeavor; though when they found that they could not accomplish it just then, they apparently and professedly accepted righteousness by faith. But they never did accept it in the truth that it is. They never did accept it as life and righteousness from God; but only as a ‘doctrine’ to be put in a list or strung on a string with ‘other doctrines,’ and preached as a ‘subject’ with other ‘doctrinal subjects.’"34 Can modern Israel read this admonition for just what it says? ---------No amount of denial can change the historical records of the denomination. The incomprehensible part of this sad experience is that we continue to make light of the rejection and "dare even reject the words of reproof sent... from God through his Holy Spirit."35 Why do we ignore the definite assessment given to us by the Lord’s messenger when she says, "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."36 "Instructed" by the Lord-this appraisal of the "terrible experience" at Minneapolis was given to the church fourteen years after the session. But in spite of such unequivocal statements we continue to publish rationalizations trying to contradict the 1888 contemporary records.37 We refuse to acknowledge the disaster by such words as, "In 1888 the direction of the Adventist Church took an upward turn at the Minneapolis ministerial pre-session."38 There is no way that the Minneapolis event can be termed an "upward turn." The Lord’s appraisal is, "Sometime it will be seen in its true bearing with all the burden of woe that has resulted from it."39 It was an immeasurable loss then, but the "woe that has resulted" continues to plague God’s modern Israel.

How Can It Be-"So What?" There is an increasing number of Adventists who are discerning somewhat of our sad history. It is more than thirty years since the manuscript 1888 Re-Examined was prepared and presented to the highest body of the denomination. The document prepared in 1950 gives a record of the 1888 General Conference session with hundreds of Ellen White statements, points out our tremendous need to reconsider our history and to measure carefully what the Lord wanted to do for His people at that time. Condemnations of the treatise have been ample.40 The need remains to this day to consider what the manuscript actually says. In the decades since 1950 the treatise has gone around the world. For many who read it for the first time a new day dawns. Suddenly they understand why they are Seventh-day Adventists. They see the detour which the church now . travels. Their whole experience becomes living and meaningful! Others prefer to ignore the real content and dismiss the document as "critical." This is the "official" view which accounts for the hundreds of pages written in books opposing the historical fact of "rejection."41 There are other serious, sincere Adventists who recognize that something is thwarting the divine plan but are confused as to why an event of nearly a century ago can have anything to do with the church today. They consider the whole thing as a squabble among the brethren many years ago which is not relevant to us today. "So what!"

How Can It BeIs Sacred History Relevant? 5

Does the fact that the crucifixion took place nearly two thousand years ago diminish the seriousness and importance of the event? Does the fact that the Jews so despise the mention of Christ they will not use the abbreviation "B.C." and substitute "b.c.e." which stands for "Before Common Era"-does this really change the historical fact of the cross? But if you cannot use "B.C." neither can you use "A.D." and so this becomes "c.e." which stands for "Common Era."42 Does this manipulation in any way affect the true history of the cross? For the Christian it is the event of the cross which is all-important though it happened two thousand years ago. It has for all these centuries continued to melt human hearts and separate Christians from the rest of the world. By the same token the Minneapolis disaster of nearly a century ago holds modern-day relevance for Adventists that has not yet been fully understood or appreciated. The rejection of the "beginning of the Latter Rain" at and after 1888 must be seen for what it really is-an insult to the Holy Spirit. Time alone can never cancel an insult. Common ethics demands that an insult be acknowledged and that forgiveness be sought. As long as the insult is denied there is no way for reconciliation to take place. Thus the 1888 event continues as an insult to Deity and no matter how many prayers there are for the Latter Rain, there is no way Heaven can accomodate the prayers until the insult is acknowledged and repentance is genuine. Thus our confusing man-made detour continues.

How Can It BeDoes Time Erase Sin? Can a murderer be acquitted this year because the murder was committed last year? Can the people of God be absolved for the misrepresentations, the twisted published records, the cover-up of our own history simply because the sin is a hundred years old? No sin of the past is canceled by the lapse of time. Rather until it is repented of, it is repeated. Our sin of 1888 is not lessened because it happened a century ago. Neither will the denial of the sin change our responsibility any more than the sin of Calvary is canceled by the Jew’s denial that it ever happened. Oh, modern Israel, God’s people in these last days, how long before we shall see and know our sin and trespass so that the cleansing of the sanctuary can be completed and the atonement fully accomplished? How can it be we are so blind? January 1985

REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

A. G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness, p. 47, 1941 edition. TM 91, 92. Written in 1895, this entire chapter, "Rejecting the Light" gives a historical picture of great significance and makes the point there was "stubborn resistance of light and evidence." TM 96. TM 76, 80. TM 468. TM xi. TM xxiv. A.V. Olson, Through Crisis to Victory, p. 36. L.E. Froom, The Fascinating Story of MOVEMENT OF DESTINY, p. 3; a pre-publication brochure issued at the 1970 General Conference Session. L.E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 8. Ibid. Ibid. p. 187. The untenable "evidence" presented in this work is considered at length in The Mystery of 1888, compiled in 1974. Ibid., p. 370, emphasis in original. Ibid. As an example: On page 231 from E.G. White sermon November 1, 1888, "That which has been presented harmonizes with the light which God has been pleased to give to me during all the years of my experience." The very next sentence not quoted reads: "If our ministering brethren would accept the doctrine which has been presented so clearly-the righteousness of Christ in connection with the law-and I know they need to accept this, their prejudices would not have a controlling power, and the people would be fed with their portion of meat in due season." (Italics were not used in original.) Numerous examples could be listed; flagrant cover-up. For authentic E.G. White viewpoint see Through Crisis to Victory, Appendix A, pp. 246-302, wherein her session sermons are recorded. Movement of Destiny, p. 233. A.L. White, The Lonely Years, p. 396. For an analysis of this pronouncement see: 1984 Appendix, A Document Update on the Treatise, The Mystery of 1888. Ibid., pp. 395, 396. G.C. Bulletin, 1893, p. 183, emphasis in original. Ibid. Ibid.

6

22. Ibid., p. 184. 23. Ibid., p. 243. Note: The cross reference here made by A.T. Jones to a previous G.C. Bulletin, has already been cited above under reference No. 19. The historical significance of this is very great. 24. Ibid., p. 244. 25. Ibid., p. 257. 26. Ibid., p. 265. 27. Ibid., p. 265, emphasis in original. 28. The Lonely Years, p. 406, quoting Letter 2a, 1892. 29. Manuscript Release #961, pp. 25, 26. (Ms. 24, 1888.) Note: This portion was deleted from the published letter in Selected Messages, Book Three, pp. 163-177. 30. The Lonely Years, p. 392, quoting Letter 81, 1888, written to her daughter-in-law Mary, wife of W.C. White. 31. Movement of Destiny, pp. 673, 674, quoting Letter 82, 1888. Note: This is the only E.G.W. exhibit in the entire book which was "unobtainable elsewhere." 32. Through Crisis to Victory, p. 295, Manuscript 15, 1888 (Nov. 1, 1888). 33. Ibid., p. 113. 34. A.T. Jones, "The Everlasting Gospel of God’s Everlasting Covenant." Remarks made by Alonzo T. Jones in the Battle Creek Sanitarium Sabbath School, July 20, 1907, p. Published in a 40 pp. leaflet, R.0. Eastman, Sales Mgr., Battle Creek, Mich., n.d. 35. G.C. Bulletin, 1893, p. 183. 36. Letter 179, 1902. 37. See: N.F. Pease, By Faith Alone (1962); A.V. Olson, Through Crisis to Victory (1966); L.E. Froom, Movement of Destiny (1971); A.L. White, The Lonely Years, 1876-1891, pp. 385-415, all of which is to try to surround the Minneapolis event with an aura contrary to historical facts. 38. Ministry, November 1984, p. 22. 39. G.C. Bulletin, 1893, p. 184. 40. See: Further Appraisal of the Manuscript "1888 Re-Examined"; a report prepared in 1958 by a committee appointed by the Officers of the General Conference. 41. See reference 37 above for a list of books. 42. The New Jewish Encyclopedia; (New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1976), p. XII.

7