A Church Current Events Paper

In recent years Seventh-day Adventists have increasingly seen the symbolic pictures of three angels winging their way through the heavens. These stylized heavenly messengers are to be found on letterheads, in stained glass windows, as publication logos, and even as beautiful plaques on church walls. The significance of all this is far greater than the imagery presented to the eye. Originally these angels were portrayed by none other than the True Witness, the Lord Jesus Himself. As He spoke, the Seer of Patmos must have been filled with awe as he saw these three messengers doing a work never before attempted!

But more than this. These three angels of Revelation 14 were seen in their glorious work after John had described a dreadful beast and his destructive work. John could have been dismayed with this terrible scene but with all the deceit and the intent to kill as displayed by the beast, John saw also a group of people gathered out, unique in all history. Here they were, "an hundred and forty and four thousand," standing with the Lamb, having an understanding exceeding all others, a redeemed people, "and in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."

For Seventh-day Adventists, it is imperative to see and understand far more than the angelic symbols published in recent years. It is the message these heavenly ambassadors bring that has life- and-death consequences. If the final truth for a dying world is to be found in the proclamation of these angels, we may then well ask just how much does the nominal Seventh-day Adventist know of this end-time message? This question must be asked in the setting of’ current denominational history.

1888, And Then How Many More Centuries?

For nearly one hundred years our church has been content to proclaim officially that the 1888 message was not rejected. Three different books, totaling over a thousand pages, have been approved and published in recent years to support this premise.1 This stance, this proclamation, makes us feel good--all is well in Israel. Just a little more time, contract for some more radio and TV stations, increase the medical work, sharpen our image, provide better training, earn more degrees, use better methods, learn from others how to have a caring, growing church, baptize more—even a thousand a day, and surely the Lord will come! If the premise is right this has to be the right answer to our present dilemma. But the problem is: history will not support the premise, and no amount of genius or pure logic will bring a right conclusion when the premise is false. And so we come to the question: what connection is there between the message of justification and righteousness by faith as sent to us in 1888, and the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14? The Lord would have His people know and has given them the answer.

To find the answer, we need do only a little research into our history. In our church paper, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Ellen White spoke very plainly in the years following 1888. She talked of "precious light," and of the burden on her heart, and she was painfully frank in stating the failures of the leadership at the session. She does not hesitate to use strong words—"reject," "rejecting messages of light," "older brethren … do not accept the message," "these men who refuse to receive truth, interpose themselves between the people and the light."2

It was not long after the ’88 session that the field began to know what had happened at Minneapolis. In the Review of April 1, 1890, Ellen White made the well-known statement, "Several have written me, inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel’s message, and I have answered, ‘It is the third angel’s message in verity.’ … Brightness, glory, and power are to be connected with the third angel’s message, conviction will follow wherever it is preached in demonstration of the Spirit."3

As time went on, the Lord’s messenger continued to be deeply concerned about the loss sustained by God’s people. The next month the Review of May 27, 1890 carried further emphatic pronouncements about the message and the messengers and how "men of influence" close their hearts in opposition to what God has said. Should anyone dare to insert into the church press of today the stinging rebukes used by God’s servant at that time, there would be an immediate outcry—"critical, judgmental." But Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword, and the church today needs to know the whole truth no matter how cutting it may be. A portion of the rebuke must be noted:

"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 criticise the men. … They have too much zeal, a re 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; for just in proportion as men of influence close their own hearts and set their own will in opposition to what God has said, will they seek to take away the ray of light from those who have been longing and praying for light… Christ has registered all the hard, proud, sneering speeches spoken against his servants as against himself."4

How many of God’s people today know this sad era of our history? If it was only an event in time it would be bad enough. But the great final call to the world has been hindered and has failed in its appointed power because of the closed hearts of that day. The Lord’s messenger says so!

We need today to consider well the continuing rebuke in this same issue of the Review. There is specific reference to the crippling influence of the rejecters of truth:

"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. … God holds you to whom this light has come, responsible for the use you make of it."5

The quotation could go on. Clearly it states that those who will not hear will be held responsible, "they have despised their opportunities." Again, a few weeks later in the issues of August 19 and 26, specific reference is made to Minneapolis. The Lord’s messenger says that since that meeting the state of the Laodicean church was seen in a new way. Those who resisted the messages were at variance with God. If they could see their need and confess their sin of refusing the light of heaven they would "forsake the sin that grieved and insulted the Spirit of the Lord."6

If it is true that the Spirit of the Lord was grieved and "insulted," what must we do today? Are we only to hope the Lord will forget it? Shall we rely on the oft repeated assurance, "there was no rejection," notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary? Perhaps now after nearly a century we can write the matter off—we all know the Lord is very merciful!

On the other hand, can time ever erase an insult? We stand nearly twenty centuries this side of Calvary. Can this lapse of time alter in any way the significance of the cross? The enormity of the deed is such that no matter when the Lord returns, those "which pierced him" will be there and "wail because of him."7 If justice remembers and demands this after 2000 years, then surely there is no way to escape facing our "insult" to the Lord in the person of His Holy Spirit which took place in our day!

Common sense tells us that even among mortal men, insults can be put right in only one way. That way is to acknowledge, confess and ask for forgiveness. If our insult was important enough to record in the history of our church, surely it must be worth every honest effort to make right. To perpetuate this "insult" to the Holy Spirit is to deny the power of the gospel and ignore the True Witness who gave us the Three Angels’ Messages.

A study of the church paper during this time brings to view scores of strong rebukes which the Lord’s messenger made regarding the tragic failure. Here are some of them: "unbelief," "walking in darkness," "refuse to accept," "rejection of light," "pervert the truth," "influence against the message," "wrong positions," "make no confession;" and all these terribly serious words refer to "men in responsible positions," "men in the highest positions," "positions of trust." In agony of soul, let us weep for modern Israel, as we come to see God’s appraisal of His leaders!

As the year 1890 drew to a close, Ellen White could hardly contain herself and exclaimed:

"Consider your words, your attitude, you whose influence has counteracted the message of the Spirit of God, you that have despised the message and the messenger. … You have been deceiving yourselves and deceiving others, and the Holy Spirit will never by its work or witness make God a liar. Away with your quibbling and caviling! Say not with a smile, ‘It is not expected that any man can be perfect;’ that you do not claim to be inspired. This is a pitiable mask. What is the need of the Holy Spirit, if it teaches you only what your finite judgment already assents to?"8

It was difficult to endure this kind of censorship. Thus it was early in 1891, the twenty-ninth session of the General Conference met in Battle Creek and found a way of relief. Invite Sister White to go to Australia—soon, by fall of the year if possible, if she agrees and if she has light on the matter. Light on the matter she did not have, and emphatically said so. She was anxious and troubled about the whole idea. Go to Australia? She could not understand. There was one thing, however, that she did understand. The responsible brethren were very persistent that she go.9 Indeed, this might free them to a degree from her surveillance, if she was on the other side of the world. Notwithstanding the flattery used to persuade her, she still was in doubt up to only one month before she finally sailed on the 12th of November, 1891. Two weeks after sailing out of San Francisco, on November 26th, the Lord’s servant had her 64^th birthday. Who could know it would be nine years before she returned to America? Had she known would she have made the journey?

After living in Australia five years, she stated positively, "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."10 If the Lord did not plan this, how did it happen? She says it was the imaginings of the brethren, lacking "spiritual perception." The Lord really wanted His messenger in Battle Creek to stand up for truth in the 1888 issues. But He "permitted this thing to take place."

Notwithstanding Ellen White was on the other side of the world, her counsel was not silenced. In 1892 she stated clearly the potential of the 1888 message of the third angel: "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."11

This message was only the "beginning" but our history tells us that we "rejected" that beginning of the latter rain and loud cry. This should cause us to understand the reason the earth has not yet been filled with the glory of the message, nor yet heard the "loud cry" in verity. But let Ellen White confirm this by a statement written in 1896, nearly eight years after the notable session:

"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, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world."12

Is there some way to get our beloved church leadership and all of us to accept what the Lord is saying to us in this passage? If we had no other history of the 1888 event, this would tell us very much. It was the Lord’s message that was sent and not accepted. This shut away from our people the latter rain, and the world has not yet had the light it must have. But this is all sad history—what about today? Can the pattern of nearly one hundred years be changed? Can we see why the "latter rain" has been but a drizzle, and the "loud cry" but a whisper?

What About Today?

It was the former General Conference president, Elder A.G. Daniells, who in a very special way began to bring back before the church the truth of the generation before. Every church member should read his book, Christ Our Righteousness. He is emphatic about our loss, and one statement among many similar statements is specific: "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."13 This understanding and this tone of concern is repeatedly presented.

His book published in 1926 began to create some uneasiness in the field. And well it might if words and history have any meaning. In 1937, a query from the field to the Ellen G. White Estate asked for a statement of Mrs. White which would indicate that the 1888 message "was not rejected by the denomination."14 The only honest answer which could be given was, "We do not have any definite clear-cut statement from Sister White to the effect that the message was not rejected."15 From that point on and within that very letter itself, there has been over the years, and there continues to be, a concerted effort to cover-up, to ignore the written historical record and to label a horrible defeat as a grand victory. To show the fallacy and deception of such a course it must be noted that Ellen White in 1899, eleven years after the session, was still talking of the "stubborn defiance," the "disunion and rejection of light,"16 that prevailed following Minneapolis. The crucial time of our day demands that one further reference be noted. Fourteen years after the decisive event, the Lord’s messenger said in 1902, "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."17

It would seem to be very clear that the ’88 experience was for Adventists as great a tragedy as Kadesh-Barnea was for the children of Israel. But they wandered only forty years whereas we have been in the wilderness for nearly a century. And we are still there!

The most recent reason for our sad journey is brought to us by the most recent refusal to accept our history. This year [1984] there was published the third volume of the biography of Ellen G. White, The Lonely Years, 1876 to 1891. In this is to be found one of the most firm denials of Adventist history that has yet been made.18 On pages 394 to 397 there are listed fourteen points to condition the reader to accept an inaccurate viewpoint of our history. These fourteen points will in time undoubtedly prove to be a great embarrassment. Three items will be considered briefly here.

In paragraph six, page 395, the statement is made, "The information concerning just what took place at Minneapolis in the way of theological discussions has come largely from E.G. White documents and memory statements of a few who were present."19 This is very true, not only regarding the "theological discussions," but the whole history and rebellious attitude manifested at the conference and in the years following are delineated in her writings as in no other place. It is astonishing how these [E.G. White] documents are not accepted for what they say! This refusal is the reason the rebellion has been authoritatively called an "insult" to the Holy Spirit.

Paragraph seven refers to the oft-mentioned technical point, made in previous publications, "No vote was taken by the delegate leadership, … rejecting the teaching."20 The statement is now made, "No official action was taken in regard to the theological questions discussed."21 In fairness it must be noted that neither was there an action taken to accept the teaching. The fact is, "the Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people …"22 and no amount of discussion nor any committee action can change this. But the truth is, a vote was taken and the General Conference Bulletin of 1893 says so and records the fact in these words: "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 I have heard say ‘amen’ to statements that were as openly and decidedly papal as the papal church itself can state them." From this and the historical Ellen G. White records it seems clear that a vote was taken!23 The fact that it did not get into the minutes (Ellen White would not permit it) does not change the principle nor the open stand against the message.

Paragraph eight of the fourteen points, is the heart of the official denial of our history. It must be quoted in full:

"The concept that the General Conference, and thus the denomination, rejected the message of righteousness by faith in 1888 is without foundation and was not projected until forty years after the Minneapolis metting, and thirteen years after Ellen White’s death. Contemporary records yield no suggestion of denominational rejection. There is no E. G. White statement anywhere that says this was so. The concept of such rejection has been put forward by individuals, none of whom were present at Minneapolis, and in the face of the witnesses of responsible men who were there."24

It is inconceivable that all that Ellen White has said about this event and its terrible aftermath ca n be cast aside as a"concept … without foundation." Was God’s messenger simply playing games when she made the terrible pronouncements—"rejection of light," "unbelief," "refuse to accept," "wrong positions," by "men in the highest positions," and all this for a period of many years? Futhermore, there was no lapse of forty years before the matter was dramatically presented to the leading brethren—the General Conference. Proof of this is more than ample in the published records, to say nothing of those which are unpublished. As already documented herein, the matter was in focus during the session and following the session for up to at least fourteen years.

And then the contemporary records: It is decidedly these that prove the truth of the whole history of rejection. That these records were ignored until the next generation does not in any way alter nor invalidate them. And to say that E.G. White makes "no statement anywhere that says this was so," that is, that there was a "rejection ," is utterly to disregard the hundreds of her statements concerning the great crisis. What can Heaven do with a people so determined to distort truth?

And then finally it must be noted that a careful analysis "of the witness of responsible men who were there," gives a completely different view than the inferences put forward in point number eight. Indeed, to try to be charitable, the conclusion can only be that there is fraudulent research! This must be considered and documented.

There is a footnote to point number eight, on page 396. This refers to A. V. Olson’s book, Thirteen Crisis Years, which was originally published under the title, Through Crisis to Victory. Both books were published after the death of the author. The most recent edition was edited and amended by the Ellen G. White Estate. Appendix D, not in the first edition, lists three witnesses who were in attendance at the session and who make statements accordingly: A.T. Robinson, C.C. McReynolds, and W.C. White. Only excerpts are published from the letters of White and McReynolds. The White letter is personal to another minister. The letter of Robinson is complete. However, in no case is there complete support of the premise that is being advocated—"no rejection." It should also be noted that the testimony among the three witnesses does not agree. Actually as evidence a jury might consider, these letters as exhibits, do not support the "no rejection" theory.

Specifically W.C. White says, and please note every word: "But the most serious feature of the disaffection was the fact that, because Sister White urged the importance of the message of righteousness by faith, and because thereby she seemed to be upholding these brethren, contrary to their judgment, it grew into a spirit of rejection of the testimonies of Sister White. … Not all who were present, however, were among the class who rejected either the message or Sister White’s testimony."25

To say that "not all … rejected," is certainly to infer very strongly that most did! And then, which is the greater sin—"rejection of the testimonies," or "rejection" of the Lord’s message through Jones and Waggoner? When the entire letter is studied, and not just selected portions, it will be found to be broken up into paragraphs out of sequence with the original letter. It will also be found that the letter is far from real support for the inference given to it.

Robinson acknowledges in his letter that Sister White "charges our leading men with having stood in the way of light and blessing that God intended should have been cherished and accepted at that time."26 This is basic—leading men blocking light! He repeats the idea "that some of our leading brethren … stood in the way of great light and blessing being shed upon this movement at this time." Isn’t this what the problem is all about, receiving the light the Lord wanted to give us?

And now the witness of McReynolds. This letter is published with five ellipses. But a sixth ellipsis is not shown at the end of the letter. These six omissions present an appalling picture! In the second omission he speaks of the "spirit of controversy." "When the delegates came in from the last meeting of the day there was simple babble, with much joking and laughter, and some very disgusting comments were made; no spirit of solemnity prevailing. A few did not engage in the hilarity."

In the third ellipsis, he speaks of "debate," but after "Elder Waggoner had finished his eleven studies, the influence of which had in quite a measure taken out of many the debating spirit, … however the opposition proceeded." It had been stated at the meeting, "We have always believed in justification by faith and preached it." McReynolds says: "That was true in theory and with some of the older ministers it was true that they knew by experience what it is, but in many cases the theory was about all they had, and I know that some of our dear old brethren contend to this day that there was no confusion and really no debate. Well, I was there and was in the midst of it, both in the public meetings and in our private quarters and I know the spirit of debate and controversy ran high and some bitter feelings were developed, but the conference closed with a dark shadow over many minds." This conforms with what Ellen White has said. Here is the "witness" of a man who was there who seems to be telling it like it really was!

In the fifth ellipsis, reference is made to confessions that were made by "most of the leading men" during the next two or three years, but in contrast to this he quotes from Elder Daniells’ book: "How sad, how deeply regrettable it is that this message of righteousness in Christ should at the time of its coming, have been met with opposition on the part of earnest, well-meaning men in the cause of God."27

Why were these omissions made in McReynolds’ letter? Had the letter been published in full it would have given a completely different understanding from that implied by the fourteen points. Really none of these three letters gives a very cheering account of the supposed success we are to believe came out of the session. But it is the sixth ellipsis that truly is astonishing; it is not even shown as an omission in the letter as published. Listen to the last three sentences of McReynolds’ letter:

"Much more, very much more, might be added, but it is all made plain by many quotations from messages published in the booklet by Elder Daniells, CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, which I recommend all to read. I am sorry for anyone who was at the conference in Minneapolis in 1888 who does not recognize that there was opposition and rejection of the message that the Lord sent to His people at that time. It is not too late yet to repent and receive a great blessing."28

There is not a law court in the land that will knowingly tolerate tampering with a witness. This is a criminal offense. What can it be called when a church willfully ignores and eliminates vital testimony that a witness presents? This same method was used in the book, Movement of Destiny, published in 1971. Oh, beloved people of God, what right do we have to play on His mercy and misrepresent historical facts? This is worse than fraud!29

With all the sinful tragedy of this cover-up, what Elder McReynolds said in 1931 is still true: "It is not too late yet to repent and receive a great blessing."

But there is no way to repent until we listen to the spirit of God and sense the enormity of our rejection. Many Adventists look upon the episode in our history as merely a squabble among the brethren, some thing that happened many years ago and really is not relevant to us today. Such misunderstanding is to ignore truth. All the events of the Bible are happenings of many centuries ago, yet by the voice of the Spirit, the truth of these past events comes home to us and our lives are changed. We see Christ crucified and the way of salvation from sin is opened to us. In the same way if we could come to see the sin of rejection and denial of Christ in our own history, the balm of Gilead could be poured out upon us and the messages of the three angels would go forth as the Lord intended. Why has it not happened? We are unconscious of our terrible sin. The magnitude of our apostasy is set before us by the Lord. Listen to the inspired assessment which was given to us in 1896:

"Dear Brethren Who Occupy Responsible Positions in the Work, The Lord has a controversy with you. I have no need to specify the reasons; you have had them laid open before you again and again. … Those who resisted the Spirit of God at Minneapolis were waiting for the chance to travel over the same ground again, because their spirit was the same. … They had evidence heaped upon evidence. … They declared 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 were flowing upon and around them, but were beaten back by their hard and wicked hearts, which resisted the Holy Spirit’s working. … 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."30

If the way Christ was treated in the days of the Jews has any meaning for us today, then the sin of Minneapolis is of similar importance. The Lord says so—will we listen? This published appeal in Special Testimonies, refers specifically to Minneapolis more than once. The ten-page admonition closes with a terrible warning: "Those who venture to resist the light that God gave in rich measure at Minneapolis, who have not humbled their hearts before God, will follow on in a path of resistance saying, ‘Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?’ The banner all will bear who voice the message of the third angel, is being covered with another color that virtually kills it. This is being done."

A thousand departments in the church, and ten thousand directors of promotion will never accomplish what needs to be done as long as the third angel’s message is covered with the wrong color and killed!

It is almost beyond belief that an Adventist would say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice?" Yet today there is a rising chorus of divergent views among us. Every conceivable power of evil seems to be in operation in our midst. But we were warned years ago that this would happen. It is the certain outcome of rejecting Light. Adventists were told that they would see a time when there would be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith.31 Indeed, we have reached the time when strange things are appearing in our church paper, our journal for our ministry, our publication for our youth. As far back as 1903, we were counseled that these things would come to us as a people. We would see a time when so-called reformation would consist of giving up the doctrines that are the foundation of our faith; a time when the principles of truth that have been given to the remnant church would be discarded and our religion changed, and intellectual philosophy be substituted; a time when books of a new order would be written; a time when church leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but with God removed, dependence would be placed in human power, which without God is worthless. And as fantistic as it may seem, the time would come when Adventists would lightly regard the Sabbath, which means to disregard the God who made it. Minds trained in worldly science would fail to discern the deep things of God.32

In the mean time, our tragic, true history is denied or ignored or forgotten in the archives. The 1888 message so closely identified with the "third angel’s message in verity," would have resulted in finishing the work entrusted to the remnant—if it had been allowed to take its God-appointed course. It is the third angel that is to select the wheat from the tares, and seal and bind the wheat for the Heavenly Garner.

Those three angels can never complete their task until modern Israel comes to see and know its unconscious sin. "Lukewarmness" must prevail until we repent and acknowledge we have been blind. As long as we insist "we see," our "sin remaineth."

August, 1984.

_____________________

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. N. F. Pease, BY FAITH ALONE (1962); A. V. Olson, THROUGH CRISIS TO VICTORY (1966); L. E. Froom, MOVEMENT OF DESTNY, (1971).

2. R & H, March 11, 1890; March 18, 1890; August 27, 1889.

3. R & H, April 1, 1890.

4. R & H, May 27, 1890.

5. Ibid.

6. R & H, August 26, 1890; see also TM 393, written in 1896.

7. Revelation 1:7.

8. R & H, December 16, 1890.

9. A. L. White, EGW: THE AUSTRALIAN YEARS, pp. 14-18.

10. Letter 127, quoted in ADVENTIST REVIEW, April 1, 1982.

11. R & H, November 22, 1892.

12. 1 SM 234, 235.

13. A. G. Daniells, CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, p. 47 (1941 edition).

14. Letter D.F. August 20, 1937.

15. Ibid.

16. Letter 183, 1899 (November 9, 1899).

17. Letter 179, 1902 (November 19, 1902).

18. A.L. White, EGW: THE LONELY YEARS, pp. 394-397.

19. Ibid., p. 395.

20. L.E. Froom, MOVEMENT OF DESTINY, pp. 370-373, wherein also fourteen points are listed to counteract history. See also, THROUGH CRISIS TO VICTORY, p. 36.

21. Op. cit., pp. 395, 396.

22. TM, 91, 92.

23. G.C. BULLETIN, 1893, p. 244, emphasis added. NOTE: It would appear that Ellen White herself refers to a vote taken to reject the "most precious message." Unfortunately, her statement has been edited out of MS. 24, 1888, as published in 3 SM 176. The omitted portion from a large deletion says: "Why were not these men, who knew these things, afraid to lift their hand against me and my work for no reason except their imagination that I was not in harmony with their spirit and their course of action toward men [Jones and Waggoner] whom they and I had reason to respect.? These men were just as sincere

as those who criticized, men of correct principles—but who did not harmonize with their views concerning the law in Galatians."—Manuscript Release # 961, p. 26.

24. THE LONELY YEARS, p. 396.

25. THIRTEEN CRISIS YEARS, p. 332, emphasis added.

26. bid., p. 334.

27. A.G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness, p. 47, 1941 edition.

28. Letter of Elder C.C. McReynolds, at the request of W. C. White, 1931. Copy filed in E.G. White publications vault, DF File 189.

29. NOTE: SELECTED MESSAGES, Book Three, pp. 157-177, presents another example of attempted reader conditioning, cover-up, and the use of ellipses. This chapter entitled, "The Minneapolis Conference," has seven pages of "Historical Background," all of which endeavors to create the impression that "the session itself was quite routine," and there was no "official rejection by church leaders," and that really there was a "gradual change for the better that ensued in five or six years after Minneapolis." There are numerous ellipses, at least nine, which are revealing and relevant to our sad history. For a line by line comparison with the above SELECTED MESSAGES passage, see Manuscript Release #961, "Looking Back at Minneapolis," Ms. 24, 1888.

30. SPECIAL TESTIMONIES, Series A, No. 6, pp. 17, 19, 20, 26.

31. R & H, December 13, 1892.

32. SPECIAL TESTIMONIES, Series B, No. 7, pp. 39, 40.