June 14, 1959. The authors wrestled with a serious task to make their stand clear as they replied to the General Conference president. They must be submissive to “the highest authority on earth,” yet they must also be honest (Exhibit 27). They stated: “The passage of time has deepened our conviction that the thesis of this manuscript is correct and true. In particular this was confirmed after our further research following our reading of ‘Appraisal’. … We consider that our reiterated purpose to submit to the authority of the General Conference should not be interpreted as a retraction of our position, nor a modification of our convictions regarding the manuscript.”
Three numbered paragraphs summarized their reply: “We definitely do not approve of the publication of the manuscript against your official opposition to it”; “(2) The General Conference Committee themselves have thus far not fully grasped the significance and import of the manuscript. … We dare not act as conscience for workers or lay members in good and regular standing … who feel a burden to appeal to the General Conference for a more careful consideration of the matter”; (3) “The phrase we used, ‘disposition of Providence,’ requires that we not only take our hands of the manuscript to avoid any agitation or promotion of it, but also refrain from repressing other loyal Seventh-day Adventists who may be motivated by Providence entirely independently of ourselves, to appeal the matter to you.”
June 29, 1959. The General Conference president considered “the disposition of Providence” to be exclusively, “solely,” General Conference control. There seemed no possibility that the Lord might work in any other way. He wrote further (Exhibit 28): “I had hoped, dear brethren, for a clear-cut statement from you to the effect that you had left the matter of your manuscript in the hands of the General Conference brethren, and that you were trusting in the Lord to work things out as He deems best. … I had expected that you would manifest faith in the Lord’s guidance and confidence in your brethren by placing the matter in the hands of the General Conference brethren solely to be guided by their counsel.” He considered that the manuscript had been given suficient careful consideration because a selected group at great expense and effort had done this. He saw the General Conference functioning as God’s voice and authority on earth.
September 25, 1959. Several weeks passed before the authors sent a reply to the president. They were not certain if a reply was expected; however, they wrote one in a most serious vein (Exhibit 29). Te two-page letter respectfully pointed out that although he had stated that the manuscript has been given careful consideration, a near decade of attention to it had thus far failed completely to consider the actual subject matter. Eight points were listed which with one exception had been ignored; the exception being that it was denied that the message had been rejected, but no support was given for that bald statement. This letter, to the chief officer of the church, was one of the most serious they wrote over a period of years.
December 18, 1959. Increasing agitation in Australia over the manuscript gave cause for another letter to the president, with a statement which might be used to make clear the authors’ loyalty to the church (Exhibit 30).
January 13, 1960. The president considered that their statement did not go far enough (Exhibit 31). He wanted the manuscript to come totally under the control of the General Conference, and that the authors “definitely refuse permission to anyone else to use it unless it is released by the brethren [General Conference] in whose hands it has been placed. … The only logical thing therefore, as I see it, for you to do is to forbid its use by anyone outside of the General Conference.”
By this time the manuscript had gone around the world. It would live or die by virtue of its content, and live only if some ministers and church members could be willing to study the issues irrespective of General Conference control.
January 31, 1960. As tension mounted in the field, the authors reviewed the record of the past decade, and so sent another letter to the president (Exhibit 32). This two-page plea and statement of conviction said in part: “If reasonable sound evidence means anything, surely the past ten years ought to speak clearly. We believe this has been eloquently stated by you,—‘If God wants this material circulated, you may be sure that no one on earth can impede its circulation.’ To this we would say a solemn, ‘Amen,’ and it should be added—not even the General Conference can impede its circulation if it is God’s will otherwise.” The letter closed with an appeal: “Is it not time to make … acknowledgement and in humility come before the Lord with sincere repentance and confession of our failings present and past and forthwith to present the matter to God’s people as a whole?”
December 15, 1960. Rejection of the authors’ appeal by the General Conference brought perplexity to lay members who believed it was valid. Problems with different individuals were on the increase because of their conviction that the manuscript was basically true. Near the end of 1960, the General Conference president visited Africa. The two missionaries wrote a letter to him while he was in East Africa (Exhibit 33). Their previous document, “An Answer” of October 1958, had not been acknowledged by the General Conference. Thus there was a vacuum. In a two-page letter of December 15 they put forth some very serious questions: “Just where do we stand now with the General Conference? Must we continue another decade or so under what is virtually the ban or shadow of their condemnation? We have been informed, we think quite reliably, that no less than three attempts were made at headquarters to remove us from the mission field because of the manuscript.”
(In the meantime the missionary at the East African Publishing House had been transferred to the division publishing house in Cape Town).
January 26, 1961. While in East Africa the General Conference president had had a brief dialogue with the author working in Kenya, and when he returned to Takoma Park he wrote about this, mentioning further problems with an individual in California making “unauthorized use” of the manuscript. This called for a letter to the party concerned, with a copy sent to headquarters with a covering letter by the authors (Exhibit 34). They said: “There are numerous ‘brethren of experience’ who have recognized the historical validity of our manuscript, among them scholars in universities and senior colleges. … We do not want to run the risk of that ‘rebuke of the Lord’ that will rest upon those who dare to condemn truth.”
February 10, 1961. The president considered it suficient that “two answers were given,” being the result of “very careful thought” (Exhibit 35) He then put the question: “Would you care to suggest just what kind of answer you feel is still forthcoming?”
March 20, 1961. The authors acknowledged this letter (Exhibit 36): “For the record it should be clearly understood that the manuscript we presented to the brethren has not to date been considered for content insofar as any reply we have received indicates.”
April 12, 1961. The president repeated that he thought those who studied the manuscript had done so carefully (Exhibit 37). They “felt that the reference to inappropriateness of certain quotations, as well as certain historical facts referred to, had a definite bearing on the content and that the content would naturally be affected by the accuracy or inaccuracy of statements, as well as certain historical facts surrounding the whole 1888 experience and following it.” In other words, “brethren of experience” say that the 1888 message was accepted by leadership; the manuscript says it was not; it follows therefore that the manuscript cannot be true. He suggested: “Write out briefy the various points that you think should be considered and that contain the heart of the manuscript.”
May 17, 1961. Again the president wrote with great concern about the manuscript getting around in North America (Exhibit 38). He wanted instructions sent that the manuscript was not to be circulated. His verdict warned of “drastic action”: “I am afraid, dear brethren, that unless this word is forthcoming from you without delay, some rather drastic action will have to be taken.” The authors knew what such “drastic action” might mean.
May 25, 1961. Their reply noted with concern the president’s letter of May 17th. To try to assist and to cooperate as far as possible without violating conscience, they sent a further statement which the brethren might use (Exhibit 39).
June 8, 1961. The president continued to be disappointed and perplexed (Exhibit 40). He considered that since the authors wrote the manuscript, they must automatically be responsible for the independent way it was being distributed. They must therefore bear the blame for a break down of confidence in leadership. In fact, the General Conference would not give attention to a proposed summary of the manuscript until the authors made a further, stronger statement afirming total control of the document by the General Conference: “Before the brethren will want to give serious consideration to the points that I requested you to state, I think such a statement should be forthcoming. It need not be long but it should be pointed, without any diluting, additional statements.”
June 21, 1961. The authors prepared a statement: ‘To Whom It May Concern,” and sent it with a covering letter (Exhibit 41). They made a serious comment: “May we also mention again, and we say this with respect, that it may not be what is written in the manuscript which breaks down confidence in the church or its organization, which you mention; but what can easily have that very effect is for the General Conference to maintain unsubstantiated condemnation of what loyal and thoughtful Seventh-day Adventists find it impossible to consider as anything but simple, obvious truth. Such a situation can be extremely serious.” Was this statement libelous? Leadership have considered even the suggestion of their responsibility to be anathema.
July 27, 1961. The original manuscript, 1888 Re-examined totaled 204 pages but the “Summary” was reduced to 20 pages double-spaced. This the authors sent under separate cover to the General Conference with a letter (Exhibit 42). The authors requested that if possible this resume be placed in the hands of a larger group of “brethren of experience” to include scholars who will view the matter objectively and consider the thesis on its merits as historical research, and that the number include at least a few laymen. To make this record complete this “Summary” of 20 pages is included as Exhibit 43.
August 2, 1961. The president’s letter of over two pages implied that the authors’ suggestion was disrespectful, that administrators’ scholarly abilities were indeed adequate, and that the authors should “leave the matter in the hands of [them as] ‘brethren of experience, ’believing that God will watch over what is right and true and that man cannot keep God’s truth permanently from His people” (Exhibit 44). Viewing the church as a hierarchy, he stated that their request for laymembers’ participation must be denied: “The wisdom of the suggestion that laymen be added to an evaluating group we seriously question. Tis is a matter that clearly should be dealt with by ‘brethren of experience.’ We are therefore not bringing this to any lay member.”
August 10, 1961. The authors stated they do not say that our leaders are not “honest, sincere, conscientious, and unprejudiced, ”but that committee members unconsciously tend to uphold previous committee decisions and thus inadvertently approach a problem in a somewhat biased way (Exhibit 45). Unaware that more than three decades of discussion must yet go by, they added: “We fully accept your counsel to believe that the Lord’s overruling Providence will cause truth to emerge and triumph in His own good time.”
October 18, 1961. Because of continued use of the manuscript by unauthorized groups, the authors continued to send letters to try to solve the problem and to defend the General Conference from embarrassment. Kept informed, the brethren appreciated this as seen in Exhibit 46. The president also advised us that the “Summary” of the manuscript had been placed in the hands of five anonymous individuals for consideration.
October 22, 1961. Lay members continued to be convinced by the manuscript. So widespread was the knowledge of General Conference rejection that somewhere a rumor originated that the authors had been disfellowshipped, but this was, thankfully, not true (Exhibit 47).
November 6, 1961. Now, after three months, the president sent a five-page letter. It did not contain the long-awaited report of the five anonymous judges, but consisted only of excerpts from their comments with no answers to the specific questions listed in the “Summary” (Exhibit 48). He highly recommended the five reviewers as capable for this work, and afirmed their soundness in the faith. Yet for some mysterious reason, their names have never yet been made known to the two authors of the manuscript. Thus they now found themselves in a no-man’s land of unidentifiable cross-fire. Judges should be known to the ones judged!
This letter from the president is an important factor in the dialogue that covered ten years up to that time. He declines to give the authors any intimation as to who the reviewers are, or whether they had previous knowledge of the manuscript. He gives no clue as to whether all five are quoted, or where within the quotes one reviewer stops and another starts. The quotes as shown could be from only two people, but there is no way to know for sure.
The “short excerpts” demanded careful analysis theologically and historically, as well as in comparison with Ellen White’s comments regarding 1888. From the president’s view this anonymous report was intended to end the matter for all time even if the authors “are not fully satisfied.” The report as it stands is the evaluation of six people, the church’s first officer being one of them. Conclusion: the 1888 message and history are not now worthy of serious consideration by the church.
This Exhibit 48 holds a special place in our church history from 1950 and onwards, and also supplies much insight into the attitudes and understanding of Seventh-day Adventist “brethren of experience” over a period of extended decades. Common to all the official replies has been an almost total evasion of Ellen White’s identification of that message as the beginning of the loud cry and the latter rain. The president’s entire letter could well be quoted but only a few excerpts from the five reviewers can be given here:
• There is no question about the sincerity and zeal evident in the appeal presented by these two men [the authors]. I feel, however, their search for the reason for the delay in Christ’s return is misguided. It seems to me that the message of 1888 was accepted by some and rejected by others, but for us to put forth such emphasis upon the rejection of it as these two brethren do is not valid.”
• “What difference if the 1888 message was rejected? … It seems unreasonable to call the present-day church to repentance on the writings of two men [Jones and Waggoner] who apostatized from this message. Surely the Lord has another way of arousing His people.”
• “To the best of my knowledge, no attempt was made in 1888 to have the church, corporately, go on record as accepting the message as presented at that time. The appeal was made to people as individuals, not to the church as a body. … There was no ‘official’ acceptance of the doctrine, to be sure, but neither was there an ‘official’ rejection.”
• “The fact that Brethren Waggoner and Jones later apostatized implies an inherent instability of character which was doubtless present years before they stepped out of the church, and I would not for a moment consider it wise to place what they wrote during those years before our people generally.”
• “Is it true that the Holy Spirit was spurned and insulted by our ministers at and after the Minneapolis meeting? Is it true that Jesus was spurned and insulted in the person of His messengers? Is it true that in the dark decade following 1888 there prevailed a serious disregard of the Spirit of prophecy counsel on the part of the responsible leadership of the church?”
At this point the authors’ hearts were saddened. It was not they as unworthy missionaries from Africa who declared that the Holy Spirit was insulted, and Jesus Christ spurned. They were only calling attention to what the inspired messenger of the Lord had said.
• The president concluded with the hope that this was now the end of the matter: “As I look over what these five brethren have written, I am forced to the conclusion, dear brethren, that our position in regard to your manuscript must be about that which our former evaluation committees reached. … May we hope now, brethren, that this matter may be considered settled?”
November 13, 1961. With a prayer for light and understanding the authors requested to see the full reports of all five of the anonymous brethren (Exhibit 49). They could not stife their deep conviction that the “beginning” of the loud cry of Revelation 18 and the initial outpouring of the latter rain were indeed of tremendous importance.
December 21, 1961. As no reply was received after more than one month, the authors wrote again requesting the reports in full so that they might have the benefit of the full counsel (Exhibit 50).
February 6, 1962. After nearly three months the president replied: “I am not sure that much would be gained by sending the entire report of these men. One or two have said some confidential things that perhaps just as well not be publicized” (Exhibit 51). But another condemnation was in the offing. The letter goes on to say that a new book was in preparation, “By Faith Alone,” and “I feel it is quite an answer to the question[s] that you raise in regard to the 1888 meeting.”
This new book released by Pacific Press in 1962 was actually an almost verbatim copy of the master’s thesis Norval F. Pease had written in 1945 entitled, “Justification and Righteousness By Faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church Before 1900.” The authors had read this thesis in 1949 in the Seminary library. It supplied many references to original sources that were used in the manuscript, 1888 Re-examined. Checking these references in context provided insight not recognized in the master’s thesis. Consequently the conclusion of his thesis was quite different from the authors’ manuscript of 1950. When the book was published, the General Conference president wrote the “Foreword.” There was a finality in what he said: ‘This book sets the record straight.
”Even to this day church libraries in North America have many copies on their shelves, testifying to an intense effort of the General Conference administration to counteract the manuscript in the 1960’s and put an end to further “unauthorized” study and agitation of 1888.
February 11, 1962. The authors sent a letter to the Southern African Division officers regarding the use of their names in brochures being produced by dissidents, with a copy to the General Conference president (Exhibit 52). It reiterated their convictions that Christ is the true Head of the church and that eventually His gift of repentance will be received by the earthly leadership of the church: “One facet of these convictions is the firm belief that the General Conference as such and the loyal-hearted ministry of this movement in general will come to understand the significance of our history in the light of the Laodicean message, and in appropriate humility and deep contrition will clear the way for what the Lord desires to do for His people and for the world itself. This experience is what we have always referred to as ‘denominational repentance’.”
Te fifth paragraph spoke plainly of how their twenty specific questions submitted had received not even one answer. Again they were forced to declare that the breakdown in confidence which leadership deplores is the direct responsibility of the General Conference: “We believe that it is precisely this attitude toward current issues which is infaming militant segments of the church.”
February 27, 1962. The General Conference president took strong exception to this statement (Exhibit 53). He reiterated that the “document and conclusions have been given careful attention by good, reliable and experienced brethren on at least three separate occasions. … Now it is time for you to follow the counsel given us by the servant of the Lord,” that is, submit these unanswered, unconsidered convictions to “brethren of experience.” Such are confined exclusively to General Conference personnel, and henceforth these two authors must be silent.
March 19, 1962. After extended, prayerful thought, the authors wrote another letter to the president, appealing once more for consideration of the actual issues (Exhibit 54). This four-page plea went back over the years and pointed out how the original Defense Literature Committee report of 1951 did not deal with specifics but insisted that the personal opinion of Elder A. W. Spalding be accepted rather than Ellen White’s clear testimony. No specific consideration was given to historical subject matter other than to ignore it. The second report, “Further Appraisal” in 1958, obviously did not deal with manuscript content but rather attempted to prove that the authors were dishonest and used Ellen White material unethically. The report of November 6, 1961, supposedly in response to the “Summary” which listed numerous specific questions, did not supply a straightforward answer to even one of them. Nevertheless, we trust that “the Lord will lead, and in submission to you brethren under Him, we leave all in His hands” (emphasis added).
April 2, 1962. This four-page plea was to be the last—the next letter was a brief conclusion from the secretary of the president (Exhibit 55). He stated: “From my understanding of the attitude of the General Conference Officers they feel that no good purpose will be served in continuing correspondence over your manuscript. … The Lord in His own good time and way will indicate if any further steps should be taken in this matter.” We had reached the end. According to this, the manuscript is now to lie forever buried.
June 29, 1962. The authors wrote again. They were sorry that the General Conference wanted to terminate correspondence (Exhibit 56). “We have confidence in the ultimate vindication of right.” With this letter correspondence became dormant to a large degree for several years. Meanwhile, the authors continued with their assigned duties as missionaries in Africa. But the burden of these unresolved issues weighed upon them.
The author who worked in Nairobi remembers one day of fasting and prayer when he earnestly surrendered his soul to the Lord. In the dingy mission office in Simla House on Victoria Stree the instructed the Africans to answer the phone that day and take care of the work; he must lock himself in his office to pray and study. Earnestly he begged the Lord for a piece of “bread,” for the gift of an objective understanding of the problem, the insight to re-read the manuscript with a mind open to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, for help to “see” it as the General Conference brethren see it, for the gift of their “mind” rather than his own, for the ability to see what was wrong with it. With the open Bible at hand and Spirit of Prophecy books as well, he carefully re-read the manuscript word for word. By the time the Kenya sun went down that evening, his mind was at rest. His conscience forced him to confess that the manuscript tells the truth. The heavenly Father is not cruel; He does not give a stone when we beg Him for bread.
About this time a General Conference officer visited the mission fields in East Africa. The authors requested him to take back a verbal message to the president, paraphrasing Job’s appeal (ch. 13:15), “Though the General Conference slay us, yet will we trust in them.” The reference to Job expressed their mingled confidence and perplexity, confidence that at some time before the return of Jesus there will be a denominational repentance, but perplexity that successive church administrations see no light in it.
Job could not understand why God was apparently condemning him. He longed for some ombudsman to mediate between him and the Almighty, confident that if ever he could have a valid court trial, God would vindicate the right. Job appealed from the “God” who was apparently condemning him to the God who he knew would at last vindicate justice. We were appealing from the General Conference of the present to some General Conference of the future, confident that eventually leadership would take a firm stand on the right side.
When "By Faith Alone" was published (Pacific Press, 1962), it did not address or settle the real issues. It stated the conviction of General Conference leadership that there is nothing unique in the 1888 message: “Where was the doctrine of righteousness by faith to be found in 1888 and the preceding years? In the creeds of the Protestant churches of the day …” (p. 138). In contrast, the authors of “1888 Re-examined” insisted that the 1888 message went far beyond those “creeds,” inasmuch as Ellen White declared it to be the “beginning” of the loud cry of the third angel’s message, a message certainly not proclaimed by “the Protestant churches of the day.” It is a message of righteousness by faith parallel to and consistent with the unique Seventh-day Adventist concept of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. This "By Faith Alone" fails to recognize. Thus the essential issue is joined, and remains unresolved to this day.
1966. However, for some strange reason, general interest in 1888 did not die after the publication of "By Faith Alone". As correspondence between the manuscript authors and church administration faded away to a large extent, a General Conference vice-president and member of the Ellen White Estate Board, Elder A. V. Olson, was preparing another book to condemn the manuscript. "Trough Crisis to Victory", 1888—1901 was virtually completed when on April 5, 1963 a heart attack suddenly terminated his life.
The White Estate Board took steps to carry out the intent of the author to publish the book in March, 1966. The final editing was done by the Secretary of the White Estate. He also wrote the “Foreword,” making it clear that the book was called forth by the fact that some Adventists had reached “misleading conclusions” about the 1888 General Conference Session which needed to be corrected.
The book maintains that the period from 1888 to 1901 “was a period over which Providence could spell out the word victory.” There was initial opposition to the 1888 message, but it was largely reversed by the “confessions” that came in during the few years following 1888. Since 1901 there has been no serious leadership resistance to the Holy Spirit’s leading, and therefore 1901 was “victory.”
The book concludes with a ringing afirmation of leadership faithfulness to Christ; it’s not the hierarchy that is in need; the Laodicean message applies to the laity; the delay in finishing the gospel commission is specifically the fault of uncooperative lay members (pp. 237-239; the basic thesis of “victory” in 1901 has now in recent years been thoroughly invalidated by General Conference scholars. In fact, the opening sermon of the 1990 General Conference Session in Indianapolis declared that it didn’t happen in “1901”).
May 8, 1969. Interest in the field about the 1888 history could not be contained. The General Conference considered it well to run an article in the "Review and Herald", May 8, 1969, to explain certain historical points, and these in particular with relation to the manuscript, “1888 Reexamined” (Exhibit 57). This same article carried a statement by the authors, R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short, which proclaimed to the world church their confidence in the eventual triumph of the corporate, denominated Seventh-day Adventist Church in the fulfillment if its divinely appointed, worldwide task. Thus their loyalty to the doctrines and the organization of the church was made clear.
This article by Elder W. P. Bradley also made reference to a new forthcoming book by L. E. Froom, which would deal with the historical experience of leaders in the 1888 era. Now another book was in the offing which would set the record straight. The name of this book to be published in 1971 by the Review and Herald was not known at the time.
June 11-20, 1970. The 51st General Conference session in Atlantic City provided a stage to promote Dr. Froom’s new book, named "Movement of Destiny", a total of 700 pages largely concentrated on the 1888 history. The General Conference circulated a 32-page promotion brochure at the Session. “The Fascinating Story of Movement of Destiny” announces a tremendous potential for the book: ‘This is the story of building a book. … There is nothing like it in all our annals—or any other annals for that matter. … There is no hiding of facts, no build-up of fanciful fictions—just the simple truth. … Faithfully factual. …The inside story. … Forthrightly told. … Provides the inner meaning behind the outward facts. … No apology, then, is made for gathering these ‘gems’—these priceless, luminous historical facts—and rehearsing these truths in connected narrative form in "Movement of Destiny" as we stand on the verge of the great break through.”
Finally, the church is to be told the full story about 1888. Meanwhile, the author of "Destiny" had been corresponding with the authors of “1888 Reexamined” in a serious attempt to persuade them to “cease, retreat, and retract” their convictions. He assured them that the entire leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist church condemned their appeal for denominational repentance, and that if Ellen White were alive she would blast them with her most devastating rebukes. For all their decades of prayer for the heavenly Father to help them see the truth, they remained incapable of seeing it. They must retract immediately, or his forthcoming book would expose them publicly to severe humiliation.
Never had they received such strictures. They responded with reiterated appeals to be allowed to see the Ellen White evidence that he said required their retraction. He refused to grant the privilege, insisting that they must take his word for it, and that his demand was made with the full endorsement of the General Conference brethren, the theological seminary, and the Ellen G. White Estate leadership. He had the material that required their retraction, but they were not to see it until the book is published. The authors replied that they could not retract their deep convictions based on Ellen White evidence that they had seen with their own eyes for reports of supposedly contradictory Ellen White evidence others said they had seen, but which they themselves were not permitted to see.
All they could do was to wait with bated breath for their imminent public pilloring (the relevant file of L. E. Froom correspondence is included in Appendix A).