The Return of the Latter Rain

“The Law in Galatians Was Their Only Plea”

Dan Jones felt that it “would have been lamentable to leave Battle Creek without these two special meetings and the definite explanations made.” He now felt like “a changed man.” When some asked why these meetings had not been held sooner, Ellen White “explained that the state of their impressions and feelings was of such a character that we could not reach them, for they had ears, but they were dull of hearing; hearts had they, but they were hard and unimpressible.” Nonetheless, Ellen White could state, “thank God, victory has come.” “The backbone of the rebellion is broken in those who have come in from other places.” God had not forsaken His people.

Ellen White was not the only one who was grateful: “Brother Olsen is so glad and feels so relieved, he scarcely knows what to do with himself. Brother Waggoner feels so thankful.” This was very encouraging, considering that only a few days before O. A. Olsen had grieved over the poor condition of the ministry: “I feel sadly over our ministry. When I look out upon our men from a general standpoint, we are not very well prepared to meet the emergency before us.” Olsen realized that unless God came “with greater power” and granted “special blessings and special favors we shall be far behind our opportunities.” He could see that “while on the one hand God’s providence is opening the way as never before, on the other hand it seems that the enemy is working with a vengeance.”

Now Olsen could attest to the progress made at the Ministerial Institute, and he wrote accordingly in an article published in the Review: “One important feature of the Bible school was the labors of Sister White. … These were seasons of special interest, and will be long remembered by those who were present. Sister White enjoyed great freedom, and on several occasions the power of the Lord was manifest in a large measure. … [W]e feel very thankful for the blessing of God and the success that has attended the present effort.” Dan Jones supported Olsen’s observation in a similar article in the same Review:

Sister White attended many of the meetings, and bore her testimony with much freedom and power. The restraint which had existed on the part of some connected with the school was removed by explanations that were made, and a tender spirit came in. … All were greatly benefited, and many who had been cold and formal in their work in the past, received such an experience in the things of God as to give them new courage and hope for the future. At the morning meeting on the last day of the school nearly all spoke, and their unanimous testimony was that they had been greatly benefited by the school and by their associations together, and that they could go to their fields of labor with better courage and greater hopes of success than ever before.

Before the Institute closed, Ellen White was “convinced that Satan saw that there was very much at stake here, and he did not want to lose his hold on our ministering brethren. And if the full victory comes, there will go forth from this meeting many ministers with an experience of the highest value.” For all practical purposes it appeared that final victory had indeed come, and if history did not speak otherwise, we could come to no other conclusion. But just as in the case of the 1889 revivals and the 1889 General Conference, the 1890 Ministerial Institute turned out to be much less than a great victory. Only a few weeks later, we find Ellen White in great financial straits, suffering from poor health and discouragement, and the Testimonies being questioned again by many of the leading brethren. In order to understand what led up to this state of affairs, we must take an honest second look at Dan Jones and the positions he took during and shortly after the 1890 Ministerial Institute in regard to both the law in Galatians and the covenants. It is for this purpose that we will now cover some of the same ground as we did in the previous chapter.

Inopportune Absence

Thus Dan Jones missed an entire week of early morning meetings where Ellen White spoke very directly with the brethren in regard to what was taking place. He was not present the Sabbath morning when Ellen White so clearly stated: “Now I tell you here before God, that the covenant question, as it has been presented [by Waggoner], is the truth. It is the light. In clear lines it has been laid before me. And those who have been resisting light, I ask you whether they have been working for God, or for the devil?” Chances are that Dan Jones also did not receive a copy of the letter Ellen White wrote Uriah Smith that same Sabbath morning where she stated most emphatically: “Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones, Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. … The Covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind.” Dan Jones also missed the following Sunday morning meeting where Ellen White asked those present: “Has God raised up these men [Jones and Waggoner] to proclaim the truth? I say, yes, God has sent men to bring us the truth that we should not have had unless God had sent somebody to bring it to us.”

It is obvious that Dan Jones had quite a surprise awaiting him when he returned to Battle Creek. Monday morning, the very day he returned, Ellen White wrote to W. C. White stating: “I am much pleased to learn that Professor Prescott is giving the same lessons in his class to his students that Brother Waggoner has been giving. He is presenting the covenants. … Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds.” It did not take long for the report to come to Dan Jones that Ellen White “fully endorsed Dr. Waggoner’s position on the covenant question,” which brought anything but relief to his mind.

Tuesday morning, Dan Jones attended his first morning meeting in more than a week. The “room was full” as Ellen White, O. A. Olsen, E. J. Waggoner and W. W. Prescott spoke. Here many confessions were made including one by R. C. Porter. Although Porter “could not see clearly on all points in regard to the covenants” he “confessed the wrong that he had done [Ellen White] and Elder Waggoner.” As a result of such confessions, the “whole room was sobbing and praising God for there was a revealing of His power.” It is no wonder that Ellen White could declare that “the backbone of the rebellion is broken in those who have come in from other places.” This must have made an impression on Dan Jones for he “kept his head bowed upon the seat all the time. Did not lift it up once till the meeting closed.”

It was Wednesday, March 12, that Ellen White had called for the first of the two special meetings with all the prominent church leaders in Battle Creek, including Dan Jones. For the first time, Ellen White and E. J. Waggoner were able to give an answer to many of the false accusations that had been afloat since before the Minneapolis Conference. What had been the basis for all these accusations? “It was finally simmered down to this—that a letter had come from California to Brother Butler, telling them that plans were all made to drive the law in Galatians.” This was “met and explained, that there were no plans laid.” There had been no such conspiracy. Although much good resulted from this five hour meeting, there was not “a general breaking up of the soul under the influence of the Spirit and power of God” as Ellen White had hoped for.

When Ellen White sent word to Dan Jones to invite Waggoner to speak on Sabbath “there seemed to be a little reluctance, but finally [Waggoner] was invited and gave a most precious discourse.” The afternoon meeting was held in the office chapel where the “Spirit of the Lord came nigh to us. Christ knocked for entrance but no room was made for Him, the door was not opened and the light of His glory, so nigh, was withdrawn.” Confessions had been made but not as “clearly and to the point” as Ellen White had expected. It was here that Dan Jones spoke of his terrible temptations “to give up the testimonies.” Ellen White mused at how hard it was “for these men to die” to self.

Finally, on Sunday morning, March 16, Ellen White, “weary and almost discouraged,” ventured into the meeting and made some “very close remarks.” She kept before them “what they had done to make of none effect that which the Lord was trying to do and why. The law in Galatians was their only plea.” Wasting no more time, Ellen White spoke of the root problem that kept them from accepting new light:

Why, I asked, is your interpretation of the law in Galatians more dear to you, and you more zealous to maintain your ideas on this point, than to acknowledge the workings of the Spirit of God? You have been weighing every precious heavensent testimony by your own scales as you interpreted the law in Galatians. Nothing could come to you in regard to the truth and the power of God unless it should bear your imprint, the precious ideas you had idolized on the law of Galatians.

The

se testimonies of the Spirit of God, the fruits of the Spirit of God, have no weight unless they are stamped with your ideas of the law in Galatians. I am afraid of you and I am afraid of your interpretation of any scripture which has revealed itself in such an unchristlike spirit as you have manifested and has cost me so much unnecessary labor. … Let your caution be exercised in the line of fear lest you are committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. … I say if your views on the law in Galatians, and the fruits, are of the character I have seen in Minneapolis and ever since up to this time, my prayer is that I may be as far from your understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures as it is possible for me to be. … You could not have given a better refutation of your own theories than you have done.

Now brethren, I have nothing to say, no burden in regard to the law in Galatians. This matter looks to me of minor consequence in comparison with the spirit you have brought into your faith. It is exactly of the same piece that was manifested by the Jews in reference to the work and mission of Jesus Christ.

The leading brethren were rejecting advancing light because they realized it was contrary to their “pet theories” on the law in Galatians. Their old views must be put aside in order to accept the message the Lord had graciously sent through Jones and Waggoner. The spirit manifested by so many was one of the greatest evidences that their interpretation of Scripture was indeed wrong. Ellen White pressed the point further. Rather than being one of the landmarks, their theory on the law in Galatians had become, of all things, Baal worship:

The gospel of Christ, His lessons, His teachings, have had but very little place in the experience and the discourses of those who claim to believe the truth. Any pet theory, any human idea, becomes of gravest importance and as sacred as an idol to which everything must bow. This has verily been the case in the theory of the law in Galatians. Anything that becomes such a hobby as to usurp the place of Christ, any idea so exalted as to be placed where nothing of light or evidence can find a lodgement [sic]in the mind, takes the form of an idol, to which everything is sacrificed. The law in Galatians is not a vital question and never has been. Those who have called it one of the old landmarks simply do not know what they are talking about. It never was an old landmark, and it never will become such. …

I say, through the word given me of God, Those who have stood so firmly to defend their ideas and positions on the law in Galatians have need to search their hearts as with a lighted candle, to see what manner of spirit has actuated them. With Paul I would say, “Who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth?” Gal. 3:1. What satanic persistency and obstinacy has been evidenced! I have had no anxiety about the law in Galatians, but I have had anxiety that our leading brethren should not go over the same ground of resistance to light and the manifest testimonies of the Spirit of God, and reject everything to idolize their own supposed ideas and pet theories. I am forced, by the attitude my brethren have taken and the spirit evidenced, to say, God deliver me from your ideas of the law in Galatians.

It is just as important that we understand today what Ellen White was seeking to get across to the brethren as it was for them to understand. More than a dozen times, Ellen White referred to the commonly held view of the law in Galatians as “your ideas,” “your understanding,” “your interpretation,” “your theories” and “your views,” which they were clinging to as if it were a landmark of faith that could never be understood another way. They were willing to sacrifice the very outpouring of the Spirit of Christ in order to hold on to their “pet theories.” Their “unchristlike spirit” and “satanic persistency” led Ellen White to desire to be as far away from their “understanding and interpretation” as she could possibly be. It was in this context that Ellen White stated she “had no anxiety,” “no burden in regard to the law in Galatians,” as they had interpreted it. It was not a “vital question,” but of “minor consequence” compared to the spirit they manifested. She would not herself reject the plain light on the covenant question over their cherished ideas of the law in Galatians.

Ellen White was in no way suggesting that doctrine was immaterial and that her only concern was that the brethren treat one another kindly in their disagreements. Contrarily, she had clearly been shown that Waggoner’s view on the covenants was truth, and she, unlike so many of the brethren, would not reject it even if it meant giving up the common view on the law in Galatians. She had made this evident in her letter to Smith only one week before: “The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had.”

The fact that Ellen White had no burden for the law in Galatians does not mean she was denying a clearer revelation. At Minneapolis she stated that Waggoner’s views “in reference to the law in Galatians, if I fully understand his position, do not harmonize with the understanding I have had.” Yet, she was “willing to be instructed as a child,” for truth would “lose nothing by investigation.” She had included herself with the brethren by stating that Jones and Waggoner may “differ with us.” And by the end of the conference she began to wonder “for the first time” if “it might be we did not hold correct views after all upon the law in Galatians, for the truth required no such spirit to sustain it.” She was sure that “if we have had the truth on this subject our brethren have failed to be sanctified through it.”

As demonstrated above, by the time of the 1890 Ministerial Institute Ellen White did not identify herself with the common view, but spoke of it numerous times as “your view.” Less than a year later she could state that “by taking wrong positions in the controversy over the law in Galatians—a question that many have not fully understood before taking a wrong position—the church has sustained a sad loss.” Several years later Ellen White underscored this idea and clearly endorsed Jones and Waggoner’s position stating: “‘The law was our school master …’ In this Scripture [Gal 3:24], the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. … An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord’s message through Brethren Waggoner and Jones. By exciting that opposition, Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. … The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted.” All this must be kept in mind while reviewing the aftermath of the 1890 Ministerial Institute, otherwise we might walk away with false premises in regard to the great truths of the covenants presented there.

Mental Gymnastics

On March 14, following the first of the “two special meetings,” Dan Jones wrote of his understanding of the situation thus far. Writing to D. T. Shireman— self-supporting evangelist from Kansas—about the experience they were having in Battle Creek, Dan Jones reveals some of the inner struggle he was going through: “I have been led to see the danger of trusting to outward appearances, and trying to make things go as I thought they ought to. … [W]hen light from Him shines in upon our hearts and reveals the motives and purposes that have prompted us, in their true light, the sight is anything but encouraging.” Writing the same day to R. A. Underwood, Jones shares more of his personal thoughts about the meeting that took place:

It seems from what has been said that brethren [W. C.] White, Waggoner and Jones did not have any preconcerted plan when they came over from the Pacific Coast to the Minneapolis meeting to lay their views before the brethren at that time, and have not been attempting to carry through any such plans since. Sister White has come out a little stronger in favor of Dr. Waggoner, but yet has not committed herself definitely as to the points of doctrine in his exposition of the two covenants. She says that she has been shown that he had light on the covenant question, but was not shown as to what that light was. At least that is the way I understand it at the present time.

Dan Jones was grappling with accepting what had been revealed to Ellen White in support of Waggoner views on the covenants. How could he comprehend what he had heard in one of the “two special meetings,” along with the reports of Ellen White’s statements made during his absence from the Institute, without acknowledging Waggoner’s positions as truth? It is understandable that the following morning he shared his great struggle of doubting the Testimonies. He was questioning how Ellen White could truly support Waggoner’s views. It is apparent that the “pressure of unbelief,” which Ellen White said she felt in “every meeting,” was present in the experience of Dan Jones, and would drive away the power of God that was ready to fall upon him.

Then, on Sunday morning when Ellen White laid out the root cause of the rejection that was taking place—“their interpretation of the law in Galatians”— Dan Jones formulated evidence in his own mind that allowed him to make “some acknowledgements” and also take his “position on the testimonies.” Unfortunately it was not an acceptance of the truths taught by Jones and Waggoner that led Dan Jones to make his acknowledgements, but a case of mental gymnastics which enabled him to accept Ellen White as a prophet, yet at the same time reject heaven’s endorsement. His inner struggle must have been great, for Ellen White stated that “he looked as if he had had a spell of sickness” as he spoke. That afternoon Dan Jones revealed to R. M. Kilgore what had taken place:

The investigation on the covenant question closed up with no better satisfaction than before it began. … For a time it was thought that [Ellen White] fully endorsed Dr. Waggoner’s position on the covenant question, and was so reported to be when I returned from Tennessee … but later developments show that such was not the case. It turns out now that the doctrinal points in the matter have [not] been the real points at issue. It is the spirit alone that has been manifested to which she objected, and to which Eld. Waggoner takes exceptions. Both Sister White and Dr. Waggoner stated that the doctrinal points were not the points at issue. So that removes the real point that was in my mind all the time. I understood that it was the bringing in of new doctrines that were not approved by the denomination, that was the real point at issue. But if I have been mistaken in that matter I am glad to be corrected. I have thought all the time that Sister White did not mean to say that Dr. Waggoner was correct in his position on the covenant question as far as doctrine is concerned; because it was so manifestly wrong that I could not at all be reconciled to the idea that she would give it her unqualified approval. … As far as I am concerned I am willing to drop the whole question, if others will do the same, and put my thought and labor toward the advancement of the truth. … Perhaps both parties will respect each other more than they have in the past, and there will be more counsel in reference to introducing any points of doctrine in the future, than there has been in the past.

All the initial conviction Dan Jones had that Ellen White had indeed been urged by the Lord to support Jones’ and Waggoner’s views on the covenants was now set aside for a more pleasing opinion. In the days that followed, Dan Jones shared his new understanding with many other leaders who were not able to attend the ministerial meetings. The more he shared his views, the more his views developed, and the more settled in his mind was the idea that doctrines were not the issue, only one’s attitude. Yet it is interesting to note that Dan Jones’ attitude did not change; he still would not allow A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner the freedom to hold a different view than his own. It was not long before he began to express the same old attitudes as he sought to justify his convictions against their views. On Monday, March 17, Dan Jones sent at least two more letters:

We have had a pretty stormy time here this winter, especially since you was [sic] here, in reference to the bringing in of the two covenants into the ministers school. … The result has not been to bring the brethren together and unite them in working for the upbuilding of the cause of God, but has rather been to create party spirit and party feelings. … Sister White … says it is not what we believe that she feels exercised about; it is not that we should all hold just the same view in reference to the covenants, in reference to the law in Galatians, or in reference to any point of doctrine; but that we should all have the spirit of Christ, and should all be united in building up and pushing forward the third angel’s message. It seems to me that her position is evidently the correct one, and the principle will apply to other matters with just as much force as it applies to the covenant question, or the law in Galatians. … I was just as certain as I could be that certain plans and purposes were being carried out by Dr. Waggoner and others and that certain motives were behind these plans and purposes; but it now appears that I was altogether mistaken in both. It seems strange how it could be so. Every circumstance seemed to add to the evidence to prove the things true; but regardless of all this, they have been proven untrue. This brought to my mind that we can not rely upon circumstantial evidence.

Well, we have had quite a hassel [sic] here this winter over bringing the covenant question into the bible school for ministers. I objected to it. It caused quite a stir. … I am willing to confess that in my opposition to this work I have not always been as free from personal feelings as I should have been. … It seemed for awhile that Sister White would come out and endorse Dr. Waggoner’s position on the covenant question fully, and it was a great perplexity to me to know how to look upon the matter; for it seemed clear to my mind that his positions were not all correct. But later it is stated that the matter of doctrine was not the important point in the issue at all. Sister White and Dr. Waggoner said they did not care what we believed on the law in Galatians or on the covenants; what they wanted to see was that we might all accept the doctrine of justification by faith; that we may get the benefit of it ourselves and teach it to others. With this I am perfectly in harmony. I believe in the doctrine of justification by faith, and I am also willing to concede that it has not been given the prominence in the past that its importance demands. … Another thing that has been brought out by these meetings is the fact that no plan had been laid by the brethren who came from California, to teach their peculiar views in the institute in Minneapolis. … I understood that there was considerable importance attached to the points of doctrine involved in the questions of the law in Galatians and the two covenants. I had also thought that these brethren had laid their plans to get their views before the people, and that it was being accomplished step by step through institutes, workers’ meetings, and bible-schools. Now if this is not true, then I say again, I have been laboring under a mistake, and will have to acknowledge that I have been under a mistake in these matters.

With each passing letter, Dan Jones expressed more conviction in his changing opinion. He now concluded that Jones’ and Waggoner’s “peculiar views” were not of importance, only that justification by faith—to which everyone agreed— be accepted by the brethren as they worked together in unity. Dan Jones had found a way to preserve his old views, his personal experience and his belief in the Testimonies, while at the same time rejecting advancing light which he so despised. He wrote as one with authority, yet misrepresented what had been said at the meetings, even falsely reporting that Waggoner had “given up the position that in the old covenant the promises were all on the part of the people” Dan Jones was willing to admit that he had not had the right spirit, but seemed to justify it by reason of his sincerity. Although he felt like a new man because of the relief at the explanations made, he still seemed to question their validity.

Writing to W. C. White the following morning, Dan Jones took on a more conciliatory attitude. He had laid the greatest blame on W. C. White for what he felt was “using your mother to give influence and power to your work.” He admitted that he “had not stayed clear of all feeling” against those “specially connected with pushing forward the law in Galatians, the covenant question, etc.,” and now asked for White’s “pardon.” Matters in regard to Waggoner’s Sabbath School lessons had been cleared up “to some extent,” though he admitted, “it is not as clear yet as I would like to see it.” Dan Jones then shared his perception of the explanations given:

I had supposed in the past that a few doctrinal points … were the question at issue, and that the object of certain ones … was to bring in those doctrines and establish them as the belief of the denomination. I thought the doctrine of justification by faith, with which I have agreed theoretically, and with which all our leading brethren have agreed, was only a rider, so to speak, to carry through these other things that were more subject to criticism [law in Galatians and covenants]; and by connecting the two together,—one with which no one found objection [justification by faith],—that rather than reject those that were objectionable, our people would be led to accept that which they could not (fully) endorse. Your mother and Dr. Waggoner both say that the points of doctrine are not the matters at issue at all, but it is the spirit shown by our people in opposition to these questions which they object to. I am perfectly free to acknowledge that the spirit has not been the Spirit of Christ. … [T]he point in your mother’s mind and in the mind of Dr. Waggoner, was not to bring in these questions and force them upon all, but to bring in the doctrine of justification by faith and the spirit of Christ and try to get the people converted to God. This I most heartily endorse.

We should recall what Ellen White told J. S. Washburn, in the spring of 1889; that the real underlying issue at Minneapolis was over “righteousness by faith,” not the law in Galatians. Jones and Waggoner had come not to force some abstract doctrine, but to share the message of righteousness by faith. It just so happens that this most precious message—because it was the epitome of Jones’ and Waggoner’s view of the law in Galatians and the covenants— differed from the ideas of the leading brethren. Thus, the law in Galatians and the covenants became a stumbling block over which the brethren rejected the genuine “third angel’s message in verity.” At the 1889 General Conference, Ellen White stated that “Baal” would be the religion of many who had “slighted, spoken against and ridiculed” the “only true religion” of justification by faith. It was true that Jones and Waggoner had not come with a preconceived plan to push their views and that justification by faith was their real burden. But Dan Jones misinterpreted this explanation, thinking he could reject their Heavensent message as long as he had the right spirit. After all, he already believed “theoretically” in justification by faith.

After the second “special meeting” held on March 19—the last meeting that Ellen White attended before heading west—Dan Jones felt like a changed man. It was here that A. T. Jones was able to give an answer for the false rumors that had been spread around in regard to his teaching. Many confessions followed this explanation and a new atmosphere seemed to come in. Unfortunately, in the days that followed the meeting, Dan Jones became less accurate in his evaluation of the whole situation and yet more confident that his observations were correct. With each letter he expressed more certainty that, although he might have had a wrong spirit and even “made a fool of himself,” he had not done wrong in stopping Waggoner’s presentations. In fact, he felt Waggoner was really the one to blame:

There has been no concession made with reference to the points of doctrine, or the interpretation of the scripture, but only the spirit that was shown and the way in which the work was done. … I have not yet seen that I did wrong in asking Dr. Waggoner to postpone the presentation of the covenant question in the school until Eld. Olsen and Prof. Prescott should return first. From what Eld. Olsen has said to me, I think they did not consider that I am at fault in that matter at all. But when the Dr. [Waggoner] refused to do so, it brought on a complication of circumstances that left the way open for suspicions of his work to arise, and they did arise.

Dan Jones communication with others about Jones and Waggoner and their views grew less and less supportive as time went on. When he returned from his eight-day trip to Tennessee, he was afraid Ellen White “fully endorsed Dr. Waggoner’s position.” Within a few days, he expressed that she had only been shown Waggoner had “light … but was not shown as to what that light was.” Then he wrote that there was no inducement, “that all hold just the same view in reference to the covenants.” Later he stated that “the matter of doctrine was not the important point,” and still later, that “no concessions” were made in favor of Waggoner’s views. Dan Jones finally concluded that Ellen White “has not endorsed Dr. Waggoner’s position,” nor expects to.

Dan Jones’ description of Waggoner’s views took a similar course. What he first described simply as “their views” he soon referred to as “their peculiar views.” Then he described it as blatant “error,” stating that although Waggoner might not be blamed for the printing of the Sabbath School lessons, the Lesson Committee certainly should have “rejected” them.

On March 21, 1890, two days after the second special meeting with Ellen White and other leaders, Dan Jones wrote to R. M. Kilgore and R. A. Underwood, grossly misrepresenting what Ellen White had said:

Sister White says she has not endorsed Dr. Waggoner’s position on the law in Galatians, and expected it would be a long time before she should; her mind is not exercised on that matter at all. They said it was not the question of points of doctrine that they cared for; all could believe what they pleased; but they wanted to see the spirit of Christ come in more. … We could all endorse this of course, and did.

They did not ask any of us to concede any point of doctrine on the covenants, or the law in Galatians; on the contrary they said that matters of doctrine were not the questions at issue; that they cared nothing about what we believed: it was the spirit manifested that they thought was wrong and wished to have corrected. … Sister White stated that she had not endorsed the position of Dr. Waggoner on the law in Galatians, or the covenant question, did not expect to do so; her mind is not exercised in that direction. … Dr. Waggoner explained how the Sabbathschool lessons were prepared … and submitted to the Lesson Committee for examination before being published. This being true, I do not see that he was to blame for anything that the lessons might have contained. … Of course it would not follow that what he taught in these lessons was correct by any means; but men are expected to write as they believe, to interpret scripture as they understand it. … [H]is errors ought to have been detected by the Lesson Committee, and the lessons either refused or rejected. But when they passed through the hands of that Committee and were published by the Sabbath-school Association, it seems to me that the Lesson Committee is as much responsible for the theology that the lessons contained as the writer of the lessons himself.

Less than a week later, Dan Jones made it clear that he had not changed in his understanding of the doctrinal issues, but his confidence in the explanations shared during the two “special meetings” was beginning to wane. He had been willing to admit his mistake in judging Jones’ and Waggoner’s motives but felt it was their responsibility not to act in such a way as to invite judgments:

Perhaps we have been mistaken in some of our opinions that we have held. … I do not see now what can be done but to accept the explanations that have been made, and act upon them. … While I hold the same position on the law in Galatians, and the covenant question that I have always held, I am glad to have my mind relieved in reference to the motive and plans of some of the brethren. … Let us hope that in the future our brethren will not act in such a way as to lay the foundation for unjust judgement on their plans and purposes.

Only a few days passed before Dan Jones was again questioning the validity of the Testimonies. In a letter to R. C. Porter, he expressed sympathy with Uriah Smith who could not “understand why … Sister White spoke at one time positively against a certain thing, as she did against the law in Galatians, to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner several years ago, then turn around and practically give her support to the same thing when it comes up in a little different way.” To this, Dan Jones confessed he was “trying to think as little about it as possible.”

Uriah Smith had obviously not changed his views either, and the letter he had written to Ellen White only a few weeks before appears to have been passed around for Dan Jones to consider. Smith was still strengthening the “hands and minds” of others, which Ellen White had warned against. In a Review article published the very next week, Smith himself showed he had not changed his views, even in light of the clear statements made at the Ministerial Institute.

As for Dan Jones, he continued his spiral, not only intimating doubt in the honesty of Jones’ and Waggoner’s testimony, but hoping they had learned a good lesson from his own design. Only a few days before, he had rejoiced that “all could believe what they pleased.” Now he was unwilling to extend this same courtesy:

I know it is a little difficult in the fact of the circumstantial [sic] evidence that has surrounded this matter for a year and a half, for us to come to the conclusion now that those matters that transpired in Minneapolis were all done in lamb-like innocence. But if Dr. Waggoner says that he did not have any plan when he came there, and Brother Jones says the same, and Sister White sustains them, what can we do but accept it as a fact? … You may think that we have kicked a little up here, and then have been roped in, and swallowed whole. Such is not the case by any means. I consider that we gained every point that we were holding for, and think the other side was glad enough to be let down a little easy; and I was willing that it should be, if they have learned the lessons that we designed they should learn. I feel confident now that Dr. Waggoner will be very cautious about throwing his peculiar views before the people until they have been carefully examined by the leading brethren; and I think the leading brethren will be much more careful in their examinations of these peculiar views than they have been in the past.

Darkness the Result

No greater evidence could be given that Ellen White’s prognosis was correct than the experience of Dan Jones following the 1890 Ministerial Institute. On almost every point, he misunderstood what Ellen White said during her final week at the Institute. Ellen White had clearly endorsed Waggoner’s view on the covenants, warning the brethren that their own view on the law in Galatians was preventing many from receiving light. She herself was not exercised over the matter, for it was not an issue to keep her from accepting advancing light. This Dan Jones had interpreted as evidence that she did not endorse Jones and Waggoner, and that all could believe what they wanted. Ellen White had stated that the spirit manifested by the brethren should be of bigger concern than their pet ideas. To this Dan Jones suggested that doctrine was not the important point, but only the spirit one had. Yet in the end he allowed only for his own view.

Ellen White had stated that there was no organized plan to push the law in Galatians and the covenants, but that the real message was justification by faith. This Dan Jones twisted to mean that a mere assent to justification by faith, which he already espoused, was sufficient without accepting Jones’ and Waggoner’s message. What Dan Jones endorsed were ideas similar to that of the ecumenical movement, which suggests unity and fellowship in a common understanding—laying aside differences—yet persecuting those who do not hold their same views.

Ellen White recognized a better way: “‘If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another,’” but if you “‘walk in the sparks ye have kindled … ye shall lie down in sorrow.’”

When the Lord “urged” Ellen White to stand before her brethren that fateful Sabbath morning and take her “position” on the covenant question, she was “in perfect freedom, calling light, light, and darkness, darkness.” Yet numerous times she warned the brethren that if they turned “from one ray of light … that light becomes to you darkness.” That prediction had come true.

Did the long-hoped for victory come as a result of the 1890 Ministerial Institute? The sad fact of the matter is that the situation only grew more serious. Not only were many rejecting heaven-sent light, but many were told Ellen White herself did not endorse that light. It is unfortunate that over 120 years later the 1890 Ministerial Institute is looked upon as a great turning point for the good. But what is perhaps even sadder is the fact that many sparks of Dan Jones’ own kindling are today still burning out of control.