The Return of the Latter Rain

“Take Not the First Steps in This Road That Leads to the Inquisition”

Because Jones and Waggoner had spent so much time back east since 1889, C. P. Bollman became local managing editor of the Sentinel in California. But not all appreciated his work nor that of the editors of the Sentinel through whom so much had been done.

As early as December, 1888, Ellen White declared that the Sentinel had been “in God’s order, one of the voices sounding the alarm, that the people might hear, and realize their danger, and do the work required at the present time.” Yet, she grieved that “much might have been done with the Sentinel, if counterinfluences [inside the church] had not been at work to hinder it, … to make of none effect the warnings [given].”

At the 1889 General Conference, the newly formed NRLA passed bylaws that would attempt to hinder the work of the Sentinel even more. Although the Sentinel was not officially under the NRLA’s jurisdiction, many of its officers, including Dan Jones and Captain Eldridge, sought complete control over the paper’s content.

Even though A. T. Jones had been most successful in his work for religious liberty, speaking twice before the U. S. Senate Committee on Education and Labor against the Blair bill, Dan Jones and many others did not appreciate what they felt were his “extravagant positions.” This all came to a head in early 1890, about the same time the newest Sunday legislation was introduced to Congress.

Writing to A. W. Allee in late January, Dan Jones gave counsel against inviting Jones and Waggoner, “champion anti–national Reform men,” to an Institute held in Missouri. He did not “have very much confidence in some of their ways of presenting things. They try to drive everything before them, and will not admit that their position can possibly be subject to the least criticism.” Dan Jones also conceded that “our more thoughtful men,—Bro. Smith, Bro. Littlejohn, Bro. Corliss, Bro. Gage, and others,—do not agree with them on many positions which they take on National Reform, and on some theological questions.” For this reason he felt Allee would “not want to bring that spirit into the Missouri Conference” along with all the “high–falutin theory that never has worked and never will work anywhere.” Dan Jones expressed similar feelings to others during the time of the Ministerial Institute.

He told C. H. Jones, manager of Pacific Press, that it was “that disposition, to crowd in and take advantage, that seems to be so manifest in both Dr. Waggoner and Eld. A. T. Jones that makes their labors unpleasant to some of the brethren here in Battle Creek, I think: and we can readily account for its being so.”

Early in 1890, the brethren decided to move the Sentinel back to the Pacific Press branch office in New York City. This would bring the Sentinel closer to the heart of the religious liberty work and to where A. T. Jones could more closely oversee its production. When C. P. Bollman, local managing editor for the Sentinel, came from San Francisco on his way to New York, he stopped in Battle Creek for a few days. He wished to speak to Captain Eldridge, president of the NRLA, about “the position the Sentinel should hold in relation to the NRLAssociation.” In Eldridge’s absence, vice president Dan Jones responded to Bollman’s inquiry. He talked “to him straight about the Sentinel and its extravagant positions and unnecessary personalities; told him plainly that [he] did not take any stock in it either.” Later A. T. Jones, W. C. White and some others were called in to “talk the matter over again.” Dan Jones shared his views telling them “that until there could be some change in the tone of the paper, I should oppose connecting it in any way with the NRL Association.” Although “no promises” were made, Dan Jones conceded there was “considerable improvement” three months after the paper moved to New York. Still he was not completely satisfied and continued “private correspondence” trying to get the paper improved further: “Some of their hairsplitting, so called logical reasoning is ridiculous, and should not enter into such a paper.”

W. C. White, on the other hand, was not of the same mind. Writing to tell A. T. Jones he had just received the “proofs” for the next Sentinel, White unabashedly stated: “We are doing all we can to increase the circulation of the Sentinel.” Although, he too, felt there was an improvement in the paper in regard to “sharp thrusts and hard sayings” since it had moved to New York, he did not consider the paper in the same light that Dan Jones did: “I beg of you to do all you can to secure for us at an early date such tracts [as] are needed for our present work.”

Ellen White, who was in Battle Creek at the time, said nothing in regard to the Sentinel, notwithstanding that time would soon come. It was not until the end of 1890 that she specifically voiced again her strong support for A. T. Jones’ work for religious liberty through the pages of the Sentinel. Although Jones and Waggoner were only men and subject to human weakness, Ellen White had warned the brethren repeatedly against seeking to find fault in them in order to excuse their rejection of the present message: “Do not catch at every objection, however small, and make it as large as possible, and preserve it for future use. No one has said that we shall find perfection in any man’s investigations.” She sternly admonished the unbelieving brethren: “Now, I want you to be careful, everyone of you, what position you take, whether you enshroud yourselves in the clouds of unbelief because you see imperfections; you see a word or a little item, perhaps, that may take place, and judge them from that. You are to see what God is doing with them. You are to see whether God is working with them, and then you are to acknowledge the Spirit of God that is revealed in them. And if you choose to resist it you will be acting just as the Jews acted.”

Accomplishments Speak for Themselves

Emotions ran high at a well-advertised Sunday Law Convention held in Washington, D.C. early that year. Reverend Wilber F. Crafts, National Sunday law advocate, spoke very critically of Seventh-day Adventists, whom he said were ardently fighting the bill even with its “liberal provisions.” A second speaker denounced Adventists as “‘an insignificant sect of narrow-minded bigots’” who joined with atheists, secularists, and socialists to oppose the bill. A third speaker launched a “personal attack on Alonzo Jones … for his efforts to defeat the bill.” This emotional state of mind continued throughout the bill’s initial hearing.

Finally on February 18, 1890, a hearing was held before the House Committee on the Breckenridge bill. A. T. Jones, along with two other Seventh-day Adventists, stood before the Committee speaking against the bill. Jones not only argued very powerfully against the bill’s constitutionality, but he also used arguments from one of Rev. Crafts’ own books to prove there was no need for this legislation. “After the hearing, members of the Congressional Committee grasped the hands” of A. T. Jones and the other Adventist “representatives … and congratulated them on the strength of their position, while the advocates of the Sunday bill ‘silently stole away.’” The House Committee apparently satisfied itself that the measure was religious and in violation of the First Amendment, and the Breckenridge Bill went down in defeat.

Returning to Battle Creek after the hearings, A. T. Jones gave a talk at the Minister’s devotional meeting on the morning of March 20, 1890. O. A. Olsen reported that it was “deeply interesting to note how the providence of God has gone out before us.” The Lord had “directed it” so that certain people were in the right place at the right time, and “things fitted in so exactly and so properly” that it was obvious He was leading:

Bro. Jones also stated that he had never realized the blessing of God in such a measure as when he spoke before the committee of the house in the last hearing. He said, it seemed as though the sentences he should speak were written on the wall, or suspended in the air before him; and it was not only they themselves that felt that they had a blessing, but all who were present could appreciate and realize that the power of God was there in a most remarkable manner. All these things are encouraging indications.

Dan Jones reported that “it was very impressive to hear [A. T. Jones] tell of it, and how the Spirit of God worked for them there.” At times “during his speech it seemed that the words and sentences were just before his eyes as plainly as if they were written, and that he seemed to be reading them off as if they were held up before him in large letters.” Indeed the Lord had picked the right man for the job and had blessed him with His Spirit.

But even with all this evidence that the Lord was using A. T. Jones to do a grand work, Dan Jones was as a man convinced against his will and thus of the same opinion still. No sooner had he finished reporting on A. T. Jones’ providential experience in Washington than he took up his complaint about the “very bad shape” of things that resulted from Jones and Waggoner bringing in the law in Galatians and covenant questions.

Ellen White was rightly troubled by the disposition of the brethren toward Jones and Waggoner. By turning from all the evidence that “God is working with them” and failing to “acknowledge the Spirit of God that is revealed in them,” the brethren were “acting just as the Jews acted.” It was during this time that Ellen White penned the words in Patriarchs and Prophets: “It is hardly possible for men to offer greater insult to God than to despise and reject the instrumentalities He would use for their salvation.”

But Ellen White’s concern was for more than just the leading brethren. She was concerned for the “young men” who were “watching to see in what spirit the ministers come to the investigation of the Scriptures; whether they have a teachable spirit, and are humble enough to accept evidence, and receive light from the messengers whom God chooses to send.” This led her to admonish: “Young men should search the Scriptures for themselves. … The Jews perished as a nation because they were drawn from the truth of the Bible by their rulers, priests, and elders. Had they heeded the lessons of Jesus, and searched the Scriptures for themselves, they would not have perished.” Writing in The Signs of the Times, Ellen White underscored this crucial point:

Should the Lord reveal light after His own plan, many would not respect or comprehend it; they would ridicule the bearer of God’s message as one who set himself up above those who were better qualified to teach. The papal authorities first ridiculed the reformers, and when this did not quench the spirit of investigation, they placed them behind prison walls. … We should be very cautious lest we take the first steps in this road that leads to the Inquisition. The truth of God is progressive; it is always onward, going from strength to greater strength, from light to greater light. We have much reason to believe that the Lord will send us increased truth, for a great work is yet to be done … Much has been lost because our ministers and people have concluded that we have had all the truth essential for us as a people; but such a conclusion is erroneous and in harmony with the deceptions of Satan; for truth will be constantly unfolding.

The greatest care should be exercised lest we do despite to the Spirit of God by treating with indifference and scorn the messenger, and the messages, God sends to His people, and so reject light because our hearts are not in harmony with God.

1890-1891 Ministerial School

When Ellen White heard the news that Waggoner was to be “called to the east to attend the Ministerial Institutes, and to teach the school” she was torn: “I wish Dr. Waggoner could be teacher … and think it is his place, but could you see the pitiful condition of things here!” Already Ellen White could describe the conditions in California as “certainly deplorable.” On the Pacific Coast, there was “scarcely a man who carries a weight of influence.” When “A. T. Jones went east, then Dr. Waggoner and Charlie Jones, it was too much to take away at one time.” Yet, Ellen White added, don’t send R. A. Underwood to fill the position. If he “is still in his opposition state, at war in feelings against A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, keep him east, do not let him have a wide territory where he can circulate and sow broadcast the seed of envy, jealousy, and rebellion.”

By September, Dan Jones was speaking more positively of the upcoming Institute: “The prospect seems quite favorable for a good attendance at the Ministers’ School. With Prof. Prescott as principal and one of the leading teachers, and Eld Smith to come in also as one of the leading teachers, and Dr. Waggoner to connect with it with his energy and zeal, I think the school will be one of real value to all who attend.” One reason for Dan Jones’ acceptance of Jones and Waggoner being teachers at the school may have been due to his own feelings of “spiritual leanness.” He felt that since the last Ministerial Institute, and the way things erupted, that he had “been losing ground spiritually.” Yet, he was not “ready to say” that he “did wrong, and that Dr. Waggoner did right in that matter.” Dan Jones was honest enough, however, to recognize the spirit of God at work: “Bro. A. T. Jones made us a short visit here, day before yesterday, on his way to the Pacific Coast. He is full of zeal and energy. No one can talk with or hear him talk without being impressed that he is in earnest, and that he has the spirit of God with him.”

With about sixty ministers present and “still more to come,” the Ministerial Institute began its opening exercises. W. W. Prescott, E. J. Waggoner, and W. A. Colcord would be the main presenters, with Uriah Smith and others filling in. After the opening weekend, many felt the meetings began on a positive note, “as though we had begun just where we left off last spring.” There were great hopes that as a result of these meetings there would be “advancement not only in our knowledge of the Bible, and in how to apply ourselves to study, but also in spiritual experience.” Because of anxiety on Dan Jones’ part about a repeat of the previous year, Prescott agreed to “assign” Waggoner his teaching area rather than allowing him to choose his own. Prescott would teach the sensitive class on the book of Galatians himself. Ellen White, on the other hand, had anxiety over Uriah Smith teaching in the school:

Smith is placed in positions as teacher to mold and fashion the minds of students when it is a well known fact that he is not standing in the light; he is not working in God’s order. He is sowing seeds of unbelief that spring up and bear fruit for some souls to harvest. …

I consider the position and work of Elders Butler, Farnsworth, Smith, and numerous others, is to unsettle the faith of the people of God by things which they say but which they ought not to say, and things left unsaid which they ought to say. And this state of things—unbelief, prejudice, and Pharisaism— is leavening the church. … They have had all the evidence that will ever be given them in the manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit of God attending the messages given, but they have closed their eyes lest they shall see, and hardened their hearts lest they shall feel. The Spirit of God has been grieved, and they are so dull of comprehension that they know it not. …

There is much loose work done everywhere, and the efforts that have been made for the few years past tend to put out the eyes that Israel shall not discern their defections, and God withholds His Spirit from them and darkness envelopes [sic] them as it did the Jewish nation.

Ellen White’s concerns proved to be legitimate. When word got around to G. I. Butler that W. W. Prescott was teaching Waggoner’s “absurd position” on the book in Galatians, he responded with disgust: “Great Scott, has it come to this that such things are to be indoctrinated into the minds of our young people?” Most ministers attending the school felt differently however, profiting by their study and enjoying participation in the fieldwork provided. This seems to summarize the Ministerial Institute in general. Those who attended the meetings received a great blessing, while those who stayed away found only something to criticize.

By the end of November “nearly 100” were present with “still more to come.” Reports of the meetings were still very positive: “The best of interest is manifested. Teachers and students are enjoying much of the Spirit of God. … We long to see our people everywhere drink deeper draughts from the well of salvation.”

Even E. J. Waggoner gave a positive report to Ellen White with less than a month to go in the Institute: “He rejoiced that there was an entirely different atmosphere pervading the meetings than was in the ministerial institute last year.” Ellen White could “thank the Lord for this testimony.” Following the close of the Ministerial Institute, O. A. Olsen reported to the General Conference that “the amount of good accomplished by these schools it is impossible for us to estimate. The blessing of God has been present in a large measure.” Once again, if this was all there was to report on the meetings it would be well, but history does not lie, if we let it speak.

Ellen White, although thankful for the blessings that had been gained, was still very concerned over the general state of the ministry. Some who attended meetings were giving suggestions and asking questions “full of unbelief.” There had been “a multiplying of expressions with little substantial knowledge, little increase of solid principles.” Moreover, some of the brethren connected with the work would not “attend meetings” and were fearful of what was being taught. During the closing meeting of the Ministerial Institute, Ellen White spoke in regard “to matters that were deeply impressing [her] mind”:

I referred to the fear that had been expressed by some who were not members of the ministerial institute, and who had not been present at all the Bible classes of the school—a fear that there was danger of carrying the subject of justification by faith altogether too far, and of not dwelling enough on the law. Judging from the meetings that I have been privileged to attend, I could see no cause for alarm; and so I felt called upon to say that this fear was cherished by those who had not heard all the precious lessons given, and that therefore they were not warranted in coming to such a conclusion. …

When precious rays of light from the Sun of Righteousness have shone upon our pathway, some have opened wide the door of the heart, welcoming the heaven-sent light. … Others have needed the divine anointing to improve their spiritual eyesight, in order that they may distinguish the light of truth from the darkness of error. Because of their blindness, they have lost an experience that would have been more precious to them than silver and gold. Some, I fear, will never recover that which they have lost.

Under Fire Again

Back in Battle Creek that very day, the “second annual session of the National Religious Liberty Association convened in the Tabernacle … at 5 o’clock p. m., with President C. Eldridge in the chair.” Twenty-six committee members listened as Secretary W. H. McKee reported on the labor of the Association for the past year. A detailed description was given of all the work done countering the Breckinridge bill and the influence of Rev. Crafts, the defending of Mr. King in Tennessee, and the circulating of petitions against Sunday legislation. The report included a description of all the material the NRLA had circulated that year. Over four million pages of pamphlets and tracts, ten thousand manuals, thirty thousand petition blanks, and other assorted material had been circulated. A close reading of the report shows that although thirty thousand copies of the American Sentinel were given out December of 1889, only ten thousand more copies were circulated the following year. It was stated that in one particular incident, the NRLA did not have “time to order an edition of the American Sentinel” so they “made up” their own paper to distribute. But there were other reasons given why the Sentinel was not being used by the NRLA; it took too much of a “sectarian” position.

Dan Jones had stirred up opposition against the Sentinel earlier in the year over what he considered “sharp thrusts.” Now there was a growing concern that the paper wrote too directly of Seventh-day Adventist’s peculiar doctrines. This concern was largely due to the fact that during 1890 many of the leaders of the NRLA had found an open door to present the principles of religious liberty they were advocating before large audiences of secular and non-Christian people. It appeared to them that it would be a wise plan to improve these opportunities and clearly present the principles of religious liberty, especially if unassociated with the teachings of the Scripture regarding the sacredness of the Sabbath and the nearness of the second advent of Christ.

Pressure from other non–Christian groups had been brought to bear upon the Executive Committee of the NRLA to engage “unconsecrated persons, even infidels,” in its work against Sunday legislation in order to have a wider influence. Many in the NRLA felt this was the direction they should follow in order to accomplish a greater work. In fact, the NRLA’s president, C. Eldridge, reported to the Association in his November 3 talk that there was “wisdom of the organization of the National Religious Liberty Association, because, under the Association name, its members could do far more in behalf of Religious Liberty, than under any sectarian name;” i.e., as Seventh-day Adventists.

A. T. Jones, on the other hand, would have totally disagreed. Although he was on the NRLA’s Executive Committee, he could not attend this annual meeting, and thus was unable to voice his apprehension. But there was no question where he stood. He stated openly at the 1891 General Conference that he was “willing to bear the blame” because he would not print in the Sentinel just any speech that was delivered “in the interest of religious liberty.” He knew “that there is a good deal more to the question of religious liberty than simply talking about religious liberty”:

Outside of the third angel’s message, there is no religious liberty in this world at this time. … [I]f we would know the real principles of religious liberty—know them properly, and hold them all the time—we must get them from the third angel’s message; we must get them from God in the way he is giving them to the world at this time, and put them where they belong. …

Now there are some people outside of the Seventh-day Adventist church who understand the principles of religious liberty so far as they know them; but they don’t understand them far enough. And it is the purpose of the third angel’s message, to hold before the world and everybody in it, the true principles of religious liberty. … The truth is that, were it not for the third angel’s message, every soul of us would be in favor of religious legislation. Every soul of us, because we are just the kind of people who, without the blessing and influence of the Spirit of God, would be in that very business.

A. T. Jones’ stance brought criticism against him, which would soon come to a head at the final Association meeting held December 7, 1890, where new officers were voted for the following year. Being absent from the meeting, A. T. Jones was removed from the Executive Committee, while C. Eldridge, Dan Jones, W. A. Colcord and A. F. Ballenger were all reelected. Both A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner were once again placed on the Editorial Committee, but resolutions were passed which would limit their ability to give any input. At the 1889 General Conference the Association had voted to “have an organ, through which to advocate its principles and advertise and mould its work.” The American Sentinel had been the church’s religious liberty “organ” up to that time. Now a resolution was passed “that the distribution of literature by the Association be done through the International Tract Society, and that the [NRLA] keep the society supplied with sufficient quantities of this literature.” Although the American Sentinel would be part of that literature, the Association voted that “plans for local NRLA work be published in the Religious Liberty department of the Home Missionary,” a periodical published in Battle Creek.

The Association also voted that “through its Executive Committee,” on which A. T. Jones no longer served, instead of its Editorial Committee, on which A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner both served, the American Sentinel was to be “supplied each week with enough interesting and well-edited matter, to fill three columns of that journal.” It is clear that the Association was systematically seeking to control or phase out the Sentinel as its religious liberty “organ.” In another resolution which reflected the plans for the coming year, the Association voted that its members “affiliate with … other Christian associations, in distributing literature, in holding monthly meetings, and in all their efforts in behalf of Religious Liberty.” Although these plans were not faulty in every regard, great danger lay ahead.

Salamanca Vision

Before the first word of petition had been offered she felt that the room was filled with the fragrance of roses. Looking up to see whence the fragrance came, she saw the room flooded with soft, silvery light. Instantly her pain and weariness disappeared. The perplexity and discouragement of mind vanished, and hope and comfort and peace filled her heart. Then losing all consciousness regarding her surroundings, she was shown in vision many things relating to the progress of the cause in different parts of the world, and the conditions which were helping or hindering the work. Among the many views presented to her, were several showing the conditions existing in Battle Creek. In a very full and striking manner, these were laid out before her.

Tuesday morning, November 4, when W. C. White and A. T. Robinson called on Ellen White to see what she had decided to do, they found her dressed and well. She told them of her experience the evening before and the peace and joy she felt through the night. She had been unable to sleep, not because of sickness, but on account her heart was filled with joy and gladness. Now she would continue her work in the East. Ellen White started telling her son and A. T. Robinson what was revealed to her during the night: “‘In the vision I seemed to be in Battle Creek, and the angel messenger bade me, “Follow me.”’” She hesitated, for the scene had gone from her; she could not call it to mind. After visiting for a time with the two men, Ellen White sought once again to tell them what had been revealed to her in regard to the work in Battle Creek, but just as before, she could not call it to mind.

In her November 4 diary entry, Ellen White wrote a few short words: “I longed to be where I could write out the things that were opened before me the past night. It was the Lord. …” Her sentence was left unfinished, perhaps to be finished at a later time. A few weeks later she was again visited by a heavenly messenger and brought to see what was taking place in Battle Creek. What she was unable to tell others in person, she was able to write down in her diary:

During the night I have been in communion with God. I have been brought by my guide into the councils in Battle Creek, and I have a message to bear to you whether you will hear or not, whether you will receive it or reject it. The people must know that they are not moving in the order of God. They have left Christ out of their councils. Leading men are giving a mold to the work that will result in the loss of many souls. … Many come here from foreign countries, thinking that Battle Creek, from whence come the publications of truth, will be next to heaven. How disappointed they feel when they hear in this place the message of God spoken of lightly, when they hear the messengers of God, by some in responsible places, made a subject of ridicule.

Nine days later, and before the report of NRLA’s annual meeting made its way into the Review, Ellen White once again wrote in her diary giving more details of what she had been shown in vision. The people of the world were trying to induce Adventists to soften our message; to suppress one of its more distinctive features:

They say: “Why do you in your teaching make the seventh–day Sabbath so prominent? This seems to be always thrust before us; we should harmonize with you if you would not say so much on this point; keep the seventh–day Sabbath out of the Sentinel, and we will give it our influence and support.” And there has been a disposition on the part of some of our workers to adopt this policy.

I am bidden to warn you that deceptive sentiments are entertained, a false modesty and caution, a disposition to withhold the profession of our faith. In the night season, matters have been presented before me that have greatly troubled my mind. I have seemed to be in meetings for counsel where these subjects were discussed, and written documents were presented, advocating concession. Brethren, shall we permit the world to shape the message that God has given us to bear to them? …

Shall we, for the sake of policy, betray a sacred trust? If the world is in error and delusion, breaking the law of God, is it not our duty to show them their sin and danger? We must proclaim the third angel’s message.

What is the Sentinel for, but to be the voice of the watchmen on the walls of Zion, to sound the danger signal. We care not to cringe and beg pardon of the world for telling them the truth: we should scorn concealment. … Let it be understood that Seventh-day Adventists can make no compromise. In your opinions and faith there must not be the least appearance of wavering; the world has a right to know what to expect from us, and will look upon us as dishonest … if we carry even the semblance of being uncommitted.

With only a few days remaining before Ellen White returned to Battle Creek, she penned the following words in her diary: “My mind has been in painful exercise during the night. I was in a meeting in Battle Creek, and heard many suggestions made and saw a spirit manifested not of God. They were having a storm of words. How my heart ached.” Upon returning to Battle Creek December 30, Ellen White soon became involved in the final weeks of the Ministerial Institute. It was at some point in time following her return that she filled in her diary entry for November 21, 1890.

In the night season I was present in several councils, and there I heard words repeated by influential men to the effect that if the American Sentinel would drop the words “Seventh-day Adventists” from its columns, and would say nothing about the Sabbath, the great men of the world would patronize it. It would become popular and do a larger work. This looked very pleasing. These men could not see why we could not affiliate with unbelievers and non-professors to make the American Sentinel a great success. I saw their countenances brighten, and they began to work on a policy to make the Sentinel a popular success.

This policy is the first step in a succession of wrong steps. The principles which have been advocated in the American Sentinel are the very sum and substance of the advocacy of the Sabbath, and when men begin to talk of changing these principles, they are doing a work which it does not belong to them to do. Like Uzzah, they are attempting to steady the ark which belongs to God and is under His special supervision. Said my guide to those in these councils, “Who of the men among you have felt the burden of the cause from the first, and have accepted responsibilities under the trying circumstances? Who has carried the burden of the work during the years of its existence? Who has practiced self-denial and self-sacrifice? The Lord made a place for

His staunch servants, whose voices have been heard in warning. He carried forward His work before any of you put your hands to it, and He can and will find a place for the truth you would suppress. In the American Sentinel has been published the truth for this time. Take heed what you do. ‘Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’”

Ellen White had observed more than one council meeting taking place; she was “present in several.” Clearly more had gone on during the NRLA’s annual meeting than was reported in the Review. It was Ellen White’s angel guide who asked such penetrating questions of those who were criticizing the Lord’s “staunch servants.” E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones had “carried the burden of the work” of religious liberty “during the years of its existence.” They had “practiced selfdenial and self-sacrifice” while Dan Jones and others sought only to ridicule their work. Ellen White’s guide offered not one word of censure against Jones and Waggoner, but stated simply that God would find a place for “the truth” the American Sentinel had published.

A few days later Ellen White penned more words in her diary in regard to what she had been shown. She “was in Battle Creek, and in a council assembled there were ministers and responsible men from the Review office. There were sentiments advanced and with no very gentle spirit urged to be adopted, which filled me with surprise and apprehension and distress. … They would adopt plans which appeared wise, but Satan was the instigator of these measures.” It is no wonder she was carrying a heavy burden for what was taking place.

1891 General Conference

“While at Salamanca, New York matters of importance were revealed to me. In a vision of the night I seemed to be here in Battle Creek, and the angel messenger bade me, ‘Follow me.’” She hesitated; the scene was gone. She could not call it to mind. She continued to speak of how we must hold forth the distinctive features of our faith. Then she said, “I must tell you of the vision which was given to me at Salamanca; for in that vision important matters were revealed to me. In the vision I seemed to be in Battle Creek. I was taken to the Review and Herald office, and the angel messenger bade me, ‘Follow me.’” Again she faltered; it had gone from her. She went on with her sermon, and a third time that afternoon she attempted to recount that vision, but she was not allowed to tell it. Finally she said, “Of this, I shall have more to say later.” She rounded out her sermon in about an hour’s time, and the meeting was dismissed. Everyone had noticed that she was unable to call the vision to mind.

Later in the afternoon a ministers’meeting was held in the east vestry of the Tabernacle. Ellen White was present and pleaded for a deeper consecration. At the close of this special meeting, Elder O. A. Olsen asked her if she would attend the ministers’meeting in the morning. She replied that she had done her part and would leave the burden with him. Thus it was planned that Olsen and Prescott lead the meeting.

That Sabbath evening, March 7, after sundown, and after Ellen White had retired to her room, a special closed-door meeting was held in the Review and Herald’s office chapel. About 30 to 40 people were present, the majority representing the National Religious Liberty Association, and a few representing the Pacific Press, publishers of the American Sentinel. The meeting was opened and conducted by Dan Jones, vice president of the NRLA. He stated in a very strong way that the Association could not continue to use the American Sentinel as the organ of the Association, unless it would modify its attitude toward some of what was termed the more objectionable features of our denominational views. A. T. Jones responded, stating that as long as he had anything to do with the editorship of the paper, there would be no such change as suggested. The meeting assumed the form of a very warm discussion between those who took opposite sides of the question. At that point someone locked the door, proposing that it should not be opened until the question was settled.

At some point during the meeting, A. F. Ballenger, NRLA Executive Committee member, stood to his feet and held up the most recent copy of the Sentinel, pointing out certain articles that should be omitted. A. T. Jones and C. P. Bowman had been running pointed articles through the paper on the Sabbath question and the Second Advent and their relation to religious liberty. Many from the NRLA ardently disapproved, feeling the articles were too “strong.” They didn’t want anything sectarian by appeal to the Scriptures to be found in the Sentinel, but wanted the paper to advocate the broad principles of civil and religious liberty, carefully avoiding any church affiliation. They argued that the paper was read and approved by men of influence in state and church, and now to offend their senses by declaring in a strong way the seventh-day Sabbath and the end of the world, would be suicidal to the interests of the American Sentinel and the NRLA.

The meeting dragged on for hours in apparent deadlock, with the assertion on the part of the NRLA men that unless the Pacific Press would accede to their demands and drop the strong articles along with the terms “Seventh-day Adventist” and “the Sabbath” from the columns of the paper, they would no longer use it as the organ of the Association. That meant killing the paper. Finally, a little before three o’clock early Sunday morning, a vote was taken. The majority voted to drop the Sentinel and start another paper as the organ of the Religious Liberty Association. The door was now unlocked and the men went off to their rooms to sleep, having only a few short hours before the 5:30 morning meeting.

One can only imagine how A. T. Jones might have felt as he walked out into the cool morning air and headed to his room. The real religious liberty cause, for which he had fought so hard, seemed destined for defeat. Those who should have given their support had treated his diligent work with scorn and ridicule. One can only wonder what prayers went up from him that early morning. Did he sleep at all that night before having to be up for the 5:30 morning meeting? God, who does not slumber or sleep, was fully aware of what had taken place. He well knew the monumental times in which those on earth were living. He knew it was the time of the latter rain and that the message He was sending was to lighten the earth with His glory.

No sooner had the meeting closed than an angel was commissioned to wake Ellen White; it was time for her to share what she had been shown in Salamanca four months before. Arising from her bed, Ellen White went to her bureau and took out the diaries in which she had made the record of what she had been shown. As the scenes came once again clearly to her mind, she wrote out in more detail what she had been unable to share many times before.

A few hours later, as W. C. White and two other brethren passed by Ellen White’s residence on their way to the early morning meeting, they noticed her light on. Knowing that his mother had not planned to attend the early morning meeting, W. C. White went in to inquire if she were alright. He found her busily engaged in writing. She told him that an angel of God had wakened her about three o’clock and had bidden her go to the ministers’ meeting and relate some things shown her at Salamanca. She said that she arose quickly and had been writing for about two hours.

At the minister’s meeting, opening prayer had just been offered when Ellen White entered with a package of manuscripts under her arm. With evident surprise Elder Olsen said: “We are glad to see you, Sister White. Have you a message for us this morning?” “Indeed I have,” was her reply, as she stepped to the front. Then she began where she had left off the day before. She told the brethren how she had been awakened that very morning and urged to share what she had been shown while in Salamanca four months before. She told how she had seen herself “bearing a message to an assembly which seemed to be the General Conference”:

I was moved by the Spirit of God to say many things, to make most earnest appeals, for the truth was urged upon me that great danger lay before those at the heart of the work. … The words were to be in earnest. “Speak the word that I shall give thee, to prevent their doing things which would separate God from the publishing house and sacrifice pure and holy principles which must be maintained.” … Many things were unfolded to me. The eyes which once wept over impenitent Jerusalem—for their impenitence, their ignorance of God and of Jesus Christ, their Redeemer—were bent upon the great heart of the work in Battle Creek. …

Witticisms and your sharp criticisms, after the infidel style, please the devil but not the Lord. The Spirit of God has not been controlling in your councils. There have been misstatements of messengers and of the messages they bring. How dare you do it? … No confidence should be placed in the judgment of those who do this thing, no weight attached to their advice or resolutions. … Accusing the workmen and the work of the ones whom God is using is accusing Jesus Christ in the person of His saints. … The prejudices and opinions that prevailed at Minneapolis are not dead by any means. The seeds there sown are ready to spring into life and bear a like harvest, because the roots are still left. The tops have been cut off, but the roots are not dead, and will bear their unholy fruit, to poison the perception and blind the understanding of those you connect with, in regard to the messengers and messages that God sends.

Those who had criticized A. T. Jones for his work in the Sentinel had faulty judgment. Many of them had repented a year before at the 1890 Ministerial Institute, but their repentance was not genuine; only the “tops” had been cut off, leaving the roots to spring again to life. Continuing on, Ellen White spoke specifically of a meeting she had observed:

I was present in one of your councils. One arose, and in a very earnest, decided manner, held up a paper. I could read the heading plainly—American Sentinel. There were criticisms made upon the articles published therein. It was declared that this must be cut out, and that must be changed. Strong words were uttered and a strong unchristlike spirit prevailed. My guide gave me words to speak to the ones who were present who were not slow to make their accusations. In substance I will state the reproof given: That there was a spirit of strife in the midst of the council. The Lord had not presided in their councils and their minds and hearts were not under the controlling influence of the Spirit of God. Let the adversaries of our faith be the ones to instigate and develop plans which are being formed. … The light which the Lord has given should be respected for your own safety, as well as for the safety of the church of God. …

You will need to make straight paths for your feet, lest they be turned out of the way. … I know a work must be done for the people or many will not receive the light of the angel which is sent from heaven to fill the whole earth with his glory. Do not think that when the latter rain comes you will be a vessel unto honor to receive the showers of blessing—even the glory of God—when you have been lifting up your souls unto vanity, speaking perverse thing, secretly cherishing the roots of bitterness you brought to Minneapolis, which you have carefully cultivated and watered ever since.

Ellen White went on to tell the brethren that she had been shown the Sentinel was being widely read and favorably received. It had gathered the confidence of people to whom the full light of truth was due. These articles, instead of lessening the list of subscribers, would increase its circulation and demand. Ellen White solemnly asked: “Are our people now to cut out the Sabbath message from the Sentinel and heed the advice and counsel of worldly men, keeping the Sentinel from carrying this most important truth to the world?” Several times throughout Ellen White’s lengthy talk, she mentioned Israel and the rebellion that led to the judgments of God. She specifically mentioned the experience of Elijah—the trials he endured and the message he gave. She clearly compared this not only to her own experience, but also to the experience of Jones and Waggoner who had been so maligned for their work in behalf of religious liberty through the Sentinel:

Let a Christian walk with the Lord in all humility of mind and he is called narrow, bigoted, exclusive. If he is zealous, the world will call him a fanatic. Let him speak the truth decidedly with pen and voice and go forth in the spirit and power of Elijah to proclaim the day of the Lord, and he is called by the world excitable; they say he is denouncing everything but that which he believes. Let the Christian be whatever grace can make him, and the world cannot understand it. …

Let us look at the case of Elijah. … The king accuses Elijah, “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” 1 Kings 18:17 Does he betray sacred trusts because Israel has perverted her faith and disowned her allegiance to her God? Does he prophesy smooth things to please and pacify the king and secure his favor? … No, no! Elijah is a man who proclaims the truth, just such truth that the occasion demands. … The answer came from Elijah, “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” 1 Kings 18:18. This is the very course men will take who are now in office. … I have a warning to give to this body assembled in this house in General Conference. There is danger of our institutions creating plans and ways and means that mean not success, but defeat. …

There has been a departure from God, and there has not as yet been zealous work in repenting and coming back to the first love. … Baal will be the purpose, the faith, the religion of a sorrowful number among us, because they choose their own way instead of God’s way. The true religion, the only religion of the Bible—believing in the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness of Christ, and the blood of the Lamb—has been not only slighted and spoken against, ridiculed, and criticized, but suspicions and jealousies have been created, leading into fanaticism and atheism.

The ministers’ morning meeting which usually closed at 6:30 a.m., continued on into the forenoon. After Ellen White finished her reading and speaking, she sat down, and the room was wrapped in silence. Many who had not been at the meeting the night before sat in bewilderment. Elder Olsen was in deep perplexity, as he had known nothing of the meeting the evening before. He was so surprised, and the things Ellen White presented seemed so unreasonable, that he was quite nonplused in his mind as to what this meant. Finally the silence was broken by the weeping voice of A. F. Ballenger. Holding up the current issue of the American Sentinel, Ballenger pointed to the front-page article and said: ‘“I was in the meeting last night, and I am the man who made the remarks about the articles in the paper.’” “‘This is the article on the Sabbath referred to by Sister White, and I am the man who said such strong articles should not appear in the Sentinel.’” Ballenger went on to confess his error: ‘“I am sorry to say that I was on the wrong side, but I take this opportunity to place myself on the right side.’”

Ellen White, who for the first time laid eyes upon the current issue of the Sentinel—the same one she had seen only in her dream—sat with a look of perplexity on her face. She turned to Brother Ballenger and exclaimed in amazement: “Last night! the meeting was last night?” One by one, the men who had attended the meeting the night before rose to their feet and confessed their part in what had taken place. Even those who had defended the Sentinel gave testimonies of thanksgiving. C. H. Jones stated that Ellen White had described the meeting correctly in every particular. He was so thankful for the light that had come, for it had become a serious situation. At some point during the morning meeting, Dan Jones, who had led out in seeking to kill the Sentinel the night before, stood and confessed: “‘Sister White, I thought I was right. Now I know I was wrong.’” A. T. Jones, who had watched as the Sentinel suffered apparent defeat, answered in humility and self-forgetfulness: “‘You are right—now, anyhow.’” The Holy Spirit had been powerfully manifested and a different spirit came into the meeting.

Because of the sequence of events that led up to the morning meeting, Ellen White stated later that “the excuse could not possibly be used, ‘someone told her.’No one had an opportunity to see me or speak with me between the evening meeting and the morning meeting that I attended.” As a result, not only was the cause of God spared for a time from a serious mistake, but the experience provided unimpeachable evidence to not a few, of the reliability and integrity of the Spirit of Prophecy:

The relation of this vision made a profound and solemn impression upon that large congregation of Seventh-day Adventist ministers present at that early morning meeting. When they heard those who had been reproved for the wrong course taken in that council confess that all Mrs. White had said about them was true in every particular, they saw that the seal of divine inspiration had been set upon that vision and testimony. The power and solemnity of that meeting made an impression upon the minds of those present not soon to be forgotten.

But the very incident which proved to many, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Ellen White was inspired and led by God, also brought the conviction that they could not escape her ever-present, authoritative Testimonies. Within three weeks, the Board of Foreign Missions would vote to send Ellen White, along with her workers and W.C. White to Australia. Years later, Ellen White would make it clear that the Lord was not in their leaving America. But powerful forces at the heart of the work were very willing to have them leave. As is always the case, the Lord did not force His hand but allowed His people to choose their own way:

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

The result is before you. Had you stood in the right position the move would not have been made at that time. The Lord would have worked for Australia by other means and a strong influence would have been held at Battle Creek, the great heart of the work. There we should have stood shoulder to shoulder, creating a healthful atmosphere to be felt in all our conferences. It was not the Lord who devised this matter. I could not get one ray of light to leave America. But when the Lord presented this matter to me as it really was, I opened my lips to no one, because I knew that no one would discern the matter in all its bearings. When we left, relief was felt by many, but not so much by yourself, and the Lord was displeased; for he had set us to stand at the wheels of the moving machinery at Battle Creek.

Such great responsibilities call for the continual counsel of God, that they may be carried forward in a right way. But this counsel was not considered a necessity. That the people of Battle Creek should feel that they could have us leave at the time we did, was the result of man’s devising, and not the Lord’s.

A month following the 1891 General Conference session the Review reprinted a sermon delivered by Ellen White at a worker’s meeting in September, 1887. Her monumental words remain poignant today: “The latter rain is to fall upon the people of God. A mighty angel is to come down from heaven, and the whole earth is to be lighted with his glory. Are we ready to take part in the glorious work of the third angel? Are our vessels ready to receive the heavenly dew? Have we defilement and sin in the heart? If so, let us cleanse the soul temple, and prepare for the showers of the latter rain. The refreshing from the presence of the Lord will never come to hearts filled with impurity. May God help us to die to self, that Christ, the hope of glory, may be formed within!” We will continue our study in The Return of the Latter Rain, volume 2.