The Mystery of 1888 — Chapter 5



Turning from history as such, it is important to consider next the eyewitness accounts as given and understood by the Lord's messenger. Ellen G. White was present at the 1888 Conference. She was sixty-one years of age at that time (1827 - 1915). Her understanding of all that transpired at this session came to her by (1) being present, and (2) by divine revelation given as much as two years before the Conference was held, and (3) by inspired insight.

These counsels from the Lord will bear witness as long as time shall last. Their great significance will increase in value and import the further "we" travel in time from 1888. It is a solemn truth that she must stand as "Adventism's Peerless Witness." (Froom, P. 443, et. seq.) There is no question about this. The problem is, are "we" prepared to accept her witness. Do "we" take her words for just what they say or do "we" make them say what "we see"? In chapter thirteen of Froom's work, "we see" far more than the Lord has ever said or implied through His messenger. Fortunately, not only what she said is available, but what she wrote at the time of the Conference is also on hand for careful study. This must be considered in contrast to the general thesis and implications of Froom's work.

E. G. White versus Froom — The tone of the public presentations made by Ellen White at the Conference is one of solemn entreaty, positive warning, and specific comparisons with the Jews and condemnations for rebellion and rejection. This evidence is very great. Yet Froom, professing to accept this weighty divine counsel, proceeds in a way that leads to an end result which is a nullified version or complete reversal of what has been stated. The portent of this is very serious and perhaps cannot be fully appreciated without careful study and comparison of the record from God's messenger and his chapter thirteen. (Pp. 218-236.) Specific points must be noted. Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been supplied in this section to delineate the points considered. For ready reference the Ellen G. White material is quoted from Olson, Appendix A, Pp. 257, et. seq., wherein an almost complete record is provided of the E. G. White sermons given at the session.

1. Froom refers to the first EGW talk at the session, October 18. (Olson, Pp. 257-260.) He quotes part of a sentence (P. 221): "We are losing a great deal of the blessing we might have at this meeting because we do not take advance steps in the Christian life as our duty is presented before us;" then the balance of the sentence reads: "and this will be an eternal loss." Note: Three times in this one sentence she refers to "we" that is, all present at the Conference. The gravity of the situation is clear by her reference to "an eternal loss," which Froom did not quote.

He next quotes: "We must not measure God or His truth by our finite understanding or by our preconceived opinions." The preceding sentence reads: "We should be in a position where we can comprehend the teaching, leading, and working of the Spirit of Christ." The next following sentence reads: "There are many who do not realize where they are standing, for they are spiritually blinded." These are words to the delegates as a whole and not to a segment. This entire sermon needs to be read carefully.

Froom states: "Some, she admonishes specifically, have 'never been converted.'" She actually says, "There are many ministers who have never been converted." The ministers were offering "lifeless prayers … dry discourses … they are not partakers of the divine nature." The thrust of the whole sermon was against "those who are in positions of responsibility," "the ministers." "We want the ministers and the young men to be converted."

2. The third EGW sermon was given on October 20. (Olson, Pp. 260 - 268.) She called for "progress." Following three pages of solemn admonitions and illustrations from sacred history, she came to a crucial point and makes reference to Christ being "thrust out of the city."

At this place Froom (P. 223) quotes a few words: "She warns that 'if God gives light,' He will 'withdraw His Spirit unless His truth is accepted.'" (Olson, P. 264.) Here the Lord's messenger was making a terrible comparison. What did "they" do to Christ? "They 'rose up, and thrust him out of the city.'" She speaks to the Conference, the delegates assembled — "for you to do as they did" is "a terrible thing." "We" today should be driven to our knees by the awful significance of these words! They must be read in their full context.

She continues by pointing out that disbelief had been the problem in Christ's day and the people had been "under the generalship of Satan and yet claimed that they were working under the generalship of God. But God had nothing to do with their unbelief and their rising against Jesus Christ." To be under the generalship of Satan while claiming God as the general must be very close to the ultimate in self-deception. Her next sentence is: "I wish you could see and feel that if you are not advancing you are retrograding." She continues to the delegates: "Now, what we want you to see is the relation which you sustain to the work of God. ... I ask you what position shall we take that we may be partakers of the divine nature?" Much more than a doctrine was involved; a divine-human relationship was at stake, and the withdrawal of the Spirit was pending.

3. The fifth sermon (Olson, Pp. 272 - 285) proceeds to point out very clearly the need for "men who are spiritually sharp and clearsighted, men worked by the Holy Spirit." The entire sermon is very frank. When "we" are compared to the Pharisees, it should frighten us. She says: (P. 276) "The Lord has plain words for those who, like the Pharisees, make great boast of their piety but whose hearts are destitute of the love of God. The Pharisees refused to know God and Jesus Christ whom He had sent. Are we not in danger of doing the same thing as did the Pharisees and scribes?"

Some further statements, likewise not quoted by Froom, should serve to show the real attitude taken at the session.

"God calls upon you to leave the atmosphere of unbelief in which you have been dwelling, and place yourselves in an atmosphere of faith and confidence." (P. 281.)

"If we neglect to walk in the light given, it becomes darkness to us; and the darkness is proportionate to the light and privileges which we have not improved." (P. 283.)

"God is displeased with those who call evil good and good evil." (P. 284.)

"If, as Christ's overseers, we do our work with an eye single to the glory of God, there is no reason why the church should be weak, faithless, and corrupt. Let the watchmen on the walls of Zion awake!" (P. 284.)

"Come up out of the cellar of doubt, of unbelief, of jealousy, and evil surmising, into the upper chamber of faith, hope, courage, and thankfulness." (P. 285.)

"It is Satan's work to misrepresent the Father and His Son, to misrepresent truth and gloss over error, making it appear as truth." (P. 285.)

These words were spoken to the entire Conference, not just to "some." Who are "Christ's overseers"? Who are "the watchmen on the walls of Zion"? Dare any minister disclaim his responsibility, above all the leadership? Can such solemn words as these be the basis for declaring as Froom does: "1888 therefore came to mark the beginning of a new note and new day, the significance of which was not fully sensed at the time … not a point of defeat but a turn in the tide for ultimate victory." (P. 187.) "The Minneapolis Conference was nevertheless the beginning of a new epoch in the gradual clarification, development, and perfection of new aspects of truth." (P. 252.) Do present conditions in the church indicate that the "revival of primitive godliness … began following the Conference of 1888"? (P. 187.)

4. The nearer the end of the Conference came, the more pronounced and direct the counsel of the Lord became. The seventh sermon of EGW stands out boldly to show exactly what the attitude was of the "ministering brethren." (Olson, pp. 290-293.) There is no possible way to construe these words to be directed against "a few strong-minded opposers … exerting a disproportionate influence." (P. 228.) The tenor of her words cannot be misunderstood. The numerous broken quotations taken by Froom from the whole must be read in their entirety as complete sentences in their context. There is no intimation from any word spoken by the Lord's messenger to show she was trying to correct a "few" or "some." Repeatedly she refers to "my brethren," "our ministering brethren," "brethren," "ministers," and "you" in the generic sense! More than once the comparison is made with the Jewish nation. "Just like the Jewish nation." (Olson, p. 292.)

"How can you listen to all that I have been telling you all through these meetings and not know for yourself what is truth?" (P. 292.)

"Eyes have ye but ye see not; ears, but ye hear not." (Ibid.)

"There is the danger God has shown me that there would be a deceitful handling of the Word of God." (Ibid.)

"All this terrible feeling I don't believe in." (P. 293.)

"You want the eyesalve that you can see, and Jesus will help you if you will come to Him as little children." (Ibid.)

5. Then the last great cry came in the eighth sermon, written out in full so that no future generation need have any question about what was said. (Olson, pp. 294-302.) In view of the language she used it is difficult to understand why any man should persist in claiming that all came out well following 1888. Why is it repeatedly denied that the "leadership" failed in their understanding and responsibility of that hour? This eighth sermon bears careful analysis in full context and not by fragmentary excerpts. If the church had nothing else to study regarding 1888, this sermon would clearly point out who were involved, and the attitude of rejection which they took. There is no way to construe this to be "an assumption without justification in historical truth or fact." (Froom, p. 685.) Indeed this sermon is but one sure testimony among many that the Lord had given to make clear the 1888 episode. What more can the Lord do to make us see and understand "our" history?

At the outset it must be noted that the sermon was addressed to, "Dear Brethren Assembled at General Conference." It could not be more specific. This was to the leaders and ministry of the church assembled by vote of the church and bearing the responsibilities delegated by the church. At no point in the entire sermon is it intimated that EGW was burdened over the quantity of "some" accepting and 'some' rejecting," as Froom states. (P. 229.) The great contrast between truth and error is evident in her opening sentence: "I entreat you to exercise the spirit of Christians." It may seem strange why such an entreaty should be made to a church assembly, but very soon the reason is pointed out. The contrast is made between Christians and how they should think and reason and "Satan's way of working." This is made in a setting that must be considered.

In this context, Froom quotes one sentence as follows (p. 230): "Of one thing I am certain, as Christians you have no right to entertain feelings of enmity, unkindness, and prejudice toward Dr. Waggoner, who has presented his views in a plain, straightforward manner, as a Christian should." Froom then states: "That pierces to the heart of the Minneapolis problem — resistance by 'some' against the light presented by Waggoner, and the wrong spirit of antagonism toward the messenger and the message." (Italics in original.)

He considers "that" sentence "pierces to the heart of the Minneapolis problem." Surely, this is to grossly over-simplify the problem. The very next sentence from the EGW sermon reads: "If he is in error, you should, in a calm, rational, Christlike manner, seek to show him from the Word of God where he is out of harmony with its teachings. If you cannot do this, you have no right as Christians to pick flaws, to criticize, to work in the dark, to prejudice minds with your objections. This is Satan's way of working."

If "that" sentence to which he makes reference is truly the heart of the problem, one can but wonder why for so many years the Lord, through His messenger, continued to employ such strong language regarding the terrible loss sustained at the session. One can but ponder why she over and over repeatedly used in this sermon the generic term "you," that is, "Brethren Assembled." One must note she says, "our brethren," or "our ministering brethren." Consider the following serious indictment not quoted by Froom, but again immediately following a citation he does make — (P. 231):

If our ministering brethren would accept the doctrine which has been presented so clearly — the righteousness of Christ in connection with the law — and I know they need to accept this, their prejudices would not have a controlling power, and the people would be fed with their portion of meat in due season. … I see no excuse for the wrought-up state of feeling that has been created at this meeting. … The messages coming from your president at Battle Creek are calculated to stir you up to make (hasty decisions) and to take decided positions; but I warn you against doing this. You are not now calm; there are many who do not know what they believe. It is perilous to make decisions upon any controverted point without dispassionately considering all sides of the question. Excited feelings will lead to rash movements. It is certain that many have come to this meeting (with false impressions and perverted opinions). They have imaginings that have no foundation in truth. Even if the position which we have held upon the two laws is truth, the Spirit of truth will not countenance any such measures to defend it as many of you would take. (Olson, Pp. 295, 296. Words in parenthesis quoted by Froom, P. 231.)

She says, "ministering brethren" under the controlling power of prejudices "many" do not know what they believe; "many" have come with perverted opinions; "many" would defend truth in a way the Spirit of truth will not countenance. Is there any possible way to construe this as "some"? Do her words mean what they say? Surely they must.

The next part of her sermon is of intense interest for reference is made to a vision received two years previously but having a present application. She was addressed in the night season and told by her guide to follow and she seemed to be at headquarters in Battle Creek. The guide said, "The Spirit of God has not had a controlling influence in this meeting. The spirit that controlled the Pharisees is coming in among this people, who have been greatly favored of God." She goes on to say, "I was told that there was need of great spiritual revival among the men who bear responsibilities in the cause of God. There was not perfection in all points on either side of the question under discussion. We must search the Scriptures for evidences of truth." Again she quotes the word of the guide. "There are but few, even of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third angel's message, and yet this is the message for this time. It is present truth. But how few take up this message in its true bearing, and present it to the people in its power! With many it has but little force." Surely this sermon needs to be read with a prayerful heart! Now note some very significant points.

The guide said, "The Spirit of God has not had a controlling influence in this meeting. The Spirit that controlled the Pharisees is coming in." Where was the deficiency? The guide told her there was "need of great spiritual revival among the men who bear responsibilities in the cause of God." Could it be stated any plainer — the problem was with leadership! This was pointed out by specific words from the "guide." And could it be any more certain it was not just a doctrinal or theological problem, but a spiritual deficiency. But equally astonishing, the guide said: "There are but few, even of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third angel's message, and yet it is the message for this time." (Olson, p. 296.) It is axiomatic among SDA's that if the three angels' messages are not comprehended then righteousness by faith likewise is not comprehended! The guide said "few" comprehended — not even "some." The guide went on to say: "There is much light yet to shine forth from the law of God and the gospel of righteousness. This message, understood in its true character, and proclaimed in the Spirit, will lighten the earth with its glory." If "we" accepted in 1888 all that "we" say "we" did, then it is long past time for this "glory" to be seen. From what the guide said it would seem obvious that the message is not yet understood in its true character notwithstanding all affirmations to the contrary.

Brightness, glory, and power are to be connected with the third angel's message, and conviction will follow wherever it is preached in demonstration of the Spirit. How will any of our brethren know when the light shall come to the people of God? As yet, we certainly have not seen the light that answers to this description. God has light for His people, and all who will accept it will see the sinfulness of remaining in a lukewarm condition; they will heed the counsel of the True Witness when he says, 'Be zealous therefore, and repent.' … The Church is represented as standing in a self-satisfied, pleased, proud, independent position, ignorant of her destitution and wretchedness. … The Lord is far from pleased. … To our brethren who are standing in this self-confident, self-satisfied position, who talk and act as if there was no need of more light, we want to say that the Laodicean message is applicable to you." (R&H, April 1, 1890. This quotation follows immediately the well-known statement of EGW equating justification by faith with the third angel's message. "It is the third angel's message in verity." It was written about one and one-half years after the '88 Conference and is relevant in this context due to the contrast it presented to the thesis of Froom.)

The sermon of EGW continues by repeatedly referring to "many" who are in various states of need. (Cf. Olson, P. 297.) She does not use the word "some" as put into her mouth by Froom, p. 231, but she says, "Many who claim to believe the truth will change their opinions in times of peril, and will take the side of the transgressors of God's law in order to (escape persecution). … But Satan will work upon the unconsecrated elements of the human mind that many will not accept the light in God's appointed way. I entreat you, brethren, be not like the Pharisees, who were blinded with spiritual pride, self-righteousness, and self-sufficiency, and who because of this were forsaken of God. For years I have been receiving instructions and warnings that this was the danger to our people. … There is positive danger that some who profess to believe the truth will be found in a position similar to the Jews. … Self-esteem and self-righteousness are coming in upon us, and many will fall because of unbelief and unrighteousness, for the grace of Christ is not ruling in the hearts of many."

If such a message as contained in this sermon should be given at a session of the church today, would anyone dare to say it was meant for "some"? When God's spirit speaks, there should never be a contest as to whom the Spirit is speaking.

The next paragraph of the sermon is a further entreaty, a call to accept light, a warning not to be like the Jews. In three sentences she uses ten times the term "you" and "yourselves" in a generic sense — the Conference as a whole, the brethren assembled, the leaders of the church. Her plea: "I entreat you close not the door of the heart for fear some ray of light shall come to you. You need greater light, you need clearer understanding of the truth which you carry to the people. If you do not see light yourselves, you will close the door; if you can you will prevent the rays of light from coming to the people. Let it not be said of this highly favored people, 'Ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered' (Luke 11:52). All these lessons are given for the benefit of those upon whom the ends of the world are come." (Olson, P. 297.)

These words stand like a terrible prophecy for later she said emphatically that the Holy Spirit in a great measure had been shut away from our people and light kept away from the world by "our own brethren." The statement reads:

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren Waggoner and Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world." (1 SM 234, 235.)

Further important points having terrible significance must be noted from this sermon.

Let no one quench the Spirit of God. … Let men be careful how they handle the Word of inspiration. … If men were themselves controlled by the Holy Spirit they would bring heart and soul to the task. … If they are not controlled by the Spirit of God, they will give evidence of this by caviling over His Word and by sitting in judgment upon its teachings just as did the Jews. … Many workers are not now fitted for the position of trust they occupy. … God wants to give our brethren another spirit. … Our greatest fear should be that we may be found rebelling against God's Word, which is to be our guide amid all the perils of the last days. We must be sure that we are on the Lord's side, and that we have the truth as it is in Jesus. … When the Jews took the first step in the rejection of Christ, they took a dangerous step. When afterward evidence accumulated that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, they were too proud to acknowledge that they had erred. So with the people of our day who reject the truth. They do not take time to investigate candidly, with earnest prayer, the evidences of the truth, and they oppose that which they do not understand. Just like the Jews, they take it for granted they have all the truth, and feel a sort of contempt for anyone who should suppose they had more correct ideas than themselves of what is truth." (Olson, Pp. 298, 299, 300.)

These are thoughts to which Froom makes no reference. Surely they are very important. The contest of E. G. White versus Froom seems very clear.

Nearing the close of this sermon which in its printed form is eight and one-half pages in length, a subtle inference of Froom must be considered. The intent is to support his "no vote" premise. He states on page 233: "Again Mrs. White repeats that it is 'not wise' to come to 'a decision at this meeting, where opposition, rather than investigation, is the order of the day.' No vote on Righteousness by Faith was taken."

The few words in quotation marks are absolutely correct but when placed in their context are absolutely wrong. The paragraph in which they are found reads as follows; the parentheses enclose Froom's portion:

God has a work to do in our world that many finite minds do not see or understand, and when God unfolds truth to His people, and it does not come in harmony with their ideas, many are ready to despise and reject it. I entreat you, brethren, reverence your Bible. Plead with God for light. Fast and pray in your closet upon your knees. Ask God to lead you into all truth. Tell Him that you want the truth as it is in Jesus. It is (not wise) for one of these young men to commit himself to (a decision at this meeting, where opposition, rather than investigation, is the order of the day.) The Scriptures must be your study, then you will know that you have the truth. Open your heart that God might write the truth upon its tablets." (Olson, P. 301.)

How is it possible to read into this paragraph anything about a vote being taken on a doctrine? Why should such inference be made? This paragraph, plus the one preceding in the sermon, make it clear that the real issue deals with, confidence in God's Word in contrast to confidence in men. Those who do not think for themselves, but believe because their associates believe certain doctrines, resist the truth and oppose the light. "Many" are ready to despise and reject truth on this basis. The "young men" were being warned not to follow, by implication the older brethren, and oppose light and truth as was "the order of the day."

This sermon should be read by every worker, minister, and administrator in the cause. It deals not only with "our" history, but with spiritual truth of the highest order greatly needed in this hour. It closes with these words:

Let the love of Christ reign in hearts here. Let all yield themselves to that heavenly power which alone can create unity by quelling selfish ambitions and human pride. When the Spirit of God comes in, love will take the place of variance, because Jesus is love; if His Spirit were cherished here our meeting would be like a stream in the desert.

Has the truth as it is in Jesus been received into the heart? Have the mind of God and His ways become our mind and our ways? Is the law of God our standard? If it is, its principles will be wrought out in our life. Wherever the love of Jesus reigns there is peace with God, joy in God; and the love and joy are reflected to others. We cannot afford to be deceived by a semblance, a form. The truth of the Bible may be read, and we may think that a form of words will accomplish that which only the Spirit of God can accomplish by its converting, transforming power. We may hold certain points of truth firmly and yet refuse to let in any fresh rays of light which God may send to show us the beauty of the truth. It is dangerous for us to take a step in uncertainty. We should not reject or oppose the views of our fellow laborers because they do not agree with our ideas until we have used every means in our power to find out whether or not they are truth, comparing scripture with scripture. (Olson, P. 302.)


The last portion of the chapter about "Inspired Counsels" gives consideration to a personal letter from EGW to her daughter-in-law, Mary, wife of W. C. White. Unfortunately the complete letter is not published but sufficient is available to make it clear that Sister White went through a great trial at the session. (Froom, Pp. 234 - 236; 673, 674.) Her expressed faith in the Lord as leader and Jesus at the helm, in no way counteract her summation of the Conference.

This letter is the only new contribution from the Spirit of Prophecy to be found in the entire volume, notwithstanding repeated affirmations by the author that Ellen G. White is "Adventism's Peerless Witness." The letter does not support that the rank and file of workers and laity accepted the presentations at Minneapolis. Indeed, it gives every evidence of the opposite.

She says it was "a most laborious meeting" and she had "to watch at every point lest there should be moves made, resolutions passed, that would prove detrimental to the future work," and that "we have had the hardest and most incomprehensible tug of war we have ever had among our people." Words could not be plainer to indicate that it was a battle, and not just of "some." She states that, "envy, evil surmisings, jealousies have been working like leaven until the whole lump seemed to be leavened. …" and at this point there is an ellipsis in the letter so what further she said is not published. But if the "whole lump" seemed to be leavened, one can reasonably inquire, just how much a "whole" is in relation to a whole? Is it "few," "some," or "many"?

It must be further noted that she specifically says she is grateful to God for the strength and freedom and power of His Spirit in bearing her testimony although it has made the "least impression upon many minds than at any period in my history." Froom has the temerity to insert his own words "not all," following her use of the word "many," (Froom, P. 235), and indicates this in brackets. Can such tampering be justified?

The battle between truth and error is clearly marked out when she further states, "Satan has seemed to have power to hinder my work in a wonderful degree, but I tremble to think what would have been in this meeting if we had not been here."

Perhaps much better than he knew were Froom's words wherein he called this letter a "priceless summation" of the Conference. (P. 235.) It certainly gives Ellen White's view very clearly and presents a wistful plea — "God would have worked in some way to prevent this spirit brought to the meeting having a controlling power." God would have, but He was not permitted.


Froom has referred to Ellen G. White as "Adventism's Peerless Witness" and this is perhaps a very good description. It implies that her witness will be accepted as supreme, without rival, second to none. Chapter twenty-eight and twenty-nine of his work consider the place of this witness. (Froom, Pp. 443 - 464.)

As far back as 1965, through private correspondence with Froom, it was pointed out by him that the then future book, Movement of Destiny, would contain certain EGW material, "further evidence," that would settle permanently the 1888 issue. Reference was made to classified files and confidential materials among which he said are doubtless the most illuminating portrayals of truth in all her writings. Obviously the publication of this book was awaited with keen interest.

The book has now been off the press for about three years. A careful study of its contents indicates there is nothing in it of "further evidence" from the Spirit of Prophecy to settle the 1888 issue. As has been mentioned above, only the letter to Mary constitutes new "evidence" but this, as analyzed, adds nothing to support Froom's thesis, on the contrary, it tends to further nullify it. It remains then to consider briefly the contents of his two chapters, twenty-eight and twenty-nine.

Chapter twenty-eight reiterates, "'Leadership' Did Not Reject Message" and submits as supreme evidence the fact that the great majority of Ellen White's books have all been penned and produced since 1888. The true Adventist conscience certainly accepts all of these writings as a great blessing and assurance of God's interest in the Remnant Church and indeed as one mark of authenticity for that church. But notwithstanding this, the mere possession of books cannot in any way prove that historically the church fulfilled its high calling. It should be obvious that mere possession of her books will in no way change the spiritual status of the church anymore than a Bible in a man's briefcase will make him a Christian. It is astonishing why this line of reasoning should be attempted.

The emphatic approval which EGW gave to messengers other than herself helped to precipitate the '88 crisis. Men were not prepared to accept what she had to say. Her testimony was ignored. There was not only the question of degree of inspiration, but war against specific counsel such as health reform.

The futility of saying, "we have not rejected" (P. 445) but at the same time saying "we have not advanced as we should" ought to be self-evident. "We" cannot have it both ways at once! This is discussed in Confession, Pp. 33, 34, and need not be repeated here. The theology of Froom's chapter twenty-eight remains to be carefully analyzed and outlined but that is outside this study.

Chapter twenty-nine (pp. 454 - 464) takes up "key communications" from the "Peerless Witness." With great interest one would turn to this chapter and hope to read these communications. But this is impossible. There is only a list, a summarizing sentence, made by the author and not a single word from the witness. Between 1888 and 1901, there are 200 items listed but only two of these give original sources. This list is considered by the author to be a "priceless guide and reference sheet." This whole presentation is an astonishment. A "witness" must bear a testimony in order to be a valid witness. To deny this right is to nullify the definition of the term and make completely meaningless the title of these two chapters.

The proof of any case must depend upon the testimony brought to bear by the witness said to know something about the matter. No assertion can be accepted nor stand as valid, no matter how much faith may be proclaimed in the veracity of the witness, unless the evidence and testimony of that witness is brought to bear and is heard. This has not been done and consequently it stands, Ellen G. White versus Froom.

Table of Contents of The Mystery of 1888  |  Chapter 4  |  Chapter 6
Gospel Herald Articles