Mystery surrounds the post-1888 confessions of those who opposed the message. We came to the time of the latter rain and the loud cry and then backed away from our opportunity. Israel also came to the borders of their Promised Land, and then backed away.

Deep, true repentance is a rare virtue. It is by no means impossible, in the light of the sacrifice of Christ. But many confessions are as superficial as that of Esau and King Saul. Both acknowledged wrong, and both shed tears; neither found repentance that restored what was lost.

Israel’s history at Kadesh-Barnea and afterwards illustrates the experience of this movement at and following the Minneapolis conference. Israel made a mistake and then “repented,” but that generation never recovered what they had lost.

There is a principle involved in the kind of repentance and confession that does not comprehend the gravity of the sin:

Now [Israel at Kadesh-Barnea] seemed sincerely to repent of their sinful conduct; but they sorrowed because of the result of their evil course, rather than from a sense of their ingratitude and disobedience. … God tested their apparent submission, and proved that it was not real. … They were only terrified to find that they had made a fearful mistake, the results of which would prove disastrous to themselves. Their hearts were unchanged. …

Though their confession did not spring from true repentance, it served to vindicate the justice of God in His dealings with them.

The Lord still works in a similar manner to glorify His name by bringing men to acknowledge His justice. … And though the spirit which prompted the evil course is not radically changed, confessions are made that vindicate the honor of God, and justify His faithful reprovers, who have been opposed and misrepresented (PP 391, 393).

Evidence from an inspired pen indicates that this was the nature of the post-1888 confessions of the most influential prominent leaders who had initially rejected the message.

But contemporary opinions widely published hold that most of the opposing brethren at Minneapolis rectified their mistake, made humble and deep confessions, repented thoroughly, and then preached the message of 1888 “with power.”

What does the evidence say?

(1) The confessions were practically extorted by overwhelming, compelling evidence. “The present evidence of His working is revealed to you, and you are now under obligation to believe,” said Ellen White in 1890 (TM 466). Faith had given away almost entirely to sight.

(2) There is evidence that the most prominent and influential confessors subsequently acted contrary to their confessions.

(3) There was very little frank, open reconciliation that led to brotherly union with A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner or acceptance of their message. (It was after the confessions that Ellen White was exiled to Australia and Waggoner to Britain). As late as 1903, Elders G. I. Butler and J. N. Loughborough at a General Conference session misrepresented their true positions over their verbal protests (see chapter 10).

(4) The issue at stake was the personal salvation of the opposing ministers' souls. But there is no evidence that they repented of quenching the Holy Spirit’s outpouring in the latter rain, or of suppressing the light of the loud cry and keeping it away “in a great degree” from the church and from the world. Thus the consequence of the rebellion at Minneapolis, the indefinite postponing of the world-wide proclamation of the loud cry message, could not be averted.

(5) With the exception of W. W. Prescott, there is no evidence that any of the confessors recovered the essence of the 1888 message sufficiently to proclaim it well. (Saul of Tarsus repented so thoroughly that he ever after proclaimed the gospel with power). Pease discloses that when the nineteenth century became the twentieth, none of those who initially rejected the 1888 message were in evidence to proclaim it effectively:

During the nineties the revival centering about this great doctrine was largely the work of the same three people, Mrs. White, E. J. Waggoner, and A. T. Jones. True, there were many harmonizing voices but no Elishas were in evidence by 1900 ready to assume the mantle in case something should happen to the three principal champions of the doctrine (By Faith Alone, p. 164).

A perusal of the post-confession printed messages of these “confessors” confirms this statement. A true repentance would have resulted in a multitude of powerful evangel-laden messengers proclaiming the “most precious message” in a way that would have thoroughly revived the church and lightened the world with glory. But Ellen White had to say on November 5, 1892 that “not one” of the original rejectors had recovered what he had lost by his initial unbelief (Letter B2a, 1892). This statement was made after the most prominent confessions came in.

Contemporary Views of the Post-1888 Confessions

An oft-quoted statement from an older worker forms the basis for much of the present misunderstanding of what happened after Minneapolis:

Early in the spring, 1889, word began to come of those who stood with the opposition at the conference beginning to see light and soon earnest confessions followed. Within two or three years most of the leading men who had refused the light at the conference had come out with clear confessions (C. McReynolds, “Experiences while at the G. C. in Minn. in 1888,” D File, 189, E. G. White Estate. Cf. N. F. Pease, op. cit., pp. 142, 143).

The confessions mentioned above were doubtless, in some cases, precipitated by sober reflection after the individuals concerned were far removed from the scene of controversy (Pease, op. cit., p. 144).

Another statement, from Captains of the Host, supports the idea that the confessions effectively reversed the 1888 opposition:

Gradually there came the turning and the gathering into the unity of the faith. There was both a cutting and healing power in the messages [Ellen White] sent, carrying the gospel of righteousness and of good will in Christ, which in general brought the erstwhile estranged brethren together (Spalding, op. cit., pp. 598, 599).

Our Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia presents the same view:

Misunderstanding, opposition, and division cloud the record of that meeting [1888]. However, many who were reluctant to accept this new emphasis in 1888 later changed their viewpoint. Some continued for a time to oppose it (p. 1086).

No mention is made in The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts of the confessions, as the author assumed that in general the message of 1888 was initially well received at Minneapolis itself.

By far the predominant view held today is that we “have” the 1888 message as a sure possession, either because our forefathers' initially accepted it, or because of their subsequent confessions of repentance. And “we” have therefore been proclaiming it powerfully for many decades. We must inquire if this is a “rich and increased with goods” mindset.

There Are Problems With This View

If the confessions of the Minneapolis opposers changed their real attitude so they could proclaim the message effectively to our people and to the world, some questions need answers:

(1) Where is the evidence that the message and light of 1888 were recovered, and by the repentant brethren themselves proclaimed to our people in clear and powerful form? Where is the evidence that the opposition ceased instead of going underground?

(2) Why wasn’t the “work” finished soon after the time of confession and repentance? The opposition at Minneapolis quenched the loud cry; a proper repentance would logically restore it.

(3) How can one explain the persistent and numerous statements from Ellen White as late as 1901 that the message was continually misrepresented and opposed by leadership? One such follows, indicating that the genuine reformation that follows repentance could not have taken place:

I feel a special interest in the movements and decisions that shall be made at this Conference [1901] regarding the things that should have been done years ago, and especially ten years ago, when we were assembled in Conference. … The brethren assented to the light given, but … the light that was given was not acted upon. It was assented to but no special change was made to bring about such a condition of things that the power of God could be revealed among His people. Year after year the same acknowledgement was made. … It is a marvel to me that we stand in as much prosperity as we do today. It is because of the great mercy of God, not because of our righteousness, but that His name should not be dishonored in the world (GCB 1901, p. 23; emphasis added).

Her real convictions are disclosed in a statement she made a week later supporting the reorganization and a hoped-for reformation:

“Many who have been more or less out of line since the Minneapolis meeting will be brought into line” (p. 205).

One of the most poignant of Ellen White’s prophetic messages is her “What Might Have Been” testimony (January 5, 1903; 8T 104-106). The beautiful repentance that our historians say took place turns out to have been only a dream instead of “reality.”

The Testimony of Our History

It is common knowledge that Uriah Smith was one of the most persistent opposers of the message. As editor of the Review and Herald and with his well-earned prestige as a prominent author, he could have exerted the most powerful influence for the message. His incisive, logical writing appealed to thoughtful minds. This able and lovable brother wielded the mightiest pen in Battle Creek and could have helped to lighten the earth with the glory of maturely developed truth. The Holy Spirit could have worked with the author of Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation if his heart and keen mind had joined in the happy task.

He chose not to. He considered the message to be merely an over-emphasized “doctrine,” and maintained that we had always taught it. Immediately after Minneapolis, he and W. W. Prescott tried to silence A. T. Jones in Battle Creek. Ellen White mentions the incident:

Elder Uriah Smith thought [A. T. Jones] had better not be invited to speak, for he took rather strong positions. And the arrangements were made to shut him out of the [Battle Creek] school (Ms. 16, 1889).1

Efforts to help Smith only aggravated his stubborness. For a long time, no “sober reflections” brought him to any different view.

In March, 1890 Ellen White wrote in the Review:

I have tried to present the message to you as I have understood it, but how long will those at the head of the work keep themselves aloof? …

For nearly two years we have been urging the people to come up and accept the light and the truth concerning the righteousness of Christ, and they do not know whether to come and take hold of this precious truth or not. … I can speak to the ear, but I cannot speak to the heart. Shall we not arise and get out of the position of unbelief? (RH March 18, 1890).

Finally, after being “under obligation to believe” (TM 466), Elder Smith was drifting helplessly, in danger of being lost:

Brother Smith is ensnared by the enemy and cannot in his present state give the trumpet a certain sound … yet … is placed in positions as teacher to mold and fashion the minds of students, when it is a well known fact he is not standing in the light. He is not working in God’sorder. He is sowing seeds of unbelief that spring up and bear fruit for some souls to harvest. … Elder Smith will not receive the light God has given to correct him, and he has not a spirit to correct by confession any wrong course he has pursued in the past. … I have been shown that as he now stands, Satan has prepared his temptations to close about his soul (Letter to O. A. Olsen, October 7, 1890).

I have great sorrow of heart. I know that Satan is seeking for the mastery over men. … Such men as Elder Smith will harden their hearts, lest they shall see and be converted. There are those who are looking to Elder Smith, thinking that a man who has been given such great light will be able to see when good cometh, and will acknowledge the truth. But I have been shown that in Elder Smith’s character there is a pride and stubbornness that has never been fully brought into subjection to the Spirit of God. Again and again his religious experience has been marred by his determination not to confess his wrongs, but to pass along and forget them. Men may cherish this sin until there is no forgiveness for them (Diary, January 10, 1890, Battle Creek).

These solemn words bear evidence of the Christlike love that Ellen White had for his soul. In the light of eternity, truth is more precious than self-deception. In other communications from her we can see how serious the situation had become:

The men in responsible positions have disappointed Jesus. They have refused precious blessings, and refused to be channels of light. … The knowledge they should receive of God … they refuse to accept, and thus become channels of darkness. The Spirit of God is grieved (Ms. 13, 1889).

Our young men look at the older men that stand still as a stick, and will not move to accept any new light that is brought in; they will laugh and ridicule what these men say and what they do as of no consequence. Who carries the burden [guilt] of that laugh, and of that contempt? … [They] have interposed themselves between the light that God has given, that it shall not go to the people who should have it (Ms. 9, 1890).

The devil has been working for a year to obliterate these ideas [the 1888 message of Christ’s righteousness]—the whole of them. … How long will the people at the heart of the work hold themselves against God? How long will men here sustain them in doing this work? Get out of the way, brethren. Take your hand off the ark of God, and let the Spirit of God come in and work in mighty power (idem).

The Review editor’s negative influence went far and wide. Ellen White held him largely responsible:

You have strengthened the hands and minds of such men as Larson, Porter, Dan Jones, Eldridge and Morrison and Nicola and a vast number through them. All quote you, and the enemy of righteousness looks on pleased. … If you should recover your faith how can you remove the impressions of unbelief you have sown in other minds? Do not labor so hard to do the very work Satan is doing. This work was done in Minneapolis. Satan triumphed (Letter 59, 1890).

When Ellen White tried to help him, he responded “by writing me a letter accusing Elder Jones of tearing up the pillars of our faith” (Letter 73, 1890; see Additional Note, chapter four). Finally, after the turn of the new year 1891, he made confession to his brethren, and asked the pardon of Mrs. White for his erroneous course. This was good. He was an honest man. Our Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia admits his initial opposition to “the new emphasis on righteousness by faith,” but credits his confession as restoring “complete harmony” (p. 1201). But it was not to be.

Elder Smith had formerly had experiences quite similar. His faith in the work of Ellen White was sometimes not very strong. And he propagated his unbelief. His letters could hardly do otherwise than encourage D. M. Canright to question Ellen White’s inspiration.2 The slightest push will send a drowning man down.

Was Elder Smith’s repentance of early 1891 thorough and permanent? It could well have been. The Lord was willing. Speaking to the Review and Herald office, Ellen White said that “the Lord will blot out the transgressions of those who since that time have repented with a sincere repentance.”

How Something Miscarried

The rejoicing at the confessions must be placed in the perspective of later history. As we have seen, Ellen White later declared that there had been an influence in the Review and Herald office that tended to say “I go, Sir,” but went not. No one can question the sincerity and goodness of the brethren; we note only the reality of deeper layers of unbelief of which they were not aware. “The brethren assented to the light God had given, but there were those connected with our institutions, especially the Review and Herald office and the [General] Conference, who brought in elements of unbelief, so that the light given was not acted upon” (GCB 1901, p. 23; emphasis added).

After his confession, she encouraged him to look upon things in the right light. She knew that he was not giving the trumpet a certain sound in the Review. More than a year after his confession, she wrote him in a tone of warning and counsel, plainly stating that he had returned to his former stance of opposition:

Some of our brethren… are full of jealousy and evil surmising, and are ever ready to show in just what way they differ with Elder Jones or Waggoner. The same spirit that was manifested in the past manifests itself on every opportunity; but this is not from the impulse of the Spirit of God. …

Should [Elder Jones or Waggoner] be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy, … how many … would enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God (Letter S24, 1892; emphasis added).

Elder Smith seemed to have a mistaken sense of the spiritual condition of the church. As previously (1882), he continued to “think far too favorably of the present time” (cf. 5T 80). We cannot blame him for he did not have the discernment of the gift of prophecy. Nevertheless, his unrealistic optimism establishes him as Mr. Laodicea. His innocent readers then knew no better; we a century later do know better, now that history has upheld the Spirit of Prophecy, which so opposed his view. In an editorial of March 14, 1892, he spoke with undue optimism:

The cause has been going forward with increasing rapidity, especially in these later years. The object here is to … call attention to the wonderful momentum which the cause of present truth has now attained. It is going forward everywhere. It is increasing in velocity day by day. It is going with a power which cannot be arrested. At the rate of progress now developed, it must soon reach its goal. It is accelerating its footsteps to its final triumph (RH, March 14, 1892).

The Lord’s messenger was not so pleased, for she was conscious of a serious arresting of the work within our own ranks and the looming specter of a long delay. History has proven Elder Smith’s editorial to be a superficial judgment. Ellen White said so then:

The opposition in our own ranks has imposed upon the Lord’s messengers a laborious and soul-trying task, for they have had to meet difficulties and obstacles which need not have existed. … It is the elements that work among ourselves that have hindered the message. …

The influence that grew out of the resistance of light and truth at Minneapolis tended to make of no effect the light God had given. …

The work is years behind. What account will be rendered to God for thus retarding the work? (GCB 1893, pp. 419).

Repeatedly, the misguided editor followed a line of thought diametrically opposed to present truth—that of Christ’s righteousness sounding forth in the beginning of the loud cry. Dramatically enough, his opposition was often neatly met by articles from Ellen White or others which came as apparent coincidences. To his credit, he published them. Editorial control was more relaxed in those days than now. But his personal mindset was fixed.

As late as 1892, well after the editor’s confession, she says:

“The first position you took in regard to the message and the messenger has been a continual snare to you and a stumbling block. … That loss is still your loss” (Letter S24, 1892).

We find him writing an editorial saying that the present message is not the beginning of the loud cry; that is something yet future. His view was divine sovereign determinism, virtually that of modern Reformationist Calvinism. We can neither hasten nor delay the Lord’s coming:

Would it be the proper course now for the people of God to fix their minds upon these future blessings and this future power, and dropping all else, make these things the direct end to be specially sought for? To fix the mind upon what is to be, and then to reason, Now the church must have such and such mighty works, they are to attain to such and such a condition, and then conclude that they must, to the neglect of duties nearer by, seek by special means to gain that power and those attainments now, —is that the way in which these blessings are to be secured? …

All these other developments will come in the Lord’s good time. God will in His own good time bestow upon His people the needed power. … He will bring the loud cry of the message. … Leave future blessings to be granted by Him whose the work is, when and how it shall please him (RH May 14, 1892).

Elder Smith apparently had no idea that “the Lord’s good time” has been and is always now since the seventh angel began to sound in 1844. “There should be delay no longer” (Revelation 10:5, NKJV). Only one week later appeared an article by Ellen White which countered the spirit of his muddled editorial. S. N. Haskell soon sent in a fervent article to counteract the editor’s “peace and safety” words (July 26, 1892). Then President Olsen also took occasion to rebuke the editor through the columns of his paper:

We have long been talking about the loud cry of the third angel’s message. … Well, has the time come for that loud voice to be heard? … It certainly has, brethren. … Then don’t be looking forward to it any longer; don't be expecting it at some place way off; realize that it is here, and that it means something (RH, November 8, 1892).

During this stirring time of grand eschatalogical opportunity, the editor of the Review continued his stale homilies on “Sunday Props” arguments examined and refuted. There is something pathetic about the situation. In the time of the loud cry itself, he re-hashes in a polemical, debating style the caviling opposition of unreasoning opponents to the sabbath truth, something more in place thirty years earlier. We can hear the angels pleading, “Mr. Laodicea, please wake up!”

Concerning such blindness to recognize the work of God Ellen White wrote:

Too often the leader has stood hesitating, seeming to say, “Let us not be in too great haste. There may be a mistake. We must be careful not to raise a false alarm.” The very hesitancy and uncertainty on his part is crying “Peace and safety.” “Do not get excited. Be not alarmed. There is a great deal more made of this Religious Amendment question than is demanded. This agitation will all die down.” Thus he virtually denies the message sent from God; and the warning which was designed to stir the churches fails to do its work. The trumpet of the watchman gives no certain sound, and the people do not prepare for the battle (5T 715, 716).

Such an editorial policy and such a mindset forces an unwelcome conclusion. Uriah Smith returned to his former stance of opposition and non-committal blindness after the emotional effects of his confession wore off. Finally, in December Ellen White spoke very plainly:

On the very eve of the crisis, is no time to be found with an evil heart of unbelief, departing from the living God. …

Among those who are half-hearted are the class who pride themselves on their great caution in receiving “new light” as they term it. But their failure to receive the light is caused by their spiritual blindness. …

There are men in our cause who might be of great use if they would but learn of Christ, and go on from light to greater light; but because they will not, they are positive hindrances (RH December 6, 1892).

In the same issue occurs a half-hearted editorial admission that we might have delayed the work, but not at all seriously. We quote his statement because his Calvinist laissez faire attitude is immensely popular among many Adventists in these last years of the 20th century who say that God’s people can neither hasten nor delay the return of Christ:

How the situation might have been changed if all had worked more earnestly and rapidly in the cause, we may not say. …

But however much it has been in our power to delay the work, it is not in our power to arrest its progress nor prevent its final completion. Within the limits of that time when the work of the Lord must be done, it will be done (ibid., December 6, 1892).

In an editorial in the May 10, 1892 Review, Smith took open issue with E. J. Waggoner. In the same year he again blundered into open dispute with A. T. Jones over “the image of the beast.” Our people noted these conflicts. Brother Foster of the Prahran church in Australia came in his perplexity to Ellen White . She tells of the incident:

[Foster] saw in the Review the article of Brother A. T. Jones in regard to the image of the beast, and then the one from Elder Smith presenting the opposite view. He was perplexed and troubled. He had received much light and comfort in reading articles from Brethren Jones and Waggoner; but here was one of the old laborers, one who had written many of our standard books, and whom we had believed to be taught of God, who seemed to be in conflict with Brother Jones. What could all this mean? Was Brother Jones in the wrong? Was Brother Smith in error? Which was right? He became confused. …

If before publishing Elder Jones’ article . … Elder Smith had conferred with him, plainly stating that his own views differed from that of Bro. Jones, and that if the article appeared in the Review, he himself must present the opposite position, then the matter would appear in a different light from what it now does. But the course pursued in this case was the same as that taken at Minneapolis. Those who opposed Brethren Jones and Waggoner manifested no disposition to meet them like brethren. … Yet this blind warfare is continued. … We know that Bro. Jones has been giving the message for this time, meat in due season to the starving flock of God. …

The conference at Minneapolis was the golden opportunity for all present to humble the heart before God, and to welcome Jesus as the great Instructor; but the stand taken by some at that meeting has proved their ruin. They have never seen clearly since, and they never will; for they persistently cherish the spirit that prevailed there, a wicked, criticizing, denunciatory spirit. … They will be asked in the judgment, “Who required this at your hand, to rise up against the message and the messengers I sent to My people? … Why did you block the way with your own perverse spirit? And afterward when the evidence was piled upon evidence, why did you not humble your hearts before God, and repent of your rejection of the message of mercy He has sent you?” (Letter January 9, 1893; emphasis added).

In the same letter, Ellen White cites the former General Conference president as sharing Elder Smith’s loss. The issue is not the salvation of their souls—that we leave with God. The issue is the proclamation of the loud cry message:

If such men as Elder Smith, Elder Van Horn, and Elder Butler shall stand aloof, not blending with the elements God sees essential to carry forward the work in these perilous times, they will be left behind. … These brethren have had every opportunity to stand in the ranks that are pressing on to victory; but if they refuse, the work will advance without them. … If they refuse the message, … these brethrenwill meet with eternal loss; for if they should repent and be saved at last, they can never regain that which they have lost through their wrong course of action (emphasis added).


This in no way means that these dear brethren’s life work was a failure. The point is that they used their influence to reject the beginning of the latter rain and thus helped delay the finishing of God’s work for a long time.

Their cases were difficult. They were sincere, and good, and lovable. But they were falsely encouraged by every wave of superficial revival that occasionally swept through Battle Creek.

Even after the turn of the century as he neared his end, Elder Smith made a point of demonstrating that he never changed his mind about the issues of 1888. He was the notable prototype of ultra-conservative yet unbelieving Adventists of today.

His understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and of other doctrines was in harmony with those of the pioneers. World conditions in his day were a clear fulfillment of prophecy. God’s work could have been speedily finished then. His books have won thousands of people to the church and helped to establish Adventism around the world. If only he could have accepted the “beginning” of the latter rain, he could have had the joy of helping to proclaim the glorious loud cry to the world.

Confident that he understood justification and righteousness by faith and that he had always believed it, he made his contribution after 1888 in his major work on the subject, Looking Unto Jesus. Doubtless hailed by many 1888 opponents then as a masterpiece, it is obvious that it lacks “the most precious” elements of the 1888 message.

There was one confession that A. T. Jones mentioned near the end of his life:

In justice to Brother J. H. Morrison, it must be said that he cleared himself of all connection with that opposition, and put himself body, soul, and spirit, into the truth and blessing of righteousness by faith, in one of the finest and noblest confessions that I have ever heard (Letter to C. E. Holmes, May 12, 1921).

Jones later in the same letter said of the others that their change of heart “was only apparent, it was never real, for all the time in the General Conference Committee and amongst others there was a secret antagonism always carried on.”

No opposition is more difficult to deal with than that which goes underground. The confessions after Minneapolis drove the spirit of unbelief beneath the visible surface.

Hence it is that we can sincerely assume that we are rich as a people with the “contribution” to Adventism made in 1888, and that we are increased with goods in understanding righteousness by faith, so that all we need is more money and technological resources for propagating our present understanding of our beliefs.

The symptoms of our denominational neurosis are apparent; the causes lie buried in a deep antipathy to the light that shone on our pathway in 1888, which reflected the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. A final atonement, an ultimate reconciliation with Christ, is our only solution.

The primary purpose of this chapter was to show how the confessions that followed Minneapolis cut the “tops” down but left the “roots” of unbelief intact (cf. TM 467). As the investigation developed, a secondary purpose emerged. It is a logical consequence of the first, but is of far greater significance.

(1) In some serious instances, our present official views of righteousness by faith are identical to the opposition to the 1888 message. The real teaching of the latter is only slightly evident in our current presentations.

(2) Parallel with misconceptions of the message is the highly optimistic view of the “velocity” and “rapidity” with which the work supposedly advances today, when in reality it is being retarded by our deep heart unbelief. Statistical reports beguile us.

(3) Confusion regarding righteousness by faith spawns a sort of “continual” transgression of principles God has entrusted to the remnant church for the administration of our medical, educational, publishing, and evangelistic work. “There has been a departure from God’s plan in many ways … and we have been steadily progressing in the ways of the Gentiles, and not after the example of Jesus Christ” (cf. GCB 1893, p. 459 and FE 221-230). Our hope rests in God’s mercy and love, and His hope rests in the honesty of the souls of His professed people.

(4) The true cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary requires a complementary work in our hearts. There must be a cleansing of hidden, buried, “underground” roots of alienation from Christ. Light which will lay bare this reality and a means of spiritual therapy adequate for dealing with it, is more needful than any amount of technological resources for the propagation of our present “faith.”

In other words, the power needed is light, and the finishing of the gospel commission will be a natural consequence. A true understanding of the 1888 history supplies a diagnosis; a true understanding of the gospel of the cross is the therapy.


1 Only Ellen White’s influence secured the pulpit and the classroom for him. W. W. Prescott joined Smith in seeking to bar Jones from the pulpit in Battle Creek. [return to text]

2 See for example Uriah Smith letters to Canright of March 22, April 6, July 31, August 7, and October 2, 1883. [return to text]