DOES HISTORY CONFIRM THAT "WE SEE"?

History versus Froom — Leaving the specific field of pitting one man's understanding against another as found in the previous section, Daniells versus Froom, it is now important to weigh certain premises of Froom against history and the spiritual understanding "we" have as a people and in particular against the knowledge "we" must have as ministers called to be "the angel of the church of the Laodiceans."

The credentials of the book Movement of Destiny are very impressive, perhaps without parallel in the denomination's history. The book is said to have been "commissioned" by a former General Conference president and "approved" by five successive presidents "and many consultants." It "was made possible by the contribution of hundreds of priceless source documents from individual and institutional donors, archivists, librarians, and collectors, as well as affidavits of actual participants in the 1888 Minneapolis Conference, and rare documents from descendants of pioneers. … It was read critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars-specialists … by key Bible teachers, editors, mass communications men, scientists, physicians, and by veteran leaders with vivid memories and extensive backgrounds." (P. 8.) This is not the whole list!

It would seem to be certain that if prestige and native ability and sheer numbers could establish truth, this book would have a certified pedigree above question and beyond reproach. Unfortunately this is not the case. From the point of historical research and the validation of certain critical and very important areas, there is no authority cited or suggested. From a theological
and/or spiritual analysis, similar large problems are very evident. Without attempting a critical appraisal of the entire book as a whole or necessarily in any particular sequence, yet some of the inescapable conflicts and relevant problems must be listed as follows.

To confirm the "victory" philosophy, an impressive array of declarations are made. The assurance is given that — "Here a change of concept and direction began to take place in the Movement. … we take our places … seeing and hearing … through the trustworthy eyes and ears of prominent individuals who were personally there. … some twenty-six able and representative men and women who were actual participants, observers, or recorders at the crucial Minneapolis Session of '88." (Pp. 238,239.)

From a historical point of view, immense problems present themselves as an analysis is made of the "affidavits" of the twenty-six. A tabulation of these gives the following information.

1. A careful count indicates that twenty-two persons actually are referred to as having given "priceless insights into inner aspects of the Minneapolis Conference. … personal portrayals, based on eyewitness and personal-participant attestations." (P. 237.) The slight difference between 22 and 26 is not critical, but merely noted.
2. Of the total number of "attestations" provided, only 13 persons giving such were actually in attendance at the Conference. This means that only 13 persons could be "eyewitnesses" and not 26.
3. Sixty-four references are made to the 26 persons and their letters or interviews. Repeated reference is made to certain witnesses, one being mentioned 14 times with others much less but a mean figure of 2.46 times per person becoming evident.
4. The average age of those attending the Conference ("eyewitnesses" is 33.5 years, based on 10 participants whose age could be verified. (Youngest 30, oldest 38.)
5. The average age of the entire group reporting subsequently, mostly in the year 1930, is 74.6 years. (Youngest 63, oldest 80.)
6. With one exception, the letter of A. T. Jones to C. E. Holmes in 1921, all "affidavits" were made at least 42 years after the 1888 session, that is, in 1930, and another two respectively were made 64 and 76 years after the Conference.
7. With one exception, there is not a single complete sentence quoted from any of the entire sixty-four references made, "eyewitness" or otherwise.

Reason compels that certain questions be raised. Why should all these testimonies which are said to prove so much — why should they be kept secret and "confidential" for over 40 years while the world plunges on to destruction?

Why should not "eyewitnesses" be allowed to speak in their own words and give a verbatim report, if it is really "priceless"?

Why is it that even by inference not a single witness in all the 26 gives any indication that 1888 can be considered a "victory"?

Is there a court or a jury that would give much credence to the testimony of men in their seventies relating an experience that transpired over 40 years previously but even more astonishingly when called to the witness stand were not allowed to speak their own words?

Why should it be categorically stated in italics, "There was no denomination-wide, or leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted," (P. 256) and yet not one person of the 26 is quoted to this effect?

The situation here portrayed adds to the great mystery!

There is a further point that must be noted in this context of "eyewitnesses" and the support of certain assertions. The question must be asked, Where does historical authority lie and what constitutes an "authoritative account"? (Cf. P. 189.) It needs to be remembered that two sources to which Froom refers are Arthur W. Spalding and Lewis H. Christian. But Spalding did not attend the 1888 Conference. He was eleven years old at the time. (1877 - 1953) Christian was a high-school student at the time, seventeen years old. (1871 - 1949) He passed through Minneapolis during the session and attended at least one meeting the first day, as well as the meeting that evening and heard Mrs. White speak the following day. (Cf. Christian, Pp. 43-45.) (See also Froom, P. 239: " … our SDA historians Spalding and Christian … ) What is it that makes these men the source of so much authority on this Conference? This is a further mystery.

As strange as it may seem, W. W. Prescott was very frank in his comment in a way directly opposed to Froom's inference. Thirteen years after 1888, at the time of the 1901 session, Prescott bluntly stated that he saw the need among the ministers for a spirit of repentance such as many have not known for many years. He goes on to say that confusion and darkness will not be overcome by outward form of organization. It seems quite clear he did not consider either 1888 or 1901 as anything to be called victory. To see this in his own words, note the following:

I have not seen, and do not see now in this Conference, that real response to the message that God has sent us, that will be of any effective result in His work. I am willing to face the fact, but it is a fact. I saw that there ought to come upon us, ministers of the word for Jesus Christ, such a spirit of repentance as many of us have not known for many years. There ought to be a work wrought at this Conference that we have seen no signs of yet. … God must work. He must put power on someone who is willing to receive it, who will stand forth and give the message with clearness and power and lead the way out of the confusion and darkness. It will not be by outward form of organization. Our minds have been busily occupied during the last week formulating plans for organization, and my own spiritual sense has said to me that we have been losing ground in the work of organization. Do not think that it will be by change of plan, by change of administration, by a new way of doing things. The change that is needed is a complete change of heart. … Christ did not have to call His people together, and tell them that their method of organization was wrong, and that He had new plans by which to work. … It is not in this outward form and plan of operation. That is all right, it ought to be changed; but if our minds are resting upon that, the work will not be accomplished in that way." (G.C. Bulletin, 1901, Pp. 321, 322.)

The grave seriousness of this kind of testimony cannot be ignored. There is obvious discrepancy between this and that which is inferred as being his testimony.

3. A. O. Tait — The evidence is certain that Tait was of such a character that Ellen G. White considered she could confide in him. She corresponded with him and years after the Conference revealed matters to him of a most serious nature, grave in their implications and with meaning that cannot be questioned. Statements that the incumbent President "has not acted upon the light given" (EGW to OAT, Aug. 27, 1896), and "has ventured on, directly contrary to the light which the Lord has been giving him," are most significant. Her confidence in him was such that she could state that the chief officer of the church was under the inspiration of Satan. As revealing and astonishing, indeed overwhelming in portent as this is, yet it does not provide a single word from the man himself even though he undoubtedly was in sympathy with the stand of Ellen White. His actual "testimony" is not given.
4. Oliver Montgomery — Undoubtedly a leader, but again not a single sentence of testimony quoted.
5. L. H. Christian, A. W. Spalding, A. V. Olson, Norval Pease, A. L. White — Chronologically their work is Pease I, (1945); Christian, (1947); Spalding, (1949); White (1958); and Olson, (1966). The viewpoints of these men are generally in harmony with Froom. One builds upon the other, yet the differences are great. These require consideration on their own which is taken up subsequently.
6. R. L. Odom — Surely a researcher of no mean caliber. The three volumes of the Index bear witness to his proficient and tireless labors. But where is his "testimony"? Not one line is to be found in Froom.
7. L. E. Froom — The author himself is listed as the eleventh on the list of twelve. His testimony is evident enough. It is this, his testimony that is under study.
8. Ellen G. White — "The chosen messenger to the Remnant," is above all others the one bearing testimony that delineates precisely what happened at 1888. Because of this true testimony the entire matter has been placed in a terribly serious setting having far-reaching implications! Her testimony must be considered on its own in due course.

Of the twelve witnesses here listed and said to be the "best informed," it would seem that two are in a special group, Daniells and E. G. White. They stand together. The other ten are either silent or bear varying testimonies. Why should these be called the "best informed"? If the matter rests on their witness the case is in jeopardy. The testimony among the witnesses is not in agreement!

The immeasurable difference between Froom's evaluation of the situation and that of the Lord may be seen in the following comparisons. The marked contrast of unstinted praise is taken from pages 359 to 363 while the EGW testimony is taken from a letter to A. O. Tait, Aug. 27, 1896; Special Testimonies, No. 19, Pp. 29, 30; letter to O. A. Olson, May 31, 1896; TM 359. The praise by Froom is indicated by (1); the sobering indictment of the Lord by (2).

(1) "… the record of Olson's spiritual leadership is clear and loyal." (2) "… he has not acted upon the light given."

(1) "He joined wholeheartedly with Ellen White …" (2) "… he has ventured on, directly contrary to the light which the Lord has been giving him."

(1) "Olson … helped to bind the Church together." (2) "He is leading other minds to view matters in a perverted light."

(1) "Olson … fostered the study of the Spirit of Prophecy." (2) "He does not regard the testimonies."

(1) "Olson's tenure of office was a time of … growing acceptance of the message of Righteousness by Faith." (2) "Unmistakably Elder O. has acted as did Aaron, in regard to these men who have been opposed to the work of God ever since the Minneapolis meeting. They have not repented of their course of action in resisting light and evidence."

(1) "Olson … helped … to advance the Message of Minneapolis … from 1888 to 1897. (2) "Those who then refused to receive the testimony given me by God for them, and rejecting the evidence attending these testimonies, would not be benefited should I return (i.e., from Australia)."

(1) "His was a healing, unifying, and helpful influence …" (2) "The disease at the heart of the work poisons the blood. … The spiritual blindness which rests upon human minds seems to be deepening." "The whole body is sick."

(1) "Olson's tenure of office was a time of awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction and self-reliance …" (2) "At the center of the work matters are being shaped so that every other institution is following in the same course. And the General Conference is itself becoming corrupted with wrong sentiments and principles. … The people are learning that men in high positions of responsibility cannot be trusted to mold and fashion other men's minds and characters." (This was written in 1895.)

"We" need to understand this terrible situation with pity, sympathy, and tender sorrow. About seven years after the notable session, this condition prevailed. It was not just a man involved, or "some" but it was "we" ourselves insulting the Spirit of God.

"We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel; but for Christ's sake, His people should not add sin to sin by charging God with the consequence of their own wrong course of action." (Letter 184, 1901, Ev. 696.)

Twenty-one men are listed by name. Several of these, perhaps ten or twelve are mentioned in this list who are not referred to in pages 240 to 267. It is not clear why this group is different from those who supplied affidavits, but in any event this group, if they were present at the Conference, would make about one-fourth of the delegation. (Pease I indicates there were 84 delegates (Pease I, P. 54); Olson indicates there were 85 delegates at opening time with an additional five delegates seated on October 26, which is about half way through the conference (Olson, p. 33); while Froom (P. 373) refers to a total number of delegates as about 90.) This group of twenty-one men is said to "fully offset the 'some' who did not at first see the truth." By comparison "the 'some' who rejected turns out to be less than twenty out of more than ninety." (P. 369.) Thus from forty to fifty were the "some" or "others" remaining noncommittal.

If this little exercise in arithmetic can be even approximately correct as based on Froom's own figures, how can "we" possibly understand why Ellen G. White has said so much about this notable Conference and the terrible spirit of opposition and rebellion manifested there and in subsequent years? Reason demands an answer. Was it the "few" or the "some" or the "many" of the Sanhedrin that doomed the nation of Israel? History indicates there were probably seventy-one members (delegates). Can it possibly be the quantity that accepted or rejected and/or were noncommittal that has delayed the coming of Christ? Surely the Adventist conscience cannot submit to this kind of frustrating mental exercise!

But what is the unique, indeed very strange remedy that is suggested in this hour of crisis? Just forget it! "Surely the hour has now come to forget the past and its variances, to press together, and to move forward unitedly in response to God's call to advance." (P. 373.) Truly advance is essential. Unity is imperative for the Spirit cannot abide confusion. But how can God's people be called upon "to forget" their past? This is to countermand the very thing "we" have been warned against — "we have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history." (LS 196.) There is a principle at stake! The Remnant Church dare not pass over lightly its own relationship to the Lord and His Spirit as evidenced in the 1888 experience any more than it may presume to try and forget Calvary because it happened 2000 years ago. The mere passage of time does not cancel out an insult. At Calvary a love relationship was opened to all mankind; at Minneapolis God desired His bride to enter into the consummation of this divine-human relationship. The acceptance or rejection of a "doctrine" could never fulfill the potential God had in mind but which to date has eluded "us."

History does not support what "we" say "we see" nor can history ever be supported by mere assertions. If Froom worked from "hundreds of priceless source documents" it is only right, proper and reasonable that at least "some" of these be put on display and quoted from rather fully. This has not been the case. This is a mystery. Yet we say "we see," and have been in "a time of awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction and self-reliance," which began in 1888. What a startling fulfillment of prophecy! We are "blind" and know it not, all the time saying, "We see; therefore" our "sin remaineth."