General Conference Session of 1888

The General Conference Session of 1888 was a pivotal meeting of ninety-six church leaders held from October 17 to November 4, 1888, at the newly constructed Minneapolis, Minnesota, Seventh-day Adventist Church on the corner of Lake Street and Fourth Avenue, South.¹ A ministerial institute from October 10 to 16 preceded the General Conference Session. During this General Conference session, attendees debated prophetic interpretation, the law in Galatians, and the meaning of righteousness by faith. Ellen G. White (1827-1915) featured prominently at the session. Two young ministers, Alonzo Trévier Jones (1850-1923) and Ellet Joseph Waggoner (1855-1916), advocated for a more Christ-centered theological emphasis. Their theological views reflected the ideas of the wider Holiness movement (a Christian revivalist movement that emerged out of Methodism during the late nineteenth century). The debates at this General Conference Session led to a major theological shift and have generated considerable controversy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church ever since. A plethora of individuals later claimed to be the true purveyors of Jones and Waggoner’s message to support their own theological views or calls for reform.

Ellen White shortly after the General Conference session observed that both sides had a point but was chiefly concerned about how church leaders treated one another and the abuse of power. Overall, the 1888 General Conference session is considered “one of the most significant sessions in Adventist history” and “a major waymark in Ellen White’s long ministry.”²

Background

In the early years of the church, from the 1840s through the 1880s, the denomination had focused largely on its doctrinal distinctives (the seventh-day Sabbath, the Second Advent, the Sanctuary, and the state of the dead). These beliefs were emphasized so much that discussing and teaching beliefs shared with other Christians, especially soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and Christology (doctrine of Christ), were neglected.

Some Adventists focused on the law rather than Christ’s salvific act. The historian Richard W. Schwarz summarized the situation: “By the 1870s and [18]80s a new generation of Seventh-day Adventists had arisen. Ridiculed as legalists and Judaizers by fellow Christians, persecuted in some areas, these Seventh-day Adventists searched the Bible to sustain their Sabbath beliefs. They found it a veritable arsenal or proof texts, which could be marshaled with crushing logic to demonstrate the perpetuity of the Sabbath. They courted debate and, imperceptibly to themselves, tended to become just what they were charged with being: legalists looking to their own actions for salvation rather than to Jesus Christ.” Prominent church leader Uriah Smith wrote, observing Jesus’ admonition to be more righteous than the pharisee, that this can be done “only by keeping and teaching others to keep the commandments.” A. F. Ballenger similarly observed: “When we obey, that act, coupled with our faith, secures our justification.”³

Ellen White believed the church needed a spiritual revival. Shortly after the 1888 General Conference session, she reflected that the church had become as spiritually dry as the proverbial “hills of Gilboa.”⁴ Although the early pioneers clearly believed in Christ as their Lord and Savior, over time they had not kept Christ at the center of Adventist beliefs and experience.

During the 1880s, two young ministers, Waggoner and Jones, began to promote “righteousness by faith” as a solution to this soteriological lacuna. As a young person growing up in the church, Waggoner had never really experienced a personal conversion experience. He later recounted his conversion as an adult:

Christ is primarily the Word of God, the expression of God’s thought; and the Scriptures are the Word of God simply because they reveal Christ. It was with this belief that I began my real study of the Bible thirty-four years ago (1882). At that time Christ was set forth before my eyes ‘evidently crucified’ before me. I was sitting a little apart from the body of the congregation in the large tent camp meeting in Healdsburg, one gloomy Sabbath afternoon. I have no idea what was the subject of the discourse. Not a word nor a text have I ever known. All that has remained with me was what I saw. Suddenly a light shone round me, and the tent was, for me, far more brilliantly lighted than if the noon-day sun had been shining, and I saw Christ hanging on the Cross, crucified for me.⁵

Waggoner worked as a physician initially at the newly formed Rural Health Retreat (later the St. Helena Sanitarium).⁶ After a short time, he moved to Oakland to assist his father, J. H. Waggoner, at the fledgling Pacific Press. Among other responsibilities, he helped edit The Signs of the Times.

When J. H. Waggoner left for Europe as a missionary, Ellet Waggoner and Alonzo Jones became co-editors. By 1884 they began to publicly share their newfound convictions. They interpreted Paul’s reference to the “schoolmaster” law in Galatians 3:18-25 as including the entire moral law (i.e. the Ten Commandments), not just the Old Testament ceremonial and sacrificial laws, which had become the prevailing Adventist view.⁷ George I. Butler (1834-1918), president of the General Conference, and Uriah Smith (1832-1903), editor of the Review and Herald, strongly opposed these interpretations because they feared that these ideas would undermine the seventh-day Sabbath and Adventist’s distinctive beliefs. The discussion rapidly degenerated into a “bitter, intractable feud.”⁸

A committee of nine studied the issue in 1886 but was unable to resolve the controversy. The group was split five (Uriah Smith, G. I. Butler, William Covert [1842-1917], Dudley M. Canright [1840-1919], and James H. Morrison [1841-1918]) to four (E. J. Waggoner, S. N. Haskell [1834-1922], Buell A. Whitney [1845-1888], and Milton C. Wilcox [1853-1935]).⁹ Butler believed, since Waggoner publicly taught his views at Healdsburg College, as well as in print, that he had the “duty” to squelch this controversy.¹⁰ “Perhaps there has never been a theological question in all the history of our work,” wrote Butler, “concerning which there has been so much disagreement among our ministry and leading brethren as this.”¹¹ He offered three reasons why this did not contribute to church unity. First, he did not believe that impressionable students at denominational educational institutions needed to be exposed to controversial ideas.¹² Second, Waggoner expressed his views in Sabbath School lessons. Butler believed that official “lessons should teach only views held by the large body of our people.”¹³ Lastly, Butler was concerned that having public theological debates on this issue made the denomination vulnerable to attack by critics, who could use these internecine debates to criticize the denomination. He noted how already “the apostle’s references to the law in this letter are used by our opponents as a strong support to their Antinomian doctrines.”¹⁴ Butler acknowledged that Paul did not always clearly delineate whether he was referring to the moral law or ceremonial law in Galatians. Nonetheless, Butler believed it was the ceremonial law that Paul ultimately referred to in Galatians. As Butler expressed it, the ceremonial law carried the “main line of argument.”¹⁵ Butler tenaciously believed that he was correct. But expecting that he might be accused of not believing in righteousness by faith, he defensively assured his readers that he believed that justification came through faith.¹⁶

While Ellen White initially admonished both sides for fanning the flames of controversy, she viewed publication of Butler’s booklet as a tipping point. After its publication, she urged Waggoner to publish his views in a booklet, too. Waggoner waited a year to publish a rejoinder, entitled The Gospel in the Book of Galatians. He wrote:

The leading thought in the book of Romans is justification by faith. . . All have sinned . . . All who believe on him are justified freely by the grace of God, and his righteousness is imputed to them although they have violated the law. . . . Everywhere faith in Christ and justification by faith are made prominent. So we may say that justification by faith is the key-note of the book of Romans.¹⁷

Waggoner argued that the book of Galatians provided a corrective to those in the first century who taught that they must be circumcised to be saved. Waggoner contended that Galatians was written before Romans and was therefore where Paul presented his understanding of the law and the gospel. ¹⁸ He believed Butler grossly misrepresented his perspective:

I made it as clear as I know how, that the Galatians . . . were accepting the Jewish error that circumcision was the only means of justification. We cannot suppose that the Jews who were thus seeking to turn the Galatians away from the faith, taught them to ignore the ten commandments, but we do know that they did not teach them to rely solely upon their observance of the moral law as a means of justification. The true gospel is to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. The perverted gospel which the Galatians were being taught, was to keep the commandments of God, and circumcision. But since circumcision is nothing, and there is in the universe no means of justification outside of Christ, it follows that they were practically relying upon their good works for salvation.¹⁹

Waggoner maintained that Butler had misunderstood him and furthermore had not adequately appreciated the doctrine of justification by faith.²⁰ In the months leading up to the General Conference session, Ellen White chastised both parties for stoking the controversy; she refused to take a position on the issue. Despite Butler’s appeals to admonish Waggoner, Ellen White instead addressed the way in which Butler and other church leaders had handled the situation. She believed that it was only fair that Waggoner be given a hearing and be able to publicly share his views at the forthcoming General Conference session. On the eve of the 1888 Minneapolis meeting, Ellen White counseled participants that “this gathering will be the most important meeting you have ever attended. This should be a period of earnestly seeking the Lord, and humbling your hearts before him.”²¹

As was often the case, Ellen White was less concerned about the specific theological issues than she was about the critical, debating spirit.²² As tensions escalated about the law in Galatians, another issue—the interpretation of the ten horns (on the fourth beast) of Daniel 7—arose. Initially, with Smith’s blessing, the General Conference asked Jones to re-examine the interpretation of the horns. Jones’s research led him to identify the Alemanni tribe, instead of the Huns, as one of the ten horns. The issue festered as the “old guard” (Smith and Butler) felt once again threatened by these new interpretations promulgated by Waggoner and Jones.

Tensions were high already leading into the 1888 General Conference Session because of the threat of state Sunday laws and a proposed national Sunday law. On May 21, 1888, U.S. Senator Henry W. Blair (1834-1920) introduced a national Sunday law in the United States Senate. Blair argued that his law would make the United States a “Christian” nation. During the years prior to the introduction of this bill, Adventist church members had been arrested for violating state and local Sunday laws.²³ Once Cardinal James Gibbons (1834-1921) added his support to the proposed bill, Adventists were reminded of Ellen White’s warning about apostate Protestantism joining hands with Roman Catholicism and Spiritualism.²⁴ As news of a possible Sunday law spread, a general sense of angst intensified. Participants at the 1888 Minneapolis meeting felt that they could be very close to Christ’s return. Most participants believed that this was the wrong time even to discuss petty squabbles, and blamed Jones and Waggoner for challenging points perceived as inconsequential. Jones was keenly aware of the anxiety about Sunday laws and wrote to Uriah Smith expressing concern that the United States might soon be focused on Seventh-day Adventists. Jones further argued that Adventists must articulate a better reason for their beliefs than mere tradition.²⁵ Both sides, thus, had a great deal of underlying anxiety prior to the General Conference. Jones addressed the issue of the proposed Sunday law during the 1888 General Conference.²⁶ The conference voted to publish an edited version of his presentations on the topic as Civil Government and Religion, or Christianity and the American Constitution. Later, on December 13, 1888, Jones testified before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor against the proposed Blair Bill.²⁷ Jones arguably did more than any other Adventist at the time to fight this Sunday legislation.²⁸

Another event that impacted debates over Galatians and justification by faith was D. M. Canright’s departure from the denomination in 1887. Canright had rejected the perpetuity of the law, including the seventh-day Sabbath, and believed it was done away with at the cross. Church leaders saw some similarities in Waggoner’s views on the law with Canright’s.²⁹ Smith and Butler viewed Canright as a classic example about why Jones and Waggoner’s views were not only very dangerous but also threatened the unity of the church. Ironically, Canright cited Smith to justify his own doubts about Ellen White’s prophetic gift.³⁰ By the time the General Conference Session began in 1888, there was a great deal of tension within the denomination.

Bible Institute & Conference

The week-long Bible Institute (October 10-16) that preceded the Session featured several speakers including Jones who presented his findings about Daniel 7 (especially about the Alemanni). His arguments were so thorough that no one quibbled with his research. Uriah Smith, now on the defensive, at one point admitted that he had merely followed Millerite expositors. Jones responded sarcastically: “Elder Smith has told you he does not know anything about this matter. I do, and I don’t want you to blame me for what he does not know.” ³¹ Ellen White admonished him for speaking too harshly. Butler, meanwhile, was suffering from burnout and stress-related health issues which prevented him from attending.³² Yet, he still telegrammed supporters to “stand by the landmarks.”³³ Many delegates who opposed Jones and Waggoner did so out of deference and support of the “old guard” leaders. R. M. Kilgore moved that any further discussion of “righteousness by faith” be postponed until a later date. Ellen White responded: “Brethren, this is the Lord’s work, does the Lord want his work to wait for Elder Butler? The Lord wants His work to go forward and not wait for any man!”³⁴ There were no further objections. Yet the continual appeals to tradition and the authority of church administrators, along with interpersonal conflict, escalated criticisms of Waggoner, Jones, and even White. Ellen White repeatedly reminded delegates that she did not have clear light on the issues and to go back to the Bible instead of her writings to resolve debated points. M. L. Andreasen (1876-1962) later recalled, that it all boiled down to an issue of authority. “The real issue,” as he remembered, “was whether Sister White was to be permitted to overrule the men who carried the responsibility of the work. . . . As interpreted by some, the Minneapolis conference was a revolt against Sister White.”³⁵

During the remaining meetings, Waggoner gave a series of studies on Romans and Galatians in which he argued that the law only establishes human sinfulness.³⁶ He contended that salvation came only through Jesus Christ, not from human obedience to the law. J. H. Morrison, a close friend of Butler, countered that Adventists had always taught righteousness by faith so Waggoner’s theological positions were not new and his arguments misleading. He asserted that Waggoner’s position undercut the church’s unique eschatological message that the Sabbath must be obeyed especially as Christ’s second coming drew near. Jones and Waggoner replied, standing side-by-side, quoting Scripture.³⁷ On another occasion a blackboard was brought in on which the following propositions were written: (1) “Resolved—That the Law in Galatians is the Ceremonial Law.” (Signed) J. H. Morrison; and (2) “Resolved—That the Law in Galatians is the Moral Law.” Waggoner was asked to sign the second proposition, but he refused saying that he had not come to debate—that righteousness was not obtained by keeping either law, but by faith alone.³⁸ As the main devotional speakers, Waggoner and Jones presented their views about specific doctrinal debates but also emphasized a more Christ-centered Adventist theology. While no transcripts of these talks exist, notes by W. C. White (1854-1937) along with extant diaries, correspondence, and newspapers, make the overall focus of these messages clear.³⁹ One newspaper account mentioned that the discussion held on Thursday, October 18, “waxed warm” as Ellen White shared the pulpit with Waggoner who spoke about “Law and the Gospel.”⁴⁰ A newspaper reporter described Ellen White on October 20 as a “little woman . . . sitting in a large rocking chair” who “arose and addressed the meeting . . . and spoke in slow, distinct and impressive tones.”⁴¹ A couple of weeks later, another unnamed person described “unusually animated” discussions in which “opinions have been freely expressed . . . with a little more freedom than customary” yet ultimately “utmost harmony reigned.”⁴² The acrimony was sufficient that newspaper reporters noted their public disagreements over theology.

The General Conference Session did not focus solely on Jones and Waggoner or debates about salvation. The session also had the usual committees, constituency meetings of the societies and associations through which the church did much of its ministry and mission at that time, and reports. Among the reports were ones about the work in the American South by Sands H. Lane (1844-1906) and Joseph M. Rees (1844-1909), the distribution of labor and need for city evangelism, and the earliest attempt to build a mission ship to reach Pacific islanders all of which had a long-term impact on the development of the denomination’s mission.⁴³ During the main conference, Uriah Smith presented three times on the topic of “predestination” and the ten horns of prophecy (Dan 7:24). Ellen White gave a presentation about temperance for the local Women’s Christian Temperance Union.⁴⁴ At this General Conference Session, the meetings began each day with an early morning worship service followed by a prayer and social meeting (a time for prayer and testimony).

Many of the presentations at the General Conference Session centered on the debates over Galatians and righteousness by faith. Waggoner spoke at least ten times on the “Law in Galatians.” In these presentations, he delved deeper into righteousness by faith.⁴⁵ J. H. Morrison gave at least eight lectures focused on the nature of the law in Galatians. On Wednesday, October 17, after the social meeting, White gave a talk about “The Importance of Ministers Having a Living Experience in Religion.”⁴⁶ Instead of debating theology, she addressed what she felt was the deeper issue of conflict. A week later (October 24) she warned about “debaters” with “false theories and false statements” who possessed a “spirit of combativeness.”⁴⁷ She expressed deep convictions from her heart:

We want the truth as it is in Jesus. But when anything shall come in to shut down the gate that the waves of truth [about Jesus] shall not come in, you will hear my voice wherever it is, if it in California or Europe, or wherever I am, because God has given me light and I mean to let it shine.

And I have seen that precious souls who would have embraced the truth [of Adventism] have been turned away from it because of the manner in which the truth has been handled, because Jesus was not in it. And this is what I have been pleading with you for all the time—we want Jesus.⁴⁸

Later that morning, during the subsequent business meeting, White looked at J. H. Morrison, who represented Butler’s interests and led the opposition, cautioning that “unless we are converted God does not want us. I hope Brother Morrison will be converted and handle the word of God with meekness.”⁴⁹ This rebuke cut to the heart and was a life changing moment for Morrison who wrestled with torn loyalties between church leaders and the prophetic gift.

Morrison and Butler were troubled, first of, all because they felt confident that they were correct in maintaining their position. White had much earlier (1854) admonished Waggoner’s father for teaching that the law in Galatians was the moral law.⁵⁰ During the debate over Galatians in the 1850s, a minister, Stephen Pierce, in 1857 had argued that Galatians 3 was about the ceremonial law. Pierce’s view eclipsed the old view of the moral law as the generally accepted Adventist position.⁵¹ When questioned by Morrison and Butler, White responded that she could not remember or find her earlier testimony, and even if she had, she would not have given it to them. She was resolute that doctrinal conflicts in the church must be settled from the Bible, and not her writings.⁵² Ellen White also noted how there had been “much talk about standing by the old landmarks. But there was evidence they knew not what the landmarks were.”⁵³ She was less concerned about the nuances of the specific debate. At one point, someone asked Ellen White what she thought about the horns, and she simply replied: “There are too many horns!”⁵⁴

During the 1888 General Conference session, Ellen White affirmed her earlier statements that Adventism desperately needed a spiritual awakening. Several Adventist historians have argued that the following statement by White most clearly illustrates her perspective on Jones and Waggoner’s “1888 message”: ⁵⁵

The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people. . . . This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person. His merits, and His changeless love for the human family. All power is given into His hands, that He may dispense rich gifts unto men, imparting the priceless gift of His own righteousness to the helpless human agent. This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel’s message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure.⁵⁶

According to White, a major role of the conference was to ensure that Christ remained at the center of Adventism. She added that this message was given so that “the world should no longer say that Seventh-day Adventists talk the law, the law, but do not teach or believe Christ.”⁵⁷ Adventists had promoted “the commandments of God,” “but the faith of Jesus had not been proclaimed . . . as of equal importance.” While the faith of Jesus was “talked of,” yet it was “not understood.” Yet what constituted the faith of Jesus? She replied: “Jesus becoming our sin-bearer that He might become our sin-pardoning Saviour . . . He came to our world and took our sins that we might take His righteousness. Faith in the ability of Christ to save us amply and fully and entirely is the faith of Jesus.”⁵⁸ She later reflected on this 1888 meeting: “My burden during the meeting was to present Jesus and His love before my brethren, for I saw marked evidences that many had not the spirit of Christ.”⁵⁹

When questioned whether Jones and Waggoner were presenting new light, White replied: “Why, I have been presenting it to you for the last 45 years—the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds.”⁶⁰ She decried the animosity of church leaders toward Jones and Waggoner. This “was not the spirit of Christ.”⁶¹ As the meeting drew to a close, Ellen White expressed concern about “church unity and the harmony of all believers.”⁶² Butler and Smith had tried to force theological uniformity but caused the very disunity they tried to prevent.

Aftermath

Not everyone at the 1888 General Conference session opposed Jones and Waggoner. A few delegates appreciated the new Christ-centered focus of Jones and Waggoner. Dr. John H. Kellogg (1852-1943), according to Ellen White, experienced a deep religious awakening as a result of being present at the 1888 General Conference session. Kellogg was “a converted man, and we all knew it.”⁶³ Jones and Waggoner won another important advocate in George B. Starr (1854-1944), who viewed this Christ-centered focus “as an integral part of the threefold message [of Revelation 14].”⁶⁴ He added: “Our souls were refreshed . . . and our spirits rejoiced in Jesus as our personal, all-sufficient Saviour. His person, His love, His righteousness, and His power to save to the uttermost, were exalted as I had never heard them in any preceding Conferences.”⁶⁵ White later asked Starr to travel with her to Australia partially as a result of his advocacy for greater emphasis on righteousness by faith.

Despite the controversies, harsh words, and hard feelings, a positive outcome of the General Conference Session of 1888 was that many participants reported that the controversy forced them to carefully study their Bibles. Robert DeWitt Hottel (1857-1943) jotted in his diary that upon returning home from Minneapolis he read “Brother Butler’s book on Galatians and also Bro. Waggoner’s reply. Also read in the Bible.”⁶⁶ John O. Corliss (1845-1923) also went to the Bible to study for himself:

I never had such floods of light in the same length of time, and the truth never looked so good to me as it does now. All alone by myself, I have studied the subjects of the covenants, and the law in Galatians. I came to my conclusions without consulting anyone but the Lord and His Holy Word. I think now that I have the matter straight in my mind, and I can see the beauty and harmony of the Dr.’s [i.e., Waggoner’s] position on the Galatians law.⁶⁷

This new emphasis on personal Bible study was a healthy outgrowth of the conflict, and W. C. White was sure it would “result in clearer preaching.”⁶⁸ Ellen White shared similar views. At the 1889 General Conference session, she reported that she was “thankful to see with our ministering brethren a disposition to search the Scriptures for themselves.”⁶⁹ She added a year later: “Our ministers must cease to dwell upon their peculiar ideas with the feeling, ‘You must see this point as I do, or you cannot be saved.’ Away with this egotism.”⁷⁰ Ellen White consistently urged individual Bible study for spiritual renewal and revival.

Although a group was attracted to the teachings of Jones and Waggoner, not everyone was convinced. Some were undecided, and others remained steadfast in their opposition. Despite strong appeals by Ellen White, she sensed a spirit of opposition to this new theological emphasis. In reflecting back, she continued to opine that this was a “terrible meeting” where the Holy Spirit was “shamefully treated.”⁷¹ Such opposition, she said, “made my labor 50 times harder than it would otherwise have been.”⁷² In 1902, she still described the General Conference session as “a terrible experience . . . One of the saddest chapters in the history of the believers in present truth.”⁷³ The then young W. A. Spicer (1865-1952), future church president (1922-1930), described a spirit of “ridiculing” and “caviling” (which he defined as “to pick flaws, or raise frivolous objections”) when he visited church headquarters in 1891.⁷⁴ White recognized that the harsh spirit of Minneapolis revealed an underlying opposition to the prophetic gift. The conflict was also partially generational, as a younger generation of Adventist thought leaders challenged the established authority of church leadership and tradition. This episode in Adventist history proved a turning point in White’s prophetic ministry.⁷⁵

Over the next several years, attitudes thawed toward Jones and Waggoner, especially as a number of church leaders repented for what transpired at Minneapolis. With White’s support, Jones and Waggoner became two of the most recognizable figures within the denomination. They joined White at camp meetings and ministerial institutes, leading to a series of revivals, between 1889 to 1891. Of the revival in South Lancaster, Massachusetts, White observed “I have never seen a revival go forward with such thoroughness and yet remain so free of undue excitement.”⁷⁶ Jones and Waggoner’s ideas spread through camp meetings where at least one of them spoke, like the one in Topeka, Kansas in 1889 and Waggoner’s devotionals at the 1891 General Conference session.⁷⁷ Waggoner ‘s book, titled, Christ and His Righteousness (1890), was at least partially based on his 1888 talks. While the two continued to preach into the 1890s, Waggoner also served as a missionary in England (1892-1903) and Ellen White as a missionary to Australia (1891-1900). Despite living outside the United States, Ellen White continued to write admonitions to church leaders, urging them to repent of their resistance to the messages about Christ’s righteousness. She warned in 1892 that even if Jones and Waggoner lost their way, it would not negate their theological contribution to the church. She stated: “It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake.” Such a view would be “a fatal delusion.”⁷⁸

During this time, some of the hard feelings held by the “old guard” changed. By late 1890 (shortly before White’s departure for Australia), Smith confessed personally his poor attitude in 1888 although he remained steadfast that he was correct about his interpretation of the law in Galatians. Two days later he confessed to a group of church leaders. He later publicly confessed to a large audience at the denomination’s largest church, the Dime Tabernacle. Ellen White recounted:

Elder Smith read the letter I had sent him, read it to them all, and said he accepted it as from the Lord. He went back to the Minneapolis meeting and made a confession of the spirit he had occupied . . . Brother Smith has fallen on the rock and is broken, and the Lord Jesus will now work with him . . . it is seldom that Elder Smith sheds a tear, but he did weep and his voice was choked with the tears in it.⁷⁹

Subsequently, Morrison, Butler, and others also admitted their mistakes. Jones later remembered that Morrison gave “one of the finest and noblest confessions I ever heard.”⁸⁰, Butler confessed, too, his bad attitude although he, like Smith, never changed his view about the law in Galatians. He noted how the years after 1888 had been full of affliction, weakness, sorrow, and perplexity. As an example of Butler’s shift, he held a series of meetings with Jones at the Florida camp meeting. After the death of his invalid wife, Lentha (1826-1901), Butler returned to serving in church administration (first as Florida Conference president and later as Southern Union Conference president). Although some pockets of opposition remained, a major theological shift occurred within Adventist theology.

By 1894, S. N. Haskell wrote that it had been “absolutely necessary” for Ellen White to “uphold Eld. Waggoner and A. T. Jones for these number of years.” “But,” he added, “the whole country has been silenced against criticizing them to any extent. That battle has been fought, and the victory gained.” The denomination, he believed, now faced the opposite problem. The people and church leaders associated with them “were taking everything they [Jones and W. W. Prescott] said as being almost inspired of God.”⁸¹ Francis M. Wilcox (1865-1951), later editor of the Review & Herald, came to a similar conclusion. Writing from church headquarters in Battle Creek, he stated: “There was a time when many of the principles that Brother Jones has brought out were opposed, but lately the great mass of our people have clung on his words almost as though they were the words of God.”⁸² Thus, by 1894 the church had created a new crisis of authority. “Some of our brethren,” wrote Ellen White, “have looked to these ministers [Jones and Prescott], and have placed them where God should be. They have received every word from their lips, without carefully seeking the counsel of God themselves.”⁸³ Adventists now had a new authority problem. Some Adventists placed Jones and Waggoner (and for some, their supporter, Prescott [1855-1944]) upon a pedestal.

In the decade after 1888 Ellen White became much more outspoken in uplifting Christ in her own writings. Some of her most Christocentric works came in the wake of the 1888 saga as she saw the need for a more Christ-centered theological approach within Adventism. Some of these books included: Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), Steps to Christ (1892), Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings (1896), The Desire of Ages (1898), and Christ’s Object Lessons (1900).⁸⁴ White’s choice of illustration graphically demonstrates her more Christ-centered approach which predated 1888. James White had designed and published a lithograph (1876) that prominently featured the law at the center.⁸⁵ In 1883, Ellen White worked to revise it and instead had the crucified Christ front and center.⁸⁶ Even before the momentous 1888 General Conference session, as these images demonstrate, White saw the need to put Christ in the center of Adventist theology.⁸⁷ A little more than a decade after 1888, Ellen White pointed out that “both the ceremonial and the moral code of Ten Commandments” were “the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.”⁸⁸ While the ceremonial law pointed to Christ as Savior, the moral law reveals how to get rid of the sin problem. By emphasizing the latter Waggoner brought to light a neglected and much needed spiritual emphasis within the denomination. In the midst of theological polarization at the 1888 General Conference session, the real point brought out by Waggoner was that salvation did not come through any human effort.

Waggoner and Jones both apostatized, leaving the denomination they helped to shape. Kellogg experienced increasing conflicts with church leaders between 1901 to 1906. At the time, Jones was teaching at Battle Creek College and stayed closely aligned with him. Kellogg was disfellowshipped in 1907 and Jones in 1909. Jones remained a faithful seventh-day Sabbatarian who worshipped with various Sabbath-observing groups other than the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. E. J. Waggoner, while he was living in Europe, started drifting in a pantheistic direction blurring the distinctions between the natural and the supernatural. At the same time Kellogg also promulgated similar modernist notions that placed God in nature or human beings.⁸⁹ In a sense, Waggoner’s view of righteousness by faith led him in this direction. The emphasis upon the immanent presence of the Holy Spirit in one’s personal life led naturally to an emphasis upon victory over sin. This idea of personal victory over sin, as taught by Waggoner, began at the new birth when God bestowed a new heart and thereby assured this change of nature in order to achieve victory. This focus upon the immanent presence of God in the human experience was the direct result of his theological understanding of righteousness by faith—which reflected a strong holiness emphasis upon human perfectibility. As early as the 1897 General Conference session, Waggoner publicly shared some of these views. His books, The Everlasting Covenant (1900) and The Glad Tidings (1900), clearly reflected Kellogg’s panentheistic views. Further distancing Waggoner from the denomination, while in Europe, he had a close spiritual “affinity” with a young nurse, Edith Adams (1869-1945), which prompted his wife, Jessie Moser Waggoner (1860-1944), to divorce him. The scandal was featured in major newspapers.⁹⁰

Smith and Butler, after repenting of their error at Minneapolis, went on to each make significant contributions. Smith wrote one of his most beloved books on Bible prophecy, Looking Unto Jesus (1898) and returned from retirement to assist Jones in editing the Review and Herald.⁹¹ Butler returned to church administration and fought for the establishment of the College of Medical Evangelists at Loma Linda Sanitarium.⁹²

Reception

Interpretation of what happened at the Minneapolis meeting became a flashpoint during the twentieth century. The many groups that claimed that they were the heirs of the 1888 message varied widely about what the 1888 message actually was. This section is organized by representative genres of interpretation and is not completely chronologically.

During the 1919 Bible Conference, participants recalled 1888 as a major turning point in Adventist history.⁹³ Daniells during the heyday of the Fundamentalist/Modernist conflict of the 1920s, wrote his own book, Christ Our Righteousness (1926), because he felt the denomination needed reminding about righteousness by faith.⁹⁴ William W. Prescott published his own presentations from the 1919 Bible Conference about the need for a more Christ-centered approach to Adventism in his two-volume, The Doctrine of Christ (1920).⁹⁵ From the 1920s onward, Adventists repeatedly sought reformation and renewal from the 1888 saga. Rolf Pöhler argues that the overall trajectory of Adventist theology, from the nineteenth through the early twentieth centuries, suggests an increasing alignment with mainstream Protestant Christianity. Adventists shifted from “heterodox to orthodox,” “distinctive to fundamental,” and “legalism to evangelicalism.”⁹⁶ Other Adventist historians have also noted 1888 as one of these major turning points in Adventist history as it matured as a denomination.⁹⁷

Robert J. Wieland (1916-2011) and Donald K. Short (1915-2004) were the most significant controversialists to claim to have a special understanding of the 1888 message . Wieland and Short argued that the Seventh-day Adventist Church missed an opportunity when the denomination rejected the 1888 message. The denomination needed to “corporately repent” of this fatal mistake. They were influenced by Claude Holmes (1881-1953) and Judson S. Washburn (1863-1955). Holmes and Washburn advocated a strident variety of Adventist Fundamentalism. They emphasized inerrancy and had a general suspicion of church leaders.⁹⁸ At the 1950 General Conference session, then church president J. L. McElhany (1880-1959) and other leaders challenged delegates to trust in the power of the Holy Spirit to expand the church’s membership. Wieland and Short who attended the meetings viewed McElhany’s challenge as a false worship similar to the one led by Prescott at the 1893 General Conference session.⁹⁹ Prescott along with Jones had briefly promoted Anna Rice Philips (1865-1926) who claimed to have divine revelations (a letter from Ellen White rapidly changed all of their minds).¹⁰⁰ Wieland and Short argued that this emphasis on the Holy Spirit was again at best a false revival.

Wieland and Short viewed “universal legal justification” or the idea that people are legally born justified as the most important contribution of Jones and Waggoner. They believed that Christ was born with the same nature as Adam after the fall. They concluded that if Christ could overcome sin and humans were born justified, Christians, like Christ, could completely overcome sin through faith in Christ. According to Wieland and Short, church leaders should therefore focus on this victory over sin. Furthermore, they also believed that the continued opposition to Jones at the 1893 General Conference session was tantamount to their refusal to receive the Latter Rain (Joel 2:23-29), a time of special spiritual renewal in preparation for Christ’s return. Thus, they believed that, until the church collectively repented, church growth and the Second Advent would be delayed. They shared their views with a committee of church leaders who received 17 copies of their 204-page study. The manuscript was leaked, and numerous copies of the manuscript were distributed. Both Wieland and Short spent most of their careers as missionaries in Africa.¹⁰¹

Denominational historian L. E. Froom (1890-1974), who strongly opposed Wieland and Short, wrote a rebuttal to Wieland and Short’s manuscript in his book Movement of Destiny (1971). Wieland’s theology also developed in new directions. His most popular sermon titled “Agape and Eros,” reflected ideas he developed from reading Anders Nygren’s famous book by the same title. In 1972, Wieland produced his own edited version of Waggoner’s book, The Glad Tidings.¹⁰² During the 1970s, the denomination appointed three distinguished church historians, Emmet K. Vande Vere (1904-1989), Richard W. Schwarz (1925-2013), and C. Mervyn Maxwell (1925-1999), to examine Wieland and Short’s ideas. The committee concluded that while they did not always like the way “these men sometimes said things, their analysis of history was quite accurate. But their perception of the content of the 1888 message was not as accurate.”¹⁰³ The committee noted how their theology deviated in significant ways from Waggoner and Jones, especially in their emphasis on corporate repentance. Under the presidency of church president Robert H. Pierson (1911-1989), Wieland and Short found a more sympathetic ear from church administration.¹⁰⁴ In 1985, Wieland and Short developed the “1888 Message Study Committee” to promote their publications, which included The 1888 Message (1980), 1888 Re-examined (1987), and Let History Speak (2001).

Wieland’s baptism of Emidio H. “Jack” Sequeira (1932-2022) while in Africa contributed to the wider dissemination of Wieland and Short’s ideas. Sequeira had an international appeal and also emphasized legal justification in his preaching and books.¹⁰⁵ Wieland and Short’s writings, however, contained some historical inconsistencies. For example, both Jones and Prescott had been swept up in the fanaticism of Anna Rice Philips. Holmes and Washburn influenced this interpretation of 1888. Holmes and Washburn in turn had been influenced by 20th century debates about inerrancy and perfectionism rather than late-19th century discussions at 1888. From 1994 to 2000 the General Conference undertook another series of talks known as the “Primacy of the Gospel Committee” to delve into Wieland and Short’s arguments. They found twelve areas of agreement and twelve areas of concern. Denominational leaders appealed to the leaders of the 1888 Message Study Committee to desist from claiming that the church “never genuinely accepted” the “true message of righteousness by faith.”¹⁰⁶ Adventist historian C. Mervyn Maxwell acknowledged that much of the twentieth-century interest in 1888 was a result of their revisionist activism.¹⁰⁷

Morris Venden (1932-2013) had a more centrist approach to 1888. Venden pastored several major churches on or near Adventist university campuses, and was a popular week of prayer and camp meeting speaker who rose to prominence due to his interaction with the ideas of 1888.¹⁰⁸ He postulated “95 Theses” writing an article on the topic (1986) and then a book, 95 Theses on Righteousness by Faith: With Apologies to Martin Luther (1987).¹⁰⁹ In a popular sermon series, he compared Exodus and the Advent movement.¹¹⁰ In each, God worked to help His people slowly understand His mercy and love and teach them to trust Him. God’s law was a blueprint for how people should live in response to His love. Vendon argued that both ancient and modern Israel (Adventism) often got the sequence backward, focusing on the law instead of grace. Venden’s “unwavering theme of righteousness by faith combined with his captivating preaching and storytelling did much to influence the thinking of people in the pew who may never have read the writings of theologians,” notes John Brunt.¹¹¹ His simple explanations of grace, righteousness by faith, and victory over sin presented a more irenic approach to 1888. Venden believed that the basic message of 1888 was that “all of salvation is a gift.”¹¹² He also argued that that God’s people always would need Christ.¹¹³

An extreme example of a schismatic group that appropriated the “1888 message” of righteousness by faith in order to justify their separatist views was Victor T. Houteff (1885-1955). He viewed himself as a reformer, an heir to Waggoner and Jones. Houteff argued that Christ’s righteousness was imparted to the believer and thus the individual believer could and must keep the law the same way Christ did. Houteff’s interpretation effectively made the 1888 message ironically all about keeping the law. This legalistic interpretation provided a pretext for separating from the denomination since the denomination, as he perceived it, had rejected this message.¹¹⁴ Some of the leaders of this independent movement consisted of former (disfellowshipped) Seventh-day Adventists. A faction under the leadership of Vernon Howell (David Koresh) (1959-1993), who declared himself as the “sinful Messiah,” gained control of the Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. A violent confrontation erupted between the movement and the federal government law-enforcement agencies. The unfolding drama captured widescale media attention. When it was finished eighty-two individuals died in the confrontation between February 28 to April 19, 1993.¹¹⁵ In front of their Waco, Texas, compound is a monument dedicated to the “Seven Shepherds of the Advent Movements.” The luminaries listed include Ellen G. White, A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, followed by Reformed Seventh-day Adventist denominational leaders: Victor T. Houteff, Benjamin L. Roden (1902-1978), Lois E. Roden (1916-1986), and then Vernon Wayne Howell also known as “David Koresh.”¹¹⁶ Houteff and Howell’s appropriation of Jones and Waggoner’s writings were an unusual twist. Most Seventh-day Adventists were taken by surprise when this group was widely featured in the news.

Another group of outspoken advocates of the 1888 message were Ron Spear (1924-2014)¹¹⁷ and twin brothers Colin (1933-2018)¹¹⁸ and Russell Standish (1933-2008).¹¹⁹ The Standish brothers attributed the development of their theological beliefs to Herbert E. Douglass (1927-2014) and Kenneth H. Wood (1917-2008). Wood and Douglass had provided spiritual guidance to the Standishes when as college students, they first encountered the teachings of Desmond Ford (1929-2019).¹²⁰ According to the Standish brothers and Spear, the true 1888 message revolved around the nature of Christ. They argued that A. T. Jones consistently taught that Christ had a human nature (Jones most clearly articulated this idea in The Consecrated Way [1905]). Yet Jones’s view on the sinful nature of Christ was not new or unique. The Standishes’ theology rested on the belief that Christ had a sinful human nature and was able to overcome sin thereby setting an example for his followers about how to overcome sin and achieve perfection. Their theology had similarities to Wieland and Short’s, but they did not accept their understanding of legal justification. They believed that the denomination had gone wrong in the early 1950s at the 1952 Bible Conference and in the publication of Questions on Doctrine (1957).¹²¹ Spear believed that the denomination “never accepted more than half of the [1888] message at a time.”¹²² “Until the faith of Jesus is experienced in the life,” he added, “there is no power for victory over sin and temptation.”¹²³ The Standishes believed perfect obedience was a condition of salvation, in the same way that complete victory over sin must happen for God’s end-time people.¹²⁴ All three founded independent institutions. Spear started Hope International, Colin Standish was a founder of Weimar College (in 1978) and later Hartland Institute of Health and Education (1983), and Russell started the health retreat and education center Highwood in Australia. These institutions featured a rigorous and literalistic approach to Adventist education using Ellen White’s writings that strictly interpretated health and dress regulations. Some viewed them as being overly legalistic.

Desmond Ford, who the Standish brothers and Spear opposed for his “new theology,” likewise claimed that the denomination needed the teachings of Jones and Waggoner.¹²⁵ “Waggoner was trying to get to the cross,” wrote Ford, “and the brethren didn’t like it too much, and no one really supported Waggoner except Ellen White. . . . And the fact . . . that we’re still here shows that we’ve not, as a church, taken hold of the message.”¹²⁶ Ford, and others like Jerry A. Gladson, a well-known religion teacher of the 1970s, used the 1888 message of righteousness by faith to support their own emphasis upon a more evangelical variety of Adventism that downplayed what they perceived as perfectionism and the need to be perfect for Christ to return (later described as Last Generation Theology). Ultimately more conservative elements within the denomination led to Ford being defrocked after the 1980 Glacier View meeting and ultimately both Ford and Gladson among others left denominational employment. Ford nevertheless felt the church had made progress by acknowledging the failure to embrace the 1888 message at the 1976 Palmdale Conference. From his perspective, it demonstrated that the denomination needed to adopt the 1888 message of righteousness by faith.¹²⁷

Each of these groups or individuals believed that they were the correct purveyor of the 1888 message even though they had widely varying, indeed even overtly contradictory, interpretations of what that message was. Most major reform movements in the twentieth century in Seventh-day Adventism claimed the 1888 message as their raison d’etre. Some such as Wieland and Short remained divisive but reformers within the denomination, while others such as the Branch Davidians remained completely separate and consisted of former and disfellowshipped church members. Yet others, like Spear, the Standish brothers, and Ford, utilized 1888 as a source of inspiration for their own denominational critique. Overall, these varied groups believed that if they could only win over adherents to their special understanding of 1888, they would fix Adventist theology. Irrespective of their interpretation, each group believed their interpretation of 1888 was necessary to bring about revival in the denomination, and that it, ultimately, explained why Christ had not yet come.

Centennial Reflections

The late 1980s witnessed a flurry of interest in the history of the 1888 General Conference. One of the first was a special issue in 1985 of Adventist Heritage Magazine.¹²⁸ Headlining the issue was an article by Norval F. Pease (1910-1995) about “The Truth as it is in Jesus” and an article by Richard W. Schwarz on the subsequent changes in the church that led to the 1901 General Conference session.¹²⁹ In preparation for the 1888 centennial, the White Estate published four volumes containing most of Ellen White’s writings pertaining to the 1888 controversy.¹³⁰ Some of these materials were previously restricted in the “Z” file, so named because of sensitive items it contained. The White Estate Board of Trustees felt these documents were important to release as the church reflected upon the meaning of this event.¹³¹ They also published a companion volume, Memories of Minneapolis, with additional contextual material from their research files.¹³²

The centennial featured special editions of key denominational periodicals. William G. Johnsson (1934-2023) published a centennial edition of the Adventist Review.¹³³ He summarized the message of 1888 into four simple steps: (1) “our desperate need” for Christ’s righteousness; (2) “we cannot help ourselves”; (3) “God does for us what we cannot do for ourselves;” and (4) “God’s grace transforms our entire being.”¹³⁴ In the same issue, George R. Knight, Charles E. Bradford (1925-2021), James J. Londis, Richard M. Davidson, and Myron K. Widmer (1949-2019) wrote articles exploring various facets of the 1888 General Conference session and its legacy on the denomination.

The February 1988 issue of Ministry Magazine featured a “special edition” on righteousness by faith. On the cover was the probing question: advance or retreat?¹³⁵ Then executive editor J. David Newman noted that Ellen White, three years after 1888, described 95 percent of the church members as spiritually not ready for Christ to return. Newman concluded that irrespective of how the Minneapolis event was interpreted, many Adventists century later were still not spiritually ready. He wrote, “Our people do not need more material on character perfection, sinlessness, or the nature of Christ, important topics as they may be. Rather, they need to be taught about Jesus and how to experience His righteousness.”¹³⁶ Articles in this seminal issue featured well-known Adventist authors: Robert W. Olson (1920-2013), George R. Knight, C. Mervyn Maxwell, Ron Graybill, Hans K. LaRondelle (1929-2011), George E. Rice, Eric Claude Webster, Ralph E. Neall (1927-2021), Roy Adams, Alden Thompson, Mark Finley, and W. Floyd Bresee.

Books published during the centennial included a major new biography on A. T. Jones by George R. Knight; an overview by Arnold V. Wallenkampf (1913-1998), What Every Adventist Should Know about 1888; and a new book on Christian perfection by Helmut Knecht Ott (b. 1935), Perfect in Christ. This latter book generated a response by the White Estate. Church leaders maintained that Ellen White’s quotes were misconstrued by Ott.¹³⁷ Adventist archivist, Bert Haloviak (1937-2022), prepared two papers for the centennial commemorations. A new edition of E. J. Waggoner’s classic book, Christ and His Righteousness also came off denominational presses.¹³⁸ Even Wieland and Short released a special edited centennial edition of their book challenging the church, 1888 Re-examined. This plethora of individuals who published material around the centennial demonstrates the many and wide-ranging interpretations of 1888 within the denomination. 1888 still resonated with people with a wide variety of theological convictions.

The centennial was reflected on at the 1988 Annual Council (Oct. 3-8, 1988), held in Nairobi, Kenya. It featured historian George R. Knight. The topic was also discussed at length by the North American Division during its year-end meeting (Nov. 3-6, 1988), held in Minneapolis. Many smaller commemorations were held across the denomination’s divisions.

A photograph of people at the newly constructed Minneapolis Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1888 at one point was thought to be a picture of the 1888 General Conference session. A closer inspection of variant copies has made it clear that this picture was from the dedication of the church building that took place earlier the same year (it also explains why there are so many children in the photograph). This misidentified picture demonstrates how easy it can be to misattribute or create myths about Minneapolis. If anything, as time passed, the mystery and legacy of 1888 and its application and relevancy for Seventh-day Adventism remains at best highly contested and sought after.

Conclusions

Ultimately the 1888 General Conference session marked a significant turning point in the development of Seventh-day Adventist history and theology. It provided an opportunity for the church to reflect on its core Christian beliefs and the continued meaning and application of righteousness by faith within the life of the believer. Or as W. A. Spicer put it, the “Minneapolis call” to revival “was not to preach less of doctrine, but to lift up Christ in all the doctrine.”¹³⁹ Adventists had a significant role to play in proclaiming the “everlasting gospel” as central to Adventist identity from its earliest beginnings. This meant that the denomination needed not only to explain core differences with other Christian groups, but to make sure that this distinctive Adventist message always remained centered on the person of Jesus Christ. As such, Jones and Waggoner reminded Adventists not only to preach the “law” but do so in a way that ensures that Christ remains the raison d’être for Adventism.

The controversy over the law in Galatians (ceremonial versus moral) and the identity of the ten horns (Huns versus Alemanni) revealed deeper issues within Adventism at the time. Ellen White admonished both sides during the conflict for the way they treated one another, although she saved some of her harshest rebukes for church leaders who appealed to tradition, authority, or who used their influence to try to shut down Waggoner and Jones. Ellen White threw her support behind Waggoner and Jones, and after the meeting took the message to various church gatherings to bring this more Christ-centered approach to the church at large. She saw this as being congruent with what she understood about the gospel, but also as a remedy to a spiritual deficiency within Adventism. Spicer described the 1888 saga as “the good old call to revival.”¹⁴⁰ This revival contributed to significant growth within the denomination on multiple fronts, from missions to education.¹⁴¹ “To understand what happened at Minneapolis is important because some people today,” wrote Gerhard Pfandl, “claim that the church rejected the message of Minneapolis and call for corporate repentance.”¹⁴² Ellen White never claimed the church must corporately repent and lived for another 27 years after this event. This claim was not made until the late 1920s, more than a generation afterward.

During the 1890s, Waggoner and Jones became towering figures as the most influential personalities within the denomination. Their influence only increased as some who opposed them, notably Smith and Butler, made amends. Ironically, Waggoner and Jones left Adventism even as Smith and Butler repented of their mistakes and continued to make more contributions to the denomination. Ellen White maintained that Waggoner was correct that believers are not saved by either the moral or ceremonial laws. As important as this theological point was, though, she was even more concerned about was how church leaders treated one another. At the core of the 1888 saga was the issue of the supremacy of the Bible as a source of authority. Ellen White refused to let her writings be taken as an exegetical authority to settle differences and continually urged that the denomination find its final authority in Scripture. Today all of Waggoner and Jones’s original writings are readily available online for anyone to read and assess for themselves.¹⁴³

Sources

Adams, Roy. “Judgment or Justification? Many Have Rejected the Idea of an Investigative Judgment. Why? Is this Adventist Doctrine Biblical?” Ministry, February 1988, 46-48.

Bresee, Floyd. “Lesson from 1888 for 1988 Leaders: What Does 1888 Have to Say to us about Relationship and Obedience, the Cognitive and the Affective, Conflicts Between the Young and the Old, Reformers and the Church?” Ministry, February 1988, 60-62.

Brunt, John. “Sin, Justification, and Sanctification,” in the Oxford Handbook of Seventh-day Adventism, eds. M. Campbell, C. Chow, D. Kaiser, and N. Miller. New York: Oxford University Press, 2024, 185-198.

Bunch, Taylor Grant. The Exodus and Advent Movement in Type and Antitype. Unpublished paper, 1937.

Butler, George I. The Law in the Book of Galatians: or the Moral Law, or Does it Refer to That System of Laws Peculiarly Jewish? Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald Publishing House, 1886. https://archive.org/details/G.I.ButlerLawInTheBookOfGalatiansIsItTheMoralLawOrDoesIt

Canright, D. M. Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, After an Experience of Twenty-eight Years by a Prominent Minister and Writer of that Faith. Kalamazoo, MI: Kalamazoo Publishing Co., 1888.

Canright, D. M. Life of Mrs. E. G. White: Seventh-day Adventist Prophet, Her False Claims Refuted. Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Company, 1919.

Christian, Lewis H. The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1947.

“The Church School System: The Adventists Talk Over Educational Matters Today,” The Minneapolis Journal, October 26, 1888, 2.

Cleveland, Edward Earl. The Gates Shall Not. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981.

Cottrell, Raymond F. “Minneapolis-1888,” unpublished manuscript, Cottrell Collection #238, Box 4, folder 14, Center for Adventist Research.

Daniells, Arthur G. Christ Our Righteousness: A Study of the Principles of Righteousness by Faith as Set Forth in the Word of God and the Writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1926.

Daniells, Arthur G. “A Message of Supreme Importance Sent to God’s People,” ARH, April 23, 1925, 2.

Davidson, Richard M. “Assurance in the Judgment: How I Lost My Fear of Heaven’s Courtroom,” Adventist Review, January 7, 1988, 18-20.

Durand, Eugene. Yours in the Blessed Hope, Uriah Smith. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1980.

Ferch, Arthur J., ed. Towards Righteousness by Faith: 1888 in Retrospect. Wahroonga, Australia: South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists, 1989.

Ford, Desmond and Gillian Ford, “1888 and the Gospel.” Manuscript of address given at Hughesdale Church, Victoria, 1976.

Ford, Desmond. “Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment,” unpublished document for review with the Glacier View Committee, ca. 1980.

Fortin, Denis. “Butler, George Ide (1834-1918),” in the Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventism, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=7925&highlight=Butler.

Fortin, Denis. George I. Butler: An Honest but Misunderstood Church Leader. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2024.

Froom, LeRoy Edwin. “1888, Turning Point in Our History,” 2 parts, ARH, December 14, 1967, 6-7; December 21, 1967, 6-7.

Froom, LeRoy Edwin. The Movement of Destiny. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1971.

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. “Some Guidelines for the Study Committee on the 1888 Conference and Righteousness by Faith.” October 24, 1973.

Graybill, Ron. “Elder Hottel Goes to General Conference: R. DeWitt Hottel’s Diary Gives a Participant’s Perspective on the 1888 General Conference Session,” Ministry, February 1988, 19-21.

Greenleaf, Floyd, and Richard W. Schwarz. Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Pacific Press, 2000.

Haloviak, Bert. “Ellen White and A. T. Jones at Ottawa, 1889: Diverging Paths from Minneapolis.” Unpublished paper, 1981.

Haloviak, Bert. “Ellen White and the Pharisees: A Documentary Study of Issues Surrounding the 1888 General Conference Session.” Unpublished paper, 1982.

Haloviak Bert. “From Righteousness to Holy Flesh: Judgment at Minneapolis.” Unpublished paper, 1988.

Haloviak, Bert. “Three Paths to Minneapolis: The Adventist Struggle for Righteousness by Faith.” Unpublished paper, 1988.

Haloviak, Bert. “A Time of Opportunity to Reaffirm Justification by Faith.” ARH, October 20, 1988, 6-8.

“Joan of Arc Lives Again. A Remarkable Woman: At Least Sister White Sees Visions as Joan Did. A Remarkable Woman: The Story of Her Connection with Those Peculiar People, the Seventh Day Adventists.” The Minneapolis Journal, October 20, 1888, 2.

Johns, Warren L. “The Case for Jim Morrison.” JD 11, no. 1 (1988): 58-113.

Johnsson, William G. “Christ Our Only Hope.” Adventist Review, January 7, 1988, 2-3.

Johnsson, William G. The Fragmenting of Adventism. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1995.

Jones, Alonzo T. Civil Government and Religion: Or Christianity and the American Constitution. Oakland, CA: American Sentinel, 1889.

Jones, Alonzo T. to Claude E. Holmes, May 12, 1921, unpublished letter, Ellen G. White Estate, Document File 189, https://ellenwhite.org/media/document/683..

Jones, Alonzo T. The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1905.

Jones, Alonzo T. The Everlasting Gospel of God’s Everlasting Covenant. Battle Creek, MI: [The Author], ca. 1907.

Jones, Alonzo T. The National Sunday Law: Argument of Alonzo T. Jones Before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor, at Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 1888. Chicago: American Sentinel, 1889.

Knight, George R. Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989.

Knight, George R. A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists. 2^nd ed. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013.

Knight, George R. “General Conference Session of 1888.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 2^nd ed, 835-839. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013.

Knight, George R. “The Meaning of Minneapolis: Righteousness by Faith is a Transaction, an Experience Rather than a Theory.” Adventist Review, January 7, 1988, 4-7.

Knight, George R. “The Men of Minneapolis: How Much of the Conflict at Minneapolis in 1888 Could be Attributed to Theological Differences and How Much to Personality Clashes? Ministry, February 1988, 10-14.

Knight, George R. A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000.

Knight, George R. A User-friendly Guide to the 1888 Message. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998.

Knight, George R. A. T. Jones: Point Man on Adventism’s Charismatic Frontier. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2011.

Knight, George R. “What Happened in 1888?” Adventist Review, October 10, 2013, 16-19.

Lake, Jud. Ellen White Under Fire: Identifying the Mistakes of Her Critics. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2010.

Land, Gary. Uriah Smith: Apologist and Biblical Commentator. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2015.

LaRondelle, Hans K. “The Biblical Gospel of Salvation: What is Righteousness by Faith? Is it Only Forgiveness, or Does it Demand Moral Rectitude?” Ministry, February 1988, 29-33.

Londis, James J. “Righteous Relationships: In the End, People are What Matter Most.” Adventist Review, January 7, 1988, 13-14.

Lucio, Matthew J. “Adventist Civil War, part 1,” and “Adventist Civil War, part 2,” Adventist History Podcast, season 1, episodes 31 and 32.

Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis: Selections from Non-Ellen White Letters, Articles, Notes, Reports, and Pamphlets Which Deal with the Minneapolis General Conference Session Compiled by the Ellen G. White Estate. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1988.

Maxwell, C. Mervyn. Tell It to the World: The Story of Seventh-day Adventists. rev. ed. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1976, 1982.

Maxwell, C. Mervyn. “What is the 1888 Message?” Ministry, February 1988, 15-18.

McMahon, David P. Ellet Joseph Waggoner: The Myth and the Man. Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1979.

Moon, Jerry. W. C. White and E. G. White: The Relationship Between the Prophet and Her Son. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993.

Morgan, Douglas. “Waggoner, Ellet Joseph (1855-1916)” in Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventism, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=5DY4&highlight=waggoner.

Morrison, J. H. A Straight Talk to Old Brethren, with a Few Observations on Bible Organizations. N.p., ca. 1915.

Morgan, Doug. “Waggoner, Ellet Joseph (1855-1916,” in the Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventism, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=5DY4&highlight=Waggoner.

Mustard, Andrew G. “1888 in Review: What the 1888 Adventist Paper Reveals about the Church and the Issues of the Day.” ARH, November 3, 1988, 8-10.

Neall, Ralph E. “Have We Delayed the Advent? While Ellen G. White Wrote that We Can Hasten or Delay the Lord’s Return, She Also Wrote that Jesus Would Come ‘At the Appointed Time.” What Did She Mean?” Ministry, February 1988, 41-45.

Newman, J. David. “Editorial.” Ministry, February 1988, 2.

Olson, A. V. “Righteousness by Faith.” ARH, June 26, 1958, 137-139, 141.

Olson, A. V. Thirteen Crisis Years, 1888-1901, from the Minneapolis Meeting to the Reorganization of the General Conference. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981.

Olson, A. V. Through Crisis to Victory, 1888-1901. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1966.

Olson, Robert W. “1888—Issues, Outcomes, Lessons.” Ministry, February 1988, 4-9.

Olson, Robert W., comp. Righteousness by Faith: A Treasury of Choice Statements from the Pen of Ellen G. White. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1988.

Ott, Helmut K. Perfect in Christ: The Mediation of Christ in the Writings of Ellen G. White. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1987.

Paxton, Geoffrey J. The Shaking of Adventism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978.

Pease, Norval F. By Faith Alone. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1962.

Pease, Norval F. “Justification and Righteousness by Faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church Before 1900.” M.A. thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1945.

Pease, Norval F. “’The Truth as It is in Jesus’: The 1888 General Conference Session, Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Adventist Heritage 10, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 3-10.

Pöhler, Rolf. Continuity and Change in Adventist Teaching: A Case Study in Doctrinal Development. Peter Lang, 2000.

Pöhler, Rolf. Dynamic Truth: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development. Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2020.

Rice, George E. “Corporate Repentance.” Ministry, February 1988, 34-36.

Robinson, A. T. “Did the Seventh Day Adventist Denomination Reject the Doctrine of Righteousness by Faith?” Unpublished manuscript, 1931. Ellen G. White Estate, Document File 189, https://ellenwhite.org/media/document/2426.

Rosario, Jeffrey. “Jones, Alonzo Trêvier (1850-1923),” in the Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventism, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=C9KZ&highlight=Jones.

Schantz, Børge. “The Impact of 1888 on Adventist Missions: Why the Church Needed to Emphasize Christ.” ARH, November 3, 1988, 16-17.

Schwarz, Richard W. John Harvey Kellogg, M.D.: Pioneering Health Reformer. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2006.

Shearer, Gary W. “The Minneapolis General Conference of 1888: Bibliography,” compiled May 6, 2001, https://library.puc.edu/heritage/bib-MinGC88.html.

Short, Donald K. and Robert J. Wieland, compilers. Faith on Trial: A Documentation of 40 Years of Official Dialogue. N.p., 1993.

Short, Donald K. The Mystery of 1888: A Study of Seventh-day Adventist History in the Light of the Minneapolis General Conference of 1888. Harrisville, NH: MMI Press, 1984.

Smith, Uriah. Looking Unto Jesus . . . or . . . Christ in Type and Antitype. Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1898.

Spalding, Arthur W. “Men and Events of Our Early Days: The Lord Our Saviour.” ARH, July 10, 1952, 9-10.

Spalding, Arthur W. Origin and History of Seventh-day Adventists. 4 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1961-1962.

Spangler, J. Robert. “The Dynamics of Salvation: The Text of a Study Document Produced in 1980 Provides Background on the Church’s Current Understanding of Righteousness by Faith.” Ministry, February 1988, 22-28.

Spear, Ronald D. Adventism in Crisis: The Church May Appear as About to Fall . . . Eatonville, WA: Hope International, 1987.

Spear, Ronald D. “The Message of 1888.” Eatonville, WA: Hope International, ca. 1988.

Spicer, W. A. “Denominational Crises: Some Issues of the Days of 1888 and After.” ARH, March 16, 1944, 3-4.

Spicer, W. A. “Denominational Crises: The General Conference of 1888—Blessings and Trials.” ARH, March 9, 1944, 6-7.

Standish, Colin D. and Russell R. Standish. Adventism Vindicated. Paradise, CA: Historic Truth, 1980.

Standish, Colin D. and Russell R. Standish. Deceptions of the New Theology. Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 1989.

Starr, George B. “Increased Light Since 1888: A Prediction in Process of Fulfillment Now.” ARH, July 24, 1930, 6-7.

Thompson, Alden. Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1991.

Thompson, Alden. “Must We Agree? Ellen White Favored a Certain Amount of Debate in the Church. And She Believed Church Unity was to be Maintained by Other Means than Legislation or Pronouncements by the Church’s Authority Figures.” Ministry, February 1988, 50-54.

Valentine, Gilbert M. “Controversy: Stimulus for Theological Education; How Ignorance Displayed at Minneapolis Led to a Better-Trained Ministry.” ARH, November 3, 1988, 11-12.

Valentine, Gilbert M. “How Not to Impose Orthodoxy and Compliance: Lessons from an 1888 Case Study.” Adventist Today, 27, no. 1 (January-March 2019), 34-39, 45, https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/Adventist_Today_Online/2019/2019_01.pdf#page=34.

Valentine, Gilbert M. W. W. Prescott: Forgotten Giant of Adventism’s Second Generation. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2005.

Valentine, Gilbert M. Prophet and the Presidents: Ellen White’s Influence on the Leadership of the Early Seventh-day Adventist Church. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2011.

“Very Early Risers: The Seventh Day Adventists Begin Their Work Before Sunrise.” Star Tribune, October 19, 1888, 5.

Waggoner, E. J. Christ and His Righteousness. Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1890, 1892.

[Waggoner, E. J.] The “Confession of Faith” of Dr. E. J. Waggoner. N.p., ca. 1916.

Waggoner, E. J. The Everlasting Covenant. London: International Tract Society, 1900.

Waggoner, E. J. The Gospel in Creation. London: International Tract Society, 1893.

Waggoner, E. J. The Gospel in the Book of Galatians. A Review. Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1888. https://archive.org/details/E.J.WaggonerTheGospelInTheBookOfGalatians1888/mode/2up

Wahlen, Clinton. “What Did E. J. Waggoner Say at Minneapolis?” Adventist Heritage 13, no. 1 (Winter 1998): 23-37.

Wallenkampf, Arnold Valentin. What Every Adventist Should Know about 1888. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998.

Wallenkampf, Arnold Valentin. What Every Adventist Should Know about Being Justified. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1988.

Watts, Ron. “1888 and a Caring Church.” Celebration, June 1988, 3-4.

Watts, Ron. “Suggested Theme: A Review of Righteousness by Faith.” Celebration, June 1988, 15-17.

Webster, Eric Claude. Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1984, 1992.

Webster, Eric Claude. “Damnation or Deliverance? How Does Righteousness by Faith Relate to the Messages of the Three Angels of Revelation 14—God’s Last Warning to the World, the Special Commission of the Adventist Church?” Ministry, February 1988, 37-40.

Whidden, Woodrow W. Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1997.

Whidden, Woodrow W. Ellen White on Salvation. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1995.

Whidden, Woodrow W. E. J. Waggoner: From the Physician of Good News to the Agent of Division. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2008.

Whidden, Woodrow W. “The Way of Life Engravings: Harbingers of Minneapolis?” Ministry, October 1992, 9-11.

White, Arthur L. Ellen G. White: The Lonely Years, 1876-1891. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1984.

White, Ellen G. The Ellen G. White 1888 Material. 4 vols. Washington, DC: The Ellen G. White Estate, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1987.

White, Ellen G. Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923, 1944, 1962.

Widmer, Myron. “Guide to 1888 Centennial Events and Materials.” ARH, January 7, 1988, 21.

Wieland, Robert J. and Donald K. Short. 1888 Re-examined: 1888-1988, The Story of a Century of Confrontation Between God and His people, revised by the authors. Meadow Vista, CA: The Authors, 1998.

Wieland, Robert J. The 1888 Message: An Introduction. Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1980.

Wieland, Robert J. and D. K. Short, “An Interview with J. S. Washburn,” June 4, 1950.

Wilson, Neal C. “The Incomparable Christ: The Heart of the 1888 Message.” ARH, October 20, 1988, 3-5.

Wood, Kenneth H. “F.Y.I.” 4-part series of editorials on 1888. ARH, October 21, 1976, 2; October 28, 1976, 2, 19; November 4, 1976, 2, 15; November 18, 1976, 2, 13.

Notes

1. For a list of delegates, see: [Ellen G. White Estate, comp.], Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis: Selections from Non-Ellen White Letters, Articles, Notes, Reports, and Pamphlets Which Deal with the Minneapolis General Conference Session Compiled by the Ellen G. White Estate (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1988), 9-10. General Conference Daily Bulletin, October 19-22, 1888, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/GCSessionBulletins/GCB1888-01-03.pdf. At least three of the delegates were overseas indicating the denomination’s rapid missionary expansion. “The Adventists,” Minneapolis Journal, October 17, 1888.↩

2. George R. Knight, “General Conference Session of 1888,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, 2^nd ed. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013), 835-839.↩

3. Richard W. Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1979), 183-184; Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 2000), 175-176. [Uriah Smith], “Conditions of Everlasting Life,” ARH, January 31, 1888, 72; A. F. Ballenger, “An Explanation,” ARH, November 24, 1891, 723.↩

4. Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, March 11, 1890. She also remarked: “Let the law take care of itself. We have been at work on the law until we get as dry as the hills of Gilboa, without dew or rain. Let us trust in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. May God help us that our eyes may be anointed with eyesalve that we may see.” Ellen G. White, Manuscript 10, 1889.↩

5. Manuscript fragment, dated May 28, 1916, as found in The “Confession of Faith” of Dr. E. J. Waggoner (N.p., ca. 1916). Waggoner also recounts this incident in The Everlasting Covenant (London: International Tract Society, 1900), v, and “The ‘Confession of Faith’ of Dr. E. J. Waggoner” (N.p., n.d.), 5.↩

6. For a discussion of Waggoner’s medical education, see Woodrow W. Whidden, E. J. Waggoner: From the Physician of Good News to the Agent of Division (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2008), 39-41. He is recorded as one of the graduates of the Long Island College Hospital in 1878. See Joseph H. Raymond, History of the Long Island College Hospital and Its Graduates: Together with the Hoagland Laboratory and the Polhemus Memorial Clinic (Brooklyn, NY: Association of the Alumni, 1899), 205. Some historians have speculated that E. J. Waggoner never actually practiced medicine. But newly discovered historical evidence shows that he was one of the earliest physicians, called west, to help establish the Rural Health Retreat. See Rural Health Retreat Minutes, March 31, 1880, 44-46.↩

7. Cf. Signs of the Times, July 29, 1886. This particular issue was cited by Butler as especially problematic and a catalyst for his response. See G. I. Butler, The Law in the Book of Galatians: or the Moral Law, or Does it Refer to That System of Laws Peculiarly Jewish? (Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald Publishing House, 1886), 46.↩

8. Matthew J. Lucio, “Adventist Civil War, part 1,” Adventist History Podcast, season 1, episodes 31.↩

9. Warren L. Johns, “The Case for Jim Morrison,” JD 11, no. 1 (1988): 69-70.↩

10. Butler states in The Law in the Book of Galatians that he felt that “it not only proper but a duty” to explain his position “before the General Conference of our people” (pg. 6) and again at the conclusion of the booklet, because of this “agitation among us” that was “most unfortunate” he “felt it duty to present our view of the subject before our leading brethren” (pg. 85).↩

11. Butler, The Law in the Book of Galatians, 3.↩

12. Ibid., 5.↩

13. Ibid.↩

14. Ibid., 6, 7.↩

15. Ibid., 12.↩

16. Ibid., 34, 78.↩

17. E. J. Waggoner, The Gospel in the Book of Galatians: A Review (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1888), 8, 9.↩

18. Ibid., 9.↩

19. Ibid., 10, 11.↩

20. Ibid., 71.↩

21. Ellen G. White to Dear Brethren, August 5, 1888, in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987), 38.↩

22. Ellen White wrote in 1882: “There are many speakers” who “can say sharp, crank things, going out of their way to whip other churches and ridicule their faith.” Only a few possessed true “humility of soul.” Ellen G. White, “Preparation for Camp Meeting,” Review and Herald, August 15, 1882, 522. Cited by Jud Lake, Ellen White Under Fire, 51.↩

23. Cf. Dennis L. Pettibone, “Caesar’s Sabbath: The Sunday Law Controversy in the United States, 1879 to 1892,” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Riverside, 1979); idem., “The Sunday-Law Movement” in The World of Ellen G. White, ed. Gary Land (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1987).↩

24. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1911), 588.↩

25. Alonzo T. Jones to Uriah Smith, November 8, 1886; Alonzo T. Jones to Uriah Smith, December 3, 1886. See also George R. Knight, A User-friendly Guide to the 1888 Message (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998), 30-33.↩

26. “Very Early Risers: The Seventh Day Adventists Begin Their Work Before Sunrise,” Star Tribune, October 19, 1888, 5.↩

27. Alonzo T. Jones, The National Sunday Law: Argument of Alonzo T. Jones Before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor, at Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 1888 (Chicago: American Sentinel, 1889).↩

28. George R. Knight, A. T. Jones: Point Man on Adventism’s Charismatic Frontier (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2011), 20-23, 30-32, 44, 83-97, 158, 279. Most scholars who have covered Jones’ life have largely focused on his theological ideas, without much discussion of Jones’ contributions to religious liberty. But as Knight rightly points out, Jones was integrally involved in fighting against Sunday laws.↩

29. Jud Lake, Ellen White Under Fire: Identifying the Mistakes of Her Critics (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2010), 49-56.↩

30. D. M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, 11-12, 14; idem., Life of Mrs. E. G. White: Seventh-day Adventist Prophet, Her False Claims Refuted (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Company, 1919), 225-231. For a discussion about Canright, along with Butler’s understanding of inspiration during this time period, see Denis Kaiser, Trust and Doubt: Perceptions of Divine Inspiration in Seventh-day Adventist History (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2016).↩

31. A. T. Robinson, “Did the Seventh Day Adventist Denomination Reject the Doctrine of Righteousness by Faith?” (Unpublished manuscript, 1931. Ellen G. White Estate, Document File 189. https://ellenwhite.org/media/document/2426; R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short, “An Interview with J. S. Washburn,” June 4, 1950.↩

32. Denis Fortin, “Butler, George Ide (1834–1918),” Encyclopaedia of Seventh-day Adventists (September 26, 2022): https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=7925.↩

33. A. T. Jones to Claude E. Holmes, May 12, 1921, Ellen G. White Estate, DF 189; Alden Thompson, “Must We Agree?” Ministry, February 1988; E. G. White to W. H. Healey, Dec. 9, 1888; Ellen G. White, Manuscript 15, 1888; idem., Manuscript 13, 1889; idem., Counsels to Writers and Editors (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1946), 30.↩

34. R. T. Nash, “An Eyewitness Account,” June 25, 1955, in [Ellen G. White Estate, comp.], Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis: Selections from Non-Ellen White Letters, Articles, Notes, Reports, and Pamphlets Which Deal with the Minneapolis General Conference Session Compiled by the Ellen G. White Estate (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1988), 351-352.↩

35. M. L. Andreasen, “Life [Sketch],” Autobiographical typewritten document, 37, M. L. Andreasen Papers, Collection #115, Box 1, Folder 4, Center for Adventist Research, Andrews University.↩

36. Richard W. Schwarz states that ““The real point, he affirmed, is that all any law can do is to demonstrate man’s sinfulness and inability to justify himself before God . . . Christ, in whom dwelt ‘all the fullness of the Godhead bodily’ (Col. 2:9), stood anxious to cover the repentant sinner with His own robe of righteousness, thus making him acceptable before God” Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 188. See also: Clinton Wahlen, “What Did E. J. Waggoner Say at Minneapolis?” Adventist Heritage 13, no. 1 (Winter 1998): 23-37.↩

37. E. J. Waggoner quoted: Jer. 23:5-7, Gal. 2:16-21, Rom. 1:14-17, Gal. 3, Gal. 5:16, Rom. 5, Rom. 8:14-39; A. T. Jones quoted Eph. 2:4-8, Rom. 11:1-33, Rom. 2:13-29, Rom. 3, Rom. 9:7-33, Rom. 4:1-11, Rom. 1:15-17, 1 John 5:1-4. See L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1971), 247.↩

38. Norval F. Pease, “’The Truth as It is in Jesus’: The 1888 General Conference Session, Minneapolis, Minnesota,” Adventist Heritage 10, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 7-8.↩

39. Available in [Ellen G. White Estate, comp.], Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis: Selections from Non-Ellen White Letters, Articles, Notes, Reports, and Pamphlets Which Deal with the Minneapolis General Conference Session Compiled by the Ellen G. White Estate (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1988). Note especially W. C. White’s diary (414-504) and R. DeWitt Hottel’s diary (505-518). Journal reports appear (519-591).↩

40. “Religion in a Rainstorm,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, October 19, 1888.↩

41. “Joan of Arc Lives Again. A Remarkable Woman: At Least Sister White Sees Visions as Joan Did. A Remarkable Woman: The Story of Her Connection with Those Peculiar People, the Seventh Day Adventists,” The Minneapolis Journal, October 20, 1888, 2.↩

42. “A Successful Conference,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, November 2, 1888, cited in Ronald D. Graybill, “Faces of Minneapolis,” Adventist Heritage 13, no. 1 (Winter 1988), 11.↩

43. “Very Early Risers: The Seventh Day Adventists Begin Their Work Before Sunrise,” Star Tribune, October 19, 1888, 5.↩

44. “Joan of Arc Lives Again. A Remarkable Woman: At Least Sister White Sees Visions as Joan Did. A Remarkable Woman: The Story of Her Connection with Those Peculiar People, the Seventh Day Adventists,” The Minneapolis Journal, October 20, 1888, 2.↩

45. Jessie Moser Waggoner to L. E. Froom, April 16, 1930; see discussion in Movement of Destiny, 189, 200-201. Froom noted that Waggoner’s talks were taken down in shorthand and portions included in the books: Christ and His Righteousness (1890), The Gospel in Creation (1893), and The Glad Tidings (1900). The original transcripts and notes are no longer extant. A comparison of the Scripture texts used by Waggoner as published in the General Conference Daily Bulletin with the book Christ and His Righteousness make it clear that this book was not an edited version of his talks. In fact, the first 45 pages of the book do not correspond at all with Waggoner’s 1888 presentations. See “First Day’s Proceedings,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, October 19, 1888, 1; “Second Day’s Proceedings,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, October 19, 1888, 2; “Third Day’s Proceedings,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, October 21, 1888, 1. It does, however, seem plausible that some portions of his 1888 talks may have been incorporated into the second half of the book, but it is impossible to know with any certainty how much material was used or changed since verbatim transcripts of devotional talks at General Conference sessions did not begin until 1891.↩

46. Ellen G. White earliest admonition is no longer extant but is referenced by a local newspaper reporter at the meeting. See “Very Early Risers: The Seventh Day Adventists Begin Their Work Before Sunrise,” Star Tribune, October 19, 1888, 5. Note that all of Ellen White’s extant devotionals at the 1888 General Conference session are accessible as Appendix A in A. V. Olson’s Thirteen Crisis Years, 1888-1901, from the Minneapolis Meeting to the Reorganization of the General Conference (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 248-311. This material is reprinted in 1888 1:69-171, with the addition of one of some additional material in a second copy of Ms. 15, 1888, that appears in 1888 1:172-175.↩

47. Ellen G. White, “Morning Talk by Ellen G. White,” October 24, 1888, Manuscript 9, 1888.↩

48. Ibid.↩

49. As noted by Warren L. Johns, “The Case for Jim Morrison,” JD 11, no. 1 (1988): 63.↩

50. Cf. J. H. Waggoner, “Communication from Bro. Waggoner,” ARH, February 14, 1854, 30. This letter makes it clear that Waggoner’s study about the law in Galatians initially was in response to ongoing debates with the “Age to Come” critics who taught that Adventists had done away with the law and questioned whether they believed in justification by faith. Waggoner, as he debated, wrote these up as a series of articles: J. H. Waggoner, “The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony in [of] Both Testaments,” ARH, November 22, 1853, 153-156; July 18, 1854, 185-187, 190-191; July 25, 1854, 193-196.↩

51. S[tephen] P[ierce], “Answer to Bro. Merriam’s Question Respecting the Law of Gal. iii, in Review No. 3, Vol. X,” ARH, October 8, 1857, 180-181.↩

52. See the section on “Our Attitude Toward Doctrinal Controversy,” in Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1:164-175.↩

53. Ellen G. White, “Standing by the Landmarks,” Manuscript 13, 1889, in 1888, 516-519.↩

54. LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1971), 245.↩

55. George R. Knight, A User-friendly Guide to the 1888 Message (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998), 19-21.↩

56. Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923, 1944, 1962), 91, 92.↩

57. Ibid., 92.↩

58. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 24, 1888, in Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 12:193.↩

59. Ibid.↩

60. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 5, 1889, in Ellen G. White, Sermons and Talks (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estates, 1990), vol. 1, 116-117.↩

61. Ellen G. White, Letter 50, 1889, in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987), 295.↩

62. “The Church School System: The Adventists Talk Over Educational Matters Today,” The Minneapolis Journal, October 26, 1888, 2.↩

63. Richard W. Schwarz, John Harvey Kellogg, MD: Pioneering Health Reformer (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2006), 178.↩

64. George B. Starr, “Increased Light Since 1888: A Prediction in Process of Fulfillment Now,” ARH, July 24, 1930, 6.↩

65. Ibid.↩

66. Ronald D. Graybill, “Elder Hottel Goes to General Conference: R. DeWitt Hottel’s Diary Gives a Participant’s Perspective on the 1888 General Conference Session,” Ministry, February 1988, 19-21. See also his Obituary, ARH, May 27, 1943, 19.↩

67. Cited by George R. Knight, “Victory at Minneapolis on the Authority Issue,” Lake Union Herald, June/July 2017, 8.↩

68. Ibid.↩

69. ⁶⁹The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987), 447.↩

70. Ellen G. White to Edwin Jones, May 19, 1890, Letter 15a, 1890.↩

71. As noted by Arnold Valentin Wallenkampf, What Every Adventist Should Know About 1888 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1988).↩

72. Ellen G. White to William C. White, March 13, 1890.↩

73. Ellen G. White to C. P. Bollman, November 19, 1902, Letter 179, 1902, in in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987), 1796.↩

74. W. A. Spicer, “Denominational Crises: Some Issues of the Days of 1888 and After,” ARH, March 16, 1944, 3.↩

75. For a detailed view of the impact upon Ellen White’s ministry, see: Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Lonely Years, 1876-1891. Vol. 3. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1984).↩

76. As quoted by A. G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness, 46.↩

77. “Camp Meeting at Ottawa,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 5, 1889, 1; “The Camp Meeting: The Adventists Celebrate the Seventh Day at Ottawa,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 7, 1889, 4; “At Forest Park: Campers Increasing in Numbers and the Exercises Growing More Interesting,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 8, 1889, 4; “At Forest Park: Mrs. E. G. White Arrives and Takes Part in the Good Work,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 10, 1889, 4; “The Camp Meeting: Rain and Mud Tend to Prevent Outside Attendance,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 12, 1889, 7; “The Camp Meeting: Much Rain and Mud, but an Increase of Visitors,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 14, 1889, 7; “The Camp Meeting: Beginning of the Workers’ Meeting at the Adventist Gathering,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 16, 1889, 3; “The Camp Meeting: Arrival of Elder W. C. White at the Adventists’ Gathering,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 17, 1889, 3; “The Camp Meeting: The Third Sabbath in Camp—An Interesting Kindergarten,” The Topeka Daily Capital, May 21, 1889, 5; E. J. Waggoner, “Bible Study: Letter to the Romans,” 16 part series, General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 8, 1891, 33-34; March 9, 1891, 45-46; March 10, 1891, 63-64; March 11, 1891, 74-75; March 12, 1891, 85-86; March 13, 1891, 101-102; March 15, 1891, 115-117; March 16, 1891, 127-131; March 17, 1891, 135-140; March 18, 1891, 155-160; March 19, 1891, 170-174; March 20, 1891, 185-189; March 22, 1891, 199-204; March 23, 1891, 212-216; March 24, 1891, 227-231; March 25, 1891, 238-246.↩

78. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, September 19, 1892, Letter 24, 1892.↩

79. Ellen G. White to Mr. and Mrs. J. S. Washburn, January 8, 1891, Letter 32, 1891.↩

80. A. T. Jones to Claude E. Holmes, May 12, 1921, Ellen G. White Estate, DF 189.↩

81. Cited by George R. Knight, “Failure at Minneapolis on the Authority Issue,” Lake Union Herald, August 2017, 8.↩

82. Ibid.↩

83. Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, June 1, 1894, Letter 27, 1894, in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987), 1243.↩

84. Arthur G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness: A Study of the Principles of Righteousness by Faith as Set Forth in the Word of God and the Writings of the Spirit of Prophecy (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1926), 90, 91.↩

85. The Way of Life, 1876, 23 x 31 cm, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD. https://adventistdigitallibrary.org/adl-366863/way-life?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=19db7d0268a2d4a89d1e&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=1.↩

86. Christ, the Way of Life, 1883, 23 x 30 cm, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD. https://adventistdigitallibrary.org/adl-366865/christ-way-life?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=19db7d0268a2d4a89d1e&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=0↩

87. Woodrow W. Whidden, “The Way of Life Engravings: Harbingers of Minneapolis?” Ministry, October 1992, 9-11.↩

88. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 87, 1900, in Ellen G. White, Selected Messages (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958), 1:233.↩

89. For a discussion of Waggoner’s pantheistic leaning teachings, see Whidden, E. J. Waggoner: From the Physician of Good News to the Agent of Division, 210, 239-241, 273; Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 250-251.↩

90. Woodrow W. Whidden, E. J. Waggoner: From the Physician of Good News to the Agent of Division (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2008), 247, 321-323, 332, 341, 380. See, for example, “Pretty English Girl Is the Rock that Causes a Rift in Church of the Seventh Day Adventists at Battle Creek,” The Elwood Daily Record, January 11, 1906, 8; “A Sensational Divorce,” Detroit Free Press, January 3, 1906, 7.↩

91. Gary Land, Uriah Smith: Apologist and Biblical Commentator. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2015.↩

92. See forthcoming biography by Denis Fortin, George I. Butler: An Honest but Misunderstood Church Leader. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2024.↩

93. “Report of Bible Conference Held in Takoma Park, D.C., July 1-19, 1919,” July 10, 1919, 544-545; July 14, 1919, 755, 772.↩

94. Arthur G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness: A Study of the Principles of Righteousness by Faith as Set Forth in the Word of God and the Writings of the Spirit of Prophecy (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1926).↩

95. W. W. Prescott, The Doctrine of Christ: A Series of Bible Studies Covering the Doctrines of the Scriptures, for Use in Colleges and Seminaries, as Outlined and Recommended by the Bible, and History Teachers’ Council, Held in Washington, D.C., from July 20 to August 9, 1919 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, ca. 1921).↩

96. Rolf Pöhler, Continuity and Change in Adventist Teaching: A Case Study in Doctrinal Development (Peter Lang, 2000), 285-288; Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2006).↩

97. ⁹⁷Gary Land, Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-day Adventists, 2^nd ed (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 124-125, 258, 355, 362, 421, 466; Greenleaf and Schwarz. Light Bearers, 175-188; George R. Knight, A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists. 2^nd ed. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013), 87-101; C. Mervyn Maxwell, Tell it to the World: The Story of Seventh-day Adventists. rev. ed. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1976, 1982), 231-241.↩

98. Michael W. Campbell Interview with Robert J. Wieland, 1991, in possession of the author.↩

99. They described the 1950 General Conference session as “the reality of Baal worship in our midst.” See Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, Faith on Trial: A Documentation of 40 Years of Official Dialogue (Self-published, 1993), 2.↩

100. For White’s response to the Philips’ incident, see Ellen White to A. T. Jones, January 14, 1894, Letter 37, 1894.↩

101. Dennis Hokama, “Out of Africa: 1888 Re-examined Turns 50,” Adventist Today (March/April 2000): 12-13.↩

102. Wieland claimed that this was necessary to remove any pantheism from his writings, but also showed a continuing fascination to develop his own adapted version of 1888 that included Waggoner’s later writings after Ellen White no longer supported Waggoner. See E. J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings: Studies in Galatians, ed. Robert J. Wieland (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1972).↩

103. See C. Mervyn Maxwell’s review of Wieland and Short’s 1888 Re-examined in Ministry, February 1988, 63-64.↩

104. Jerry Moon interview with Raymond F. Cottrell, November 20, 1988, in Source Book for the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt (The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 1989), 67-68.↩

105. “Well-known Pastor, Evangelist, and Theologian Jack Sequeira Dies at 89,” Adventist Review, April 14, 2022, https://adventistreview.org/news/well-known-pastor-evangelist-and-theologian-jack-sequeira-dies-at-89/.↩

106. Biblical Research Institute, “Primacy of the Gospel Committee—Report,” unpublished document, ca. 2000, https://web.archive.org/web/20101223130355/http://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Independent%20Ministries/PrimacyoftheGospel.htm.↩

107. C. Mervyn Maxwell’s review of Wieland and Short’s 1888 Re-examined in Ministry, February 1988, 63-64.↩

108. Dan Shultz, “Venden, Morris Leo (1932-2013),” January 29, 2020, Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventism, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=6ABZ.↩

109. Morris L. Venden, “95 Theses on Righteousness by Faith (Apologies to Martin Luther),” Ministry, May 1986, 8-10; idem., 95 Theses on Righteousness by Faith: Apologies to Martin Luther. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1987.↩

110. Morris L. Venden, From Exodus to Advent (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1980).↩

111. John Brunt, “Sin, Justificaiton, and Sanctification,” in the Oxford Handbook of Seventh-day Adventism, eds. M. Campbell, C. Chow, D. Kaiser, and N. Miller (New York: Oxford University Press, 2024), 192.↩

112. Morris L. Venden, God Says, But I Think: Has God’s Word Taken a Back Seat to Our Opinion? (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1993), 97.↩

113. Morris L. Venden, Never Without an Intercessor: The Good News About the Judgment (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 57-69.↩

114. See descriptions by Jeriel Bingham in Gustav Niebuhr, “Other Davidians Say Texas Cult is Giving Them a Bad Name,” The Washington Post, March 21, 1993, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/03/21/other-davidians-say-texas-cult-is-giving-them-a-bad-name/c2a5bb1a-1869-444e-8574-d79ae69c86dc/, accessed 7/7/23; see also: “The History of the Branch Davidians,” accessible at: https://www.watchman.org/articles/cults-alternative-religions/the-history-of-the-branch-davidians/, accessed 7/7/23.↩

115. For an overview, see Jeff Guinn, Waco: David Koresh, the Branch Davidians, and a Legacy of Rage (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2023); Stephan Talty, Koresh: The True Story of David Koresh and the Tragedy at Waco (New York: Mariner Books, 2023); Kenneth G. Newport, The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History and Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).↩

116. Kendra Haloviak Valentine, “The Wars Waco Revealed: Reflecting on Waco 25 Years Later,” Spectrum, April 18, 2018, https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2018/04/19/wars-waco-revealed-reflecting-waco-25-years-later, accessed 4/23/23.↩

117. Ronald D. Spear obituary, https://www.danekasfuneralchapel.com/obituary/4708083, accessed May 27, 2023.↩

118. "Dr. Colin D. Standish Memorial Service," streamed live on November 18, 2018, YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8VJocTHIWY.↩

119. See ESDA article: James Darcy Standish, “Russell Roland Standish,” accessible at: https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=C85K, accessed 5/27/23.↩

120. Colin D. Standish & Russell R. Standish, Deceptions of the New Theology (Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 1989), 46-47; See also A. John Clifford and Russell R. Standish, "Conflicting Concepts of Righteousness by Faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church—Australasian Division,” Biblical Research Institute Paper, 1976.↩

121. Ibid., 47-50.↩

122. Ron Spear, Adventism in Crisis: The Church May Appear as About to Fall… (Eatonville, WA: Hope International, 1987), 109.↩

123. Ibid., 110.↩

124. They stated that “commandment keeping, though not the basis of salvation, is the condition of salvation.” See Colin Standish and Russell Standish, Adventism Vindicated (Paradise, CA: Historic Truth, 1980), 43. See also, 65, 73, 76-78. For an overview, see Cyril Marshall, “An Analysis of the Use of the Writings of Ellen G. White in the Views of Herbert Douglass and Woodrow Whidden on the Human Nature of Christ,” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2022), 68-75.↩

125. Desmond Ford, “Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment,” unpublished document for review with the Glacier View Committee, ca. 1980, 10-14, 107-108, 292, 423-428, 615-619.↩

126. Desmond and Gillian Ford, “1888 and the Gospel,” address given at Hughesdale Church, Victoria, 1976. Manuscript in possession of the author.↩

127. Ibid., see also: Jerry A. Gladson, Out of Adventism: A Theologian’s Journey (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017), 47, 49-50. For more on the Palmdale Conference, see Gilbert M. Valentine, “Palmdale Conference (1976),” Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventism, January 29, 2020, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=39XL&highlight=palmdale.↩

128. Adventist Heritage, 10, no. 1 (Spring 1985), 1-66, https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=advent-heritage.↩

129. Norval F. Pease, “’The Truth as It is in Jesus’: The 1888 General Conference Session, Minneapolis, Minnesota,” Adventist Heritage 10, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 3-10; Richard W. Schwarz, “Reorganization and Reform: 1901 General Conference Session, Battle Creek, Michigan,” Adventist Heritage 10, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 11-18.↩

130. Ellen G. White, The Ellen G. White 1888 Material. 4 vols. (Washington, D.C.: The Ellen G. White Estate, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1987).↩

131. Robert W. Olson, “Z File,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, 2^nd ed., eds. Jerry Moon and Denis Fortin (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013), 1295; Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1998), 483-484.↩

132. [Ellen G. White Estate, comp.], Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis: Selections from Non-Ellen White Letters, Articles, Notes, Reports, and Pamphlets Which Deal with the Minneapolis General Conference Session Compiled by the Ellen G. White Estate (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1988).↩

133. Adventist Review, January 7, 1988, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19880107-V165-01.pdf.↩

134. William G. Johnsson, “Christ Our Only Hope,” Adventist Review, January 7, 1988, 2-3.↩

135. See Ministry, February 1988, https://cdn.ministrymagazine.org/issues/1988/issues/MIN1988-02.pdf?_ga=2.39534691.1769239071.1685178065-13362277.1685013986.↩

136. J. David Newman, “Editorial,” Ministry, February 1988, 2.↩

137. Richard W. Coffen recounts the controversy about this book in his autobiographical recollection. See Coffen, “Footprints on the Sands of Time—N. C. Wilson,” Adventist Today (Spring 2014): 10. See also William Fagal e-mail in response to query, October 28, 2017, that references anonymous notes from the White Estate expressing concerns about the book by White Estate staff when Kenneth H. Wood was the board chair of the White Estate. These criticisms were collectively shared as a “shelf document” pamphlet by the White Estate titled “Analysis of the Book Perfect in Christ, Authored by Helmut Ott,” (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, ca. 1988). This in turn generated a response by Helmut K. Ott in Responses to Objections Raised Against the Book PERFECT IN CHRIST (Collegedale, TN: [The Author], 1988).↩

138. E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness (Riverside, CA: Upward Way, 1988); idem., Christ and His Righteousness (Nampa, ID: Upward Way, 1990). Note that Upward Way is an imprint of Pacific Press.↩

139. W. A. Spicer, “Denominational Crises: The General Conference of 1888—Blessings and Trials,” ARH, March 9, 1944, 7.↩

140. Ibid., 6.↩

141. E.g., Børge Schantz, “The Impact of 1888 on Adventist Missions: Why the Church Needed to Emphasize Christ,” ARH, November 3, 1988, 16-17.↩

142. Gerhard Pfandl, “Minneapolis, 1888: An Adventist Watershed,” Adventist World, January 2010, 24-25.↩

143. These writings are easily accessible from the Adventist Digital Library (www.adventistdigitallibrary.org) and the General Conference Archives web pages (www.adventistarchives.org).↩