In May, 1896, Ellen White once again sent a long communication to O. A. Olsen. She shared once more heaven-sent rebukes and counsel in regard to his continuing to allow men such as Harmon Lindsey and A. R. Henry—who were in open rebellion against the Minneapolis message—to be his trusted counselors. She again inferred that allowing such men a place at the heart of the work was as the sin of Achan and that this would have the same results in Battle Creek, as it did with Israel when they went up against Ai. She also inferred that Olsen had acted the part of Aaron, who gave in to rebellious Israel and built the golden calf. Olsen was himself being led “to view things as men viewed them who had resisted the Holy Spirit.” These spiritually blind men had dismissed “the Holy Spirit from their counsels, and then, under the power and name of the General Conference, they invent regulations through which they compel men to be ruled by their own ideas and not by the Holy Spirit.” Ellen White then got to the heart of the matter and the significance of such actions: Satan was seeking to muffle the loud cry and delay the Second Coming:

“The third angel’s message is to be sounded by God’s people. It is to swell to the loud cry. The Lord has a time appointed when he will bind off the work; but when is that time? When the truth to be proclaimed for these last days shall go forth as a witness to all nations, then shall the end come. If the power of Satan can come into the very temple of God, and manipulate things as he pleases, the time of preparation will be prolonged. Here is the secret of the movements made to oppose the men [Jones and Waggoner] whom God sent with a message of blessing for his people. These men were hated. The men and God’s message were despised, as verily as Christ himself was hated and despised at his first advent. Men in responsible positions have manifested the very attributes that Satan has revealed.”[1]

Thus there was a reason for Satan’s actions. More than just individual sins were involved. If those in leadership positions directed the work in the wrong way, others would follow, the disease would spread, and ultimately Christ’s coming would be delayed.[2]

Three months later, Ellen White was even more candid in her letter to A. O. Tait in Battle Creek, in regard to her concerns for Olsen and the effect his decisions were having on the church at large. Although she felt “very sorry for brother Olsen,” it was a mystery to her why he had “not acted upon the light given” through the Testimonies she had sent:

While travelling from place to place he has linked with him as companions men whose spirit and influence should not be sanctioned, and the people who repose confidence in them will be misled. But notwithstanding the light which has been placed before him for years in regard to this matter, he has ventured on, directly contrary to the light which the Lord has been giving him. All this confuses his spiritual discernment, and places him in a relation to the general interest, and wholesome, healthy advancement of the work, as an unfaithful watchman. He is pursuing a course which is detrimental to his spiritual discernment, and he is leading other minds to view matters in a perverted light. He has given unmistakable evidence that he does not regard the testimonies which the Lord has seen fit to give his people as worthy of respect or as of sufficient weight to influence his course of action.

I am distressed beyond any words my pen can trace. Unmistakably, Elder Olsen has acted as did Aaron, in regard to these men who have been opposed to the work of God ever since the Minneapolis meeting. They have not repented of their course of action in resisting light and evidence. Long ago I wrote to A. R. Henry, but not a word of response has come from him to me. I have recently written to Harmon Lindsay and his wife, but I suppose he will not respect the matter sufficiently to reply.

From the light God has been pleased to give me, until the home field shows more healthful heart beats, the fewer long journeys Elder Olsen shall make with his selected helpers, A. R. Henry and Harmon Lindsay, the better it will be for the cause of God. The far away fields will be just as well off without these visits. The disease at the heart of the work poisons the blood, and thus the disease is communicated to the bodies they visit. Yet, notwithstanding the sickly diseased state of things at home some have felt a great burden to take the whole of believing bodies under their parental wings.[3]

Unfortunately, the contagious disease of rejection and indifference to the most precious message was spreading from the heart of the work in Battle Creek to almost every other area of the church around the world. One way in which the opposition had spread since 1888 was through the influence of Uriah Smith as editor of the Review and Herald. For all the good Smith had accomplished in years past, his antagonism to the message and even the Testimonies of Ellen White, made his influence the more detrimental. In June of 1896, Ellen White was led to write to Smith, summarizing the controversy over the law in Galatians that had led to a large share of the opposition to Jones and Waggoner in 1888. Not only did Ellen White fully endorse Jones’ and Waggoner’s view on the schoolmaster of Galatians 3:24, but in looking back to the great possibilities of the Minneapolis session from the year 1896, she could unquestionably state that the loud cry and latter rain had in a great measure been shut away from our people:

“The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” [Galatians 3:24] In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ, and to flee unto him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord’s message through Brethren Waggoner and Jones. By exciting that opposition, Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world [latter rain], as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory [loud cry] was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world.[4]

Without a doubt, Ellen White had unhesitatingly stated in 1896 that the latter rain and the loud cry, which had begun in 1888, had through the actions of our own brethren been hindered and ultimately thwarted. As such, an aborted latter rain would surely lead to a delay in Christ’s second coming. But Ellen White was not the only one who recognized the sad results of Satan’s successful ongoing assault on the most precious message. Nearly three months later, O. A. Olsen would summarize in a letter to W. W. Prescott his thoughts on the darkness that had settled over Battle Creek and its institutions. As Olsen saw it, 1892 “was a remarkable year in many ways.” During that year much of the open opposition to righteousness by faith “gave away, and our people and ministry generally fell in with that truth. You call to mind the wonderful experience that we had at the [Lansing] Michigan camp-meeting that same year. Then followed the General Conference early in the year 1893, which was a remarkable meeting. At that time it was first advocated that the latter rain had commenced, and that the message was going with a loud voice.”

Olsen went on to describe how, “from a financial standpoint,” the years 1892 and 1893 were “the most favorable,” and they “had an abundance for everything that was needed to advance [the] cause.” Then, Olsen recalled, by the end of 1893, “it seems to me, as I look over the situation, that from that time on, things have been going the other way. The darkness has been pressing closer and closer upon the church at Battle Creek, and the insinuations and doubts that have been expressed by different ones, have permeated a larger portion of our people in various places. The contributions have steadily fallen off in some lines.” Olsen didn’t attribute this drop in funds to the “financial conditions of the country” but to “the spiritual declension that exists in the church.”[5] Regrettably, Olsen had yet to come to grips with the fact that his own actions were playing a part in the spiritual declension.

In November of 1896, and in response to Ellen White’s candid reproofs and explanations of Satan’s tactics to delay Christ’s return, O. A. Olsen compiled a series of letters and messages from her pen that spoke most directly to the ill treatment the outpourings of the Holy Spirit had received since the Minneapolis Conference. All of the messages in the new pamphlet addressed in some respect the results of attributing the manifestations of the Holy Spirit to fanaticism.[6]

In his introductory comments to Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church, Olsen stated that the pamphlet contained matter of the “greatest importance to the Battle Creek church and the institutions located here.” Although “very solemn and important messages of warning and instruction” had been received in the past, Olsen admitted “these messages have not received careful attention they deserve, and the reformation they called for has not been made.” Now the messages had come again, and they had an opportunity for careful study: “God has great blessings in store for his people, and he is ready to work for us here in Battle Creek in a marked manner. At different times in the past the Lord has wrought for his people, and we have witnessed the Spirit of God poured out in large measure; but instead of making the best use of these blessings and privileges, there has been a spirit of departing from God, which has brought about darkness and much evil work.” Olsen was entreating “all to seek the Lord most earnestly, confess the wrong, repent of sin, turn to God with all the heart.” If they did this, Olsen assured, “God will come near, and we shall see the glorious power of his salvation manifested in our midst.”[7]

Confessing Sins As Daniel Did

A. F. Ballenger, who had been and Adventist minister since the 1880s, worked in the Religious Liberty Department of the Church for several years, had a reconversion experience in 1891, and was instrumental in revival meetings from 1897 to 1900.[8] When Ballenger read the newly released Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church in 1897, his heart was deeply troubled. In a sermon he preached at the Battle Creek Tabernacle, September 25, 1897, Ballenger drew the attention of the hundreds of Adventists gathered there to Ellen White’s biblical call to repentance found in the pamphlet. Referring to the prayer of Daniel, chapter 9, Ballenger suggested it was the “prayer which every one of those who sorrow for the suffering cause in Battle Creek should pray.” Here in chapter 9, Daniel had prayed for his sins and the sins of his people, acknowledging as well the punishment of seventy years of desolation that had resulted from hundreds of years of rebellion.[9]

As he continued his sermon, Ballenger drew attention to an Ellen White statement that had come out in the Review a few months previous, admonishing the Church to “pray most earnestly that now, in the time of the latter rain, the showers of grace may fall upon us.”[10] Ballenger felt there was nothing more certain than this fact but also felt that it was “just as true that the Spirit will not be poured out where there is not sincere confession and putting away of sin.” But as Ballenger recalled some of the camp-meetings in the past, he recounted how the greatest blessings came when “the ministers and responsible men had humbled their hearts before the Lord, and pleaded with Him to roll away the reproach from His watchmen.” He hoped to see the whole “church as one man prostrate before the Lord, seeking for the baptism of His Spirit,” but there was yet “sin in the camp.” That sin, Ballenger went on to state, based on his reading of Ellen White’s material, was the treatment the Minneapolis message and the manifestations of the Holy Spirit had received since that time:

We have rejected the blessing of righteousness by faith; and when the Lord in 1893 began to pour out his Spirit upon those who had accepted the righteousness of God by faith, here it was that that Spirit was declared to be fanaticism. The rejection of the blessed Comforter then, has worked ruin and death since that time.

Ministers and workers at the camp-meetings have confessed that they attended that General Conference and rejoiced to see the manifestation of the Spirit, but when cautioned by men of influence in the denomination, and told by them that it was ‘only excitement and fanaticism,’ they were perplexed, and knew not what to say or think. When they returned to their field of labor, and the brethren who had read the Bulletin and learned of the Lord’s doings at the Conference, came to them to learn more concerning the gracious gift, these laborers in turn warned them to beware of this manifestation of the Spirit as fanaticism, and the poor brethren and sisters have thus been hearing two conflicting voices from the Lord’s professed watchmen. As a result, the trumpet has given an uncertain sound, and both the church and the world have come to realize it. O that the people of Battle Creek would repent!…

The message of justification by faith, which for seven years has been pressed home upon the hearts of the people, is it of the Lord or not? Who is on the Lord’s side? Did the Lord pour his Spirit upon the General Conference in 1893? or was it fanatical excitement? Who is on the Lord’s side?[11]

Ballenger went on to say that for years, “we have promised the world, in the hundreds of thousands of books and periodicals we have distributed and in the sermons preached during the last fifty years, that this message would close up speedily under the refreshings of the latter rain. But the years have rolled by, and the world has not seen it.” In light of such facts, Ballenger addressed those who thought the sins of the church shouldn’t be talked about:

Someone will object to this presentation of the subject at this time and place, on the ground that we ought not to make public the sins of God’s people. They are already public. According to the Spirit of God, “The conviction is gaining ground in the world that Seventh-day Adventists are giving the trumpet an uncertain sound, that they are following in the path of worldlings.”[12]

Brethren, our sins have gone to the world, and the next report that should go to the world is that we are confessing our sins. If the Battle Creek church humbles itself before God, with earnest confession of sin, I would like to see the report printed in every newspaper in the world.[13]

In light of such possibilities, Ballenger concluded: “Every Seventh-day Adventist should now, like Daniel, confess his sins and the sins of his people.”[14] The Review reported that after the sermon, “a call was made for those who felt like dedicating themselves to God by confession and repentance, the acknowledgment of personal sins and the sins of the people, to meet in the afternoon. It was a matter of glad surprise to see nearly the whole congregation out…and there was a deep earnestness to get right before God.”[15]

But Ballenger was not the only one who felt that there had been a failure to receive what God had in store for his people in 1893. Others reached the same conclusion, and during the years that followed, expressed them openly. E. A. Sutherland would insistently claim in 1898 that “The latter rain would have come in 1893 if our people had moved out in all the truth.”[16]

In 1899, at the Australasian Union Conference held at Avondale College, G. A. Irwin, the newly elected General Conference president, preached a stirring Sabbath sermon on the Second Coming. Irwin suggested that if Adventists had followed God’s providence, “we would have been infinitely further along in the message than we are to-day.” Speaking of Ellen White’s November 22, 1892 loud cry statement and the disappointing results that followed, Irwin declared that it wasn’t God who had made the mistake but “we who make the mistakes”:

“We had some droppings of the latter rain the next year [1893] after that testimony was written. That sound was given in the United States from one end of the country to the other. Do not misunderstand me to say that that is all there is to the loud cry, but that was the beginning of the loud cry. And if we had a sense of the terrible time in which we are living we would confess our sins and humble our hearts before God, so that the spirit of God might rest upon us in mighty power. Then the loud cry would go from this meeting and would never stop till it had finished its work. I wanted to impress that upon our minds, that the Lord had told us that the loud cry had already begun, and that we are now ten years into the loud cry, with which the final work of the gospel is to close. If we had followed on from that time I believe I am safe in saying that the message would be finished now, at this time.”[17]

Ellen White, who was also attending the meetings, had taken the opportunity to answer many of Irwin’s “perplexing questions” about the work in America during his visit to Australia. This had opened the door for her to share counsel for the benefit of the people at the heart of the work. It is evident that Irwin’s sermon was right in line with statements that Ellen White had made for years in regard to the delay of the Lord’s coming, which was a result of the unbelief of God’s people.[18]

Several days later, on July 17, 1899, S. N. Haskell, who was also present at the gathering, presented a lesson on the Third Angel’s Message. Here Haskell took up the subject of the final generation and went through the well-known time prophecies and end-time events that pointed to Christ’s imminent return. Picking up Irwin’s theme of the loud cry, Haskell asked: “Do you think we are in the last days? We are in the last days of the very last generation. We are ten years in the loud cry of the Third Angel’s Message.” Then Haskell recalled the 1893 General Conference session, where concepts had been expressed that Christ could have come ere this: “There is a testimony in the Bulletin, published in 1892, which says: ‘If the people of God had gone to work as they should have gone to work right after the Minneapolis meeting in 1888, the world could have been warned in two years, and the Lord would have come.’” Unfortunately, Haskell either stated the wrong date in this talk, or the stenographer took down the wrong date for the 1893 Bulletin; and quotation marks were placed on Haskell’s statement as if it was an exact quote from Ellen White.[19]

But regardless, the concept is still easily understood; if the 1888 message had been readily accepted, the world would have been warned in a short time and Christ could have come. Haskell was probably remembering A. T. Jones’ fifteenth sermon at the 1893 General Conference, in which he quoted several Ellen White statements from 1890 where she mentioned the Minneapolis message and the lack of reception over the “past two years.”[20] And he was probably recalling the then newly received Ellen White statement read just four days later at the Conference, which stated plainly: “If every soldier of Christ had done his duty, if every watchman on the walls of Zion had given the trumpet a certain sound, the world might ere this have heard the message of warning. But the work is years behind.”[21] Undeniably, Ellen White made many similar statements both before and after the 1888 Minneapolis session, indicating that Christ could have come ere this, which was Haskell’s point at the 1899 Australasian Union Conference session.

For instance, Ellen White had written in 1894 that if “those who claim to have a living experience in the things of God had done their appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would have been warned, and the Lord Jesus would have come to our world with power and great glory.”[22] The same statement was repeated in the Review in late 1896.[23] In 1898 Ellen White made the similar statement: “Had the purpose of God been carried out by His people in giving the message of mercy to the world, Christ would have come to the earth, and the saints would ere this have received their welcome into the city of God.” [24] The newly published Desire of Ages also presented the same thought: “Had the church of Christ done her appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would before this have been warned, and the Lord Jesus would have come to our earth in power and great glory.”[25]

Haskell was probably familiar with all of these quotes on the delay of Christ’s coming, and that’s why he would summarize his sermon thoughts in 1899 by stating, “God designed to close the work just in proportion as His people felt the importance and sacredness of the work and the zeal with which they took hold of it.”[26] But sadly, the work had not been taken up, and Christ’s coming had been delayed even longer.

Ellen White’s understanding of the delay of Christ’s coming took on a new dimension while she was in Australia before the turn of the century. In a vision of the night in 1898, Ellen White was led to the understanding that she would not live to see Christ’s coming but would be laid to rest instead. She was then encouraged to do all she could to prepare books for future generations from the counsel and Testimonies she had received. In 1913, W. C. White shared the story of this experience at the General Conference session:

About fifteen years ago, in one of her night visions, she came out of a very dark place into the bright light, and father [James White] was with her. When he saw her by his side he exclaimed in great surprise, “What, have you been there too, Ellen?” She always understood that to mean that the Lord would let her rest in the grave a little while before the Lord comes. She has been trying to work with reference to that. Oftentimes she has had messages to hasten her work—the work of preparing her books—because she had but a short time in which to work. She has been endeavoring to get her writings into book form, so that they may be of service to the church.[27]

G. B. Starr, who also worked side by side with Ellen White during her years in Australia, reported, several years later, a very similar experience he had while in conversation with Ellen White sometime after 1897:

One day, while in Sister White’s home in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, a company of five or six persons were conversing with her; when some one of the company inquired: “Sister White, do you think that you will live until the Lord comes?” To which she replied: “I hardly think so, but the Lord has not definitely revealed that matter to me yet.” “But suppose you should die, do you think that the Lord will raise up others to write testimonies?” “I can only tell you,” she replied, “what the Lord showed me about that.” We replied, “That is just what we wish to know.” “Well,” she said, “the angel of the Lord opened the Bible to Zechariah 4:9, and pointing to the verse said; ‘This applies to you and your work. “The hands of Zerubbable have laid the foundations of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you.”’” “But would that not imply that you might live through to the end?” someone asked. “No,” she replied, “I did not get that impression. ‘His hands shall finish it,’ I thought referred to the writings; that they would be sufficient to carry the people of God through to the end.”[28]

Such an understanding of her mortal life led to a change in emphasis for Ellen White as she returned back to America after spending ten years in Australia. She not only began a much more concerted effort to publish more of her inspired material, but she also began a renewed call for the works of any living Adventist pioneers to be placed before the people. With a lengthening delay in Christ’s return and incredible challenges facing the church after the turn of the century, God would bolster up the foundations to withstand such tempests when “no pioneer would remain alive.”[29] Yet there was still hope that the revival and reformation which God had been calling for during the past fifteen years might take place. Would the 1901 General Conference bring about the needed changes?

[1] Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 83, May 22, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1521, 1525, emphasis supplied.

[2] Yes, many leading men as individuals were committing sin, but the effects of their sins were far reaching in their influence. Writing during the 1890s in regard to Jewish nation, Ellen White stated: “For the rejection of Christ, with the results that followed, they [the Scribes and Pharisees] were responsible. A nation’s sin and a nation’s ruin were due to the religious leaders” (Christ’s Object Lessons, 305). Could the same principle hold true in her day? This gives no license to laity, or to off-shoot groups that point to the church as Babylon. But it does show the awesome responsibility that leadership carries, which is one good reason we should uphold them in prayer and join them in seeking the Lord.

[3]

1. Ellen G. White to A. O. Tait, Letter 100, Aug. 27, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1607, 1608. After Olsen had been replaced as General Conference President, Ellen White continued to express concern for the sad results of his failure to pass on heaven-sent counsel. In a letter to I. H. Evans in late 1897, she revealed how “light came to me from the Lord that Elder Olsen had rejected the trust given him, and had failed in doing his duty to read the things that I had given him, to the ones who must have them (Letter 51, Nov. 21, 1897, unpublished). Before sending copies of the letter out, Ellen White changed the word “rejected” to “neglected,” still expressing a redemptive attitude toward the ex-president who had faced such big challenges.
2. But Olsen’s “neglect” of the Testimonies went beyond failing to share them with other leaders as he had been entrusted, which fueled the continued rebellion against the Minneapolis message and messengers. Olsen also misused some of the Testimonies sent to him, as a result of the negative influences surrounding him, and joined in the oppression of Jones and Waggoner. All the while Olsen was giving the impression that he was a faithful supporter of the men and the message.
3. After being sent to England in 1892, Waggoner became aware of the fact that “the official brethren in America acquiesced in my leaving America, because they did not want my teaching and influence there” (E. J. Waggoner to A. G. Daniells, July 24, 1903). Confirmation came from Ellen White, who had “been shown” that “some of our people were well pleased to have [Waggoner] removed from the work at Battle Creek by his appointment to work in England” (W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, May 30, 1902). Unfortunately, the opposition didn’t stop after Waggoner arrived in England. Soon attempts were made to curtail his work abroad as well. Waggoner explains:
4. “But it was not very long before the brethren in America were dissatisfied with the situation here [in England], and efforts were made to break up what was thought to be my hold on this field. It was thought that D. A. Robinson was too much under my influence, and he was, in the regular order, sent to India, as being ‘the very man for the place,’ etc., although he well knew that he was sent, not because he was wanted in India, but because he was not wanted in England. (I do not mean that the English people did not want him.) Then H. E. Robinson came over with a commission to break up my influence, and to ‘give tone to the work in England.’ He had a free hand, and the backing of the General Conference” (E. J. Waggoner to A. G. Daniells, July 24, 1903).
5. S. Washburn, who worked alongside Waggoner in England for many years, would summarize in a long letter to Ellen White the part that O. A. Olsen played, as General Conference president, in the underhanded work of seeking to hold Waggoner at bay and how his actions affected the entire work in England:
6. “Brother Waggoner has been misrepresented and worked against in an underhanded way. Brother Olsen has talked and written to Brother Hope and to Brother O. O. Farnsworth and talked to me against D. A. Robinson and Brother Waggoner, and yet not a word directly to them. There has been double dealing, treachery and things that looked to me like falsehood, until they got rid of Brother D. A. Robinson and this all in the name of order and organization, while it was really anarchy and Brother Waggoner has been cruelly misrepresented and treated as a dangerous man who needed to be watched and suspicion cast upon about all he has said or taught—I mean, by the leaders, not D. A. Robinson. No one believes more in true order or organization than Brother Waggoner. I have never heard him say a word that would indicate he did not believe in order and organization as taught in the Bible and the Testimonies. But he does not believe in double dealing policy, or tyranny.
7. “But even before I left Washington, D. C. and came to England [1891], Brother Olsen told me that Jones and Waggoner were not practical men, intimated that they were not safe and this was while he was sending them around, all over the United States to hold institutes. Whether they are safe or practical, I know the doctrine which they and you teach is life and salvation to me….
8. “I have spoken of Brother Olsen’s talking to others against Brother Waggoner and D. A. Robinson by intimation, but he would say nothing to them directly till they spoke to him about it. Brother Olsen had a long talk on those things with me before his talk with them. I was astonished at some things he said. He said that what the General Conference did was the mind of the Holy Spirit. They asked for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of course they had it so what they did was right—could not be otherwise; now that is only the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and I told him so….
9. “Then H. E. Robinson was sent over to England from the Atlantic Conference…. Brother Olsen told them they were sent over to England to give ‘Tone’ to the work…. [H. E. Robinson] kept criticizing Brother Waggoner to me and even using testimonies he said Brother Olsen sent him to use ‘judiciously.’ He said, ‘Whoever is right, we know Dr. Waggoner is wrong on this’” (J. S. Washburn to Ellen G. White, Feb. 10, 1897; in Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, 302, 303, portions unpublished)
10. Any response to Washburn’s letter by Ellen White is not extant today, but a year later Ellen White would respond with sympathy to Waggoner: “How much pleased I would be to see you and visit with you. I have so much desired that you would visit us in Australia; but it has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God, and therefore I feel no desire to write, although again and again I have come to the point of requesting you to make a visit to Australia. Cannot you do this? Please write us whether you can.
11. “When I learned that Brother [H. E.] Robinson and his wife had been sent to England, I said, It is a mistake. He has not the qualifications that would be of use and benefit in Europe; for unless he can rule, he would ruin…. Who placed him in power? Why did they place him in that position? He has left his mark where it has done harm that will not be easily effaced. The Lord help and strengthen you against all such influences.
12. “What is Elder Olsen doing in Europe now? I feel very sorry for him. I cannot feel in union with him, as I formerly did. He did not use aright the Testimonies given me for him. He gave wrong impressions by selecting portions of the Testimonies and making strong use of them, passing over the reproofs given to him and to others. I cannot place confidence in him. He has oppressed his brethren by bringing in elements to work against those whom God was using to do His work. Will not God judge for these things? I hope that something will take place that will give me stronger faith than I now have in Battle Creek and the working of the cause of God in the institutions there” (Ellen G. White to E. J. Waggoner, Letter 77, Aug 26, 1898; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, 216, 217).
13. One year later Ellen White would again take up her pen and write “words of counsel regarding the management of the work of God.” Again she recalled the sad results of placing so much responsibility on the shoulders of Elder Olsen with unconverted counselors at this side:
14. “At the very heart of the work erroneous principles were pressing for recognition. All matters should have been laid before the people. The Lord should have been sought in humble prayer. Then the Holy Spirit would have been their teacher. But the Conferences at large were not enlightened in regard to what was being done. Men were linked up with Elder Olsen who led him and imbued him with their spirit. Unrebuked, corruption was going on at the heart of the work. The cause of God in our institutions was being perverted. Men were exalted, regardless of the advice God was giving. Covetousness held sway. Judas-practices were contaminating the workers. No language can be framed to describe the result of placing unfaithful, unconverted men in holy places” (Manuscript 91, June 19, 1899; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, 183).
15. Although we would not wish to discredit the good work of Elder Olsen, underestimate the severe trials he faced, pass judgment upon him, or fail to recognize our own weaknesses, a dishonest appraisal of the mistakes of our past as a people only guarantees our continued Laodicean blindness today. Many denominationally published historical accounts of Olsen’s presidency have sought to present his years of service as ones of total victory and success, ignoring the eternal results of his disregarding heavenly counsel. L. H. Christian glossed over Olsen’s presidency, stating that “the newly elected president of the General Conference” along with other mighty men, “started a series of revival meetings in every part of America” following the Minneapolis meetings. For eight years Olsen was “largely responsible under God for the strong revival work which was carried on” (The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts [1947], 237, 220). Arthur W. Spalding follows a similar course in describing the victorious years following the Minneapolis Conference. Of Olsen, he states simply that “his calm and gracious spirit was most effective in unifying the church during the crucial years of his presidency, to 1897” (Captains of the Host [1949], 367).
16. V. Olson, with help from Arthur L. White and the White Estate, admits that controversy followed the Minneapolis meetings, but describes Olsen’s presidency as one of submission and support of Spirit of Prophecy counsel, resulting in ultimate victory: “Elder Olsen was a God-fearing man, and his soul was troubled over what he saw and heard in Battle Creek. With the help of God, he labored to bring about peace and harmony. He gladly supported Sister White in her noble and persistent efforts to improve the situation, and he rejoiced with her, as we have noted in a previous chapter, when men began to surrender and to confess their wrongs” (Through Crisis to Victory: 1888-1901 [1966], 116).
17. Similar thoughts have also been purported in Ellen White compilations published by the White Estate. In 1923 Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers was published by the White Estate, being one of the first compilations issued following Ellen White’s death. Included in the book are portions from several Testimonies sent to Battle Creek during the 1890s. In 1962 a third edition of Testimonies to Ministers was published with an added twenty-two–page “Historical Foreword” written by Arthur L. White, for the stated purpose of giving the reader “knowledge of the circumstances which prevailed at the time the messages were written.” Although the book contains Testimonies written primarily during the years of 1890 through 1915—the year Ellen White died—the majority of the Foreword seeks to deal with issues revolving around the 1888 Minneapolis Conference and its aftermath, through the turn of the century. It seems that the Foreword was written as a response to the newly sparked interest in 1888 following Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short’s submission of “1888 Re-examined” to the General Conference. As such, it is of interest to note that the Foreword in Testimonies to Ministers follows very closely the concepts found in A. V. Olson’s book, Through Crisis to Victory: 1888-1901, published in 1966. This is quite understandable, since Olson died in 1963, at which time the book came under the sponsorship of the Ellen G. White Estate Board, with Arthur L. White as Secretary.
18. All of this information brings us to this point. Amidst the Foreword, in which some of the problems that followed the Minneapolis meeting are addressed, the following is stated about O. A. Olsen, former president of the General Conference: “Elder Olsen, man in full sympathy with the emphasis placed on the truth of righteousness by faith, and one who was ever loyal to the Spirit of Prophecy counsels, found it difficult to meet certain of the problems at Battle Creek” (“Historical Forward,” in Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, xxvi). The certain problems at Battle Creek are primarily laid at the feet of only a few men, which Elder Olsen “in his hope that he could stay the evil work of such influences, made available to the ministers of the church many of the messages of counsel which came to him and other leaders in Battle Creek during this critical period” (Ibid., xxix). Thus, Olsen’s presidency is seen ultimately as a positive period where only individual mistakes were made by a few opponents of the Minneapolis message, which was finally overturned by a victorious 1901 General Conference.
19. LeRoy E. Froom was quite adamant as he continued to advance similar concepts in his highly profiled historic work. He not only wrote very positively about Olsen’s presidency but tried to remove any intimation that it could be anything otherwise: “Now, the record of Olsen’s spiritual leadership is clear and loyal, and his definite support of, and undeviating leadership in, the broad field of Righteousness by Faith is openly before us.… Olsen’s Leadership Years Marked by Loyalty and Advance…. A period of blessed revival and reformation began.… Many were still in deep perplexity and anxiety. But Olsen seemed to sense the spiritual bearings of the questions at issue, and gave quiet but effective leadership to their solution.…Olsen’s calm and kindly spirit helped to bind the Church together at this most difficult time, and to advance the message of Minneapolis during those nine crucial years of his presidency following ‘88—that is, from 1888 to 1897. His was a healing, unifying, and helpful influence, following the tensions of the stormy Session…. Olsen’s tenure of office was a time of awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction and self-reliance, a renewal brought about through the growing acceptance of the message of Righteousness by Faith” (Movement of Destiny [1971], 360-363)
20. Froom would also point to the 1890s as a time of great revival, without the possibility that the message was being thwarted in any way: “So it cannot, with any show of right, be said that Olsen personally rejected or subdued the message of Righteousness by Faith, or led or aided and abetted in such a direction. Rather, those were the years of its steady early advance and spread through revivals in colleges, churches, institutes, and camp meetings.… That surely cannot be construed as rejection. Indeed, it was the precise opposite. And Waggoner and Jones were, during the decade following 1888, the leading denominational Bible teachers—and this by action of the leadership of the Church. That was not rejection” (Ibid., 363, 364).
21. Froom would go on to claim that any suggestion of a “rejection of the message of Minneapolis” or of a negative impact on the progress of the message by Conference leadership, “actually amounts to defamation of the characters of the dead.” Froom also reminded his readers that his was not the only “testimony of [the] best informed.” Such men as “Oliver Montgomery, L. H. Christian, A. W. Spalding, A. V. Olson, Norval Pease, A. L. White, R. L. Odom, and others, including this writer—are a unit in rejecting the charge of infidelity to truth and trust on the part of the post-1888 leaders” (Ibid., 364, 370).
22. George R. Knight has promoted the same view for decades in regard to the General Conference leadership during the 1890s: “In fact, as we have noted several times previously, the General Conference administrations of O. A. Olsen (1888-1897) and G. A. Irwin (1897-1901) did everything in their power to put Jones and Waggoner at the forefront of Adventism from 1889 up through the end of the century. Thus they were not only the featured speakers at every General Conference session during the 1890s, but they had broad access to the denomination through its publishing houses.… It is hard to imagine more supportive administrations to the 1888 messengers. Officials of the General Conference have given no other theologians in the history of the denomination more prominence than Jones or Waggoner. They were anything but rejected by the post-1888 administrations” (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message [1998], 145-150, emphasis original).
23. But the claims of all these men combined cannot eliminate the Testimonies of Ellen White, to which all of these men had free access yet somehow turned a blind eye. While we should walk softly as we consider the challenges Olsen faced and victories he won, honesty with his failures and the failures among leaders and administrators of the Church during those crucial years is of utmost importance for us today. All the shrouded dishonesty about our history, which seeks to paint too rosy a picture of our past and ignore the full Testimony of Jesus, only condemns us to our Laodicean condition of “rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing” (Revelation 3:17).

[4] Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 96, June 5, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1575, emphasis and bracketed words supplied. This letter from Ellen White addressed to Uriah Smith, was transcribed by Marian Davis with the following notation: “The enclosed pages present a few points which were opened to Sister White last night, and which she wished sent to you. She has for some days been suffering from the effects of cold and overwork, and is today unable to read or write.” The letter was not published until 1952, in “The Law in Galatians: Two Significant Statements,” Review and Herald, March 13, 1952, 6.

For more information regarding the law in Galatians controversy and for modern depictions of what took place in 1888 and following, which depict victory and acceptance of the message instead, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, chapter 1, “The Latter Rain and Loud Cry Soon to Come,” 58-82; chapter 6, “Three Responses,” 163-178.

[5] Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 96, June 5, 1896; in 1888 Materials, 1575, emphasis and bracketed words supplied. This letter from Ellen White addressed to Uriah Smith, was transcribed by Marian Davis with the following notation: “The enclosed pages present a few points which were opened to Sister White last night, and which she wished sent to you. She has for some days been suffering from the effects of cold and overwork, and is today unable to read or write.” The letter was not published until 1952, in “The Law in Galatians: Two Significant Statements,” Review and Herald, March 13, 1952, 6.

For more information regarding the law in Galatians controversy and for modern depictions of what took place in 1888 and following, which depict victory and acceptance of the message instead, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, vol. 1, chapter 1, “The Latter Rain and Loud Cry Soon to Come,” 58-82; chapter 6, “Three Responses,” 163-178.

[6] Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church (1896), included at that point in time, several unpublished letters and manuscript (most of which we have quoted from above): Ellen G. White to S. N. Haskell, Letter 38, May 30, 1896; Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, Letter 57, May 1, 1895; “Experience of the Golden Calf an Example for God’s People Today,” Manuscript 16, May 10, 1896; Ellen G. White to Brethren in Responsible Positions in America, Letter 5, July 24, 1895.

[7] O. A. Olsen, introductory remarks, November 18, 1896, Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church, pamphlet no. 154, 1, 2.

[8] See Don F. Neufeld, ed., “Ballenger, Albion Fox,” Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, vol. 10, 121. For information on Ballenger’s conversion experience, see Ron Duffield, The Return of the Latter Rain, chapter 17, 437-469. For an example of his work with A. T. Jones in regard to religious liberty, see A. F. Ballenger, “Lessons From the Closing of the Marlowe Theater,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 6, 1893, 487-489. Some evidence exists that extreme views came into Ballenger’s “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost” revival meetings at the turn of the century, yet in 1899 Ellen White deterred Ballenger from taking a position that involved financial work rather than evangelism, stating: “Your work is appointed you by God. Ministry as an evangelist is your calling, and in no case should you trifle with your moral responsibilities” (Ellen G. White to A. F. Ballenger, Letter 90, June 6, 1899; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, 47). Sadly, Ballenger began to stray from Adventist foundational teaching on the sanctuary after the turn of the century and soon left the church, shortly after 1905.

[9] A. F. Ballenger, “Who is on the Lord’s Side?” A sermon delivered in the Battle Creek Tabernacle, Sabbath, Sept. 25, 1897; in Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1897, 629.

[10] Ellen G. White, “Pray for the Latter Rain,” Review and Herald, March 2, 1897, emphasis supplied.

[11] A. F. Ballenger, “Who is on the Lord’s Side?” Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1897, 629.

[12] Once again Ballenger was quoting from Ellen White’s Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church (1896), 30.

[13] A. F. Ballenger, “Who is on the Lord’s Side?” Review and Herald, Oct. 5, 1897, 629.

[14] Ibid. Ellen White would echo such thoughts on the prayer of Daniel in 1902, in the context of the work for the South: “There is need of prayer such as Daniel offered. If ever a people needed to offer such a prayer, it is Seventh-day Adventists. There is among them such self-confidence, such presumption. The Lord has been sending light to His people, but the Testimonies have not been heeded” (Ellen G. White to A. G. Daniells, Nov. 16, 1902, unpublished; a similar statement is made in Spaulding and Magan Collection, 346).

[15] Editorial Notes, Review and Herald, Sept. 28, 1897, 634. There seems to be an effort among some historians to discredit the entire Ballenger “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost” movement that started in the summer of 1897, because of fanaticism that came in later years. See for example, Bert Haloviak, “Pioneers, Pantheists, and Progressives: A. F. Ballenger and Divergent Paths to the Sanctuary” (unpublished manuscript, Office of Archives and Statistics, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Washington, D.C.: June, 1980), 2-10; George R. Knight, 1888 to Apostasy, 169, 170. Ron Clouzet, however, offers a balancing view by stating: “To be fair, much of what Ballenger shared in those years was correct biblical teaching—even if a bit extreme—and it led many people to surrender to God” (Adventism’s Greatest Need: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, 190).

[16] E. A Sutherland, “The Illinois and Indiana Camp-Meetings,” Review and Herald, Sept. 27, 1898, 622.

[17] G. A. Irwin, “Sermon,” Sabbath morning, July 8, 1899; in Australasian Union Conference Record, Special No. 1, July 10, 1899, 10-12, emphasis supplied.

[18] Ellen G. White to S. M. I. Henry, Letter 96, June 21, 1899; in Selected Messages, bk. 3, 51; Ellen G. White, “The Close of the Conference,” Australasian Union Conference Record,” July 28, 1899, 13.

[19] S. N. Haskell, “Bible Study: The Third Angel’s Message,” Australasian Union Conference Recorder, Special No. 4, July 17, 1899, 9, 10.

[20] A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message, No 15,” General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 23, 1893, 359.

[21] Ellen G. White to W. Ing, Letter 77, Jan. 9, 1893; in General Conference Daily Bulletin, 419, 420.

[22] Ellen G. White to Emma and Edson White, Letter 84, Nov. 14, 1894; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, 38.

[23] Ellen G. White, “Whosoever Will, Let Him Come,” Review and Herald, Oct. 6, 1896.

[24] Ellen G. White, “The Loving Watchcare of Jesus,” Union Conference Record (Australasian), Oct. 15, 1898.

[25] Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages (1898), 633, 634. Unfortunately, in the Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White, Haskell’s 1899 statement is found under the heading, “Statements Mistakenly Attributed to Ellen G. White,” with only the following short explanation: “Elder S. N. Haskell provided that reference from memory in a talk published in 1899. No Bulletin was published in 1892, nor has the statement been found in any other published or unpublished source.” (vol. 3, 3192; at <http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-mist.html#mistaken-section-d11>, accessed Jan. 30, 2012). It would have been more helpful if readers had been directed by the White Estate to the 1893 Bulletin and a simple explanation given.

[26] S. N. Haskell, “Bible Study: The Third Angel’s Message,” Australasian Union Conference Recorder, Special No. 4, July 17, 1899, 10.

[27] W. C. White, “Bible Study Hour: Confidence in God,” May 30, 1913; in General Conference Daily Bulletin, June 1, 1913, 219. See also Arthur L. White, The Later Elmshaven Years: 1905-1915, 445.

[28]

1. B. Starr, Fifty Years With One of God’s Seers, unpublished manuscript [ –1928], 105. Ellen White apparently did not have a home in Sydney until after February, 1897, where she occupied a furnished rented room set up for when she visited the city (see Arthur L. White, The Australian Years: 1891-1900, 291).
2. B. Starr went on to quote the following Ellen White statement from 1903: “Physically, I have always been as a broken vessel; and yet in my old age the Lord continues to move upon me by His Holy Spirit to write the most important books that have ever come before the churches and the world. The Lord is evidencing what He can do through weak vessels. The life that He spares I will use to His glory. And, when He may see fit to let me rest, His messages shall be of even more vital force than when the frail instrumentality through whom they were delivered, was living (Ellen G. White, “The Time of the End,” Manuscript 122, Oct. 9, 1903; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, 428).

[29] Fred Bischoff, “A Second Look at—The Importance of the Adventist Pioneers, part 4 (conclusion),” Lest We Forget, Fourth Quarter, 2001, 2; at <http://www.aplib.org/files/lwf/LWFV11N4.pdf>.