Further articles on the Evangelical meetings continued to appear in succeeding issues of Eternity magazine. These were mostly concerned with justifying Eternity's conclusion that Adventists were now a truly Christian denomination, for the initial reaction among Protestantism was one of profound skepticism.

Christendom was also told that Adventists no longer regarded themselves as the remnant church, but considered themselves only as part of the remnant church of God in the last days. And as for the gift of prophecy, Adventists did not regard the E. G. White Spirit of Prophecy counsels as in a class with the Bible prophets. They were regarded as counsels to Seventh-day Adventists only (Eternity, January 1957).

Such a generalized statement does not differentiate between special testimonies to the church and counsels as found in Steps to Christ, or books in the Conflict of the Ages series, all of which are eminently suitable for public outreach. When the General Conference published Questions on Doctrine, a book demanded by Christendom for Christendom in general, they did not hesitate to disregard their own statement by unselectively quoting Mrs. White in order to get their points across. A quick glance through just the first twenty chapters shows that they not only quoted from books suitable for public use, but quoted from the following:

Gospel Workers, Testimonies to Ministers, Early Writings, Counsels on Sabbath School Work, Counsels to Parents, Students and Teachers, Evangelism, Testimonies for the Church, volumes 2, 6, 8, and even an E. G. White Manuscript, No. 18, 1899.

Such inconsistencies are common to those who wander into the shifting sands of conjecture, amendment and invention.

As news of the Evangelical meetings began filtering through the SDA Church, it was deemed advisable to prepare the ministry for the forthcoming book, Questions on Doctrine. The church had a ready-made vehicle to carry out such a task- the Ministry magazine. All that was needed was a willing editor and a supportive president. Both were in position-R. A. Anderson and R. R. Figuhr.*

* R. R. Figuhr had been associate editor of the Ministry magazine with R. A. Anderson who was General Conference Ministerial Secretary from 1950-1956. Assuming that these men were attuned to each other's doctrinal wavelength, they now had the perfect setup to superimpose mutual designs upon Adventism.

Editor Anderson had fielded an opening statement in the Ministry of December 1956, under the editorial title, "Changing Attitudes Towards Adventism." He told of some recent articles concerning Adventists in leading religious journals and commented:

"When certain Christian leaders discovered recently that we believe absolutely in the sovereign deity of our Lord, in His pre-existence with the Father, in the absolute sinlessness of His nature during His incarnation on earth, in His all-sufficient atoning sacrifice on the cross, and in salvation by grace and by grace alone, then the basis of the misunderstandings which for a century have been a barrier between other Christian bodies and Adventists was removed" (p. 17).

Evidently, "caution" was the watchword. Adventists should not be startled. Many of our ministers would need a careful conditioning process to have them readily accept Questions on Doctrine. Unlike the largely non-Adventist readership of Eternity, most Adventists were well acquainted with our doctrines and had ready access to our literature including the Spirit of Prophecy. So, in the foregoing quotation the heresy of Christ's sinless nature was carefully hedged about by our long-discarded vestiges of Arianism, and the concept of a completed atonement was wrapped in an "all-sufficient atoning sacrifice."

But it was left to L. E. Froom to undertake the delicate task of turning our doctrines around.**

**Froom had been Ministerial Secretary from 1941-1950. During that time, Anderson had been his associate editor of Ministry magazine.

In his outstanding work Beginning of the End, Vance Ferrell quotes a contemporary G. C. official who claimed that Anderson had told him personally that Froom "wanted to stand for the landmarks, but we told him that for the sake of fellowship with the Protestants, we must do this. This will bring in a new day for Adventists. He [Froom] backed down so we could agree with the evangelicals" (Pilgrims Rest DH 104). But in the light of further material to be presented, it seems probable that Froom's reticence was due mainly to the fact that he might bear the blame for changing our doctrines.

Froom's article "The Priestly Application of the Atonement Act" (February, 1957), must, in retrospect, be seen as about the greatest exercise in manipulative semantics ever attempted in Adventist literature.* The opening statements were good, solid Adventism. The closing statements contradicted them. (One wonders if Barnhouse's "first bite all worm, second bite all hook" remarks should not be redirected to this article.)

* In the December 1956 issue of Ministry, Froom had written an article, "The Atonement, The Heart of Our Message," in which he stressed the importance of the atoning sacrifice and referred to Christ's High Priestly work as "ministering its provisions, benefits and effects to the beneficiaries of His grace-the subjects of His intercession" (p. 13).

Here are Froom's opening remarks in which he defines the term "atonement" correctly:

"Despite the belief of multitudes in the churches about us, it is not, on the one hand, limited just to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. On the other hand, neither is it confined to the ministry of our heavenly High Priest in the sanctuary above, on the antitypical day of atonement- or hour of God's judgment- as some of our forefathers first erroneously thought and wrote.

"Instead, as attested by the Spirit of Prophecy, it clearly embraces both- one aspect being incomplete without the other, and each being the indispensable complement of the other." (Ministry, February 1957, p. 9).

Having thus made Adventists feel at ease with his confirmation of a continuing work of atonement, Froom then gives a twist to what appeared to be a perfectly plain statement. He does this by mixing a contradiction with two truths:

"That is the tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the cross- a complete, perfect and final atonement for man's sins." (ibid., p. 10).

Yes, it is true that the sacrifice was complete and perfect. It is not true that the atonement was final and complete and Froom had correctly stated earlier that the atonement was not "limited to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross."

But wait, he has an explanation: "The atonement is two-fold; first a single comprehensive act, then a continuing process or work of application." Thus our minds are conditioned to the proposition that Christ is now administering the benefits of an atonement completed at Calvary. Christ's work of atonement which Mrs. White said began at the cross, really means "completed," according to Froom. That is the "hook."

How then could Froom possibly hope to fool all those Adventists out there who knew very well that the Spirit of Prophecy teaches that the investigative judgment, which is the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, constituted the final act of Christ's atonement? He simply postulated an erroneous statement as if it were fact:

"No doctrinal proof or prophetic interpretation ever came to this people initially through the Spirit of Prophecy- not in a single case. . . . The discovery and interpretation of Bible truth was always left for diligent Bible students." (ibid., p. 11).

Here is an emphatic enunciation of an entirely new principle for Seventh-day Adventists. Mrs. White never contributed any original doctrinal material to our church.* (!) She was not a diligent student. (!) Apparently L. E. Froom saw himself as a diligent student and therefore he was qualified to interpret the Spirit of Prophecy; as witness, this amazing dogmatic statement:

"Let there be no confusion then, over the term "making atonement" used by Ellen G. White in connection with Christ's priestly ministry in heaven-obviously meaning applying the completed atonement to the individual." (ibid. p. 12).

* "Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Edson, and others who were keen, noble and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them and we studied and prayed earnestly.... When they came to the point in their study where they said `We can do nothing more,' the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me. I would be taken off in vision and a clear explanation of the Passages we had been studying would be given me ... and I gave others the instruction that had been given me" (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, pp. 54, 57).

Thus Froom effectively denies the principle of the blood atonement which Christ is now applying in heaven on behalf of repentant sinners. The blood emphasis is sadly lacking in this and others of his writings on the heavenly sanctuary, a fact which parallels popular evangelicalism because of its belief that Christ completed His work of salvation on Calvary.

It is becoming quite evident that the G. C. conferees had certain problems in meeting the criteria demanded by apostate Protestantism. In short- how to deny the truth. It was one thing to tell the evangelicals to take no notice of the "wildeyed lunatic fringe" of Adventism. It was an entirely different matter to tell that to Adventists. They couldn't! Not only would such "lunatics" have to include the majority of our past and then present leaders, but it must necessarily include God's Prophet, Mrs. E. G. White.

One solution to the Spirit of Prophecy hurdle was to destroy the effect of Mrs. White's writings. Such a thought would be hardly original, because she had warned already that this would happen:

"The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God." (1SM 48).

Nevertheless, as a result of the embarrassment over Spirit of Prophecy statements, which conflicted with the views now being declared to the evangelicals, it was decided that two men should approach the E. G. White Estate, search the Spirit of Prophecy writings for such statements and then attempt to neutralize them. An attempt to tamper with Mrs. White's writings actually took place early in 1957; about the time that Eternity magazine was spreading the news of Adventism's "conversion" to Christianity. Providentially, someone saw fit to "leak" a copy of the White Board of Trustees minutes for May 1957 and the recipient of those minutes was none other than Elder Andreasen (see Letters to the Churches No. 2).

As mentioned previously, Andreasen was considered by our denomination to be one of its foremost scholars on the sanctuary doctrine. He was absolutely committed to the propagation and maintenance of historic Adventism. Imagine his chagrin when he read in these minutes that two men had "suggested to the trustees that some foot notes or appendix notes might appear in certain of the E. G. White books clarifying very largely in the words of Ellen G. White our understanding of the various phases of the atoning work of Christ"* (Minutes, p. 1483, as quoted by Andreasen in Letters to the Churches, No. 2).

* Andreasen claims that it was the editor of Ministry "who in his research became acutely aware of the E. G. White statements ... and so he suggested that footnotes or appendix notes appear in certain of the E. G. White books" (Letters to the Churches, No. 2). Later, in Letter No. 5, Andreasen reveals that it was R. A. Anderson and W. E. Read who visited the White vault and proposed the insertions to her writings. W. E. Read had a long connection with the "Washington club," having experience as field secretary and chairman of the so-called Defense Committee.

What a suggestion! What an affront to Christ and His messenger! And what a sad commentary on the integrity of our leadership, that some should confidently expect that such a dishonest request could even be entertained, let alone succeed. Not only were these men prepared to act as interpreter to God's messenger, but they were prepared to imitate her style of writing by employing "the words of Ellen G. White" in order that the deception might more readily succeed.**

** "There are those who will misinterpret the messages that God has given, in accordance with their spiritual blindness" (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 41).

Andreasen was not the type of man to remain silent, but he decided to follow Christ's instruction to "speak to him alone." He wrote to the chief officer, president Figuhr, and this is a portion of the reply:

"I am certain we can trust the brethren of the White Estate to move cautiously in this direction and not to take positions that might be embarrassing in the future. Certainly Brother Andreasen, there is no intention here whatever to tamper with the writings of Sister White. We value them most highly" (Letters to the Churches, No. 4).

(The reader will note the prime concern of the "Chief Officer"- it was not about the preservation of truth, but rather of any embarrassment which must inevitably follow a fraudulent action.)

Andreasen replied, pleading with Figuhr to "spare thy people, and give not thine heritage to reproach." He closed his letter with an expression of confidence in the president as he faced "the greatest apostasy the church has ever faced" (ibid.)

The president's reply, September 18, 1957:

"I have considered the matter to which you referred closed. I do not believe that you have the right to use the Board Minutes of the White Estate as you have done. The Minutes are confidential and not intended for public use. I hope the time will never come when we take the position that men are to be condemned and disciplined because they come before properly constituted church Boards to discuss questions that they may have pertaining to the work and belief of the church."* (ibid.).

* In spite of Figuhr's admission of these Minutes, the White Estate Board subsequently denied their substance in a circular letter to all Divisions dated September 6, 1960 (reported by Pilgrims Rest DH 103 p. 3).

In his reply, Andreasen noted that the president had condoned the two men's actions. He pointed out that he had used the information about the Minutes to inform him [Figuhr] alone, and that:

"I consider the present instance the greatest apostasy that has ever occurred in this denomination, and this you would have kept under cover! And you have closed the door.... You are about to ruin the denomination. I am praying for you" (ibid.).

But Andreasen's pleadings with the president were fruitless. Figuhr was determined to stand by his commitment to the evangelicals. Here is part of his response:

"This [Andreasen's activities] will place you in plain opposition to your church. In view of all this, the officers, as I have previously written, earnestly ask you to cease your activities" (Letters to the Churches, No. 4).

Andreasen did not cease his activities but made his concerns public in what became known as Letters to the Churches. And so, as previously noted, he was stripped of his credentials and deprived of his sustentation.

Thus it can be seen that our leaders had made no idle commitment to the evangelicals as reported in Eternity magazine when Barnhouse said that they, meaning Adventist leaders, were "determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination". (Eternity EXTRA September 1956, p. 7).

No doubt, the spectacle of one of our most respected veterans being persecuted for nobly standing up and doing his God-ordained duty did not pass unnoticed by other workers in the church. For most of them, it probably provided a salutary lesson in obedience to man- a lesson which may explain the conduct of many to this day.

I was thoroughly shaken when I read the account of men attempting to have explanations and footnotes inserted into the White books to make it appear that she is in favor of, or at least not opposed to, the new doctrine that the atonement was made on the cross. I had been taught from my early connection with the church that those writings were of God, and must be revered highly. The idea that men might add or subtract, or in any way "explain" the writer's intent by adding "footnotes or explanations" never occurred to anyone.

After I had read the record of what took place, I did a deal of praying and meditation. What was my responsibility in this matter, or did I have any? I confided to no one. I decided my first responsibility would be to the officials in Washington. And so I wrote to headquarters. I was informed that I had no right to the information I had, for that was supposed to be secret, and I had no right even to read the documents.

After four letters were passed, I was informed that they did not care to discuss the matter further. The matter was settled. When I inquired if this meant that the door was closed, I received the reply: "I have considered the matter to which you have referred as closed."

M. L. Andreasen

Portion of letter to officers of the General Conference, December 29, 1957

Even as Questions on Doctrine, with its dramatic breakthrough in public relations, was being presented throughout the world as a savior of Adventism, opposition was steadily mounting. Andreasen's Letters to the Churches were having a telling effect in North America.*

* In Australasia, the membership, with its childlike trust in General Conference leadership, was generally acquiescent. If and when Andreasen's activities were mentioned, it was usually in a derogatory manner.

Walter Martin soon began receiving complaints from indignant Seventh-day Adventists. Not only did they repudiate the new doctrinal positions in QOD, but they claimed that Barnhouse and Martin had been hoodwinked by the General Conference men.

This is not what the Adventist church really believes. You have been deceived.... There are some important representatives of Seventh-day Adventism who are at this point beginning to move the denomination back from where they came in 1957 (Martin, Lecture, February 22, 1983, Napa, California).

In 1965, Walter Martin published his book, The Kingdom of the Cults. Pressure from sections of Protestantism to have Seventh day Adventists redeclared a cult were again mounting. It had been noted that Adventists had discontinued publication of QOD, and they had refused to sell Martin's book, The Truth About Adventism in the Adventist Book Centers. Martin endeavored to quiet the clamor by devoting a section of his book to Adventists. He admitted that conflicting views on Adventist belief were coming out in print, but stuck to his original contention that QOD was indeed a passport to Christianity. He quoted from the Review and Herald's claim:

* How could Martin keep foisting this untruth upon his readers when Barnhouse had claimed that they had changed the doctrines of a whole denomination? Note the discrepancy: "Let's face it ... the leaders who have written this book [QOD] have moved from the traditional position of the SDA movement" (Barnhouse). This is confirmed by Anderson in a letter to Pastor Robert Greive, then president of the Queensland Conference. After reading the manuscript for QOD, Greive wrote Anderson to see what was going on. Anderson replied, "Yes, we are trying to change the doctrines, but we want to take it to the Ministry before we go to the people with it" (Pilgrims Rest DH 104). And again, "While it is truth, we should be very careful not to set it before the laity until we are prepared to speak with a united voice" (Letter to Robert Greive, April 23, 1956).

The credibility of QOD was under severe scrutiny, both from within and outside our church. Elder Froom, once so reticent (seemingly) to undertake the task of altering our doctrines, who with others had declined to have his name appended to QOD, was by now sufficiently motivated and committed to openly defend the book and expand considerably on its veiled heresies. His book, Movement of Destiny, published in 1971 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association did just that.

It is probably fair to say that no other Adventist publication has come with higher credentials than this book. The Foreword bore the imprimatur of G. C. president, R. H. Pierson** and the Preface appeared over the name of the vice-president, Neal C. Wilson, the latter having acted as chairman of the Guiding Committee for Movement of Destiny (The Fascinating Story of MOD., p. 11). Said Wilson,

We can see God's timetable and wisdom. He knew exactly when the Remnant Church, and its leadership would be under attack.*** He knew when the book would be needed most! It will confirm our faith, it will rekindle the fires of dedication and commitment" (MOD Preface).

** Although Pierson had strongly recommended MOD to all Seventh-day Adventists, he later had reason to change his mind. In a letter dated October 6, 1988 to the author (H. H. Meyers) he wrote, "Some portions of Elder Froom's manuscript Movement ofDestiny I had not read before its publication.... After reading some portions later, I declined to have my Foreword included in any subsequent editions." It is interesting to note that in a subsequent edition of MOD, a new Foreword is written by H. M. S. Richards. The Preface by Neal C. Wilson remains intact.

*** Elder Wilson does not identify the "attackers."

With such illustrious credentials, Movement of Destiny should be able to be read with the utmost confidence by Seventh-day Adventists. Can it?

In his opening remarks to the reader, Froom deems it advisable to establish his authority for writing the book and to show that he was destined to bring to the Movement an understanding of the Gospel which would lead it inexorably on to victory. He reveals that his mandate came from none other than the late Arthur G. Daniells, president of the General Conference for some twentyone years, and close associate of Mrs. E. G. White. Said Froom,

"Back in the spring of 1930 ... [Daniells] told me he believed that at a later time, I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption-its principles, provisions and divine personalities-as they unfolded to our view as a Movement from 1844 onward, with special emphasis upon the developments of 1888 and its sequel." (MOD, p. 17).

At the time of the 1888 General Conference session in Minneapolis, Daniells was serving in the mission field of New Zealand. But it seems that many years later, after being released from his long term as president of the General Conference, he had time to reflect on the main theme of the Minneapolis Conference-Righteousness by Faith. As a result, in 1926, he wrote the book Christ Our Righteousness. Froom claims that it was this work which Daniells wanted him to "round out in historical sequence what he had begun in 1926" (ibid., p. 17). Froom continues:

"Daniells admonished me to be fair and faithful to fact, comprehensive and impartial in treatment, and to present the full picture in balance. "Truth has nothing to fear," he admonished, "and everything to gain" (ibid., p. 18).

Froom unequivocally accepts this challenge:

"I must not be unfaithful to God and to the Church, and the burden that has been placed upon me. That is how this portrayal came to be written." (ibid. p. 23).

As we examine some aspects of Movement of Destiny and look behind the scenes, we shall keep in mind Froom's commitment to truthfulness and Daniells' maxim that "truth has nothing to fear."

We shall also seek to discover what President Wilson meant when he perceived the church and its leadership to be under attack and perhaps even find out who its supposed enemies are.

What greater deception could be foisted upon our people than for Satan to bring falsehood from within the church, while the members expect it to come from a source outside the church. How well we have been prepared to receive it by being taught to depend upon a system of religious organization to warn us of its approach and arrival, rather than encouraged to look to the platform of truth established in the early years of the movement. Even now, in this time of great peril, the leadership are foremost in cautioning against any discussion of the issues that are polarizing the membership. (See Review, May 24, 1979). They put forth the claim that there is a great deal more made of such situations than is called for; and if they, the leadership, are given the time to decide the conclusion of such issues, then all agitation will die down. Their admonition of caution, and many times silence, on life and death issues is a cry of peace and safety. Matters designed to stir the membership into action are, as a result, not heeded; and it is left to the leadership-the "dumb dogs" who never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God's people their transgressions (see 5T p. 211)-to decide for the membership what is and what is not the truth.

Jon A. Vannoy

"Under Which Banner?" 1981, p. 81.

Doctor Le Roy Froom was very conscious of accusations against leadership. He had come in for his fair share of censure for his part in what had come to be seen by many as the evangelical sellout of the fifties. Under the heading, "Unjustifiable Charge of Leadership Unfaithfulness," he says,

"Ever since the 1888 tensions there have been recurrent harpers on the note that the church, and primarily its leaders, actually rejected the message of 1888." (MOD, p. 357).

If such charges had been recurring since 1888, how then would President Wilson see Movement of Destiny as arriving just on time to meet "God's timetable"? There must have been some pressing and contemporary reason to which Wilson was referring. Perhaps Froom can help us further? He talks of the 1888 rejection charge still persisting and refers to a recent call for "retroactive" repentance in order that the Loud Cry and Latter Rain should revisit our Church. Said Froom,

"Such a contention is a grave charge to be bandied about. If the charge is true, then there should be some clear-cut historical evidence. If not true, it "actually constitutes an impeachment of the dead," and "an explicit confession is due the Church today by promulgators of a misleading charge" (ibid. p. 358).

Well, that surely does sound like enemies of the Church at work, doesn't it? But worse still, it sounds like the "enemies" are within our church.

It did not take long for the "mystery" to be made public. In November of 1972, there appeared a booklet titled, An Explicit Confession ... Due the Church, and it was signed by Donald K. Short and Robert J. Wieland, two Seventh-day Adventist ministers with extensive service in Africa and in their homeland, North America. Let us read from their introductory remarks:

"This public "confession" is made in response to a duty solemnly enjoined upon the authors of a private document. After twenty-two years of silence, they are now required to speak publicly, though they would prefer to remain silent.

"Their duty to "confess" is made clear by demands upon them published in Movement of Destiny and endorsed by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. It is a duty the authors dare not evade. The Church will expect a sincere response to such an authoritative public charge. Truth requires it.

"Twenty-two years ago in the autumn of 1950, the authors prepared for the attention of the General Conference committee, a private manuscript entitled 1888 Re-Examined. Without the authors' consent or approval, this document with some six hundred Ellen G. White exhibits, was by others placed in the hands of an ever-widening circle of Seventh-day Adventist readers around the world. This is what has now been responsible for this public call to make." An Explicit Confession .. . Due the Church.

And what was 1888 Re-Examined all about? Again we quote from Short and Wieland:

"We said in 1950 that there is a neglected but essential preparation to make before the final outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Latter Rain can possibly come to enable the Church to finish God's work on earth. That most necessary preparation is recognition of, and repentance for, the misunderstanding and rejecting the "beginning" of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry. This "beginning," according to Ellen G. White, was a message brought by two young ministers to the 1888 General Conference Session. Nearly one hundred times in her writings she endorses this message and the messengers in language never used at any time about any other message or messengers. For us now as a people to beg Heaven to give us the Latter Rain, without recognizing this obvious fact, is just as unreasonable as for the Jews to keep on begging the Lord to send them the Messiah without recognizing how He kept His promise and did send Him two thousand years ago." (ibid.).

In the rest of chapter ten of MOD, Froom sets out to show that the principles of the "1888 Message" had indeed been adopted and put into practice over the intervening years. He sees the church's progress as evidence of the outpouring of the latter rain. As further evidence he embarks on a recital of leaders' names who upheld the principles of righteousness by faith including the "ultimate in leadership," Ellen G. White.

Froom is in trouble! He is citing our prophet's active role in promulgating righteousness by faith as proof that it had been generally accepted by our leadership because she herself was the "ultimate leader."

But the argument does not fit the facts. Sister White had joined with Elders Waggoner and Jones in traveling around the country with the purpose of urging its acceptance. In 1890, she was constrained to voice her concern in the Review and Herald:

"For nearly two years we have been urging the people to come up and accept the light and the truth concerning the righteousness of Christ, and they do not know whether to come and take hold of this precious truth." (RH March 11, 1890).

Why were our people hesitant to accept the message? She says,

"Our young men look to our older brethren and as they see that they do not accept the message, but treat it as though it were of no consequence, it influences those who are ignorant of the Scriptures to reject the light. These men [the leaders] who refuse to receive the truth interpose themselves between the people and the light’" (RH March 18, 1890).

And why did our "older brethren" not accept the 1888 message? In 1895, Mrs. White wrote:

"Men who are entrusted with weighty responsibilities, but who have no living connection with God have been and are doing despite to His Holy Spirit.... If God spares their lives, and they nourish the same spirit that marked their course of action both before and after the Minneapolis meeting, they will fill up to the full the deeds of those whom Christ condemned when He was upon earth." (TM 78-79).

So, with this misapplication of Mrs. White's concern-that the message of righteousness by faith should take hold of our people- may we not well ask, Who is impeaching the dead? and Who is it that dares to impeach a prophet of God?

In 1926, over a decade after Mrs. White's demise, were things any better? According to Elder Daniells they were not! In his book, Christ Our Righteousness, we read:

"Through the intervening years [since 1888] there has been steadily developing the desire and hope-yes, the belief-that someday the message of righteousness by faith would shine forth in all its inherent glory, worth and power and receive full recognition." (pp. 42, 43).

After twenty-one years as General Conference president, Daniells was well qualified to speak on this subject. He was keenly aware of the opposition of which Mrs. White spoke. Said he:

"The message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course as it should have been in order to convey to the church the marvelous blessings that were wrapped in it." (ibid. p. 47).

Those marvelous blessings would have automatically followed in the train of the latter rain had our leaders been receptive. Why then did Froom contradict his mentor, the very man whom he claims had commissioned him with the awesome responsibility of expanding on the work that he had commenced? Just listen to Froom:

"The denomination as a whole, and its leadership in particular, did not reject the message and provisions of righteousness by faith in and following 1888." (MOD, p. 370).

How then can Froom be claiming to be carrying out Daniells' commission by contradicting him? Why does he attack two of God's faithful servants, Elders Short and Wieland, for sharing Sister White's and Elder Daniells' concerns? The answers to such questions do not come easily. It is not given to man to divine motives generated in the dark recesses of the heart. We can, however, examine the facts and learn from history.

* Veteran evangelist, Austin P. Cooke claims that during a visit to the USA in 1956, R. A. Anderson told him that he was involved in writing an important book concerning Adventist beliefs. Cooke believes this book was QOD (personal conversation with Author, 1988).

At the time QOD was written, the price to the denomination appeared so high that no one was courageous enough to underwrite it. But after some fourteen years of exposure to its deadly heresies, Froom judged Adventists to have been sufficiently brainwashed for him to safely endorse the heresies in Movement of Destiny with his own signature. But he did it under the guise of presenting true Adventism in the fullness of the 1888 message.

Conveniently, neither Mrs. White nor Elders Waggoner and Jones were still around to object. Neither was Daniells, for that matter.