Robert Wieland Stood Up to Leroy Froom’s Empty Threats in 1964

The date is 1964. Leroy Froom was in the process of writing his massive history of Christianity and Adventism, The Movement of Destiny, and he set about to settle the 1888 controversy that had been agitated by Robert Wieland and Donald Short. He would prove that Adventist leaders had NOT rejected the message of “righteousness by faith” at 1888. It was published in 1971 with huge denominational support, as Froom himself says in the introduction:

Initiated and commissioned by former General Conference president A. G. Daniells back in 1930, as the search went on it was approved by five General Conference presidents in succession, and many consultants.... It was read critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars-specialists in denominational history and Adventist theology. By experts in the Spirit of prophecy. By key Bible teachers, editors, mass communication men, scientists, physicians (p. 8).

It was commisioned by A.G. Daniells in 1930, but it took the opposite position on what happened in Minneapolis in 1888 than Daniells. Leroy Froom says:

The epochal Minneapolis Session stands out like a mountain peak, towering above all other sessions in uniqueness and importance. It was a distinct turning point.... It introduced a new epoch.... 1888 therefore came to mark the beginning of a new note and new day.... 1888 was not a point of defeat but a turn in the tide for ultimate victory.... The 1888 ... battle [was] hard fought and the victory dearly won (Froom, pp. 187, 191).

But A.G. Daniells says in Christ our Righteousness:

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 measureless blessings that were wrapped within it.... Back of the opposition is revealed the shrewd plotting of that master mind of evil, the enemy of all righteousness, ... to neutralize the message.... How terrible must be the results of any victory of his in defeating it (Daniells, pp. 47, 53, 54).

Prior to the release of the book, Froom sent a letter to Wieland. Froom warns Wieland to admit he’s wrong now, because when this book (Movement of Destiny) is published it will be so plain that Wieland is wrong that he will wish he had admitted it earlier to save his embarassment. Froom says he will publish never before seen witness testimony that 1888 was accepted, and this new information will totally sink Wieland. Here is what Wieland says in this fascinating footnote in 1888 Re-examined:

Dr. Froom wrote to the present authors on December 4, 1964, before the publication of his Movement of Destiny, demanding a retraction of the positions they had taken in 1888 Re-examined. We [Wieland and Short] were required to “make a public and published disavowal . . . of certain conclusions advanced by you [that is, that the 1888 leadership rejected the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry]. . . . Ere long the full, documented story of the 1888 episode will doubtless be put into print. And unless you have modified your presentation, you may find yourself in a most unenviable position. The contrast will be marked.”

On April 16, 1965 he wrote to us further: “In my view, you had better act first, and without much delay. . . . Your contention . . . stands out like a sore thumb, conspicuously alone, and in conflict with the virtually unanimous verdict of our scholars. . . . You have a lot of temerity to contradict the findings of this whole group of men. . . . I . . . feel . . . no obligation to share any further evidence with you. . . .

Your unhappy plight makes me think of Elijah’s situation. . . . He sharply disagreed with the historians and the experts in Israel about the situation. He was right, he felt, and they were all wrong. He only was loyally left, and was maligned and persecuted because of his claims and conclusions. . . . Elijah thus actually defamed and vilified Israel, and gave a misleading and blackening report. He bore an untrue witness, casting aspersion upon Israel and its leadership [Ahab and Jezebel?]. . . . You should cease, retreat, and retract.” He claimed that he spoke with the authority of the General Conference behind him, as indeed their unprecedented endorsement of his book soon demonstrated.

This is an alarmingly surreal letter. Froom is angry at Wieland for standing alone, and compares Wieland with Elijah [!], saying Elijah was wrong in his ministry. Elijah, a man taken up to heaven without death and who was so highly honored he came down with Moses to minister to the Son of God at Christ’s transfiguration! Froom says this very Elijah “bore an untrue witness, casting aspersion upon Israel and its leadership...” The sentence is so shocking that it is almost unbelievable except that Wieland ’s integrity is indisputable and Froom’s is questionable, to say the least.

Froom seems to sympathize with Ahab and Jezebel. Does he see Ahab as a misunderstood hero? Maybe because Ahab tried to make peace and unite [share the message with?] with the surrounding nations, like Froom did with the Sunday churches? It is bizarre, but may it be a lesson to us that when we dig into a position that is against the spirit of Christ all that is illogical in sin is free to burst forth.

Here is how Wieland and Short replied:

One of us replied on May 10, 1965: “To retract on the basis of fear without inspired evidence would hardly . . . be the right thing . . . to do. . . . The Lord has never asked a man to do such a thing. In fact, a man can very well ruin his soul by yielding to a pressure of fear and anxiety, and cravenly retracting, without evidence, what he has held in good conscience.”

On November 10, 1965, the same author wrote to Dr. Froom: “I have repeated my willingness to retract if you will let me see clear evidence from the Spirit of Prophecy. You have categorically refused to let me see such evidence . . . . It seems strange to me and to others that you should demand I ‘retract’ while at the same time you deny me evidence which you say you have in unpublished Ellen G. White material that would require of an honest conscience such a retraction. . . . My prayer is that in the final outcome of this matter [God’s] name be honored.”

When Movement of Destiny appeared in print, the documentary “evidence” was completely absent.

Froom in his book said that he had “affadavits” of people at Minneapolis in 1888 that said they accepted the message. But he never actually prints them. This is how Wieland describes it:

(b) No one has been able to see any of Froom’s collected “affidavits” supposedly attesting leadership acceptance of the message, for to date they are still unavailable for study. Our author tells us that they were provided by the “actual participants in the 1888 Minneapolis Conference,” “recitals [that] have been held in trust since 1930,” “signed declarations, written out in the spring of 1930” (pp. 8, 237, 238).

But in the two chapters featuring these “affirmations” (pp. 237-268), not once is the reader permitted to see even one of them. And three “eyewitness” reports that are in existence are not quoted. They contradict his thesis. Thus we are told on the authority of invisible witnesses that the 1888 message was accepted by the church leadership, while three visible eyewitnesses say the opposite. (We, will cite them in a moment.)

The “affirmations” were provided by “some twenty-six able and representative men and women who were actual participants, observers, or recorders at the crucial Minneapolis Session of ‘88” (p. 239). Of the total number provided, only 13 were by persons actually in attendance, so that there could only be 13 “eyewitnesses.” Careful count indicates that 64 references are made to these 26 persons and their letters or interviews. One is mentioned 14 times.

But the inscrutable mystery is why the author, after making such impressive claims, does not allow them to speak. With one exception, not a single sentence is quoted from any of the entire 64 references, eyewitnesses or otherwise.

Reason demands that testimonies said to prove so much be made visible in support of the claim. Froom states categorically in his italics, “There was no denomination-wide, or leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted” (p. 256). And then we are left without a single sentence from any one of them that supports that statement.

There is not a court or jury in the free world that would accept this kind of inference without evidence. And when supposed evidence so obviously contradicts the testimony of Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventist church members should very earnestly demand that they be permitted to see such evidence.

One of the 26 letters referred to (p. 248) had always existed in the White Estate files. The five- page letter written by C. C. McReynolds (1853-1937) entitled “Experiences While at the General Conference in Minneapolis, Minn. in 1888” is indexed as “D File 189.” The letter closes with these two sentences:

I am sorry for anyone at the Conference in Minneapolis in 1888 who does not recognize that there was opposition and rejection of the message that the Lord sent to His people at that time. It is not too late yet to repent and receive a great blessing.

R. T. Nash’s “Eyewitness Report of the 1888 General Conference” is also available. Likewise, it presents evidence in rather straight-forward language:

The writer of this tract, then a young man, was present at that conference meeting [1888], and saw and heard many of the various things that were done and said in opposition to the message then presented.... When Christ was lifted up as the only hope of the church, and of all men, the speakers met a united opposition from nearly all the senior ministers. They tried to put a stop to this teaching by Elders Waggoner and Jones. They wanted the discussion of this subject to cease.

A third “eyewitness” report is also in the Ellen White Vault, written by A. T. Jones:

“All the time in the General Conference Committee and amongst others there was a secret antagonism always carried on, and which ... finally gained the day in the denomination, and gave to the Minneapolis spirit and contention and men the supremacy” (Letter to Claude Holmes, May 12, 1921).

None of these eyewitness statements found its way into Movement of Destiny. Instead, the reader is constantly assured that invisible “affidavits” say the opposite.

Froom has done some good work. Wieland says that, "His monumental volumes on the history of prophetic interpretation and conditionalism are awesome contributions to the literature of the Adventist movement." But here we see how Wieland's stand for the truth on 1888 causes him to attach himself to Ahab and condemn Elijah - white becomes black and black becomes white! Then he tries to threaten Wieland by bluffing that he has info that he doesn't actually have! Lord have mercy. May we learn from these lessons.

Potentially the most important work in Adventist history. Absolute must read.

Let us remember what B.J. Wilkinson, author of Truth Triumphant, said about Froom. On the 14 December 1955, Le Roy Froom in a letter to Reuben Figuhr wrote, “I was publicly denounced in the chapel at the Washington Missionary College by Dr. B. G. Wilkinson as the most dangerous man in this denomination."

Let us also remember his article where he lists Charlemagne, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hannibal and Henry V, and Pope Innocent III as men Adventist youth should aspire to be like: Leroy Froom’s Doctrine of Sheer Merit

Seeing this, let us please take seriously the 1888 messengers! A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner

And see the first half of this video, where Wieland shares how he discovered the 1888 message: