Some have suggested that the articles found on this website violate the following counsel found in Testimonies vol. 5:
“There are a thousand temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for ‘in the multitude of counselors there is safety'”
5T 293.1
To understand this counsel accurately, we must consider its original context. It was addressed to “Brother D” (William Raymond) in 1884, whose actions involved far more than simply exploring new theological ideas. He spread false reports, worked deceptively, and promoted speculative novelties that undermined confidence in established truth and in the prophetic gift. Ellen White’s warning, therefore, was aimed at a rogue teacher – not at sincere believers engaging in careful, transparent Bible study.
At the same time, avoiding one error must not lead us into another. Just four years after the Raymond episode, the crisis at the Minneapolis General Conference of 1888 revealed the opposite danger: using appeals to authority as a means to silence genuine biblical investigation. Whereas the Raymond testimony cautions against untested, destabilising innovations, the 1888 experience cautions against shutting down legitimate inquiry under the guise of maintaining unity.
Taken together, these two historical moments teach a balanced, essential lesson. God’s people must avoid both extremes – the rebellious spirit of Korah, which rejects counsel altogether, and the entrenched resistance of the Pharisees, which suppresses advancing truth. In this article, we will explore both events and consider what they reveal about when we should yield to the guidance of experienced counselors, and when faithfulness requires us to insist on thorough, open, Bible-based examination.
What Brother D Was Actually Doing
The testimony against Brother D reveals a pattern of destructive behaviour that went far beyond simply holding different theological views. Let’s examine each element:
1. He Spread False Reports and Accusations
Ellen White stated plainly:
“By his freedom in gathering up and repeating false reports, he has come in between the people and the message which God has given His ministers to bear to them”.
5T 289.2
He was “an accuser of the brethren. He has not only thought evil of those whom God has chosen as laborers in His cause, but he has spoken this evil to others”.
5T 289.1
2. He Operated Deceptively
He presented one face publicly while undermining leadership privately.
“Brother D’s manner of working also makes his course more deserving of censure and a greater offense to God. Had he shown his feelings undisguised, had he said in public the things he talked in private, no one would have thought for a moment of sending him out to labor in the conference.”
5T 290.1
3. He Led People to Reject Prophetic Guidance
The testimony asks:
“Suppose that Brother D leads the people to question and reject the testimonies that God has been giving to His people during the past thirty-eight years; suppose he makes them believe that the leaders in this work are designing, dishonest men, engaged in deceiving the people; what great and good work has he done?”
5T 290.3
4. He Refused to Follow Established Protocol
“He has not conformed to the Bible rule and conferred with the leading brethren, and yet he finds fault with them all”
5T 289.1
Raymond’s views were eventually examined by a council, but only after they were spread abroad privately. The problem wasn’t that he had theological questions – it was how he promoted them without first submitting them for evaluation.
5. His “New Light” Contradicted Established Truth
Ellen White’s broader warning about Raymond-style teachers is probably the more serious of all:
“Men and women will arise professing to have some new light or some new revelation whose tendency is to unsettle faith in the old landmarks. Their doctrines will not bear the test of God’s word, yet souls will be deceived”
5T 295.3
As we’ve outlined elsewhere in our article “New Light, Old, Or Just Plain Wrong?“, genuine new light never contradicts previously established truth. Ellen White was explicit:
“When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained”
1SM 161.1
True doctrinal development expands and clarifies what we already know – it doesn’t overturn it. Authentic new light makes old truth clearer, not obsolete.
Brother D’s teaching did the opposite. Rather than illuminating established landmarks, it unsettled faith in them. Rather than confirming what the pioneers had carefully constructed through intensive Bible study and prophetic vision, it introduced foreign ideas that displaced central truths. Ellen White warned specifically against this:
“Every soul is to watch everything that comes in as new light, which in tracing it out leads you to give up the light which the Lord attested to be light during the past half a century”
21LtMs, Ms 130, 1906, par. 37
This is why the “brethren of experience” – Joseph H. Waggoner, John N. Loughborough, William C. White, Sidney Brownsberger, and others – examined Raymond’s views and found them wanting. Some of these men were among the very pioneers who had searched for truth “as for hidden treasure,” who had stayed up through entire nights studying Scripture, who had witnessed Ellen White receive visions that confirmed their biblical discoveries. They understood the difference between light that advances truth and novelty that undermines it.
The real test wasn’t whether Raymond’s ideas were new, but whether they aligned with and expanded the “precious light God has given point by point” (1SM 161.1).
Raymond’s novel teachings failed that test.
Our purpose in writing the articles on this website is the very opposite of what occurred with Brother D. His case involved harmful behaviour – spreading false reports, working deceptively, undermining leadership, rejecting established prophetic guidance, and promoting “new light” that contradicted foundational truth. Ellen White rebuked him for drawing people away from the testimonies God had already confirmed, and it is precisely this danger we are appealing for SDARM to avoid.
We have brought these concerns through proper channels for years, and nothing presented here is private whispering, speculative novelty, or dissent in disguise. Rather, these articles are an open and transparent, Scripture-based appeal for the movement to re-examine doctrines that conflict with the clear, long-established light God has given.
The Proper Response to New Views
Ellen White outlined the appropriate way to deal with ‘new light’ both before and after the Raymond incident. In 1851, she wrote:
“The messengers of God should be perfectly united in their views of Bible truth and should consult with each other, and should not advance any new view until they first went to the messengers and examined those views with the Bible”
Letter 8, 1851
This principle of cooperative, accountable study provides the foundation for how new interpretations should be approached.
The Apostle Paul also confirmed this approach and also described a clear hierarchy of spiritual gifts in the church that help us understand doctrine: “first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers” (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11).
When multiple independent, prayerful, Scripture-saturated minds arrive at the same doctrinal conclusions, and when those conclusions are then confirmed by prophetic vision, we see a powerful form of verification at work. This is the biblical principle of “a multitude of counselors” (Proverbs 11:14) applied to doctrinal understanding described in the testimony to Raymond:
“…yield to their judgment; for ‘in the multitude of counselors there is safety‘”
If someone introduces a doctrinal innovation that contradicts what this combined witness already established, the burden of proof does not fall on the multitude of counselors – the pioneers whose conclusions were shaped by Scripture, prayer, and the Spirit of Prophecy. Instead, that burden shifts squarely onto the innovator – in this case, SDARM.
It is important to remember that SDARM was the one who first advanced a new teaching on matters that the early Adventist church had already settled through collective study and prophetic confirmation. Within SDARM, it’s natural to view the “multitude of counselors” as our own internal structure – local elders, pastors, teachers, conference committees, union ministerial bodies, and, ultimately, the General Conference in delegation session. And at one level, that is true. These layers of leadership do function as counselors and have their place.
But as Adventists, we possess something even more authoritative than contemporary committees: the historic multitude of counselors found in the pioneers’ united testimony of established truth with the guidance of the Spirit of Prophecy. When an innovation arises that diverges from this convergence of Bible study, prophetic endorsement, and historical Adventist consensus, it must be measured against this larger, Spirit-guided body of counsel – not the other way around.
Do Our Articles Violate These Principles?
The counsel given regarding Brother D does not prohibit what we have done for several critical reasons:
1. We’re Not Teaching New Doctrine
Our articles do not introduce novel theology. Rather, we examine whether certain existing SDARM practices – such as blanket restrictions on remarriage or making vegetarianism a test – have genuine biblical and Spirit of Prophecy support. This is entirely different from promoting “new light” that contradicts established truth.
Our approach is the opposite of Brother D’s. We are not advancing foreign ideas that undermine established landmarks; we are asking whether our current practices remain faithful to the biblical and prophetic foundation our pioneers already laid.
2. We’ve Engaged Proper Channels and Have Not Acted In Secret
Before publishing anything publicly, we spent more than a decade raising these concerns through official channels at every level of church administration, with the AUC Ministerial Committee engaging them in detail. And unlike Raymond – who quietly undermined leadership while still serving under conference sanction – we voluntarily resigned from our positions because of our views and have been open about where institutional processes fell short in addressing significant theological issues. Raymond spoke one way in public and another in private; we have done the opposite. Our full reasoning is laid out openly for anyone to examine our arguments, test our sources, and respond to.
When Unity Becomes Uniformity
The testimony to Brother D addresses a specific problem: bypassing proper channels to spread divisive theories while quietly undermining established leadership. But this counsel must be read alongside other inspired instruction that cautions us not to suppress genuine theological investigation. Ellen White warned that it is “perilous” to shut ourselves away from new light simply because we are prejudiced against the message or the messenger, reminding us that condemning what we have not fairly heard does not demonstrate wisdom
“When new light is presented to the church, it is perilous to shut yourselves away from it. Refusing to hear because you are prejudiced against the message or the messenger will not make your case excusable before God. To condemn that which you have not heard and do not understand will not exalt your wisdom in the eyes of those who are candid in their investigations of truth”
CSW 32.1
She also observed that some, proud of their “great caution” toward anything new, end up resisting light from heaven – only to later accept messages God has not sent, thereby becoming a danger to the cause by setting up false standards (See Lt 1f, 1890, par. 8).
The danger, in other words, runs in both directions. Raymond-style rebellion destabilises the church, but reflexively rejecting sincere, biblically grounded questions can lead us to elevate tradition above Scripture – and leave us unable to recognise advancing truth when it comes.
Lessons to Learn from the 1888 Saga
The crisis of 1888 provides a vital counterbalance to the Brother D episode. While the Raymond testimony warns against promoting destabilising views outside proper channels, the events at Minneapolis show the equal danger of suppressing a message simply because it lacks institutional endorsement. When the officers sent to arrest Jesus returned impressed by His teaching, the Pharisees dismissed the matter with a telling question:
“Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him?”
John 7:48
This appeal to authority – judging truth by who supports it rather than by Scripture – became a fatal pattern repeated in 1888.
In that year, God sent to the Seventh-day Adventist Church what Ellen White later called a “most precious message,” given “in His great mercy.” Through two young ministers, E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, the Lord sought to turn His people’s attention back to Christ and His righteousness, preparing them to proclaim the loud cry of the third angel. This was not novel doctrine; it was long-neglected biblical truth.
Yet the message met strong resistance at the Minneapolis General Conference. The church was unprepared. The rejection of that light would delay the latter rain and leave the glory intended to lighten the earth “in a great degree kept away from the world.”
How did a people so richly blessed with truth resist a message from heaven? The answer lies not in theological difficulty but in two deeply human failings: wrong attitudes and misplaced appeals to authority.
The lessons of 1888 are still urgently relevant. As we near the close of earth’s history, we face the same dangers that confronted our spiritual forefathers. Will we learn from their mistakes?
The Authority of Expert Opinion
One of the first stumbling blocks in 1888 was the misplaced confidence placed in respected experts. Uriah Smith – author of Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation – had received strong commendation from Ellen White, who said angels had assisted him in preparing that book. While this endorsement was deserved, it unintentionally elevated his interpretations to near-inspired status in the eyes of many ministers.
By 1887, W. C. White observed that some workers were giving equal weight to Scripture and to Elder Smith’s comments. When revisions to his book were proposed for translation, ministers invoked Ellen White’s earlier endorsements and expanded them “until the president of the publishing association practically took the position that Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation was inspired, and ought not to be changed in any way.” (Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, p. 323.2 ). As W. C. White noted, this mindset made “a candid and fair study” of the issues almost impossible.
Smith’s influence was immense. As editor of the Review and Herald, his voice shaped the thinking of the entire denomination. Tragically, some of what he wrote conflicted directly with the message God was sending through Waggoner and Jones.
The Authority of Position
G.I. Butler, president of the General Conference, exemplified another form of misplaced authority. His concept that leaders possessed “clearer views” and more important positions than followers set him up for abuse of power.
Ellen White chided him in October 1888 for favoring those who agreed with him while viewing with suspicion those who “do not feel obliged to receive their impressions and ideas from human beings, acting only as they act, talking only as they talk, thinking only as they think, and, in fact, making themselves little less than machines.” (LtMs, Lt 21, 1888, par. 8)
Soon after the meetings, she wrote bluntly:
Butler “thinks his position gives him such power that his voice is infallible.”
5LtMs, Lt 82, 1888, par. 7
This attitude infected others. Elder Kilgore, a delegate to the conference, walked into a meeting and declared that no decisions on doctrine could be made because Butler was absent. As Ellen White recorded with alarm:
“Had Brother Kilgore been walking closely with God, he never would have walked onto the ground as he did yesterday and made the statement he did in regard to the investigation that is going on. That is, they must not bring in any new light or present any new argument; notwithstanding they have been constantly handling the Word of God for years, yet they are not prepared to give a reason of the hope they have because one man is not here. Have we not all been looking into this subject? I never was more alarmed than at the present time.”
5LtMs, Ms 9, 1888, par. 5
Even while absent due to illness, Butler continued to exert his influence through telegrams and long letters to the conference, urging delegates to “stand by the old landmarks.” His authority over the minds of the brethren created the perfect conditions for rejecting God’s message.
The Danger of Creedal Thinking
The misuse of expert and positional authority in 1888 was closely related to another problem: creedal thinking. Early Adventist pioneers had deliberately rejected formal creeds, recognising their tendency to freeze our understanding of truth in place and hinder future growth. J. N. Loughborough warned as early as 1861 that the path to apostasy follows a predictable progression: first adopting a creed, then making it a test of fellowship, then judging members by it, then denouncing dissenters as heretics, and finally persecuting those who refuse to conform.
James White likewise explained why fixed creeds are fundamentally incompatible with the operation of spiritual gifts. If God were to reveal new light through the Spirit, but that light conflicted with an existing creed, the creed would have to fall – or the gift would be rejected. In his words,
“Making a creed is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancement.”
1BIO 454.2
Yet by 1888, despite having no formal creed, Adventists had drifted into a creedal mindset. Long-held interpretations – especially prophetic ones – were treated as untouchable simply because they had been held for decades or endorsed by respected leaders. At the 1888 General Conference session itself, a resolution was even introduced declaring that “no new doctrine be taught… until it had been adopted by the General Conference.”
W. C. White wrote to his wife about the atmosphere at Minneapolis:
“There is almost a craze for orthodoxy. A resolution was introduced into the college meeting that no new doctrine be taught there till it had been adopted by the General Conference. Mother and I killed it dead, after a hard fight.”
W. C. White to Mary White, Nov. 3, 1888
The effect of this creedal spirit was predictable: anything unfamiliar was treated with suspicion, and appeals to “the old landmarks” were used to shut down investigation. Ironically, this very mindset – intended to protect the church from error – ended up blinding many to the “most precious message” God was trying to send.
The Attitude Problem
Appeals to authority alone cannot explain the tragic rejection of the light God sent the church in 1888. Underlying the appeal to leaders and tradition was something more fundamental: a wrong spirit.
Unwillingness to Yield Preconceived Opinions
Ellen White identified this as the root cause:
“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.”
1888 1575.2
The consequences were devastating:
“The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world.”
1888 Materials, pg. 1575
Hard Feelings and Evil Surmisings
Beyond stubbornness, the conference was poisoned by interpersonal conflict. Ellen White wrote:
“There are some differences of views on some subjects, but is this a reason for sharp, hard feelings? Shall envy and evil surmisings and imaginings, evil suspicion, hatred, and jealousies become enthroned in the heart?”
3SM 166
These attitudes had been building for years. By the time delegates arrived in Minneapolis, many came with minds already made up, hearts already hardened against the messengers and their message.
The Danger of Interpretive Infallibility
Perhaps most alarming was Ellen White’s warning about the church’s attitude toward its own theological interpretations:
“As a people, we are certainly in great danger, if we are not constantly guarded, of considering our ideas, because long cherished, to be Bible doctrines and on every point infallible, and measuring everyone by the rule of our interpretation of Bible truth. This is our danger, and this would be the greatest evil that could ever come to us as a people.”
6LtMs, Ms 37, 1890, par. 15
Notice carefully: she did not say “Bible truth” but “our interpretation of Bible truth.” The distinction is critical. The danger lies not in having doctrinal positions, but in treating those positions as infallible – in confusing our understanding of truth with truth itself.
She emphasised this point again:
“We should not consider that… Elder Butler [and] Elder Smith are the guardians of the doctrines for Seventh-day Adventists, and that no one may dare to express an idea that differs from theirs. My cry has been: Investigate the Scriptures for yourselves… No man is to be authority for us.”
5LtMs, Lt 7, 1888, par. 8
Ellen White’s Counsel During the Crisis
Throughout the 1888 meetings, Ellen White wrote urgent appeals to the delegates. Rising as early as 2:00 AM in her distress over what was happening, she penned testimony after testimony calling the church back to right principles.
On Prejudice and Investigation
“I entreat you to exercise the spirit of Christians. Do not let strong feelings of prejudice arise, for we should be prepared to investigate the Scriptures with unbiased minds, with reverence and candor. It becomes us to pray over matters of difference in views of Scripture. Personal feelings should not be allowed to influence our words or our judgment.”
1888 Materials 163.1
On Treating the Messengers
“Of one thing I am certain, as Christians you have no right to entertain feelings of enmity, unkindness, and prejudice toward Dr. Waggoner, who has presented his views in a plain, straightforward manner, as a Christian should. If he is in error, you should, in a calm, rational, Christlike manner, seek to show him from the Word of God where he is out of harmony with its teachings. If you cannot do this you have no right as Christians to pick flaws, to criticize, to work in the dark, to prejudice minds with your objections.”
1888 Materials 163.4
She acknowledged that she didn’t agree with all of Waggoner’s interpretations, but insisted this was no reason to reject him or his core message:
“Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman.”
1888 Materials 164.1
On Hasty Decisions
“There are some who desire to have a decision made at once as to what is the correct view on the point under discussion… But are minds prepared for such a decision? I could not sanction this course, because our brethren are exercised by a spirit which moves their feelings, and stirs their impulses, so as to control their judgment. While under so much excitement as now exists, they are not prepared to make safe decisions.”
1888 Materials 164.2
On the Danger of Closed Minds
She pointed to the futility of trying to reach those who had closed themselves to investigation:
“The efforts made here to close every avenue to light and truth which is supposed to disagree with the opinions of some leading men, are very unreasonable.”
MMM 113
And she noted the generational problem:
“There are some minds which do not grow with the work… The weary, worn minds of all the older brethren do not take in the greatness of the work.”
MMM 108-109
Lessons for Today
What can we learn from this dark chapter in Adventist denominational history?
1. Attitude Matters More Than We Think
Knowledge is not enough. The delegates at Minneapolis knew Scripture. They had truth. They had the Spirit of Prophecy writings. Yet wrong attitudes made all these advantages worthless.
An unwillingness to reconsider long-held positions, sharp feelings toward those who think differently, and prejudice against messengers can blind us to truth even when it stands directly before us. The Pharisees’ question – “Have any of the rulers… believed?” – reveals how easily we substitute human authority for divine leading.
2. No Human Authority Is Infallible
The pioneers understood this principle and rejected creeds for precisely this reason. Yet within a generation, the church had elevated certain leaders to near-infallible status in practice.
We must continually guard against treating any human interpretation – no matter how long-held, how widely accepted, or how confidently presented – as unquestionable. “No man is to be authority for us.”
3. Our Interpretations Are Not the Same as Truth
This is perhaps the most crucial lesson. There is a profound difference between “Bible truth” and “our interpretation of Bible truth.” even when those interpretations have been framed by a group or council. Bible truth is eternal and unchanging; interpretations of truth are our fallible human understanding, always capable of refinement.
As quoted earlier, the greatest evil that could come to us is “considering our ideas, because long cherished, to be Bible doctrines and on every point infallible, and measuring everyone by the rule of our interpretation of Bible truth.”
Conclusion
The testimonies concerning Brother D and the crisis of 1888 offer mirror-image warnings that reveal a narrow, balanced path. Brother Raymond illustrates one danger: promoting theological theories that unsettle established truth, bypassing proper channels, and advancing ideas that cannot bear biblical scrutiny. Ellen White’s counsel to “yield to their judgment” addressed precisely this problem – the rogue teacher who undermines unity on established truth through novel theories.
But Minneapolis reveals the opposite danger: elevating human authority above Scripture, treating long-held interpretations as untouchable, and using appeals to position or tradition to stifle legitimate investigation. When “the multitude of counselors” becomes a substitute for a “thus saith the Lord,” truth is lost behind institutional bureaucracy. These errors mirror two biblical extremes – Korah’s self-exaltation on one side, and the Pharisees’ “Have any of the rulers believed?” on the other.
This website is not a Brother D situation. The real danger would be repeating the tragedies of 1888 – responding to the material presented on this website with appeals to authority instead of investigation.
The solution remains simple, though it requires courage:
Do not ask, “Have any of the leaders believed this?”
Ask, “Does Scripture teach it?”
If our arguments are wrong, they can be biblically refuted. If they are right, they deserve consideration regardless of who presents them.
The light of truth shines brightest when we are willing to examine whether we are truly walking in it. The spirit of honest inquiry is not rebellion but faithfulness – faithfulness to Scripture, to the Spirit of Prophecy, and to the very principles our forefathers defended.