1. As to establishing positions, no official action was taken in regard to the theological questions discussed. The uniform witness concerning the attitude toward the matter of righteousness by faith was that there were mixed reactions. These were described succinctly by Jones in 1893: “I know that some there accepted it; others rejected it entirely.... Others tried to stand halfway between, and get it that way” (The General Conference Bulletin, 1893, 185). Ellen White and others corroborate this. It is not possible to establish, from the records available, the relative number in each of the three groups. WV 254.9
2. The concept that the General Conference, and thus the denomination, rejected the message of righteousness by faith in 1888 is without foundation and was not projected until 40 years after the Minneapolis meeting, and 13 years after Mrs. White's death. Contemporary records of the time do not suggest denominational rejection. No E. G. White statement anywhere supports the concept of rejection. WV 254.10
3. The concept of denominational rejection, when projected, is set forth in the atmosphere of Ellen G. White statements made concerning the negative position of certain individuals—the “some” of Jones's report, above. The historical record of the reception in the field following the session supports the concept that favorable attitudes were quite general. WV 255.1
4. It has been suggested that the Minneapolis session marked a noticeable change in Ellen White's teaching on the law and the gospel. While Minneapolis brought a new emphasis in bringing to the front “neglected truth,” the fact that there was no change in teaching is evidenced in the 19 articles from her pen comprising the 122-page book Faith and Works, with six written before 1888 and 13 written subsequent to the Minneapolis session. WV 255.2
5. Righteousness by faith is a vital truth, but it would seem that disproportionate emphasis has come to be given to the experience of the Minneapolis General Conference session. J. N. Loughborough, who authored the first two works on denominational history, Rise and Progress of the Seventh-day Adventists (1892), and a revision and enlargement in 1905, The Great Second Advent Movement, makes no mention of the session or the issues. True, he was not there, but if the matter was prominent at the time he wrote, he could not have overlooked it. Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, published in 1915, makes no reference to the General Conference session of 1888. WV 255.3
Perhaps the true attitude of the church and its leaders toward Jones and Waggoner after the 1888 conference session is best reflected by the invitations extended to these two men to conduct Bible studies in the General Conference sessions held during the next 10 years. It must be remembered that the General Conference Committee was responsible for planning General Conference sessions and choosing the speakers. The church organization had many able preachers. Here is the historical picture: WV 255.4
In 1889 Jones took the 8:00 daily Bible study, and spoke on righteousness by faith. Waggoner also addressed the conference. WV 255.5
In 1891 seventeen Bible studies were recorded in the General Conference Bulletin. All but one of these were given by Waggoner. WV 255.6
In 1893 Jones gave 24 consecutive Bible studies, which were published in the General Conference Bulletin. In 1895 twenty-six consecutive studies by Jones were recorded. In 1897 nineteen Bible studies were given by Waggoner, and 11 by Jones. One man spoke on consecutive mornings, the other on consecutive afternoons. A large part of the Bulletin is made up of the reports of their 30 studies. In 1899 Waggoner gave three studies, and Jones seven. WV 255.7
It is clear that the rank and file of workers and laity alike respected and appreciated the men through whom light came at Minneapolis, and benefited from their earnest ministry of the Word. It is clear also that unprecedented opportunity was given for the presentation of whatever messages burdened their hearts. WV 256.1
In 1897 Jones was elected editor of the Review and Herald, a position he held for four years. During this time Smith took a secondary place on the editorial staff. WV 256.2