The men who attack

     Canright and Rea

Dudley Marvin Canright was born in 1840. He later converted to Adventism and began evangelistic work. Like Walter Rea, he had a natural aptitude with words and, like him, would enter moods of doubt and discouragement. At such times, Canright would find someone else to blame for his problems.

Several years ago the present writer produced a five-part biography of Canright (Canright: The Man Who Boarded the Phantom Ship [DH-201-205]), now in the first section of our White Tract­book.

Canright repeatedly became discouraged; and he would blame God or someone else. Like King Saul, he sometimes came to himself for a short time and admitted the fault was his. Then he would let the evil spirit take him down again. Ultimately, in a note of triumph, he wrote Ellen White and said he was leaving the church for good. He had said he could be a famous preacher and a great man if he would leave the Adventists. But, when he left, the Baptists rather quickly recognized his rancor and hatreds; they booted him out of the local church they had given him.

In later years, Canright would write contemptible accusations against Ellen White; and then he would weep at what he had done. For a time, Carrie Shasky was his secretary; she later reported on the utter misery of his experience.
When Ellen White died, Canright waited his turn in line—and then stood by the bier and wept bitterly. Canright knew he was a lost man. But he could no longer control himself, knowing that he had written lies about that godly woman.

Here is a statement by L.H. Christian, president of the Lake Union Conference, who early in 1915 visited Canright:

“In 1915 I was urged to visit D.M. Canright, who at one time was prominent in our church. He lived then on a poor little farm near Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was eager to tell about his past experiences and seemed to regret that he had ever left the Advent people. He talked like a discouraged, disappointed man. As we talked about old-time Adventists, he began to tell about Mrs. White.

“He said, ‘I knew her very well. For some time, as a young man, I lived in her home, and for eighteen years was intimately acquainted with the White family. I want to say to you that I never met a woman so godly and kind and at the same time so unselfish, helpful, and practical as Mrs. White. She was certainly a spiritual woman, a woman of prayer and deep faith in the Lord Jesus.’

“I asked him what he thought would happen to people if they followed the Testimonies of Mrs. White.

“He answered, ‘Anyone who follows her writings, the Testimonies, as you call them, in prayer and faith will certainly get to heaven. She always exalted Jesus, and she taught true conversion and genuine sanctification as few others have. I have known a great many men and women who claim to be extraordinary in their imagined divine calling and gifts. I have always found them more or less arrogant and proud, eager to be recognized and often arbitrary and harsh in judging others. With Mrs. White I found the exact opposite. She was reserved and modest and seemed to have no desire at all to call attention to herself as someone great or to her authority.’

“Some months after these visits, at the funeral of Mrs. White in Battle Creek, I met D.M. Canright again. There were six of us men who stood as a guard of honor while the people passed through the tabernacle to view Mrs. White as she lay in her plain casket. I noted Mr. Canright as he came down the aisle toward the rostrum. He stopped at the casket and looked at Mrs. White quite a while. He reached down and took hold of her right hand, which had done all that immense amount of writing.

“Later I asked him, ‘Now that she is dead, what do you really think of Mrs. White?’

“He replied, ‘She was a most godly woman. All her life she lived near to Jesus and taught the way of living faith. Anyone who follows her instructions will surely be saved in the kingdom of God.’ ”—L.H. Christian, quoted in Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts, pp. 51-53.

And then there is Walter Rea.

“Now let’s take Walter Rea. He reads Ellen White and says: I found a certain phrase here, a certain paragraph there, and it came from this predecessor. Well, that’s not proof; that’s assumption.”—Vincent L. Ramik, 27-page Report, quoted in Adventist Review, September 17, 1981, p. 5.

Here is a solemn thought to ponder:

Fred Veltman was immersed in Desmond Ford’s liberal teachings; and, as a result, he thought little of Ellen White or her writings (“She is a dead prophet,” he said). Afterward he accepted an opportunity to be paid for several years—while he unearthed evidence to prove she was uninspired.

Yet, after six years, occupied in reading Desire of Ages and comparing it with hundreds of other books in her time,—Veltman declared that she was truly a prophet of God for her time and ours; and that her writings were far superior to those of any other modern writer!

After a six-year study of Desire of Ages, Fred Veltman was converted. It may well be the saving of his soul.

In sorry contrast, we see Walter Rea, who studied Ellen White’s writings for as many or more years—with the sole purpose of destroying people’s confidence in those books. During that time, he had to repeatedly beat off the convictions of the Holy Spirit, as he sought for ways to destroy the influence of the inspired words he was reading. It was not easy, kicking against the pricks; but he kept at it—until he hardened his conscience into stone. May God have mercy on his poor soul.

Lucifer became a devil in heaven. Because he stood in the presence of great light, he attributed it to evil. He did so in order to draw attention to himself as the great scholar able to uncover wickedness in God and His works. In a similar manner people can change themselves into devils.

Does Walter Rea tell why he did this?

In the Prologue, at the front of his book, The White Lie, Walter Rea explains that it was a thirst for vengeance that got him started on his mission to destroy the Spirit of Prophecy. He says that, after he compiled two Spirit of Prophecy books of quotations about Old and New Testament personalities, the E.G. White Estate appeared to give his books little attention. He felt miffed. They had not praised him as he thought he should be praised. So he determined to strike back.

How did Rea launch his attack?

On Thursday and Friday, October 23-24, 1980, the Los Angeles Times ran headlined articles about Walter Rea’s charges that Ellen White was a plagiarist. The title of one of the articles was “Plagiarism Found in Prophet Books.” Associated Press wired the story to other newspapers across the United States. In order to make the article more sensational, Walter Rea deliberately broadened his falsification of facts.

How did he do that?

That Times article, based on information supplied by Walter Rea, quoted Elder Neal C. Wilson, General Conference president, as saying that “The degree of borrowed material and literary dependence is of alarming proportions.”

But he deliberately twisted what Wilson had said; he then gave it to the Times, to go across America. What he did reveals the character of the man making all these charges! It was a lying report, made by a man who makes charges which he knows are untrue. Do not forget that!

Here was N.C. Wilson’s complete sentence, which Rea lifted out of a letter Wilson had written shortly before:
“As a result of 14 or 15 years of study, and more intensive research in the last two or three years, Elder Rea feels that the degree of borrowed material and literary dependence is of alarming proportions.”—N.C. Wilson, letter to the members of the committee set up by the General Conference to study Walter Rea’s charges, quoted in Adventist Review, November 27, 1980.

When someone sent Rea a copy of that letter, he lifted that phrase out of its full sentence—and then gave it to the Los Angeles Times, making it appear that the General Conference president believed Rea’s conclusions to be true. Frankly, if Rea will so wrest a sentence by Elder Wilson, to suit his own purposes,—can you trust his charges against Ellen White to be any more true? —Especially in light of the fact that the wilder his charges, the more money he knew he would make from them during the forthcoming lecture tour.

On November 13, 1980, Rea was discharged from the ministry. Not long after, he began his North American lecture tour. It was like a great victory conquest. He appeared to be a man brave enough to sell his soul for the rewards of publicly condemning Ellen White. In reality, he was cashing in on his own self-destruction.

But Walter Rea used to believe in the Spirit of Prophecy and practice its standards! How could he fall like this?

It can happen to anyone. But, in Rea’s case, he apparently had always been in partial rebellion against the standards given in those books. The present writer’s phone call to Dr. Wood, of Atlantic Union College, was mentioned in the preceding chapter. In describing that encounter, Dr. Wood said that the school administrators wanted him to meet Rea ahead of time. So a dinner was arranged before the lecture. When they met at the restaurant, after introducing themselves they sat down at the table. As soon as the menus were brought, Walter Rea said abruptly, “I never took the Mau Mau pledge!”

Then he ordered a full meat dinner. This was his way of saying he had never been a vegetarian. So Walter Rea’s unwillingness to submit to the Spirit of Prophecy writings went back all the way to the beginning.

But it was his tour of Adventist centers throughout America which caused the most damage. The curious came in high excitement to hear what he had to say. He spoke hard and fast, giving a literary parallel or two, then roundly condemning Ellen White for a while, then giving another parallel or two. The sophisticates loved it. But they endangered their souls by attending his meetings.

“God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings where error is forced home to the people by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffetings of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him and the power of his evil angels; and the light around us becomes contaminated with the darkness.”—Early Writings, 125.

How did Walter Rea arrange for such a systematic tour of Adventist centers? He must have had someone helping him.

He did. The Association of Adventist Forums provided him with a complete lecture circuit schedule of meetings—across America and Canada. The AAF is a loosely connected organization which holds local monthly meetings in large Advent­ist churches and college campuses all over North America. In advertising their meetings, they often give the appearance of being “officially sponsored” by the church. Indeed, their meetings are frequently announced in union-wide church papers, and often held on our college campuses. The AAF also publishes Spectrum, a quarterly publication of liberal and skeptical sentiments. The use of jewelry is approved, homosexuality is excused, Ellen White is downgraded, and Creation is said to have occurred millions of years ago. Such are the sentiments you will find in its pages.

But, as the above Spirit of Prophecy statement indicates, there is danger in attending such meetings. Speakers are frequently selected who introduce subtle doubts about our historic doctrines and standards, as well as the trustworthiness of the Spirit of Prophecy. The above quotation should be posted over the entrance to such meetings or handed outside to those entering its doors.

Can you give me an idea of what Walter Rea’s book is all about?

Walter Rea’s book, The White Lie, can be summarized in four sentences:

(1) Repeated statements that he had been humiliated by leadership and wanted to get back at them.

(2) A strong animosity against Ellen White, because, as he stated, her writings prevented people from living differently today.

(3) A determination to attack Ellen White’s writings in order to liberate Adventists from the standards and doctrines in her books.

(4) Weak, vacuous arguments that her writings had been copied from other writers.

Let us consider each of these four points:

1 — Rea was trying to get back at church leadership. In his Prologue, Rea says it was unsympathetic and unhelpful church leaders who drove him to do his research (The White Lie, p. 19). In his twisted thinking, he decided he could hurt them by destroying Ellen White’s character and influence. It appears he was not man enough to take on the leaders directly; so he vented his rage on a godly lady who was no longer alive to defend herself.

In 1982, the present writer was told by a believer in Florida that it was when Rea was there as an Adventist pastor,  that he began his campaign to hurt church leaders by destroying confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy. He imagined that this would show to everyone what a great man he was. You will recall that it was under a similar misconception that Judas carried out his betrayal of Christ. Walter should have thoughtfully read Desire of Ages, 716-722.

In his book, Rea says the Spirit of Prophecy writings were the result of a grand plot by Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders. According to his imagined scenario, they went to young Ellen Harmon and gave her the assignment of faking visions and dreaming up new doctrines! Rea’s terrible hatred shines through the following statement, as it does throughout his satanically inspired book:

“In order for any group or organization to pull off the idea that they have been given the concessions to the hereafter, that they are indeed the ones God has chosen to sell the indulgences for this life and utopia to come, they must always tackle the job of rearranging or reassigning the facts of history and rewriting the Canon [of Scripture] . . With no thought of failure, the Adventists assigned this awesome task to [Ellen Harmon (White)] . . Here was a ready-made opportunity. Religious history gives ample evidence that the ‘true believer’ is much more likely to accept the dictums of the simpleminded if these dictums can somehow be given a heavenly setting.”—Walter Rea, The White Lie, p. 31.

The above sounds like a wild, illuminati plot. A small group of unnamed men decided to give a young girl dreams, and then obtain money and prestige from them. Actually, they would have made more money if they had let one of their own invent the dreams!

In every age, the wicked assign their own motives and actions to the righteous. It was Rea’s self-appointed task to “rearrange or reassign the facts of history.”

2 — Rea’s hatred of Ellen White is startlingly deep. Here is one of his sneering comments about her. He compares Ellen White to a criminal and a vampire:

“Every institution, every corporate entity, every established system—whether political, social, or religious—must have its patron saint . . Regardless of the category or the time period of existence, the patron [saint] is venerated even if he was a vampire; he is canonized [sainted] even if he was a con artist; he is given sainthood even if he was a known sinner.”—Ibid., p. 23.

Rea can hardly contain his hatred.

“In this odyssey that we take together . . the patron saint will be Ellen Gould White, the canonized leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”—Ibid., pp. 25-26.

3 — Walter Rea wants to free Adventists from Ellen White’s writings, so they can think and conduct themselves far more like the world. This, according to Rea, is one of his special reasons for attacking her writings.
“Her account also closed the door that had been opened for Adventism to make a markedly different contribution to the world concept of religion. And the door remains closed to this day, because the church of the advent cannot get past the interpretations of the Canon according to Sister White.”—Ibid., p. 34.

Here is an example of the bantering ridicule, found throughout his book. Rea declares that Ellen White’s mentally confused mind devised a wild mixture of conflicting, disoriented statements.

“It takes a dexterous mind to work its way through two problems at the same time. Often such a mind comes up with worthless answers, but it’s lots of fun. In theology it’s downright enjoyable. To learn to say nothing well is the first rule. The second rule is to say it in such a way that no one can question your philosophical conclusions (if you arrive at any). It’s like learning a little bit about everything, so that soon you know everything about nothing.”—Ibid, p. 38.

It is Walter Rea’s mind that is disoriented. Such statements only cause rational minds to turn from his book with disgust. Does such confused thinking come from a mind capable of doing thoughtful, worthwhile research into Ellen White’s writings? Rea’s book is remarkably similar to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, with its wild speculations, vengeful accusations, and daring plans to destroy the imagined enemy.

4 — Walter Rea cites shallow reasons for his contention that Ellen White copied other writers.

His first point in the book is that Ellen White copied John Milton’s Paradise Lost. In that lofty and majestic work, first published in 1667, in poetic meter Milton wrote the story of the fall of Adam and Eve. Rea cites several concepts which, he contends, Ellen White must have copied from Milton:

1 - The loyal angels tried to win back the disaffected ones.
2 - Eve was warned to remain near Adam.
3 - Satan’s arguments to Eve are analyzed, point by point, by Ellen White.
4 - The immediate effects of sin were varied.
5 - Adam fell because he loved Eve, who had already sinned.
6 - Adam was told that terrible things would later result from his sin.
7 - Adam and Eve were both extremely sad when they had to leave the garden.
In reply, we would say this:

(1) Each of the above seven concepts would be obvious to anyone reading the Genesis 3 account. It would be no great challenge to deduce them from that chapter.

(2) John Milton dictated Paradise Lost, after becoming blind. It is likely that he had a close walk with God, as Ellen White did. The Lord could have guided both of their thinking along similar lines.

(3) Really, it would not matter if Ellen White had read Milton’s book, would it?

(4) Walter Rea is trying to box in Ellen White, so she is not permitted see, hear, or read any words or concepts by another person. If she does, she becomes a false prophet. Walter Rea said that Ellen White was a copycat, a heavy borrower, and a downright plagiarist.

Can you give me some examples of the kind of “borrowings” he based his accusations on?

Alfred Edersheim wrote one of the largest and most complete of the many 19th century life-of-Christ books. Titled The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, this three-volume work was originally published in 1883. (Desire of Ages was written between 1892 and 1898.) Edersheim was a converted Jew; and one would think that Ellen White might wish to refer to this large set of books, written by one who was so closely acquainted with Jewish customs.

The present writer has, for many years, owned a one-volume reprint of Edersheim’s work. Yet, in all that time, he has never found anything in Edersheim which bears even faint resemblance to Desire of Ages. Why? Because she did not copy it.

On page 86 of his book, The White Lie, Rea quotes part of a letter by Robert Olson, at that time head of the E.G. White Estate:

“About eight months ago, Elder Rea sent me a copy of some of his research which in his opinion showed that Ellen White was highly dependent upon Edersheim for some of the things she had written in Desire of Ages.”—R.W. Olson, Letter to E.G.W. Estate Trustees, November 29, 1978.

After reading Rea’s pre-publication research, Olson, in that letter, singled out Edersheim’s book as the one which Rea claimed Ellen White apparently used the most.

Three times in his book (pp. 309, 314, and 321), Rea compares Edersheim with Desire of Ages, to show to what a terrible extent she copied that man’s book. You can know that Rea selected the most flagrant examples. Here are all three. As is always the case, in the following examples Ellen White writes more clearly and majestically than the author she is compared to:

Edersheim: “When human nature, that of Adam before his fall, was created sinless and impeccable  . . Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself human nature with all its infirmities and weaknesses . . It was human nature, in itself capable of sinning, but not having sinned . . The position of the first Adam was that of being capable of not sinning.”—Life and Times, p. 298.

White: “When Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon Him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body . . Christ took upon him the infirmities of degenerate humanity . . He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation.”—Desire of Ages, p. 117.

Edersheim: “Their knavery and hypocrisy he immediately perceived and exposed . . We disclaim the idea that Christ’s was rather an evasion of the question . . It was a very real answer, when [he pointed] to the image and inscription on the coin . . it did far more than rebuke their hypocrisy and presumption.”—Life and Times, p. 386.

White: “Jesus read their hearts as an open book, and sounded their hypocrisy . . [pointing] to the inscription on the coin . . He would be . . arrested for inciting to rebellion . . Christ’s reply was no evasion . . He had rebuked their hypocrisy and presumption.”—Desire of Ages, p. 602.

Edersheim: “The child must be free from all such bodily blemishes as would have disqualified him for the priesthood.”—Life and Times, p. 194.

White: “The offerings presented to the Lord were to be without blemish. These offerings represented Christ, and from this it is evident that Jesus Himself was free from physical deformity. He was ‘the lamb without blemish and without spot’: 1 Peter 1:19. His physical structure was not marred by any defect; His body was strong and healthy. And through­out His lifetime He lived in conformity to nature’s laws. Physically as well as spiritually, He was an example of what God designed all humanity to be through obedience to His laws.”—Desire of Ages, pp. 50-51.

Well, what did we learn from the above comparisons—the closest parallels Rea could find in Edersheim’s three-volume life of Christ? About all we see is that Ellen White was a far better writer!

Comparison 1: As many of our readers know, Ellen White wrote hundreds of times about the human nature of Christ. We would expect to find her statement of Christ’s human nature in Desire of Ages. It is given on pp. 49 and 117. A clear statement on this requires a comparison with Adam—which she also repeatedly made in other writings, many earlier.

Comparison 2: That Christ’s reply was not evasive, was only an opinion to Edersheim; but it was a certainty to Ellen White. The potential charge was rebellion, which Edersheim did not mention.

Comparison 3: The “without blemish” factor would be expected in a statement on the child being offered to the Lord. But while Edersheim says this was necessary for priestly duties, Ellen White says it was necessary for the lamb to be offered up for the people and later for priestly duties.

Just as Vincent Ramik, the attorney, said: “There is no case.” What else do we learn in Rea’s book?

Significantly enough, we learn a lot about Walter Rea; for he spends an inordinate amount of time talking about how wonderful he is. In the process, he reveals the darkness in his own life. He is obsessed with fears and hatreds, a desperate man willing to go to any length to destroy good people whom he thinks may stand in his way. In one such paragraph of hoped-for self-exaltation, intending (through his book) for the conquest of his imagined enemies, Walter Rea wrote this:

“If Ford’s studies were disturbing, Rea’s research was downright frightening. Word of it sent administrators racing to the computers with sweaty palms  . . the true believer is being sold the interpretation of the truth of Scripture through the supersalesmen of his system . . Rea, on the other hand, was a guerrilla fighter. He seemed to be aiming for the jugular. His studies were meant to . . bypass the authority of the supersalesmen of the system.”—Walter Rea, The White Lie, pp. 270-271.

In his praise of himself and hatred of Ellen White, Rea is a monomaniac. But every mania has a cause. More than anything, Walter Rea wants freedom to do as he pleases and live like the world, untrammeled by any imposed standards.

“Intelligent and reasonable people do not go along with Ellen . . that a woman is more spiritual if she doesn’t wear a wedding ring . . that in the matter of sex play by happily married couples (it having been pronounced a concession to the ‘animal’ nature, and perhaps a cause of disease), less is better . . that flesh food has a tendency to animalize the nature.” —Ibid., p. 271.

In the above paragraph, Rea as much as says: I want the restraints removed. My interests are jewelry, sex, and meat eating. No Christian standards, imposed by any higher authority, are to limit what I can do. You have viewed the path Walter Rea is on. Is this what you want for your life? Do you wish to travel it with him? Do you wish to share in the destiny he will receive later after death?

What is the alternative?

On one side stands the world and Walter Rea. On the other is acceptance and obedience to God and His Inspired Writings. Sampling Walter Rea was not a pleasant task; but sampling Ellen White’s writings is an encouraging, strengthening experience. They have helped hundreds of thousands to find God and remain close by His side. Can such a faith offend?

Here is a sample passage from one of her books:

“If you have given yourself to God, to do His work, you have no need to be anxious for tomorrow. He whose servant you are, knows the end from the beginning. The events of tomorrow, which are hidden from your view, are open to the eyes of Him who is omnipotent . . But when we really believe that God loves us and means to do us good we shall cease to worry about the future. We shall trust God as a child trusts a loving parent. Then our troubles and torments will disappear, for our will is swallowed up in the will of God . . One day alone is ours, and during this day we are to live for God. For this one day we are to place in the hand of Christ, in solemn service, all our purposes and plans, casting all our care upon Him, for He careth for us. ‘I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.’ ”—Mount of Blessing, 101-102.

How can reading such glorious messages as that bring harm to anyone?

People that have accepted Walter Rea’s charges— have lost so much. There is encouragement, faith, and assurance in God’s Word. Something the critics cannot give us. You will recall that Walter Rea said at that February 1982 Walla Walla Adventist Forum meeting: “Don’t you do to the Bible what I am doing to the writings of Ellen White, or you will destroy the Bible too!” He knew exactly what he had set out to do; and, in the lives of many people, Walter Rea did it. He eradicated the Spirit of Prophecy from their lives.

About 1986, a schoolteacher in Ohio phoned and asked if she could stop by and see whatever the present writer had on the Rea controversy. Shortly afterward, during the summer break, she arrived with her daughter. Although decked out in adornment and cosmetics as a non-Adventist, she said she had once been an Adventist minister’s wife. But, she explained, when Walter Rea traveled around lecturing, she and her husband decided to leave the ministry.

Having separated from the Spirit of Prophecy, soon after he left her and their daughter for another woman. Since then, she has left Adventism entirely. Yet there were lingering questions in her mind. The present writer tried to clarify issues; but it seemed impossible to break the hold the world now has on her. I provided her with papers and other materials; and, that same afternoon, she left and continued on her journey to a vacation in Florida.

Walter Rea has been destroying people for years. He is still doing it. That is why this present book has been published. The need for it still exists.

But whatever happened to Walter himself?

An acquaintance of Walter Rea, living in southern California, phoned us in 1995 and told us that Rea no longer believes in the Bible either! He handed the fruit of skepticism of God’s Word to others; now he is eating it himself. He is a sullen man who broods in his smoldering hatreds. Remember the warning of Moses to the people regarding three other rebels against God’s prophet in ancient times: “Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in all their sins.”—Numbers 16:26. That is good counsel for us today.

At the third Advent, a horrible death, such as Korah and company received, will be the reward of those who have tried to destroy the confidence of others in God’s Holy Word. Depart, I pray you, from those tents. Touch nothing there, lest you be consumed!

In all his charges, Walter Rea did not touch the Spirit of Prophecy. He can do nothing to harm it; for it is fully under God’s protection. But Rea did much to injure many individuals who trusted their future to Rea’s braggart claims. Determine that, in fullest confidence, you will cling to God’s Holy Word and, in the strength of Christ, obey it fully. God will bless you for doing so; and one day soon you will join the saints in light, as they gather about the great white throne and praise Him who loved us enough to send His Son to die that we might have eternal life.

“This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work . . bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil.”—4 Testimonies, p. 230.

“Satan is . . constantly pressing in the spurious—to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish’ (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony (Letter 12, 1890).

“There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded (Letter 40, 1890).”—1 Selected Messages, 48.