Leroy Edwin Froom - 1890 – 1974
Leroy Froom was best known in the Seventh-day Adventist church for his work as editor for several church publications, a church historian, secretary of the General Conference Ministerial Association, and author of several books. He was also a musician.
Froom was born in Belvedere, Illinois. He studied at Pacific Union College and Walla Walla College before graduating from Washington Training Center. There are mixed stories about Leroy Froom along with a connection to the Catholic church. History shows he had a yearning to cross the divide between us and the others and unite the Adventist church with Evangelicals and just about anyone else. Looking back, it seems like he yearned for us to be accepted and not be classified as a cult as the testimony of actions from the 1950’s Evangelical Conference bears witness.
But for now, we will delve into his writings and actions and you will see some real efforts by him, trying to bring the Trinitarian doctrine into the Adventist church. This was already being influenced by Herbert Lacey with other traces coming from other SDA leaders of the day, A.G. Daniells, W.W. Prescott and F.M. Wilcox. Leroy Froom would be one of a few key individuals that would succeed in this mission.
THE SERPENT’S TALE (tail) – LEROY FROOM’S APOSTASY
The movement to adopt Trinitarianism and to become like the rest of the world was on. In 1903, Ellen White predicted that "books of a new order would be written." In 1928, Leroy Froom's book,
"The Coming of the Comforter" was published. In this book, Froom teaches the false doctrine of the Trinity and as John Harvey Kellogg did before him, he uses Ellen White quotes to substantiate his position. This book was the result of studies that Froom had given during the 1928 North American Union Ministerial Institute. At the time of the writing, Froom did not mention that he received help from Babylon in producing his book. What does Babylon symbolize? Confusion, false doctrine, false worship, paganism. It was over forty years later before he would confess strangely in his book called Movement of Destiny (1971) on page 322:
“May I here make a frank personal confession? When, back between 1926 and 1928, I was asked by our leaders to give a series of studies on the Holy Spirit, covering the North American union ministerial institutes of 1928, I found that, aside from priceless leads found in the Spirit of Prophecy, there was practically nothing in our literature setting forth a sound Biblical exposition in this tremendous field of study. There were no previous pathfinding books on the question in our literature. I was compelled to search out a score of valuable books written by men outside of our faith—those previously noted—for initial clues and suggestions, and to open up beckoning vistas to intensive personal study. Having these, I went on from there. But they were decided early helps. And scores, if not hundreds, could confirm the same sobering conviction that some of these other men frequently had a deeper insight into the spiritual things of God than many of our own men then had on the Holy Spirit and the triumphant life. It was still a largely obscure theme.” — Movement Of Destiny. p. 322
So Froom goes to authors of books outside of our faith. In other words, he went to Babylon to see what they said about the topic and he brought this influence into our church thru his writings. Because the Pioneers didn’t write enough on the subject. Nothing would match up with his opinion, belief or agenda. He found “practically nothing” as he said in the writings of the Pioneers. In all actuality, he found absolutely nothing that would agree with his ideology.
Froom was following previous men who brought Sunday-keeping thoughts and theology into our church. Men like Herbert Camden Lacey who came from the Anglican Church of England faith as an example.
“I think that new light will confirm the essentials of the past, though that does not mean that all of the details must be retained as our founders laid them down." — Letter from Leroy Froom to
Herbert Camden Lacey, April 13, 1925
Here is just a glimpse of a seed being planted, showing doubt about the founders of our church. That just maybe, all the details that came from the founders, don’t necessarily need to be retained as they were laid down originally. This is what Froom is trying to sell others.
“May I state that my book, The Coming of the Comforter was the result of a series of studies that I gave in 1927-28, to ministerial institutes throughout North America. You cannot imagine how I was pummeled by some of the old timers because I pressed on the personality of the Holy Sprit as the Third Person of the Godhead. Some men denied that –still deny it. But the book has come to be generally accepted as standard.” — Letter of LeRoy Froom to Otto H. Christensen, Oct 27, 1960
Notice who Froom said objected to what he was saying. Some of the old timers. Who are the old timers that he speaks about here? The “Old Timers” are the “Pioneers”. And they would have opposed Froom. This includes people that were part of the original Adventists and their families. They are the ones who KNEW what the church believed during the time when Sister White was alive. They were “the Pioneers” and their relatives; the next generation from the original people. They knew what the church believed, and they denied what Elder Froom was trying to sell them.
About thirty years prior, you have Herbert Camden Lacey espousing on the “Personality of the Holy Spirit” and using the language of “third person in the Godhead” through his studies because of his Anglican background in the Church of England and then it shows up in the Desire of Ages, compliments of Marian Davis (Sister White’s copyist and literary assistant).
And then in 1960 when Froom writes this letter to Mr. Christensen, he mentions that men STILL DENY his lie that he was spreading. So you can see the evil one has his agents that are infiltrating the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.
Remember, Sister White WARNED in Manuscript Release 760, p. 9-10:
“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.”
Here’s another thought. Ellen White died in 1915. At the time that she died, there was no controversy over the question of the trinity, or the personality of the Holy Spirit, of the Son-ship of Jesus in relationship to God, or God as in the Father. These were things that had been accepted by Seventh-Day Adventists, and they had a common faith with no controversy.
It wasn’t until after she died that these new ideas began to actually creep in. And as Leroy Froom says, when he presented these ideas, he was pummeled when he tried to present these ideas by the old timers.
In fact, Sister White would give this warning to the people almost five months before she died:
“I am charged to tell our people that they do not realize that the devil has device and device, and he carries them out in ways that they do not expect. Satan’s agencies will invent ways to make sinners out of saints. I tell you now, that when I am laid to rest, great changes will take place. I do not know when I shall be taken; and I desire to warn all against the devices of the devil. I want the people to know that I warned them fully before my death.” — Manuscript 1, February 24, 1915
Obviously Leroy Froom’s material impressed A.G. Daniells, for in 1930 A.G. Daniells suggested the young author “undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption – its principles, provision, 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.” -— Movement of Destiny, Leroy Froom. ‘From Author to Reader’ – How this Portrayal came to be Written. Third printing of 1972.
“Back in the spring of 1930 Arthur G. Daniells for more than twenty years president of the General Conference, told me he believed that, at a later time, I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption…….. I was a connecting link between past leaders and the present. But, he said, it is to be later – not yet, not yet. Elder Daniels recognized the serious problems involved, and sensed almost prophetically certain difficulties that would confront. He knew that time would be required for certain theological wounds to heal, and for attitudes to modify on the part of some. Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain individuals had dropped out of action (died), before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth.”
— Movement Of Destiny, p. 17; Froom is quoting Elder A.G. Daniells, General Conference President for 22 years, commenting to Froom that they had to wait until the Pioneers of the church and family members died off, so the influence and doctrine could be changed. Then you can begin, Daniells was saying.
Along the way and upon Leroy Froom’s diggings for information in what would follow years later, He stirred up some dust that created this response from Arthur L. White (Sister White’s grandson). “Mrs. Soper calls to our attention the fact that you are seeking information as to the positions held by our early workers concerning the Trinity, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the pre-existence of Christ as this may be revealed in their writings. I think we will have to concede that our early workers were not Trinitarians.” — Letter from Arthur L White to Leroy Froom. Dec 7, 1955.
Brother Cottrell replied, “From my personal knowledge the doctrine of the ‘Trinity-Godhead’, was not taught by Seventh-day Adventists during the early days of my ministry.”
— Letter from H. Cottrell to Leroy Froom. Sep 16. 1931.
Fast track to the 1940's...Our literature was being scrutinized and sorted through, and editing was taking place for new printings. One of these was by Uriah Smith, his book that Sister White had endorsed, “Daniel and Revelation.” What they were doing is looking to remove anything that might be taken as supporting non-Trinitarian beliefs. And Sister White did not call out any errors, but endorsed it. This was happening now in the 1940’s as our books would be revised, edited, and major changes to their content in order to hide or mask what we truly believed and taught. Some of our early works by the various Pioneers were sought after so that they could be destroyed. Hymnals “Christ in Song” and “Hymns and Tunes” are ordered to come back to the conferences so that they can be burned and a new Hymnal would be published to take their place with Catholic song doctrine and support. The book Daniel and Revelation would be one of
these. Scores of changes made. And from this point on, “books of a new order” would be written per Sister White. Social engineering, or you could say re-engineering of Adventism was now under way and taking place.
“The removal of the last standing vestige of Arianism in our standard literature was accomplished through the deletions from the classic D&R in 1944.“ — Movement of Destiny, p. 465
What you will see repeatedly at different times is the accusation of “Arianism” in different aspects when in fact our people were “non-trinitarian”. Semi-Arianism was another label used by some, but trying to fit us in a box next to a dictionary definition doesn’t add up.
We believed that Christ truly had a beginning and was truly the begotten Son of God. And thru his Son-ship and inheritance, he was divine. (Arianism places him as “created”. Yes, there is a difference.)
Leroy Froom, Letter written November 22, 1966 written to R.A. Andersen, J.L. Schuler, D.E. Reebok, A.W. Peterson, W.G. Turner and J.E. Weaver:
“I am writing to you brethren as a group, for you are the only living members of the original committee of thirteen, appointed in 1941 to frame a uniform Baptismal Covenant…Elder Branson was the chairman and I was the secretary. Elder McElhaney, (J.F.) Wright, Ruhling, and (A.B.) Russell are all deceased. The task of this committee was to form a Baptismal Covenant, and Vow, based on the 1931 Fundamental Beliefs statement in the Yearbook and Manual. It was also to point up a bit more sharply the First, Second, and Third persons of the Godhead.”
Do you see the blatant attempt and agenda here in the undertone of this letter? They are moving an agenda here, trying to socially re-engineer or change Adventism thinking. This is used vastly in politics today. Through the media, they get you to think someone said something, or is doing something that isn’t the truth in the matter. Or maybe it doesn’t measure up to their story.
It was at this time that this group of men were working on an agenda. They weren’t inspired. They weren’t the Pioneers. But they would succeed in changing our church’s past positions. And they focused on naming a "First Person of the Godhead," "Second person of the Godhead," and "Third person of the Godhead." This was taking place in the early 1940’s while working up a new baptismal certificate to align with the re-established Fundamental Beliefs done in 1931 by
Francis McLellan Wilcox. And this new outline would be included in the 1942 Church Manual. It is truth mixed with error and it is very slight to the unaware person of what is going on. Because when you get to 1980 and the radical change of ‘who God is’ that was made, then this change in the early 1940’s sticks out much more. This is where we get a “Godhead” doctrine and the three persons of the Godhead. Not from Ellen White, and not from our original Adventist Pioneers. It is at this time that besides submitting to simple Baptismal vows as in the past, you now have a creed that gets put in line for the potential member of man’s church on earth to agree to before taking a dunking.
Today everyone thinks that espoused out of the mouth of Ellen White with the intent of how they portray it. And the first person and second person identity started from William Warren Prescott. The third person language by Herbert Camden Lacey.
“The next logical inevitable step in the implementing of our unified “Fundamental Beliefs” involved revision of certain standard works so as to eliminate statements that taught, and thus perpetuated, erroneous views on the Godhead. Such sentiments were now sharply at variance with the accepted “Fundamental Beliefs” set forth in the Church Manual, and with the uniform “Baptismal Covenant” and “Vow” based thereon, which, in certificate form, was now used for all candidates seeking admission to membership in the church.” – Movement of Destiny, p. 422
This is in Leroy Froom's book! Add in these actions from history and you couldn’t ask for better admissions of guilt! Once upon a time we had Fundamental Principles. They were not Fundamental Beliefs. And reluctantly, these were simply an outline. They foresaw the problem with doing this, as it could one day determine whether you had a membership in the church or not. Or whether you would be a candidate for baptism or not. The Pioneers could see people being removed from the church if they didn’t hold to “the creed.”
If you asked Ellen White about the foundations of our faith, she said it came to them over the course of 50 years. And God was involved. But when you ask Leroy Froom per his book, he says they needed to correct erroneous views on the Godhead. It’s a shame, because the erroneous part is what came into our church in HIS day and beyond. Take a look at this:
“The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-Day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error." – Ellen White, Selected Messages, Book 1, p.204: Letter 242, October 1903
These exact warnings by Sister White have been fully fulfilled today and previously. Our truth has been discarded by scholars of the Jesuit system. Our religion has been flat out changed. But if you came into the church in the last 30 years, you wouldn't have a clue. What sustained our work in the early days (1853-1903) is now called error. Please take time to review all that is provided under the heading "The Issues" and become familiar with them.
As you can see from the above letter to Louise Kleuser, there is an agenda that was in the works in the past. This letter was written in 1966, but the evil took place in 1946. This was under the guidance and encouragement of an Elder Branson. Leroy Froom, Roy Allan Anderson and Louise Kleuser hand picked some select quotes that when placed together, could be perceived as support for trinitarian belief to the novice, unsuspecting Adventist. These quotes were part of the compilation for the book called "Evangelism". And they added sub-headings that were not Ellen White's originals, and almost ALL the people would be fooled for decades. But when you match up everything she wrote on the subject matter (which we have attempted to do under the headings "Evangelism" and "Ellen White" on this website), it becomes clear what Ellen White believed. And it puts holes in the agenda of Leroy Froom and friends.
Now a letter from a very prideful man, Leroy Froom:
“I am sure that we are booth agreed, in Evaluating the book Evangelism, As one of the great contributions in which the Ministerial Association had a part back in those days. You know what it did with men in the Columbia Union who came face-to-face with the clear, unequivocal statements of the Spirit of Prophecy on the Deity of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, and the like. They either had to lay down their arms, and accept those statements, or else they had to reject the Spirit of Prophecy. I know that you (R.A. Anderson) and Miss Kleuser and I had considerable to do with the selection of these things under the encouragement of men like Elder Branson who felt that the earlier concept of the White Estate brethren on this book on Evangelism was not adequate.” - Leroy Froom, Letter to Roy Allan Anderson, January 18, 1966
Men that were true to the faith but not quite rooted in the “Word” within the Columbia Union had a problem. They didn't know how to combat these errors. When they saw this book, Evangelism, it seemed different than what they knew or believed. And Elder Froom says that they either had to accept it, or reject the Spirit of Prophecy.
You see, if they were rooted more in the “Word”, they could have done battle with Froom and called him out with his errors. But they probably stumbled and couldn’t reason enough to point out his agenda. Today people take a one or, two-line quote in Evangelism the way it is presented and have no idea that it was cropped from a bigger picture and the context removed. When these “threesome quotes” are grouped together, Froom has made it appear that Sister White wrote in a way or belief that is not true or honest. This is far from honest. And subtitles with the word “trinity” have been added in.
But if we study the context from the original writings including all paragraphs, you can see the meaning behind the quotes are very different.
Elder Froom in both, "Questions on Doctrines" and later in "Movement of Destiny" blatantly lied concerning our history. He attempted to show that anti-trinitarian was “an encapsulated cancer, gross but confined.” - The Sanctuary and the Atonement, p 530. (From the Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventists)
Questions on Doctrine is a book published by the SDA church in 1957 to help explain Adventism to conservative Protestants and Evangelicals. We were trying to measure up to their brand of Christianity. You could say, trying to be “one with the world”. The men involved from our church were Leroy Froom, Roy Allan Anderson and Walter E. Read.
In Questions on Doctrines, page 29, we read:
“The founding Fathers of the Seventh Day Adventist church over a century ago came out of various denominational backgrounds. While all were premillennialists, some were Trinitarian; others were Arian.”
This is only a partial truth. The facts are, while the Pioneers were from various denominational backgrounds, once becoming SDA, they all gave up their false Trinitarian beliefs. And it could be argued that that they did not truthfully fit the Arian description to begin with.
In Movement of Destiny on pages 149-150, Froom labled the non-trinitarians as having the minority view by using a subtitle heading called, “Principal Projectors of Minority View.” Then he went on to write about Uriah Smith and Joseph H. Waggoner. He then goes on using social engineering to reprogram how some might think about our heritage in comparing what some views were. This is done by painting a stark picture of how they portrayed Christ, his existence and beginning or being begotten verses a wrongful idea of being created. Froom repeatedly throughout his book says that we denied the Deity of Christ. Besides bearing false witness, it is so blatantly wrong. His constant support for the Atonement being completed at the cross as Evangelicals do, this does away with the Sanctuary message of Adventism.
From the days of the 1950’s Evangelical Conference, Froom noted that some of the answers given to the Evangelicals were made as a public disavow of statements made by the early Pioneers. Froom and the modern Adventist crew were trying to distance themselves from the foundation of our faith. On pages 483 and 484 of Movement of Destiny, he wrote: “….the early erroneous concepts of a minority clearly needed to be repudiated. So the appointed framers of the answers to their questions prepared a simple statement disavowing these personal, individual, minority positions, for inclusion in the forth coming book, to be called Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions of Doctrine.”
These statements were necessary to clear up the misconception of prior statements according to their mission. The disavow read in part:
“The belief of Seventh-Day Adventists on these great truths is clear and emphatic. And we feel we should not be identified with or stigmatized for, certain limited and faulty concepts held by some, particularly in our formative years. This statement should therefore nullify the stock ‘quotations’ that have been circulated against us.” - Questions on Doctrine, Question 3, pgs 31, 32
What is going on here is that, Froom and company are trying to distance themselves from the history and Pioneers of our church. They are trying to be accepted by the Evangelicals in the 1950’s and the Catholic church in some ways, matching us up with the same trinity god of Rome.
Found in Questions on Doctrine is this additional material continuing on the above quote:
“We are one with our fellow Christians of denominational groups in the great fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints.”
What a shame to say that we are one with our fellow Christians of denominational groups. Froom and the rest can call it Christian until the plagues fall. God calls it Babylon. And what authority do we have to call it Christian, when God calls it Babylon.
Sister White has this to say:
“. . It is a grave mistake on the part of those who are children of God to seek to bridge the gulf that separates the children of light from the children of darkness by yielding principle, by compromising the truth” - Review & Herald, July 24, 1894
Yielding principle and compromising truth is the center of the problem. Although we have already noted Froom’s book Movement of Destiny and quoted from it, we should quote the following points. Movement of Destiny was a clear attempt to rewrite our history and present the growth of the Adventist movement as an Evangelical character from its roots.
There is a book titled, “Truth Triumphant”, written by Adventist theologian Dr. B.G. Wilkinson. This book is an exhaustive study of the history of God's Church in the wilderness and it contains statements against the Catholic Church based on history. Leroy Froom was angry about the book and ordered the destruction of the offset press plates so the book could not be reprinted. Wilkinson was 80 years of age at this point and could not afford to have the plates made again. Why would an Adventist do such a thing? Something is very wrong here. Thankfully, you can find this book in reprint nowadays, or in pdf form on the internet and judge for yourself. We have included it in our drop down menu under "Books".
There are testimonies floating out there about the real history of Leroy Froom. That of him, being a Catholic or Jesuit plant in our church. We are not selling that theory here, but brothers and sisters, we need to be very wise and skeptical in what takes place these days. Our church has had a blanket pulled over the eyes of it’s people. And we don’t even know it!
On December 14, 1955, Leroy 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.” This took place in the mid 1940's. We believe Dr. B.G. Wilkinson had very good reason for saying this, much to the disgruntlement of Froom.
And now to address the BOGEYMAN word and accusation – You’re an “ARIAN”! Leroy Froom uses this word over and over in his "Movement of Destiny" about our Pioneers to describe their beliefs.
The word Arian was used by Rome as a stigma. And that stigma would apply to anyone who would disagree with her (Rome). It was like a theological slur. This had a real negative tone to it.
They were looked down upon. And when you are a lot bigger and the bully, you can paint whatever picture you want of someone and get most of the people to believe it. (the term Arian comes from the teachings of Arius who was poisoned to death)
The Council of Nicea in 325 AD had this discussion and debate, asking themselves, how are we going to define our understanding of God as Father, Son and Spirit. The Papal party defined God in the way we just defined, and that is Trinitarian. And anyone who disagreed with them, or would not subscribe to their definition of that, would be referred to as Arian.
Truth Triumphant, The Church in the Wilderness by B.G. Wilkinson, Ph. D.
“The burning question of the decades succeeding the Council of Nicea was how to state the relations of the Three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.….Then the papal party proceeded to call those who would not subscribe to this teaching, Arians, while they took to themselves the title of Trinitarians,” — p.85, Ch. 7
“In an earlier chapter it was noted how the Papacy stigmatized as Arians those who disagreed with her in general, and in particular how she branded those as Judaizers who were convinced that “the Sabbath” of the fourth commandment was the seventh day.” — p. 318, Ch. 20