Daniel and the Revelation, U. Smith

Date: Oct 9, 2015

RE: Daniel and the Revelation, U. Smith

Date: Oct 9, 2015

The bible has mistakes, this is not complicated. It contains man introduced error in every translation, in every language. God has allowed these mistakes, for whatever reason, you may decide that for yourself, or continue to insist the bible is perfect in every regard. I have no problem with your opinion on that, I have a different one, the same one our pioneers had. Just a reality check.

Error is error, sin is sin, there is no error, no sin which can be excused or made light of. U. Smith made a mistake in fighting against Waggoner and Jones, I hope his repentance for that, in 1901, was deep and sincere. Kellogg made mistakes, we have no record of his repentance, I hope he did. Balaam made mistakes, a prophet, like David made mistakes, and Moses, etc. etc. Moses introduced error, he led the people to believe in him and God, that is serious error!! He repented, but paid the consequences, sin is like that, forgiveness does not mean everything is going to be OK. Its not, people will be hurt, mistakes will compound, ones sin will follow them, in some cases, the rest of their life. Davids four son's died, he introduced error by lieing to his people.

We cannot throw out a servant of Gods work because at some point he failed in some way, in any way. Omission or commission, sin is sin. Kellogg did a great work for the Church, I am thankful for this servant of Gods work. It is sad, that in time he failed. I say the same of Uriah Smith, editor of the Review for fifty years. Ellen White says every student, every person entering the ministry should read his book. She says it will be of interest until the close of probation! Fight against all you want, when your gone, it will still be here, just as it was here before you arrived on this earth. Truth is like that, it is going away, ever, no matter what decisions Gods servant may have made at some point in their walk.

Date: Oct 10, 2015

Anonymous, this is the last time you will be told that there are no mistakes in the Bible.

Your words are pleasing to Satan.

Please repent.

Date: Oct 11, 2015

Friend, your inability to see this simple example speaks directly to your inability to see the value in the 1911 edition of the Great Controversy. Your standard for "perfectionism" in the Bible and the writings of Ellen White have clouded your reasoning to both, only in my opinion of course.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise".

Of course the thief would not be with Jesus that very day as Jesus would rest in the tomb for the next three days. But the placement of the comma is troubling for some, especially for those that believe in life after death. This and more errors in the Bible were introduced by man and allowed to remain by our Lord. They are not a problem for the sincere seeker of truth, but become a major problem for those who choose to make them an issue. There are a number of other mistakes in the Old Testament, more so than the New, but I will not list them here. They did not need to magnified as this may lead some to doubt and question the words of God, and of Ellen White in her own writings, which also contain a number of errors. Most have been corrected, but the damage has been done, her greatest work, the 1911 edition of the Great Controversy has suffered a loss of confidence by these corrections. Sad fact that is...

Note: Jews reckoned a "day" as any part of a day being referred to as a complete day. Thus, they would consider Friday afternoon, as a one day and a part of Sunday as another complete day. Of course Saturday, the Sabbath, we without question an entire 24 hour period of time, a "day" as we would reckon it.

Date: Oct 11, 2015

The Bible has no mistakes in it, contrary to what you asserted earlier.

You continue to confuse "The Bible", with "translations of the Bible".

The Bible's words are God's words, so let's accept and believe all of them.

Ellen White's actual published writings are also inspired of God, and there is no error in them.

When you study out how Ellen White's works were edited, you will learn the truth about why there are errors in works with her name on them.

Let's be good Bereans, and learn to be more circumspect in our language use so as not to turn people away from God's words.

Date: Oct 12, 2015

I just found an article by a Pastor Tolhurst regarding the "king of the north" issue.

http://bereanbiblecorner.com/2014/03/05/the-king-of-the-north/

He says that the SDA pioneers were generally agreed from 1846 - 1871 that the king of the north was the papacy. Then from 1871 - 1952 it was generally agreed that it was Turkey. Since then it is generally agreed again that it is the king of the north.

But that doesn't match some quotes from Studies Prophecy here.....

Date: Oct 12, 2015

Pastor Tolhurst offers his opinion which cannot be backed up by the facts.

The Battle Creek Bible Study group who first began to meet in 1863 to study Daniel and Revelation in depth concluded early on the king of the north was Turkey. This is consistent with the article in the Review of 1854 stating the same. It is also consistent with the many articles published in the Review during the course of that Bible Study group, who met for about ten years.

Willie White noted in two letters, first in 1919 and later in 1930 he was shocked when his father went back to what Willie called "the old old view" of the KON being the papacy. He said his father never really believed it but spoke of as a way to oppose Uriah Smith in 1876. James White stood alone on this position, to a man (and woman) Adventists from 1854 well into the 20th century accepted a literal interpretation for Daniel 11. Just as we do for all the other chapters in Daniel.

One of the major debates and conflicts of the 1888 message revolved around the nations represented by the "ten toes" of the statue. This debate reflects the obvious, they were dealing with a literal interpretive method for Daniel.

Tolhurst does not surprise me with his analysis, there is a ton of misinformation regarding our history. Much of that information begins with a questionable quote from some well respected author or speaker and then gets repeated as "authority" because of the original statement. This is precisely how rumors and gossip spread.

I have studied in depth the details of the changes in our early published works. I find no fault with them, I have full confidence in Ellen Whites writings, ALL of them.

Date: Oct 12, 2015

In the Desire of Ages, Patriarchs and Prophets, and in Daniel and the Revelation, There is precious instruction. These books must be regarded as of special importance and every effort should be made to get them to the people. Letter 229, 1903.

Date: Oct 13, 2015

the original quote from EGW says that she recommends the books of Daniel and Revelation...referring to the bible.

Date: Oct 13, 2015

Here is a link to the original complete letter. This letter is a discussion concerning the printing of our books, new editions should not come out before old editions stock is used up and other publishing house guidelines. It is clear that one of the three books she specifically address' in this letter is Uriah Smiths book, "Daniel and THE Revelation", not Daniel and Revelation or the books of Daniel and of Revelation. Without doubt, here she is referring to Smiths book, of which she says places right beside her own works as containing "precious instruction".

In this letter she notes: "Before the Review and Herald building was destroyed, I thought of taking these books in my hands and of having them reset." Letter 229, 1903 Referring to the three books under discussion as it concerns publishing.

Here's the link to the full letter.

http://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/10175.1

Another quote:

The light given was that Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, The Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets, would make their way. They contain the very message the people must have, the special light God had given His people. The angels of God would prepare the way for these books in the hearts of the people. CM 123.3

Date: Oct 13, 2015

In the first paragraph of the supposed letter by Ellen White that you linked to, Studies Prophecy, it says: "In the night season matters have been presented to me regarding the books Patriarchs and Prophets and Great Controversy. It has been my prayer that we might receive light and counsel from the Lord and be led and guided by Him as to how far we should go in making changes for a new and improved edition of these books".

Yet we have this statement by Ellen White in 8RH 1905-1-26: "That which I
have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been
instructed to change that which I have sent out."

The deeper you study, the more you find out that almost no one really believed the words Ellen White wrote were from God, so they decided to change them as necessary. In 1883 a committee of five people, with Uriah Smith at their head (and Willie White as a member) stated publicly that there were going to be "verbal changes be made".

I personally met one man in the 1980s who used to work at Southern Publishing Association (my father used to work there too). He showed me his "Daniel and Revelation" book where he said he was on a group to edit/update it in the 1940s, so the same thing has been done to Daniel and Revelation. I don't know if the current edition reads the same as the original version or not, as I'm not interested in either edition(s). One person asked Ellen White if Uriah Smith was inspired when he wrote that book, and she basically showed him how ridiculous his question was.

If you wish to read something I wrote regarding changes to the SOP, here is an article I wrote on that:
http://great-controversy-movie.com/dannywinters/egw-book-changes.html

If you check what I wrote on this site:
http://www.a4t.org/Letters/sop_tampering.html
you can find major doctrinal changes in the SOP (look for what I, Daniel Winters, wrote).

Date: Oct 14, 2015

"I assured my hearers that we held the same principles of truth that we had so many times set before them in past years. I assured them that no phase of our message had been changed to meet scientific or spiritualistic philosophy, but that we hold as firmly as ever to the strong-holds of our faith, which have made the Seventh-day Adventist people what they are." 8RH 1905-1-26

This is from the same Review article where she makes reference to being instructed not to change anything. Not to change one principle or meaning of an article to come into line with science or medical or spiritual philosophy. She wrote out her work in long hand (no type writers) and often crossed out one word and replace it with another in her original letters, articles, books. These long hand letters were then carefully reviewed by her staff for spelling and punctuation errors. She specifically asked her assistants to look for duplication errors, where she had said something in her writing and then repeated herself. I noticed I have this problem when writing as well, following her counsel, I am careful to check my own work for duplication!

Then the letter was set to plates for printing. The type setter would make an occasional error that would slip past everyone and make it into the printed word. These errors were corrected at the next printing when possible.

As it concerns "making changes" to Pats and Prophs, G.C. Desire of Ages, etc. etc. this is primarily what she speaks off. AS WELL as adding pictures, changes the paper texture, the fonts, spelling, etc. The principles and light she was given were to remain unchanged. What she had written, in principle, must remain. It could not be altered to please science or philosophy.

Pretty simple actually.

Date: Oct 14, 2015

Daniel and the Revelation, first published in 1881, had some additions in the 1897 edition that I approve of. It was edited again in 1911, same time as the G.C. was redone, to add some light on current events of that time that related to the prophecies. I approve of these changes as well.

It underwent a MAJOR and SWEEPING edit in the 1940's edition, I do not approve of this edition because large sections were REMOVED, not so much changed, just left out. This I don't approve of. However, even the 1940 edition contains great light and I encourage others to read it for that reason.

I personally prefer the 1897 edition myself, being superior to the 1881 and a bit less "uncluttered" than the 1911 version. I recommend any or all of them as worthy of careful consideration.

In the same way, I approve of the "Great Hope", while I prefer the full volume. The smaller edition contains great light, it has its place, it will do a grand work. It is a stepping stone to the more complete versions. I really enjoy the rawness of the very early editions of the G.C. and am thankful for this website to make them available. I am sad however that in so doing her other good works are denigrated in the process.

Date: Oct 14, 2015

webmaster wrote:
In the first paragraph of the supposed letter by Ellen White that you linked to, Studies Prophecy, it says: "In the night season matters have been presented to me regarding the books Patriarchs and Prophets and Great Controversy. It has been my prayer that we might receive light and counsel from the Lord and be led and guided by Him as to how far we should go in making changes for a new and improved edition of these books".

Yet we have this statement by Ellen White in 8RH 1905-1-26: "That which I
have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been
instructed to change that which I have sent out."

The deeper you study, the more you find out that almost no one really believed the words Ellen White wrote were from God, so they decided to change them as necessary. In 1883 a committee of five people, with Uriah Smith at their head (and Willie White as a member) stated publicly that there were going to be "verbal changes be made".

I personally met one man in the 1980s who used to work at Southern Publishing Association (my father used to work there too). He showed me his "Daniel and Revelation" book where he said he was on a group to edit/update it in the 1940s, so the same thing has been done to Daniel and Revelation. I don't know if the current edition reads the same as the original version or not, as I'm not interested in either edition(s). One person asked Ellen White if Uriah Smith was inspired when he wrote that book, and she basically showed him how ridiculous his question was.

If you wish to read something I wrote regarding changes to the SOP, here is an article I wrote on that:
http://great-controversy-movie.com/dannywinters/egw-book-changes.html

If you check what I wrote on this site:
http://www.a4t.org/Letters/sop_tampering.html
you can find major doctrinal changes in the SOP (look for what I, Daniel Winters, wrote).

excellent quotes and here is another:

"God has chosen a people who are to proclaim the third angel's message to the world. They are to be a separate and peculiar people in this world of churches who are transgressing his commandments. We have a special work to do to prepare the people for the greatest event the world has ever seen. The books of Daniel and Revelation are of great consequence to us, and should be studied with great earnestness. {RH, June 21, 1898 par. 38}

see how she is referring to the books of the bible... be careful where you get your sources from...

Date: Oct 14, 2015

"In the first paragraph of the supposed letter by Ellen White..."

By this you imply, assert, lead people to believe that this letter, written to her two son's, Edson and Willie, was somehow mysteriously written, edited or changed by someone other than Ellen White. In doing this you fulfill her own prophecy. That in the last days men would not deny her gift of prophecy, but would instead seek to make it of little or no effect.

No doubt you have heard this counsel so many times, it serves only to harden your heart and sear you conscience ever deeper. How sad, you have my heart felt sympathy in this regard.

God is just as able to protect Ellen Whites work as He has been able to protect the Biblical authors work, there is no difference in the source of inspiration for both. But of course, you have heard this counsel as well and it will not likely bring about any changes from what appears to be your life work (just my opinion). Which is to cast doubt and denigrate the prophetess' God given work, all her work, including the letters she wrote to her children, for a dying world.

Souls can be and will be lost or saved based on our individual efforts. I have given the trumpet of warning a clear and distinct sound, some will heed it, some will not.

Date: Oct 14, 2015

sure God is able...

but she never said her writings would be protected IN FACT, she said the opposite...

and this is why she also says that before we use any of her writings from the pulpit we are to be sure we find the exact same thing in the bible...

now she DID say that God has protected His Bible [His Word] that is the KJV...

i think it is pretty cool how we all can access this thread even though it is not on the front page...

Date: Oct 14, 2015

I am not familiar with this idea that God said He would protect the KJV exclusively, all though I don't doubt that He did that with the KJV. Is it reported into what language it should be translated? Is it only the KJV that has this exclusive protection? If so, why did Ellen White quote from as many as seven or eight other versions when a version of one translation rendered a verse more clear than the KJV did?

I like the KJV, Ellen White used it predominately because the people of her day were more used to that version, many had memorized verses from it. She used it to avoid potential conflict and/or confusion in her public speaking, but she was not opposed to considering other versions.

I leave room for and appreciate the many and varied versions available today, not all of which I care for. But I find it quite useful, as she did, to compare a problematic verse to various versions and even subject that verse to a Greek or Hebrew direct word for word translation. You know, "here a little, there a little". Just as I do with her work, here a letter, there a pamphlet, here a book, there a sermon. This often provides a more comprehensive view of the circumstances, time and place considerations and context of a statement or a verse.

Dedicated fans of this thread will find it, as for those who may find it useful in the future, God will direct their steps!

Date: Oct 14, 2015

EGW quoted almost excusively from KJV... a little bit from the ESV

as for protection?.....here it is

The Bible was hated, and efforts were made to rid the earth of the precious word of God. The Bible was forbidden to be read on pain of death, and all the copies of the holy Book which could be found were burned. But I saw that God had a special care for his word. He protected it. At different periods there were but a very few copies of the Bible in existence, yet God would not suffer his word to be lost. And in the last days, copies of the Bible were to be so multiplied that every family could possess it. I saw that when there were but a very few copies of the Bible, it was precious and comforting to the persecuted followers of Jesus. It was read in the most secret manner, and those who had this exalted privilege felt that they had had an interview with God, with his Son Jesus, and with his disciples. But this blessed privilege cost many of them their lives. If discovered, they were taken from reading the sacred Word to the chopping block, the stake, or to the dungeon to die from starvation. {1SG 109.1}

Date: Oct 15, 2015

"In the first paragraph of the supposed letter by Ellen White..."

I wrote that because there is a direct contradiction in works with her name on them.

How do you resolve the conflict?

Date: Oct 15, 2015

Contradictions are most often in the eye of the beholder. Many people think they see contradictions in the bible as well.

In this case, I suspect your making reference to her use of the word "changes" and comparing that to another statement of hers that not one thing should be changed. One must apply the principle of what she is saying, not one principle should be changed. But other changes, such as the paper quality, whether or not to add pictures, correct punctuation, none of this changes the spirit and principals of truth presented in her work, which must be carefully guarded and not one thing of this nature should be changed. In some cases she even changed words from that which she had at first used. We see this in a number of her hand written documents, where she crossed a word out and replaced it.

Here's another "contradiction" (there are apparently many). She said not one pin should be moved from our foundational points. Sabbath was without question, a foundation, or a pillar, or a land mark, which ever term one might prefer. Yet, a "pin" was moved in regards to the time the Sabbath should be kept. For years that was based on the clock, 6 pm to 6 pm, then a pin was moved from this to sundown to sundown.

Here's another. The Law in Galatians in chapter three believed to be the ceremonial law, Ellen White herself accepted this view. For years this view was considered so sacred they dare not move a "pin" from this foundation, lest the entire Church doctrines collapse. Then along came Waggoner and Jones. A pin was moved and the leadership of that time was furious, but Ellen White agreed, this pin needed to move, had to move. They had been in error, best to admit it rather than hide it. She was very honest like that.

Date: Oct 15, 2015

There is a direct contradiction. You've tried to ignore it, but it is still there. In one work with her name on it she writes that there are to be no changes, and then in another place that there are to be changes. She obviously isn't talking about paper or the name of the tree the paper it is printed on comes from. That is ridiculous.

She said to use her published words as her "settled position", so it doesn't matter what her handwriting shows.

The Sabbath "example" you give is not true in that the "pin" quote is after the timing of the Sabbath had been determined. The "example" about Galatians is mistaken also, as Ellen White never wrote that Galatians 3 was a "pin". Why do you give examples that are in error?

This conversation seems to be at an impasse, because the Bible and Ellen White are clear that the words are from God, yet standard SDA teaching today says that is not true. When Uriah Smith and Willie White and others changed Ellen White's writings, we say as a church that is OK.

Today I read Acts chapter 1. It also clearly states that what David wrote was "spoken" by the Holy Spirit. They are God's words.

I protest against any perversion of God's words.

Date: Oct 16, 2015

There should be no changes to her settled positions, I agree. I don't have a problem with editing she specifically approved of herself, whether that be typos, pictures, words, deletes, additions and other changes. In this, you see a contradiction, I don't.

Not a pin should be moved I apply in the same way. Whether that doctrine came early or late, the principal is sound. Without doubt the Sabbath was a foundation doctrine, a pillar, a land mark, but it wasn't perfect, it needed to be modified as to the time. The same for Galatians 3, when new light came, it needed to be modified accordingly.

Now as to just what doctrines should be considered land marks, foundations, pillars and at what time they should be considered such, that varies on who you talk too. Some say because William Miller had the 2520 on his chart, it is a foundation or pillar and cannot be changed. James White didn't have a problem removing it, therefore, I conclude it was a pillar.

Some, in the 1880's saw Galatians 3 as a pillar or foundation. If it was, then moving a "pin" from that "foundation" was authorized. If it was never a foundation, as others believe, then there was no pin to move.

I deal in principals, not absolutes. You believe in verbal inspiration, word for word. I believe in thought inspiration, where God authorizes and puts His stamp of approval on the words His servants choose. They don't speak a heavenly language, they speak an earthly language, imperfect, always falling short. He allows them to choose words He might not choose Himself, but He's OK with their choice and their correction. I am too, your not OK with that. Each to his own I guess...

Date: Oct 16, 2015

Important correction: The 2520 was NEVER a pillar or foundation. I agree with James White and others, it should have and was dropped from the 1863 chart and has no place in our doctrine.

Others see the 2520 as a pillar, I think that's ridiculous, but I won't beat them up over it. UNLESS they choose to make a test point of faith and say you will be lost if you don't believe. At that point, I have little or no patience for their extreme view, they should in fact be considered for disfellowship.

Date: Oct 16, 2015

"He allows them to choose words He might not choose Himself, but He's OK with their choice and their correction. I am too, your not OK with that. Each to his own I guess..."

You've pretty much summed up everything wrong with the position that the words are not from God.

Please repent and follow all of God's words.

Date: Oct 17, 2015

Gods ideas and thoughts are above being able to be expressed in human language, and since we don't speak a heavenly language, He is doing the very best He can with what He has to work with, erring, stumbling, humans.

EVERY good thing comes from God, even repentance is a gift. The words He allows his authors to use, to teach us, He inspires, He takes credit for, He shares with them in the process, allowing them to be a part of it. And when the work is done, people may give them some honor, some accolades, but the real honor and glory belong to Him and came from Him. The authors inspired by our Lord recognize this, they give Him the credit!

Like so many principles of the Christian walk, there are some things we cannot fully grasp, some things that will be clear in time and some things that will remain mysterious for eternity. I'm OK with not being able to nail down and put in a box SO many different things about this walk. The nature of Christ, I understand enough, not all, we will never will understand it all. The Holy Spirit? We know only what has been revealed, a small fraction of what we will know on the other side. Is it faith or works, contemplated Paul and James, where is the balance on that issue? It varies for every one of us to some degree, its different for the thief on the cross than it is for me.

Inspiration, I accept at face value that He inspired every word, and yet, He allowed His authors to perfect their work as they grew in a knowledge of how to write. This can be a difficult area for some to understand. Just as I grow in a knowledge of how to reach others, I'm not always perfect. Ellen White, with all her testimonies, erred in giving a testimony concerning Waggoner. She learned a tough lesson, made a mistake, moved on, didn't make that mistake again. Sadly, I tend to repeat my mistakes, but I remain hopeful! :)

Date: Oct 18, 2015

something we can agree upon ! the 2520 is nothing

it is a false prophecy promoted by the jeff p. movement

we are not to follow any man especially when they do not follow the health message and donations make it so that his family all has their own luxury homes and vehicles...

Date: Oct 19, 2015

I don't know anything about Jeff P.'s personal life, I just know his message is wrong. It gets tricky basing a mans message on his character instead of the message itself. No doubt some questioned Peter, certainly Paul, not to mention King David, Waggoner, U. Smith, A.T. Jones, the list is very long, because these men either made mistakes at some point or left the faith. But I have no doubt at some point, on some issues, they were specifically chosen of God as messengers.

Ellen White made mistakes in her personal life, she didn't always get it right. I don't let that impact her messages via inspiration. The Bereans were right to question Pauls letters, to search for themselves for the truth to see if these things were so. Solid advice, even if you didn't like Paul, or the messenger.

At the same time, a messenger who points out that he/she is being persecuted is not proof he/she is a messenger. Maybe, he's just a jerk.

Date: Oct 19, 2015

Studies Prophecy, you wrote: "(Ellen White) erred in giving a testimony concerning Waggoner."

I don't know what testimony you are talking about. Can you please explain?

Most of the things in your recent comment are true, except that God's words are his words, and there are no mistakes in them.

nb: I agree with your comment about Jeff Pippenger's ideas on the 2520 being false.

Date: Oct 22, 2015

She was shown that Waggoner was having an illicit affair. I'm not sure of the time frame, but plan to check that out. What if,,, it was during the very time he was a chosen vessel of God with a special message (two covenants, law in Galatians and of course Righteousness by faith, 1888 and it encompasses)? That wouldn't surprise me if it was at that time. Strange thing this, how God sometimes uses men who are to all appearance completely unworthy of carrying light to anyone!!

Anyway, so Ellen White told Butler of the issue out of concern the work would be damaged. Butler, likely unknown to Ellen at the time, was a bitter enemy of Waggoner because he opposed Waggoners views on the law in Galatians in particular. The "law", and the covenants, may seem like a side issue to justification by faith, but these doctrines actually form the very foundation of the 1888 message.

Butler had Waggoners appoint to Europe cancelled and generally wracked havoc with Waggoners career. Ellen White realized she had made a serious mistake by counseling with someone else about what she was privately shown. Her concern was that no one is led to repentance by being "beat up", a lesson I am still learning. We sure like to oppose anyone who doesn't see things just the way we think they should and Adventists are experts at taking revenge. She determined that in the future she would work privately with the individual and seek to save personally. To me, this shows her humanity, she was certainly not alone in making mistakes in her own life and we see this in Biblical chosen vessels as well. Paul, Peter, King David, Nathan and more. God is doing the best He can with imperfect humans who sometimes makes serious mistakes, before, after or during their "tenure" as a chosen vessel. This is why its so important to seek light in a message, not the messenger. We can even "beat up" the message itself by looking for flaws and problems within it. Not every message is perfect because of reasons, circumstances, issues behind the scenes of which we have no idea, but God knows.

One other time Sister White gave counsel before seeking the Lord for what she should say (this is what Nathan did when he told David to build the temple) was to tell Hiram Edson he should not go after his friend who had apparently left the very early SDA movement. The next day she said she was shown that he SHOULD go after his friend! The man was rescued and remained a faithful worker the rest of his life.

Sorry for the late response, been real busy.

Date: Oct 22, 2015

Some believe in the so called principle of our pioneers being infallible in their doctrine, I don't. The light would dawn, some doctrinal points would be changed, some would be abandoned, some would be "tweaked". There is no point in time in this movement where we can rest assured that the pioneers had all the truth on any given point or that they were without mistake in presenting their points. Not a single year or month can this be said of any pioneer on any point they held.

Yet some strongly go back to Ellen Whites comments like a "not a pin should be moved", and the light we had in 1843 was our foundation, etc. etc. Do you want the truth or do you want to hold to your cherished opinions though the heavens fall? For many, it is the latter. This we see again and again with the corporate rejection by the leadership of the Church in the 1880's to 1890's with Waggoner and Jones messages. But there are certainly many other examples of folks who build their position on some point in time in our history and will not be moved.

Such is the case for the 2520 folks, they are steadfast in their belief and have plenty of SOP quotes to build their case. What was present truth then, what was needful then, is different than what was present truth or needful truth later.

Example: Ellen Whites vision of the planets, which Bates mistook for Saturn or Jupiter of whatever. Perhaps (and very likely) that was just what was needful for Bates at that time. The important issues then were to establish a people to represent God and give the third angels message. They were coming out of a great time of darkness and just starting to see the light. As the Children of Israel when they came out of Egypt. God did some strange things then, as we look back now, needful things, that had to be done, things we don't understand. To these, we should not cling, but be thankful for the new light which we have now they did not have them.

Do you know about the three or four times good men, led of God in that time, spoke in tongues? Not some foreign language, some unearthly language, for real. James and Ellen White witnessed this. One occasion involved the very episode I mentioned earlier, Hiram Edson going after the brother Ellen White at first told him not to. That episode involved "tongues", that troubled Ellen and James, but was clearly from God. What are we to make of this? I make of it that it was needful at the time, as strange and bewildering as it may be today. And Ellen White never spoke of tongues again, except false tongues. But it happened, a few times and I believe it was indeed from God.

I suspect that William Miller needed to believe in the 2520 at that time to verify to him the accuracy of the 2300 years. It was needful, and strange to us now, but it was needful for him at that time. Later, that would be corrected, put away, and we have moved on. But this does not mean that on some level, at some point, this was of God because Miller needed it. To hold onto this time frame and the quotes associated with the time frame is dangerous. We MUST continually move forward.

Our history of the law in Galatians is another deep, complicated, but interesting study into the principles I just noted. There was a time when Waggoners father was told to keep his ideas on that law to himself, as a result, people assumed his ideas were wrong. Turns out, Waggoners father was not wrong, his timing was wrong. Even Ellen White did not see this until decades later!

Uriah Smith appears to be, at times, leaning toward and is outright a arian with his various comments about the nature of Christ. Why didn't Ellen White say anything to him about that? In doing nothing, did she mean that he was correct? Not at all, Smith was not arian in the stricest sense, he was moving from a "bad" place to a "better" place. It was needful at the time to let it be as it was, it would be resolved in time. From the better, in time, the church would move to the best (always the goal).

Just some thoughts on changing doctrine and how present truth expands and enlarges....