Daniel and the Revelation, U. Smith

Date: Oct 22, 2015

RE: Daniel and the Revelation, U. Smith

Date: Oct 22, 2015

Well obviously she had lots to say to him, especially from 1888 forward. But concerning his first book published in 1865, the precursor to Daniel and Revelation there she was pretty much silent in that time frame. You could see in that book he was moving away from a strict arian view but still had a ways to go. The 1890's were of course a watershed decade because of Desire of Ages and for the first time very profound statements on the nature of Christ. Such as the Church had never seen before this and such as Ellen White had never commented on.

It's an interesting process as you see the chronology of the growth on various issues develop, which of course included the Church views on the nature of Christ. His first Daniel and the Revelation in 1881 still contained statements that make many scratch their head regarding the nature of Christ. Never the less, Ellen White didn't make an issue of it, I think she had bigger fish to fry at that point. James White died of course the same year. Every edition after the original combining of his first two books, one on Daniel, the other on Revelation, into one book (1881) continually modified his various statements on the subject. He wasn't alone in this thinking, it was an issue all the pioneers dealt with to some degree. Many like the 1944 edition because it really cleaned house on this issue and others, as for me, I prefer the 1911 version. I am not bothered by his views on the nature of Christ, I don't magnify them. But I understand they can be a stumbling block to some.

I think Ellen Whites silence during these early decades is interesting, she never placed herself in a position where she had to "take back" anything, because she never spoke on it unless she had direct light on the subject.

Without doubt we still do not know everything there is to know about Christs nature, human, divine, the mix of the two. We may never know all, but we know enough.

Did Jesus ever make mistakes as He was learning carpentry? Learning to read, to talk, walk? I think so, mistakes are not sin, its natural development. The child grew in wisdom...

Date: Oct 23, 2015

Still waiting for quotes supporting your statements about what Ellen White told Hiram Edson, and what she told Butler about Waggoner....

Date: Oct 23, 2015

I'm going to copy and paste several things someone else has compiled from Ellen White's writings about Uriah Smith. The most important thing to note is that he actively resisted the Testimonies, and worked to keep some of them away from the people.

1882: - Sr. White wrote some of the strongest rebukes to the Battle Creek Church, but particularly to Elder Smith, for rejecting the Testimonies, shunning responsibilities, and for being in spiritual darkness. Each of these rebukes has been omitted from the present edition of 5th Testimony, pp. 21 - 98. (There are other important omissions which do NOT appear in the present edition of Volume 5.)
"Testimony for the Battle Creek Church" - 1882, pp. 29, 42, 43, 46, 47 & 50: -

"I am sorry that Eld. Smith, who has been considered so mild, so kind, and so tender that he shrank from reproving wrongs in the office, or performing his duty in the church and in his own family, is for some unexplainable reason found on the side of the accuser: I can but think that this is due to some influence which has blinded his eyes and confused his senses. I cannot say to Bro. Smith, God speed you in this work, for it is wrong. ... Bro. Smith, the stand which you have taken in this case proves you responsible for all your past neglect of duty in the church and in the office. You have shown that you can be firm, decided, and severe, even when it is uncalled for. ... Hence I wrote to you as I did; but Eld. Smith felt at liberty to withhold the testimony from the church for weeks. If God was leading him and those who united with him and counseled him in this act, he was not leading me; the burden which moved me to write was a false burden, imposed by another spirit. Further than this, Eld. Smith questioned the propriety of bringing the testimony before the church at all. Thus he takes the responsibility of standing between God's word of reproof and the people. ...

Oct. 23, 1879, the Lord gave me a most impressive testimony in regard to the church in Battle Creek, especially in reference to Eld. Smith. Now he is found firm, persistent, stubborn, on the wrong side. He is not led by the Spirit of God in his decisions. The Lord has laid no such-burden upon him. Human influences have molded his judgment. No greater evidence of this can be given than the course he has taken in regard to my testimony to the church. ... In rejecting this testimony, Eld. Smith, you have virtually rejected all the testimonies. You must know this is the case. This testimony bears the same evidence of its character that all others have borne for the last thirty-six years. But it condemns certain wrongs which you have committed, and which God condemns. The reason why you cannot see it, is because you have been cherishing feelings wholly opposed to the Spirit of God. Your actions stand registered in the books of Heaven. Eld. Smith, I was more grieved than I can express to find you again working on the side of the enemy. ... After I wrote you the long letter which has been belittled by Eld. Smith as merely an expression of my own opinion, ... " Pamphlet 117 p. 29, 42, 43, 46, 47 & 50

Let's be very wary of reading any material produced by anyone who has "virtually rejected all the Testimonies"!

Date: Oct 23, 2015

Lets be wary of anyone who failed in his experience at some point? Dangerous doctrine if its misunderstood. The implication is a continuing theme, that all of Smiths work should be thrown out. A very serious mistake. William Miller rejected the Sabbath, shall we throw out his work? I've mentioned this many times but few understand. The human heart prefers to dwell on the mistakes of a man and nit pick and find the mistakes in a message.

Luther was far from perfect. Peter was a hypocrite. I could go on and on, but I think you will ignore it because you cherish ideas to condemn Smith at every opportunity. The same is done by many with Waggoner and Jones. In EVERY case there was a time when these men were chosen vessels.

As it concerns with holding the Lords testimony, men may succeed for a time, but only if God allows it. What He has given us in the Testimonies is just what He wanted. These men would have no power at all except He allowed them to.

BUT, yes, your counsel is valid, let us be wary of any and all testimony from any source at any time. For one will never find complete perfection in the works of man, or woman, and that includes Ellen White. Hold fast that which is good, pray for discernment to recognize it.

Quotes on Hiram Edson and the Waggoner/Butler debates will not likely be posted. I'm a student of Adventist history, for those who are, these events are well known. For those who aren't they are likely to be misunderstand without a lengthy discourse on the context and circumstances. You could begin by simply doing a Google search on "Tongues" in the Adventist Church. Various articles are misleading, draw wrong conclusions, but its a start. Not recommended for those with an ax to grind.

Date: Oct 24, 2015

I'm trying to help you see that the discussion is not at all about whatever failings that Uriah Smith had as a person.

The problem is that as chief editor, he had control of the writings of Ellen White, and he changed them as he desired.

Don't you find that problematic?

I remember now about the Hiram Edson incident. I need to go back over the details.

However, I really doubt the story about Waggoner supposedly having an affair. That event is definitely not "well known". Please provide direction to documents backing up that assertion. Thank you.

Date: Oct 25, 2015

The Waggoner affair is what led to his leaving the Church. Sister White counseled him extensively over it. Waggoners wife was ill and he befriended another woman, was warned, but he eventually married her anyway. Reminds me of A. T. Jones fall, plenty of warnings not to work with Kellogg. He rejected that and it didn't end well.

I have no doubt the Lord placed a limit on what could and couldn't be in the Testimonies. Like the counsel to Waggoner, which she originally mistakenly shared with Butler, some of the counsel to Smith should have remained private until the passing of time.

Smiths fall was pretty dramatic, he made some very serious mistakes toward the end of his career (from 1888 forward). He expressed repentance in 1901 or so, but the record doesn't look good following even that. I don't know...

Many a good man fell in the twilight of the career and I place James White in the category as well. His statements from 1877 forward, countering Smiths position have caused trouble that continues to this day. He at first accepted his wifes counsel to keep his ideas to himself. But in a short time began publishing what Willie White called his dads "old, old view" again. That was a serious mistake, ignoring her counsel. All though, in James case, I believe his repentance was deep and sincere.

Here's one you might like. In the 1911 G.C. edition the editors noted the source for various quotes and comments from other authors used by Ellen White. Turns out the source of those quotes were actually borrowed from Daniel and the Revelation. Obviously Sister White worked closely with Smith on writing his book, from the 1860's to 1870's especially. It is logical she would simply reuse the same sources he was using by simply copying the source material into her own book. This is especially true in chapter 15 on France. I have a direct comparison to some quotes from D and R that are word for word in the 1911 G.C.

I don't have a problem with that myself, she often used other authors work. Through the Lords leading she was able to identify what was good to use and what wasn't.

Date: Oct 27, 2015

Studies Prophecy, please put your moniker you wish to use in the "Name" section when you post instead of just leaving it "Anonymous". Thank you.

You have quite a bit of interesting information here. I'd still appreciate some reference to some published material regarding the Waggoner incident.

You wrote: "Here's one you might like. In the 1911 G.C. edition the editors noted the source for various quotes and comments from other authors used by Ellen White. Turns out the source of those quotes were actually borrowed from Daniel and the Revelation. Obviously Sister White worked closely with Smith on writing his book, from the 1860's to 1870's especially. It is logical she would simply reuse the same sources he was using by simply copying the source material into her own book. This is especially true in chapter 15 on France. I have a direct comparison to some quotes from D and R that are word for word in the 1911 G.C.

I don't have a problem with that myself, she often used other authors work. Through the Lords leading she was able to identify what was good to use and what wasn't."

Yes, I'm aware of parts of the 1888 and of course 1911 Great Controversy being similar to Uriah Smith's book. You've hit on the point I've been trying to make since the start of this thread: Not everything with Ellen White's name on it after 1881 is from her pen. Sometimes others wrote stuff and put her name to it and passed it off to people as her writings.

This is why I consider Uriah Smith the worst mole in Seventh-day Adventist history.

Date: Oct 27, 2015

http://www.adventistreview.org/2013-1528-p20

The above link (from Google) is a short article on Waggoner mentioning his wife divorcing him. Google will lead to much more on this. She divorced him because he was hanging out with the nurse he would eventually marry. The he left the church (being forced out is more like it). This article focus' mostly on his doctrines being patterned after Kellogg's. But the real problem started with his affair while he was still married. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

I don't believe anything published under Ellen Whites name, directly under her supervision and exacting approval or after her death by the White Estate was written by anyone other than her. While she certainly borrowed, used, paraphrased, adapted, etc. the words and works of others, such as Smiths Daniel and the Revelation, I don't have a problem with that. I can see where that would be a problem for one that believes in word for word strict dictation/inspiration though. I believe in "thought" inspiration, which also qualifies for "every word dictated by the Holy Spirit", in my definition.

The prophets were shown or were told something and then were instructed to write out what they had seen/heard. The biblical author, Luke, is an interesting case. He did exhaustive research, talking to witness', reviewing documents, recording the details of Jesus' like. Much of this would not have come from dreams, visions or the exacting direction of an angel. Just hard work, assembling the facts of the case, all the while, certainly under Gods guidance (inspiration). But hardly word for word dictation in the case of Luke, or John the Revelator. John was told to write somethings and told not to write other things. His writing was directed, guided, by the Holy Spirit, not dictated in the way we normally define it. I see Ellen White in the same way, her slant, her take, her descriptions of what she saw, was told, reflecting to some degree her human character. Every bible author is the same, their words, their take, their description of what they were shown/told. All of course approved and authorized by our Lord, every word.

I am writing a book, sometimes I have borrowed whole paragraphs from another's work, or reworded something from another. Depending on how I use it, I may or may not provide a credit/source for that. When quoting Ellen White directly, I do provide the source in that case. Sometimes I simply "paraphrase" what she had to say to get the point of the "principle" involved across.

Date: Oct 27, 2015

Well, I've taken the time today to spend a couple of hours trying to track down what Studies Prophecy wrote about Ellen White making a mistake about what she wrote to Butler about Waggoner having an affair.

The only information I can find, is that sometime around 1903 or so, while he was in England, he became interested in another woman. His belief in pantheism at that time made him think it would be OK because it was a spiritual union. Ellen White wrote him:

"You have been represented to me as being in great peril. Satan is on your track, and at times he has whispered to you pleasingfables, and has shown you charming pictures for one whom he represents as a more suitable companion for you than the wife of your youth, the mother of your children . . . he hopes to wean your affections from your wife for another woman."

That is in E. G. White letter 231 (1903).

Of course that is long after 1888, and had nothing to do with Butler at all.

Is that the event you are thinking of, SP, or do you have something else?

.

In checking this info, it struck me again how Waggoner got completely off track, went into deep pantheism, and yet he had so much light around the 1888 time frame. May we be careful to make our calling and election sure!

Date: Oct 28, 2015

People will often find a reason, any reason, to justify sin. Looks like Waggoner was using his pantheism beliefs to do so, I hadn't considered that angle, interesting. If not that, he would have found another excuse.

It will take me some time to track down the Wagooner/Butler incident concerning Ellen White. Obviously it is not a well known incident as the Estate is reluctant to publish some of the more controversial subject material. To some degree, I'm OK with that. Like not until after their death or perhaps the death of family members, etc. to avoid hurting someone. However, much time has passed, the truth, however ugly and controversial it may be, can stand the closest examination. As I recall the incident is in an unpublished letter. I wonder, has EVERYTHING concerning Ellen White now been published, with the recent release of "unpublished" material? I suspect not a 100%.

I've had a bunch of unpublished material for some time, well before the most recent release. Most of it repeats whats already been published in smaller pieces. What you find is names that have been blanked out are revealed in the unpublished, some details expand on the circumstances. Nothing startling or new to speak of. I haven't closely examined the most recent release of unpublished, I bet, the Waggoner/Butler issue is NOT in it though.

I'll track it down, I have no doubt I reported it accurately until then.

Jones was heavily influenced by Kellogg as well and left some years after Waggoner. I have no doubt to a large degree both of these men suffered from the abuse of the leadership well before their decisions to work with Kellogg or to leave the Church. Since they were effectively "black balled" by the Church anyway, their careers ruined from all the infighting, back biting, gossip and rumors. Still, there in no excuse for leaving the faith.

Date: Oct 28, 2015

http://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/4508.1#19

Oh, how I long for Jesus to come, how I long for Him to set things in order. I am now becoming convicted that I have made a mistake in specifying wrongs existing in my brethren. Many are so constituted that they will take these wrongs and deal so severely with the wrongdoer that he will have no courage or hope to set himself right, and this mismanagement will ruin a soul. They, knowing the things I know, treat the erring in altogether a different manner than I would. Hereafter I must exercise more caution. I will not trust my brethren to deal with souls, if God will forgive me where I have erred. I plead with all to look away from me, look away from human, finite, erring mens opinions, and look to Jesus. Plead with the dear Lord, talk much less with different ones, and pray more. Lt16-1887 1.1600

The letter to Waggoner BEFORE she wrote the above letter to Butler.

Letter 51, Aug. 6, 1886; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, pp. 378-387

Date: Oct 30, 2015

Thank you for the link, Studies. Ellen White was specifically shown to reprove peoples' sin straight what God told her. It was around the 1880-1900 time frame that she came to see (God showed her) the General Conference leaders not speaking as God to the people, and I believe this incident (with the little knowledge I've been able to glean so far), is one more instance of that change from an exalted position of the GC to being no longer the voice of God in the earth.

"We shall not urge anything more in his case, but shall do the uttermost in our power to save his soul from death and hide a multitude of sins. I am in great perplexity at times and have about come to the conclusion, when a case of error and grievous sin is presented before me, to say nothing to my ministering brethren if they do not know the matter themselves, but labor earnestly for the erring one and encourage him to hope in Gods mercy and cling to the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour, look to the Lamb of God in repentance and contrition and live His strength."

This whole incident was about J. H. Waggoner, the father of E. J. Waggoner.

It is instructive Ellen White doesn't say God showed her she made a mistake in writing about it to Elder Butler, just that she feels "convicted that I have made a mistake".

There are no mistakes in what a messenger/prophet of God writes when under inspiration. When others add and take away (as can be easily verified by comparing the original, 1858 Great Controversy with the similar portion in Early Writings, we can see that underhanded dealings were going on.

Let's uphold and believe the prophets of the Lord, and receive the blessings from God for doing so. smile

Date: Sep 2, 2016

When Jesus and Paul quoted extrabiblical authors they demonstrated that all truth comes from God and He owns it, and can use it as He wishes. Inspiration means that God uses humanity to write His words through them, sometimes dictated to them, sometimes copied from what He has said to them, and always as the Holy Spirit moves them. The Ten Commandments are not inspired, they are a direct document from the divine finger of God, bypassing humanity.

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5509/does-the-new-testament-quote-extrabiblical-writers

When the GC was written and updated it was under the watchful eyes of EGW and she was under the watchful eyes of the Holy Ghost, along with the rest of SOP she was writing.

The teams that found the literary works she used and the historical references and the bibliographies were under her direction, and she read the updates and approved them, or called for editing, or removal. Any rewriting after her death is up for grabs.

Date: Sep 2, 2016

Missed posting this link, sorry.

https://carm.org/did-paul-quote-pagan-philosophers

Date: Sep 6, 2017

I'm still looking for questions or comments on the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" post on this site. It's time to stop talking about studying Revelation and actually study it. The key is, Revelation must be studied correctly. Let the Bible interpret itself (pure Scriptural exegesis).

Check it out!

Date: Sep 6, 2017

http://21804.activeboard.com/t62844087/the-revelation-of-jesus-christ/

Date: Oct 10, 2017

Last week I had a comment exchange with a Br. Ernest Smith regarding the book "Daniel & Revelation". He is absolutely convinced that this book is great, and probably the best book in the world after the Bible and Ellen White:s books. He has spent a lot of time building up a website promoting this book, and is working to spread it.

I did not point out any errors in the book to him, but did spend time refuting his quote, supposedly from the pen of Ellen White, where she lauded his book, and basically placed it up on a pedestal on the same level with her books. He would have none of it. When I made a long comment, showing him many times where Ellen White wrote against Uriah Smith, and where books he edited with her name on the cover, contradict other books with her name on the cover, he just replied that I was trying to distract from the main point of the discussion - that D&R was the book that God wants everyone of us SDAs to read and believe, and that he would not waste any time on my list of contradictions and statements showing that Uriah Smith was a bad man.

This quote from the Letter 3, 1869, addressed to Uriah Smith, seemed to shake him a bit, as he only replied that "we all make mistakes".

"We do not expect you will have any more light nor as much as you have had. We cannot trust you."

So people who believe Uriah Smith was a good man, and his books are of value - you:ve got some serious explaining to do, about why you like a man:s works who was told by God:s servant that he couldn:t be expected to have any more light, or even as much as he has had, and that he couldn:t be trusted. Please remember, he is also the man who was responsible for the church not accepting the 1888 Message, and whom Ellen White said of, in 1892, that he had done more to hurt her work than anyone else in the previous two years!

I believe the safest thing to do with anything related to Uriah Smith, is to stay as far away as possible from it, so that you can escape the influence of the 4 evil angels that Ellen White saw surrounding his house.

Date: Nov 24, 2017

webmaster wrote:
Last week I had a comment exchange with a Br. Ernest Smith regarding the book "Daniel & Revelation". He is absolutely convinced that this book is great, and probably the best book in the world after the Bible and Ellen White:s books. He has spent a lot of time building up a website promoting this book, and is working to spread it.
I did not point out any errors in the book to him, but did spend time refuting his quote, supposedly from the pen of Ellen White, where she lauded his book, and basically placed it up on a pedestal on the same level with her books. He would have none of it. When I made a long comment, showing him many times where Ellen White wrote against Uriah Smith, and where books he edited with her name on the cover, contradict other books with her name on the cover, he just replied that I was trying to distract from the main point of the discussion - that D&R was the book that God wants everyone of us SDAs to read and believe, and that he would not waste any time on my list of contradictions and statements showing that Uriah Smith was a bad man.
This quote from the Letter 3, 1869, addressed to Uriah Smith, seemed to shake him a bit, as he only replied that "we all make mistakes".
"We do not expect you will have any more light nor as much as you have had. We cannot trust you."
So people who believe Uriah Smith was a good man, and his books are of value - you:ve got some serious explaining to do, about why you like a man:s works who was told by God:s servant that he couldn:t be expected to have any more light, or even as much as he has had, and that he couldn:t be trusted. Please remember, he is also the man who was responsible for the church not accepting the 1888 Message, and whom Ellen White said of, in 1892, that he had done more to hurt her work than anyone else in the previous two years!
I believe the safest thing to do with anything related to Uriah Smith, is to stay as far away as possible from it, so that you can escape the influence of the 4 evil angels that Ellen White saw surrounding his house.

An interesting pattern that I noticed in the way EGW's writings were messed up is the fact that they used to solve controversies in the church by inserting their own ideas in books with her name on the cover:

their view on the issue of covenants was enforced over EJ Waggoner's in the book P&P;
their view on the trumpets of Revelation was enforced over Owen's in the book GC;
their view related to the open vs. close communion debate was enforced in the book DA.

I don't say that I couldn't be wrong, but this is how it appears to me.

Date: Nov 30, 2017

Agreed 100%.

But saying that out loud will get you shouted down, called names, rejected as a Ellen White hater etc.

If people would just read the books with the understanding of the Holy Spirit....