SDA position on the Daily

[ClubV12]

There appears to be two views on what constitutes the "Daily".

• Pioneers see "the daily" as the work of Satan, the evil of paganism exalted and absorbed into something worse—papalism.

• The "new view" sees "the daily" as the work of Christ; His High Priestly ministry successfully removed by Satan. No two views of anything could be further apart.

The new view started roughly around 1919 and has been largely embraced by modern Adventists. Sister Whites position was that it was not clearly revealed to her and we were making a mountain from a mole hill. The discussions were wreaking havoc within the church to the point of calling into question the inspired writings of the Testimonies!

It appears that Dr. Ford accepted the new view, and was a large part of his false ideas. The subject remains one of intense debate.

At this point, I'm leaning toward the view of the pioneers. A papal system. Modern interpretation of that view, the Sunday laws, taking away the Sabbath, which in this view would be the "Daily".

Does the Adventist church, today, have a position on the Daily, or does the debate continue?

TRY keep it simple people, I don't have a theology decree and SO many times you guys go right over my head with this stuff. Can we get a "Cliff Notes" version? I don't have time or feel the need to read more books on the matter.

[phkrause]

Club I guess I'm out of the loop on this! Wasn't even aware there were two positions.

I think I've always been aware of position #2. At least as far back as I can remember.

[ClubV12]

The "new view" actually dates from around 1919, so it's a bit misleading to call it the "new view", but that, historically, is what it's called.

I think I'm getting in WAY over my head on this whole thing and Sister Whites counsel to NOT let this become a time consuming issue I take seriously. The "Daily" has been a conversation topic with some in my local church lately. I'm worried it could cause the same kind of friction it did in the early 1900's with the church. But I don't know enough about either position, new or old, to know what to think of it.

I'm rather reluctant to dismiss our pioneering view (Miller and Smith) without some solid reasons as to why we should. The "new view" (1919) does not appear to have any more substance for support than the "old view" did. Either view could be argued successfully. So, why has everyone embraced the "new view", when Sister White didn't even take a position on either side?

[John317]

There appears to be two views on what constitutes the "Daily".

Pioneers see "the daily" as the work of Satan, the evil of paganism exalted and absorbed into something worse papalism. The "new view" sees "the daily" as the work of Christ; His High Priestly ministry successfully removed by Satan. No two views of anything could be further apart.

Great question, Club.

Have you read the comments in the SDA Bible Commentary on Daniel 8: 11. Also see pages 60-64 of that same volume for the historical development of the two different views. It pretty well summarizes the evidence for both positions.

You might also read Uriah Smith's book on Daniel and Revelation for his views on the daily. In my edition (1944), his most relevant comments on this topic are found on pages 164-165.

Keep in mind that Ellen White said she didn't have any light on the question of "the daily" and we should not use her writings in support of either position.

In other words, we should go to the Bible for our evidence of what the daily is and of its significance.

The fact that Ellen White said that the question of the daily was "not a subject of vital importance" does not mean that it never would be an important subject.

She wrote, "Regarding this matter under present conditions, silence is eloquence."

Ford's view of the daily hasn't significantly affected the SDA church's view of the daily. Even before Desmond Ford, many in the SDA church had adopted the view that the daily refers to the High Priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary which the little-horn power had cast down.

I personally believe that the Bible evidence supports the view that "the daily" refers to Christ's work as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary rather than to paganism.

If you like, we could talk about the evidence for either view.

[ClubV12]

I would like to understand more of how we get to the present "new view" (1919) on the Daily. I will look more closely into the referrences you supplied. What keeps buring in my head is this Sister White quote concerning Uriah's work.

"The interest in Daniel and the Revelation is to continue as long as probationary time shall last. God used the author of this book as a channel through which to communicate light to direct minds to the truth. Shall we not appreciate this light, which points us to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our King?" {1MR 63.1} Manuscript Releases, Volume 1 [Nos. 19-96, 1941-1957]. 1993; 2002 (63).

I guess it's possible that here she refers to the bible, Daniel and Revelation, but reading it plainly, it seems much more likely she is referring to Uriah's book. Which should be of interest until the close of probation. It is a shame that as early as 1919 Uriah's book was already under attack. Today it is easily dimissed as nothing more than an inaccurate old book, almost with contempt.

Your opinion, John, is that there is much in Uriahs book worthy of study. I concur. I also accept the likely hood of "new light" on the subject, particularly applied to the "daily".

[Gordon1]

Club, as I recall EGW knew the correct version and stated as much in Early Writngs 74-75. But she never identified it. This should not matter to us. We have our Bibles. We have Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. I would not look to U. Smith for guidance. Am very uncomfortable with these blanket endorsements of Smith appearing just a few years ago in Manuscript Releases.

Why would the open & transparent church led by God withhold reams of testimony from its people? It doesn't seem fair that 2 or 3 generations should go into the grave deprived of this counsel from the prophet. For over 100 years the church has had a prodigious publishing department employing thousands. There is no justifiable reason for her words to be kept out of circulation. And it lends itself to manipulation when the author is no longer alive.

Here's a relevant EGW quotation to lend some balance.

" I know that Elder [uriah] Smith and Elder [G.I.] Butler and [J.H.] Morrison and [L.] Nicola have been doing a work in their blindness that they will not wish to meet in the judgment...

I have loved Brother Smith next to my own husband and children... I have highly esteemed Elder Butler. But these men have left me alone--these men, to whom the Lord has spoken several times that they should stand united with my husband and myself in closest union till the close of time. They have caused me such sadness and grief of spirit as I cannot describe. I felt my husband's death, oh, how keenly God alone knows, but I have felt the cruel course of these men toward the work of God He has given me to do, more keenly than the death of my husband...

I know their position perfectly. It is kept before me in many ways, until the only relief I can get is to keep away from Battle Creek where the influence of these things is prevailing and active." [Letter 109, December 6, 1890]

[John317]

Club, as I recall EGW knew the correct version and stated as much in Early Writngs 74-75. But she never identified it. This should not matter to us. We have our Bibles. We have Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. I would not look to U. Smith for guidance. Am very uncomfortable with these blanket endorsements of Smith appearing just a few years ago in Manuscript Releases.

What blanket endorcesment of Uriah Smith do you refer to? Is it the one ClubV12 quotes--{1MR 63.1} Manuscript Releases, Volume 1 [Nos. 19-96, 1941-1957]. 1993; 2002 (63)?

If so, that is not a "blanket endorsement". It's important to read everything Ellen White had to say in regard to Uriah Smith's writings. When we do that, it becomes obvious that she was not endorsing everything he wrote in that book or in any other book Smith wrote.

Here's what Ellen White wrote on "the Daily"--

Quote:

"The Daily" of Daniel Eight

I have words to speak to my brethren east and west, north and south. I request that my writings shall not be used as the leading argument to settle questions over which there is now so much controversy. I entreat of Elders H, I, J, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views of "the daily." {1SM 164.1}

It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings shall be taken as settling this matter. The true meaning of "the daily" is not to be made a test question. {1SM 164.2}

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question ["the daily"]; for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under present conditions, silence is eloquence. {1SM 164.3}

The enemy of our work is pleased when a subject of minor importance can be used to divert the minds of our brethren from the great questions that should be the burden of our message. As this is not a test question, I entreat of my brethren that they shall not allow the enemy to triumph by having it treated as such. {1SM 164, 165}

[John317]

.... What keeps buring in my head is this Sister White quote concerning Uriah's work.

"The interest in Daniel and the Revelation is to continue as long as probationary time shall last. God used the author of this book as a channel through which to communicate light to direct minds to the truth. Shall we not appreciate this light, which points us to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our King?" {1MR 63.1} Manuscript Releases, Volume 1 [Nos. 19-96, 1941-1957]. 1993; 2002 (63).

I guess it's possible that here she refers to the bible, Daniel and Revelation, but reading it plainly, it seems much more likely she is referring to Uriah's book.

It's true that Ellen White is talking about Uriah Smith's book on Daniel and Revelation. There is no doubt of that. But she doesn't mean for anyone to think she is endorsing everything Uriah Smith wrote in that book or in any other book he wrote. Uriah Smith made mistakes. He was not inspired in the biblical sense.

Gordon1's quote of Ellen White in regard to Uriah Smith helps to illusrate this fact. Refer to post #471320.

[Gordon1]

"For years he [satan] has been working with all his deceivableness of unrighteousness to find standing room in the Review and Herald Publishing House. And he has found it. He has been allowed to come into the very place that should ever have been regarded as a sacred, holy place, the temple of God, from which the Lord would send forth clear, bright rays of light to all parts of the world. Satan has succeeded in placing in the hands of the the employees of our publishing house a class of literature that is prepared to deceive, if posssible, the very elect...The employees have worked on books containing spiritualistic, demoralizing theories...

Books containing false theories have been permitted to come from an office controlled by Seventh-day Adventists, while the very books that the managers should have been active and zealous in circulating everywhere have been left to lie unused on the shelves. When the pure truth is mingled with the slime of satanic deceptions, how can God work for the advancement of His cause?

..a victory for Satan.."

Manuscript 124, December 9, 1901.

Let's not forget that the LORD destroyed the Review & Herald with fire on Dec. 30th 1902. He had earlier done the same to the Battle Creek Sanitarium in January that year (see 8T 101). Two of the church's largest institutions - a monumental loss.

[John317]

.. It is a shame that as early as 1919 Uriah's book was already under attack. Today it is easily dimissed as nothing more than an inaccurate old book, almost with contempt.

Your opinion, John, is that there is much in Uriahs book worthy of study. I concur.

You'd never hear me say anything like that about Smith's book. It's still a great and important book.

What you say just shows there's a lot of people misinformed about Adventist views of Daniel and Revelation.

The best books to be written by SDAs on the books of D & R do not show contempt for Uriah Smith's commentary. You won't see contempt for Smith in Desmond Ford's book, in the SDA BC, or in Zdravko Stefanovic's recently published commentary on Daniel.

[John317]

"For years he [satan] has been working with all his deceivableness of unrighteousness to find standing room in the Review and Herald Publishing House. And he has found it. He has been allowed to come into the very place that should ever have been regarded as a sacred, holy place, the temple of God, from which the Lord would send forth clear, bright rays of light to all parts of the world. Satan has succeeded in placing in the hands of the the employees of our publishing house a class of literature that is prepared to deceive, if posssible, the very elect...The employees have worked on books containing spiritualistic, demoralizing theories...

Books containing false theories have been permitted to come from an office controlled by Seventh-day Adventists, while the very books that the managers should have been active and zealous in circulating everywhere have been left to lie unused on the shelves. When the pure truth is mingled with the slime of satanic deceptions, how can God work for the advancement of His cause?

..a victory for Satan.."

Manuscript 124, December 9, 1901.

Gordon1, how do those quotes above apply directly to the topic at hand-- the discussion of the Daily and the book on D&R by Uriah Smith?

[ClubV12]

Actually, I don't think Gordons post directly relates to D and R by Uriah. The counsel, which I've read concerning our publishing work, is well taken though. She has much to say about the publishing work in general.

Another point, as it concerns Uriah, I see in the same light as Jones and Wagonner, even Dr. Kellogg. Previous, well respected work shouldn't be thrown out because at some point the author left the path. God was still using them at some point, their message, not the messenger, is what remains worthy. She did call for smaller books on the subject, I get the impression she thought D and R was larger than she had hoped for.

Granted some of D and R is not entirely accurate. Perhaps it WAS a message more for THAT time frame than today. From what I've read in D and R it still contains substantial truth. I guess the question would be, is it eclipsed by smaller books and tracts on the subject with more understanding today? Sister White never meant the discussions concerning Daniel or the Revelation to stop with Uriah, not at all. The subject still calls for top priority. Can we do that without going where it went in 1919 and causing more trouble than the subject is worth?

In some cases, the less said about the Daily, may be for the best, if it leads to conflict.

[John317]

[Gordon1]

What blanket endorsement of Uriah Smith do you refer to?

[ClubV12]

Gordon, I still don't see this counsel from Sister White to Uriah and others in the publishing field as being directly related to Uriah's book. Separate issues. Beyond the quote I posted concerning the importance of D and R we also have counsel that ranks it right there with Great Controversy, Patriarchs and Prophets and how these books should be widely distributed. She speaks of people being converted through reading D and R, which was about the ONLY book on the subject at the time. Which lends some understanding as to why it was so important at that time.

"The Daily suitably represents Christ's continual mediation for us."

Well that is essentially the view that was taken by leadership in 1919 and continues today. All though, it was hotly debated, Uriah and others wouldn't give an inch on the "new" interpretation. Sister White is NOT clear on which version she supports. Many tried to use various quotes from her to support their position, which is why she finally called on all of them to stop using her writings to support ANY position on the issue!

Of course we have the bible as the method to figure it out. Great bible scholars STILL come to different conclusions. William Miller might not agree with most of the church today on the "daily", certainly Uriah wouldn't. They didn't agree with A.G. Daniels either. It's fair to say these pioneers were certainly great bible scholars, but they didn't agree.

My friend insists the daily is the coming Sunday law. That view seems more in tune with the "old view", but he rejects BOTH the old and the new view! He's a former SDA University teacher, in that respect, it's hard to dismiss his opinion.

[Gordon1]

Christ desires to teach us individually & if we submit to Him in all His ways we shall not lean upon man's wisdom.

Go straight to the Source. This was the call of 1888.

[ClubV12]

Ha Ha,,, Oh I've been all over the "source". I'm considering how the Holy Spirit works in many different ways to reveal information to us. Perhaps it is not yet my time to grasp this particular issue in full clairity.

[Lysimachus]

In a nutshell, when Ellen White stated in 1853 that the pioneers had the right view of the daily and were united on it, she was referring to the "timing" of the daily, not the "definition" of the daily. She even confirmed this when A.G. Daniels talked with her. In other words, when she wrote the statement that the pioneers had the right view, she was speaking in the context of time setting for the Second Advent, not the definition of the word itself, but the duration of the daily. In other words, all were united that time had ended in 1844.

The most exhaustive work that has been published to date on the Daily is The 'Daily' Source Book by Heidi Heiks.

When O.R.L. Crosier wrote in the Day-Star Extra in 1846 concerning the Sanctuary, he profusely referenced the "daily" as referring to the ministry of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Concerning this article, Ellen White said:

Quote:

The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint. {WLF 12.8}

Obviously then, this view that the "daily" was the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary could not be the "heresy" and "scheme of the devil" Ellen White was referring to when reprimanding A.G. Daniels and Prescott for their "Daily" controversy. She was reprimanding them for making this subject of foremost importance instead of heeding the work of the Lord and reaching out to the cities! Satan was using the "daily" subject to distract them--despite them having the correct view on it!

[Lysimachus]

So basically, the view that the "Daily" was referring to the Ministry of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary dates all the way back to O.R.L. Crosier's article in the Day-Star Extra in 1846.

Anyone is free to load the EGW-CD-Rom, and click on the "Words of the Pioneers" section, then read the article "The Sanctuary" by O.R.L. Crosier.

[Lysimachus]

Both my dad and I used to hold the "paganism" view. I've been forced to change my views after carefully weighing all the evidence. It took me some time, especially my dad, but it all became pretty clear as time evolved.

There was no possible way for William Miller to perceive that the daily had anything to do with Christ's High Priest Ministry. Why? Because he held that the sanctuary was the earth! Had William Miller perceived that the "daily" was referring to Christ's High Priestly Ministry in heaven, there would have never been the 1844 disappointment. William Miller also thought that the Lamb-Like Beast was the Papacy--the Image to the Beast (Pagan Rome). He also thought that the number 666 represented 666 years of Pagan Roman supremacy--but his dates were based on flawed historical data. He didn't have all the light, nor was it his time to perceive this light. It was ONLY after 1844 that the true light of the Daily could be understood. It took a little while to straighten this doctrine out.

[John317]

What blanket endorsement of Uriah Smith do you refer to?

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Hi John, the seemingly unqualified support for Uriah Smith as one of our reliable & trustworthy scholars & historians. I don't think Ellen White or the Lord saw it that way.

You're not suggesting that Ellen White did not write the statement, are you?

But I think you're mistaken to call her statement an "unqualified support" for everything Uriah Smith said or wrote. Ellen White certainly did not intend people to think everything Uriah Smith wrote was right.

[John317]

I agree, Lysimachus.

The Bible evidence appears to be clearly in favor of "the daily" being the gospel, and specifically the High Priestly Ministry of Christ, which the little-horn power-- papal system-- has thrown down to the ground. He did this largely by inventing the false system of the human priesthood and the Mass.

The SDA church was raised up for the express purpose of undoing the evil work of the little horn power and calling the world's attention back to the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

How can the SDA church do the work that God has called us to do if we accept the false teaching that the atonement was finished at the cross; that we are not living during the Antitypical Day of Atonement; and that there is no Investigative Judgment?

[John317]

[John317]

We should only consider Smith's views in order to understand the other position among SDAs with respect to the Daily. No one is saying that we should accept it on the basis of Smith's authority.

[John317]

...."The Daily suitably represents Christ's continual mediation for us."

Well that is essentially the view that was taken by leadership in 1919 and continues today. All though, it was hotly debated, Uriah and others wouldn't give an inch on the "new" interpretation. Sister White is NOT clear on which version she supports. Many tried to use various quotes from her to support their position, which is why she finally called on all of them to stop using her writings to support ANY position on the issue!

Of course we have the bible as the method to figure it out.

Do you have the SDA BC Encyclopedia? If so, read what it says under "Daily, the." It's a thorough article, pages 319-323 (1966 ed.).

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the "new view" of the daily dates to 1919. Apparently it actually dates to about 1900. At that time, Conradi seems to have been the first one to publish anything from that viewpoint.

Is your mention of the year 1919 by any chance connected to the Bible Conference that was held that same year?