Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis

A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, Apr. 14, 1902

The General Conference
of
Seventh-day Adventists
867 West Main Street.
Cable Address, Adventist.
Battle Creek, Mich., U. S. A.
FROM A. G. DANIELLS
En Route to College View, Nebr., April 14, 1902
Elder W. C. White,
Sanitarium, Cal.
Dear Brother White:—

Yesterday I mailed you a letter containing a copy of my letter to Brother Butler in reply to his criticism of the action of the General Conference Committee in playing Brother Prescott on the editorial staff. From the copy of your letter to him, which you have sent me, I see that Brother Butler has written you about this. On my way from California to Battle Creek I received a letter from him in which he scored the General Conference Committee very hard for this action. As I view the matter he taken a most unreasonable position, and has been unnecessarily severe in his criticism. He seems to have been informed by some brother minister in Battle Creek. I am sure from what he writes that some one has written him a false account of our dealings with Brother Smith. We could not have treated anybody more considerately than we did Brother Smith. Our action was taken with the deepest convictions that something must be done in order to place the REVIEW on the high plane it ought to occupy as our church paper. MMM 317.1

We are called and pledged to a great reform. In order to lift this denomination, our church paper must stand in the front ranks of this reform. It must be the exponent of the fundamental principles upon which this reform is based. It must tell one story in this reform movement, and tell it with vigor; and in order for the paper to do this, the editors must be straight. They must know why reforms are needed, and what the reforms are that are needed. They must be in thorough touch with the work of the General Conference and the Mission Board, and they must be in touch with the masses of the people in the field. Now we know that not one of the editors managing the paper before Brother Prescott connected with it stood in this position. I am sorry to say that Brother Smith does not stand with us in all this work of reform. There is much about it that he does not understand. Furthermore, he is not in touch with the people. He never goes out among them, and takes but little part in the doings of the people. Leon stands in the same place, and Brother Bourdeau is but a boy. But I need not repeat all this to you. I think we talked the matter over at Portland, and I am sure you could not fail of seeing all this without a word from me. MMM 317.2

But there is one point that I want to speak to you about, which I did not feel free to mention, to Brother Butler, and that is a disposition on Brother Smith’s part to revive, or at least permit others to revive, the old Minneapolis controversy. I want to ask if you read what is called the Brickey articles. They appeared in three numbers of the Review beginning about the middle of January. They were entitled Notes on the Book of Galatians. These articles were an open and vicious attack on the message of righteousness by faith presented at Minneapolis, and repeated over and over again by Brethren Jones and Waggoner and others since that time. They were as crooked and unsound as they could be. As I understand the Scriptures, they were directly opposed to the truth of the gospel. And as I understand the teaching of “Patriarchs and Prophets” on the covenants, they were in direct conflict with that book. You can get the papers and read the articles for yourself. You will not be edified by either the richness of thought nor the logic. They are not only scripturally erroneous, but they are weak and illogical. MMM 318.1

When they first came out, I glanced them over, but did not read them critically. I was surprised that the editors would think of printing such effusions. But I really thought that they slipped through their hands, as some other matter had done, and so gave them credit for careless editing rather than designed controversy. It was not long after the first article appeared before quite a storm arose in different parts of the field. Our brethren who have been studying their Bibles were shocked to think the REVIEW would give publicity to such positions. They wrote to the editors, and they wrote to me. Some of them declared that if such teaching were continued in the REVIEW, they would have to raise a strong public protest. They would have to come out in their State papers, and expose the errors. As I have traveled about, I have found that more or less trouble, confusion, and controversy arose in different places over these articles. In Union College, the students interrogated the Bible teachers; they wanted to know if those articles were scriptural. The teachers had to say, No. Then the question was asked why the REVIEW gave them a place. Finally I spoke to Elder Smith about them, and suggested that I presumed the articles were put in by a subordinate without examination. But he informed me that this was not the case. He said that he read them himself, and published them because he believed they set forth the truth. He said they taught what this people first taught on the question, and what he still believed. From this I saw that Brother Smith was far from being in harmony with the truths taught by Brethren Jones and Waggoner at Minneapolis, and sustained over and over again by the Spirit of Prophecy since that time. MMM 318.2

I am sending you a copy of a letter Brother Smith write to Brother Trubey, of Iowa. Brother Trubey states that he supposed, as I did, that the articles were inserted without examination, and suggested the same in a letter to Brother Smith, and expressed the hope that more care would be taken, as the publication of such views would work havoc in the States. Brother Smith’s letter, a copy of which I send you, speaks for itself. MMM 319.1

I feel somewhat concerned about this matter. I am surprised to find scattered all through these Northwestern States men who are deep in the fog over this question. As surely as we live, they are still under the old covenant, the covenant of works. Matthew Larsen seems to be the leader of this faction. He is traveling about wherever he can, sowing this evil seed. Not only the older men who were at work when Brother Butler, Brother Morrison, and others fought this battle, but some of the younger fellows who are coming on, have imbibed these old heresies from the men in the field, who are still unconverted to this new light. MMM 319.2

During the Des Moines Conference I had a long talk with Judson Washburn. He told me of his conversation with your mother in Kansas years ago. His heart still glows with the glorious light that came to him when at that time he permitted the message of righteousness by faith to come into his heart. He says that up to that time he had stood solid with Brother Butler and Brother Morrison and others of that school. But at the time he talked with your mother, he was on the very verge of infidelity. He was only held by a thread, and that meeting saved him. He is now in the light. God is with him. He has worked with Brother Waggoner in England long enough to know something about this message, and its effect upon the heart of the believer. He tells me that he is alarmed over the situation in Iowa. He had supposed that this opposition was entirely dead. He can not understand how men can cling to the old views, and yet he can see that they do, and he can see with clear vision the withering, paralyzing blighting effects they have upon them. It certainly looks to me as though Satan is endeavoring to revive this cursed thing, and keep our workers and people in a stew. I do not believe it will ever gain the ascendancy. It would be a very sorry day for us if it should. No, it will not. But if we give it any encouragement, it will leaven the people. But they are continually in danger and loss. MMM 320.1

Now that I have learned that Brother Smith is utterly at variance with this teaching, and that he is free to see it opposed in public and private, I feel clearer still that we have done right in placing Brother Prescott on the editorial staff. I have no controversy with Brother Smith. do not want any; but I can not endorse this recent development. It is not right. God has put his seal of approval upon the message that came at Minneapolis, and I can not understand how a man can proclaim his unbounded confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy, and reject the Minneapolis message. MMM 320.2

I do not know whether it will be right to place this matter before your mother or not. I do not want to write her, nor do I want to appear to prejudice her against any of my brethren. I am not reporting matters. I am stating facts that are as public as they can be. You can do as you think best about talking with her over this matter. If I were with her, I should be very glad to talk the matter over on general principles, and obtain any light she might have with reference to dealing with this situation. I do not mean with reference to dealing with Brother Smith, but with the whole brood of old-covenant men who are continually raising doubts and unbelief regarding the light that came at the Minneapolis meeting. MMM 321.1

As we are now entering Lincoln, I will not write more to-day. I wish you would let me hear from you about this before I sail. Anything you have to write me must reach Battle Creek by the 26th or 27th,—not a day later. I shall be glad of any counsel you and your mother have for me regarding affairs in Europe. I shall try to write to Sister White about this in a day or so. MMM 321.2

Yours in the Master’s service,
(Signed) A. G. Daniells