Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis

W. C. White to S. N. Haskell, Dec. 9, 1909

W. C. White to S. N. Haskell Dec. 9, 1909

[Extract] MMM 322.1

Some experiences we have passed through in the past, have demonstrated that points of comparative insignificance, when made the subject of controversy, have grown to mountains in the estimation of the disputants. And then, when the dispute was over, they shrank back again to mole-hills. Is not this true regarding the controversy over the Huns and the Allemanni? When a student of history found that the Allemanni more evidently met the requirements of the prophecy than the Huns, the one who brought this fact to the front magnified it as an important matter: and those who stood in defense of the original exposition because it was the original exposition, magnified a thousand-fold the possible evils that might come in from making a change, and thus admitting to the world that we had been wrong. But when the correction was made, the question soon dropped out of sight, and one may now ask what was gained by making a change in the exposition so that it should more apparently agree with the history. The answer is made, the satisfaction of being right, and of closing the door for learned critics to point out that our expositions are crude and incorrect. That surely is worth something; we never can know how much. MMM 322.2

About the same time that this matter was up for consideration, questions regarding the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith led our brethren to criticize some of the expositions of Scripture that had gone into print; and those who stood for the old position regarding the guns, and for the old position regarding the law in Galatians, argued long and loud that it would be very detrimental to our work to change our positions. They did not regard the new doctrine itself as of such serious importance, but they believed that the old positions had been sanctioned by the Testimonies, and to make a change would unsettle the confidence of our people everywhere in the Testimonies; and this, they regarded as the most serious feature of the whole question. MMM 323.1

In arguing for a maintenance of the old position regarding the Huns, they brought forward what had been written by Sister White as to the soundness of the pillars of the faith. They brought forward what had been written by her endorsing the work of Elder Smith, and teaching that he had the help of heavenly angels in his work; and these things were enlarged upon, until the president of the Publishing Association practically took the position that “Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation” was inspired, and ought not to be changed in any way. MMM 323.2

This, of course, made a candid and fair study of the questions under consideration, almost impossible; but they were studied kindly and calmly, until Elder Smith saw the wisdom of making many corrections in Daniel and Revelation.” Some prophesied that this would be the ruin of the book; that after changes were made, our people would not want it. But it has proved otherwise, and if additional changes are required to make it correct, I believe that the sooner they are made, the better. I believe it is a good book that it has converted thousands, and that it will convert thousands more. But I do not believe that we are any more warranted in continuing to publish that which later historical study has proved to be incorrect, than a preacher would be warranted in preaching his old sermon after he had received new light, because its former presentation had resulted in winning souls to Christ. MMM 323.3

[Selection ends here.] MMM 324.1