Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis

Uriah Smith to E. G. White, Feb. 17, 1890

Letter, Uriah Smith to Ellen G. White
W C White Letter Book “I”, pp. 546-552
Battle Creek, Michigan
February 17, 1890
Dear Sister White:

Your communication of the 16th was handed me yesterday morning. I am very glad if the preface suits you. I wrote it under some disadvantages, and had many fears that it would not prove to be what was desired. But if it is satisfactory, that fully pays me for the attempt. MMM 152.1

In regard to the principal subject of which you wrote, allow me freely to say a few words. It is not my wish that any one should allow my position on any question to decide his belief on that subject. I always say to one and all, “Examine the question and take only such a position as to you seems satisfactory.” I never yet said to anyone, “I have got the truth and you will have to come to the same position in the end,” nor that, “When you have examined the subject as much as I have, you will come to the same conclusion.” MMM 152.2

Of course it has always been my purpose to move carefully and cautiously, and not take a position till I felt satisfied that it was from every point of view a tenable one. And then when everything looks plain and clear, I take my position firmly, and do not know how I could consistently do otherwise. And then I cannot be moved from that position till I can see some reasons which seem to me clearer and stronger than those that led me to take it. And then if others profess to see the matter in the same light, I cannot feel to blame them for that. MMM 152.3

Now I want to say a word in regard to some things in the past, which as I understand it, have a bearing on the present situation. As it looks to me, next to the death of Brother White, the greatest calamity that ever befell our cause was when Dr. Waggoner put his articles on the book of Galatians through the Signs. I supposed the question of the law in Galatians was settled away back in 1856 when Brother Pierce came on from Vermont to have an investigation of the position which Brother J.H. Waggoner took in his first book on the law, namely, that the law in Galatians was the Ten Commandments. At any rate, from that time up to the appearance of the articles in the Signs there was, with a few individual exceptions, unity among our people on that question. But that unity was then broken. Many were thrown into confusion, and letters came pouring into the Review Office to know what that meant. I was surprised at the articles, because they seemed to me then, and still seem to me, to contradict so directly what you wrote to J.H. Waggoner on the occasion referred to above. You saw that his position was wrong. MMM 152.4

And there was only the one issue then under examination: namely, whether the law in Galatians was the Ten Commandments as Brother Waggoner claimed, or was the Mosaic Law system as Brother Pierce claimed. My recollection on that is quite distinct, and if I was on oath at a court of justice, I should be obliged to testify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, that was the only point then at issue; and on that you said that Brother Waggoner was wrong. That has seemed to me ever since to be according to the Scriptures. And Brother White was so well satisfied on the subject, that, you remember, he withdrew Brother Waggoner’s book from circulation, and would not consent to another edition being published unless he would change his view set forth on Galatians. This Brother Waggoner would never agree to, and so the book was never published. The position that Brother Waggoner now takes is open to exactly the same objection. So you see two reasons why I can but look upon it with distrust; namely, because, first, it seems to me contrary to the Scriptures, and secondly, contrary to what you have previously seen. I do not mean his views on justification by faith, and righteousness through Christ, for those we have always believed; but his view on the law in Galatians, which he deduces as a conclusion from his premises on those other points. MMM 153.1

The next unfortunate move, I think, was when the brethren in California met, just before the Minnesota Conference, and laid their plans to post up, and bring their views on the ten horns and the law in Galatians into that Conference. We were only informed of this by letter from California, a few days before it was time to start for Conference. I could hardly believe that it was so, but the report was soon confirmed after reaching that place. Brother Haskell came to me and asked how I thought those questions had better be introduced. I told him I thought they had better not be introduced at all; that they would only bring confusion into the Conference, and do only harm and not good. But he said the California brethren were decided on having them presented; and so they were introduced, and nearly ruined the Conference, as I feared they would. Had these disturbing questions not been introduced, I can see no reason why we could not have had as pleasant and blessed a Conference there as we have ever enjoyed. MMM 154.1

The real point at issue at that Conference was the law in Galatians; but Brother Waggoner’s six preliminary discourses on righteousness we could all agree to; and I should have enjoyed them first rate, had I not known all the while that he designed them to pave the way for his position on Galatians, which I deem as erroneous. MMM 154.2

I of course do not believe there is any necessary and logical connection between the two, but you know a truth may be used in such a way and with such an apparent purpose, as to spoil the pleasure we would otherwise feel in listening to it. He took his position on Galatians, the same which you had condemned in his father. And when you apparently indorsed his position as a whole, though without committing yourself on any particular point, it was a great surprise to many. And when they asked me what that meant, and how I could account for it, really, Sister White, 1 did not know what to say, and I do not know what yet. MMM 154.3

That a settled plan has been formed to urge these changes of doctrine upon our people till they shall come to be considered the views of the body, is apparent from movements since the Minnesota Conference; that is, to have them presented at all the camp meetings, at institutes, schools, ministers’ meetings, etc, kept right to the front, and put in at every possible place and opportunity. And when the point is gained, and when this change of base is accomplished, then how are we going to explain the past? I often find myself wondering if you are aware of the new views that are being projected, and to some extent already taught. MMM 155.1

For instance. I am told that Brother A.T. Jones has taught here in the class this winter, that we have no sufficient evidence for the view we have so long taught that the papacy was established in 538, and there the 1260 years began. He don’t suggest any other date, or give proof for any other view, but simply teaches that this won’t stand. Then I would like to know where we are in the prophecies. The 1260 years is one of the most important periods, and the one most frequently brought to view, in the whole prophetic field, and if we are to be thrown into doubt on this, what can we do with Daniel 7, Matthew 24, Revelation 12, and Revelation 13? We are all afloat. As one of the ministers here said to me, it seemed like taking the heart right out of the message, and he did not know how he was going to present the prophecies. But he has since looked up the references in our books at the office, and has become satisfied that the view we have held is well sustained. MMM 155.2

How can I believe that the Lord is leading Brother Jones in such teaching as that? I cannot, so long as I believe that such men as James White, J.N. Andrews, and J.H. Waggoner during the many years they wrote, preached, and published on these prophetic themes. As between the old and the new, my heart is with my former companions in labor. Take another instance: Brother E.W. Whitney imagines that he has discovered great light on Revelation Fourteen, namely, that the first message did not begin till after the time passed in 1844; that, consequently, the first and second messages have been given solely by Seventh-day Adventists. In a meeting a few weeks ago, it incidentally came out that Brethren Jones and Waggoner both indorsed this view. MMM 155.3

But what special move has there been on the second message since 1844? And your writings, as you are aware, are full of allusions to the first message and the fall of Babylon in the experience of Adventists previous to the autumn of 1844. It is an astonishment to me that any one who professes confidence in your works should suggest such a view. But you can see as well as I, what the effect would be if such views were urged upon the people and to any extent accepted by them. Where then, would be their confidence in you or your works? We might as well look facts in the face, and see in what direction matters are tending. MMM 156.1

I might mention many other points, but will not take the time. It is these things that trouble me. These are the things that I am opposing, and all that I am opposing so far as I know my position. I desire to be in the fullest union with you. I am never happier than when I feel that such is the case; and it is no agreeable situation to me when it is otherwise. But I have written freely in these pages, that you may see some of the perplexities that seem to be gathering around the situation. When views and movements crop out here and there which, I can see plainly as I can see anything, if they are carried out, will utterly undermine your work, and shake faith in the message, I can but have some feeling in the matter; and you can imagine that it must seem like a strange situation to me, when, because I venture a word of caution on some of these points, I am held up in public as one who is shooting in the dark, and does not know what he is opposing. I think I do know to some degree what I am opposing. I probably do not know the full extent of this work of innovation and disintegration that is going on; but I see enough to cause me some anxiety. I believe I am willing to receive light at any time, from anybody. But what claims to be light must, for me, show itself to be according to the Scriptures and based on good solid reasons which convince the judgment, before it appears light to me. And when anyone presents something which I have long known and believed, it is impossible for me to call that new light. MMM 156.2

If any question, however familiar, can be set forth in a clearer light, I am as glad as anyone to see it done. But I will not weary your patience longer. If in anything I do not take a correct view of the situation, I shall be happy if it can be made to appear in a different light. I return your communication as you request. MMM 157.1

Very truly yours,
Uriah Smith
Retyped from WCW Letters Book “I”
pp. 546-552
arr, Jan. 2, 1972