The Daily--New or Old view

[JonDavis]

Very true that the Sabbath had been kept through all ages.

But I do believe Rome did think to change times and laws including the Sabbath.

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

The vision of the evening and morning?
That would be the 2300 days right?

It all seems to fit to myself.
The prophecies go through the kingdoms up till Rome.
Then a little horn
Then a prophecy of Judgment with the Revelation of the Sabbath Truth.
Some troubled times.
Then Jesus Comes Again.

 

[tall73]

THE DAILY-THE PIONEER VIEW

http://temcat.com/daily.htm

http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF2204w.pdf

You now edited to include another article. Yet the articles seem at cross-purposes

So now the second article seems to suggest that EGW, according to Daniels, as later also stated in the 1919 conference notes, says she had no instruction on the daily.

So she now admits that she said "I saw" in the context of relating a vision, but did not see?

So then, which parts of hers should we take seriously?

Neither of your articles have resolved this problem.

She also said the Lord SHOWED her about the chart. The Chart also includes the daily explanation.

Then in the rebuke to Haskell she says he should NOT redistribute the chart!

There is no way around it. She said she saw it from the Lord. And now she said she didn't.

However, the article resolves this by saying she only meant the word "daily" was not supplied. Yet she clearly says they had the correct view of the daily.

Not only that, but let's then assume that we believe EGW that she did not receive instruction on the daily from the Lord, and that this issue is not to be solved by her writings.

Why then do we hold that her writings hold authoritative force if they are not to settle theological disputes?

And if the only way to know what she meant on any question is to have her explain it years later, and then to perform an protracted analysis of what she must have meant (which of course the former is not available on most topics) then how can we ever know whether what she said was from God or even what she meant?

I say the solution to all this is clear. "Set to one side" sister White and use the Bible.

 

[JonDavis]

I can't leave this out.
In the context of the daily being the Sabbath with Jesus entering the most holy place fits perfectly with what Revelation has to say...

Our 3 Angles Message..
Rev 14:7
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

1. Judgment is Come
2. Worship him who what? This speaks of the Sabbath...
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.....
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Then in Revelation 10 in the disappointment...

Rev 10:9
And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

What are we to prophesy again????
Back up a few verses...

5. And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6: And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
7: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Again we see metion of the Creation which the Sabbath points to.
And the mystery of God is Finished.

Twice we see the Sabbath plus we see other times where it says to keep the Commandments of God.

What are the prophecies telling us.

1. Judgment
2. Keep His Commandments

When was this message sent out???

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

1844

 

[tall73]

When was this message sent out???

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

1844

According to EGW your view is as good as anyone else's as we are not to use her writings to conclude the question--though she did sound pretty emphatic on the point earlier.

However, your view would make a lot more sense if the Sabbath message actually did go out then. As RC pointed out it was around long before then.

And as I pointed out the group that would become the Adventists did not find that teaching in 1844.

 

[Sophia7]

About the poll what if my answer is neither view is correct. Miller's view is based upon certain assumptions which don't really work and the same is true of the so called new view. Why don't we get a spot in the Poll?

I don't agree with either view myself.

 

[tall73]

I suppose options should be added for antiochus, or other, or still deciding.

 

[JonDavis]

However, your view would make a lot more sense if the Sabbath message actually did go out then. As RC pointed out it was around long before then.

And as I pointed out the group that would become the Adventists did not find that teaching in 1844.

I just thought of this...
This quote from Ellen White further backs up the message of the Sabbath in 1844.

I saw that the present test on the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the holy place was finished and He had passed within the second veil; therefore Christians who fell asleep before the door was opened into the most holy, when the midnight cry was finished, at the seventh month, 1844, and who had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light and the test on the Sabbath which we now have since that door was opened. I saw that Satan was tempting some of God's people on this point. Because so many good Christians have fallen asleep in the triumphs of faith and have not kept the true Sabbath, they were doubting about its being a test for us now. {EW 42.3}

But what I want to get at is they believed this happened in October.
Ellen White is shown the seventh month.
Of course God would not be using our Roman Calender but the Jewish one.
This adds about three more months in God's year for the Sabbath truth to be given.

 

[Sophia7]

I just thought of this...
This quote from Ellen White further backs up the message of the Sabbath in 1844.

I saw that the present test on the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the holy place was finished and He had passed within the second veil; therefore Christians who fell asleep before the door was opened into the most holy, when the midnight cry was finished, at the seventh month, 1844, and who had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light and the test on the Sabbath which we now have since that door was opened. I saw that Satan was tempting some of God's people on this point. Because so many good Christians have fallen asleep in the triumphs of faith and have not kept the true Sabbath, they were doubting about its being a test for us now. {EW 42.3}

But what I want to get at is they believed this happened in October.
Ellen White is shown the seventh month.
Of course God would not be using our Roman Calender but the Jewish one.
This adds about three more months in God's year for the Sabbath truth to be given.

The Seventh Day Baptists were attempting to influence the Millerites to keep the seventh-day Sabbath as early as 1842, but their efforts were often resisted at first. Signs of the Times even refused to publish any material on it at that time. A few Millerites did finally accept the Sabbath by the fall of 1844, but the message was being preached long before that, so it's clear that it didn't originate in 1844. It wasn't until 1845 that Joseph Bates was convinced of it, and he in turn influenced Ellen Harmon, who was also resistant to the idea at first. Here is a portion of an article from the Adventist Review on the development of distinctive Adventist doctrines:

By September 1844 the amount of agitation over the seventh day had become significant enough for the Midnight Cry to publish an extensive two-part editorial on the topic. “Many persons,” noted the Cry, “have their minds deeply exercised respecting a supposed obligation to observe the seventh day” (MC, Sept. 5, 1844, 68).

The editorials concluded that the first day of the week was not the biblical Sabbath. But they also noted that Christians were not under obligation to observe any special holy time. However, if such a requirement did exist, “then we think the seventh day is the only day for the observance of which there is any LAW” (ibid., Sept. 12, 1844, 76).

Those predisappointment seventh-day Sabbath seeds would produce more fruit in early 1845. On February 28 Preble set forth his beliefs on the Sabbath in the Hope of Israel. In March he published an expanded treatment of his views in a 12-page pamphlet not so subtly entitled A Tract, Showing That the Seventh Day Should Be Observed as the Sabbath, Instead of the First Day; “According to the Commandment.”

By April 1845 Joseph Bates had discovered Preble’s treatment of the topic in the Hope of Israel. He “read and compared” Preble’s evidence “with the bible” and became convinced “that there never had been any change” of the Sabbath to the first day of the week (SDS [1846], 40).
From that point on Bates strongly advocated the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.

Zealot on the topic that he was, Bates tried to convince young Ellen Harmon about the Sabbath during their first meeting in the summer of 1846. “I did not,” she later reported, “feel its importance, and thought that he erred in dwelling upon the fourth commandment more than upon the other nine” (LS 95). Later that year Ellen and her new spouse (James White) both accepted the validity of the seventh-day Sabbath, probably after studying the evidence in Bates’s The Seventh Day Sabbath, a Perpetual Sign, which he had published in August (1T 75). That same autumn appears to have been the time when Bates traveled to western New York where he met with Crosier, Hahn, and Edson. Edson and Hahn accepted the biblical Sabbath, while Crosier at least seemed favorable toward its observance. Meanwhile, they shared their insights on the heavenly sanctuary with Bates, which he readily accepted as being founded on solid Bible study. Thus by late 1846 a small group of Adventist believers began to form around the united doctrines of the two-phase ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary and the binding nature of the seventh-day Sabbath (H. Edson MS; YI, Mar. 8, 1910, 4-6).
​

Thus, the pioneers of what would become the Seventh-day Adventist Church didn't accept the Sabbath truth in 1844. They claimed later that it was connected to the seventh-month movement even though they hadn't believed it then, and they explained this away by saying that it hadn't been a testing truth until after Jesus moved into the MHP:

I saw that the present test on the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the holy place was finished and He had passed within the second veil; therefore Christians who fell asleep before the door was opened into the most holy, when the midnight cry was finished, at the seventh month, 1844, and who had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light and the test on the Sabbath which we now have since that door was opened. I saw that Satan was tempting some of God's people on this point. Because so many good Christians have fallen asleep in the triumphs of faith and have not kept the true Sabbath, they were doubting about its being a test for us now. {EW 42.3}
​

Does this mean that Ellen White was lost when she first rejected the Sabbath in the summer of 1846 (because it had become a testing truth by that time)? Also, her famous vision of the Ten Commandments with the halo of light shining on the fourth didn't even occur until 1846:

In the autumn of 1846 we began to observe the Bible Sabbath, and to teach and defend it. My attention was first called to the Sabbath while I was on a visit to New Bedford, Massachusetts, earlier in the same year. I there became acquainted with Elder Joseph Bates, who had early embraced the advent faith, and was an active laborer in the cause. Elder B. was keeping the Sabbath, and urged its importance. I did not feel its importance, and thought that Elder B. erred in dwelling upon the fourth commandment more than upon the other nine. But the Lord gave me a view of the heavenly sanctuary. The temple of God was opened in heaven, and I was shown the ark of God covered with the mercy seat. Two angels stood, one at each end of the ark, with their wings spread over the mercy seat, and their faces turned toward it. My accompanying angel informed me that these represented all the heavenly host looking with reverential awe toward the holy law which had been written by the finger of God. Jesus raised the cover of the ark, and I beheld the tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments were written. I was amazed as I saw the fourth commandment in the very center of the ten precepts, with a soft halo of light encircling it. Said the angel: "It is the only one of the ten which defines the living God who created the heavens and the earth and all things that are therein. When the foundations of the earth were laid, then was laid the foundation of the Sabbath also." {1T 75.4}
​

All of this shows that 1844 was historically insignificant in terms of a reawakened interest in the Sabbath among the Millerites and especially among the founders of the SDA Church.

 

[reddogs]

This is a poll to see who takes the new view and who takes the old view.

If you are not sure which is which then you may want to wait on the poll and go check out information on the understanding of the continual or daily in Adventist history.

Discussion is fine too.

Ellen White was very clear on her insistance on "the daily", she never wavered, never changed, never accepted a different view. She saw the alpha of apostasy when L.R. Conradi tried to force his "new" interpretation, which influenced A.G. Daniells, and W.W. Prescott who then tried to force the "new" view on Ellen White. She resisted them and refused to see them or let them try to get her to even look at the "new" view, and then warned them they needed "reconversion" if they continued pressing this issue as that would help Satans cause against the church and the effect would only be confusion. Thus her statement that "silence is eleqount" to gently try to stop them from this subtle attack on what God had presented clearly to the pioneers and the danger of a drift of the bearers of this "new view" to apostasy.

The public questioning of the "pagan daily" by the church's highest and most respected leaders touched off a fierce controversy that shook the denomination to its roots. The defenders of the "new view" included the General Conference president (A.G. Daniells), the editor of the Review (W.W. Prescott).

Prescott was subsequently pressured to leave the Review in mid-1909 by Ellen White, who urged him to engage in city evangelism instead. A.G. Daniells, as General Conference president, was repeatedly rebuffed by Ellen White on this issue, and was virtally forced to relinquish his position in 1910 and engage in city evangelism. Later in 1930, A.G. Daniells again pressed this "new view", but this time implied that he had met with Ellen White and she had not resisted the view, a fact that is not borne out by the record of any of Ellen Whites secretaries or Ellen White herself and her writtings.

F.C. Gilbert, however was able to interview Ellen White personally and privately concerning her views on the "daily." Elder Gilbert took notes as she was speaking and clearly endorsing the pioneers original view, and wrote up the interview immediately afterward and it clearly refutes what L.R. Conradi tried to push as the "new view". I have not finished my study to see what direct affect this had on L.R. Conradi , but L.R. Conradi some time after this became a apostate and left the church.


Here is some excerpts of what Ellen White told F. C. Gilbert, and was in her manuscripts:












Some excerpts:

When they [Prescott and A.G. Daniells] did not accept my message of reproof I knew what they would do and I knew what [ A.G.]Daniells would do in getting the people all stirred up. I have not written to Prescott because his wife is so very sick...[ A.G.]Daniells was here to se me, and I would not see him. I told them that I would not see him on any point, and I would not have anything to say to him about anything. About this "daily" that they are trying to work up, there is nothing in it, and it is not a testing point of character...​

...I would not see [ A.G.] Daniells about the matter, and I would not have one word with him. They pled with me that I would give them an interview, but I would not give him any at all. They have stirred up the minds of the people against this testing time, and I am going to let the people know about these things.​

God is testing these men, and they are showing how they are standing the test, and how they stand with regard to the Testimonies. They have shown by their actions how much confidence they have in the Testimonies.​

...I saw why it was that [ A.G.] Daniells was rushing this thing through from place to place; for he knew that I would work against it. That is why I know they did not stand the testing. I knew they would not receive it. ... This whole thing they are doing is a scheme of the devil. He [ A.G. Daniells] has been president too long, and should not be there any longer.​

Ellen White saw the danger this confusion could and would cause later, so tried to stop the continuing debate and told them to stop pushing the issue or even use her writings in this matter as it had gone too far. Ellen White was never shown that the pioneers view should change and never allowed or endorsed L.R. Conradi "new view" as it was the alpha of apostasy but also saw the issue correctly as not critical just a distraction.

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.​

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question; for I have no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under present conditions, silence is eloquence....9​

Now William Miller came to the conclusion that the "daily" of Daniel 8:11,12 and 11:31 was "paganism". Joseph Bates identified the "daily" as paganism in 1846 (The Opening Heavens, p. 31), so did J.N. Andrews in 1853 (Review and Herald, 3:145, Feb. 3, 1853), and later Uriah Smith (ibid., 24:180, Nov. 1, 1864) and James White ("The Time" in Sermons on the Coming and Kingdom of...Christ, 1870, ed., pp. 116, 117).2












But the event that made "paganism" was Ellen White's endorsement of it in Present Truth, November 1850. A vision that she received on September 23, 1850, is now found on pages 74 and 75 of Early Writings:

Then I saw in relation to the "daily", Dan. 8:12, that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment-hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily", but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed.​

Another document that wielded tremendous influence among Adventists was Uriah Smith's highly regarded The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, of which the Daniel half was published in 1873. According to A.C. Bordeau, a respected SDA minister and close associate of the White's:

Many years ago, when the late Uriah Smith was writing Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, while Elder James White and Ellen G. White were at my house in Enosburg, Vermont, they received by mail a roll of printed proofsheets on Thoughts on Revelation that Brother Smith had sent to them. Brother White read portions of the same to the company, and expressed much pleasure and satisfaction because they were so concisely and clearly written. Then Sister White stated what she had been shown as follows: "The Lord is inspiring Brother Smith--leading his mind by His Spirit, and an angel is guiding his hand in writing these "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation." I was present when these words were spoken. (signed) "A.C. Bordeau"3​

In Daniel and Revelation, Smith strongly favored the paganism interpretation of the "daily," as can be seen on pages 164 and 165 of his book:

What is the Daily? We have proof in verse 13 that "sacrifice" is the wrong word to be supplied in connection with the word "daily". ...the daily cannot be the daily sacrifice of the Jews​

Many have tried to use this controversy to reign confusion on the brethren, but it is nothing but a ruse by Satan to distract from the work to be done. Set it aside and continue boldly and fearlessly forward........

(As we say in spanish "basta"........)
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/1919bc/hal-4.htm

 

[Adventist Dissident]

It sounds like Ellen knew that there was a flaw and did not want people to know about it. if the daily and Ellen viewed was wrong, she was not a prophet. That is what you are forced to conclude.

 

[reddogs]

It sounds like Ellen knew that there was a flaw and did not want people to know about it. if the daily and Ellen viewed was wrong, she was not a prophet. That is what you are forced to conclude.

There was no flaw in what was given on the daily to the pioneers, only the Alpha of apostasy trying to resist the Spirit of Prophecy as the Omega of apostasy is doing now.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

There was no flaw in what was given on the daily to the pioneers, only the Alpha of apostasy trying to resist the Spirit of Prophecy as the Omega of apostasy is doing now.

You are a supporter of EGW that is very clear. the Term "Alpha of apostasy" is made up to label those who discover the problem and scare people away from talking about it, it is made up so that people can be controlled. That is propaganda.

The 2300 days is wrong. it does not termintate with something happening to "little horn" power or some thing happening to the temple, that is the problem.
you show me that in 1844 something happened to the "little horn" power? NOTHING HAPPENED!!!

 

[tall73]

Reddogs, what do you do then with the later statement that Ellen made that she had no instruction previously on the point and that it was not to be a testing truth?

Do these not seem to be in conflict? I agree that she seemed clear on the daily in the present truth magazine, and said she saw, in relation of a vision. Why then did she later say she had no instruction?

 

[reddogs]

Reddogs, what do you do then with the later statement that Ellen made that she had no instruction previously on the point and that it was not to be a testing truth?

Do these not seem to be in conflict? I agree that she seemed clear on the daily in the present truth magazine, and said she saw, in relation of a vision. Why then did she later say she had no instruction?

She saw it was not a pivotal matter as many try to do to raise controversy, so she gave those statements that there was nothing more or more instructions and it was not to be a testing truth .. I was studying the daily and these exact statements this weekend and didnt even know you had a thread, 'something' led me to them and I will have to find them again and line them up for you so you see the progression of events and her statements...

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Reddog

It is a resonable demand that is being made upon supporters, including you, that the supporters be able to answer some basic questions.

Like, what happened in 1844 to the "little horn" power. It is part of the fullfillment and termination of the 2300 days.

The "little horn" power "trampled" the temple and "defiled" it. In 1844 it was to [my paraphrasing] be set back to pre-trampling state. what happned in 1844 to fulfill this?

 

[tall73]

She saw it was not a pivotal matter as many try to do to raise controversy, so she gave those statements that there was nothing more or more instructions and it was not to be a testing truth .. I was studying the daily and these exact statements this weekend and didnt even know you had a thread, 'something' led me to them and I will have to find them again and line them up for you so you see the progression of events and her statements...

She didn't say there was nothing "more."

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of
my writings in their arguments regarding this question; 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.--MS 11, 1910 (see also
1SM, p. 164). {6BIO 258.1}

She says she did not have instruction in the past.

How do you reconcile that with her very plain instructions in the past that the previous view was correct?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

She saw it was not a pivotal matter as many try to do to raise controversy, so she gave those statements that there was nothing more or more instructions and it was not to be a testing truth .. I was studying the daily and these exact statements this weekend and didnt even know you had a thread, 'something' led me to them and I will have to find them again and line them up for you so you see the progression of events and her statements...

Reddog

The 2300 days is "fundimental" to SDA theology. Without it there is not SDA chruch. What happened there is so vitally important if it is wrong then many of the conclusions that the SDA chruch make are wrong. It is crucial. the Sunday law, the investigative judgement and EGW's claims to prophetic ministry all are tied to this prophecy. if you cannot find something that happened in 1844 to fulfill the prophecy all of it goes out the window and a large part of seventh-day adventism goes out the window and has to be re-thought.

 

[reddogs]

She didn't say there was nothing "more."

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of
my writings in their arguments regarding this question; 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.--MS 11, 1910 (see also
1SM, p. 164). {6BIO 258.1}

She says she did not have instruction in the past.

How do you reconcile that with her very plain instructions in the past that the previous view was correct?

The, "point under discussion" was not about the "old view" what was being brought up that she "had no instruction " was a variation of or the "new view" which she very plainly answers "Regarding this matter under
present conditions, silence is eloquence"...

 

[tall73]

The, "point under discussion" was not about the "old view" what was being brought up that she "had no instruction " was a variation of or the "new view" which she very plainly answers "Regarding this matter under
present conditions, silence is eloquence"...

The context does not support that. Notice the whole quote from the first page:

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 Haskell, Loughborough,
Smith, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no
reference to my writings to sustain their views of the "daily."
{6BIO 257.5}
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. {6BIO 257.6}

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of
my writings in their arguments regarding this question; 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.--MS 11, 1910 (see also
1SM, p. 164). {6BIO 258.1}


Smith, etc. agreed with her view. They were aware of what she had written. But she asked them not to use it saying she had no instruction on the daily.

 

[reddogs]

The context does not support that. Notice the whole quote from the first page:

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 Haskell, Loughborough,
Smith, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no
reference to my writings to sustain their views of the "daily."
{6BIO 257.5}
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. {6BIO 257.6}

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of
my writings in their arguments regarding this question; 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.--MS 11, 1910 (see also
1SM, p. 164). {6BIO 258.1}


Smith, etc. agreed with her view. They were aware of what she had written. But she asked them not to use it saying she had no instruction on the daily.

This issue was caused by fight over the "new view" as you can see in the quote "difference in the views that are held." and that is why she had to write to declare everyone to hold their horses, or "silence is eloquence.--" as it would have been a fight over a issue 'not of vital importance' much like some we are having at present, which would have done much unnecersary damage and evil would have been advanced.