Welcome back. Shall we begin with a word of prayer? Heavenly Father, as we look at some of this history that Brother DeWayne's been covering, some of the issues that impact this history, we ask that you grant us the presence of your Holy Spirit to direct our considerations. This particular presentation is a little bit more like a mystery novel. It takes some focus of some various issues that take place. So we ask that those that are viewing these things, that are following these things, that you give them the wisdom to understand beyond the words that I express, because it may be a bit difficult to convey. We want to understand this history in a way that we can be benefited by it personally and that we can be prepared to better reflect your character in the crisis that is now confronting Adventism and better prepared to stand during the Sunday lock crisis that's soon to confront the world. We ask that you would prepare our hearts and minds to hear your voice in these things, that you'd pour your latter rain out upon us by opening our understanding to the truth of your word, and that you'd take control of me, the human instrument. Let me be hid behind your cross and let the words that I share be purified with coals from off your altar, and we thank you for all these things in Jesus' name. Amen. As Brother DeWayne's been sharing the desolations of Jerusalem, the initial couple of days I wasn't here, we were returning from meetings in North Carolina, but recently there's a study that we have done that we haven't put into the public record or recorded that contributes to this history, and I determined that I wanted to add it to this series. If you've been listening to his presentations, then you have heard, whether it clicked on you or not, that the argument over the daily in the early part of the 20th century consisted of two classes of men, and to one class, the new view of the daily was salvational. They may not have said it that way, but if you're arguing that the daily represents Christ's sanctuary ministry and you're professing to be a Seventh-day Adventist, then Christ's sanctuary ministry is certainly salvational to a Seventh-day Adventist. Prescott, Daniels, they believed that the daily was Christ's sanctuary ministry, so this issue for them, it was salvational. Whereas those that were defending against this false view, that were upholding the pioneer position, the Stephen Haskells, Uriah Smith's son, L.A. Smith, F.C. Gilbert, these men, they weren't so much defending the importance of the daily as a prophetic symbol in the book of Daniel as they were arguing that to change that position was to destroy the integrity and the authority of the spirit of prophecy. Their issue was more about what happens to Sister White's passage in early writing 74, if you change her statement where she says those that gave the judgment hour a cry had their correct view of the daily because the historical evidence is absolutely crystal clear that those men that gave the judgment hour a cry understood that the daily was paganism. So to move away from that for these men was to attack the spirit of prophecy. So you have two different camps. The one camp that believes the new view of the daily, that's salvational. The other camp is concerned that you're attacking the spirit of prophecy and is less concerned about the actual symbol of the daily in prophecy than the other. And this is all, Dwayne's been doing a very nice job of putting it into the context of Prescott's desire to bring in a Christological approach to our message. So we want to show a few things and we're going to show the evolution of the statement in early writings that is the statement under discussion. In early writings, page 74, this was written in 1882. But the passage that we find in early writings, page 74, that is the point of contrast, the point of controversy, it was taken from the book Experience and View which was printed in 1851. But the passage in Experience and Views that early writings is derived from is taken from the present truth, November 1850. But today, when we go back into the Pioneer articles or the early publications and we look at the present truth, the present truth of November 1850 is now called the Review and Herald of November 1850. So we're going to put it that way, Review and Herald, 1850, November. And there's an evolution of this passage that is very important to see because if you heard what Duane said, you heard it, but it may not have clicked on for you. One of the arguments that's developed by Prescott and perpetuated by A.G. Daniels and W.C. White, W.C. White particularly, is that the way to understand the passage in early writings is to place it in the context of time setting. And there's absolutely no grammatical or historical justification for doing that whatsoever. But if you look at early writings alone, there's still no justification for doing it, even in early writings. But you have to follow the flow of events. So we're going to begin by looking at the present truth, November 1850. I'm not going to read the entire article. We're going to treat this more as a mystery is what pops into my head in the terms we're going to just put some facts in place. And so this article that's found in November 1st, 1850, originally called the present truth, now the Review and Herald, November 1850. It has 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 paragraphs in this article. One of the things that you need to see about this article, if you're going to be discerning, is that Sister White says that she was shown 10 primary truths. And by that I mean in these 13 paragraphs. Is that how many I said there were? 13? In these 13 paragraphs, there's 10 times where she said, the Lord showed me or I was shown. And as you go through these paragraphs and look at where she says I was shown, she's introducing a brand new truth. In the first paragraph, it starts, it says, I wish to give you a short sketch of what the Lord has recently shown me in vision. I was shown, and then she talks about the love of God. It's a pretty long paragraph, but the point being is, the first paragraph, she was shown about the love of God. And then in the next paragraph, she says, Some I saw. So now in this new paragraph, she's seen something different, and she's not going to talk about the love of God in the second paragraph. She says, Some I saw had erred in praying for the sick. So this paragraph, what she saw, was how we were to pray for the sick in agreement with biblical truth. I'm not intending to address each of these things she was shown. I'm intending to make the point that she's identifying through this article that she's shown different truths as she proceeds through. In the third paragraph, she says, Then I was pointed back to a time when Jesus took his disciples away alone into an upper room and first washed their feet and then gave them to eat of the broken bread to represent his broken body and juice of the vine to represent his spilled blood. I saw that all should move understandingly. This paragraph, what she was shown, is how we should keep the communion service. So it's, I saw the love of Christ. I saw how we should pray for the sick. I saw how we should do the communion service. And as you go through these 13 paragraphs, from this article that's ultimately going to be in Experience and Views, and then finally in Early Writings, every time she says she's shown something, it's identifying a new piece of information. It's like, she's taken to the first door, and the door's open, she sees the love of God. And she's taken to the next door, it's open, she sees how we should pray for the sick. The next door, how we should handle communion. So, without reading it all, I have a summary in my notes, the 10 primary truths in these 13 paragraphs that she was shown. She was shown the love of Christ, offerings, prayer for the sick, communion service, the seven last plagues, connected with the millennium, truce, new light, how you were supposed to handle new light, the gathering after 1844, because in October 22nd, 1844, there was a scattering. And we know even in Early Writings, that first paragraph, she says, the Lord stretched out His hand a second time to gather those people that had been scattered. Well, what she's talking about is the scattering of October 23rd, 1844, after the disappointment. And in 1850, the Lord showed her that He's now gathering His people. So, she was shown the gathering. She was shown the publishing work. She was shown that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord and it should not be altered. She was shown that the daily, that those people that gave the Judgment Hour cry had the correct view of the daily. And she was shown that time should never be a test. And then she was shown about the foolishness of making pilgrimages to Jerusalem. So, in these 13 paragraphs, she's shown, and she says it, she uses the expression, I was shown at least 10 primary truths. Now, this is important to see. This is important to see. Because, and I don't know that the camera can see this, but this is the original article in The Present Truth, Review and Herald, November 1st, 1850. And here is the daily paragraph. This is the paragraph that the shaking of the early part of the 20th century went on. And it says, Then I saw in relation to the daily that the word sacrifice was supplied by human wisdom and does not belong to the text. What I want you to see here, it's a new paragraph. It's a new paragraph in this original article. She says, The Lord showed me that time had not been a test since 1844. So, in grammar, a new paragraph introduces a new truth. But based upon what she's saying in here, she says, The Lord showed me time has not been a test. So, she's making a distinction both at the grammatic level and at the level that the Lord is showing her these various truths, that the subject of time being a test is separate from this paragraph about the daily. They're separate. They were separate. They were separate. But when you get into the experience and views, experience and views, what it does, it just takes the last one, two, three, four, five paragraphs from Present Truth. Thirteen paragraphs in this publication. But when they're going to reprint it a year later in experience and views, they just take the last five paragraphs of the thirteen paragraph. I'll put that up here. This has thirteen paragraphs. Now they take the last five paragraphs, but they don't turn it into five paragraphs. What do they do? They turn it into four paragraphs. They take five paragraphs, the last five paragraphs from here, and they turn it into four paragraphs. Now that's important to see. Because here, one paragraph says, the Lord showed me that time had not been a test since 1844 and time will never again be a test. When they reprint it here, they take that paragraph and they combine it with the previous paragraph. And the previous paragraph is about the daily. So now they've combined the paragraph about the daily with the paragraph about time setting. They've brought it together. But that's not all that's going to get done. That's just the beginning of this evolution. Let me point out one other thing here. In Experience and Views, in this book, where you will find this listing is on page... You'll find what they've taken out of Present Truth Review and Herald, November 1st, 1850. You'll find this in Experience and Views on page 61 through 62. But in this book, in Experience and Views, when they printed this in 1851, you'll find a vision on page 48. On page 48 of this book, there's a vision recorded that was from July 21st, 1851. Am I losing you? No. So when they take the passage from Present Truth, they take the last five paragraphs and they put it in Experience and Views and they turn it into four paragraphs. And in this particular book, there's one paragraph on this page, page 48, that came from a totally different vision. Now the reason you want to note that is because when they print Early Writings, they're going to take this paragraph and they're going to put it into these four paragraphs in Early Writings. They're going to turn Early Writings back into five paragraphs. You following me? Let me read you what this paragraph says. It's a totally different vision. Here's the paragraph that's on page 48. Totally different vision. It says, The Lord has shown me that the message of the third angel must go and be proclaimed to the scattered children of the Lord that it should not be hung on time for time never will be a test again. I saw that some were getting a false excitement arising from preaching time that the third angel's message was stronger than time can be. I saw that this message can stand on its own foundation, that it needs not time to strengthen it, and it will go in a mighty power and do its work and will be cut short in righteousness. What's that paragraph about? It's about time setting. It has no connection with this vision. No connection whatsoever. It's noted, what would that be? 20 pages? 13 pages prior to the passage where this paragraph's put into Early Writings. And it's about time setting. So they take both these passages in EB and put it in EW. Yes, they're going to take this paragraph. Now remember, here's what they did. Follow me. In here, you have a paragraph, the controversial paragraph on the daily. In here, followed by a paragraph on time setting. That's in Review and Herald. But when they get to Experience and Views, they turn these into one paragraph. It's now a paragraph about the daily and time setting. That's EV. They put them together, the two paragraphs, which is okay, just a grammatical change, because this paragraph was just one sentence. It was a one-sentence paragraph. But it says, the Lord showed me that time will never be a test. Okay? But when they get to Early Writings, after this new paragraph on the daily, which is now a paragraph on the daily and time setting, they're going to insert this paragraph on time setting. Okay? So now, it's a paragraph on the daily and time setting, followed by a paragraph on time setting that is from a totally different vision. Okay? No relevance. But that's not all they did. That's not all they did. Let me show you one other thing they did. And by the way, let each man be fully persuaded in their own mind. But this issue, this paragraph on the daily, this is the controversy, Early Writings 74. I don't see a human hand in it. Okay? I don't see people in 1851 that decided, okay, we're just going to take the last five paragraphs and we're going to turn them into four paragraphs. I don't see men in 1851 saying, we need to make an argument that the daily needs to be represented in connection with time setting in order to change the daily view from paganism to Christ's sanctuary ministry. I don't see that happening. I can see maybe some type of satanic foresight in that, but not human. I don't even see it in 1882. But in any case, in 1882, they print Early Writings. They have already combined the daily paragraph with the time setting paragraph. And now, they're going to put that paragraph together in Early Writings page 74, and they're going to insert a second paragraph about time setting that was never in there. But you know what else they do? You know what else they do? Let me show you. This is the part that is a little bit tricky to see. The paragraph that follows the daily paragraph here in the original, it says this, the Lord showed me that time had not been a test. In this history, it says the Lord, in this book, it says the Lord showed me. But they're going to combine that paragraph with the daily paragraph, and when they do so, they're going to change it to I have also seen. Not no longer. No longer the Lord showed me. So it's a bit more vague about whether this is a specific new revelation, or if it's I also seen, when I seen about the daily, I saw this too. But, that's nothing like they do when they get to early writings. Because when they get to early writings, they leave both of these off. The paragraph, the fifth paragraph, that's been combined with the fourth paragraph, that originally said the Lord showed me that time is never to be a test, that was changed to I have also seen that time has not been a test, is now changed to just simply time is not a test. In other words, there's no reference whatsoever to her being shown. This paragraph, the fifth paragraph, that had began with the Lord showed me, and then was changed in 1881 to I have also seen, when you get to it in early writings, what it says in early writings is, but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Then there was a paragraph break that said, the Lord showed me time has not been a test. But in here, they combine this paragraph, and it says, darkness and confusion have followed, I have also seen time has not been a test since 1844. When it gets to early writings 1844, it says this, but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test. You have no indication whatsoever in early writings, that this is a different subject that was shown to her. It's totally removed. This is removed in early writings. You follow me? So now you have in the controversial daily paragraph, you have a closing sentence that says, time has not been a test since 1844, and never again will be a test, and you have a paragraph added from another vision, that says, the Lord has shown me that the message of the third angel must go, and be proclaimed to the scattered children of the Lord, but it must not be hung up on time. Now brothers and sisters, you read these Catholic historians in Adventism, and the reason I call them Catholic historians, is they use the historical technique of rewriting history, to establish their own premises. And you will find, that they make an argument, that this daily paragraph has to be understood, in the context of time setting. And it impacts many of the primary arguments over the daily, in the early part of the 20th century. But more importantly, the one that really bothers me the most, is when A.G. Daniels in 1931 said, that he had an interview with Sister White in 1910 on the daily, and he says in his statement of the interview, he has at least two obvious lies. But one of them is, that when he questioned Ellen White about it, all she could remember, is that the passage in early writings was about time setting. There's just no way, that the passage in early writings was about time setting. And to suggest that the prophetess, had bought into the political argument of her day and age, about early writings being about time setting, is to say that this is some bumbling old woman, that is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit. I reject that. She wouldn't have made that comment. She couldn't have made that comment, because it was not about time setting. She was shown about the daily. She was shown that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord. She was shown that after 1844, the Lord had stretched out His hand a second time, to gather the remnant of His people. She was shown that time is not a test. They're different thoughts. And you can go test these. Get on your Ellen White CD-ROM. Test it out. You'll see what I mean. But this is just the starting of this mystery. This is just the beginning of this mystery. Did you follow me? Okay. Now, September 23rd. That's the way you see it. In the original 13 paragraphs in Present Truth, when she gets to paragraph number 9, I believe it would be, or number 8, she says, September 23rd the Lord showed me. From this point on, we know that what she was shown in those final five paragraphs, she was shown on September 23rd. Okay, so, what does that matter? Well, it was September 23rd, 1850. That's when she was shown this. And, one of the things that she was shown, is that when Union existed before 18, one of the things she was shown on September 23rd, 1850, was that when Union existed before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the daily. But since 1844, in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Okay, so, they were all united on the correct view of the daily in 1844, but since 1844, she was told on September 23rd, 1850, that other views of the daily had been embraced, and the fruits of those views were darkness and confusion. You follow me? So, if you go back in, when did James White begin publishing? In 1849. In 1849. This is the beginning of the publishing work. 1849. If you go back into the publishing work, you'll find that in March of 1850, James White published an article by David Arnold, and in this article, David Arnold teaches that the daily is the earthly sanctuary that was taken away by the Romans in 70 A.D. That's not paganism, is it? That's another view of the daily, but it's not the pioneer view that the daily is pagan. This is published in March of 1850. In September of 1850, James White publishes an article by Crozier. Now, this is where the rub comes. You've got to understand this way, because this article here, the publication of this article, will be used throughout Advent history, and the guy that perpetuates this usage is Willie White. It will be used by Adventists all the way down here to the Omega of Apostasy as either inference or proof, depending on who's making the argument, that Crozier's view of the daily is correct. And Crozier's view of the daily, he doesn't say it specifically, but I don't argue, he infers that the daily is Christ's sanctuary ministry. But he doesn't say it specifically. So what I'm saying is, that as you go back to this history, people like Leroy Frew, W.C. White, Heidi Hikes, the modern guys, from Prescott onward, if they think that they can infer that Crozier's position is right and lead you to believe that the daily is Christ's sanctuary ministry, they do so, but sometimes they don't infer. They try to make an argument that Sister White here places an endorsement on Crozier's position of the daily being Christ's sanctuary ministry, that she's giving an inspired interpretation of that passage. And why do they do this? Now when I ask why do they do this, I'm going to give two answers to this. They're going to make this claim based upon an endorsement of Crozier's article by Ellen White. That's why they do it, because of Sister White's endorsement. But also, this answers the reason about why James White would publish Crozier's article in September of 1850. So I'm going to read to you now. I'm going to read to you Sister White's endorsement of Crozier's article from A Word to a Little Flock, page 12. And what's A Word to a Little Flock? What is that? That's the first publication of James and Ellen White. And it was published in 1847, in May of 1847. And she gives the date of April when she's writing this, but it was published in May of 1847, and it says this, Topsham, April 21st, 1847, to Brother Eli Curtis, New York City, I believe the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days is the New Jerusalem temple of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in vision more than one year ago. So, if she wrote it in April of 1847, when did the Lord shew her in vision? More than a year ago? In 1846, the Lord shewed her that Brother Crozier had the true light, I put two S's in there, it's supposed to be one, the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary, and that it was his will that Brother Crozier should write out the view which he gave us in the Daystar Extra, February 7th, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that extra to every saint. Sister White recommends the Daystar Extra of Crozier to every saint. And in it, she says he gives the correct view of the sanctuary. But as he gives the correct view of the sanctuary, he infers that the daily is Christ's sanctuary ministry. So, because Sister White says the Lord shew me in vision more than a year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary, and that it was his will that Brother C should write out the views which he gave in the Daystar Extra, February 7th, 1846, I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that extra to every saint. Therefore, Sister White put her seal of approval on his article, and everything in it is perfect. Some people actually make that claim. But that doesn't stand the test of historical analysis. That isn't how the pioneers of Adventism understood that. We need to look at Crozier's. But in that statement, this is why the controversy about Crozier exists, it's because of Ellen White's endorsement. But this is also why James White republishes it. Because there isn't any of these Daystar Extras from 1846 that are still around in 1850. They're all gone. But because Ellen White has endorsed his view, James White, in fulfillment of being told, I recommend this to every saint, he's going to reprint it in the Review and Herald, so every saint can have it. That's why he's doing it. But it's her endorsement also that allows people to stumble or misrepresent this history, stumble over this history or misrepresent it. So I want to look at Crozier's article a little bit here, and I have it all in the notes here, but I want to find a couple endorsements or a couple historical comments to read into this record to start with. This is from P. Gerhard Dampstein, Foundations of Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission, page 125, concerning Crozier's article. See, Crozier's article had eight chapters, not really chapters, but it had eight sections. Crozier's article had eight sections. One of those sections was on the sanctuary. That's the section where the whole battle takes place. There was eight sections in Crozier's article that Sister White recommended to every saint, and only one of them is where the controversy surrounds this subject. So here's what Dampstein says. He says, She, Ellen Harmon, said, the Lord, and he quotes Word to the Little Flock, and after he quotes what we've just read twice, he says, Seventh-day Adventists have usually interpreted this statement to mean that Crozier's presentations were not without mistakes, but that his major typological argumentation was correct. Reprints of his article omitted the aspects which they felt to be incorrect. The historians of Adventism, the certified historians of Adventism, they never claim that James and Ellen White thought that everything in Crozier's articles was correct because they know that when they did reprint it, they purposely left the one section out on the Millennium where Crozier taught that there was going to be a thousand years of peace. If you're going to use Ellen White's endorsement of Crozier's article as if everything he said was true, then you have to believe that Jesus somehow comes and then ushers in a thousand years of peace on planet Earth because that's what Crozier taught in this article. And Damstead is saying that isn't how to relate to her endorsement and no one in Advent history ever did. But here at the end of the world, in the fourth generation of Adventism, where we're buried with all this darkness, some people will lead you to believe that her endorsement says that everything that Crozier wrote is true and it's just historically dishonest. Now here's another quote from W.A. Spicer from the Review and Herald, December 14th, 1939. Sad to say, young Crozier walked in the light of the Sabbath truth, but a very little time. He later repudiated the sanctuary teaching that he had helped to establish. Our pioneer brethren reprinted his exposition on the sanctuary several times. That's not true. Our pioneer brethren reprinted his exposition on the sanctuary seven times in their early papers, but they never could reprint his complete document. In it, he had added to the sanctuary exposition some ideas on the age to come, a temporal millennium with a glorious age on this earth at the second Advent. These things our brethren always admitted. These teachings of the age to come were all abroad in those days. The doctrine never fitted in with the definite Advent message and doubtless this leaven of error helped to lead the young man away from the Sabbath and the sanctuary truths. He soon turned to bitter opposition in our early movement. So everyone that's a certified historian because Spicer's on the wrong side of the daily. But here's a man that's on the wrong side of the daily that's still not willing to argue that Sister White's endorsement of Crozier is upholding his understanding of the daily. He knew there were errors and they were never reprinted. Now, here's where it gets into the... That's December 14th, 1939. Revere and Herald. Review and Herald. So, now, here's where it gets tricky. At least it seems tricky to me. I don't know how to do it well where you can easily follow this. And for those of you that are watching live stream you're going to have to bear with me. There are eight sections in Crozier's article. Four of those eight sections four of those eight sections were never, ever, ever reprinted in Adventism. So there's half of his. I don't know if he counted them if it was actually half. But four of the eight sections of Crozier's articles were never reprinted. Brothers and sisters, you may not think that what we're doing here is significant or important, but it is. So bear in mind, where this gets you where this gets you shows absolutely crystal clear that the daily cannot be Christ's sanctuary ministry from history. So bear in mind, try to follow me even as difficult as it may be. Four sections were never printed. Here are the eight sections of Crozier's article. Here are the titles. The Law of Moses, The Legal Types and Anti-Types. You don't need to. I can give you a copy of these notes. And for those of you that want these notes live-streamed we can put them on the internet where you can download them as well. The first one was The Law of Moses. The second was The Legal Types and Anti-Types. The third was The Sanctuary. This is the one that's the controversy. The fourth was The Priesthood of Christ. The fifth was The Anti-Type. The sixth was The Age to Come. And the eighth was The Transition. The four that were never reprinted in Adventism. And when Spicer says they reprinted his article several times that's simply not true. He may think so, but it isn't true. Unless his idea of several times equates to two or three times. When I hear someone say it was reprinted several times I think, well, they printed it 10 or 15 times. Just a few times that any of them were reprinted The Law of Moses, The Legal Types and Anti-Types, The Age to Come and The Transition have never been reprinted in Adventism. The four sections that have been reprinted are The Sanctuary, The Priesthood of Christ, The Anti-Type and The Scapegoat. Those four sections James White printed in September of 1850. Now here's where you've got to focus in. James White takes four of the eight sections of brochures that he's willing to reprint. But in order to do it, they add up to so much material that he has to print two publications. So at the beginning of September 1850 he prints The Present Truth, The Review and Herald, Volume 1, Number 3. And then immediately thereafter at the beginning of September he prints The Conclusion of Crozier's Articles in Volume 1, Number 4. So in these three and four what he has printed he's got The Sanctuary in here and part of The Priesthood and here he has The Priesthood, The Anti-Type and The Scapegoat. But in here, brothers and sisters in this book I have a brother that sometimes throws me scraps from things that he finds. This is a very nice book it's called Facsimile of Early Seventh-day Adventist Periodicals and you can find these articles that we're discussing in here. And this particular article that we're dealing with here from Volume 1, Number 3 is on page... I don't need the page number it's in here. There's something that I have to show you about here. It's in Volume 3 that he deals with The Sanctuary section and he reprints Crozier's View of the Daily that is inferred to be Christ's Sanctuary ministry in this section. And he finishes the statement, the passage on The Sanctuary begins The Priesthood of Christ and then he finishes what he's going to print of Crozier's in this publication. These are both printed at the early part of September 1850. Alright, are you with me? And then you know what happens? Ellen White has a vision on September 23rd September 23rd, 1850 and what does James White do? He prints a special publication at the end of September. This is after these first two in September. And the third time he prints is after September 23rd, 1850 and what he does... Imagine this! He reprints Crozier's section on The Sanctuary in this article again but he removes what he says about The Daily being Christ's Sanctuary ministry. Why did he remove it? Because his wife on September 23rd was shown that since 1844, other views than The Daily being paganism had been brought in. Arnold's view The Daily, The Earthly Sanctuary. Crozier's view The Daily, Christ's Sanctuary ministry. Since 1844 other views have been brought in and darkness and confusion have been embraced and immediately thereafter James White prints his third publication in September of 1850 and he removes what Crozier says about The Daily in this one. Historically James and Ellen White rejected that The Daily was Christ's Sanctuary ministry in September of 1850 and anyone that wants to look at the history can see this fact. Now, this is just the starting of the story the only other time Crozier's articles were printed was in 1852 1852 they're printed again and that's volume 3, number 10, 11 and 12 printed in three different volumes but in this history when it was reprinted The Sanctuary was not included what Crozier said about The Sanctuary was only printed two times in Advent history at the beginning of September when it had the false view of The Daily and at the end of September when the false view of The Daily was removed in these publications in 1852 the section on The Sanctuary was not reprinted the other three sections were printed so when Spicer mistakenly says it was printed several times in Advent history well the reality of it is Crozier's article as the subject of this history it's only the section on The Sanctuary and that was only printed two times and it was printed in 1850 with the error in it and after James White was told by his wife you're printing false views of The Daily and you're bringing in darkness and confusion James White immediately reprinted and took that error out Volume 3 numbers 10, 11 and 12 that's in your notes that I'm going to give you now the plot thickens the only other time that Crozier's article has been printed in Advent history unless it's been reprinted here in the modern times I don't know about that but it's in 1931 1931 sounds like a pivotal year in Advent history and it's printed by Willie White and if this was a court of law not only would this piece of evidence be rejected by the judge and jury be cast out they would hold Willie White liable for perjury you may claim that when he wrote these things up that he somehow made an accident when Willie White's hauled into court to be tried for perjury he may make that claim I didn't mean to say it that way or it slipped my attention and they may exonerate him you've got to stay with me if you're going to follow this is where the plot really thickens in this article where the wrong view of the sanctuary of Crozier's is printed in these publications I'll show it to you they were printed in two columns so if you go into this article in the section on the sanctuary but not the part where Crozier's teaching the wrong view of the daily there are several paragraphs in the section on the sanctuary evidently from my conclusion when they printed it at this time they dropped off a column you can go to this particular publication and you can see that it's missing a whole column it's missing just over six paragraphs but it doesn't impact the argument about what Crozier's saying about the daily being Christ's sanctuary ministry but it is from the sanctuary but what I'm saying is the only time in Advent history when Crozier's wrong view of the daily was printed is this publication by Sabbatarian Adventists is this publication six paragraphs were missed by the publishers they dropped off through some publishing flaw for whatever reason but when Willie White publishes this he claims that he copied this from this issue but he has the six missing paragraphs and there's no way he could have copied those six missing paragraphs from this issue because they were not there something's fishy there he has an introduction Willie does let me get to my notes where I also have the introduction and in these notes the portions that are impacted by our conversation included in these notes for everyone that wants to see here we go this is found in the introduction of this book the Crozier article on the sanctuary explanatory note this is written by W.C. White October 9, 1931 this article, the sanctuary, was printed in the Daystar Extra in 1846 regarding it, Mrs. White wrote in a letter to Brother Eli Curtis on the date of April 21, 1847 and he places her endorsement for Crozier's article in place right here and then he says, in the advent review of September 1850 this Crozier article was reprinted seemingly in full that's this one he knew it wasn't printed in full they never reprinted it in full it had eight sections, the most they ever printed was four the advent review printed in Auburn in 1850 this article was again reprinted but two and a half very important paragraphs were admitted that's this one they were also admitted in a partial reprint of the review and herald September 1852 the sanctuary section is not even in here he's leading you to believe that they reprinted the sanctuary sections in 1852 these essential two and a half paragraphs admitted from the later reprints of the article have been copied in this document in italics and when you go through here you'll find that Crozier's statement where he's inferring that the daily is Christ's sanctuary ministry is in italics, that's what Willie's saying I won't get into the Ellen White CD-ROM notes here but they have a part to play in this they know that these paragraphs were lost here so their commentary here's what I'm saying you can get this article that W.C. White printed or you can go on the Pioneer CD-ROM the Ellen White CD-ROM and you can download it and when you download this article you can go to the Pioneer CD-ROM and you can download it and when you download this identical thing on the CD-ROM you're also going to have with it the commentary by those that prepared the CD-ROM and they will lead you to believe they'll try to make you think they'll do some smoke and mirrors with which sections lost because they know there were six paragraphs in here that weren't included they add to the confusion, there's no doubt about it and it's almost purposeful as you read through it but it's very difficult to explain in this fashion you have to go through it very carefully so at the end of this that's the introduction and what W.C. White does is he reprints Crozier's entire article on the sanctuary here and that's never been printed in full W.C. White tried to do it here but he was missing six paragraphs when W.C. White did it here he removed the portion where Crozier said the daily is the Christ Sanctuary ministry and then at the very close of this right here W.C. White says copied from the Advent Review Volume 1, Numbers 3 and 4 he says he copied them from here it's not possible that he copied them from here it's Crozier's original article he copied this from Crozier's and he's telling us he copied it from here now why is he doing that? in the next presentation there's more to build on this Prescott begins to infer it Daniels upholds it but from my study, the historical figure that puts it in place is W.C. White the argument that early writings has to be understood in the context of time setting in the next presentation we'll look at what W.C. White says about that and what Arthur White says about that and then we'll go in and look at A.G. Daniels supposed interview with W.C. White in 1910 and realize that the darkness that is enveloping Adventism at this time it's a tragedy to have to name names but as you said in between the break and others in history have said Sister White told Loughborough concerning her son Willie concerning the fact that he had joined forces with Daniels and Prescott she told Loughborough, they have Willie Willie got drawn into the wrong side of this issue and once the resident historian on the spirit of prophecy was on the wrong side of the issue things were put in place into the historical record that are kind of difficult to see so what I'm saying is this, in closing the development of early writings the evolution of it there's no justification historically or grammatically for placing the daily paragraph in the context of time setting there's not a statement about time setting in that paragraph the argument about Crozier's article giving either inference or evidence that the daily is Christ's sanctuary ministry the historical evidence is it's proof that James and Ellen White rejected that position that the daily was Christ's sanctuary ministry no, if they didn't, there's no reason for James White to respond to her vision on September 23rd and immediately reprint and remove Crozier's position we don't hear that history this is evidence that we don't hear that history in 1931 we're being taught just the opposite we're being led, Willie White is saying the important paragraphs that were admitted are the important paragraphs that Crozier teaches ministry is the daily Christ's sanctuary ministry is the daily we're being misled by this very history of September 23rd, 1850 in early writings 74 and then when we get to the conclusion we'll want to show you why early writings 74 is the alpha and early writings page 236 is the omega Heavenly Father we are alarmed and startled as we recognize the history that's taken place since the early 1800's 1880's when we as a people turned away from the authority of the Bible and the spirit of prophecy and then led into the Minneapolis meeting with the philosophical justification of rejecting the latter rain crucifying the Holy Spirit and officially rejecting the Bible and spirit of prophecy once on that course we've done nothing but go deeper and deeper into darkness building a platform and foundation of our understanding of the Bible that is built upon sand and it's soon to be swept away by the coming Sunday Law crisis and as we see this history we are overwhelmed with our inability as human beings to do much about this situation except to try to personally prepare for the crisis and hopefully awaken and warn some of those that are willing to hear before the crisis hits we ask that you put your blessing upon this particular study that Brother DeWayne's doing in the sense that we know that we have nothing to fear for the future except as we forget the Lord's teaching in our past history and experience and that even though this history is dark and very sad we wish to be benefited by it and we ask that you allow your Holy Spirit to bring that benefit to our hearts and minds we give you thanks for this day that many in this country take the only time they take all year long to think about thanking you we thank you for the sacrifice of your son that took place in the midst of the week in the middle of that 2520 days that he confirmed the covenant and we thank you for these things in Jesus name