Uriah Smith’s Life, A Chronology

u_smith-jpguriahsmith

 

1832, May 2 – Born, West Wilton, New Hampshire

1840’s

1844 – October 22 – Experience the Great Disappointment.

1844 – Left leg amputated due to an infection, age 12.

1844ff – Not interested in religion. Attends Phillips Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire

1850’s

 

1852 – Annie connects with Sabbath-keeping Adventists, he follows her lead.

1852 – September, Attends Sabbath-keeping Adventist meeting at Washington, New Hampshire

1852 – December, joins with Sabbath-keeping Adventists.

1853 – He and his sister Annie join Review office in Rochester, N.Y.

1853 – Review publishes his 35,000 word poem, “The Warning Voice of Time and Prophecy”.

1855 – July 26, His sister Annie dies of TB.

1855 – Becomes editor of the Review; Moves to Battle Creek.

1857 – Marries Harriet Stevens, sister to J.N. Andrews’ wife, Angeline

1858 – Published “The Bible Student’s Assistant, Or, A Compend Of Scripture References”

1860’s

 

1860-63 – Actively involved in legally organizing the SDA church.

1860 – Published “Mortal or Immortal? Which?, or, An Inquiry into the Present Constitution and Future Condition of Man.”

1860’s – Published “The Two Covenants.”

1863 – Becomes first secretary of the General Conference

1863 – Patented artificial cork leg with improved flexible knee and ankle joints.

1865 – Autumn, Smith and Loughborough accompanied stroke victim James White and Ellen White to Dansville for Dr. Jackson’s treatment.

1867 – Published Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Revelation.

1868 – Published “An Appeal to the Youth: Funeral Address of Henry N. White.”

1868 – Published “The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White : a Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures.”

1869 – Took a year’s leave of absence to regain his health. J.N. Andrews edited in his place.

1870’s

 

1870 – Associate editor to the Review, James White editor.

1870 – Spring, Smith and James White begin the Minister’s Lecture Association of Seventh-day Adventists. Members received instruction in Bible lectures, penmanship and grammar.

1871 – Published “Poems with Rebekah Smith and Annie R. Smith”

1872 – Published “The United States in the Light of Prophecy, or, An Exposition of Rev. 13:11-17.”

1873 – Published “The State of the Dead and the Destiny of the Wicked.”

1873 – Published “Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Daniel.

1873 – disagreement with James White, leaves the Review. In six months back at the Review, he and James White’s relationship cordial again.

1874 – Patented improved student desk with improved folding seat. His patents enabled him to buy a modest home ($3000).

1874 – Ordained to the Gospel Ministry

1874-82 – Bible lecturer at Battle Creek College

1877 – Published “The Sanctuary And The Twenty-Three Hundred Days Of Daniel VIII, 14.”

1878 – Published “The Biblical Institute with James White.”

1879 – June 21 – Preaches the first graduation speech at Battle Creek College. See Review and Herald, July 3, 1879

1880’s

 

1880-82 – Chairman of Battle Creek College board.

1880 – Fall, Adventism’s first colporteur, George King, asked that Uriah Smith’s books on Daniel and Revelation be combined into one book so he could sell it.

1881 – Published “A Sketch of the Last Sickness and Death of Elder James White with W. C. Gage and John Harvey Kellogg.”

1882 – Spring, the first combined edition of “Daniel and Revelation” was printed by the Review and Herald Publishing Association.

1884 – Published “Man’s Nature And Destiny, or, The State Of The Dead, The Reward Of The Righteous, And The End Of The Wicked.”

1884 – Published “Our Country’s Future. The United States in the Light Of Prophecy, or, an Exposition of Rev. 13:11-17.”

1884 – Published “Synopsis of the Present Truth : A Brief Exposition of the Views of S. D. Adventists.

1885 – Published “An Exposure of Fanaticism and Wickedness with George Ide Butler.”

1886 – Published “The Marvel of Nations. Our Country: Its Past, Present, and Future, and What the Scriptures Say of It.”

1888 – Opposed Jones and Waggoner on aspects of the Law. He also opposed Ellen White somewhat. Ellen White continued her support of him even though they disagreed.

1890’s

 

1891 – Admitted his attitude was wrong and harmony was restored.

1894 – Visited Europe and the Middle-East

1896 – Published “Modern Spiritualism: a Subject of Prophecy and a Sign of the Times.”

1897 – Published “Here and Hereafter, or, Man in Life and Death.

1897 – Published “Looking Unto Jesus, or, Christ in Type and Antitype.”

1897 – A. T. Jones editor of Review, Smith associate.

1900’s

 

1901 – Smith again editor of the Review.

1901 – Published “Our Country, the Marvel of Nations.

1903 – Died at 71 of a stroke while walking to the Review office.

Sources:

URIAH SMITH – Biographical Sketch

Pathways of the Pioneers, Uriah Smith

Clarence L. Thomas IV, Uriah Smith’s Biographical Information

Publications of Uriah Smith

R. W. Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant

Advertisements

13 Responses to “Uriah Smith’s Life, A Chronology”

  1. Jeffrey Needle Says:

    Why is there no mention of Daniel and the Revelation, his most important and best-known book? Where does it fit into the chronology?

  2. newsman777 Says:

    Notice that there are two dates relating to Daniel and Revelation, 1867 for Revelation and 1873 for Daniel. The book “Daniel and Revelation” was developed out of those two works. You are correct. I will add a date in the Uriah Smith chronology showing when the two works became “Daniel and Revelation”.

    If I remember correctly, the book “Daniel and Revelation” was taken by a Mr. King and made the first book for colporteurs to sell.

  3. Luke Says:

    This is a 32 lesson self-study Bible course on vital issues of concern today. Featuring the major end-time prophecies and other great Bible themes, each lesson points to Scripture passages which answer today’s most important questions.

    http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/02/these-last-days-32-self-study-bible.html

  4. Terry Says:

    It might be a good idea to include in the chronology that our church completely re-wrote Uriah Smith’s ‘Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation’ to attempt to hide the fact that our beliefs concerning God, Christ and the Holy Spirit had changed from what they were during the time of Ellen White’s ministry. The 1944 edition of Smiths book (the edited version and the one that most SDA’s would have on their bookshelves) is not what Smith wrote but was that which was written by a team of Seventh-day Adventists.

    • newsman777 Says:

      Terry,

      The site adventistarchives.org lists Uriah Smith’s “Thoughts on Daniel, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Daniel” printed 1883. How much of this earlier work is included in the later Daniel and Revelation and how much has been changed? See for an online version of Smith’s 1883 work on Daniel:

      http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=31256

      Can you document for us the change of SDA beliefs in God, Christ and the Holy Spirit? You refer to the time of Ellen White’s ministry. Her book, Desire of Ages, seems to represent a major development in what SDA’s teach about Jesus. Her views on the person of the Holy Spirit also seemed to be developing around the turn of the century. In the earlier 1800’s SDA authors were not so definitive on nature of the Holy Spirit. James White in discussing the differences between Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists did not consider their minor differences in understanding the Godhead to be of importance. This was in the late 1860’s.

      Newsman

  5. Terry Says:

    Hi Newsman

    First of all thank you for the link to an early D&R. I do have a couple of pre-edited versions (hard copies) of Smith’s book.

    The difference between the original and the edited version is phenomenal. The book was re-written from cover to cover and then issued under the name of Uriah Smith (1944). This edited version is the one most probably on the bookshelf of SDA’s. In the editing, whole paragraphs were either deleted or re-written. Multitudes of references were deleted. Sentence after sentence was changed, deleted or rephrased etc. Uriah Smith would not recognise it as his own work. Even whole pages were added.

    The only way that the extent of the editing can be realised is if like I have done, you attempt to go through it page by page and catalogue the changes. It is a work that very soon you will tire of doing (like I did). The amount of editing is almost unbelievable. Try it and you will see what I mean.

    The one notable thing that was deleted was all the references to what was, during the time of Ellen White’s ministry (and for decades beyond) the denominational faith of Seventh-day Adventists regarding Christ. These statements were completely expunged from the book.

    This faith was that Christ is truly the Son of God – meaning that in eternity He came forth of the Father. This is the faith that said that Christ was God in the person of the Son. This of coursed denied the trinity doctrine – as did Seventh-day Adventists during EGW’s ministry.

    Froom spoke of this editing in his ‘Movement of Destiny’. He wrote

    “The removal of the last standing vestige of Arianism in our standard literature was accomplished through the deletions from the classic D&R (meaning Daniel and the Revelation) in 1944. And the lingering “sinful-nature-of-Christ” misconception was remedied by expunging the regrettable note in the revised Bible Readings of 1949.” (Froom ‘Movement of Destiny’, page 465, chapter ‘Changing the Impaired Image of Adventism’, 1971)

    Warren Howell, the chairman of the revision committee also reported

    “In dealing with matters of fundamental doctrine in our work, we found only one instance in which it seemed advisable to make a change, namely, in the teaching on the eternity of Christ.” (Warren Howell October 22nd 1942 report to the Cincinnati Autumn Council of Seventh-day Adventists as quoted by Merwin Thurber in the ‘Ministry’ magazine, May 1945, article ‘“Revised D & R in Relation to Denominational Doctrine”)

    In writing of the history of the SDA Church regarding their Godhead beliefs, I have tried to cover this editing of Smith’s book in Section 46 and 47 of the Detailed History Series found here. It was a major step in SDA’s changing their Godhead beliefs.

    http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBDH.htm

    There is no record in our history that ‘The Desire of Ages’ brought about any change of beliefs of SDA’s regarding Christ. In fact in the fourth Quarter’s SS lesson studies for 1936 (which was 38 years after the publication of D of A), Christ was still said to have been begotten of the Father in eternity. These studies were designed by our church so that they could be shared with those not of our denomination to prepare them for baptism. In other words, the denominational faith of SDA’s in 1936 was still that Christ, in eternity, was begotten of the Father – therefore He was truly the Son of God.

    The whole of Section 42 of the Detailed History Series is devoted to an explanation of these SS studies and why they were ordained by the General Conference to exist.

    The Holy Spirit was said to be the third person of the Godhead (not the trinity) – although He was considered to be both the Father and the Son omnipresent (John 14:18, 23) when the Father and Son were bodily in Heaven. The Holy Spirit was not considered to be someone who has an existence separate from the Father and the Son. His nature was said to be a mystery. Again this was the faith of SDA’s at the close of EGW’s ministry. This was maintained for decades after she died. Ellen White maintained that the Holy Spirit was the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ – Christ not cumbered with humanity. Christ said EGW, is the Comforter.

    Since the death of EGW, attempts were made to change the Godhead beliefs of SDA’s.

    Over the years this happened very slowly. First the true identity of Christ as the Son of God was changed. He is now said to only be a son in a metaphorical sense – as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. In other words, the three divine persons are today said to be only role-playing (pretending to be) a Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Then later, for the very first time in our denominational history (1980), the trinity doctrine was officially voted into the beliefs of SDA’s and so the metamorphosis was complete. Our faith then (1980) completely denied what was once the faith of SDA’s during the time of EGW’s ministry. This latter faith was that which EGW endorsed as being correct.

    I could show you many warnings that came from EGW not to change our faith – also what she said would happen if it was changed. These things have actually happened.

    I hope this has answered some of your questions. You will find the proof of what I have said in the Detailed History Series on my website.

    Please feel free to ask any other questions. I shall only be too glad to try to answer them.

    Kind regards

    Terry

  6. nicolae butoiu Says:

    Dear Terry I would like to see what do you consider to be the real motive for the SDA becoming Trinitarians and how do you think it happened . Thank you very much.

  7. Terry Hill Says:

    Hi Nicolae

    Nice to make your acquaintance. Thank you for your question..

    First of all I thought I would point out that I have only just received this via email (28th July) yet I notice the post was on the 29th June. Why I have only just received it I have no idea.

    I believe that the reason why the SDA Church became trinitarian was to be ‘one’ with the other evangelical mainstream denominations. During the time of EGW’s ministry and beyond, we were deemed a cult. One of the reasons, perhaps the main one, was that we were not trinitarian so the other denominations, at least the trinitarian ones, said we did not believe in the divinity of Christ – which is really nonsense because we did believe that Christ was God in the person of the Son. The problem is that generally speaking, trinitarians believe that unless the divinity of Christ is expressed as in their trinity doctrine it is not being expressed correctly – which again is nonsense because all that needs to be done is to express Christ’s divinity as it is described in the Scriptures – which as we all know is totally devoid of anything that can be described as a trinity doctrine. The latter is just an assumed teaching – and one that many people believe is wrongly assumed.

    This is my honest answer from years of research.

    You can read some of my reasoning in sections 49 and 50 here

    http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBDH.htm

    Please feel free to email me any time. My email address is on the website.

    God bless

    Terry

  8. newsman777 Says:

    Hi Terry and Nicolae,

    First Terry, the delay of the post is my fault.

    Regarding the Trinity, my studies agree with Terry in that early Adventists believed that Christ, as the Son was God. Uriah Smith stated the view clearest of those I have read.

    An interesting statement by James White when discussion SDA with Seventh Day Baptists. He did not consider the differences regarding the Godhead to be significant. The nature of humanity and the state of the dead was the main difference, he said.

    Newsman

  9. Terry Hill Says:

    Hi Newsman

    NIce to hear from you.

    Re the statement by James White, I do not want to sound ‘picky’ but it was not the differences regarding the Godhead that he said was not significant but the divinity of Christ.

    “The principal difference between the two bodies [Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists] is the immortality question. The S.D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarians that we apprehend no trial here.” (James White, Review and Herald, Oct 12th 1876, ‘The two bodies – The Relation Which the S.D. Baptists and S.D. Adventists Sustain to Each Other’)

    In other words, SDA’s held the divinity of Christ so highly that regarding this they saw no problem between them and the trinitarians.

    God bless

    Terry

  10. Jon Says:

    Hello Terry,

    The concept of being born by the Father seems to be of Catholic origin. I would be very interested to hear your views on the striking similarities in the usage of ‘begotten’ in their doctrines and in that of non Trinitarians.

    • Terry Says:

      Hi Jon

      Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.

      My belief is that in eternity, Christ was brought forth (begotten) of the Father therefore He is God in the person of the Son. During the time of Ellen White’s ministry, this was the belief held by SDA’s.

      SDA’s in general held this same view for decades after EGW died. It was also the view of Christ that EGW said was correct.

      You may like to read the article called “Be not deceived – Christ really is the Son of God”. It is found here

      http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/MM.htm

      I would need to disagree with you where you say the belief that Christ really is the Son of God originated with the RC Church (which I assume is what you are saying). It was the belief of early Christianity. This is attested to by what was written by the early Christian writers – even dating back to just after John wrote his gospel (the end of the first century AD) – so it could not have begun with the RC Church.

      In the 4th Century, when a dispute arose in the church about Christ, the belief was introduced that Christ was ‘everlastingly begotten’ of the Father (everlastingly a son). This was at the Council of NIcaea. This same view was later adopted by the RC Church as their ‘official’ belief.

      You can find what was said by the early Christian writers (both Greek and Latin) in the second and third chapters here

      http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBBS.htm

      I hope the above helps. Let me know if you wish to know any more.

      Thanks again for your reply

      Terry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: