_____________________________________________

STUMPED!!
A Series of Pioneering SDA Quotes Which Dissident SDA
Anti-Trinitarians Will Have No Comeback From!!
A 2016 Pro-Trinitarian Pictorial and Commentary for Seventh-day
Adventists *2nd Edition (Sept. 2017)

*2nd Edition (Sept. 2017)

- Compiled by Derrick Gillespie.

This presentation is *best read with an Internet connection!

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FREE PUBLICATION
This presentation (the second edition; expanded and updated) was birthed as an
idea on my Facebook page in late 2016 (click link above to see), after I had posted
a series of articles called the stumper series(click links here to view one such
post), wherein a series of actual Xeroxed or photocopied pages bearing valuable
quotes from SDA pioneers were gradually featured and commented on. After a
posting of over ten or more of the above described, the Holy Spirit impressed on
me to develop the project into a booklet---of which the result is now in your
hands. I am of the view that this *FREE pictorial and commentary booklet (the
second edition; now expanded and updated) will be a helpful tool in the hands of
the SDA Trinitarian (laymen and church leaders alike) to handle not just the
arguments and tactics of the dissident anti-Trinitarian 'offshoot' and
'independent' groups troubling the SDA Church, but will be a source of valuable
quotes from SDA pioneers (featuring actual Xeroxed exhibits/pages from original
sources), which will send them scrambling to find futile "damage control"
responses, and which ultimately will show them up to be simply in error!!

This e-book is best read with a viable or active Internet connection, since as you
read it will link you to much more informative material online than is contained
here within. It is my hope that you will be helped by the material contained within
(and via the embedded links), and I encourage you to share this PDF file far and
wide with as many persons as is possible. But more importantly pray that its
contents will serve to defend the truth as it is in Jesus; about God the Father,
about His only begotten Son, and their Representative, the Holy Spirit (the
three living persons of the Eternal Godhead). May as you read you will be
prepared to meet the Bridegroom when he comes and greet him as your God:

"Seek a thorough preparation to meet Jesus, that when He appears you may
exclaim with joy, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save
us." Isaiah 25:9. Eternal life will then be yours, and you will be a partaker with
Christ of His glory, ever to hear His glorious approving voice and behold His lovely
person." ---- E.G. White, The Faith I Live By, pgs. 351-352

Second Edition, September, 2017

 INTRODUCTION
HOW TO HANDLE ALL THE DENIAL AND OBFUSCATORY TACTICS OF MODERN DISSIDENT ANTI-
TRINITARIANS IN SD ADVENTISM:
Their approaches and arguments vary, and their modus operandi constantly shift and change,
like the chameleon, in order to bolster their past denials and defend against newly emerging
facts in this information age. Their latest ploy is to try to lamely argue for when a distinct
personality is not a separate personality, when three persons is not three real persons or
personal beings, when three living persons are not literally three separate living persons,
and ultimately "when a trinity is not a trinity"; seeing that they realize they cannot say
anymore that the SDA pioneers never used the expressions a distinct personality when
speaking of the Holy Spirit, or the expressions three persons or three living persons when
speaking of the Godhead, or the word "trinity" as associated with their Godhead doctrine.
They try to make a false distinction, for instance, between the pioneers saying/accepting
"trinity" and teaching a trinity doctrine, seeing that it is true that the SDA pioneers did not fully
adopt the Roman Catholic version of the trinity, but tailored their own unique version
STARTING FROM IN THE 1890s. Click the link above or here to see the undeniable proofs of
them accepting non-Catholic Trinity. They behave like a cow or a sheep is not a cow or a sheep
unless it is of a certain breed; hence to them a trinity cannot be a trinity unless it conforms to
Catholic explanation. Their maneuverings continue to be ineffective and baseless for the well
researched SDA, but many unprepared souls are being led away by their deceptive propaganda.
See this link online (click link) where I totally refuted that stance of theirs. It is quite shocking to
see them saying that Mrs. White saying we should serve the Father Son and Holy Spirit
cannot be interpreted in the usual biblical way to mean worshipping, honoring, obeying,
singing praise to, and even praying to all Three, because the Spirit, some of them argue,
should not be worshipped, praised or prayed to, but only obeyed. Many even go as far as
denying the repeated statement of Mrs. White where she clearly allowed for worshipping
and even praying to the Spirit listed right alongside the Father and the Son; reaching for
various arguments to explain away their authenticity.all the while perfectly fulfilling Mrs.
Whites own prophecy of the last great deception among SDA members of making of non
effect the testimonies of the Spirit through her. But to the grounded and settled SDA
member its all futile on their part. See this 2017 Facebook link also to see how the dissidents
twist and deny and misrepresent the facts, and how to be prepared to handle them.

A few years back I wrote a two-part presentation which proved clearly that the SDA anti-
Trinitarians within Adventism, dissidents who are mainly offshoots on the fringes of the
Church, are simply kicking against the pricks as it concerns the doctrine of the Trinity in
Seventh-day Adventism from the late 1890s into the early 1900s. Those two free booklets
looked at the tactics and arguments used by them to deny, cover up or divert attention from
the truth that the SDA pioneers just after 1888 and before 1915 accepted a non-traditional or
non-Catholic version of the Trinity and freely worshipped the Father, Son and Spirit as a
trinity of separate beings before the death of Mrs. White, and without any rebuke from her.
These two booklets continue to be much help to SDA members who need them to strengthen
their faith in the SDA version of the Trinity of three separate beings, and I as I present this
new booklet Stumped (the second edition; now expanded and updated) I refer you
to these past booklets, which can be accessed for free online by clicking the links below (use a
PC or laptop to read or download them and all other linked booklets online, as featured in this
e-book, since Android or other smart phones dont do well to read them fully or to download
them for future use). I therefore share the following booklets with our SDA brethren worldwide
so that souls in need of the info can be helped to face the Enemy of truth:

Link 1: SDA Anti-Trinitarians Kicking Against the Pricks- Part 1

Link 2: SDA Anti-Trinitarians Kicking Against the Pricks- Part 2

Let me also from outset recommend this additional booklet filled with questions and answers
on the controversial issues related to the Trinity in Adventism, which is entitled Trinity---The
SDA Church on Trial (click the link below for your free copy):

Link 3: Trinity---The SDA Church on Trial

DID THE SDA PIONEERS CHANGE FROM NON-TRINITRIAN TO A TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE?

Now as I begin, let me address the very first important question of did the SDA pioneers change
their doctrine on God from a non-Trinitarian one to a Trinitarian one (even if a revised version)
before either 1931, the 1940s, or before 1980? Thats because this is what gets most anti-
Trinitarian dissidents riled up, and it is here they do the most twisting, turning, somersaulting
and general theological gymnastics, and seek to mislead the public as well as SDA brethren
weak in the faith. I have watched the anti-Trinitarians in Adventism over the last twenty years
twist and turn, buck and shuffle, obfuscate and change their arguments, and even engage in
outright denials of the undeniable. But in this information age the truth just refuse to remain
hidden or be held subject to the whims and fancies of some.

1. They first denied that the word "trinity" could be applied to the Godhead in any way. Facts
have now come to light debunking that notion, as this very booklet and others I have written
shows!! Arguing for when "a trinity is not a trinity" is not only laughable, but evidences their
lame attempt to salvage the unsalvageable. Here is one example of shocking denial of the truth.

2. They initially condemned the very word "trinity" as unbiblical, Satanic, Papal,
Babylonish, and now facts have come to light which have them scrambling for explanations as
to why the SDA pioneers themselves came full circle to use the word after 1888, but in another
way a little different than traditional Trinitarians have explained the Trinity!!

3. They denied that Mrs. White ever called the Holy Spirit a "being" or a "person" (just a
"personality", they argue), and yet the facts prove otherwise, so they either lamely try to deny
the authenticity of or scramble for cultic-type redefinition of plain words from Mrs. White, like
"three holiest beings in heaven"; seeing that it is damaging to their cause in having the Holy
Spirit deemed by Mrs. White as among those "three holiest beings". In addition they close their
eyes from seeing the fact that the very words a personality which Mrs. White equally referred
to the Holy Spirit as, just like the Father and the Son, meant a a person with individuality or a
personal individual being, as the 1828 the Noah Websters Dictionary of American English
prove clearly (click this link to see the meaning of personality in Mrs. Whites time from that
very dictionary). Many try to explain away the word distinct, as used by Mrs. White in the
expression a distinct personality, as concerning the Holy Spirit, seeking to show the other
meanings of the word distinct, and examples in her writings when at that specific place it
does not mean separate, but they forget that she also said the Spirit is a personality who
personifies or impersonates Jesus, and that this, in itself, means a separate individual, since
someone cannot impersonate himself (another person does that; just as she also said that Jesus
is the personification of the Father). And they keep forgetting that the very word
personality itself already means a living person with individuality. Its shameful to see the
degree of twisting they do to escape the inescapable.
I ask you dear reader, to assess this issue, in all honesty. Is it really true that Mrs. White never
saw the Spirit as an individual being? The following evidence is compelling, and honesty
requires a full acceptance of the following fact.

In the widely read book, STEPS TO CHRIST, published while Mrs. White was alive (in 1892),
she makes the following crucial point:

the unceasing interest of *heavenly BEINGS all are enlisted in behalf of mans redemption -
Steps to Christ, pgs. 20-21

Who are these BEINGS she was referring to as enlisted on behalf of mans redemption?
Considering that usually only separate living persons or personal beings are referred to as
enlisted, now notice carefully, in the *lines directly preceding this statement, the list of
BEINGS that she intended to highlight (inserts in brackets are mine, for emphahsis):

[1] The Saviors *Jesus+ life and death and resurrection, [2] the ministry of angels, [3] the
pleading of the *SPIRIT, [4] the Father working above and through all Steps to Christ, pgs.
20-21
Notice she listed them separately, and wrote about the Spirit separately in the list of heavenly
beings!! No one, or no power on earth, can make me mistake the meaning here!!

Now, no true Adventist will deny that in Heaven there are *originally two sets of Heavenly
beings, namely *1+ angels and *2+ the members of the Godhead. Now notice carefully here that
Mrs. White clearly mentions/lists the Holy Spirit separately from Jesus in the same paragraph,
and as one of the heavenly BEINGS, showing unceasing interest in, and was enlisted in
behalf of mans redemption. Some, faced with this truth (and convicting piece of evidence),
may claim that Mrs. White may have been careless in her choice of words here, or she did not
really see the Holy Spirit as a distinct or separate heavenly Being, as are the angels, Christ and
the Father. The question is then, what more evidence do they need more than her saying in
1899 that the Spirit is as much a person as God is a person, and thereafter repeatedly lists
him as a distinct personality among three living personalities or among three living
individuals, since that is what the words three living personalities literally meant in the
Websters Dictionary of 1828? Did Mrs. White not know what she was talking about? Didnt she
herself explain that the Spirit being deemed Jesus himself, the Comforter, is simply the Spirit
personifying or impersonating Jesus, but is a distinct personality from him, just as she
herself said the same about Jesus being the personification of the Father or is God himself,
yet is himself a distinct personality from the Father? Didnt she know that someone cannot
personify or impersonate their own self, but it takes another separate person to do that on
your behalf, as a true representative? Is it that she was not expert at theological matters,
exegesis and semantics in doctrine, and hence is in error here? That is the excuse some will
lamely make. However, Mrs. White appropriately describes, in principle, this dishonest type of
approach to truth in the following way:
All the evidence produced they decide shall not weigh a straw with them,
and they tell others the doctrine is not true, and afterwards, when they see as light evidence
they were so forward to condemn they have too much pride to say I was wrong
---E.G. White, Manuscript 15, 1888

That sums it quite nicely. Now notice, again carefully, how Mrs. White repeated the way she
equally referred to the angels and the Holy Spirit together as beings in MINISTRY OF
HEALING, another widely read book, one that was published in 1905 (while she was still
alive), thirteen years after she made the previously quoted statement in Steps to Christ of
1892. Inserts in brackets and emphases are mine.
The Bible shows us God in His high and holy place*SURROUNDED by holy *BEINGS,
all waiting to do His will. Through these messengers He is in active communication with every
part of His dominion. By His *SPIRIT *one of the holy beings which are before His throne,
Rev. 1:4] He is everywhere present. Through the agency of [1] His *SPIRIT and [2] His angels [all
heavenly beings, according to Mrs. White+, He ministers to the children of men.
---E.G. White- Ministry of Healing, 1903, pg. 417

Having considered that WHILE ALIVE she had already published that the Holy Spirit is one of the
heavenly beings who was separately enlisted (along with Jesus, the angels, and the Father)
for mans redemption, now notice carefully the following fact. In the quote just read, she
focused on the holy BEINGS who SURROUND the throne of God (and Jesus), who represent
Him (and Jesus), and who minister on His behalf (and Jesus behalf). Who does she
immediately mention here among them? The Holy Spirit! The same Holy Spirit who is described
by the Bible (and expounded on by Uriah Smith in his 1897 version of Daniel and the Revelation)
as the sevenfold Spirit before His *Gods+ throne in Revelation 1:4! Is he not a separate holy
being? The truth in Mrs. Whites writings is obvious to those who wish to see it. No one can
cover it up!

4. In addition, the dissidents claimed that the SDA pioneers never worshiped the Holy Spirit as
part of a trinity, yet even the SDA pioneering hymnals after 1888 and before 1915 (when
Mrs. White died) plainly show otherwise (click this link to prove it), and Uriah Smiths own 1896
Trinity statement in the Review, about worshipping the Spirit as part of the same Trinity,
and Mrs. White's own prayer to the "three Great Worthies" or the "three holiest beings in
heaven" and her quotes about worshipping the Spirit alongside the Father and Son have sent
their faulty argumentation into a tail spin...desperately scrambling for ways to obfuscate and
explain away the obvious!! Their favorite tactic is to deny Uriah Smith was the author of the
1896 Trinity statement in the Review (a tactic easily debunked; see link online here), and to
deny that Mrs. White spoke the words the three holiest BEINGS in heaven or directed a
prayer to these three Great Worthies, since, as they lamely argue, it was only a sermon
recorded and edited by a secretary or scribe, and it was not her own writings. Well the E.G.
White Estate has vouched for the authenticity of the recorded 1906 sermon by Mrs. White
(even showing where she herself subsequently quoted that very stenographed sermon in parts
in the Review and Herald), and no aspect of it is in opposition to what Mrs. White herself wrote
elsewhere to have the same meaning or same principles at play. Click this link to see the actual
recorded words of that prayer to the three Great Worthies as the database of Mrs. Whites
Sermons and Talks does show. In addition, the following repeated statements from her are
simply shrugged off as either inauthentic (i.e. tampered with by stenographers; despite they
have no real proof of that accusation), or simply not meaning what it says in plain English (again
evidencing an outright Satanic effort to make of non effect the testimonies of the Spirit
through her):

"...let us [SDAs] consecrate to Him ["the Lord" our God] all that we are, and all that we have,
and then may we all unite to swell the songs, Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise him, all creatures here below; Praise him above, ye heavenly host; Praise Father, Son,
*AND Holy Ghost. ---E.G. White, RH January 4, 1881

When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit have pledged ourselves to serve [i.e. reverence, honor, worship and obey; see Joshua
24:25; Psalm 100:2] God, the Father, Christ, *AND the Holy Spirit --the three dignitaries and
powers of heaven--pledge themselves that every facility shall be given to us if we carry out our
baptismal vows to "come out from among them, and be . . . separate, . . . and touch not the
unclean thing. ----E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901

"As the saints in the kingdom of God are accepted in the beloved, they hear: Come, ye blessed
of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. And
then the golden harps are touched, and the music flows all through the heavenly host, and they
fall down and worship the Father and the Son *AND the Holy Spirit."
---E.G. White, Manuscript 139, 1906.

5. Many of the disidents even went as far to deny that Mrs. White wrote certain "three"
expressions about the Godhead, and claimed they were statements tampered with, and when
the irrefutable historical facts prove otherwise (click this link for the proof that they were
genuine), some have backpedaled on Mrs. White's inspired prophetic role!! Hmmm. How
telling!!
Now all of the foregoing described realities, and more, does indicate a marked CHANGE in the
pioneering SDA doctrine on God, or the Godhead (explaining why the dissident try so
desperately to explain away or escape these realities), and so I must prove the contrasting
features of earlier pioneering SDA doctrine and the later pioneering teachings of those same
pioneers who lived up to 1915, and thereafter!

No one who has done any research can deny that the SDA pioneers denounced in the most
scathing tones of rebuke the Roman Catholic version of the Trinity, especially where it seeks
to present the Father and Son as not separate individuals, but rather as persons of sorts
sharing one indivisible or undivided substance, and with none of the three persons of the
Godhead having body parts or separate individuality. In addition, proper research will show
that the earlier pioneering statements and sentiments of SDA pioneers before 1888 rejected
any teaching which seeks to use the word trinity to apply to the Godhead, they rejected
any teaching which accepts the Spirit as a person or a personality worthy to be prayed to
or sung praises to as a distinct personality, they rejected any notion that we can refer to
God as our Triune God, or as a tri-personal God, or that the one Godhead had three
persons united therein, or that the Son and Spirit can be called God the Son, and God the
Holy Spirit respectively, or that the Holy Spirit can be legitimately called the third person of
the Godhead of three living persons who are of one substance, and are of equally
infinite power and eternity (i.e. are all from everlasting) in that Eternal Godhead. And
proper research would reveal that they also rejected any teaching or sentiment that Jesus is
deemed as God himself, as God incarnate or as the Lord God Almighty or the blessed
and only Potentate or he who only hath immortality, just like the Father; since they firmly
taught that only the Father alone were these things attributable to, and Jesus could not be so
called in any way.

Now I have proven clearly in my online presentations that this was the case, and I have also
demonstrated the later changes in those same pioneering teaching before 1915, and if you
click this link you will see the actual quotes am referring to, and the proof of the change. Also at
the link above (click it) you will see me engaging in discussion on my Facebook page some of the
more noted SDA anti-Trinitarians online (some of whom have their own online ministries,
websites, and online books dedicated to teaching their falsehoods). Read all the exchanges, see
the evidence I produced to counteract their claims, and HONESTLY judge for yourself, dear
reader, who is speaking the truth! But of utmost importance, I must hasten to say that the
following ten (10) points prove that the SDA pioneers adopted basic Trinitarian sentiments both
before and after 1915 (laying the groundwork for expansion on these basics in later years after
1915); a reality which will become the first real stumper for the dissidents to handle, so here
we go with stumper No. 1 (see next page).
STUMPER No. 1:

ONLY TRINITARIANS ENDORSE OR COLLECTIVELY USE THE FOLLOWING EXPRESSIONS (WHICH

THE POST-1888 AND PRE-1915 SDA PIONEERS DID EVENTUALLY ADOPT OR ENDORSE).

*Click the links appearing in the list below to see the online proofs enhanced with actual quotes
and Xeroxed page exhibits.

1. Our triune God is beautifully seen in the union of the blended personalities of
Father, Son and Spirit

2. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are part of the Trinity and bona fide SDA
pioneers regularly called Jesus God the Son in their writings in the Review after 1888

3. The great Trinity of heaven is worthy of the worship of mankind

4. God or the tri-personal God is revealed under the titles of God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Holy Ghost

5. Praise in song, and worship is equally applicable to the Holy Spirit in that same trinity,
despite no explicit biblical command can be found to require such an act of worship; a matter
both Uriah Smith and E.G. White herself endorsed after the 1880s

6. The third person of the Godhead or the Holy Spirit is a distinct personality from Jesus

7. Prayer is acceptably directed to the three great Worthies, not just to the Father and Son,
and all three are to be served just as you would serve God only (as seen in Joshua 24:15)

8. The separate beings of the Godhead are so spiritually welded together as to be deemed
one God

9. Jesus died only in his human nature, but his divinity or divine nature did not die, since he is
the one who only hath immortality just like the Father

10. Jesus is the Almighty and is worshipped in heaven as the Lord God Almighty just like
the Father, because he is God himself, and who is co-equal with the Father as the Son of
God.
The reason this foregoing list would stump the anti-Trinitarians is because it has been proven
adequately that the post-1888 and pre-1915 SDA pioneers (including Uriah Smith, S.N. Haskell,
the Signs of the Times, the Review and Herald, the Christ in Song hymnal of 1908, and even
Mrs. White) collectively expressed all these sentiments, IN CONTRAST to earlier teachings they
had before 1888. Any HONEST theologian would know that true anti-Trinitarians do not express
all these sentiments about the Godhead collectively, but Trinitarians do, and so its an
inescapable conclusion that SDA pioneers gradually became Trinitarians after 1888 (even if
differing in certain explanations when compared to certain traditional Trinitarian views). Only a
Trinitarian says Christ ALONE is to be exalted, only a Trinitarian calls Jesus God Himself
and the only true God, like the Father, even while speaking of three living persons being
part of an eternal Godhead (just as E.G. White said)!! The truly ignorant denies this reality!!
STUMPER No. 2: ONLY TRINITARIANS HISTORICALLY SPOKE OF THE THIRD PERSON OF THE
GODHEAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT BEING IN THE TRINITY AS A DISTINCT PERSONALITY.A
NOTION NON-TRINITARIANS DEEM AS HERETICAL

Just letting what the SDA pioneers themselves tell us, about earlier pioneering sentiments
connected to expressions like "the third person of the Godhead" and "the trinity", it reveals
that it was NOT always a favorable sentiment among the earlier non-Trinitarian pioneers, and
reveal that here is where a marked change was evident in later years. For instance, at the 1919
Bible Conference, here is what SDA pioneer W.W. Prescott candidly admitted about the earlier
pioneering teachings in Adventism:
"I was in the same place that Brother Daniells was, and was taught the
same things by authority [of the SDA Church], that Christ was the beginning of God's creative
work, that to speak of the third person of the Godhead or of the trinity was heretical..."
--- W.W. Prescott, July 6, 1919 Bible Conference.

DID YOU CATCH THAT??? Not only did the earlier expressions of some of the SDA pioneers ( like
that of Uriah Smith, and J.M. Stephenson ) present Jesus as a created being but the
expressions "third person of the Godhead" and "the trinity" were considered "heretical" by
early SDA pioneers because they were TRINITARIAN EXPRESSIONS...and the whole world
knows it!! So when later pioneers (like Uriah Smith, A.T. Jones, S.N. Haskell, Robert Hare,
F.M. Wilcox, E.G. White, et al) started to use these formerly deemed heretical Trinitarian
expressions after 1888, it is plain they were now leaning in the direction of Trinitarianism
(clearly a revised version); not continuing in a non-Trinitarian direction!! Here is the actual
proof of SDA pioneer W.W. Prescott admitting at the 1919 Bible Conference that early SDA
pioneers opposed the use of Trinitarian expressions like "the third person of the Godhead", and
"trinity"---a solid proof of later acceptance of Trinity concepts by E.G. White and other pioneers
even before Kellogg did in 1902-1903 (this scan is from the Minutes on July 6, 1919):
Notice that it was *BIBLE STUDY and the utterances of Mrs. White which led pioneer W.W.
Prescott to later accept a revised version of The Trinityand not a desire to prove any ism
such as Trinitarianism or Unitarianism. Thats actually instructive!! Just letting the facts
speak for themselves, but rightly understood in their proper context, will lead the honest SDA
Bible student to accept and worship the Trinity of separate beings, just as pioneers like Uriah
Smith (of all persons) turned around to do after 1888. This now leads me to stumper No. 3.

STUMPER No. 3: URIAH SMITH NAMED AND WORSHIPPED THE GODHEAD AS

THE TRINITY BEFORE HE DIED:

In 1896, Uriah Smith was the Editor of the Review and Herald (Adventisms main doctrinal publishing
paper), and writing as Editor of the In the Question Chair column, in answer to the question seen in
the exhibit above he made plain the following eye-opening words:

We know of no place in the Bible where we are commanded to worship the Holy Spirit, as was
commanded in the case of Christ (Heb. 1:6), or where we find an example of the worship of the Holy
Spirit, as in the case of Christ. Luke 24:52. Yet in the formula for baptism, the name Holy Ghost, or
Holy Spirit, is associated with that of the Father and the Son. And if the name can be used thus, why
could it not properly stand as a part of the same *TRINITY in the hymn of praise, Praise Father, Son
and Holy Ghost? - Uriah Smith, Review and Herald, 1896, Vol. 73, No. 43, pg. 685
Let that earth shattering reality just sink into your spirit for a while, dear reader. Notice Uriah
Smith's use of *deductive reasoning concerning worship of the Spirit, despite admitting that
there was not a clear Scripture commanding worship of the Holy Spirit!! Furthermore, Uriah
Smith, who was one of the most vocal of anti-Trinitarians in early Adventism, and who
denounced the very word "Trinity" in earlier years, and unapologetically rejected the thought
that we could ever deem the Holy Spirit as a person to worship, yet IN 1896 STARTED TO SHOW
A CHANGE IN HIS VIEW...at least to some degree.
Do we then see why when in 1897 (one year after the above quote was written) when he
revised his Daniel and the Revelation book, he borrowed the ideas of *Trinitarian authors
(Thompson and Barnes) to express that Revelation 1:4 was speaking of the Holy Spirit
(symbolized as "the sevenfold Spirit" standing before Gods throne), and admitted candidly that
the Spirit was equally the source of grace and blessings, and was equally sending greetings to
the Church along with the Father and the Son? Is any wonder then that Mrs. White herself
started to quote Trinitarian authors herself to teach about the Godhead? See this link for
undeniable proof. Notice too that Uriah Smith apparently refused to list "the Trinity" among the
many errors of the Papacy when he wrote at length about the Papacy in the Dark Ages. If you
search with a fine teeth comb the 1897 version of the Daniel and the Revelation book (just as in
The Great Controversy by Mrs. White) you will not find one reference to "the Trinity" as one of
the named errors of the Papacy in his long list of her errors during the Dark Ages. Carelessness
or oversight on his part? Not at all, when we consider Uriah Smith's previously aggressive and
highly vocal anti-Trinitarian stance in the earlier years before 1888, and considering the
Trinity was previously deemed chief of the papal errors!! All of this only indicates strongly
the *changing sentiments that were becoming evident among the SDA pioneers after 1888!!

And finally, keep in mind that this 1896 trinity defense, of sorts, from Uriah Smith was not
just Uriah Smith using the word trinity as just an innocent label for the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit (since he could have used trio), but he is using it in the context of WORHIP
DIRECTED TO THE HOLY SPIRIT in the same trinityknowing full well a trinity is three
persons; not two. Uriah Smith knew full well the implications of him using this formerly
considered heretical Trinitarian term, and the implications of him defending worship of the
Holy Spirit in those Trinitarian-type terms. Was he now leaning in the direction of endorsing
certain aspects (not all) of the Trinity doctrine he had formerly frowned upon? You bet! And I
KNOW this was the case because this was taking place at precisely the time when other SDA
pioneers were adopting Trinitarian sentiments in the late 1890s as well. Thus whenever any
ANTI-TRINITARIAN SDA dissident or 'offshoot' tells you, dear reader, that you can't prove that
the Godhead is "a trinity", look them squarely in the eye and say:

"I don't need to prove the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be a trinity; our SDA pioneer Uriah
Smith *supportively called them that in 1896, S.N. Haskell *supportively called them that in
1905, A.T. Jones *supportively called them that in 1891, the Signs of the Times *supportively
called them that, and defended them as such in 1891 and 1892, Review and Herald
*supportively called them that, as a well as "our triune God" in 1900, Robert Hare *supportively
called them that in 1909, F.M. Wilcox *supportively called them that in 1913, the 1908 Christ in
Song hymnal of SDA pioneers, on page 6, *supportively called them that, and they all (as SDA
pioneers) sang praises to them as such before 1915...including Uriah Smith!!! And Mrs. E.G.
White (our prophetess) never once spoke out against them doing so after 1888, but instead
*supportively adopted her own Trinitarian expressions, such as "the third person of the
Godhead" of "three living persons" in that "Eternal Godhead", and she made plain all "three
living persons" should be worshipped and "served" just as you would "serve" God (see Joshua
24:15). I take my cue from my objective pioneers who knew what a true trinity consisted of and
why they should be praised, or worshipped, despite there still remains "one God", the Father."

STUMPER No. 4: THE CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE OF ALL OF THE WRITINGS OF THE PIONEERS
AFTER 1888 AND BEFORE 1915 PROVES A CHANGE TO A TAILORED VERSION OF THE
TRINITY BY MOST SDA PIONEERS, DESPITE RESISTANCE FROM SOME

Expect the dissident SDA anti-Trinitarians to try and explain away selected pieces of the
evidence supplied in this booklet, when looked at in isolation, but here's what they cant
explain away THE CUMULATIVE PRE-1915 CHAIN OF EVENTS ALL TAKEN TOGETHER BEFORE
MRS. WHITE DIED. Follow the evidence:

1. In 1892 the Signs of the Times SDA magazine defended their 1891 publication of an article
using the term "the Trinity" where the "supreme *beings" (plural) of the Father and Son being
represented by the "supreme being" of the Spirit, and all three being deemed "the Deity" is set
forth. Mrs. White published in that same paper and never objected to that new development in
Adventism!! She never did thereafter either!!

2. In that same year of 1892- The SDA Church via the Pacific Press publishing house,
supportively published Spearss non-SDA Trinity article which the SDA pioneers themselves
renamed and entitled it The Bible Doctrine of the Trinityobviously admitting that there is
indeed a biblical version of the Trinity that acceptable!! In the year 1894 as well, that same
Spear Trinity article, which presented a "tri-personal God" and deemed/defended "bible
trinitarians" as "not tri-theists", was again glowingly endorsed in the following words:

It presents the Bible view of the *doctrine of the Trinity [not just the "trinity" group] in the
terms used in the Bible, and therefore avoids all philosophical discussion and foolish
speculation. It is a tract worthy of reading." - Signs of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 29, 1894.

Notice the words "the *DOCTRINE of the Trinity" in the quote above, and recognize the SDA
pioneers were endorsing not just the tern "trinity" as some dissidents in Adventism today
would want you to believe; but the "BIBLE *DOCTRINE of the Trinity" when correctly explained
without philosophical and mystical speculations.

3. In 1892, Mrs. White herself made the following statement, indicating clearly why the SDA
Church NEEDED TO ACCEPT CHANGE, and this allowed for an SDA Church that was now leaning
in the direction of a new form of or tailored Trinitarianism (i.e. separate Godhead beings all
together worshipped and praised as the Trinity):

There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be
revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain
doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas
are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair....There are
those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing
they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of
Christ. The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the
necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many
[i.e. SDA pioneers in 1892] who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease,
saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing."
--E.G. White, Review and Herald, December 20, 1892.

4. In 1896 Uriah Smith, as editor of the Review and writer of the In the Question Chair
column, defended song and praise to the Holy Spirit as part of the same trinity the Father
and Son belongs to (he actually named them as such), and defended them as "the same trinity"
who are praised and worshipped together (a first time supportive use of the term the trinity
by him in this way). Remember, Uriah Smith fully well knew that a trinity is three persons;
not two.despite some today desperately want to make trio mean two, and likewise trinity

4. In 1900 the Review and Herald published the thought that how surprisingly beautiful are
the blended personalities of our TRIUNE GOD; obviously with separate beings involved and
not the Roman Catholic version, since SDAs have always maintained the existence of separate
beings of divinity). Yes, to the pioneers the surprisingly beautiful truth begun to emerge.

5. In 1905, S.N. Haskell published his book The Story of the Seer of Patmos, and for the first
time ever, on page 132, admitted the great *Trinity of heaven as being deemed worthy of
the praise of mankind; notice he used the term in the capitalized form, and called the group
the great *Trinityeven though he could have used the expression the heavenly trio. The
following year, in 1906, S.N. Haskell was personally lauded by Mrs. White for his work as a bible
teacherproving he was no heretic drifting off into spiritualism as some dissidents would
want to accuse him of.

6. In 1908 the General Conference of SDA pioneers (taking counsel together) vetted and passed
the new Christ in Song hymnal, where on page 6 it had, for the first time ever, songs dedicated
to the Trinity, (yes, an entire section named as such), where both the Holy Spirit and the
Eternal Three were equally praised together in songs listed in that section. This was while
Mrs. White was alive, and she herself would have sung from that hymnal (yet no objection
registered on her part). Thats instructive, but dissidents try to ignore this GLARING reality!

7. In 1913, the Churchs leading editor of its publications, F.M. Wilcox, (a man highly regarded
by E.G. White herself; and asked by her, among others, to guard her estate upon her death), he
released in the Review and Herald SD Adventisms first Statement of Belief recognizing the
Trinity but as separate beings. And that same F.M. Wilcox is on record later explaining (in a
doctrinal book officially published by the Review and Herald) that the Godhead of three
persons/beings have separate individuality but was to SDAs unitedly praised as one God;
proving this was not (as some like to falsely argue) a sentiment only established Adventism in
1980, and only after Leroy Froom so-called introduced it to and imposed it on Adventism after
the 1920s. Leroy Froom inherited all of these previously described realities in Adventism!!

And all along the way from 1892, doctrinal books for SDA colleges, bible readings for the SDA
home books, and the like, started from 1892, to insert the term the trinity, and deem the
divine group as being worthy of praise as "the trinity"; a group consisting of the Father, the Son
and the *Holy Spirit (a matter I have a mountain of evidence to prove...xeroxed pages and all).
And the rest, as they say, is history!!
Here now is an uninterrupted display of many of the exhibits I promised. View them at your
leisure and then move to the summary of the keys issues at the end of this booklet (on page
29).
*MOST XEROXED PAGE EXHIBITS WILL BE SHOWN ON THE NEXT FEW PAGES HERAFTER.

EXHIBIT 3: A pre-1888 Review and Herald article objecting to the TRADITIONAL Trinity doctrine
teaching that the Father, Son and Spirit are one person or one personal Being with no body
parts; with all three being non-individual persons united as one undivided substance. Click
here to see why this objection from the early SDA pioneers to the Roman Catholic version of
the Trinity.

EXHIBIT 4: Here in an 1879 Signs of the Times (May 22, 1879) pioneer A.J. Dennis is objecting to
the Godhead consisting of three persons of one substance, one power and one eternity. Visit
the General Conference Archives of SDAs at this link to find the issue and read the article one
God by A.J. Dennis in that issue of the paper if you wish.
EXHIBIT 5: This 1892 Signs of the Times has SDA pioneers publishing and defending their version of the
Trinity as supreme beings. Click here to see more details on the issue, and read the actual 1892
magazine; a paper where Mrs. White either wrote that article herself, or despite being in Australia for
years after that paper was published never took issue with it or the use of the term The Trinity.
EXHIBIT 6: This shows the 1891 book The Two Republics by SDA pioneer A.T. Jones recognizing the
validity of the term the Trinity when applied to the Father, Son and Spirit, and that historically at the
Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) there was never any dispute about the FACT of there being a trinity; only
a dispute about how the persons are one. Sse A.T. Jones on the Spirits personhood at this link.
EXHIBIT 7: Here we see the April 3, 1900 Review and Herald allowing for the publication of the
fact that our triune God is beautifully seen in the Holy Spirit representing the Father and Son.
Click here to see more details on this and to access the actual Review and read the whole article
EXHIBIT 8: Here we see pioneer S.N. Haskell recognizing in 1905 (in The Story of the Seer of
Patmos) that there is a great Trinity of heaven who, unlike the angel Gabriel, are worthy of
the worship of mankind. On page 327 of the same book (the Questions for Study section),
Haskell questioned the reader whether Gabriel the angel was, quote, one of the Trinity of
heaven.
EXHIBIT 9: Here is an excerpt from an online booklet written by an active anti-Trinitarian
dissident (*name withheld) who lauded S.N. Haskells work in his 1905 book, and spoke of how
Mrs. White respected him as a grounded bible teacher. But he obviously never saw in Haskells
1905 book that he by then admitted/wrote clearly that there is a great Trinity of heaven who
is worthy of the worship of mankind. When that same dissident (*name withheld) was shown
Haskells 1905 Trinity admission, he tried then to make it seem Haskell had, by 1905, lost his
way and had become a spiritualistic heretic. How ironic, when the following excerpt from his
own review of Haskell after 1905 is considered. Smile, dear reader!! You know its funny.
EXHIBIT 10: Here is the actual page 6 of the 1908 Christ in Song hymnal used by all the
pioneers in Mrs. Whites lifetime (vetted and published by Mrs. Whites own nephew, F.E
Belden, under the permission/oversight of the General Conference of SDA pioneers). In the left
column it can be clearly seen that songs of praise were by then being sung to the Trinity while
Mrs. White was alive.explaining why Uriah Smiths 1896 defense was needed about songs to
the Spirit as part of the same trinity. See more on the SDA pioneering hymnals as it concerns
the Trinity here and here.
EXHIBIT 11: A copy of the actual General Conference Minutes of 1907, showing clearly that the
decision was taken during Mrs. Whites lifetime to monitor all hymnals of the Church so that
they would properly reflect the collective faith of all the pioneering brethren. Consider then
the 1908 Christ in Song hymnal, from which Mrs. White would have sung, having song No.
377 (Praise Ye the Father) listed under Praise to the Trinity, and praising the Spirit this way
as a distinct personality from Jesus himself (as Mrs. White expressed it):

Praise ye the Spirit, Comforter of Israel, Sent of the Father and the Son to bless us.
Praise ye the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Praise ye the Eternal Three!

---No. 377 (Praise ye the Father) in the SDA Christ in Song of 1908 (verse 3):
EXHIBIT 12: Here is song No. 377 from the 1908 Christ in Song hymnal of SDA pioneers while
Mrs. White was alive (its listed under the Contents on page 6 as one of the songs of Praise to
the *Trinity). Note carefully all the words in the exhibit, and the three separate praises:

EXHIBIT 13: A snapshot of my Facebook dialog (in 2016) with anti-Trinitarian dissidents about
who really should we call the pioneers of the SDA Church. This is important when dealing
with the changes which took place in Adventism under their watch, so see this exhibit of how
the issue should be dealt with when dealing with the dissidents.
EXHIBIT 14: Here is the 1913 Fundamental Statements of Beliefs expressed by the Churchs
chief editor, pioneer F.M. Wilcox, in the October 9, 1913 Review (page 21). F.M. Wilcox had
already expressed his belief in the Trinity of separate beings before this event, and yet Mr.
White still appointed him one of the founding members of the Board of managers of the E.G.
White Estate; indicating clearly that she never considered him a heretic up to that point (and
remember she was still active up to 1911 to revise and oversee the publishing of the second
volume of The Great Controversy so she was not old and senile by then, as some dissidents
try to let on.
EXHIBIT 15: Here is the 1914 version of the Bible Readings for the Home with page 182
showing clearly that SDA pioneers were already in their homes teaching the Trinity or the
threefold Godhead consisting of three persons:
EXHIBIT 16: Here is page 37 from the 1917 Bible Doctrines- 150 Lessons, a College class
doctrinal book used at Walla Walla College, training the children of SDA pioneers about the
Godhead as a trinity and the Spirit as the third person of the Godheadall Trinitarian
expressions previously thought by earlier SDA pioneers to be heretical Trinitarian
terminology.
EXHIBIT 17: The first time appearance of the SDA Trinity Statement of Beliefs in the Churchs
Yearbook, as a result of a request from the African Division to do so. See this link for the details
surrounding this historic event, and see that it was not anything new, but a repeat of pre-1915
sentiments.
 SUMMARY AND FINAL CONSIDERATIONS:
After such an overwhelming display of data, and evidence, it is plain that the dissidents have
not dealt honestly and or intelligently with the history of Adventism. Yet they continue to try to
escape the undeniable truth in a number of ways (click this link to see more of their denials):

1. The non-Trinitarian dissidents continue to invent new means and ways to escape the truth
that their own Church adopted a different version of the Trinity from the days of the SDA
pioneers, and some of the escape strategies include them saying:

a] The present SDA Trinity is not the same Trinity of the pioneers, they argue....and this escape
strategy' is employed when they do realize (after much initial denial) that the historical facts do
actually prove that the SDA pioneers did actually accept and worship a Trinity of three separate
beings after 1888

b] Any form of "Trinity" the SDA pioneers accepted was in fact a duo of persons or beings, they
argue....and this escape strategy they employ when they find it difficult to come to grips with
the true dictionary definition of a "trio" or "trinity" of personal beings (since "trio and "trinity"
are synonyms as simple nounsmeaning a group of three persons)

c] If the Trinity was accepted in Adventism it was either after the 1940s or it was in 1980, they
argue ...and they employ this escape strategy when they realize its futile to deny the facts that
the Church did accept a Trinity that different from the Roman Catholic version

d] Even if the SDA pioneers did accept and worship a Trinity of separate beings during the time
of the pioneers it was only those pioneers (including General Conference leaders) who had
drifted off into apostasy similar to that of Kellogg in 1902-1903, they argue...and they employ
this escape strategy when all other strategies described above failed. But the Kellogg saga holds
no reprieve or escape route for them either, and click this link to see why I say so.

FINAL COMMENTS AND APPEAL:

All the above reveals that on the non-Trinitarian side of the dissidents, they are prepared to
deny truth, and seek to explain away self-evident facts just to 'escape' from what is
uncomfortable for them to accept, and many will refuse to delve objectively into the real facts
for fear of what they will discover. This reveals that its not just non-SDA members who suffer
from this human tendency, but many SDAs are afflicted by this human weakness as well.
LETS PRAY FOR OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS GOING THROUGH THESE STRUGGLES!!

In closing I recommend that you visit my published library (click this link) of over 100 free
booklets addressing every conceivable issue and refuting every objection of the dissidents
regarding the Trinity issue. And if you wish to see how best to explain the Trinity in the Biblical
way, and avoid the ridiculous explanations of the Roman Catholic Church, click here, and here
and here and here, and here, so that you can tie up the loose ends in your study about our
paradoxical God. STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF APRROVED!!!

We have come to the end of this short adventure of discovery. I do hope you were blessed.
Please share what you have learned with others, including this e-book, and let the truth go
forth and the discussions continue. Freely ye have received, freely give!!! And never forget
these words:

"When someone who is genuinely mistaken learns the

truth, he will either quit being mistaken or will no longer
remain genuine." Anonymous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the dissidents sadly display the following traits (*quote from Lazarus Castang)

Lets pray for them that God will humble them and release them from the chains of self-
deception that they have allowed themselves to be in.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a bonus, may I share with you my other bombshell booklet written in late 20 16, which will
certainly be bothersome for some (probably many) SDAs. Approach this booklet with much
prayer, if you are a pro-Trinitarian SDA member. Heres the link to download your free copy.
Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and remains a
member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs.
(Contact Info: ddgillespie@live.com OR https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie)