You are on page 1of 32

Reply to Pastor Jamal Sankey and Jeff Pippenger’s interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45 – Exposing the Sham!

The very best Credentials we can carry is love for one another. All strife, all dissension is to cease… - (Letter 119. 1899).

“Be ready ALWAYS to give an answer to EVERY MAN that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you.” 1 PETER 3:15.
“THE HEART OF THE RIGHTEOUS WEIGHS [STUDIES] TO ANSWER.” PROVERBS 15:28.

BUT “A fool shows his annoyance at once, while a prudent man overlooks an insult” – Prov. 12:16. On 27 Nov 2010, I sent a draft email (copy attached) to a number of individuals asking for their confirmation that my email correctly stated their position on Dan. 11:40-45, which email began as follows:
“Dear Gentlemen, I am sending you this email because I understand from listening to your sermons and reading your materials that you teach this new interpretation of Daniel 11:40-45. My reasons for sending you this email is, in keeping with Matt. 18 and 1 Pet. 3:15, to give you an opportunity to correct me if I have incorrectly stated your position and to let me know what is your true position and why my refutation of your arguments is not in harmony with the SOP, the writings of Uriah Smith and sound Biblical exegesis….”

The above email went on to outline in draft the most salient reasons I felt their views were erroneous, namely, that they differed from the orthodox SDA position and that of Ellen G. White. I therefore, without apology challenged these preachers to bring forward Biblical proof1 of their new and seemingly farfetched doctrine. This doctrine teaches that Daniel 11:40-45 was/will be fulfilled by the following: 1. the collapse of the Soviet Union as epitomized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 2. the events of 9/11, 2001 3. the enforcement of a Sunday law in America followed by the conversion to Adventism of “Moab, Edom and the children of Ammon” The above views are being taught as “present truth” by these gentlemen. For proof of this, see: “Prophecy Camp Meeting 2009 Syllabus Small” (by Pastor Jamal Sankey, Pastor Dario Taylor and ‘Elder’ Jeff Pippenger, Kevin Howard, and Manuel Carrasco). See also, Pippenger’s, “The Final Rise and Fall of the King of the North,” pp. 15, 25-27, 30-32. Here is a snapshot of how these SDA preachers have interpreted Daniel 11:40-45 in order to arrive at the above three conclusions. They say:
1. 2. 3.
1

that “And at that time” (Dan. 12:1) is the same time of Dan. 11:45. that the King of the North in Dan. 11: 40-45 is the papacy, the King of the South is atheistic communism, or rather, the former Soviet Union, that the "glorious land" in Dan. 11:41 is the United States.

As I found no 'sound Biblical exegesis' in his writings or sermons for his interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45.

1

4.

Thus, they interpret the passage in Daniel 11:40-45 as follows: ‘verse 40: The king of the North (papacy) defeats the king of the South (Russia/Soviet Union). This, they say, happened in 1989; verse 41: The "glorious land" (said to be the USA) comes under the spiritual control of the papacy (this they say will be complete when America passes a national Sunday law). 5. that the reference to Edom Moab and Ammon in verse 41 is symbolic of those who leave Babylon and join God's remnant during the Loud Cry. 6. that Daniel 11:40-45 is both a symbolic and a literal prophecy 7. that verse 42 shows the papacy will conquer Egypt (which they say is a symbolism for the world). 8. that verse 43 concerning “Libya” is a Biblical symbolism for the Third World, and that “Ethiopia” is a symbolism for the rich countries of the world (thus, they say, this verse means that, both the rich and poor nations will follow the papacy). 9. that verse 44 concerning the “tidings from the east” that shall trouble the king of the north (‘papacy’ in their view) is the coming of Christ. 10. that verse 45 refers to the SDA church: the "glorious holy mountain"; 11. that the "seas" in verse 45 is symbolic of the vast numbers of people in the world. Thus, when verse 45 says “he” will stand “between” the “seas” and “the holy mountain” it means that the papacy will prevent the people of the world from receiving the last warning message given by the SDA church.

The facts will show that all of the above interpretations are incorrect and cannot be justified by sound Biblical exegesis, and are at variance with the Spirit of Prophecy. I will show that the interpretative methods used to arrive at the above conclusions are all sham. I do not say that these men are not genuine, only that their methods of interpreting Dan. 11:40-45 are sham.
“To the law and to the testimony, if they are not according to this word….” (Isa. 8:20).

Now back to my initial email of 27 Nov 2010 to Pastor Sankey and Jeff Pippenger. On December 18, after several emails back and forth between us (among them some very unpleasant ones from Jeff ger2), I finally got a sensible reply from Pastor Sankey3 titled “Response To Moore's Critique”.4 In the spirit of gentlemanly debate, on Dec. 19, 2010, I wrote to Pastor Sankey by email saying, “Dear Pastor Sankey,… it would be unfair of me not to afford you one further opportunity to provide a
2

For the record: No sensible or pleasant email ever came from Elder Jeff Pippenger. Rather, on 14 December, 2010, Elder Pippenger wrote to me by email saying that he was verily “convinced that you [i.e. Philton Moore] are an unbalanced man,” Pippenger further informed me by email that my “FOOLISH POSITION CONCERNING URIAH SMITH DEMANDS NO RESPONSE…. I REFUSE TO TAKE THE TIME FOR THIS….” I will leave the reader to judge for him/herself whether in these responses by Elder Pippenger, the image of Jesus Christ is discernable. ** Incidentally, in January, 2009, Elder Pippenger had cause to apologize to me for similar verbal abuses and rash responses. In an email dated Sunday, 25 January, 2009, after having compared me to “a dog” in “a pack of dogs”, etc., Elder Pippenger wrote me these very fine words: “My brother [Pippenger speaking] I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE YOUR MAILINGS…. I should have respond[ed] in a more docile way… I ask you to forgive me…. Please forgive me … I NO DOUBT COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE MILD-MANNERED IN MY APPROACH. Please forgive there also.” [VERBATIM]. I have kept the original email of 2009 from Mr. Pippenger for any who care to see that I have not misquoted him in any particular.
3

This “Response to Moore’s Critique” was Pastor Sankey's purported response to my initial email of 27 Nov 2010. Notwithstanding my repeated requests to Pastor Sankey to include all Biblical support for his positions, his “Critique” made little to no attempt to offer Biblical support for his eight positions listed page 2 above, and in fact, Pastor Sankey bluntly refused to give full Biblical reasons for the “faith that is within him” (Pet. 3:15). He made me to know that Pet. 3:15 did not apply to him in this situation because in his words, my “choice words and phraseology” used in my initial email “clearly indicate a lack of patience and Christlikeness” Further, in his view, I had not provided any Bible text to disprove his Daniel 11:40-45 theory. As to Pastor Sankey’s charges of “impatience” and “unchristlikeness,” I do not think it would be dignified for me to respond.
4

The original copy of pastor Sankey’s “Response to Moore’s Critique” is attached.

2

clear Biblical passage (or passages, if you can manage more than one) that support your position that Dan. 11:40-45 predicted….” In response to my above request of Dec. 19, I got the following terse reply from Pastor Sankey: “Philton…. Either get to the point, or stop wasting my time. You obviously have much more time to toy with than I do. I've given my reply, now offer your retort - simple”! [My emphasis] As requested, I shall now “get to the point” and give the “retort” demanded by Pst Sankey. And I promise that I shall undertake to do so with “balance,” good humour, AND nil sine cura (“attention to detail”). Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit ("The burden of proof rests on he who asserts, not on who denies") The foundation for Pastor Sankey’s views on Dan. 11:40-45 and from which all his other theological and historical arguments and assumptions on these verses are launched is the following statement by Ellen G. White in Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, page 394: “Much of the history that has taken place in fulfillment of this prophecy will be repeated… [DAN . 11: 3 0 - 3 6 QUOTED by Ellen White]…. Scenes similar to those described in these words will take place….Let all read and understand the prophecies of this book, for we are now entering upon the time of trouble spoken of…[Daniel 12:1-4 quoted]." Note, reader in the above passage Ellen White at no point quotes or even references Dan. 11:40-45. Nonetheless, based on the above statement, Pastor Sankey, like Pippenger, has concluded that when Ellen White said “the history that has taken place in fulfillment of this prophecy [Dan. 11:30-36 quoted] will be repeated” she was in fact referring to the events in verse 40-45 of Dan. 11. These men have further concluded that the “overflowing” power in Dan. 11:45, is a reference to the Papacy in its overthrowing of the former Soviet Union and the United States of America (in particular the events of 9/11, 2001) all of which they say were predicted in Dan. 11:40-45. In my respectful view, the above premises (including the 1-8 on page 2 above) are all incorrect and without any Biblical or other rational foundation. I propose to deal with each of Pastor Sankey’s points in his “Critique” as well as other points found elsewhere in his taped sermons and written materials under the following 21 bold subheadings. But first, to summarise their position: it is that Dan. 11:40-45 predicts the following: 1. the collapse of the Soviet Union as epitomized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; 2. 9/11 and; 3. a national Sunday law, followed by the conversion of “Moab, Edom and the children of Ammon” Let us see if these conclusions have Biblical or other credible foundation or are based on sham logic.

3

1. Michael Standing up in Dan. 12:1 -“AND at that time…” occurs close to the events in Dan. 11:40-45 Pastor Sankey first quotes a statement I made in my first email to him, stating that “… all [of] Dan. 11:40-45, [has been] fulfilled.” He then says the following: “Mr. Moore basis this view upon Uriah Smith’s logical, but is this reasoning sound? A surface reading of Dan. 11:30-12:11 clearly shows that this cannot be the case. For if these verses have all been fulfilled Michael has stood up, and probation on the human race has closes [sic].” In the above statement Sankey asserts both truth and error in same passage regarding Dan. 12 and 11. It is true that when Michael stands up, probation will have closed and Christ would be on His way to redeem his people. But how Pastor Sankey manages to make Dan. 12:1’s time of trouble the same as the events portrayed in Dan. 11:40-45 is quite an art in itself. It reveals a poor application of the rules of English comprehension. How Pastor Sankey is able to conclude that Dan. 12:1 as a continuation of Dan. 11:45 is given on page 2 of his “Response To Moore's Critique”. There he asserts that the scenes depicted in Dan. 11:40-45 are occurring at the same time as the events in the first two verses Dan. chap. 12 BECAUSE (and SOLELY BECAUSE) in his words, this latter chapter begins with the expression: “And at that time…” Thus, he states, "it is easily seen that Daniel's usage of "And at that time" places it in direct connection to the previous verse--namely verse 45 [i.e. of Dan. 11]." Thus, on Pastor Sankey’s reasoning Michael standing up in Dan. 12:1 MUST immediately follow the fulfilment of the events in Dan. 11:40-45, merely because Dan. chap. 12, verse 1, begins with the words: “And at that time….” He therefore concludes that the words which follow “at that time” indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the time spoken of in Dan. 12:1 (Michael standing up) is the same time as that of verses 44-45 of the preceding chapter. You see, in Pastor Sankey’s mind, the word “And” is what links the events at the end of chap. 11 with the those described at the beginning of chap. 12. This he clearly states as his only basis for so asserting in his “Response To Moore's Critique”. The same argument is found in their “Prophecy Camp Meeting 2009 Syllabus Small” (by Pastor Jamal Saneky, Pastor Dario Taylor, Elder Jeff Pippenger, et. al), on pages 69-72, and 202. If I can show that the events in Dan. 11:44-45 are not sequential or in close proximity to the events in Dan. 12:1, then this will have destroyed all of Sankey’s and Pippenger’s arguments in favour of their conclusions 1-3 on page 2 above. Likewise, if I can show that “And at that time” in Dan. 12:1 refers to a different time than Dan. 11:45. Here is how he (Pst. Sankey) seeks to make the connection between Dan. 11:44-45 and Dan. 12:1 on page 2 of his “Response to Moore’s Critique” (in lines 4 and 5 of this passage):

4

What Sankey is suggesting in the last two lines is that, the implications of my conclusion that Dan. 11:45

was in the past would mean that Christ has already stood up. I will show that no such implication arises. Pastor Sankey clearly places great weight on the word “And” as well as the words “at that time,” which latter expression to him must mean “and also at that time”. In other words, he reads Daniel 12:1 as if the words “And at that time” was to be read as “And [also] at that time….” So that for him Dan. 12:1 is really saying, “And [at the time of the events in Dan. 11:44-45 takes place] shall Michael stand up for his people….” He therefore reasons that the events in verse 1 of Dan. 12 must be contemporaneous with or in very close succession to those taking place in Dan. 11:45. If we are to accept Sankey’s and Pippenger’s view that “And at that time” in Dan. 12:1 means that the events of the previous verses (verses 44-45 of the preceding chapter) are occurring in the same time period (i.e. close in time) to those in Dan. 12:1, then we must also conclude the same about Matthew 24:29-30. Matt. 24:29 states: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: AND THEN shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” The intelligent reader will agree that the words “And at that time” in Dan. 12:1 and “AND THEN” in Matt. 24:30 are close, if not equivalent in meaning. Thus, using Pastor Sankey’s rule of interpretation, the “And then” at the beginning of verse 30 of Matt. 24 would mean that “the Son of man” should have appeared “in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” in close proximity to, or soon after the dark day of 1780 and the falling of the stars in 1833 (both predicted in Matt. 24:29). Of course, we know that this has not happened (i.e. Christ did not return soon after or close to 1780 or 1833). THUS, the “And then” in verse 30 of Matt. 24 could not mean that events of that verse were to follow in close proximity the events depicted in verse 29. Yet, this is exactly how Pastor Sankey and Elder Pippenger have interpreted the “And at that time” in verse 1 of Dan. 12. This expression we have seen is equivalent in meaning to “AND THEN” in Matt. 24:30. An intelligent reading of Dan. 12 shows that this chapter has an entirely new focus (the time of trouble and the culmination of the time prophecies of Dan. 8 to Dan. 11: ALL whose focus is the commencement of the Investigative Judgment). We know that Dan. 12 is unrelated to Dan. 11:44-45, because nowhere 5

on Dan. 12 is any mentioned made of ‘the king of the north’ or ‘the king of the south,’ etc., which terms can be found throughout Dan 11. THERE IS NO CONTINUITY OF THOUGHT, LANGUAGE OR IMAGERY BETWEEN DANIEL CHAP. 11 AND CHAP 12. Why? The reason is simple: the king of the north came “to his end” in verse 45! Thus, because there is no obvious continuity of thought, language or imagery between chap. 11 and chap 12, if there were to be any connection between these two chapters, the passage in Dan. 12:1 would have said, something like, “In those days, and at that time…” For example:
Jeremiah 33:15: "In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line; he will do what is just and right in the land. Joel 3:1: "In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and ... Jeremiah 50:4: "In those days, at that time, declares the LORD, "the sons of Israel will ... Jeremiah 50:20: “In those days, and at that time,' declares the LORD, 'search will be made for...

The connecting expression “in those days” (as found in Jeremiah 33 and 50 and in Joel 3) is not found in Dan. 12:1. Thus, we must logically conclude that since (i) there is no continuity of thought, language or imagery between chap. 11 and chap. 12 and (ii) because Dan. 12:1 makes no attempt to show any continuity as seen from absence an expression such as “In those days,” before the expression “And at that time,” the two chapters are clearly not continuous. I will show later that that is not all. However, in order to bolster the claim that there is a connection between the events in Dan. 11:44-45 and Daniel 12:1, Pippenger in his ‘book’ “The Final Rise and Fall of the King of the North” and Pastor Sankey in his “Critique,” quote the following view of James White as proof that the leading pioneers, including, they say, Ellen G. White, believed that Dan. 12:1 was a continuation of Dan. 11:45:
“This power is the last that treads down the true church of God: and as the true church is still trodden down, and cast out by all Christendom, it follows that the last oppressive power has not "come to his end;" and Michael has not stood up. This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Revelation 13:11-18. His number is 666.” - James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 8-9.

Upon the unquestionable authority of James White (whose ‘inspiration’ they put above that of Uriah Smith), they then assert that, “THE pioneers proclaimed the power ‘that comes to his end and none shall help him,’ as being the Papacy.” James White’s personal view is thus elevated and made to become that of “the pioneers”. I submit to the reader that the above assertion is not just a slight of hand but a species of intellectual falsehood. I will say more on this quote from James White later in this document, where I will justify my allegation of intellectual falsehood. Pippenger agrees with Sankey and says:

6

“Daniel 11:40 begins ‘at the time of the end,’ which is 1798. Therefore the portion of the vision of Daniel 11 which was in process of fulfillment when Sister White wrote the previous statement was verses 40-45. The testimony of these verses continues into… Daniel 12:1….” - See, Jeff Pippenger’s, “The Final Rise and Fall of the King of the North,” pp. 17-19. This is clearly nonsensical reasoning and requires not further analysis. There is simply no logic in the above passage. But, like Sankey’s statement, it is false. Ellen White said no such thing.

The following will DRIVE THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN of Sankey’s and Pippenger’s interpretation of “And at that time.” The reader will note that this very expression “AND AT THAT TIME” IS FOUND AND EXPLAINED IN the very same verse, last part of Dan. 12:1 as follows: “and at that time thy people SHALL BE DELIVERED, everyone who is found written in the book.” What book? The Book of Life! This is as clear a reference to the Investigative judgment as one can get. The “And that time” in the first part of Dan. 12:1 is the same “And at that time” in the last part of verse 1. Ellen G. White confirms that this is precisely what “And at that time” is referring to:
This [Dan. 12:1], will not take place, until Jesus has finished his priestly office in the Heavenly Sanctuary… and DELIVER his people. {WLF 12.5} This [Dan. 12:1], will be the time of Jacob's trouble, (Jer. 30:5-8) out of which, the saints WILL BE DELIVERED by the voice of God [i.e. at the second appearing of Christ]. {WLF 12.7}

Ellen White says “will be delivered” while the Angel speaking to Daniel, in the last part of verse 1, uses the word “shall be delivered.” The words “will” and “shall” are synonymous in this context. Thus we see “And at that time” does not mean, “at the same time of the events in Dan. 11:44-45,” but rather, the time when God’s people are “delivered” out of “the time of trouble,” at which time the investigative judgment would have been completed and the saints would have been “purified and made white” (Dan. 12:10). We have thus destroyed Pastor Sankey’s and Jeff Pippenger’s theory that Dan. 12:1 is a continuation of Dan. 11:45; and have left them stranded at that time. I “shall” leave this for now, but “will” shortly return to say a bit more on “And at that time” under subheading no. 3 below, again using the Book of Daniel itself. 2. “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” – Dan. 11:45. Here is proof that Dan. 11:45 has no direct, or sequential relation to the events of Dan. 12:1 (Michael’s standing up). Dan. 11:45 says that when the king of the North attempts to “plant his tabernacle between the seas and the glorious holy mountain” he “shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” This is a clear statement that the King of the North comes to his “end” in verse 45 of Dan. 11, and so cannot still be around to play a role in the events of Dan. 12:1. NOTE: It is not Michael’s standing up that causes the king of the north in verse 45 to come to his end. He comes to “his end” and “none shall help him.” This means that the king of the north is NOT BROUGHT 7

TO AN END, but rather COMES TO HIS END. This is a simple rule of construction and is the conclusion one will arrive if one intelligently applies the rules of English comprehension. A good English language student would appreciate the distinction between one who “comes to his end” and one who “is brought to his end”. The former indicates a collapse of power due to limitations or weakness of the subject matter, while the latter expression refers to a deliberate act of termination by some force outside of the one who is being brought to an end. One is passive, the other is active. The expression in verse 45 of Dan. 11 (“come to his end”) is passive. Indicating that no outside power is involved in the dissolution of this power. The coming to an “end” of the power in verse 45 is as a result of either: (1) his own impotency; (2) his loss of influence; or (3) his internal collapse. This coming to an end being a passive matter has nothing to do with Michael standing up (Christ’s coming, etc.) in verse 1 of Dan. 12. Further, the use of the negative imperative “none shall” is really another way of saying, “NOT WOULD”. That is, “NONE WOULD HELP HIM.” The use of the negative (“none”) in connection with “shall” (a positive expression), indicates that someone was able to “help him” but would not to do so. This expression, therefore, cannot be a reference to the papacy coming to its end when “Michael shall stand up” because when Michael stands up no one would be in a position to “help” anyone else. The prophecies in the Book of Daniel concerning the doings of papacy do not go beyond 1798. Because in verse 7 of Dan. 12, we read, “’it shall be [i.e. the scattering by the papacy of God’s “holy people”] for a time, times and half a time… [and] all these things shall be finished.” Even Dan. 7:11 only speaks of the papacy’s destruction, not its doings at the end of time. Moreover, we know that the prophecies concerning the work of the papacy, as far as the Book of Daniel is concerned, were to finish at the end of the time, times and half a time (1260 years: 538AD - 1798). This does not mean that the papacy’s would play no further role in world affairs or in the harming of God’s people after 1798, but it does mean that as far as chapter 11 of Daniel is concerned the prophecies concerning the papacy ends in 1798. After 1798, the Book of Revelation takes over from where the Book of Daniel left off with the healing of the papacy’s wound (which wound saw the end of the 1260 years “time, times and half time”) and whose healing takes us past Daniel to Revelation:
“And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.” - Revelation 13:3.

Revelation 13 therefore takes us beyond Daniel 11 and 12 to the revival of the power that Daniel was told would have its reign cut short in 1798. This is one of those RARE occasions when I agree with Pastor Sankey’s mentor Louis Were, who although incorrectly linking Dan. 11:44-45 with Dan. 12:1 nevertheless rightly concluded, to his own confutation that:
“Spiritual Rome's power to "scatter" or break "in pieces the power of the holy people" was "finished" in 1798; her power to deceive true Israelites who accept God's last-day Message was "finished" in 1844;

8

after "the mystery of God" is "finished," then she would be "finished" with entirely.” (Were (1949), p. 125.

Thus, when we get to Daniel chapter 12, the King of the North is NO MORE! He has come to his end and “no shall help him.” (Dan. 11:45). No clearer evidence that this is so, is the fact that throughout Dan. chap. 11, we are repeatedly told about the king of the north and his doings, but in chap. 12 not a word is mentioned about this king. Not even an allusion is made to “the king of the north” in Dan. 12. Why? because he came to his end in Dan. 11:45, “and none shall help him”! I repeat, none shall help him. It is nonsensical therefore to say that the papacy is the power that has “come to his end” (verse 45) if this coming to “his end” is taking place during the time of trouble (which is when Michael stands up). For as all good students of prophecy know, it is the papacy that will be persecuting God’s saints in that time of trouble. Moreover, the papacy cannot be the power that “comes to his end” in verse 45 of Daniel 11 because Paul and Revelation tells us that the papacy will not come to its end until it is “destroyed by the brightness” of the Lord’s “coming.” (Dan. 7:11; I Thess. 2:8; Rev. 18:21 to be read together with 19:2 as to how and when the papacy will come to its end). 3. “AND AT THAT TIME” (Dan. 12:1) - At what time? – when “Many shall be purified and made white” Dan. 12:1 begins with the word “And” and continues “at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." What time is this? The prophecy in Dan. 12:1, “And AT that time” is not a reference back to the events taking place in verses 44-45 of Dan. 11, but rather points us FORWARD to the time when Michael stands up. Dan. 11:45 is the end of the King of the North. Dan. 12 deals with a different series of events that will take place “at that time.” At what time? “at that time [when] THY PEOPLE [the saints] SHALL BE DELIVERED” (latter part of Dan. 12, verse 1) which is the same time when God’s people will be “purified, and made white, AND TRIED” (Dan. 12:10). This verse is clearly referring to the time of trouble and the close of probation when “many shall be purified and made white” “and tried”. The “tried” is a reference to the trying hour or papal persecution during the time of trouble. Ellen G. White confirms:
“This [Dan. 12:1], will be the time of Jacob's trouble, (Jer. 30:5-8) out of which, THE SAINTS WILL BE DELIVERED by the voice of God.” {Ellen G. White, Word For the Little Flock, p. 12.7}. “This [Dan. 12:1], WILL NOT TAKE PLACE, until Jesus has finished his priestly office in the Heavenly Sanctuary… and DELIVER HIS PEOPLE.” {Ellen G. White, Word For the Little Flock, p. 12.5}.

Thus, “And at that time” in Dan. 12:1 is the time that Christ leaves heaven and comes to deliver his saints (during the final “scenes of affliction and distress”) AND NOT the time of the events in Dan. 11:45. To put this beyond any doubt, Ellen White AGAIN explains what the “And at that time” in Dan. 12:1 means and she tells us that the “TIME” being referred to here is “the time of trouble” and not the time 9

of the King of the North coming to his end in verse 45 of Dan. 11. In the book Great Controversy, after quoting Dan. 12:1, she states in CHAPTER 39 title "THE TIME OF TROUBLE":
She quotes Dan. 12:1 and then says “…. When he [Michael stands up and] leaves the sanctuary,

darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth…. The people of God will then be plunged into those scenes of affliction and distress described by the prophet as the time of Jacob's trouble." – See, The Great Controversy—Illustrated, pp. 613-634.

Now, intelligent reader, it is obvious that, if as Ellen White states “And at that time” means the time “When he [Michael] leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth” and “The people of God will then be plunged into those scenes of affliction and distress described by the prophet as the time of Jacob's trouble" then the papacy must still be around “At that time”, since it is the papacy that will be the power doing the affliction and distressing of God’s people during “the of Jacob’s trouble.” As such, the papacy cannot be the power that has “come to his end” in verse 45 of Dan. 11. For after Michael stands up, the papacy must continue until Michael delivers his saints from the papacy’s hands. As regards my statement above that the close of probation is the same time as Dan. 12:10 (when the saints are “purified and made white”, Dan. 12:10) Ellen White states: “When this time of trouble comes, every case is decided; there is no longer probation, no longer mercy for the impenitent. The seal of the living God is upon His people…. ” - Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, pp. 212, 213. Ellen White clearly states in both the G.C. and in WFL that Michael’s standing up is when he Christ “leaves the sanctuary,” and “darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth” and the people of God are “plunged into those scenes of affliction and distress described by the prophet as the time of Jacob's trouble." THAT IS THE TIME being referred to by “And at that time” in Dan. 12:1. 4. “Edom Moab and chief of the children of Ammon” “Edom Moab and Ammon” they say is symbolic of those who leave spiritual Babylon and join God's remnant during the Loud Cry. This is fantastic bit of reasoning. It is a wild assertion. There is simply no Biblical principle of interpretation that would support the ‘steps’ taken by Pastor Sankey and others to arrive at the above conclusion. This is another artful bit of inventiveness that forms one of the pillars of their new doctrine. Ant, to supply the lack of any Biblical support for this bald (and bold) conjecture, Pastor Sankey says (not in his “Critique,” but elsewhere in his sermons and writings) that Ellen White agrees with this interpretation that “Edom, Moab and Ammon” refers to those who will join the ranks of Sabbath keepers. He refers us to Testimonies, vol. 8 for this proof:
“In vision I saw two armies in terrible conflict. One army was led by banners bearing the world's insignia; the other was led by the bloodstained banner of Prince Immanuel. Standard after standard was left to trail in the dust as company after company from the Lord's army joined the foe and TRIBE AFTER TRIBE from the ranks of the enemy united with the commandment-keeping people of God.... The army following the banner with the inscription, "The commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus," was gloriously triumphant.” Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 41

10

Now, I don’t see anything here about “Edom Moab and Ammon” but Pastor Sankey, lacking no want of inventiveness, tells us, quite unapologetically, that the words “tribe” is Ellen White’s reference to “Edom, Moab and Ammon”? Who would have guessed that, reader? This word “tribe” used by Ellen White is no different to the use of the same word by Jesus in Matt. 24:30 “then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn…” It merely means peoples of the earth. Anyone who says it is otherwise has to prove it using clear Biblical or SOP references and not their own conjecture, nor the Humpty-Dumpty use of words by Sankey and Pippneger, who say, ‘words mean what I say they mean—neither more nor less’).

Consider S. N. Haskell’s views as to what was meant by “Edom Moab and Ammon” in Dan. 11. We find these his book The Story of Daniel The Prophet, pp. 156, 157:
“Not only Egypt, but Syria and Turkey in Europe, belonged to the Mohammedans, and he [TURKEY] has entered the "glorious land," and a Moslem mosque occupies the site where once stood the temple of Solomon. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, however, escaped the hand of this conquering power [TURKEY], and these countries receive an annual tribute from the Turks who pass in caravans on their way to Mecca.”

5. The "glorious land" is really the United States, says Sankey and Pippenger As bizarre as the teaching that Edom, Moab, and Ammon in Daniel 11:41 is symbolic of those who leave spiritual Babylon and join God's remnant during the Loud Cry, equally fantastic is the view that the “glorious land” is the United States of America. Dan. 11:41 states: “He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon…” If this is a reference to America, then we have the same reference to America twice in Dan. 11. For in verse 16 we also read:
“But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.” (verse 16)

But Pastor Sankey and Elder Pippenger have a ready solution to this conundrum. They tell us that while ‘the glorious land’ in verse 16 is an obvious allusion to Palestine where the sanctuary was situated, its application in this New Testament era is not to Palestine but to the professing church of God. Uriah Smith tells us that “the glorious land” in verse 16 is Israel: “After putting an end to the war, Pompey demolished the walls of Jerusalem, transferred several cities from the jurisdiction of Judea to that of Syria, and imposed tribute on the Jews. For the first time Jerusalem was by conquest placed in the hands of Rome, that power which was to hold the “glorious land” in its iron grasp till it had utterly consumed it.” Daniel and the Revelation, p. 247. Pastor Sankey and Pippenger both agree with Uriah Smiths interpretation of the “glorious land” in verse 16 as being Jerusalem, but when they come to verse 41 of the same chapter, they tell us that this is another “glorious land,” a “modern glorious land,” as Pippenger calls it, which they say is the USA. How do they support this change? One ‘proof’ they use is this quote from Ellen White: 11

“Many were driven across the ocean to America and here laid the foundations of civil and religious liberty which have been the bulwark and glory of this country.” - The Great Controversy, p. 252.

Thus, they say, based on the above passage and a few other ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ “definitions” of the word “glorious,” that America is that “new glorious land.” As I said, they do offer other ‘proofs,’ which they call “definitions” but these are all too ludicrous to occupy the mind or time any intelligent person. I shall leave the reader to read those other ‘proofs’ and “definitions” at his own leisure, if he so chooses. The SDA pioneer S. N. Haskell, who held views which reflect those of Ellen G. White as to what was meant by “the glorious land,” had this to say, which view we already saw above on page 156 of his book The Story of Daniel The Prophet:
“Not only Egypt, but Syria and Turkey in Europe, belonged to the Mohammedans, and he [TURKEY] has entered the "glorious land," and a Moslem mosque occupies the site where once stood the temple of Solomon. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, however, escaped the hand of this conquering power [TURKEY], and these countries receive an annual tribute from the Turks who pass in caravans on their way to Mecca.”

Thus, we see that the “glorious land” was never understood by Ellen White as America. And William Miller identified the glorious land as Italy, not America (see, Miller’s Works, vol. 2, Lecture 7, p. 105). These men’s teachings on “glorious land” are the same as the erroneous views, which I believe is also taught by Desmond Ford and Raymond F. Cottrell. I stand to be corrected on this one, but I think Ford and Cottrell taught that the king of the north represents the Papal anti-Christ and that the tidings from the east and north represent the latter rain-loud cry and that “glorious land” was America (see, October 1, 1973, SIGNS OF THE TIMES). Desmond Ford represents ideologies that often do not teach sound SDA doctrine; nor does the SDA church consider much of his views to be representative of Adventist beliefs. As to Cottrell, here is what he said about a key SDA belief. In producing the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Cottrell said: "in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it hopelessly impossible to agree with “the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers" and with "what Adventists believe and teach."[The Sanctuary Doctrine – Asset or Liability? Part 6, by Raymond F. Cottrell]. How orthodox was he? Having said all of the above, the following is the Biblical and orthodox SDA position on “the glorious land” which refers to Israel and not America, as shown in Dan. 8, concerning the “four notable ones”:
“Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward THE PLEASANT [OR GLORIOUS] LAND … (Daniel 8:7-9) [this “pleasant land” is same the Glorious Land of Israel identified in verses 16 and 41 of Dan. 11] - See, also, Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 869]

6. Is Daniel 11 a symbolic prophecy or a literal prophecy or both? Confusion reigns… Sankey, like Pippenger say that the terms Edom, Moab, and Ammon in Daniel 11 are symbolic references to
those people who will come into our ranks at the loud cry, is the fact that Daniel 11 is a literal prophecy!

Yet, we know that much of Dan. 11 is literal, AND I submit, none of it can be symbolic, unless the symbols are explained within the chapter itself. There is a basic principle of prophetic interpretation which is 12

stated as follows:
“When the plain, sense of Scripture makes common, sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

Whenever this rule is ignored, confusion is the result. More on this “confusion” on page 28, para. no. 19. I believe that I am not mistaken in asserting that, according to established SDA and Millerite principles of prophetic interpretation, a prophecy cannot have both literal and symbolic expressions or language used in the same place, UNLESS (i) those symbolic parts are later explained in the same book of the Bible or (ii) the interpretation has already been WELL established elsewhere in the Bible to have a particular meaning (e.g., which would explain the symbolic words in Dan. 11:33 “many days”). To have both symbolic and literal expressions in the same book, especially in the SAME VERSE, without an explanation of that symbol in the same chapter or from well established key of interpretation, like “the day for a year’ principle, would only create confusion as to what parts were literal and what parts were symbolic. YET, THIS IS EXACTLY what Sankey, Pippenger and others do with Dan. 11. Pippenger's and Sankey's theory is that while Dan. 11:40-45 is literal as regards to every other event, "Moab, Edom and Ammon" are symbolic; and further, the say "Glorious Land” is not literal Palestine as clearly stated in verse 16 of Dan. 11, but is symbolic of the USA; and that "Glorious Holy mountain" is not literal but symbolic of the SDA church. So, in these last 4 verses of Dan. 11, they make some parts literal and the above symbolic. In Daniel chapter 7, we have a good illustration of symbolic language. From the language used we know that the prophecy is not a description of literal occurrences. Lions do not live in water, etc. Selfevidently, then, this is figurative or symbolic language. How do we decode the symbols? The answer is found in verses 17 and 23 of Dan. 7: “These great beasts, which are four are four kings, that shall arise out of the earth.” The interpreting angel informed Daniel that the four beasts which he had seen in vision are four kings that arise out of the earth. Likewise, in Ezekiel: 37:1-14 we have a description of a vision given to the prophet. In this vision Ezekiel saw a valley full of dry bones. When he prophesied, the bones came together and the sinews connected to each other; and flesh appeared on the reassembled skeletons, and skin then appeared on the bodies. Finally the Spirit of God breathed life into them and they arose, a mighty army of the Lord. In verse 11 we are told what these symbols mean, namely, that the dry bones are the whole house of Israel: “Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are clean cut off” (Ezek. 37:11). So the symbols are explained. Thus, if we can find any part of Dan. 11 that is literal, then we must accept that ALL of Dan. 11 is literal and no part can be symbolic, UNLESS those symbolic parts are later explained in the same book of the Bible (or even the Book of Revelation, which is being rather gracious in any event, but let it be so, for the sake of argument]). But, we see no such explanation of symbolic language in Dan. 11. Nowhere in the entire Book of Daniel is "Moab, Edom and Ammon," the "Glorious Land” or the "Glorious Holy mountain" explained. In fact, these terms are not made to be symbolic in any other passage of Scripture. Wherever "Moab, Edom and Ammon," the "Glorious Land” or the "Glorious Holy mountain" are found in the Bible there are always meant to be literal, or if used figuratively, the meaning( s) is obvious in the passage being read. 13

Now, if the reader would look at Dan. 11:1-36, you will see that these verses are clearly literal as they do not employ symbolic language. The expressions “king of the north” and “king of the south” in verses 5,6,9,11,15 and 41 are not symbolic but merely references to geographic locations of the power being discussed in those verses, in relation to the location literal Palestine or Jerusalem. Ellen G. White agreed that Dan. 11 was a literal prophecy. Thus, how could the rest of that same chapter, verses 41-45 suddenly become SYMBOLIC as the terms “Edom, Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon and “the glorious land” while they ACCEPT THAT everything else in those same verses (44-45) are literal? This is perverse reasoning. Not only that, but even the very last verse of Dan. 11 (verse 45) is clearly literal, “he shall come to his end and none shall help him.” This last expression in verse 45, Sankey, Elder Pippenger and others all agree is literal, yet they say that the 1st clause of verse 45 is symbolic, but that the second clause (“none shall help him”) is literal. Likewise, they say verse 44 (“to destroy and utterly make away many”) is literal but “tidings out of the east and out of the north” in the same verse is symbolic. This is yet another example of sham reasoning. Unlike those who promote this new interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45, OUR GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION. The true extent to which the promoters of this new interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45 will go is seen in Elder Pippenger ‘book’ The Final Rise and Fall of the King of the North, pp. 78-79:
“Any attempt to literalize "the kings of the north" or "south," or "the glorious holy mountain," would be to interpret the scriptures in defiance of the clearest heavenly light….”

Yet, as we noted above, Pippenger himself “literalizes” all the other verses in Dan. 11, and parts of verses 40-45. So, these men have taken it upon themselves to decide which parts of a verse in the Bible is to be “literalize” and which parts are to be seen as symbolic. Reader, judge for yourself whether such an approach to Bible prophecy is rational (or to use their own language, “balanced”). If we were to look at Revelation chap. 12, we will see how a consistent use of symbolism is employed in Bible prophecy. There you will see that symbols are not normally mixed with literal statements; and that wherever symbols are used together with literal words, these symbols are immediately explained in the same verses (as in verse 7, which is the ONLY place where symbols are used in the chapter together with literal words). There you will see that the symbol of “the dragon” in verse 7 is immediately explained in verse 9 as “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan….” Thereafter, the use of the word “dragon” and “serpent” from verses 10-17 is no longer symbolic, as it has been defined or explained in verse 9 as Satan, or the Devil. Look also at Rev. 13, and you will see no mixing of symbols with literal words in any of those chapters. In Revelation, wherever symbolic language is used in the same chapter as literal language, those symbols are explained, either in the very chapter or in the elsewhere in the same book (and clearly with no room for confusion). See, for example, Rev. 17:7-13, and verse 18.

7. “… it is yet for a time appointed.”
“Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.” (Dan 11:34).

14

How true, that the saints of God, during the 1260 years of papal persecution, were helped with a little help. This ‘little help’ came in the form of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century that weakened the influence of papacy in many parts of the world, immediately before commencement of “the time of the end” referred to in verse 35 (as was predicted in verse 34). “And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.” (Dan 11:35). The Papacy was the persecuting power that ‘tried’ the people of God until “the time of the end,” that is, until the end of the “time, times, and dividing of times” (or 3 ½ times) mentioned in Daniel 7:25. This 3 ½ times is the same as the “time appointed” in verse 35. Verse 32 of Dan. 11 gives us the starting date of the “time appointed” mentioned in Dan. 11:35 as being 538 A.D. From this time (when the papacy was officially given power over the Christian world) we can count 3 ½ times, or prophetic years (viz., 1260 literal years) to the year 1798, when the power of the pope was terminated and the Vatican annexed to France, all as a result of the French General Berthier having taken the Pope prisoner in that year. This is what was referred to in Dan. 12:7, “And I heard the man clothed in linen, which [was] upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that [it shall be] for a time, times, and an half [i.e. the same time as Dan. 11:35 and 7:25];… ALL THESE [THINGS] SHALL BE FINISHED.” All of what “[things] shall be finished”? The things concerning the papacy. We know this because the same “a time, times, and an half” used in Dan. 7:25 concerning the work of the papal little horn is used here again in verse 7 of Dan. 12. Thus we have the clear word of Dan. 12:7 that the “a time, times, and an half” (1260 years) comes to an end in 1798 when “all these things” concerning the papacy “shall be finished,” as far as the Book of Daniel is concerned. The Book of Revelation then takes up the narrative. Daniel’s prophecy concerning the papacy came to an end in verse 35 of Dan. 11 (at the “time appointed,” 1798). Thus, verses 36-45 deals with another power. 8. “time of the end” – a correct view It is obvious that the “time of the end” spoken of in Dan. 11 refers to a point in prophetic reckoning that commenced in 1798 (the end of the 1260 years which began in 538 AD) and which “time of the end” will continue until “the end of time”. Thus, “the time of the end” is not 1844, but 1844 comes within the time period called “the time of the end.” Ellen White confirms:
“We are living in the time of the end. The fast-fulfilling signs of the times declare that the coming of Christ is near at hand. The days in which we live are solemn and important. The Spirit of God is gradually but surely being withdrawn from the earth.” - Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 11.

This testimony in vol. 9 was written in 1904, yet Ellen White wrote, “We are living in the time of the end.” That was 106 years after 1798 and 58 years after 1844. Thus, neither 1798 nor 1844 was “the time of the end,” but the former (1798) was the beginning of “the time of the end.” The prophecy in Dan. 11:40, “And AT the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him,” is not a reference to a specific date or year when this event was to take place, but rather to the period of time in which it was to occur. That period of time was “the time of the end”. The word “at” indicates the event was to take place not some distant date from 1798, but near (or “at” “the time of the end”). 15

9. Daniel unsealed by Revelation = the unsealing of the last work of the papacy in Dan. 11:40-45 The above heading accurately captures the logic of Pastor Sankey and his co-labourer, Elder Pippenger. But this logic is incorrect. I will now show that only a portion of ONE of Daniel’s prophecy was sealed. Pastor Sankey says that Revelation is the unsealing of the Book of Daniel, and he quotes Ellen White in support. Now, that is only partially true (which is the major problem with much of what these men teach—partial truth)! You see, Ellen White must not be quoted out of context. Pastor Sankey incorrectly states on page 2 of his that all the prophecies of the Book of Daniel are found or unsealed ("revealed") in the Book of Revelation. He states, "Revelation is the unsealing of Daniel, and Daniel's prophecies have been placed in the three angels messages." Note, Sankey says that the “prophecies” (plural) of Daniel are unsealed in Revelation. This is a failure on his part to follow basic rules of English comprehension. He misconstrues what was to be the sealing of a part of a prophecy [singular] to be the sealing of either (i) all of Daniel or (ii) parts of several prophecies [plural] in Daniel. See again, page 2 of Sankey’s “Response to Moore’s Critique.” Yes, Revelation is the unsealing of Daniel, but only as to the portion that WAS IN FACT SEALED. Not all of Daniel was sealed. Only a portion of a single prophecy was sealed. Which one?

Consider S. N. Haskell’s views in his book The Story of Daniel The Prophet, p. 166-167:
“That the two prophetic periods which had so puzzled the mind of the prophet might be more perfectly understood, Gabriel said, "From the time that the daily is taken away," that is, from 508 A.D., "there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days" until the time of the end, 1798. And again, "Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days." There is then a blessing pronounced upon those who are living in 1843 (508 + 1335 = 1843), for the seal has been removed from the prophecies, and they ARE understood.”

The above cited times (1290, 1335 days/years) are all found in Dan. 12. Elder Haskell wrote the above in 1903, at which date, according to Haskell, all the seals on Dan. chapter 12 were “understood” or unsealed. Yet, Sankey and others are still telling us that the Book of Daniel remained unsealed until the 1900s when Louis Were wrote (in the 1960s) about the coming collapse of Russia. The next logical question is, were there any other parts of Daniel that were sealed? Turn in your Bibles to Dan. 12:4, 9 and there you will read these words: “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and SEAL the book, even to the time of the end….. VERSE 9: Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed and SEALED up till the time of the end.” No other chapter in Daniel speaks of a sealing. The time of the end commenced in 1798. It was soon after this that those things in Dan. 12 which were sealed were unsealed when Bible students began to understand the Book of Revelation. The sealing of Daniel was only of the matters shown to the Prophet Daniel in chapter 12, not chap. 11 or anywhere else for that matter. The 2300 day time prophecy in Dan. 8:14 is not a separate prophecy to those in Dan. 12:11-13, but only the whole time (or duration) of those smaller portions of time, all of which were unsealed in 1844.

16

Ellen White confirms that it was only certain “portions” of a single prophecy in the Book of Daniel that were seal:
“The book that was sealed is not the Revelation, but that PORTION of the prophecy [singular, not plural] of Daniel relating to the last days. The angel commanded, 'But thou, 0 Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.' Daniel 12:4." – Ellen G. White`, Acts of the Apostles, p. 585.

So, what “portion of THE prophecy” was sealed? The “portion” of the prophecy “concerning time” (SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 971). See more on this quote under subheading 11 below. Now, if as Pastor Sankey claims, Dan. 11:40-45 was also sealed then we should expect to find some passage in the book of Revelation that we can CLEARLY say is an “unsealing” of these specific passages Dan. 11:40-5 (for only those parts of Daniel that were sealed could be unsealed, and that unsealing was to take place in the book of Revelation). So, where in Revelation can we find the unsealing of verses 4045 of Dan. chapter 11? Unfortunately, Pastor Sankey fails in his “Response to Moore’s Critique” to identify a single passage in the Book of Revelation that even faintly alludes to the events of Dan. 11:4045. In all Pastor Sankey’s other materials, I have not seen a single text from Rev. used to show how Revelation clarifies or “unseals” Dan. 11:40-45. Nor I have not read myself any passage in the Book of Revelation that even uses the words or similar phrasing to that passage in Dan. 11:40-45. And Pastor Sankey has not even attempted to show us a passage in Revelation that “unseals” Daniel 11:40-45. Rather, he merely asserts this to be so. How can the Book of Revelation be the “unsealing” of chapter 11:40-45 of Daniel unless Revelation itself makes specific reference (or at least alludes) to Dan. 11:40-45? Sankey’s “Critique” is completely silent on this aspect. But this is where Jeff Pippenger makes up the lack. In his tract, “Final-Ris&Fall-King-North” Pippenger states on page 53: “The sequence of kingdoms, as set forth in the description of John in Revelation 17:10, is the identical sequence of events which Daniel 11:40-45 identifies.” I shall deal with this next. 10. Is “The sequence of kingdoms” in the description in Revelation 17:10, “the identical sequence of events which Daniel 11:40-45 identifies.”? What can we say to that assertion by Pippenger? But that it is nonsensical: pure, undiluted conjecturing—there is not a scintilla of reality or logic to this statement. It is speculation of the wildest sort. It has no substance whatsoever. In this statement, Pippenger says that Rev. 17:10 refers to a “sequence of kingdoms,” which is correct, but how does he then go on to arrive at the conclusion that Dan. 11:40-45 refers to the “identical sequence” of events” as those in Rev. 17:10? How could a “sequence of kingdoms” five of which were ALREADY fallen in John’s day (near the close of the first century, see, Rev. 17:10) be “identical” with a “sequence of events” that according to Pippenger and Sankey were to take place 2000 years later commencing in the 1900s (notably in 1989? This is foolishness. The same sequence of events, gentlemen? 17

But, even if we were to be gracious and grant that this reasoning could somehow be correct, we still need to know, “What Biblical ‘key’ or principle did Mr. Pippenger use to arrive at this conclusion?” Nowhere in his materials does he take us through the steps or analysis employed to get to the conclusion that “The sequence of kingdoms, as set forth in the description of John in Revelation 17:10, is the identical sequence of events which Daniel 11:40-45 identifies.” I invite the reader to compare Dan. 11:4045 with Rev. 17: 10 and see if Mr. Pippenger’s assertion makes any sense whatsoever. This is the kind of “private interpretation” that the Apostle Peter warned believers to beware of: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private (idias/ideas) interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20). Pippenger also states on p. 53 of his tract/book: “Rev. 13, and Rev. 17, as well as Daniel 11:40-45 are dealing with THE SAME subject…. the deadly wound of the Papacy.” Again, no Biblical support is given to support this conjecture, and so we do not know what Biblical ‘key’ or principle Pippenger uses to arrive at that conclusion. He then tells us, on the same page, however: “These [three] Divine chapters [Rev. 13, 17, and Dan. 11] must be understood as a composite picture if we are to bring the message into focus.” It is quite fascinating how the human mind can bring itself to believe anything it chooses. Rev. 17:10 talks about 5 kings (already fallen, when John wrote those words, near the close of the first century) and 2 more (well three more) said to be “yet to come” at the time John was writing. Nowhere in Dan. 11:40-45 are we told that the “countries being entered into” in verse 40 or 42 are 5 or even 7 kings or kingdoms. But Pippenger says the same number of nations in Dan. 11: 40 are being overthrown as in Rev. 17:10. Yet we know that the Soviet Union was made of many more nations than 7. Thus, if, as Pippenger and Sankey say, Rev. 17:10 describe “the same sequence of events” as Dan. 11:4045 and deal “with the same subject” they must show us that Dan. 11:40-45 deals with 5 or perhaps 7 or 8 kings/nations as does Rev. 17:10. This they cannot do, as the text of Dan. 11:40-45 does not identify never mind give the number of the “countries” that were ‘entered into.’ Also, the 5 fallen kings of Rev. 17:10, according to Pippenger were “Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome” (see p. 53 of his “The Final Rise and Fall of the King of the North”). Again, on the same page he states “We see prophetically that the first five beasts representing kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, pagan Rome, and papal Rome.” Now, reader, a superficial analysis of the above conclusions together with Pippenger’s statement that “Rev. 13, and Rev. 17, as Dan. 11:44-45 are “the same sequence of events” as Dan. 11:40-45 and “are dealing with THE SAME subject…” will show anyone with a modicum of intelligence that this cannot be correct. Firstly, the 5 kings were already fallen when John was given his vision, “five are fallen” (Rev. 17:10). Those events were over 2000 years ago. Yet, Pippenger says that “the sequence of events” in Dan. 11:40-45 (which events he says include the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, and the events of 9/11, 2001) are “the same sequence of events” as those of Rev. 17:10. How could events that took place over 2000 years ago (i.e. the fall of “Babylon, MedoPersia, Greece, and Rome”) be “the same sequence of events” as Dan. 11:40-45” which later events Pippenger claims take place after 1798, in particular from 1989 onwards? Reader, do you not see how ludicrous this conclusion of Elder Jeff Pippenger appears, when it is analyzed but a little? 18

We shall leave Pippenger and now ‘focus’ on Pastor Sankey’s other arguments in his “Response to Moore’s Critique”. 11. What was sealed in Daniel? The part of the Book of Daniel that was sealed was the 2300 Days prophecy and its subordinate parts (the 1260, 1290 and 1365). “And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:14. Ellen White confirms, “The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ Daniel 8:14” (The Great Controversy, p. 409.) “The unsealing of the little book was THE MESSAGE IN RELATION TO TIME” (Seventhday Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 971). No other part of the Book of Daniel was sealed!

12. Pst. Sankey pits the wisdom of Louis Were against Uriah Smith & Ellen White
In his “Response to Moore’s Critique,” Pastor Sankey seeks to disprove and denigrate the interpretation of Uriah Smith by quoting the 1950s Australian SDA evangelist Louis F. Were as an authority (over clear statements of Ellen G. White) as to what the early SDA pioneers believed. But Mr. Were’s views on Dan. 11: 40-45 are as off-target as JH Kellog’s was on the true nature of God. Sankey claims that Uriah Smith shifted the SDA view of the king of the north from the papacy to Turkey. He basis this bold claim of his on the fact that James White and Uriah Smith had gotten into a verbal war over the issue; and thus he says that it was ONLY because this verbal war presented a real danger of dividing the SDA church, that Ellen G. White did not openly side with her husband [James White] against Uriah Smith, even though, says Sankey, she knew that her husband (James White) was right. So, according to Pastor Sankey (and Pippenger too), Ellen White ‘explained the prophecy of Dan. 12:1 without using the language [of Dan. 11:40-45], knowing that one day it would be understood.’ They contend, that for her to have done otherwise would have divide the church. What a misrepresentation of facts! What a stain they seek to impute to the integrity of God’s last day prophet! Shame on you gentlemen, shame on you all! You have fabricated this story because the alternative would destroy your new doctrine. But I will show shortly that the facts are the exact OPPOSITE to what you have asserted. Pastor Sankey does give some references as to where he got his sources of the “Pioneers views” which sources he says show that the pioneers (including Sister White, he says) disagreed with Uriah Smith’s interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45, and agreed with James White’s view. However, one of the ‘trivial facts’ which Pastor Sankey omits to tell us (and this omission would seem to be INTENTIONAL) is that the pioneers had several erroneous views between them and did not agree in their interpretation of Dan. 11. Moreover, Sankey also omits to tell us that there were three views held by the pioneers on Dan. 11:44-45, and that only one of these views was approved by Ellen White. Pastor Sankey also omits this significant fact: that view which Ellen G. White approved was not that of her husband James White. For proof see subheading no. 18 on page 23-26 below (titled “Pastor Sankey’ 19

quote from “A Word to Little Flock” (1847)”. That para. 18 (pp. 23-26) is the bombshell. But don’t skip pp. 20-22. SDAs who know church history will appreciate that only the views of the pioneers which Ellen G. White confirmed as correct became accepted as the “orthodox” views or “interpretations” of the SDA church. Pastor Sankey also says that Uriah Smith’s interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45 is “dangerous” (see page 6 of his “Response to Moore’s Critique”). If so, then the question arises, how could Ellen G. White, a prophet of God, approve such a book, without ANY qualifications in any of her statements concerning that book? How could a ‘true’ prophet of God approve something that Pastor Sankey says is “DANGEROUS”? I will leave this question for last, as Pastor Sankey provided a quote from “A Word to the Little Flock” which he says suggests that Ellen White held views on Dan. 11:40-45 that were in direct opposition to Uriah Smith and more in line with those of Pastor Sankey and Jeff Pippenger. This quote used by Pastor Sankey is problematic and so I will leave it for nearer the end of this “retort”. 13. The “dangerous” errors of Uriah Smith, According to Pastor Jamal Sankey As I said above, to further support his theory on Daniel 11: 40-45, Pastor Sankey INSISTS that Uriah Smith's book had “dangerous” errors which were rejected by the pioneers. Pastor Sankey asserts that Ellen White too rejected those “dangerous” errors in Uriah Smith’s book concerning Dan, 11:40-45. His main support for this assertion is premised on a few quotes other SDA pioneers, one of which is from the aforementioned 1847 pamphlet “A Word to the Little Flock”. Yet, we must note, and this is most significant, that although SOME of the Pioneers felt that there were “errors” in Smith’s book, no changes were EVER MADE TO THAT PART OF THE BOOK BY THE SDA PUBLISHERS OR THE EDITORS as regards Smith’s interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45 being the nation of Turkey. Why? In 1910, William C. White wrote: "In 1886, 1887, and 1888 there was considerable controversy over some of the expositions in Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. There was quite a group of men, including myself, who became convinced that there were some errors in this most excellent book that ought to be corrected... finally a number of corrections were made, if I remember correctly, about thirty." - W. C. White, Letter to A. F. Harrison, June 26, 1910. Note: none of those “thirty” “errors” that were corrected pertained to Smiths views on Dan. 11:40-45. We also have the following difficulty. In 1901, Ellen White wrote of Uriah Smith’s 1884 book, “… EVERYTHING that can be done should be done to circulate Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. I know of no other book that can take the place of this one. It is God's helping hand. (Ms 76, 1901.)" 21 Manuscript Release, p. 444.

20

In 1899, shortly after completing the book The Desire of Ages, Ellen White expressed her unreserved approval of Uriah Smiths book (i.e. the 1876 and 1884 books that were combined into one) in these gracious words:
"Especially should the book “Daniel and the Revelation” be brought before people as the very book for this time…. There [in Smith’s book] is found SOLID, ETERNAL truth for this time." - 1 Manuscript Release, pages 60, 61.

Now, reader, how could a book have “solid” “eternal truth” if it contained so grave an error as Pastor Sankey imputes to it? How could such a book with “dangerous” errors, as Pastor Sankey alleges be so wholeheartedly recommended by Ellen White, without a word of caution or qualification? This is a nonsensical position taken up and HELD by our dear Pastor Sankey and his “school”. Uriah Smith commenting on Dan. 41 states on page 288-296 in his book that verses 44-45 of Dan. 11 saw there “fulfillment” in the collapse of the Turkish power in Europe. He says that verses 44-45 applied to Turkey. Ellen White approved his book without any stated reservations. But there is more (pp. 23-26)! Now, Ellen White read this statement in Uriah Smith’s book and never once objected to it, instead she said it was “solid, eternal truth.” The word “solid” speaks for itself; likewise the word “eternal,” means that it would last forever and will outlive its critics!! 14 . Is this a new interpretation of Daniel 11:40-45? Pastor Sankey next challenges my assertion that he is advancing a “new” interpretation of Dan. 11:4045. He says that is not really that new after all, because as he reminds us, Louis Were taught the same doctrine back in the 1950s. Well, I suppose 60 years ago isn’t that new? Still, as Mr. Were’s book was written well after Ellen White’s time and after all the Pioneers were gone, Louis Were cannot add to the foundation already laid. Pastor Sankey quotes Mr. Were as if he were a prophet and his book as if it were a canon of Scripture. But I ask, “WHERE” is the Scripture Pastor Sankey said supports this ‘newish’ view on Dan. 11:40-45? Instead, for almost 6 pages, he gives us a “Thus saith Louis Were.” Not content with using Louis Were as his authority, Pastor Sankey next quotes the non-SDA author Avro Manhattan and makes a little jib about “those who believe in conspiracy theories” which belief he mocks. It is pointless for me to comment on these references to Avro Manhattan. Perhaps Pastor Sankey read about the “TEN HORN” CONSPIRACY spoken of in Rev. 17:
“These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” (Revelation 17:13).

What about this conspiracy: “The agencies of evil are combining their forces and consolidating. They are
strengthening for the last great crisis…. The prophecy of the eleventh chapter of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment.” – Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 9,11, 13.

“Having one mind means to be in a confederacy together”. Even Jeff Pippenger agrees with that (See page 55 of his tract “The Final Rise and Fall of the King of the North”). 21

15. “The prophecy of the eleventh chapter of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment”? Pasto Sankey relies heavily on the following statement by Ellen G. White for his Dan. 11:44-45 theory: “…. The prophecy of the eleventh chapter of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment.” – Testimonies, vol., p. 13. Pastor Sankey and others have latched on to this latter portion of Sister White’s quote to support their conclusion that Dan. 11:40-45 is what is still to reach “its complete fulfillment.” However, in this they have also gone awry. Here is what Ellen White said was the part of Dan. 11 that was still to reach a complete fulfillment because it was to “be repeated”:
"We have no time to lose. Troublous times are before us. The world is stirred with the spirit of war. Soon the scenes of trouble spoken of in the prophecies will take place. The prophecy in the eleventh chapter of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment. Much of the history that has taken place in fulfillment of this prophecy will be repeated. In the thirtieth verse a power is spoken of that 'shall be g r i e v e d . ' [ D A N I E L 1 1 : 3 0 - 3 6 QUOTED.]"Scenes similar to those described in these words will take place….Let all read and understand the prophecies of this book, for we are now entering upon the time of trouble spoken of: [Daniel 12:1-4 quoted.]" - Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, p. 394.

Pastor Sankey and Jeffer Pippenger say that when Sister White states that scenes similar to these will be repeated, she means that a “study of Daniel 11:40-45 reveals a sequence similar to verses 30-36…” [see, Pippenger on p. 69 of his “Rise and Fall of the King of the North”]. And he goes on to falsify the record of Ellen G. White, by saying that these scenes in Dan. 11: 40-45, Sister White “especially identified as scenes to be repeated.” Reader, there is not a single sentence in any of Ellen G. White’s writings that makes any connection between Da. 11:40-45 and Dan. 30-36, never mind “especially identifies” as Pippenger claims. Pippenger produces not a single statement from Ellen White that could support this assertion of his. "It is impossible to give any idea of the experience of the people of God who shall be alive on the earth when celestial glory and a repetition of the persecutions of the past are blended" {Ellen G. White, Last Day Events, p. 266.3}. This is what was to be repeated, the persecutions of Dan. 11:30-35, NOT the events of Dan. 11:44-45. According to the respected SDA Taylor Bunch: The answer… brings to view two periods of papal supremacy and persecution, one a definite time period and the other indefinite. The first is the 1260 years of papal rule and persecution recorded in six other Bible prophecies. See Dan. 7:25; Rev. 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14; 13:5. This period began in 538 A.D. and ended in 1798. The second period mentioned is of a shorter duration and takes place "in" or "at" the time of the end. This short period of papal persecution is mentioned in Dan. 11:35; 12:9, 10; Rev. 12:17; 13:10-18. This last persecution of God's people will come after the deadly wound of the papal power is healed and the papal supremacy is temporarily restored so that "the persecutions of the past are repeated." In these final persecutions of God's remnant people apostate Protestantism will play an important part. - The Book of Daniel (Leaves of Autumn Books, Inc., 1950). 22

16. Sankey says Ellen White Rebuked and Disapproved of Uriah Smiths views – But what views? Pastor Sankey uses a disingenuous argument to support his position. He says that Ellen White disapproved of several of Uriah Smith’s views. But what he does is to take rebukes that had to do with non-related matters and then tries to associate Smith’s on Dan. 11:44-45 with the rebukes given by Ellen G. White. Sankey quotes Louis Were, who in turn quotes a few others, to the effect that Sister White did not agree with everything that Uriah Smith taught or believed. Sankey, therefore concludes that since Sister White did not agree with everything taught by Uriah Smith, this means that she must have disagreed with Smith’s view on Dan. 11:40-45. This is not only a leap in logic, but circular reasoning. It begs the question rather than answers it. While Sister White did have cause to rebuke Uriah Smith, many of her rebuke came before his 1884 book. Ellen White approved the 1884 book calling its CONTENTS, ''truths upon which God has placed His approval" and as “solid, ETERNAL truth for this time" (1 Mansc. Rel., pp. 60, 61, supra) and adding that “God has entrusted to Brother Smith the treasures of His truth” (Sermons & Talk, p. 90; Manuscript 18 (1888)). Ellen White’s rebuke to Smith were in the years 1871, 1882 and 1889 and in 1890. None of these were concerning Dan. 11. The latter rebuke in 1890 was about Uriah Smith’s attitude to the 1888 message of Jones and Waggoner concerning “righteousness by faith.” This 1888 message and Smith’s initial rejection of it had nothing to do with prophecy, never mind his interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45. Thus, we see that Pastor Sankey’s reliance on Ellen White’s rebukes to Uriah Smith is a red-herring. These are rebukes taken out of context and are entirely off point. They are a sad attack on the work of a man of God whom God used to nurture the SDA church. In fact, in Pastor Sankey’s own words in his email of Dec. 19, he has “torn Uriah Smith apart.” But it is Sankey’s view’s that are being torn apart. 17. Pastor Sankey’s quotes Leroy E. Froom and Raymond F. Cottrell and calls them “pioneers” Pastor Sankey quotes Leroy E. Froom and Pastor Raymond F. Cottrell (who in turn refers to James White) to show that Uriah Smith once held the same view of Dan. 11:40-45 as he (Sankey now holds). Pastor Sankey goes even further than that: he says that the view he holds on Dan. 11:44-45 and Dan. 12:1 was also that of the majority of the SDA Pioneers. But, as I will show next, this is a statement that Pastor Sankey ought to know is grossly inaccurate. 18. Pastor Sankey’ quote from “A Word to Little Flock” (WFL) I referred to this book (WFL) earlier under para./subheading no. 12 above. This early publication, A Word to Little Flock, was published in April/May 1847. Here is the quote that Pastor Sankey asserts shows the view of Ellen White on Dan. 11:40-45:
Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in [Daniel] chapter 11, comes to his end, and none to help him. This power is the last that treads down the true church of God: and as the true church is still trodden down, and cast out by all Christendom, it follows that the last oppressive power has not "come to

23

his end;" and Michael has not stood up. This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Revelation 13:11-18. His number is 666.” - James White’s pamphlet “A Word to the Little Flock,” p. 8-9 (1847).

This pamphlet contained three contributions: one from Ellen G. White, found on pages 14-20, with all of the other comments/contributions being from James White and Joseph Bates. This first edition of the 1847 pamphlet by James White had a total of twenty-four pages. Ellen White’s contribution was just 6 pages. The reader will note that this pamphlet was published, not by Ellen White, but by James White. More importantly, the quote cited by Pastor Sankey above was a statement by James White, not Ellen White! Sankey however seeks to make James White personal views on Dan. 11:40-45 that of Ellen White by pure association (James being her husband and the two having contributed to the same pamphlet). That is to say, Sankey’s reasoning is as follows: since Ellen White was James White’s wife and since her contribution is found in the same pamphlet published by James White, she must also have held the above view penned by James White. After all, in Pastor Sankey’s mind, James White was the husband of the prophet. Thus, in his view, Sister White must have approved the views of her husband, else why would she allow her contribution to be printed in the same pamphlet in which James expressed his view that the power identified in Daniel 11:45 was the papacy? But this premise of Sankey is a false one. At best, this is just one example of his tendency to have an aberration in logic. At worst, it would seem to represent a shade of dishonesty for him to say that the above quoted view of James White was also the belief of Ellen White. Why do I say this? Because in the same passage from James White, there is a portion that Pastor Sankey conveniently omitted to quote, in which James White expressly states that his statement was his personal view on Dan. 11:40-45. James White states (and not carefully the words in bold red): “We are taught by some, that the standing up of Michael, the time of trouble, and the delivering of the saints are in the future; and that all these events are to be accomplished at the second appearing of Christ. Others teach, that Michael stood up on the 10th day of the 7th month, 1844…. BUT AS I [i.e. James White] cannot HARMONIZE EITHER OF THESE [TWO] VIEWS WITH THE BIBLE, I WISH TO HUMBLY GIVE MY BRETHREN AND SISTERS MY VIEW OF THESE EVENTS….” – p. 8 para. 3. James White, after saying the above, then made the following statement which Pastor Sankey quoted from the May 1847 edition of A Word to the “Little Flock”:
“Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in chap. 11, comes to his end, and none to help him. This power is the last that treads down the true church of God…. and Michael has not stood up. This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Revelation 13:11-18. His number is 666.”

Note however, that James White expressly tells his readers that this interpretation of “the last power in” Dan. 11:40-45 as being the pope was his “VIEW OF THESE EVENTS.” This was not Ellen White’s view. 24

Thus, the above statement of James White quoted by Sankey is not only solely attributable to James White, but James expressly states it was his view. In fact, James White said apart from his view on how he felt Dan. 12:1 was connected to Dan. 11:44-45, there were two other views held by the pioneers, neither of which he could “harmonize with the Bible.” See his quote again to confirm this. The following statement is taken from the “1919 Bible Conference/History Teachers Council”:
“Beneath THE DIFFERENCES of the delegates (and many of the ministers and laypeople in the churches) over such agenda topics as…. the beginning and ending of the 1260 years, AND THE KING OF THE NORTH (Daniel 11), was the issue of how to interpret Ellen White.” - http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt38.html

In view of the above facts, we see that Pastor Sankey has incorrectly sought to advance the personal “view” of James White as the view held by a majority of the Pioneers, when in fact James White tells us that there were then three conflicting views held by the pioneers (including his own view). We will see next that the leading pioneers, including Sister White, held the view of Uriah Smith, not of James white. The reader will see from the following statements of Ellen G. White in the same issue of “A Word to the Little Flock” in which we read James White’s personal view on Dan. 11:40-45 and Dan. 12, that Sister White gave her inspired understanding, which did not accord with that of her husband James White. Here are the quotes from Ellen G. White in the said pamphlet concerning “Michael Standing up” (in Daniel chapter 12:1) which chapter Pastor Sankey and his ‘school’ claim is a “continuation of” verses 40-45 of Daniel chapter 11. The discerning reader will note that in the following Ellen G. White does not attempt to make any connection (as her husband sought to do) between the power identified in Dan. Chap. 11:40-45 and the events described in Dan. Chap. 12:
“The Lord has shown me in vision, that… Michael's standing up (Dan. 12:1) to deliver his people, is in the future. {WLF 12.4} This [Dan. 12:1], will not take place, until Jesus has finished his priestly office in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and lays off his priestly attire, and puts on his most kingly robes, and crown, to ride forth on the cloudy chariot, to "thresh the heathen in anger," and deliver his people. {WLF 12.5} This [Dan. 12:1], will be the time of Jacob's trouble, (Jer. 30:5-8) out of which, the saints will be delivered by the voice of God [i.e. at the second appearing of Christ]. {WLF 12.7} See: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCaxA.html#sth24 [James White’s personal views on Dan. 11 are on pages [569 – 571; while Ellen White’s inspired statements are on 573.]

The reason I have underlined the above statements by Ellen G. White in scarlet is to show that what she said she was shown to be the meaning of Dan. 12:1 (Michael Standing up) is exactly what her husband James White said he did not accept as “harmonizing with Scripture”:
“We are taught by some, that the standing up of Michael, the time of trouble, and the delivering of the saints are in the future; AND THAT ALL THESE EVENTS ARE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED at the second appearing of Christ. Others teach, that Michael stood up on the 10th day of the 7th month, 1844… I [JAMES WHITE] CANNOT HARMONIZE EITHER OF THESE VIEWS WITH THE BIBLE.”

25

Thus, we see that James white disagreed with the above views in red, namely, (i) that Michael standing up in Dan. 12:1, (ii) “the time of trouble, and (iii) “the delivering of the saints”, nor (iv) that these events were all “future“. And further, he DID NOT BELIEVE “that all these events are to be accomplished at the second appearing of Christ.” James White believed that “Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in chap. 11, comes to his end.” This power he said was the papacy, which power believed was to come to its end BEFORE the second appearing of Christ. (read his statement above again). Yet, all three [(i)-iii)] of the above are exactly what Ellen G. White said Michael standing up in Dan. 12:1 meant:
“The Lord has shown me in vision, that… Michael's standing up (Dan. 12:1) to deliver his people, IS IN THE FUTURE. {WLF 12.4} This [Dan. 12:1], will not take place, until Jesus… puts on his most kingly robes, and crown, to ride forth… to… deliver his people. {WLF 12.5} This [Dan. 12:1], WILL BE THE TIME OF JACOB'S TROUBLE, (Jer. 30:5-8) out of which, the saints will be delivered by the voice of God [i.e. at the second appearing of Christ]. {WLF 12.7}

Note that the parts in red show that every one of the above three positions approved by Ellen G. White, her husband James has said he could not “harmonize” “with the Bible.” Clearly then, James White had an incorrect view on Dan. 12:1; and it would seem that he did not discuss this view with his wife before adding it to WFL. We have some indication that his view may have changed later. But, in any event, James White would have to provide some sound Scriptural support for his differing interpretation to the prophet. The inspired revelation which EGW mentions 3 times in WFL, all differed from her husband’s position. And further, none confirmed that the papacy was in Dan. 11:45. 19. Conclusive proof that leading pioneers & Ellen White endorsed Uriah Smith’s view Here is sound proof that not only did the majority of the leading Adventist pioneers (such as S.N. Haskell, A.G. Daniels, J.N. Loughborough and W. A. Spicer) not believe the power identified in Dan. 11:40-45 was the papacy, but that Ellen White herself fully endorsed Uriah Smith’s view and rebuked those who opposed it (including her husband). As to S. N. Haskell’s views on Dan. 11:40-45, we find these in chapter 17 (titled “The Work of The Mystery of Iniquity”) of his book The Story of Daniel the Prophet, pp. 149, 152, 153:
“…. experience of that nation [France] stands as an object lesson to the world. Truth had been proclaimed within her borders, but again the papacy rose up to do according to his will. It is in that country that verses 36-39 of chapter 11 were exactly fulfilled.” [i.e. its depiction in Dan. 11 ends at verse 39]…. few years before the expiration of the allotted time (verse 36)

26

Why do I say that this is what Haskell believed? Because he then moves from verse 39 to verse 40 of Dan. 11 and says this, on pp. 157-158, about the power to which he believed verses 40-45 applied:
“In the Crimean war of 1853-1856, the world trembled for Turkey, and, lest the crisis should be precipitated, England and France came to the rescue, and Russia was bidden to stand back. In the Russo-Turkish war of 1877, the powers of Europe united to sustain the life of the sick man…. The sealing angel goes through Jerusalem (the church) to place the seal of the living God on the foreheads of the faithful, and while this work goes forward, Turkey stands as a national guidepost to the world, that men may know what is going on in the sanctuary above. … No man knows when Turkey will take its departure from Europe, but when that move is made, earth's history will be short. Then it will be said, "He that is unjust let him be unjust still,...and he that is righteous let him be righteous still…. While the world watches Turkey, let the servant of God watch the movements of his great High Priest, whose ministry for sin is almost over.”

What is interesting is that the above book can be found on Pastor Sankey’s own website at:
www.pathofthejust.org/Path_of_the_Just_Ministries/PDF_Library_files/The%20Story%20Of%20Daniel%20The%20Prophet%20%20S.%20N.%20Haskell.pdf

More importantly, we are informed by reliable authorities that it was not only this leading pioneer who held Uriah Smith’s views, but Ellen also. We have it on very good authority that at Battle Creek, MI, on October 9, 1878, Ellen G. White “Reproved [her] husband James orally for publicly conflicting with Uriah Smith over “king of the north”
– See, Ellen G. White’s Biography, vol. 3, pp. 96, 97. SEE also, footnote 49 on p. 548 of this document from the ELLEN G. WHITE ESTATE confirming the above: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/motl.pdf

Now, read carefully the following:
“One of the testimonies to individuals, delivered [by Ellen G. White]… WAS ADDRESSED TO JAMES WHITE–a reproof for his course of action just before the combined camp meeting and General Conference session. He [James White] and Uriah Smith held conflicting views on the prophecy of THE “KING OF THE NORTH” pictured in Daniel 11, AND THE POWER PRESENTED IN VERSE 45 that would come to his end with none to help him…. James White ACCEPTED THE REPROOF, but it was one of the most difficult experiences he was called to cope with, for he felt he was doing the right thing….” - Biography of Ellen White, Vol. 3, pp. 96.4 and 97.1.

Thus, in seeking to attribute James White’s personal view (and those of some of the pioneers) on Dan. 11:40-45 to Ellen G. White, Pastor Sankey not only makes Ellen White appear to contradict herself, but he also ‘unwittingly’ makes her into a “lying prophet.” How does Sankey counter the statement of the E.G. White Estate as found in Ellen G. White’s Biography, that on October 9, 1878, Ellen G. White “Reproved [her] husband James orally for publicly conflicting with Uriah Smith over “king of the north”? Pastor Sankey quotes the following on p. 31 of his “Response to Moore’s Critique”:

27

He then quotes Pastor Raymond Cottrell, who speculates that “the wording of the quotation given would SEEM to INFER that Sister White approved of Elder White's point of view [singular]...." However, neither the above quote of Ellen White nor the assumptions of Cottrell assist the cause of Pastor Sankey. Firstly, we do not know to what this statement is in relation to. Ellen White refers to “the views” and not to a view (as Cottrell speculates about a singular view). Thirdly, Ellen White refers to “the views” taken by "his brethren” and not to views of Uriah Smith. Fourthly, she does not say that either James White or the “brethren” was correct in the particular views. Ellen White’s statement was a hypothetical comment, to the effect, that: ‘even if we were to assume” James White was correct [not that James White was in fact correct], it would still have been improper for him to have aired his views opposing the “brethren” in the manner he did. This statement does not establish that James White was right or wrong. Ellen White could equally have said to “the brethren” [which may or may not have included Uriah Smith]: ‘even if you [the “brethren”] were correct, it was still improper for you to have aired your views against those of James White in the manner you did.’ Had Ellen White said that to the “brethren”, this would be no proof that she was saying the “brethren” or even Uriah Smith (assuming that he was one of these “brethren”) was right and that her husband was wrong. But in any event. We do not even know what these views of the “brethren” were and so it is pure speculation to say it was about Dan. 11:40-45. This speculation is not altered by any statement from the Ellen G. White Estate, who were not there at the time nor have they produced any conclusive proof that these views of “the brethren” were concerning Dan. 11:40-45.

The “balanced” and objective reader is now asked to carefully consider the following letter of the pioneer J. N. Loughborough written in 1915 [all emphases are my own]:
Sanitarium, California. March 25, 1915. Wilfrid Belleau, College Place, Washington, (Box 3) Dear Brother, Your letter of recent date received. Yesterday I mailed to you a copy of the book on the sealing message. And I have sent a dime to the Pacific Press requesting them to mail to you a copy of “Prophetic Gift in the Gospel Church.” As to where you can get information on “THE KING OF THE NORTH,” I think you will find it in Bro. [A.G.] Daniel’s book on “The World War.” Brother URIAH SMITH laid no claims to “inspiration,” but his view on THE KING OF THE NORTH IS WELL ESTABLISHED BY SISTER WHITE….This you can read in Volume 4 of the Testimonies, page 278-279 where she called the discourse “a subject of special interest.” etc. It would bother those holding ANOTHER VIEW than what he [URIAH SMITH] advocated to find a word from her [SISTER WHITE] favoring their views. One Brother who had intimated in his writing on the subject that the king of the North MIGHT BE THE POPE, told me that Sister White told him he “never should have INTIMATED any such thing, and that his idea would only create CONFUSION”.… it was what he told me in Autumn 1878….” Yours in the blessed hope, J. N. Loughborough.

From this letter of John N. Loughborough, we gather that not only did he and A.G. Daniels reject the view of James White that the power identified in Dan. 11:40-45 was the papacy, but also that SISTER WHITE agreed with Uriah Smith’s interpretation and warned another brother that he should not have even “intimated” any view to the contrary. 28

In case, you have forgotten, this what Sister White said about Uriah Smith’s views on Dan. 11:40-45: “solid, ETERNAL truth for this time." - 1 Manuscript Release, pp. 60, 61. Notwithstanding the above clear evidences that Ellen G. White held no such views as expressed by James White (on the supposed connection between Dan. 12:1 and Dan. 11:40-45), Pastor Sankey and others (e.g. see page 18 of Jeff Pippenger’s tract “The Final Rise and Fall of the King of the North”) try desperately to juxtapose James White’s personal views in WFL with those of Ellen G. White. In yet a further attempt to show that Sister White held James White’s view they quote her statement:
“Historical events, showing the direct fulfillment of prophecy, were set before the people, and the prophecy was seen to be a figurative delineation of events leading down to the close of this earth's history. The scenes connected with the working of the man of sin are the last features plainly revealed in this earth's history.” – Ellen White, Selected Messages, book 2, 102.

But of course this statement has nothing to do Dan. 11:40-45 and certainly has no semblance with that made by James White in “A Word to the Little Flock”. This is just one example of how Pastor Sankey strains to make Ellen White’s statements “disconnected utterances”. In fact, Ellen White tells us that Dan. 11 was “in the process of fulfillment” in her day: “The light that Daniel received from God was given especially for these last days. The visions he saw by the banks of the Ulai and the Hiddekel, the great rivers of Shinar, are NOW in process of fulfillment, and all the events foretold will SOON come to pass.” – Ellen, G White, Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 112-113. Those holding to the ‘new’ interpretation of Dan. 11:40-45 have latched on the above statement as further proof that Dan. 11:40-45 was to have a future fulfillment after the date that Ellen White penned those words. But in this, they are once again in error. The PORTION of the vision associated with the Ulai river that was still "in process of fulfillment" when Sister White penned those words was the work going on in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary that commenced in1844 (see Dan. 8:14). The vision associated with the Hiddekel river is a series found in Daniel chapters 10 (see verse 4 of that chapter) to chapter 12. But, like the Ulai vision, only a portion of the vision-series in Dan. 10-12 was in the “process of fulfillment” when Ellen White wrote! Not every part of the Hiddekel vision is “still in the process of fulfillment.” Some parts have already been fulfilled. How do we know this? Because as we have already seen on page 14 above, Ellen G. White tells that: “The book that was sealed is… that PORTION of the prophecy [singular, not plural] of Daniel relating to the last days. The angel commanded, 'But thou, 0 Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.’ Daniel 12:4.” – Ellen G. White`, Acts of the Apostles, p. 585.

29

Thus, we know that it is not every one of the visions given at the river Hiddekel, nor even all of any one of those vision, that is still “in the process of fulfillment,” but only “that PORTION of the prophecy [singular] of Daniel relating to the last days.” What singular prophecy is that? And which portion of that prophecy? As we have already read, the “portion” of the prophecy (singular) that was unfulfilled is that which was sealed and this was the portion of “the message in relation to [or to do with] time.” That message to do with time is found in Dan. 8:14 (“unto 2300 days”) and is later broken down into smaller parts/times in Dan. 12:9-13. There is no time prophecy (i.e. years such as 1260, 1290, etc.) in Dan. 11. Dan. 11:40 merely refers to the time of the end. “The unsealing of the little book was the message in relation to time” (see, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 971.4). It is thus that the prophet Daniel [verses 12:8-13] was to “stand in his lot at the end of the days.” – ibid. Daniel stands (stood) “in his lot” when the time-prophecy concerning the 2300 days and its parts (1260, 1290 and 1335 years) were fully understood.

19A. If Dan. 11:40-45 is not about Islamic Turkey, then what prophecy was Elder Haskell referring to
when he spoke of prophecy being fulfilled in 1840?: “Said those who were proclaiming the second advent: “If THE TURKISH power ceases in 1840, that may be considered a sign that the correct interpretation has been placed upon the prophetic periods of Daniel…. “that there should be TIME NO LONGER.” - N. S. Haskell, SDA Pioneer, The Story of the Seer of Patmos, p. 184-187. Elder Haskell was twice president of the New England Conference (1870-1876, 1877-1887), three times president of the California Conference (1879-1887, 1891-1894, 1908-1911), and also president of the Maine Conference (1884-1886). Ellen G. White had a high regard for wise Elder Haskell. She wrote of him: “His experience and knowledge of the truth, commencing in so early a stage of our history as Seventh-day Adventists, was needed…. now his age and gray hairs give him the respect of all who know him.” (E. G. White, Letter 126 1897; see Arthur L. White, The Australian Years 1891-1900, Vol. 4, p. 4, Chap. 25, ‘Avondale – A new start in Christian Education’). Ellen White further said of Haskell: “Brother Haskell is the Lord's servant.... We appreciate his experience, his judgment, his thoughtful care and caution. He is indeed a mighty man in the Scriptures.” (E. G. White, June 6th 1897, quoted The Australian Years 1891-1900, 1983, p. 307). And Haskell said that the fall of Turkey in 1840 was the fulfillment of the sealed prophetic TIME periods of Daniel, which said periods Ellen G. White said where “in the process of fulfillment,” which she expressly said, “relate to prophetic time.”

30

20. Conclusions to be drawn
In light of all of the above facts, it would seem to me that Pastor Sankey’s analysis of his own ‘proofs’(i.e., Louis Were, Leroy E. Froom and Pastor Raymond F. Cottrell, etc.) as well as the conjectures of Jeff Pippenger are not only fallacious but shallow, disingenuous and grossly misleading. These two brethren say that Ellen G. White not did not “openly attack” Uriah Smith's views on Dan. 11:40-45, because she did not want to cause confusion and divide the church. Yea, I agree, Ellen G. White did not “openly attack” Uriah Smith's views on Dan. 11:40-45, rather, she ‘openly’ approved them! See, again pioneer J. N. Loughborough’s letter of March 25, 1915 to Wilfrid Belleau, on page 28 above. And further, she openly rebuked her husband over the same matter and conclusively established Uriah Smith’s interpretation as correct (see again the letter of 1915 from J. N. Loughborough to Wilfrid Belleau and (E.G. White’s Biography, vol. 3, pp. 96, 97). Thus, having produced proof that Ellen White rebuked her husband James White for conflicting with Uriah Smith’s views on Dan.11:40-45, and having shown that she rebuked another brother for intimating that Smith was wrong on Dan. 11:44-45, I challenge any one to produce PROOF that Ellen G. White PRIVATELY or openly rebuked Uriah Smith for his teachings that Dan. 11:40-45 was about Turkey. I also ask Pastor Sankey and any of his co-labourers, do you deny that the letter of J. N. Loughborough dated March 15, 1915 to Wilfrid Belleau to be a true and accurate account of what Elder Loughborough says Ellen White said about Uriah Smith’s view on Dan. 11:40-45? Do you also dispute J. N. Loughborough’s statement that “One Brother who had intimated in his writing on the subject that the king of the North MIGHT BE THE POPE” was rebuked by Sister White who told him he “NEVER should have [even] INTIMATED any such thing, and that his idea WOULD ONLY CREATE CONFUSION”? Yet, this is exactly what Sankey and Pippenger are doing, hence the need for this ‘retort’. Are we now being asked to believe that Ellen White only approved some parts of a book which she UNEQUIVOCALLY said had ''truths upon which God has placed His approval" and which she described as “solid, eternal truth for this time"? (1 Manuscript Release, pages 60, 61). Are we to be made to believe that a book that has “dangerous” “errors” (as Pastor Sankey claims on page 6, para. 4 of his “Response To Moore's You Critique”) could be a book that Ellen White would so unequivocally declare as containing “solid, ETERNAL truth”? Intelligent reader, judge for yourself. So, until some Bible passage is produced to support this view of Pastor Sankey and Elder Pippenger or UNTIL WE HAVE A STATEMENT FROM ELLEN WHITE HERSELF AND NOT HER HUSBAND, WERE or RAYMOND COTTRELL, in support of these fantastic assumptions of yours, I say, “Lord, I cannot eat man’s dung” (see, Ezek. 4:14-15). Nor ‘will I follow cunningly devised fables’ (2 Peter 1:16). “Le fables” 31

So, I say to Pastor Sankey, “no personal jab is intended” by the above, although each statement is indeed “calculated for your introspection.” Finally, I say to you and Elder Pippenger, in the words of the people on Mars Hill to the Apostle Paul: “May we know the source of this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean” (Acts 17:19-20). AND TO ALL MY READERS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PASS THIS DOCUMENT/EMAIL TO ALL YOUR SDA CONTACTS, INCLUDING PASTORS AND ELDERS AND CONFERENCE LEADERS. IT IS FOR THE WIDEST POSSIBLE CIRCULATION, FOR AS ELLEN WHITE WARNED: “I have been instructed to warn our people; for many are in danger of receiving theories and sophistries that undermine the foundation pillars of the faith.” {Ellen G. White, 1SM, p. 196.4} And Titus speaks of those “Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not” (Titus 1:11). Ellen White wrote: “He [God] knew… men of UNSOUND JUDGMENT… while claiming to be SPECIALLY ILLUMINATED FROM HEAVEN, would not endure the slightest contradiction or even the kindest reproof or counsel. Arrogating to themselves supreme authority, THEY REQUIRED EVERYONE, WITHOUT A QUESTION, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR CLAIMS.” - Great Controversy, chap. 10, p. 190.

32