George R. Knight on the Historical Inaccuracy of "Questions on Doctrine"

While traveling to Andrews University for the recent Questions on Doctrine conference, I took another look at the controversial book's 2003 Annotated Edition. 

I was struck again by how historically inaccurate its 1957 edition sometimes was.  George R. Knight wrote the 2003 book's "Preface," "Historical and Theological Introduction" and "Annotations."  Speaking primarily of the work of LeRoy E. Froom, W. E. Read, and R. A. Anderson, who were all prominent Seventh-day Adventists leaders at the time, here are examples of what he says:

It appears that Froom and his colleagues were less than transparent on the denomination’s position on the topic since the mid 1890s. (vx)

Suspicion of the Adventist conferees having hedged on the truth of the traditional Adventist position is seemingly confirmed.  (xvi)

It is much more difficult to justify the Adventist conferees’ presentation and manipulation of the data they presented on the human nature of Christ.  (xvii)

The authors at times push the facts a bit too far.  (xxx)

Thus Questions on Doctrines not only supplied a misleading heading, but it also neglected to present the evidence that would have contradicted the heading.  (516)

Some assertions were less than straightforward and transparent.  (517)

The authors of Questions on Doctrines sought to avoid those statements of Ellen White that Christ had a sinful nature and also to leave the impression that she held that he had a sinless human nature. (518)

The authors of Questions on Doctrines apparently were tempted to avoid some of Ellen White’s strong statements in their compilation and to provide the misleading heading.  (518).

They were tempted to manipulate the evidence a bit.  (520)

With those manipulations of the data and personal insinuations the gauntlet had been cast down.  (521). 

LeRoy Froom and his colleagues in the evangelical dialog had not told the truth. (521)

Unfortunately there does appear to be elements of a betrayal in the manipulation of the data and in the untruths that were past on.  (522)

The moral of the story is that complete honesty and openness in all dealings is always important, no matter how uncomfortable the situation.  (522)

Over the years people have lodged at least two complaints against Questions on Doctrine.  The first is that some of its theological positions are not sound.  No agreement has emerged about this and perhaps it never will.

Theological positions develop from a complex interaction of many different variables, including the backgrounds, experiences and temperments of people.  In theological matters there always is an irreducible pluralism. This is true even in Scripture. 

George R. Knight, who is sympathetic with QOD's theological positions at its most controverted points, confirms the validity of the second complaint.  It is that QOD's 1957 edition is not an entirely reliable guide to Adventism's theological history.

Knight establishes that, in ways that are too massive to be ignored and too intentional to be excused, Froom, Read and Anderson did not portray their historical material accurately.  That one of the denomination's official publishers first printed the book and many of its leaders actively promoted it compounds the problem.

Regrettably, throughout the fifty years since its publication, many of those who tried to bring QOD's historical inaccuracies to the denomination's attention have been treated harshly.

My father, Ralph S. Larson, was one QOD's most outspoken critics and for this and related reasons he paid a heavy price.  That everyone can now know that on the historical issues he and his colleagues were right all along evokes powerful and mixed feelings in me.  On the one hand, I am glad that the truth is now out.  On the other hand, I am sad that the controversies about the book have caused so much needless pain all around the circle.

How much better it would have been for everyone if Froom, Anderson and Read had let the historical evidence speak for itself and then agreed or disagreed as they thought best!

Comments

[Siber]

keep up the good work!

[Willem]

You guys do a wonderful job! Keep up the good work!!!

[Marly]

Thanks for your project. I like this site. KEEP IT UP..

[Suzan]

made it .All information on this site is represented for users. A site is+

[John]

Dear web-master ! I looked your site and I want to say that yor very well

[Marly]

I like it and the background and colors make it easy to read