I always thought that as Adventist we had a good grasp of the final battle between Satan and his followers in their struggle against God which would be on Earth right at the end. The Battle of Armageddon, was in the future and all Adventist believed it was still to come, and it would become very real at the Second Coming and involved the beast and the nations of the world who will join the devil on one side, while Jesus will be on the other. Seems pretty straightforward, but there was a surprising struggle in the church on this issue which was not resolved and was stopped in a surprising manner. Here is the article on our understanding of this which has itself been a battle..

"The history of the development of this teaching has been traced in considerable detail in a work entitled "Development of Seventh-day Adventist Teaching on Ar?mageddon." * In this article the material has been reduced to present a general sweep of the development of this teaching without submitting documented proof for the conclusions arrived at.

FOUR PERIODS
The development of our teaching on Ar?mageddon and the king of the north, which has usually been associated with it, may be considered as being divided roughly into four periods with three transition pe?riods between.

During the first period, which extended from about 1846 to about 1871, Seventh-day Adventists understood the Papacy to be the king of the north, and Armageddon was the climactic struggle between the forces of Christ and those of Satan at the Second Advent.

The second period began about 1871 and ended about 1903. In 1871 the inter?pretation was introduced that Turkey, not the Papacy, was the king of the north, and Armageddon, which was now linked with it, was held to be a struggle of the nations gathered in Palestine against Christ under the seventh plague. The years between 1871 and 1881 were transition years.

The third period began about 1903 and ended about 1952. The main difference be?tween this period and the one that pre?ceded it was that Armageddon was held to be a gigantic military engagement among the nations of the world gathered in Pales?tine. Christ's part in this view of Arma?geddon was largely minimized. The years from about 1886 to about 1912 were transi?tion years.

The fourth period began about 1952 and continues to the present. During this pe?riod there has been a partial return to many of the basic positions of the first pe?riod. The Papacy is generally held to be the king of the north, and Armageddon is understood to be primarily the climactic struggle between the forces of Christ and those of Satan at the end of time. The years between about 1924 and 1952 were transi?tion years.,,,"

Seems like it started out with the correct view then the world events happening at the time were interjected, as we can see happening in many sermons today, and the original view gets blurred to say the least. So lets continue with the article..

"Millerism was composed largely of American Protestants; hence, it is not sur?prising that on matters of lesser impor?tance the Millerites simply adopted the prevailing Protestant view of the matter. Armageddon was a subject of lesser impor?tance. Only as it was believed to have some bearing on the Second Advent was it con?sidered at all.

The prevailing Protestant view of the seven last plagues of Revelation 16 was that five of them had already fallen, the sixth was in the process of fulfillment, and only the seventh was still in the future. As for the symbols of Revelation 16:12-16, the great majority of Protestant expositors held that the Euphrates represented Tur?key or Mohammedanism. There was little unanimity of opinion on the interpreta?tion of the other symbols of this passage.

In harmony with the prevailing Protes?tant view of Revelation 16, William Mil?ler, leader of the movement that bore his name, taught prior to 1840 that five of the plagues had fallen, the sixth was in the process of being poured out, and the sev?enth would be poured out about 1840.

Miller had little to say about the kings of the East. As for the remaining symbols of Revelation 16:12-16, Miller taught that when the Euphrates (the Turkish power) was dried up (ceased to exist) three wicked political principles (the three unclean spirits) would go forth from the kings of the earth (the dragon), the Papacy (the beast), and Mohammedanism (the false prophet) to gather all nations and all peo?ple (the kings of the earth and of the whole world) to Armageddon. Armaged?don would involve both political and reli?gious strife and would be fought mainly in the United States. Miller appears to have believed that while it was going on, Christ would come, vanquish His enemies, and separate the wicked from the just.

Miller did not relate the prophecy of Revelation 16:12-16 to the prophecy of Daniel 11:45 about the end of the king of the north, because he understood the king of the north to be the Papacy; whereas, the Euphrates of Revelation 16 was the Turkish power.

Miller changed his view of Armageddon at least twice: once in 1840 and again in 1844. However, most of Miller's followers seem to have held his original view. The reason for this appears to have been that it received more publicity than his later views.

However, not all of the Millerites fol?lowed Miller on his interpretation of Reve?lation 16. Chief among those who differed with him was Josiah Litch. Litch held that all of the seven last plagues would be poured out after the Second Advent. He believed that at the Second Coming the saints would be taken to the sea of glass where Christ would organize His kingdom. While this was going on, the seven last plagues would be falling on the wicked. Under the sixth plague the Euphrates would be literally dried up to prepare the way for the kings of the Eastern world (the kings of the East). Following this the dev?il's armies (the kings of the earth and of the whole world) would be gathered in Jerusalem and Palestine by the three un?clean spirits?proceding from Mohammed?anism (the dragon), popery (the beast), and infidelity (the false prophet)?for the purpose of battling against the King of kings and Lord of lords. At this point Christ would come with all His saints to drive out the wicked from Jerusalem.

When October 22, 1844, passed and Christ did not return as the Millerites ex?pected, the movement broke up into sev?eral fragments. One of the smaller frag?ments later developed into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The question of Armageddon was not one of prime concern to the emerging Sev?enth-day Adventist leaders; however, the timing of the plagues was. Early in 1846, probably as a result of the visions of Ellen Harmon, James White adopted the view that all of the seven last plagues were in the future but before the Second Advent. This view differed markedly from the views held by Miller and Litch. Seventh-day Adventists have held to this view through the years regardless of what their particular views on Armageddon and the king of the north have been..."

Now something happens which throws the Adventist view into turmoil which is very interesting...

"In March, 1848, an event occurred that was destined to influence our teaching on Armageddon. This was the rise of modern Spiritualism in Hydesville, New York. About a year after Spiritualism made its modern debut, Ellen White was shown in vision that the mysterious rappings in New York were of Satanic origin and that they would become more and more common Not long after this, George W. Holt, a for?mer Millerite minister from Connecticut who had become a Seventh-day Adventist, identified the spirits of Spiritualism as be?ing the spirits of devils of Revelation 16: 13-16.

But then the question arose: If the spir?its of Spiritualism are now fulfilling the events of the sixth plague, how can the plagues be said to be all in the future? Uriah Smith, then a young man associated with the publication of the Review and Herald, gave the answer that was to be?come our standard answer to this question. He declared that the present work of Spir?itualism is a preparatory work, that before the spirits of devils can have such absolute power over the wicked as to induce them to fight against God, they must first win their way among the nations.

The Early Period
In the earliest years of our movement most Seventh-day Adventists apparently held that the Euphrates of Revelation 16: 12 referred to the literal river by that name. They apparently believed that that river would be literally dried up at the time of the sixth plague. This, of course, was Litch's view. In 1857 Uriah Smith set forth the view that the Euphrates repre?sents the country through which it flows, at that time the Turkish Empire. This view seems soon to have been accepted by most, if not all, Seventh-day Adventists. He also introduced at this time the view that the nations would assemble in Palestine under the sixth plague over possession of the Holy Land, but he does not seem to have been followed in this particular view by all Seventh-day Adventists at this time.

As for the other teachings related to Ar?mageddon and the king of the north, there seems to have been a general unanimity of opinion during the early period. Thus, vir?tually all Seventh-day Adventists were agreed that the dragon represented pagan?ism; the beast, Catholicism; the false prophet, apostate Protestantism. The bat?tle of that great day of God Almighty, or Armageddon, was held to be the culminat?ing clash between the forces of good and evil, or Christ and Satan, at the Second Coming. With regard to the identity of the king of the north, there was general agree?ment that it represented the Papacy.

The First Transition
In 1867 Uriah Smith's book, Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Rev?elation, was published. This book popu?larized among Seventh-day Adventists the view of Armageddon Smith had first set forth in 1857. Early in 1869 Smith began a series of articles in the Review and Herald that eventually became the book Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Daniel. Late in 1870 and early in 1871, while Smith was evidently studying and preparing his articles on the eleventh chapter of Daniel, he began to show a cer?tain ambivalence respecting his identifica?tion of the last power of that chapter, the king of the north. His writings reveal un?certainty as to whether this power is the Papacy, as he had formerly held, or Tur?key. From this time on Smith began, as he says, to "look for significant events in that quarter," and to make predictions to the effect that Turkey's end was imminent. Along with this he taught that when Tur?key came to its end Michael would stand up; that is, probation would close, and soon after this Christ would come.

These predictions disturbed James White. It appears that having gone through the disappointment in 1844, he was cautious on the matter of making de?tailed predictions of coming events based on unfulfilled prophecy, and urged others to be cautious also. When Smith continued to make predictions concerning Turkey's imminent end, a clash between the two leaders became inevitable.

Clash Over the King of the North
In 1877 war broke out between Turkey and Russia. Late that summer Smith preached on the Eastern question at a camp meeting which James and Ellen White attended. Perhaps as a result of this sermon James White wrote an editorial in the November 15, 1877, issue of the Signs of the Times (reprinted in the Review and Herald of November 27, 1877), in which he again urged caution on the part of those who were showing such positiveness regarding the Eastern question. But Smith continued to make predictions concerning the nearness of Turkey's end, and in June, 1878, went so far as to express the opinion that "we have reached the preliminary movements of the great battle of Armaged?don" (Review and Herald, June 6, 1878, p. 180). The inevitable clash between the two leaders came during the camp meeting that preceded the 1878 General Confer?ence held in Battle Creek, Michigan.

According to witnesses present at the camp meeting, Uriah Smith spoke at one of the early meetings on the Eastern ques?tion and again expressed the opinion that the Russo-Turkish war then in progress might develop into Armageddon. When Smith finished his discourse, James White spoke for seventy minutes, during which time he publicly rebutted Smith's view.

The essence of White's argument was as follows: If Daniel 2, 7, and 8 end with the destruction of pagan-papal Rome, and the first part of Daniel 11 recapitulates chap?ters 2, 7, and 8, then the last power of Dan?iel 11 must be pagan-papal Rome, not Turkey.

The first part of White's rebuttal ap?peared in the Review and Herald of Oc?tober 3, 1878, and was to have been con?tinued, but it stopped right there. Why? William C. White, son of James and Ellen White, relates that a day or two after the meeting at which Smith and White spoke, Ellen White was given a vision showing that her husband erred in publicly disa?greeing with Smith. After coming out of vision, she related to her husband what she had been shown. James White accepted the rebuke and discontinued his series of articles. In rebuking her husband, Mrs. White did not attempt to resolve the ques?tion of the identity of the king of the north. Indeed, the question is not settled in any way in her writings." .... https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/11/what-adventists-have-taught-on-armageddon

At this point the Ministry Magazine says that it is to be "continue" but from memory I think we find that Ellen White warned of the damage it would do to fight over it, let me see if I can find more..

I found the next article that was the "to be continued" but it doesnt include the reason why Ellen White shut down the struggle over the issue. Here is the relevant part.

"HE SMITH PERIOD
When James White died, in 1881, Smith's views on Armageddon and the king of the north, which were already ascendant, con?tinued to be the standard Seventh-day Ad?ventist views on these teachings. Virtually all our writers from about 1871 to the 1940's built on Smith's premises that Tur?key is the king of the north and that the nations would be gathered in Palestine for the battle of Armageddon. This does not mean, however, that the Smith period ex?tended from 1871 to the 1940's. Smith al?ways held that the nations would simply gather in Palestine during the sixth plague and that Armageddon?a battle between Christ and the forces of evil?would not be fought until the seventh plague. Smith did not teach that Armageddon would be a great military conflict in Palestine. He did teach that Turkey would come to its end in an international war in Palestine, but this war, he believed, would be fought be?fore the close of probation. Thus, the Smith period may be said to have lasted until the view that Armageddon would in?volve a great international conflict in Pales?tine took root, about 1903.

THE SECOND TRANSITION PERIOD
During the last ten or fifteen years of the nineteenth century there was an increas?ing tendency for our writers on Armaged?don and the king of the north to stress the war in which Turkey comes to its end. However, with rare exception, they did not equate this war with Armageddon.

In 1903, the year Uriah Smith died, W. A. Spicer, at the time one of the editors of the Review and Herald and later Gen?eral Conference president, became the chief proponent of the view that Armaged?don involved a great international conflict in Palestine after the close of probation. This concept was not opposed, and was grad?ually accepted by most Seventh-day Advent?ists. By 1913 it had become the denomina?tional view.

Before proceeding to describe the third period of SDA teaching on Armageddon, it may be well to note a brief interlude.

THE JONES INTERLUDE
Alonzo T. Jones was the chief editor of the Review and Herald from 1897 to 1901. During this time he introduced the rather singular concept that the European na?tions and Japan, who were then endeavor?ing to partition China, and the United States, who was then becoming involved in the Philippines, were the kings of the east and that their way was being prepared by the partition of China for the coming bat?tle of Armageddon. Eventually Jones iden?tified these kings of the east as being the kings of the earth and of the whole world. This view did not endure, and made no permanent impression on our teachings. As soon as Uriah Smith resumed the chief edi?torship of the church paper in 1901, this view disappeared.

THE THIRD PERIOD
While Spicer taught that Armageddon was a great international military conflict centering in Palestine, he also taught that at its climax Christ would intervene from heaven at the Second Coming. He did not stress this latter aspect, however, and those who followed him in his view of a military Armageddon stressed it even less. During World War I and for several years after, it was almost completely forgotten.

When the first world war broke out, many statesmen and political analysts re?ferred to it as Armageddon. Seventh-day Adventist leaders unanimously rejected this identification and said so. But when Turkey entered the war late in 1914 and Lord Asquith, British Prime Minister, de?clared that Turkey had rung her own death knell, we began to preach that Tur?key's end was imminent and that the war then in progress would develop into Ar?mageddon. Indeed, it looked as if the pre?dictions we had been making for years were on the very verge of fulfillment, especially during the first part of 1917. The war was going badly for the Turks, a battle was shaping up around Jerusalem, and there was talk that the Turks planned to move their capital out of Constantinople.

But then Jerusalem was captured on De?cember 9, 1917, after a brief struggle, and it became evident that the Turks were not go?ing to be able to transfer their capital to that city in the foreseeable future. Less than a year later the armistice was signed by the Central Powers, but Turkey renewed the struggle, first under the sultan and then under the nationalists.

In October, 1922, the Ottoman Empire came to an end, but from its ashes emerged a vigorous and defiant Turkish Republic that fought on to victory and dictated the peace terms of the Treaty of Lausanne in the summer of 1923. Finally, early in March, 1924, Turkey abolished the caliphate, thereby disclaiming the spiritual leadership of Mohammedanism, which she had held for centuries.

THE THIRD TRANSITION PERIOD
This turn of events led some of our peo?ple to re-examine the position we then held that Turkey was the king of the north, and soon among a minority there was a re?vival of the view that the papacy was king of the north. The majority of Seventh-day Adventists, however, continued to hold the other view, but now the emphasis in our teaching was that Armageddon was a mili?tary struggle of the East against the West in Palestine, with Christ intervening at the climax. The emphasis on the East-West struggle was doubtless engendered by the-rising militancy of Japan, the awakening and turmoil in China during the 1920's, and the threat of Russian Communism dur?ing the same period. But as the political alignments that led to World War II began to form and consolidate during the mid-1930's, it became clear that the lines of cleavage between the world's great powers were not East versus West, but Axis versus Allies. Thus, it appears that more and more stress was placed on Christ's part in Ar?mageddon. Eventually some excluded a military conflict altogether and interpreted Armageddon as being the last great strug?gle between Christ and His followers and Satan and his followers. Discussions be?tween the proponents of these views dur?ing the 1940's and early 1950's were some?times heated, but gradually the so-called new view attracted more and more adher?ents, until with certain modifications it be?came the denomination's view about 1952.

THE FOURTH PERIOD
The view that has been held by most SDA's since 1952 is that Armageddon in?volves both a physical battle and a battle between the followers of Christ and Satan, but that the real issue is the great contro?versy between good and evil. Some of our people tend to stress the physical aspects of this view while others tend to stress the struggle between the forces of good and evil.

A careful analysis of these stresses reveals that those who hold them do not mean the same thing when they speak of "physical" battle. Those who stress the physical as?pects of Armageddon usually mean a great international military engagement in Pal?estine prior to or at the Second Advent; whereas, those who stress the conflict be?tween the forces of good and evil usually mean the slaughter of the wicked all over the earth by mutual fighting among them?selves after Christ appears in the clouds of heaven. " ... https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/12/what-adventists-have-taught-on-armageddon-and-the-king-of-the-north#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20Seventh%2Dday,Christ%20intervening%20at%20the%20climax.

Note what it says on the end which is relevant to us again today..
"..Because of the recent war in the Middle East there has been renewed interest among our people concerning our teachings on Armageddon and the king of the north. For this reason it is well for every Seventh-day Adventist to be aware of what We have taught on these subjects in the past, as well as what the Spirit of Prophecy has to say about them (see the Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White, vol. 1, "Armageddon" and "Eastern Question"). By so doing we shall gain a clearer view of the character of this struggle. This will help us to avoid some of the pitfalls that plagued our ancestors, and at the same time it will enable us to give relevance to our message...".

I will see if I can find what Ellen White has on this..

It appears that Ellen White thought it best to be silent on the issue as it could lead to "contention" which in my opinion it has..

"My husband had some ideas on some points differing from the views taken by his brethren. I
was shown that however true his views were, God did not call for him to put them in front
before his brethren and create differences of ideas. While he might hold these views subordinate
himself, once they are made public, minds would seize [upon them], and just because others
believed differently would make these differences the whole burden of the message, and get up
contention and variance."?Letter 37, 1887 (Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 20-22).

And others point to these statements..

"Let us confine our public efforts to the presentation of the important lines of truth on which we are united, and on which we have clear light." (1SM 167)

"Matters of vital importance have been plainly revealed in the Word of God. These subjects are worthy of our deepest thought. But we are not to search into matters on which God has been silent." (1SM 173)

But need context to see if those apply to this issue, but I believe Ellen White did not want the damage that could be cause by a difference of views on this question and which we can clearly see all the way to the present.

James White disagreed with Uriah Smith.
As you can see in three articles he wrote in the Review.

For the first 16 or so years the Adventist pioneers taught the king of the north was papal.
When Smith switched his view, James White held the early view, and did not accept Uriah Smith's bringing Turkey in as the last power great power to persecute and finally be destroyed. Why did Uriah Smith change from the early interpretation?



It wasn't just that one sermon that prompted James White to object. Uriah was already sharing his thoughts before that. But that sermon was being eagerly received by the audience and this troubled James White.
People seem to respond to "new light" when the news appears to support it. There was a literal war between Turkey and Russia and it was a tense time as the newspapers depicted the war.
Uriah's 1877 campmeeting sermon had something like 2000 people listening and the excitement was strong. People were stirred with the thought that Jesus was coming VERY soon. For James White to stand up and publicly argue with Uriah at the close of a sermon whose main emphasis had been the nearness of Christ's coming would not have had good results! It would have been a mistake.
So yes, Ellen White asked him to step back and not make a scene.
But does that mean she supported Uriah Smith's view on this issue?

We would be further ahead to simply study all EGW's writings on what she says about the last conflict of earth's history.
Does she ever describe Turkey in any of her depictions of the crises?
Does she ever urge the people to watch Turkey for the sign that Jesus is about to stand up?

And why would Turkey setting up their capital in Jerusalem have any bearing on people's eternal destiny?

Do the testimony's depictions of the last crises support or contradict Jame's interpretation?
Seems to me EGW is fully on the side of seeing the papal power in combination with the protestant powers linking together as the great power of the last days to persecute and come to it's final end.

If Uriah's position were truth -- and if she supported his view, why don't we see her writing at least several paragraphs in the Great Controversy, urging people to watch the Turks for the final "sign" the end is here?
Why, instead, does she have so much to say about the papal power and apostate protestants uniting to create the last crises?

Quotes on Armageddon

Very true, but could it be that Islam was created by the Church of Rome before they became 'the defender of the faith' so to say, as part of the deception as we see from some quarters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JjSVpLSfB8

And now we see them rising up and bringing a clash of nations.

I don't see how that is possible. The Turks are Muslims and spent hundreds of years fighting the Crusaders in the holy land.

Well as you can see they followed the same formula of the church at Rome, taking the pagan religions and syncretizing them, basically same with another name, all put into Islam along with Mary worship. And now the Pope brings them back together..
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...g-religious-groups-top/story?id=76293879
https://backtojerusalem.com/one-world-religion-headquarters-set-to-open-next-year/

https://answering-islam.org/Silas/pagansources.htm
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/mary-in-the-quran

It makes more sense to me what the Bible has to say.

The way I see this:
The Muslims are NOT the king of the North, they are the king of the South. They arose in Arabia in the 600's AD. They conquered all of Northern Africa (which is south of the Mediterrean). They have all the lands of the ancient king of the south. (Just because they took some from the king of the north does not change the fact)
Yes, the battles were between the crusaders and the Muslims. They were between the king of the north and south, with "the holy land" fluctuating between them.

The king of the North is Rome -- with all her allies (ie countries with a Christian heritage) .
All the other prophecies in Daniel and Revelation and EGW, point to the papal Rome and her allies as the last great coalition of the last crises.

The king of the south are Muslims who took over Egypt the chief country of the ancient king of the south. Yes, 800 years later they largely pushed back the king of the north when they conquered Constantinople in the 1400's but they didn't conquer the king of the north.

And yes, according to Daniel 11:40-45, in the end the king of the north over runs the king of the south, gets his hands on their wealth (oil?) gets most of them to "follow him". (in his steps)
There will be a "sort of" uniting. After all, the whole world will be following the "beast"! Right? Even a host of muslims.

And yes, the king of the north will set up some kind of a "sanctuary" tabernacle in the "holy" land. It's all being planned right under our noses.


We tend to ignore the "false prophet" in all this.
The false prophet is not the papacy, but works with the papacy.
The false prophet, in my opinion, is the prophetic interpretation we see in various shades, all over the Christian world today. It's hopes are centered on Jerusalem. It expects the Messiah.
I don't think this false prophecy would be pushed and supported the way it is, if there wasn't some supernatural power behind it.
People believe Christ will return to old Jerusalem and set up a millennial kingdom and rule the nations. The false prophet has deceived many into believing this will happen.
And it will APPEAR as if it is happening. The false Christ will come with magnificent splendor -- to old Jerusalem, and it will be an overwhelming deception. When the king of the north goes forth to destroy MANY, I won't be at all surprised if the false Christ was telling him this must be done in order to subdue the nations and bring them under the reign of the false Christ for the millennium.

BUT Daniel tells us in 12:1-- the true Messiah rises up and delivers His people.