Miller arrived at his view contextually and historically:
Saw 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 as commentary on Daniel 8:11-13.
(Froom's thesis that his view of "the daily" was tied to his mistaken 666 idea is not valid; no logical dependence.)
J. N. Andrews saw "the daily" as an evil, desolating power; all early pioneers unanimous in that view.
James White supported pioneer view (see his Sermons on the Coming and Kingdom of Our Lord [1870], pp. 108-125).
All survivors of pioneer days united in opposing Conradi's view: Haskell, Loughborough, Smith, even Ellen White. The vigor of their opposition indicated conviction it would eventually scuttle 1844 and the sanctuary doctrine (as Cottrell has now done; cf. his February 9, 2002 booklet, The "Sanctuary Doctrine"-Asset or Liability?, San Diego Adventist Forum).
Conradi's "new view" grew out of his opposition to the 1888 message and his identification of Luther as herald of "the third angel's message in verity." Displaces Jones' and Waggoner's concept of righteousness by faith (The Founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination, pp. 60-62).
Conradi foremost despiser of the 1888 message at Minneapolis (Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 248; 1972 ed.).
Acknowledged long-standing opposition to Ellen White.
His later apostasy an outgrowth of his "new view;" could not escape its logic.
E. J. Waggoner abandoned confidence in Ellen White upon acceptance of Conradi's view: "Early Writings most clearly and decidedly declares for the old view," he said. "O. A. Johnson shows most clearly that the Testimonies uphold the view taught by Smith" (Letter, Nov. 22, 1909). Beginning of Waggoner's serious downfall.
Waggoner taught the "new view" to Prescott, Prescott to Daniells; both sought to win W. C. White, to his mother's dismay.
Opposing Early Writings pp. 74, 75, Daniells declares it "an imperfect statement." One source of his difficulty in maintaining pro-Spirit of Prophecy image at the1919 Bible Conference.
Daniells and Prescott swung almost entire leadership and college teachers to the "new view." H. M. S. Richards Sr. was the prominent evangelist to use Smith's Daniel and Revelation.
The 1945 revision of Smith's book forced restudy of "the daily."
The revisers unanimous in accepting "new view," yet could not force Smith posthumously to teach what he did not believe.
Result: the pioneer view reappears, but with added historical support for 508 A.D. as start of 1290 years.
Ellen White and "the daily."
Encyclopedia article cites Daniells reporting that she offered no objection to the "new view," thus suggesting she supported it. Being an ardent believer in the "new view" himself, he may have misunderstood her. But no evidence supports the opinion that she changed her view.
F. C. Gilbert, Hebrew scholar, reports she told him on June 8, 1910 that the agitation of the new view was a "scheme of the devil" (cf. his "Report of Interview"). In 1908 she told Prescott that God permitted the view of the pioneers, was not "a mistake." Gilbert being ardent believer in the "old view," could he have misunderstood her also? Possibly, but his own view was based on Hebrew linguistics, not Ellen White statements. Very much more positive in his quotes attributed to her than was Daniells; he recorded his interview the day following, whereas Daniells waited some decades. Gilbert's image not impaired by any reputed doubts regarding Ellen White.
Her 1910 counsels (1SM 164-168) do not settle the issue one way or the other:
She deplores controversy, but especially regrets agitation of "new view."
"Silence is eloquence" is not endorsement of "new view;" never enjoined "silence" while the pioneer view was taught during all those decades.
Don't use "my writings" to "settle" the issue; advises brethren to get together, study it out from the Bible, come to agreement on biblical, linguistic grounds (does not mean she was neutral).
Nothing in these 1910 counsels discourages further careful study of this issue in times of crisis such as the present "sanctuary" opposition.
The general tenor of her life ministry: support the leading of the Lord in the basic teachings of the pioneers in our early days.
W. H. Olson argues forcefully that the "new view" logically requires repudiation of Ellen White for it dissolves the 1844 position: "The whole 1844 structure falls hopelessly apart" (2300 Day Prophecy, pp. 44, 51, 52).
No support for the new view in Ellen White's writings; her only specific statement (EW 74, 75) supports pioneer view; repeatedly deplores agitation of the "new view;" also deplores harshness in defending the "old view." Her advice: study the Bible as honest Christians, settle it there; wanted Gilbert to help the brethren understand.
Recognizes that one view is true, the other false, for there is a view that she called "the correct view," "the true meaning of the daily'" (EW 74; 1SM 164); therefore is not meaningless trivia.
Agitation of new view is what created needless, unfortunate controversy that never existed prior to Conradi's view (1SM 164-168).
Tension inevitable as the two views are diametrically opposite:
Pioneers see "the daily" as the work of Satan, the evil of paganism exalted and absorbed in something worse-papalism.
"New view" sees "the daily" as the work of Christ; His High Priestly ministry successfully removed by Satan. No two views of anything could be further apart.
Superficial reading of Daniel 8:11-13 appears to lean to the "new view," largely due to prejudice created by pro-Antiochus translators; careful regard for Hebrew HA TAMID in 11:31 and 12:11, 12 raises apparently insurmountable problems with that view (cf. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4, p. 881).