Just found something today. As it turns out, I think my hunch about the 1913 F. M. Wilcox "Trinity" statement being a counter reaction to Canright's accusations, were correct after all. For those who did not read the original blog, it is Another perspective of the 1913 F. M. Wilcox "Trinity" statement.
The new discovery, is an article appearing in the April 8, 1913 edition of "Signs of the Times" entitled "Garbled Statements of Facts". The following is a portion of that article.
"A CORRESPONDENT sends us a copy of the Louisville Christian Observer of February 12, containing an article on the Seventh-day Adventists. It aims to set forth the views of Seventh-day Adventists, not from their own published statements so much, but statements from a disappointed, ambitious man who felt that his ability was not sufficiently recognized, and who apostatized. ..." [Canright]
"After confessing that it took him twenty-eight years to learn that he was in error, he claims to set forth the belief of Seventh-day Adventists, in a book which he publishes...." ["Adventism Renounced"]
"He perhaps tells us truly what he believed once, but he does not rightly represent the denomination. For instance, he declares that among the chief doctrinal points' of Seventh-day Adventists are "rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity; materiality of all things; that the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with the writings of Mrs. White; that when Christ comes only 144,000 out of all then living will be saved, and all those will be Seventh-day Adventists. '' Now in the sense in which these are set forth they are not true...
"The best way to understand just what Seventh-day Adventists believe is to read just what they have to say. All of the great fundamental Scriptural views of the denomination are given each year in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, and these are taught as the editors understand the Bible to teach them...."
"All that Seventh-day Adventists ask at all is that fair examination shall be given of their teachings." [all emphasis supplied]
The short story is that someone sent a copy of "Christian Observer" article to the editor, M. C. Wilcox. Wilcox is obviously distraught about Canright's negative accusations, including the "rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity." Now, it is common knowledge that M. C. Wilcox always considered himself non-Trinitarian based on his published statements into the late 1930's.
Therefore, in what "sense" are Canright's accusations "not true"? Evidently, M. C. Wilcox believed that people understood Canright to be accusing SDA's of rejecting the Deity of Christ, and possibly the existence of the Holy Spirit (something SDA's have never done).
M. C. Wilcox's "Signs" article appeared in April, 1913, while his brother's "Trinity" statement of belief appeared in the October RH the same year. My guess is they discussed the issue, even at some length. This is a huge piece of evidence for the argument that F. M. Wilcox was using the Trinity "term" loosely, and in a generic sense, and NOT as defined by standard church creeds. This appears to be the most reasonable explanation insofar as even Froom refused to use this as "early SDA" evidence of Trinitarian belief.