Comments Regarding Unusual Statements
Found In Ellen G. White's
Writings
Introduction: Among the 100,000 pages of Ellen G. White's
writings, some have pointed to several statements that are difficult to
understand. A few of these statements are perplexing only because they have
been lifted from their immediate contexts. Other statements pose problems for
those who believe God's messengers are infallible, their predictions
unalterable, and that their words and expressions are communicated verbatim by
the Holy Spirit. Seventh-day Adventists believe that such views are
incompatible with what is observed in Scripture. They are certainly counter to
what Ellen White claimed for either herself or her writings. One may also find
statements that seem to defy a ready explanation or lack current scientific
confirmation. Regarding such, we are reminded of the following statement
concerning supposed difficulties in the Scriptures:
"While God has given ample evidence for faith, He will never remove all
excuse for unbelief. All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find
them. And those who refuse to accept and obey God's Word until every objection
has been removed, and there is no longer an opportunity for doubt, will never
come to the light" (The Great Controversy, p. 527).
Statements Taken Out of Context
"Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should
never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved."
A closer look at Ellen G. White's cautions regarding this subject
reveals that, in context, she is not speaking against the certainty of a
believer's present standing with God. She is warning against the presumptuous
"once saved, always saved" teaching of eternal security--those who claim "I am
saved" while continuing to transgress the law of God. Here is her full
statement:
"Peter's fall was not instantaneous, but gradual. Self-confidence
led him to the belief that he was saved, and step after step was taken in the
downward path, until he could deny his Master. Never can we safely put
confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure
against temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their
conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This
is misleading. Everyone should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even
when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not
beyond the reach of temptation. God's Word declares, 'Many shall be
purified, and made white, and tried' (Dan. 12:10). Only he who endures the
trial will receive the crown of life (James 1:12)" (Christ's Object
Lessons, p. 155, emphasis supplied).
That Ellen White understood the proper basis for true Christian
assurance is evidenced by the following remark she made before the church's
General Conference session:
"Each one of you may know for yourself that you have a living Saviour,
that He is your helper and your God. You need not stand where you say, 'I do
not know whether I am saved.' Do you believe in Christ as your personal
Saviour? If you do, then rejoice" (General Conference Bulletin, April
10, 1901).
To a woman who was struggling with doubts Ellen White wrote:
"The message from God to me for you is 'Him that cometh unto me, I will
in no wise cast out' (John 6:37). If you have nothing else to plead before God
but this one promise from your Lord and Saviour, you have the assurance that
you will never, never be turned away. It may seem to you that you are hanging
upon a single promise, but appropriate that one promise, and it will open to
you the whole treasure house of the riches of the grace of Christ. Cling to
that promise and you are safe. 'Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast
out.' Present this assurance to Jesus, and you are as safe as though inside the
city of God" (Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 175).
"I do not claim to be a prophetess."
Why does the Seventh-day Adventist church believe that Ellen G. White
received the gift of prophecy when she said that she did not claim to be a
prophetess? The misuse often made of this Ellen White statement is an
illustration of the importance of proper context. Here, in her own words, is
what Ellen White did and did not mean by her statement:
"Some have stumbled over the fact that I said I did not claim to be a
prophet; and they have asked, Why is this?
"I have had no claims to make, only that I am instructed that I am the
Lord's messenger; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive
His word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord
Jesus.
"Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have
ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a
prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be
His messenger. 'Your work,' He instructed me, 'is to bear My word. Strange
things will arise, and in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the
erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to
reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will
make My Word open to you. It shall not be as a strange language. In the true
eloquence of simplicity, with voice and pen, the messages that I give shall be
heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit and My power
shall be with you.' . . .
"Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who
boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and
because my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies. . . .
"To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If
others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has
covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger, sent to
bear a message from the Lord to His people, and to take up work in any line
that He points out.
"When I was last in Battle Creek, I said before a large congregation
that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Twice I referred to this matter,
intending each time to make the statement, 'I do not claim to be a prophetess.'
If I spoke otherwise than this, let all now understand that what I had in mind
to say was that I do not claim the title of prophet or prophetess" (Review
and Herald, July 26, 1906, reprinted in Selected Messages, book 1,
pp. 31-35).
"During the discourse, I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess.
Some were surprised at this statement, and as much is being said in regard to
it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have
never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate
myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are
often a reproach to the cause of Christ.
"My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as
a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people" (Letter 55,
1905; quoted in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 35, 36).
Unusual Statements Regarding Scientific Issues
Amalgamation of man and beast
Some have charged that Ellen White wrote in 1864 (and republished in
1870) that humans once cohabited with animals and that their offspring produced
certain races that exist today. The statement reads: "But if there was one sin
above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was
the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God,
and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that
powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him."
[1]
No dictionary has ever used "amalgamation" to describe the cohabitation
of man with beast. The primary use of the word describes the fusion of metals,
the union of different elements such as in making tooth cements.
Nineteenth-century usage included the mixing of diverse races.
Granted, her statement could appear ambiguous: Does she mean
"amalgamation of man with beast" or "amalgamation of man and of beast"? Often,
repetition of the preposition is omitted in similar construction.
[2]
On other occasions, when Mrs. White used the word "amalgamation," she
used it metaphorically, comparing faithful believers and worldlings.
[3] She also used it to
describe the origin of poisonous plants and other irregularities in the
biological world: "Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan
planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which
meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great
garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. . . . All
tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his
ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares."
[4]
Recognizing that Satan has been an active agent in the corrupting of
God's plan for man, beast, plants, etc., we can better understand what Ellen
White may have meant when she described the results of amalgamation. That which
"defaced the image of God" in man and that which "confused the species [of
animals]" has been the handiwork of Satan with the cooperation of humans. Such
"amalgamation of man and [of] beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men," becomes
understandable.
Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid
animal-human relationship. She did speak of "species of animals" and "races of
men" but not any kind of amalgam of animals with human beings.
We recognize, however, that serious students of Ellen White's writings
differ on what she meant by "amalgamation." "The burden of proof rests on those
who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term."
[5]
For further study of this issue, see "Amalgamation" in the
Reference
Library.
Notes
[1] Spiritual
Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64. "Every species of animal which God had created were
preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were
the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there
has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men" (page 75).
[2] "We might
speak of the scattering of man and beast over the earth, but we do not
therefore mean that previously man and beast were fused in one mass at one
geographical spot. We simply mean the scattering of man over the earth and the
scattering of beasts over the earth, though the original location of the two
groups might have been on opposite sides of the earth. In other words, the
scattering of man and of beast" (Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her
Critics, p. 308).
[3] "Those who
profess to be followers of Christ, should be living agencies, cooperating with
heavenly intelligences; but by union with the world, the character of God's
people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine
gold becomes dim" (Review and Herald, Aug. 23, 1892; see also The
Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 144 and The Upward Look, p. 318).
[4] Selected
Messages, book 2, p. 288.
[5] Nichol,
Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 308.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the
Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 491, 492.]
Astronomical statements
Attention has been called to statements that seem to show that Ellen
White made grievous errors regarding scientific issues. Prophets are not called
to update encyclopedias or dictionaries. Nor are prophets (or anyone else) to
be made "an offender by a word" (Isa. 29:21). If prophets are to be held to the
highest standards of scientific accuracy (every few years these "standards"
change, even for the experts), we would have cause to reject Isaiah for
referring to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12) and John for writing
that he saw "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" (Rev.
7:1).
Some point to the phrase, "As the moon and the stars of our solar system
shine by the reflected light of the sun," charging that Ellen White was
untrustworthy in scientific matters. [1] But most readers would recognize this use of
"stars" for "planets of our solar system" as a non-technical description easily
understood by laymen.
Some have declared Ellen White was in error when she allegedly said that
she had visited a "world which had seven moons," [2] and that the planets visited were Jupiter and
Saturn. In point of fact, she never named the "world which had seven moons."
But there is more to the story.
Less than three months after she and James were married in 1846, she had
a vision at the Curtis home in Topsham, Maine, in the presence of Joseph Bates.
Although Bates had seen Ellen White in vision on several occasions, he still
had doubts about her prophetic gift; but through the Topsham vision he was
convinced that "the work is of God." [3] James White reported that, in this vision, Mrs.
White was "guided to the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After
she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their moons, etc.
It is well known, that she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one
question in relation to the planets, before she had this vision."
[4]
What was it that convinced Bates, the old sea captain and amateur
astronomer, that Ellen White was "of God"? After the vision, she described what
she had seen. Knowing that she had no background in astronomy, Bates said,
"This is of the Lord."
Obviously, what Bates heard corresponded to his knowledge of what
telescopes showed in 1846. Almost certainly this vision was given in Bates's
presence to give him added confidence in Ellen White's ministry. If she had
mentioned the number of moons that modern telescopes reveal, it seems clear
that Bates's doubts would have been confirmed. [5] (See
"Avoid Making
the Counsels 'Prove' Things They Were Never Intended to Prove.")
Notes
[1] Education, p.
14 (same statement, The Desire of Ages, p. 465).
[2] Early
Writings, p. 40. This vision was first described in the Broadside, To
those who are receiving the seal of the living God, first published Jan.
31, 1849.
[3] A Word to
the Little Flock, p. 21, cited in F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her
Critics, p. 581.
[4] Ibid., p. 22.
Ellen White wrote: "I was wrapped in a vision of God's glory, and for the first
time had a view of other planets" (Life Sketches, p. 97; see also
Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 83). No evidence exists that this is the
same vision described in Early Writings, p. 40. See pages 144, 145.
[5] Further
information regarding this 1846 vision is found in Loughborough, The Great
Second Advent Movement, pp. 257-260. For a discussion of how Loughborough's
memory of his conversation with Bates many years earlier fits into this
memorable moment for Bates, see Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics,
pp. 93-101.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the
Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho.: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 490, 491.
Death from cosmetics?
In an article describing unhealthful fashions, Ellen G. White included
the following statement in an article regarding dangerous fashionable fads:
"Many are ignorantly injuring their health and endangering their life by
using cosmetics. They are robbing the cheeks of the glow of health, and then to
supply the deficiency use cosmetics. When they become heated in the dance the
poison is absorbed by the pores of the skin, and is thrown into the blood. Many
lives have been sacrificed by this means alone" (The Health Reformer,
October 1871).
Some have wondered how the use of cosmetics alone could prove fatal. In
today's world, with government testing and consumer safety guidelines, adverse
reactions to cosmetics are essentially limited to skin irritation and
allergies. But this was not the case in the 19th century, as noted in this
consumer bulletin issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration: "The
European cosmetic known as ceruse was used faithfully--and fatally, because it
was mainly white lead--by wealthy women from the second century until well into
the 19th century to make their faces look fashionably pale" (Dori Stehlin,
FDA Consumer, November 1991; revised May 1995).
In 1871, when Ellen White prepared the article in question, "enameling"
was the latest cosmetic fad, "which is nothing less than painting the face with
lead paint, and for this purpose are used the poisonous salts of lead" (Sara
Chase, M.D. in The Health Reformer, October 1871, p. 125). Another
deadly concoction was vermilion, made from mercuric sulphide. In such an
environment, it is not surprising that Ellen White should alert her readers to
the real life and health threats posed by such products.
Physical and spiritual dangers of masturbation or "self-abuse"
Few topics have generated more ridicule from critics than Ellen White's
statements regarding "self-abuse," "solitary vice," "self-indulgence," "secret
vice," "moral pollution," etc. Ellen White never used the term
"masturbation."
Her first reference to this subject appeared in a 64-page pamphlet,
An Appeal to Mothers, April 1864, nine months after her first
comprehensive health vision. Primarily devoted to masturbation, pages 5 to 34
were from her own pen; the remainder consisted of quotations from medical
authorities. [1]
Ellen White did not say that all, or even most, of the potentially
serious consequences of masturbation would happen to any one individual. Nor
did she say that the worst possible degree of a serious consequence would
happen to most indulgers.
Modern research indicates that Ellen White's strong statements can be
supported when she is properly understood. The general view today, however, is
that masturbation is normal and healthy.
Two medical specialists have suggested a link between masturbation and
physical abnormalities due to zinc-deficiency. Dr. David Horrobin, an M.D. and
Ph.D. from Oxford University, states:
"The amount of zinc in semen is such that one ejaculation may get rid of
all the zinc that can be absorbed from the intestines in one day. This has a
number of consequences. Unless the amount lost is replaced by an increased
dietary intake, repeated ejaculation may lead to a real zinc deficiency with
various problems developing, including impotence.
"It is even possible, given the importance of zinc for the brain, that
19th century moralists were correct when they said that repeated masturbation
could make one mad!" [2]
More recent research has confirmed the critical role of zinc as a
principal protector of the immune system, with a host of physical illnesses
attributable to zinc-deficiency.
Two professionals in the area of clinical psychology and family therapy
have compared Ellen White's statements on masturbation with current medical
knowledge. [3] Dr.
Richard Nies defended Ellen White's general counsel on masturbation, making
four main points:
(1) Masturbation leads to "mental, moral, and physical deterioration. .
. . It is not the stimulation, per se, that is wrong. It's what's going on in .
. . [persons] when they're becoming self-referenced and self-centered."
(2) Masturbation "breaks down the finer sensitivities of our nervous
system. . . . It is not difficult to see in terms of the electrical mediation
of our nervous system, how disease becomes a natural result of individuals who
have placed their own gratification at the center of their being. . . . Disease
is the natural result of this."
(3) Masturbation is a predisposition that can be "inherited and passed
on and transmitted from one generation to another, even leading to degeneration
of the race."
(4) In dealing with others, especially children, Ellen White's counsel
lies in the direction of dealing with the consequences, of showing them that we
should be training for love and eternity, not self-gratification with its
terrible consequences. Dr. Nies concluded his paper, "Self-gratification is
synonymous with destruction."
Alberta Mazat observed that Ellen White's concern regarding masturbation
was primarily on the mental consequences rather than the "purely physical act.
She was more concerned with thought processes, attitudes, fantasies, etc."
Mazat quoted Ellen White's references to the fact that "the effects are not the
same on all minds," that "impure thoughts seize and control the imagination,"
and that the mind "takes pleasure in contemplating the scenes which awake base
passion."
Mazat further noted that some may be embarrassed by Ellen White's strong
statements regarding masturbation. However, many of Mrs. White's other
statements also seemed "unrealistic and exaggerated before science corroborated
them, for example, cancer being caused by a virus, the dangers of smoking,
overeating, and the overuse of fats, sugar, and salt, to name a few. . . . It
seems worthwhile to remind ourselves that medical knowledge at any point is not
perfect." [4]
Looked at from another perspective, God always upholds the ideal for His
people through His messengers. However one reacts to Ellen White's specific
counsel, clearly masturbation was not what God had in mind when He created man
and woman, united them in marriage, and then instructed them to be fruitful and
multiply. God's ideal in regard to sexuality is the loving relationship that
exists in marriage between husband and wife. Anything else, including
masturbation, falls far short of God's ideal.
Notes
[1] An Appeal
to Mothers was reprinted in 1870 as part of a larger work, A Solemn
Appeal Relative to Solitary Vice and Abuses and Excesses of the Marriage
Relation. A facsimile reprint appears in the Appendix to A Critique of
Prophetess of Health (by the Ellen G. White Estate).
[2] David F.
Horrobin, M.D., Ph.D., Zinc (St. Albans, Vt.: Vitabooks, Inc., 1981), p.
8. See also Carl C. Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D., Zinc and Other
Micro-Nutrients (New Canaan, Conn.: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1978), p.
45.
[3] Richard Nies,
Ph.D. (Experimental Psychology, UCLA, 1964; equivalent Ph.D. in clinical
psychology, including oral exam, but died during dissertation preparation),
Lecture, "Give Glory to God," Glendale, Calif., n.d.; Alberta Mazat, M.S.W.
(Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda,
Calif.), Monograph, "Masturbation" (43 pp.), Biblical Research Institute.
[4] Mazat,
Monograph, "Masturbation."
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the
Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 493, 494, with additional comments.]
Volcanology
Some charge that Mrs. White's statements regarding the cause of
volcanoes reflected the myths and fanciful thinking of age-old theories. Her
writings contain eight relevant concepts [1] that have been debated since they first appeared
in 1864. [2]
This list includes: (1) Formation of coal beds is linked to the Flood;
(2) Coal produces oil; (3) Subterranean fires are fueled by the burning of both
coal and oil; (4) Water added to the subterranean fires produces explosions,
thus earthquakes; (5) Earthquake and volcanic action are linked together as
products of these underground fires; (6) Both limestone and iron ore are
connected with the burning coal beds and oil deposits; (7) Air is involved in
the super heat; (8) Deposits of coal and oil are found after the subterranean
fires have died out. [3]
Many theories abound as to the causes of volcanoes and earthquakes and
the formation of oil and coal. Most earth scientists base their ideas on the
plate-tectonic theory. Nothing in Ellen White's comments rules out that theory.
Further, nothing in her writings states that all volcanoes are the
product of burning coal fields or that all earthquakes are caused by
subterranean fires. When she links earthquakes and volcanoes together, one
immediately thinks of the Pacific Ocean "ring of fire" and its high potential
for disasters from both.
However, notable scientists have confirmed Ellen White's observations.
Otto Stutzer's Geology of Coal documented that "subterranean fires in
coal beds are ignited through spontaneous combustion, resulting in the melting
of nearby rocks that are classed as pseudo volcanic deposits."
[4] Stutzer listed
several examples of such activity, including "a burning mountain," an outcrop
that "lasted over 150 years," and "the heat from one burning coal bed [that]
was used for heating greenhouses in that area from 1837 to 1868."
[5] Modern confirmation
exists for the igniting of coal and oil with its sulfur constituent "seen
around the eruptions of hot springs, geysers, and volcanic fumaroles."
[6]
References to rocks "which overlie the coal [and] have suffered
considerable alteration because of the fires, being sintered and partly
melted," correlate with Ellen White's statement that "rocks are heated,
limestone is burned, and iron ore melted." [7] Further research in the western United States
has produced conclusions and language very similar to Mrs. White's writings of
a century earlier: "The melted rock resembles common furnace clinker or
volcanic lava." [8]
One last charge has been that melted iron ore is not found in connection
with burning coal and oil deposits. However, a United States Geological Survey
paper records the discovery of hematite (an iron ore) that had been "formed in
some way through the agency of the burning coal." [9]
The suggestion that Ellen White was wholly dependent upon existing
sources for her scientific information is without merit, because some of this
verification only became known many years after her death. Further, "It is much
more unlikely that she resorted to the published ideas of contemporary
Creationists on the subject, since their views were relics of wild cosmological
speculations." [10]
Notes
[1] See Warren H.
Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 1," Ministry, August
1977, pp. 9-12.
[2] Spiritual
Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 79-80 (1864); see also The Spirit of Prophecy,
vol. 1, pp. 82, 83 (1870); Signs of the Times, Mar. 13, 1879;
Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 108, 109 (1890); Manuscript 21, 1902, cited
in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, pp. 946, 947.
[3] Johns, "Ellen
G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 1," Ministry, August, 1977, p.
6.
[4] Otto
Stutzer,Geology of Coal, translated by Adolph Noe (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1940), pp. 309, 310, cited in ibid., p. 19.
[5] Johns, "Ellen
G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 2," Ministry, October 1977, p.
20.
[6] Ibid. See also Thomas
Gold, Profesor Emeritus of Astromomy at Cornell University, "Earthquakes,
Gases,and Earthquake Prediction" (1994), at www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Earthq.html
[7] Stutzer, Geology
of Coal, p. 310; Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 108, cited in Johns,
"Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 2," p. 20.
[8] E. E. Thurlow,
"Western Coal," Mining Engineering, 26 (1974), pp. 30-33, cited in
ibid., p. 21.
[9] G. Sherburne
Rogers, "Baked Shale and Slag Formed by the Burning of Coal Beds," U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper, 108-A (1918), cited in ibid., p.
21.
[10] Johns,
"Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 2," p. 22. "The coal mines of
Germany have become a veritable gold mine in a study of Ellen White's
scientific declarations, indicating the intermingling of the divine and human
in a unique way" (ibid.).
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the
Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 492, 493.]
Wasp Waists Inherited?
Ellen G. White often addressed the subject of how practical Christianity
relates to fashion. She pointed out the duty of dressing healthfully and not
being a slave to the dictates of "style." Like other health reformers of her
day, Ellen White protested vigorously against the unhealthful practice of
"tight-lacing" associated with the wearing of corsets. She noted:
"The corsets which are again being generally worn to compress the waist
is one of the most serious features in woman's dress. Health and life are being
sacrificed to carry out a fashion that is devoid of real beauty and comfort.
The compression of the waist weakens the muscles of the respiratory organs. It
hinders the process of digestion. The heart, liver, lungs, spleen, and stomach,
are crowded into a small compass, not allowing room for the healthful action of
these organs. . . .
"By lacing, the internal organs of women are crowded out of their
positions. There is scarcely a woman that is thoroughly healthy. The majority
of women have numerous ailments. Many are troubled with weaknesses of most
distressing nature. These fashionably dressed women cannot transmit good
constitutions to their children. Some women have naturally small waists. But
rather than regard such forms as beautiful, they should be viewed as defective.
These wasp waists may have been transmitted to them from their mothers, as the
result of their indulgence in the sinful practice of tight-lacing, and in
consequence of imperfect breathing. Poor children born of these miserable
slaves of fashion have diminished vitality, and are predisposed to take on
disease. The impurities retained in the system in consequence of imperfect
breathing are transmitted to their offspring" (Review and Herald,
October 31, 1871).
Some have questioned Ellen White's credibility for suggesting the
possibility that some women may have inherited small waists from their
mothers--as if she were claiming divine revelation on this point. Her cautious,
qualified assertion ("may have inherited") indicates that she was not claiming
revelation here. Even if she was mistaken in her understanding on how some
persons may have acquired their physical deformities, it does not gainsay the
health principles she was advocating, or the wisdom of her counsel that women
should abandon such unhealthful practices. (See
"Avoid Making
the Counsels 'Prove' Things They Were Never Intended to Prove.")
Wigs and Insanity?
In the October 1871 issue of The Health Reformer,
[1] Ellen White wrote of
"hurtful indulgences" that militate against the highest interests and happiness
of women. Among these "indulgences" she included wigs that, "covering the base
of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves centering in the brain." As a
result of "following this deforming fashion," she said, "many have lost their
reason, and become hopelessly insane."
In the context of today's comfortable wigs, critics tend to ridicule
this statement. But Mrs. White was referring to an entirely different product.
The wigs she described were "monstrous bunches of curled hair, cotton,
seagrass, wool, Spanish moss, and other multitudinous abominations."
[2] One woman said that
her chignon generated "an unnatural degree of heat in the back part of the
head" and produced "a distracting headache just as long as it was worn."
Another Health Reformer article (quoting from the Marshall
Statesman and the Springfield Republican) described the perils of
wearing "jute switches"--wigs made from dark, fibrous bark. Apparently these
switches were often infested with "jute bugs," small insects that burrowed
under the scalp. One woman reported that her head became raw, and her hair
began to fall out. Her entire scalp "was perforated with the burrowing
parasites." "The lady . . . is represented as nearly crazy from the terrible
suffering, and from the prospect of the horrible death which physicians do not
seem able to avert." [3]
With reports such as this in the public press, it is easy to understand
why Ellen White would warn women against the possible dangers of wearing wigs
and trying to "keep pace with changing fashion, merely to create a sensation."
[4]
Notes
[1] The Health
Reformer, October 1871, pp. 120, 121.
[2] Ibid., July
1867.
[3] Ibid., January
1871.
[4] Ibid., October
1871.
Unfulfilled Predictions?
England to Declare War During the U.S. Civil War?
Did Ellen G. White predict that England would declare war against the
United States? Here is the context of her comment:
"England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present
weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing
the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should
commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations
would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active
preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our
nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for
the advantage she has taken of them in the past, and the injustice done them. A
portion of the Queen's subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break
their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment
to improve her opportunities to exercise her power, and humble our nation. When
England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to
serve, and there will be general war, general confusion" (Testimonies for
the Church, vol. 1, p. 259).
Note the conditional character of these statements: "She fears,
if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home." "But
if England thinks it will pay." Then follows the sentence: "When England
does declare war. . . ." It is evident that Mrs. White is here using the word
"when" as a synonym for "if," which is good English. In fact, if we do not thus
understand the word "when" in this connection, we have an unusual situation--a
series of problematical "ifs" is followed by a simple statement that England is
going to declare war. Thus Mrs. White's last sentence would make pointless her
preceding sentences.
A similar use of the word "when" is found on the preceding page in her
work: "When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen, then will He
accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned." No one will argue that
the word "when" in this connection introduces a simple statement concerning a
future fact that will undebatably happen.
An inspired parallel to this "if" and "when" construction is found in
Jeremiah 42:10-19. The prophet speaks to Israel about abiding in Palestine
rather than going down into Egypt:
"If ye will still abide in this land. . . ." Verse 10.
"But if ye
say, We will not dwell in this land. . . ." Verse 13.
"If ye wholly set
your faces to enter into Egypt. . . ." Verse 15.
"When ye shall enter into
Egypt . . . ." Verse 18.
It is evident that the phrase "when ye shall enter into Egypt" is
synonymous with "if ye shall enter into Egypt."
With the clause "when England does declare war," understood as
synonymous with "if England does declare war," the statement changes from a
prediction to a statement of mere possibility, but a possibility, however,
whose full potentialities many might not realize.
[Adapted from Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics,
pp. 122, 123.]
Jerusalem Never to Be Rebuilt?
Ellen G. White wrote in 1851 that "old Jerusalem never would be built
up." [1] By itself, the
statement looks unsustainable. But when the setting is reconstructed, we find
Mrs. White counseling the growing Adventist group that both time-setting
[2] and the "age-to-come"
notion [3] were
incompatible with Biblical truth. She emphasized that the Old Testament
prophecies regarding the establishment of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine were
conditional on obedience and forfeited by disobedience. Unfulfilled prophecies
would be fulfilled to "true Israel" as unfolded in the New Testament text.
Thus the popular movement of the 1840s and 1850s to promote a Zionist
state in Palestine was not a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and not a quest
in which Adventists should become involved. Her warnings and instruction were
designed to turn the interest away from Palestine and toward the work God had
opened up before them.
In a September 1850 vision she saw that it was a "great error" to
believe that "it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a
work to do there before the Lord comes. . . ; for those who think that they are
yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds there, and their means will be
withheld from the cause of present truth to get themselves and others there."
[4]
Less than a year later, August 1851, she wrote with greater emphasis
"that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his
utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in
the gathering time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the
present work of the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary
preparation for the day of the Lord." [5]
How did Ellen White's readers understand this statement? That there was
no light in the popular "age-to-come" teaching, that there is no Biblical
significance in the Jews' returning to Palestine, that Jerusalem will never be
rebuilt in a future millennial period. She was not talking about a possible
political rebuilding of Jerusalem but of a prophetically significant rebuilding
of Old Jerusalem. To continue to think that way, she emphasized, was to sink
further into Satan's deceptions and away from present duty.
For further study of this topic, see Julia Neuffer,
"The Gathering of
Israel," in the
Reference
Library.
Notes
[1] Early
Writings, p. 75. This sentence appears in the chapter, "The Gathering
Time," which combined two visions and some additional lines. The first vision,
Sept. 23, 1850, dealt with the "gathering time" of "Israel," the dates on the
Millerite 1843 chart, the "daily," timesetting, and the error of going to Old
Jerusalem. The second vision, June 21, 1851, focused on the third angel's
message, time-setting, and Old Jerusalem's not being built up.
[2] Many former
Millerites were setting various dates for the return of Jesus, with 1850 and
1851 being the latest dates for the end of the 2300-day/year prophecy. Although
Sabbatarian Adventists generally were immune from time-setting, Hiram Edson and
Joseph Bates advocated 1850 and 1851, respectively. James White kept their
views out of Present Truth, the Advent Review, and the Review
and Herald.
[3] With several
variations, age-to-come exponents, led by Joseph Marsh, O. R. L. Crosier, and
George Storrs, believed that the Second Advent would usher in the millennial
kingdom on earth during which time the world would be converted under the reign
of Christ, with the Jews playing a leading role. This group closely related to
the Literalists (British Adventists) who had believed that in the 1840s the
literal Jews would welcome their Messiah (Christ) in Palestine, thus fulfilling
Old Testament prophecies with Jerusalem becoming Christ's capital during the
millennium. The majority of the Millerites had rejected this aspect of their
Adventist theology, calling it Judaism. (See Josiah Litch, "The Rise and
Progress of Adventism," The Advent Shield and Review, May 1844, p. 92,
cited in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students' Source Book, p. 513. The
first defectors from early Seventh-day Adventists were H. S. Case and C. P.
Russell who had, among other concepts, embraced the "age-to-come" theory. See
The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v. "Messenger Party."
[4] Early
Writings, p. 75.
[5] Early
Writings, pp. 75, 76.
[Excerpt from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the
Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 488, 489.]
Some in 1856 Alive When Jesus Returns?
Concerning a conference in 1856 Ellen White declared: "I was shown the
company present at the conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some
subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the
earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.' " All who were alive then are
now dead. Does this prediction mean that Mrs. White is a false prophet?
Numerous statements made by
Ellen White in the decades following the 1856 vision demonstrate her clear
understanding that there is an implied conditional quality to God's promises
and threatenings--as Jeremiah declared--and that the conditional feature in
forecasts regarding Christ's Advent involves the state of heart of Christ's
followers. The following statement, written in 1883, is especially relevant on
this point:
"The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very
short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has
continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our
Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the Word of the Lord
failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings
of God are alike conditional. . . .
"It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus
delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years
in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and
establish them there a holy, healthy, people. But those to whom it was first
preached, went not in 'because of unbelief.' Their hearts were filled with
murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with
them.
"For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient
Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of
modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of
God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife
among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and
sorrow so many years" (Ms 4, 1883, quoted in Evangelism, pp. 695,
696).
We can better understand Mrs. White's prediction of 1856 by examining it
in the light of the conditional character of prophetic promises found in the
Scriptures. For further study on this topic see
"The Predictions of
the 1856 Vision," in the
Reference
Library.
Alleged Historical Errors
While many events of the past were shown to her, neither Ellen White nor
her son ever claimed that every historical detail mentioned in her works was
provided by the Lord in vision. Ellen White says that she used "facts" which
were "well known and universally acknowledged." (See The Great
Controversy, pp. xiii, xiv.) She wrote, for example, "In 1816 the American
Bible Society was founded" (The Great Controversy, p. 287). There is no
reason to believe that this type of information was supplied in vision.
W. C. White [Ellen White's son] states:
"The framework of the great temple of truth sustained by her writings
was presented to her clearly in vision. In some features of this work,
information was given in detail. Regarding some features of the revelation,
such as the features of prophetic chronology, as regards the ministration in
the sanctuary and the changes that took place in 1844, the matter was presented
to her many times and in detail many times, and this enabled her to speak very
clearly and very positively regarding the foundation pillars of our faith.
"In some of the historical matters such as are brought out in
Patriarchs and Prophets and in Acts of the Apostles, and in
Great Controversy, the main outlines were made very clear and plain to
her, and when she came to write up these topics, she was left to study the
Bible and history to get dates and geographical relations and to perfect her
description of details" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 462).
In a letter to W. W. Eastman, W. C. White declared:
"When Controversy was written, Mother never thought that the
readers would take it as authority on historical dates or use it to settle
controversy regarding details of history, and she does not now feel that it
should be used in that way" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 447).
W. C. White also wrote S. N. Haskell on the same subject, stating
that:
"We will make a great mistake if we lay aside historical research and
endeavor to settle historical questions by the use of Mother's books as an
authority when she herself does not wish them to be used in any such way" (W.
C. White to S. N. Haskell, October 31, 1912).
In making her case for the future, Ellen White built not only on the
revelations God gave her, but also on the records of the past. She made no
attempt to write an authoritative history textbook. Rather, in the words of W.
C. White, "The principal use of the passages quoted from historians was not to
make a new history, not to correct errors in history, but to use valuable
illustrations to make plain important spiritual truths" (W. C. White to L. E.
Froom, February 18, 1932).
[Excerpt from R. W. Olson, 101 Questions on the Sanctuary and on
Ellen White, pp. 48, 49. Available from the
Ellen G. White
Estate.]
Apparent Discrepancies and Contradictions
Critics of Ellen White contrast certain of her statements which appear to contradict
either herself or the Bible. Some of these "contradictions" are merely distortions
of her words by the critics; others may be accounted for by the fact that the
statement in question is only part of an idea more fully developed elsewhere
in her writings. For a helpful review of such misrepresentations, see "A Closer Look at: 'Ellen White Contradicts
the Bible Over 50 Times.'" But to attempt to prove that all the alleged
"errors" in Ellen White's writings are not actually errors, is unprofitable
for at least two reasons.
First, a person who looks for contradictions and errors in inspired
writings will always be ready to supply new difficulties to replace those that
have been removed. This has been demonstrated for centuries by those who take
delight in looking for "mistakes" in the Bible.
Speaking of such, Ellen White wrote, "All the difficulties will not
cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not
manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth" (Selected
Messages, book 1, p. 16).
Second, Seventh-day Adventists (including Ellen White herself) do not
claim that either she or other inspired persons were infallible, either in
their writing or living. Alleged discrepancies and factual errors are only
fatal to views of inspiration that demand perfection in human language and in
the human instrument presenting the divine message. Such views run counter to
what is observed in Scripture--the standard by which we are to judge our
conceptions of how God speaks.
In evaluating so-called errors, one needs to consider whether the
perceived "error" is central to the divine message, or inconsequential. Even
when it is central, we need to allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit
may "correct" the prophet in a future communication. See 2 Samuel 7:1-17 for an
example. If, in their prophetic teachings--those messages presented as
revelation from the Lord--Ellen White or any other claimant were to be found
contradicting the teaching of the Word of God, then such claims would fail the
Biblical test "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to
this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).
For further study, see
"Realize That
Prophets Are Not Verbally Inspired, Nor Are They Infallible or Inerrant."
See also "Infallibility:
Does the True Prophet Ever Err?"
"The Shut Door"
What is "the shut door" and what did Ellen White believe about it?
William Miller likened his message of the soon return of Jesus to the
"midnight cry" of the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Matt. 25:1-13).
He interpreted the ten "virgins" as those summoned to meet the returning Lord,
the "wedding" as the eternal kingdom, and the shutting of the "door" (verse 10)
as "the closing up of the mediatorial kingdom, and finishing the gospel
period"--in other words, the closing of the "door of salvation" or the close of
human probation. According to Matthew 25:10, "The bridegroom came; and they
that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut" (Matt.
25:10).
Because they expected Christ to return at the close of the 2300
prophetic days of Daniel 8:14, Millerite adventists had emphasized that
probation would close at the end of that period. Therefore, for a short period
after the disappointment of October 1844, Miller and many of his followers,
including young Ellen Harmon (later Ellen White), felt that their work of
warning sinners was finished for the world. While a majority of Millerites soon
gave up their belief that prophecy had been fulfilled in 1844, a small group
continued to hold that the time had been correct, but that they had been
mistaken in the event expected. They were convinced that the movement was of
God, that the 2300-day prophecy had been fulfilled, and that the "door"
referred to in the parable was therefore shut--whatever that might mean. Thus,
to believe in the "shut door" became equivalent to believing in the validity of
the 1844 movement as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
What is important to recognize is that the term "shut door" underwent a
change in meaning among those who saw that the 2300-day prophecy referred to a
change in Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. The "shut door" was seen
as applying to the closing of the first phase and the opening of the second and
final phase of Christ's intercession in heaven. It is erroneous to read into
all of Ellen White's "shut door" statements the initial Millerite
definition.
Ellen White maintained, and the evidence supports, that, while she and
others believed for a time that no more sinners would be converted after 1844,
she was never instructed in vision that the door of salvation was shut for the
world.
Here is Ellen White's explanation of what she believed regarding the
"shut door:"
"For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with
the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world.
This position was taken before my first vision was given me. [Emphasis
supplied. Here Ellen White states that her visions were not the source of her
belief in this Millerite error.] It was the light given me of God that
corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position.
"I am still a believer in the shut-door theory, but not in the sense in
which we at first employed the term or in which it is employed by my
opponents.
"There was a shut door in Noah's day. There was at that time a
withdrawal of the Spirit of God from the sinful race that perished in the
waters of the Flood. God Himself gave the shut-door message to Noah:
"'My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh:
yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years' (Gen. 6:3).
"There was a shut door in the days of Abraham. Mercy ceased to plead
with the inhabitants of Sodom, and all but Lot, with his wife and two
daughters, were consumed by the fire sent down from heaven.
"There was a shut door in Christ's day. The Son of God declared to the
unbelieving Jews of that generation, 'Your house is left unto you desolate'
(Matt. 23:38).
"Looking down the stream of time to the last days, the same infinite
power proclaimed through John:
"'These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the
key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man
openeth' (Rev. 3:7).
"I was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door
in 1844. All who saw the light of the first and second angels' messages and
rejected that light, were left in darkness. And those who accepted it and
received the Holy Spirit which attended the proclamation of the message from
heaven, and who afterward renounced their faith and pronounced their experience
a delusion, thereby rejected the Spirit of God, and it no longer pleaded with
them.
"Those who did not see the light, had not the guilt of its rejection. It
was only the class who had despised the light from heaven that the Spirit of
God could not reach. And this class included, as I have stated, both those who
refused to accept the message when it was presented to them, and also those
who, having received it, afterward renounced their faith. These might have a
form of godliness, and profess to be followers of Christ; but having no living
connection with God, they would be taken captive by the delusions of Satan.
These two classes are brought to view in the [first] vision--those who declared
the light which they had followed a delusion, and the wicked of the world who,
having rejected the light, had been rejected of God. No reference is made to
those who had not seen the light, and therefore were not guilty of its
rejection" (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 62-64).
For further study, see the following documents in the
Reference
Library:
"Open and Shut
Door" Article from the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia
"The 'Shut
Door' Documents," by Robert W. Olson
Miscellaneous Statements
The Apocrypha
In a document titled "A copy of E. G. White's vision which she had at
Oswego, New York," January 11, 1850, an unusual statement appears concerning
the Apocrypha, also known as "the hidden book":
"I then saw the Word of God, pure and unadulterated, and that we must
answer for the way we received the truth proclaimed from that Word. I saw that
it had been a hammer to break the flinty heart in pieces, and a fire to consume
the dross and tin, that the heart might be pure and holy. I saw that the
Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should
understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard Book, that will judge us
at the last day. I saw that heaven would be cheap enough, and that nothing was
too dear to sacrifice for Jesus, and that we must give all to enter the
kingdom" (Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 34).
If what we have is a correct copy of what she wrote, the meaning and
significance of this statement is unclear. At no subsequent time did Ellen
White make reference to the Apocrypha, call upon Adventists to study it, or
urge its reading. Nor did she include this statement in any of her
publications. Whatever one makes of the statement, it should be observed that
the Apocrypha is not described as inspired, but is contrasted with the
Scriptures which are called the "standard Book, that will judge us at the last
day."
Extra-Biblical Descriptions
The question is whether later inspired writers may include added details
about persons and events described in the Bible. Additions in terms of details,
from one privileged to view in vision scenes of Biblical history, is no more
surprising than the fact that one finds details mentioned by one Gospel writer
that are omitted by another describing the same event. Paul identifies the
Egyptian magicians by name (2 Tim. 3:8), whereas in the book of Exodus they are
nameless. Jude describes a prophecy of Enoch (Jude 14, 15) that is nowhere
recorded in Genesis. Similar insights by Ellen White complement the Biblical
record, which remains the unique, authoritative, revelation of God's will.
God's Love for Erring Children
A few have wondered about certain expressions Ellen White used in some
letters to her children in the early 1860s. In her tender love, she appealed to
their souls in many ways. In 1860 she was speaking to children between ages 6
and 13. Trying to make the big picture clear in simple language, this
33-year-old mother used language at times that was more like theological
shorthand, especially when she wrote that the Lord loves children "who try to
do right" but "wicked children God does not love." [1]
Just as we must consider some difficult Biblical texts within the total
Biblical context, we must do the same with Ellen White. For example, in
Deuteronomy 7:9, 10, we note that God "repays those who hate Him to their face,
to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him
to his face. Therefore you shall keep the commandment, the statutes, and the
judgments which I command you today, to observe them." In Psalm 11:5 we read,
"The Lord tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence
His soul hates." By themselves such statements sound harsh, but when placed in
the context of the whole Bible (including such texts as Isa. 1:18-20; Jer.
31:3; John 3:16, 17; John 14-17) their true meaning becomes clear.
Note the larger context of Ellen White's counsel to parents (1892):
"Jesus would have the fathers and mothers teach their children . . . that God
loves them, that their natures may be changed, and brought into harmony with
God. Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong;
teach them that He loves them so that it grieves His tender Spirit to see them
in transgression, because He knows they are doing injury to their souls. Do not
terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to
impress them with His unspeakable love and goodness, and thus let the glory of
the Lord be revealed before them." [2]
In other circumstances, she clearly made a difference between God's
loving a person and endorsing what that person may be doing.
[3] In clear theological
terms, she set forth the fact that character determines destiny. Even a loving
God will not refashion people's character after their death in order to redeem
them. [4]
Yet, how much theology can a six-year-old understand? God had the same
challenge when He instructed the recently freed Israelites after their exodus
from Egypt. He used kindergarten language and methods--including the sandbox
illustration of the desert sanctuary service--for that was the only language
level they could understand. Sometimes the threat of disapproval and punishment
can get the attention of six-year-olds and recently delivered Israelites when
"love talk" would have no impact.
Ellen White used both methods when dealing with her boys, apparently
with good effect. The record contains numerous instances in which she talked to
her sons about a friendly God, on many occasions praying with them about their
spiritual growth. If young Ellen were to be confronted with a possible
misunderstanding of her words, she would quickly say what, in substance, she
would later write out more completely: "What I meant--and I believe what the
boys understood--was that God will not condone disobedience, even though He
always loves little boys and girls, good or bad. Disobedience has tough
consequences, and God, in love, doesn't want them to experience the costs of
disobedience." [5]
Ellen White did not always express her thoughts perfectly in her first
attempt, and her later statement indicates that she found a better way to
present both God's displeasure and His love.
Notes
[1] An example of
letters from Ellen White to young, six-year-old Willie revealed her motherly
attempts to keep him focused on cheerful obedience: "You must be a good, sweet,
little boy, and love to obey Jenny [Fraser] and Lucinda [Hall]. Give up your
will, and when you wish to do anything very much, inquire, Is it not selfish?
You must learn to yield your will and your way. It will be a hard lesson for my
little boy to learn, but it will in the end be worth more to him than gold."* "Learn, my dear Willie, to be
patient, to wait others' time and convenience; then you will not get impatient
and irritable. The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and He
has promised that they shall be in His kingdom. But wicked children God does
not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for He only admits the
good, obedient, and patient children there. One fretful, disobedient child,
would spoil all the harmony of heaven. When you feel tempted to speak impatient
and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong.
When you do right and overcome wrong feelings, the Lord smiles upon you.
"Although He is in heaven, and you cannot see Him, yet He loves you when
you do right, and writes it down in His book; and when you do wrong, He puts a
black mark against you. Now, dear Willie, try to do right always, and then no
black mark will be set down against you; and when Jesus comes He will call for
that good boy Willie White, and will put upon your head a wreath of gold, and
put in your hand a little harp that you can play upon, and it will send forth
beautiful music, and you will never be sick, never be tempted then to do wrong;
but will be happy always, and will eat of rich fruit, and will pluck beautiful
flowers. Try, try, dear boy, to be good. Your affectionate Mother." [*"By the blessing of God and
his mother's instruction, Willie has overcome the impatient spirit which he
sometimes manifested when quite young, and he now possesses a most
affectionate, amiable, and obedient disposition."--A.P.P.] (Ellen G.
White,An Appeal to the Youth, pp. 62-63). A careful look at the whole
letter (and her total writings on child guidance) suggests strongly that when
Ellen White wrote that "wicked children God does not love," she meant that
ultimately children who continue to be "wicked" will not be taken to
heaven.
[2] Signs of
the Times, February 15, 1892; "His [Jesus'] heart is drawn out, not only to
the best behaved children, but to those who have by inheritance objectionable
traits of character. Many parents do not understand how much they are
responsible for these traits in their children. . . . But Jesus looks upon
these children with pity. He traces from cause to effect" (The Desire of
Ages, p. 517).
[3] See
Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, pp. 558-565, for a sensitive letter
to an indulged teenager.
[4] Christ's
Object Lessons, pp. 74, 84, 123; Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2,
pp. 355, 356.
[5] See previous
footnotes, citing Signs of the Times, Feb. 15, 1892, and The Desire
of Ages, p. 517.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the
Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 59, 60.]
God's Providence in the 1843 Prophetic Chart
In 1850 Ellen White wrote that she "had seen that the 1843 [prophetic]
chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered;
that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a
mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand was
removed." [1]
At first glance, one could wonder why God would want to hide a mistake!
Those who begin with the presupposition that Jesus did not enter the closing
phase of His mediatorial work in 1844 ridicule this Ellen White reference.
But those who have found meaning in these events, whether on earth or in
heaven, also realize that God's ways are often cast in human language where
circumstances that God permits are described as events that God causes. When
the author of Exodus wrote of God's conversation with Moses, he portrayed God
as the Agent who "hardened" Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 10:1). However, the same
writer also wrote of Pharaoh's responsibility for hardening his own heart (Ex.
8:15, 32; 9:34).
We think of Biblical circumstances where knowledge was "withheld" from
dedicated men and women. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus joined two devastated
disciples but they did not recognize Him because "their eyes were restrained"
(Luke 24:16). A few hours later, while eating with their traveling Companion,
"their eyes were opened and they knew Him" (Luke 24:31). If their eyes had been
"opened" prematurely while walking toward Emmaus, they would have missed a
great experience that God wanted them to share.
For reasons that God alone can explain best, Bible students in 1843
needed the experience of 1843-1844. Obviously God could have "stepped in" and
guaranteed every date, every line of reasoning, when Charles Fitch and Apollos
Hale prepared their chart. But that kind of divine intervention has been rare
throughout history. Permitting men and women to work through their problems,
learning special lessons that would not have been experienced otherwise, seems
to have been God's general plan. [2]
What would have happened if William Miller had preached the true
significance of 1844? What kind of public response would he have received if he
had proclaimed the truth about a change in Christ's ministry in the heavenly
sanctuary instead of emphasizing His imminent return? No one would have
listened to him; no one would have been stirred to read the Bible. After the
disappointment of October 22, a group of his followers restudied their Bibles
to discover the real meaning of 1844, an interest that never would have
developed if Miller had not focused their attention on the Bible and its
prophecies prior to 1844.
Notes
[1] Early
Writings, p. 74. This chart, designed in 1842 by Charles Fitch,
Congregational pastor, and Apollos Hale, Methodist preacher, was approved by
the Millerites in their Boston General Conference of May, 1842. The chart's
graphic symbols and time periods became a well-known trademark of Millerite
preaching as they endeavored to simplify in an attractive manner the time
prophecies focusing on 1843. (See L. E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our
Fathers, vol. IV, pp. 538, 616.)
[2] See Matt.
11:25; Mark 4:33; John 16:12; 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:11-14.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the
Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1998), p. 490.]
Some Slaves Not Resurrected
In 1858 Ellen G. White wrote that "the slave master would have to answer
for the soul of his slave whom he has kept in ignorance. . . . God cannot take
the slave to heaven, who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing
nothing of God, or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and not
holding so elevated a position as his master's brute beasts. But He does the
best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He lets him be as though he
had not been." [1]
However, a few pages later she reported that she "saw the pious slave
rise [in the resurrection] in triumph and victory." [2] In many places she referred to the terrible
conditions imposed on slaves in the South, treated "as though they were
beasts." [3]
Nevertheless, she was equally emphatic that "many of the slaves had noble
minds." [4]
In these statements Ellen White was distinguishing between the "pious"
slave and the "ignorant" slave who knows "nothing of God." Regarding the
latter, she stated with prophetic insight that the most compassionate act for a
just God would be to let such slaves remain in their graves, not to be
resurrected for judgment.
Some object to this statement because the Bible says that "all who are
in the graves will . . . come forth" (John 5:28, 29). A few chapters later,
John quoted Jesus: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all
peoples to Myself" (John 12:32). Here we have two examples among many where
Bible writers used all-inclusive language but with very definite restrictions.
No one but Universalists argue that everyone, sooner or later, will be
redeemed, regardless of character or desire. Not all people will be drawn to
Jesus because not all are willing to be drawn!
Another example of a general, all-inclusive statement is John the
Revelator's description of the Second Advent: ". . . every slave and every free
man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to
the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits
on the throne'" (Rev. 6:15, 16). Obviously, not all slaves and not all free men
are going to be lost!
Prophets, as well as everyone else, use inclusive language at times, and
most people understand the implied restrictions. The next question is, How does
God deal with those who are neither among those "who have done good," or "those
who have done evil" (John 5:29)? The best we can do is to join Abraham, the
father of the faithful, and believe with confidence: "Shall not the Judge of
all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).
Notes
[1] Spiritual
Gifts, vol. 1, p. 193 (Early Writings, p. 276).
[2] Ibid., p. 206
(Early Writings, p. 286).
[3] Review and
Herald, Dec. 17, 1895.
[4] Ibid.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the
Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 489, 490.]
Ellen G. White Estate Homepage
Selected Issues Regarding Inspiration and the
Life and Work of Ellen G. White