For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy." John 10:33.
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had
broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father." John 5:18.
"Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they
wash
not their hands when they eat bread." Matthew 15:2.
"And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye Him?"
John
10:20.
"How knoweth this Man letters, having never learned?" John 7:15.
Who is this that is being accused of blasphemy, of lawbreaking, of turning
people from the ways of the fathers, of devil possession involving
insanity,
and of a lack of education that caused men to wonder how He could say
anything worth while? Anyone acquainted with the story of Jesus recognizes
immediately that it was He who was the object of these criticisms. Even a
perfect life, an unmarred ministry, could not escape the critic's thrust.
Moses faced, among other things, the charge of exalting himself and
assuming
unwarranted authority. Numbers 16:3. Jeremiah was accused of being a false
prophet who was prompted by a friend to give a message according to the
friend's ideas. Jeremiah 43:2, 3. Paul was indicted as being mentally
unbalanced, turning the world "upside down," and destroying the business
of
the Ephesian craftsmen. Acts 26:24; 17:6; 19: 26, 27.
Whether there is change or stagnation, strong leadership or
[413]
weakness, clear or muddled thinking, adverse criticism appears to be the
lot
of those who occupy places of responsibility. At the same time, one who
occupies no commanding position, but who still affects the thinking of a
large number of persons, is almost always the object of hostile criticism.
Ellen White was and is subject to such criticism. In this chapter we shall
give attention to some of the criticisms that have been brought against
her
work and her writings. In dealing with this case, it is not difficult for
the most part to find parallel accusations made against the prophets of
the
Bible. There seem to have been few new criticisms invented with the
passage
of the centuries.
Criticisms of Ellen White fall largely into a few classifications. It is
not
necessary to know all the facts about each criticism that might be placed
in
any classification, for this information is readily obtainable when
needed.
If we become acquainted with a method of approach to the various types of
problems, we will accomplish more than we would by trying to keep in mind
all the details involved. Following are some of the charges.
Nervous Disorder*
[Top of Document]
Prominent among the charges of Ellen White's critics are variations on the
theme that her visions resulted from some type of nervous disorder
stemming
from the injury she suffered as a girl. Hysteria, epilepsy, and
schizophrenia are most frequently mentioned. The stories built around
these
charges have seemed plausible enough to cause a number of persons, who
have
not taken occasion to investigate the manner of the giving of visions and
the life and work of Mrs. White for themselves, to accept
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the material regarding the charges against Mrs. White is drawn
from F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, where all the major
charges against Mrs. White are dealt with in considerable detail. See pp.
62
ff. It is not the purpose in this chapter to duplicate what has been done
in
the Nichol book concerning any one of these problems. In each case the
details should be studied from that work. In the present chapter we are
dealing only with methods of approach and introducing instances solely for
illustration, not for the purpose of fully refuting the charges.
[414]
and propagate them. In this connection there are two facts to be kept in
mind: (1) No scientific evidence is given to support the charges, and (2)
the whole ministry of Mrs. White and the body of her writings belie the
charges.
1. No scientific evidence. When we say that no scientific evidence is
given
to support the charges, we mean that an investigation of the so-called
evidence quickly reveals that it is unsound. Generally the evidence
consists
of the testimony of one or another, or all, of three physicians who
claimed
to know much about Ellen White's physical condition and her visions. Added
to these are statements drawn from medical books, which seem to describe
some of the physical phenomena accompanying Ellen White's visions.
The three physicians usually quoted are Drs. W. J. Fairfield, William
Russell, and J. H. Kellogg. A study of the facts in the case as they are
presented in detail by F. D. Nichol indicates that in none of these
instances is acceptable scientific evidence given. It is shown that Dr.
Fairfield had no opportunity to examine Mrs. White during a vision; in
fact,
he does not claim to have done so. He established a medical institution
rivaling the Battle Creek Sanitarium, became critical of others connected
with that institution, and tried to cause trouble for them. There is no
evidence that Dr. Russell ever saw Mrs. White in vision, or that she was a
patient of his at any time, and he makes no such claim. No real evidence
is
presented. In fact, in 1871 Russell repented of his attitude toward James
and Ellen White, and he wrote them a letter of confession which was
published in the Review and Herald, April 25, 1871. However, this is
unmentioned by critics today.
Dr. Kellogg's case differs from that of the other men. For many years he
was
closely associated with Mrs. White and had abundant opportunity to know of
her general physical condition as well as her condition when in vision.
But
what was Dr. Kellogg's attitude during the years he was associated with
Mrs.
[415]
White? Through these years he repeatedly expressed his conviction that her
visions were from God. These expressions appear in published works as well
as in letters. See Appendix D, pages 490-493. It was not until Mrs. White
spoke against some of his views and policies that he turned against her,
expressed doubts as to the origin of her messages, and refused to accept
them. Whatever the factors involved in his reasons for rejection, they
were
strictly nonmedical.
Weaknesses similar to those appearing in the testimony of the three
physicians are seen also in the testimony presented from medical books.
The
statements quoted may be authentic and authoritative ones, but they are
applied to Ellen White, not by a qualified physician, but by a critic.
There
is nothing scientific in an unqualified person's reading in medical books
the symptoms of diseases concerning which the most skilled diagnosticians
sometimes differ widely, and from such reading attempting to diagnose a
case.
2. The types of disorders of which some critics feel symptoms appeared in
Ellen White's experience are types that affect the whole personality and
experience. They are disorders for which medical help has been found only
in
comparatively recent years. Therefore, if Mrs. White was afflicted with
any
of these diseases, she would have to be regarded as an untreated case,
subject to the progressive ravages of the disease. But the most careful
study of her life and writings fails to give the slightest hint of such
effects, The comment of the editor of the New York Independent, in 1915,
previously quoted,-"She lived the life and did the work of a worthy
prophetess,"-gives a clue to the regard in which Mrs. White was held.
Another writer of a biographical sketch showed his attitude in these
words:
"Mrs. White is a woman of singularly well-balanced mental organization.
Benevolence, spirituality, conscientiousness, and ideality are the
predominating traits. Her personal qualities are such as to win for her
the
warmest friendship of all with whom she comes in contact, and to inspire
them with the utmost confidence
[416]
in her sincerity.. Notwithstanding her many years of public labor, she has
retained all the simplicity and honesty which characterized her early
life."-American Biographical History of Eminent and Self-Made Men,
Michigan
volume, page 108 (1878).
The best way to deal with problems regarding Ellen White's physical and
mental condition is to become well acquainted with the story of her life
and
the product of her pen. Her writings reveal clarity of thinking,
consistency
of treatment, unity of thought, depth of insight, and unique aptness of
expression that are signs of a well-organized mind and a consistent
Christian outlook.
False Teachings
[Top of Document]
Application of the test "to the law and to the testimony," some critics
say,
shows that Ellen White taught some things that are not in the Bible, or
were
contrary to Bible teachings. In view of earlier statements regarding
details
found in her writings but not in the Bible, no further comment on that
point
is needed here. What about the matter of teachings supposedly contrary to
the Bible?
In chapter 14 reference was made to the method of applying this test to
the
writings in order to prove them by the Bible. To deal adequately with this
type of criticism two things are necessary: (1) a thorough knowledge of
what
the Bible teaches on the subject, and (2) a complete cross section of what
Ellen White has said on the subject in her various works. The major
problems
in this area are caused by the fact that she differs from some traditional
points of view on Bible teachings which have been held by many
individuals,
and by the fact that brief portions of passages are sometimes taken out of
their setting and made to stand alone. Every doctrine taught by Ellen
White
will stand the closest scrutiny and comparison with the Scriptures.
[417]
Suppression. It is at times charged that Ellen White taught points of view
which she later discovered to be incorrect. Then, it is claimed, she
changed
her teaching, and withdrew from circulation or suppressed the writings
containing the error. As examples, certain early works are quoted, which,
when they were reprinted, lack some sentences or sections contained in the
earlier publication. Or it is urged that certain books were discontinued
and
others issued in their place to hide the false teachings of the former.
Again, what are the facts? Space here permits but a brief summary of the
facts presented in detail in Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 267 ff.*
It is true that in later publications some portions of earlier ones were
omitted. It is also true that some books were replaced by new ones that
did
not contain every sentence and expression found in the old books. Does
this
prove that some teachings were suppressed? Not at all. Charges of deletion
and suppression are largely made with reference to three items: (1) a
tract,
"A Word to the Little Flock," (2) an article in the Present Truth of
August,
1849, and (3) the book Sketches From the Life of Paul. Reasons for the
omissions at the time of republication are given by F. D. Nichol in his
discussion of this topic. But because of the desire of some persons to
have
copies of these early documents in their original form, both of the first
two items have been reproduced in facsimile form and are easily
accessible.
Whatever the reasons for the original deletions, they had nothing to do
with
the suppression of teachings, for the church has no question about
circulating them today.*
The third item, Sketches From the Life of Paul, is said to have been
withdrawn from circulation because of a threatened lawsuit over alleged
plagiarism. Actually, there was no threatened lawsuit, and no critic has
ever presented evidence of such
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* F. D. Nichol's account contains a detailed study of all the deletions.
See
Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 619 ff. "A Word to the Little Flock"
is
available in pamphlet form from the Review and Herald Publishing
Association, and is reproduced in an appendix to the Nichol book. The
Present Truth article will be found in the volume of Facsimiles of the Two
Earliest S.D.A. Periodicals.
[418]
action, although the name of a publisher is sometimes mentioned in this
connection. A letter from the publisher said to have been involved shows
that there was no threatened suit and no grounds for one. Ibid., p. 456.
The
edition of Sketches was completely sold out, and no copies were recalled.
No
more were printed, for Ellen White intended to write more fully on the
subject of the ministry of the apostles. Work on the new volume was
delayed
for a number of years because of other responsibilities and bookwork, but
in
1911 the new book, The Acts of the Apostles, was published.
The early teaching most frequently said to have been suppressed by the
removal of portions of early publications is that of the "shut door." Did
the first writings teach something different from the later revelations?
Again the facts clear away the confusion.
After the disappointment of October 22, 1844, their understanding of the
events that had taken place led those who soon became Sabbatarian
Adventists
to be classified as the "Sabbath and shut-door" brethren, in contrast with
the First-day Adventists who were called the "open-door" Adventists. The
reason was this: The Adventist group approaching October 22, 1844,
believed
that the Lord would appear and probation would close for all men. For a
time
after the disappointment, those who did not repudiate their belief in the
advent message still believed that probation had closed and there was no
longer mercy for sinners.
However, with the passage of time, they began to recognize that this
position was not founded on the Bible, and that there was still a work to
be
done for sinners. They continued to use the term "shut door," but it came
to
have a different meaning to them. It took on this significance: Christ had
now entered on the second phase of His ministry as High Priest-ministry in
the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary; therefore, He had shut the
door to the holy place and opened the door to the most holy. The
announcement of this change in phases of
[419]
ministry was, they felt, the responsibility God had given them. What was
Ellen G. White's relation to these teachings regarding the "shut door"?
She
explains, in a letter addressed to J. N. Loughborough, a portion of which
is
quoted here.
"With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in forty-four I did
believe no more sinners would be converted. But I never had a vision that
no
more sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to state no one has
ever heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify
them
in the charges they have made against me upon this point.
"It was on my first journey east to relate my visions that the precious
light in regard to the heavenly sanctuary was opened before me and I was
shown the open and shut door. We believed that the Lord was soon to come
in
the clouds of heaven. I was shown that there was a great work to be done
in
the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it. Our
brethren
could not understand this with our faith in the immediate appearing of
Christ. Some accused me of saying my Lord delayeth His coming, especially
the fanatical ones. I saw that in '44 God had opened a door and no man
could
shut it, and shut a door and no man could open it. Those who rejected the
light which was brought to the world by the message of the second angel
went
into darkness, and how great was that darkness."-Ellen G. White Letter 2,
1874. The letter in facsimile form appears in F. M. Wilcox, The Testimony
of
Jesus, pages 106, 107.
In The Great Controversy Mrs. White, since 1884, has unhesitatingly and
frankly kept before the world the shut-door experience of our early
believers and the reasons for the position they took. See The Great
Controversy, pages 428-432. It is largely the failure on the part of the
critics to recognize the change in the significance of the term "shut
door"
as employed by our pioneers that creates the problem in this case. They
make
no distinction between Ellen White's early personal belief and what was
soon
revealed to her, on the basis of which she
[420]
changed her point of view. F. D. Nichol presents several exhibits
revealing
that Mrs. White's earliest writings contain clear indications of her
belief
that there was still opportunity for men to accept the Lord.-F. D. Nichol,
op. cit., pages 239 ff. See also F. M. Wilcox, The Testimony of Jesus,
pages
90 ff. In the face of facts, the "shut-door" charge collapses.
Plagiarism
[Top of Document]
The charge of plagiarism, or literary theft, is made against Ellen White
in
connection with two books-Sketches From the Life of Paul, and The Great
Controversy. It is seldom that any other work or passage is cited,
although
it is insinuated by critics that large portions of all her writings were
the
product of the minds and pens of others. Is the insinuation justified?
This
much is certain: If there were works other than the two specified that
would
help the critic to build up his case, he would not hesitate or fail to use
them. Consequently the problem of the accusation of plagiarism may be
regarded as limited to these books.
Did Ellen White borrow from the writings of others in the preparation of
these books? Yes, she did. Did this borrowing constitute plagiarism? We
think not. Actually, there are two phases to the matter of plagiarism-the
moral and the legal. Morally, the major question is: Was there an attempt
on
the part of the author to deceive her readers into thinking that the
material she had borrowed was completely her own? Take Sketches From the
Life of Paul, for example.
The first notice of the publication of Sketches to appear in the Review
and
Herald was in the issue of October 9, 1883. In the advertisement the
publishers called particular attention to the book from which critics say
Ellen White copied large portions-Conybeare and Howson's The Life and
Epistles of St. Paul. The publishers of the Review and Herald said: "While
the well-known work of Conybeare and Howson completely
[421]
outstrips all its predecessors as a full and reliable history of the life
and epistles of Paul, even that excellent book comes altogether short of
taking the place of this humble volume." To all intents and purposes they
were inviting comparison of the two books. But what about Mrs. White? Was
she as free as her publishers to direct attention to the Conybeare and
Howson book, or did she try to prevent people from reading it so that they
might not discover that she had used some material from it?
Only a few months before the Review and Herald notice of the publication
of
Mrs. White's Sketches, there was widespread promotion of the Conybeare and
Howson book as a premium with subscriptions to the Review and Herald and
the
Signs of the Times. Mrs. White did her part in helping the promotion of
the
book by writing a statement that was included in the Signs of the Times of
February 22, 1883. "The Life of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson, I regard
as a book of great merit, and one of rare usefulness to the earnest
student
of the New Testament." Certainly none can say justifiably that Mrs. White
tried to hide the fact that she had used some material from the other book
on the life of Paul. There was no attempt on her part to deceive her
readers.
What about the legal phase of the matter? Did she use so much that the
value
of the older book was diminished or that she appropriated the labor of its
authors to their injury? F. D. Nichol's thorough investigation of the
extent
and nature of the matter used reveals that both of these questions must be
answered negatively. What was used was not excessive in amount and was
background material related only indirectly to the development of the
spiritual theme found in Sketches From the Life of Paul.
What has been said of Sketches could also be said of The Great
Controversy.
The books from which historical material was quoted or paraphrased were
books that were in many Seventh-day Adventists' libraries, some of them
books Mrs.
[422]
White had highly recommended to be read by the members of the church.
Again
there was no attempt to deceive. And legally, neither the amount of
material
nor the use made of it justifies any question. Morally or legally there is
no problem of plagiarism. See Ellen G. White and her Critics for a fuller
discussion and full documentation.
Unfulfilled Prophecies
[Top of Document]
Critics charge that numerous predictions made by Ellen G. White have
failed
of being fulfilled. Is this so? The prediction most commonly brought up is
one made in 1856, currently published in Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 131,
132:
"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
present at the conference are dead, says the critic, therefore Ellen White
is a false prophet. We freely admit that during the century that has
passed
since that conference those who were in attendance have died. But we do
not
admit that the critic's conclusion based on this fact is a necessary
conclusion. On the contrary, a consideration of all the facts involved
shows
the conclusion to be wholly unwarranted.
As a basis for considering this problem, it would be profitable to review
the matter of conditional prophecy as presented in chapter 6. We noted
there
that all of God's promises of blessing or threatenings of punishment are
made upon condition, whether or not the condition is specifically stated.
God's ultimate purposes, of course, cannot be altered by any decision of
man, but the coming of blessing or punishment in fulfillment of prediction
is dependent upon whether man's relationship with God remains the same or
changes. That was true with Jonah; it was true with the children of Israel
throughout their history.
[423]
The fact of the second advent of Christ cannot be altered by anything that
man can do. Christ will return the second time to gather the righteous and
destroy the wicked, then again to create a new earth as a home for His
people. All the combined hosts of men and evil angels cannot alter that
fact. But there is a place where men come into the picture. Peter tells us
that it is possible for men to hasten the day of Christ's return. "Since
all
these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to
be
in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming
of
the day of God!" 2 Peter 3:11, 12, R.S.V. If it is possible for men to
hasten the Lord's return, obviously it is possible for them to delay it by
their failure to complete the work entrusted to them to be done in their
own
lives and for others.
What is the bearing of all this on the question of the conference of 1856?
Simply this: The obvious intent of the words spoken by the angel and heard
by Mrs. White in vision was to convey the idea that Christ was to return
during the lifetime of some who were present at the conference. Now, as
far
as we know, all those persons are dead. Does that mean that Christ is not
going to return? Not at all. But it raises the question as to whether some
change has come about that has made it necessary for the Lord to delay His
return, even as the destruction of Nineveh was delayed beyond the days of
the prophet Jonah. During the years following this prediction, while there
was still abundant opportunity for it to be fulfilled to the letter, Ellen
White gave a number of indications that conditions among God's people were
such that they were even then delaying the second advent.
"To become impatient now would be to lose all our earnest, persevering
watching heretofore. The long night of gloom is trying; but the morning is
deferred in mercy, because if the Master should come, so many would be
found
unready. God's unwillingness to have His people perish has been the reason
for so long delay."-Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 194 (1868).
[424]
"If all who had labored unitedly in the work in 1844, had received the
third
angel's message and proclaimed it in the power of the Holy Spirit, the
Lord
would have wrought mightily with their efforts. A flood of light would
have
been shed upon the world. Years ago the inhabitants of the earth would
have
been warned, the closing work completed, and Christ would have come for
the
redemption of His people."-The Great Controversy, page 291 (1886), or page
458 of current trade edition.
"Had the purpose of God been carried out by His people in giving to the
world the message of mercy, Christ would, ere this, have come to the
earth,
and the saints would have received their welcome into the city of
God."-Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 450 (1900).
"We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many
more years, as did the children of Israel; but for Christ's sake, His
people
should not add sin to sin by charging God with the consequence of their
own
wrong course of action."-Evangelism, page 696 (1901).
These are only a few of the statements that run in this vein. The
prediction
of 1856 has not been fulfilled, but the reasons are clearly given. We
cannot
regard predictions given through Ellen White in an entirely different
light
from that in which we look at Bible predictions. Both must be viewed from
the same point.
In dealing with any prediction, either in the Bible or in these messages
for
the last days, we must be careful to learn all the facts possible involved
in its fulfillment or its nonfulfillment. This is not a matter to be dealt
with on the basis of what appears on the surface, but one for careful
consideration before any conclusion is reached. The Nichol book (pp. 102
ff., 112 ff.) touches on a number of predictions that critics claim are
unfulfilled. Attention should be given to them so that one is at least
aware
of the criticism and knows where to turn for help in finding an answer.
[425]
The Life of the Prophet
[Top of Document]
Of only One is it written that He "was in all points tempted like as we
are,
yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15. The rest of us are characterized by the
words of Paul: "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
Romans
3:23. The classification fits each individual whether prophet or not. The
fact that we see today that there was sin in the lives of some of the
Bible
prophets after they had been called to the prophetic office in no wise
invalidates the instruction God gave through them. God knew the kind of
men
He was dealing with and did the best He could with the material He had to
work with. Today, what we remember about these men is not the sin that was
in their life, but the truth of the gospel that God chose to reveal
through
them. Prophets needed the working of that gospel in their own hearts as
did
the people to whom they preached and wrote.
Critics have tried to build a case against accepting the teachings of
Ellen
White by attempting to show that her life was not always in full harmony
with her teachings. Most certainly we would not try to establish that
after
revelation from God began to come to this messenger she never made another
mistake and always acted in complete accord with every detail of the
instruction she passed on to the church. This would be placing her in a
class apart from and above ancient prophets. On the other hand, the critic
is unjustified in holding Ellen White to a standard to which neither he
nor
anyone else holds Bible prophets. What has been said is not for the
purpose
of preparing the way to say that the critics have been right in some of
their charges against Mrs. White's personal experience, but that that is
something to be expected. The facts are that it is relatively easy to show
that in the matters usually selected by the critics to build their case
against Mrs. White's character, her course of action was not contrary to
the
principles she taught. Perhaps meeting three charges will be sufficient to
show the
[426]
tenor of the criticisms and make it plain that the facts dispel the
charges.
Health reform. A frequently heard charge is that Ellen White did not live
according to the health-reform principles she taught. One point that is
emphasized is that she used flesh as food after giving instruction that
the
flesh diet should be abandoned. It is not necessary to review here what
has
been said on the subject of flesh diet; we are dealing only with Ellen
White's relation to the counsel. A good summary of the instruction will be
found in Counsels on Diet and Foods, pages 373 ff. Mrs. White's experience
as a health reformer appears as an appendix to the book. See pages
481-494.
In 1864 Ellen White wrote: "Since the Lord presented before me, in June,
1863, the subject of meat eating in relation to health, I have left the
use
of meat.. I have lived for nearly one year without meat."-Spiritual Gifts,
vol. 4, p. 153. But, says the critic, it is known that Mrs. White ate meat
after that time. He is right, but he is not producing evidence of
something
that had been hidden by Mrs. White. The eating of flesh was not her
practice, but in 1890 she stated clearly: "When I could not obtain the
food
I needed, I have sometimes eaten a little meat; but I am becoming more and
more afraid of it."-Counsels on Diet and Foods, page 394. In 1895 she
wrote:
"Since the camp meeting at Brighton (January, 1894) I have absolutely
banished meat from my table. It is an understanding that whether I am at
home or abroad, nothing of this kind is to be used in my family, or come
upon my table."-Ibid., p. 488.
But, the critic continues, we are informed, by those who knew, that she
used
flesh after that time. In a section in Testimonies, volume 9, dealing
directly with this subject, Ellen White, in 1909, commented on this: "It
is
reported by some that I have not followed the principles of health reform
as
I have advocated them with my pen; but I can say that I have been a
faithful
health reformer. Those who have been members of
[427]
my family know that this is true."-Page 159. In this instance one must
make
a choice-between the word of the critic and the word of the one who has
borne such a multitude of messages of truth. Some have gone so far as to
say
that during the last days of Mrs. White's life she called for and ate
meat.
While she makes no comment that late, the testimony of one who cared for
her
during her last illness will be of interest. Speaking of the time she
spent
as Ellen White's nurse during the last months of her life, Mrs. Carrie
Hungerford wrote: "In regard to her changing her ideas about health
reform,
she never did. Why should she, when the Lord had shown her about it? She
never ate meat or fish, nor were they in her house. Even butter was not
served on her table while I was there.
"I was sent on duty by the [Saint Helena] Sanitarium the a.m. following
Sister White's accident, Feb., 1915, and was with her until she breathed
her
last, July 16. Friday night as the sun was setting, she passed to her
rest."-Letter to Alonzo J. Wearner, Jan. 11, 1953.
The facts do not support the critics' charges.
Debt. A charge that has been freely circulated is one to the effect that,
although Mrs. White taught that the members of the church should shun debt
as they would leprosy, she died heavily in debt and that the church had to
meet these obligations. It is true that in her writings Ellen White
frequently warned against debt. She spoke against personal and
institutional
debts arising from failure to manage so that income would meet expenses.
It
is also true that she died owing a considerable sum of money. Then did her
practice differ widely from her teaching? The facts concerning why and how
her debts were incurred and how they were liquidated present a picture
very
different from the critics' representations.
Mrs. White always lived economically. No indebtedness was incurred to
supply
her needs. But demands upon her for the work of the Lord were heavy, both
for donations to worthy
[428]
enterprises and for the publishing of her books. At times she found it
necessary to borrow money to meet these demands. She did so knowing that
there was an assured income from her book royalties to meet the resulting
obligations. As she neared the end of her life there were a number of
projects that she wished to see completed before her death. To accomplish
these ends in the furtherance of the Lord's work she mortgaged the assured
future income from her books.
In harmony with the provisions of her will (February, 1912), all
obligations
standing at the time of her death have been cleared from the income she
designated for that purpose. No loss was sustained by any private
individual
or by the denomination. Since the obligations have been met, all royalties
on the Ellen White books are paid into the treasury of the General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. When the facts are known there is no
occasion for criticism. Additional information will be found in F. D.
Nichol, op. cit., p. 523.
Owning property. Did Ellen White hold large and valuable properties at the
same time that she counseled the members of the church to dispose of all
they had and give to the Lord? There are critics who maintain that this
was
the case.
Perhaps we should note first that we have no record of Ellen White's
telling
Seventh-day Adventists that the time had come for all to sell all their
property, and give the money to the church. She did counsel against adding
lands to lands, and property to property, for the sake of the accumulation
of wealth. But she also taught that it was good for people to own their
own
homes, and lay a little money aside to care for themselves in case of
emergency. See The Adventist Home, pages 372, 373, 395 ff. She indicated
that the disposition of property was an individual matter, and that if the
earnest Christian placed his property in the hands of the Lord, it would
be
made plain to him when he should sell it. See Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 734.
[429]
What about her own property holdings? At the time usually pointed out by
the
critics, Ellen White owned about two hundred acres of land. Of this
seemingly large area, held for a few years by Mrs. White, one hundred and
twenty acres were a wooded hillside, purchased for $550 so that the wood
might be cut for fuel for herself and her workers. Some timber was sold to
neighbors, and needy persons were given employment cutting wood. One
hundred
and twenty acres may sound like a good deal of land, but its value, $4.58
an
acre, was small, except for the purpose for which it had been purchased.
After the timber had been cut from the hillside, the land was traded for
some lots in the town of Saint Helena, a few miles from Mrs. White's
Elmshaven home. Some of the lots were donated for the purpose of building
a
church school in Saint Helena. It also forms the site of our church there.
The remaining land was not extensive and its valuation was not high.
Possession of a home on a moderate-sized plot of farm and grazing land is
not out of harmony with the principles set out in Mrs. White's writings.
See
Nichol, op. cit., pp. 520 ff.
Conclusion
[Top of Document]
What sort of conclusion should we draw from this brief review of a few of
the charges made against Ellen White and her work?
Perhaps we are not as yet ready to draw final conclusions other than that
it
is never safe to accept any charge of a critic without making much careful
investigation and gathering as many facts as possible about the case in
hand. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the life and work of Ellen
White do not suffer as a result of honest investigation. The more the
whole
experience is studied, the more firmly one becomes convinced that here are
messages sent from God through a messenger whose earnest endeavor was to
live a life matched to the messages.
[430]
SUMMARY
[Top of Document]
1. Criticism has been the common lot of prophets and leaders. Even Christ
did not escape it.
2. The way to meet critics successfully is to have the facts regarding the
things they criticize.
3. A considerable number of charges against Mrs. White can be placed under
these headings: (1) Her visions were the result of some nervous disorder;
(2) she taught things out of harmony with the Bible; (3) she was guilty of
plagiarism; (4) she made predictions that were unfulfilled; (5) her life
was
not in accord with her teachings.
4. Each charge may be shown to be unfounded. The facts clarify the issue
and
show the fallacies in the reasoning of the critics.
5. A thorough acquaintance with the life, work, and writings of Ellen
White
is the surest safeguard against being deceived by the charges of critics.
FOR STUDY AND DISCUSSION
[Top of Document]
1. Are there valid reasons for studying some of the criticisms brought
against Bible writers and Ellen White? Would it be better to ignore the
critics entirely and deal only with the instruction given?
2. Summarize what you consider to be the best evidences that Ellen White
was
mentally well balanced.
3. List what you regard as the ten most important Bible truths. Do Ellen
White's writings teach the same concerning these doctrines as you have
found
in the Bible?
4. Select some minor points, at random, from the Bible. Does what you find
in Mrs. White's writings agree or disagree with the Bible on these points?
[431]
5. Leaf through some of the chapters of The Great Controversy, especially
those about the Reformation period. When you find footnotes indicating
quotations from historians, read the quotations and note the type of
material used. Is it doctrinal, or historical? Is it used to establish
important truths, or as background? Does this make any difference in our
attitude toward the use of such quotations?
6. Mrs. White claims inspiration for her writings. Does the fact that she
quoted others mean that she believed them to be inspired also? See The
Great
Controversy, Introduction, pages xi, xii.
7. If critics could prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Ellen White's life
was in some way or another out of harmony with her teachings, would that
invalidate the teachings?
SELECTED REFERENCES
[Top of Document]
Our Firm Foundation, vol. 1, pages 260-267.
Nichol, F. D., Ellen G. White and Her Critics.
Smith, Uriah, "The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White" (a pamphlet). Objections
answered. Appeared originally as articles in The Review and Herald, June
12,
19, 26, July 3, 10, 31, 1866.) Battle Creek: S.D.A. Publishing Assn.,
1868.
Wilcox, F. M., The Testimony of Jesus, pp. 67-119.
http://whiteestate.org/books/pay/PAYc22.html#sth2
|
