DID SHE REALLY SAY THAT?
Little known statements of Ellen G. White
Ellen G. White, prophetess of the 7th Day Adventist Church, claimed that her writings
were given by God. That simply cannot be true. God does not make mistakes!
For example, in 1864 Mrs. White said that there were certain races of men that were the result of sexual intercourse between man and beast. She wrote this:
"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. (Spiritual Gifts 1864, p.64)
In the next chapter she added this:
"Every species of animal which God 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."
(Spiritual Gifts 1864, p.75)
Today, we know that mankind cannot mate with beasts and produce offspring. Research
has proven that it is genetically impossible for species whose chromosomes differ in kind and number to reproduce.
For over a hundred years Adventists had blindly accepted Mrs. White's statement that
some races of men were the result of "amalgamation of man and beast", but when
scientific evidence proved she was wrong, church scholars began looking around for
another explanation.
In 1947, James McElhaney, president of the church, called a meeting of fifteen high
ranking Adventists. At that meeting, a young Adventist biologist, Dr. Frank L. Marsh,
convinced them that since Mrs. White's amalgamation vision contradicted all laws of
genetics, she must have meant something else.
Dr. Marsh concluded that Mrs. White was actually saying that: "the base crime of
amalgamation of man and beast" actually meant intermarriage between the races of Seth and Cain i.e. the intermarriage of the righteous and the wicked. The church leaders now had a way out of their embarrassing dilemma. They immediately accepted Dr. Marsh's thesis and it was soon published in F. D. Nichols defense of Mrs. White: "Ellen G. White and Her Critics" Review and Herald Publishing Assn. 1951.
The Adventist Church has desperately tried to reinterpret her "amalgamation" statements, but they cannot change history! From out of the past comes an unimpeachable witness who has established forever what Mrs. White really intended to say.
In 1868, Uriah Smith, editor of the Review and Herald, wrote a booklet entitled "The Visions Of Mrs. E. G. White". On page 103, he quoted Mrs. Whites "amalgamation" statements and then strongly defended them saying:
"But does anyone deny the general statement contained in the extract given above?
They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases
as the wild bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the
Digger Indians of our own country etc.
Moreover, natuarlists affirm that the line of demarkation BETWEEN THE HUMAN
AND ANIMAL RACES is lost in confusion. It is impossible to tell just where the
human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of
God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of the two
kingdoms?"
Mr. Smith, who worked very closely with Mrs. White as the publisher of her articles, clearly believed that "Amalgamation" meant sexual relations between men and animals
which produced races of men such as "the wild bushmen of Africa".
There is no doubt that Mrs. White both read and approved Uriah Smith's spirited defense of her visions before he published it. Listen to what her husband, James White had to say about Smith's book:
"The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E. G.
White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures." It is written
by the editor of the Review. While CAREFULLY READING the manuscript, I felt
very grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views
they so much love and prize, which others despise and oppose. This book is
designed for very wide circulation."
James White Notice in Review and Herald, August 25, 1868
Not only did James and Ellen approve Mr. Smiths explanation, researchers say that they
took 2000 copies of Smith's book to campmeeting that year to sell.
"James and Ellen White took 2,000 copies of Smith's book with them to campmeetings
that year."- Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14.
The evidence is clear and irrefutable. Mrs. White, while in vision and supposedly speaking under the inspiration of God, said that men and beasts produced offspring. That cannot be true! Not only has scientific research proven that different Genesis kinds of animals will not cross, God has COMMANDED that they will not cross...
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after his kind, cattle,
and creeping thing, AND BEAST OF THE EARTH AFTER HIS KIND, and it was
so." Genesis 1:24
Any reasonable and unbiased person will admit that something is very wrong here. It is
clear that Mrs. White has made a serious mistake. How many other places did she make
an "inspired mistake"? Here are a few:
GOING TO DOCTORS
First, she is against it:
"If any among us are sick, LET US NOT DISHONOR GOD BY APPLYING TO
EARTHLY PHYSICIANS, but apply to the God of Israel. If we follow his
directions (James 5:14,15) the sick will be healed. God's promise cannot fail."
...trust wholly in Him.
Ellen G. White 1849 broadside - "To Those Who Are Receiving the Seal of the
Living God"
Then she is for it:
"We believe it to be perfectly right to use the remedies God has placed in our reach,
and if these fail, apply to the Great Physician, AND IN SOME CASES THE
COUNSEL OF AN EARTHLY PHYSICIAN IS VERY NECESSARY. This position
we have always held." [Always??]
Ellen G. White Spiritual Gifts 1860, Vol 2, p.135
There you are, the Spirit Of Prophecy has said not to use earthly physicians and then
later, to go ahead and use them. Take your choice! By the way, Ellen's first statement
has never been republished in any Adventist book. I wonder why? Perhaps it would be
hard to explain all the Adventist hospitals and medical schools.
THE REFORM DRESS (A shorter dress with pants for women)
In 1863 she is against it:
"God would NOT have His people adopt the so-called reform dress."
Ellen G. White (1863) Testimonies, I, 421
In 1867 she was for it:
"God would NOW have His people adopt the reform dress..."
Ellen G. White (1867) Testimonies I, 525
In 1897 she said forget it:
"Do not again introduce the short dress and pants unless you have the word of the
Lord for it."
Ellen G. White to J. H. Haughey (H-19-1897, White Estate)
When it comes to the "Reform Dress" the Spirit Of Prophecy seems to be as fickle as any earthly fashion designer. Hmmm...
EATING SWINE'S FLESH
In 1849-50, James and Ellen White published a small newspaper for the Adventist
movement called "The Present Truth". In Volume I, No 11, dated November 1850, they
wrote a long article entitled "Swine's Flesh". Here are some statements from that article that will be a shock to many 7th Day Adventists:
Some of our good brethren are troubled in regard to eating swine's flesh,...but WE
DO NOT, by any means, believe that the Bible teaches that its proper use, in the
Gospel dispensation, is sinful.
...Certainly, if eating swine's flesh is a sin in the sight of Heaven, in this
dispensation, the New Testament has in some way taught us the fact. But we find
that the New Testament DOES NOT, directly nor indirectly, TEACH ANY SUCH
THING.
...Some of our good brethren have added "swine's flesh" to the catalogue of things
forbidden by the Holy Ghost,...But we feel called upon to protest against such a
course AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THE HOLY
SCRIPTURES.
When Ellen was asked about swine's flesh by an Adventist sister, she replied:
"If it is your husbands wish to use swine's flesh, you should be perfectly free to
use it"
On the back of the same letter, James added a fascinating historical note. He scribbled:
"That you may know how WE stand on this question, I would say that we have just
put down a two hundred pound porker."
Quoted in H. E. Carvers book:
"Mrs. E. G. White's claim to Divine Inspiration Examined" (2nd ed.; Marion, Iowa:
Advent and Sabbath Advocate Press, 1877), p.19-20
As you can see the Spirit of Prophecy clearly taught that:
1. To eat swine's flesh was NOT a sin.
2. To forbid eating swines's flesh was "contrary to the
plain teaching of the Holy Scripture."
However, by 1868 her position had changed 180 degrees. By then she had rejected her
earlier testimony and said this:
"God has given you light and knowledge which you have professed to believe came
direct from Him, instructing you to deny appetite. You know that the USE OF
SWINE'S FLESH IS CONTRARY TO HIS EXPRESS COMMAND.
Ellen G. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p.392
First she says that to forbid swine flesh is wrong then turns right around and forbids it
herself, claiming it was a message from God.
Here again we see the Spirit of Prophecy taking both sides of an issue. Take your choice, eat swine's flesh or don't eat it. But, no matter which "inspired statement" you choose, the other one MUST BE AN ERROR. Even the most dedicated follower of Ellen White has to admit that one of her two contradictory views on the use of swine's flesh is wrong. And if wrong, how could it be inspired by God?
Mrs. White had many useful things to say, but she was not a prophet. Her writings are
not direct messages from God as so many suppose. If the reader would like to learn more about Mrs. White, I would recommend two books, both written by devoted 7th Day Adventist scholars.
The first book is: Prophetess Of Health, by Ronald Numbers. ($10.00) Write C/O
Spectrum Magazine, PO Box 5330, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Mr. Numbers was a
medical historian and teacher at an Adventist college who decided to research Mrs.
White's health message. To his great shock and pain he discovered that what he had
always believed to be revelations from God through Mrs. White, were in fact material
taken from human sources. He proves this beyond a shadow of doubt. Like all Adventist scholars who have the courage to publicly challenge the authority of Mrs. White, he was fired.
The second book is: The White Lie, by Walter Rea. ($15.00) Write Box 2056, Turlock,
CA 95381. Mr. Rea's story is even more shocking and painful. He was an Adventist
minister for 33 years and in his own words: "a devotee of Ellen G. White and her
writings.". He was the author of two books based on Mrs. White's works and it was his
dream to compile an Adventist commentary based entirely on what Ellen had to say about any given Bible verse. While doing research he discovered to his horror that much of what was supposed to be inspired writing was actually copied from other writers. Not
only copied but without credit being given to the original authors. He desperately tried to get the Adventist leaders to openly deal with this problem, but received only delays and evasive replies. Finally in his frustration, he published his findings which proved
conclusively that Mrs. White "borrowed" a great deal of her writings from others. After
thirty six years of service he also was fired.
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
We have no denominational ax to grind. We are not Adventists, nor ever have been. We only hope that God's precious children who have learned obedience to the Ten Commandments will not be discouraged by all the burdensome rules, regulations, and just plain nonsense that Ellen has added to the Gospel of Christ. Mrs. White has no authority except that given to her by the Adventist church. God will not be angry if you disobey her, He commanded us to keep the Sabbath holy - not Mrs. White.
As a matter of fact, if someone were to stand at the gate of heaven, asking all who enter this question: "Did you follow the testimonies of Mrs. White?"; most would answer: "Mrs. White? - sorry, I never even heard of her!
May God bless each of you in your journey unto God's heavenly kingdom. If we may
help you in any way, please let us know.
Harold and Donna Kupp
