Ellen G. White and Her Critics


Chapter 14—The Shut-Door Charge Examined
Mrs. White and the Shut Door—Part II

Charge: From October 22, 1844, to approximately the same time in 1851, Mrs. White believed that the door of mercy was shut to all sinners and that only Adventists had hope of salvation. “Mrs. White had revelation after revelation in her visions during this same period, confirming this theory.” EGWC 202.1

This sweeping charge is based on the following: EGWC 202.2

1. Mrs. White’s statement that for a time after 1844 she, with all other Adventists, believed that probation had closed for the world. EGWC 202.3

2. A passage in her first vision, December, 1844. EGWC 202.4

3. A passage in her vision of February, 1845. EGWC 202.5

4. A statement in her letter to Eli Curtis in 1847. EGWC 202.6

5. Her endorsement of O. R. L. Crosier’s article on the sanctuary, which Crosier said supported the shut-door theory. EGWC 202.7

6. Her use of Hosea 5:6, 7. EGWC 202.8

7. A passage in her Topsham vision of March 24, 1849. EGWC 202.9

8. A passage in the so-called “Camden vision,” dated June 29, 1851. EGWC 202.10

9. Her declaration that church members, at the time of the rise of the Advent movement of the early 1840’s could be described as “children of their father, the devil.” EGWC 202.11

10. Her blessing, with her prayers and tears, the paper Present Truth, which promoted the shut door. EGWC 202.12

11. The apparent agreement of her writings with what all her associates were saying in the early post-1844 years, and they allegedly were all saying that there was no more salvation for sinners. EGWC 202.13

12. The lack of proof that Mrs. White or any of her associates tried to convert any sinners in the early post-1844 years. EGWC 202.14

These, briefly, we believe, are all the principal grounds on which rests the charge against Mrs. White that she held and taught for approximately seven years onward from 1844 that there was no more salvation for sinners. EGWC 203.1

Mrs. White is declared to have received “revelation after revelation” in support of this belief. The conclusion we are supposed to reach is that there is an endless array of damaging evidence that might be presented if only space limits permitted. The reader is entitled to know that, strangely enough, attention is called only to a certain few visions. Let us now examine the exhibits presented. EGWC 203.2