Ellen G. White and Her Critics

Appendix I: The Spurious Camden Vision, Dated June 29, 1851

Spurious documents have plagued the Christian world through all the centuries, and particularly has this been true in connection with the alleged sayings of those who have held a unique status as spiritual leaders. The century of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has provided exhibits of such documents that are supposed to set forth the words of Mrs. White. It could hardly be otherwise, human nature being what it is. Such documents are not necessarily a proof of studied deception and fraud; rather, they may be an exhibit of uncritical acceptance of unsupported stories and word-of-mouth reports of what Mrs. White is supposed to have said. Finally a report or story is placed in writing. Such a writing may be, in part, true. But generally it is so hopelessly mixed with words and thoughts that Mrs. White did not utter that it is quite worthless. In most instances there is no way to disentangle truth from fiction. EGWC 615.4

In earlier years, before the staff of the Ellen G. White Publications had carefully cross-indexed Mrs. White’s extensive manuscripts, it was not possible always to say with certainty whether a reputed statement by Mrs. White, which might be in circulation, was really authentic or not. The question of authenticity often turned on whether someone had a memory of a certain meeting or incident when Mrs. White was supposed to have been present and spoken. How woefully unreliable memories can be, we have noted several times in this book. That is particularly true when men attempt to remember the exact words spoken years before, even though everyone concerned has the best of intentions and is loyally seeking to strengthen the church by the recalling of an experience. EGWC 616.1

But if even loyal members have generally provided exhibits of wholly unreliable so-called words of Mrs. White, what is to be said of an alleged vision of hers that has been transmitted through the years only by avowed enemies! Here are the facts regarding the alleged “Camden Vision of June 29, 1851“: EGWC 616.2

The “vision” was first given circulation by an R. R. Chapin, some years after 1851. Chapin had been a Seventh-day Adventist, but at the time he circulated this “vision” he was a member of an opposing group called the Messenger Party that was bitterly attacking Seventh-day Adventists in general and Mrs. White in particular. This fact in itself would seem almost sufficient to becloud any claim to authenticity for the “vision,” at least the text of it as transmitted to us by avowed enemies. EGWC 616.3

J. N. Loughborough, writing in 1905, states briefly that “Elder and Mrs. White during the winter of 1849-50” visited “the town of Camden, N.Y.,” and that at this place there was a certain hypocritical woman who made much pretense of holiness, but who was corrupt. He then speaks of a conversation he had in 1884 with a “Mr. Preston, who was a resident of Camden” at the time of the Whites’ visit. This man told him that Mrs. White had a vision in the presence of this hypocritical woman and rebuked her. “So,’ said Mr. Preston, ‘what is called the Camden vision applied definitely and especially to the case of that woman, and not to the condition of sinners generally, and we so understood it at the time.’”—J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, The Great Second Advent Movement, p. 233. EGWC 616.4

This is the only reference we have been able to find in Loughborough’s work to a so-called Camden vision that allegedly taught the close of probation for the wicked world. Yet critics cite this reference as proof of such a vision, and of course, as proof of the accuracy of the text of the vision as passed down through the years by Chapin. EGWC 616.5

Did not Loughborough refer to it as a fact? But note carefully the following: EGWC 617.1

1. Loughborough does not give the text of the “vision.” And it is the text that makes this “vision” significant to the critics. EGWC 617.2

2. He does not give a firsthand statement that Mrs. White had a vision at that time. He simply quotes what someone told him in 1884, about a third of a century after the alleged incident. EGWC 617.3

3. Though we today know the text of this alleged Camden vision only as presented by Chapin, we do not know that Preston is referring to such a text. He might have heard by word of mouth of some other text of it. We do not even know for sure that he is referring to the vision mentioned by Chapin, because of the discrepancy in time, as mentioned in Number 4. EGWC 617.4

4. Loughborough refers to a visit of Mrs. White to Camden in “the winter of 1849-50.” And we know from her own testimony that she had a vision in connection with this visit to Camden and in the presence of an unnamed hypocritical woman. ^* But the alleged Camden vision, the text of which is given to us through Chapin, is dated specifically “June 29, 1851.” Then how can it be said that Loughborough is really admitting the actuality of the alleged vision mentioned by Chapin? EGWC 617.5

So much for the argument in behalf of the authenticity of the Chapin text of this “vision” that is built on the claim that Loughborough admits it. EGWC 617.6

We have found that in a certain instance—the Dorchester vision, 1848—where a bona fide vision was copied down by Bates in terms of exclamatory statements by Mrs. White while in vision, the text was incomplete. Therefore the deductions drawn from it are unwarranted. Could Chapin or anyone else be relied on to provide us anything more dependable? Even if he were allegedly giving what she said after coming out of vision, the same question would still hold, for only a good shorthand reporter can hope to furnish a reliable text of a speaker’s words. EGWC 617.7

The Ellen G. White manuscript files contain nothing that would even suggest a vision of which the alleged Camden vision might be a paraphrase or a distortion. The critics cannot reply that the church would fear to reveal it, for the chapters discussing the shut door show that our currently published works and the facsimile reprints of out-of-print works contain statements which, according to the declarations of the critics, give as much appearance of teaching the shut-door doctrine as does this alleged Camden vision. In other words, there would be no reason to conceal it. EGWC 617.8

We have noted a discrepancy between the date, “the winter of 1849-50,” and the date, “June 29, 1851.” It is a fact that James and Ellen White were in Camden again in June, 1851. But when we look up the record of their itinerary we find this further discrepancy: They were not in Camden on June 29! The The Review and Herald, June 2, 1851, announced a conference to be held in Camden, June 20, beginning at 9 A.M., and a conference at West Milton, New York, beginning Friday, June 27, at 2 P.M., and holding over “the Sabbath and First-Day.”—Page 96. In the Review and Herald of June 9, James White writes: “Our Post Office address from the 18th to the 23d of June will be Camden N. Y. From the 25th to the 30th of June, West Milton, Saratoga Co. N. Y. After that our address will be Paris, Me.”—Page 104. EGWC 618.1

In a four-page Extra of the Review printed at Saratoga Springs, New York, July 21, 1851, James White gave a report of their travels during the month of June. He tells of the Camden Conference, which was held “on the 20th, 21st and 22d of June.” Then he speaks of the West Milton Conference: “According to appointment this meeting commenced June 27th, and held three days.” That Mrs. White traveled with him on this trip, is equally clear from the record. The Office of the White Publications has the text of a short vision dated Camden, June 21, 1851, which is also published in the four-page Extra. But this deals with the question of time, and has nothing in common with the Camden “vision” of June 29. EGWC 618.2

To sum up: The records reveal that there are two genuine Camden visions: EGWC 618.3

1. A vision during the winter of 1849-50, which rebuked a hypocritical woman. No text of this vision is known to exist. Mrs. White evidently did not write it out. EGWC 618.4

2. A vision given to Mrs. White on a later visit to Camden and dated June 21, 1851. This vision dealt with the subject of time and appeared in print shortly afterward. EGWC 618.5

Then there is an alleged Camden vision dated June 29, 1851, when Mrs. White was not even in Camden, and dealing with the shut door, but the text of which is available only through avowed critics of Mrs. White. EGWC 618.6

The makers of more than one spurious document have endeavored to provide the atmosphere of authenticity by giving a definite date. They wish to convey the impression that they are so sure that they can even give the very day of the month. But in more than one instance such bold definiteness has been the means of exposing the fraud. Perhaps the case before us is another exhibit. The purveyors of the “Camden Vision, June 29, 1851,” should have been more careful readers of the Review and Herald. EGWC 618.7