A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health

Did She Change Her Teachings?

Prophetess of Health claims on pages 172-174 that Ellen White originally condemned meat eating because of its animalizing tendencies, but in her later years she objected to the use of flesh foods because it was cruel to animals. This change in emphasis Prophetess of Health connects with the Catholic lady’s visit in 1894. CBPH 82.2

It is true that the Catholic lady’s plea in behalf of the animal kingdom led Mrs. White to make the comment, “I saw it in a new light.” But it is not true that Ellen White at this time made a “change in emphasis” as to why flesh food should not be used. The facts show that in her very first article on health, Ellen White referred to the suffering of the animal kingdom. It was no new idea to her in 1894. She wrote in 1864: CBPH 82.3

God gave our first parents the food He designed that the race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. CBPH 82.4

Some animals are inhumanly treated while being brought to the slaughter. They are literally tortured, and after they have endured many hours of extreme suffering, are butchered.—4SG 120, 147, 148. CBPH 82.5

In 1890—a year before Mrs. White went to Australia—she asked if the people who were preparing to be introduced into the society of heavenly angels should “continue to take the life of God’s creatures, and enjoy their flesh as a luxury?” (Counsels on Diet and Foods, 381). She enlarged on this theme in 1905 when she published Ministry of Healing. CBPH 82.6

The intelligence displayed by many dumb animals approaches so closely to human intelligence that it is a mystery. The animals see and hear and love and fear and suffer. They form attachments for man which are not broken without great suffering to them. What man with a human heart, who has ever cared for domestic animals, could look into their eyes, so full of confidence and affection, and willingly give them over to the butcher’s knife? How could he devour their flesh as a sweet morsel?—The Ministry of Healing, 315, 316. CBPH 82.7

In her 1909 General Conference Session statement she declared: “Flesh foods are injurious to the physical well being, and we should learn to do without them” (Testimonies for the Church 9:156). CBPH 82.8

What about the other argument, that meat eating tends to animalize our nature? As noted earlier, this was a constant factor in Ellen White’s mind from the 1860’s until she published the last volume of the Testimonies. In 1868 she wrote that flesh food strengthened the animal propensities (Testimonies for the Church 2:60, 61). She said the same thing in 1869 (Testimonies for the Church 2:352) in 1897 (Counsels on Diet and Foods, 384), and in 1902 (Counsels on Diet and Foods, 382). In a lengthy article in The Review and Herald, May 27, 1902, she spoke of the animalizing tendency of meat but said not one word about the inhumane treatment of animals, On Sabbath, May 21, 1904, she preached a sermon at Berrien Springs, Michigan, in which she twice mentioned that meat animalizes human beings but she said nothing at all about the sympathy we should have for the unfortunate animals (Ms 50, 1904). CBPH 82.9

In the year 1909, at the last General Conference session which she attended, Mrs. White read her manuscript on “Faithfulness in Health Reform” (91 153-166), in which she appealed to the delegates to discontinue the use of flesh food. One argument against its use was that “flesh food has a tendency to animalize the nature, to rob men and women of that love and sympathy which they should feel for everyone, and to give the lower passions control over the higher powers of the being” (91 159). She said not a single word about the inhumane aspect of meat-eating. CBPH 82.10

Prophetess of Health on page 175 is in error in maintaining that Ellen White changed her emphasis after the visit from the Catholic lady in Australia. Ellen White continued to teach, after that visit, precisely what she had been teaching from the very beginning of the health message. CBPH 82.11

Prophetess of Health claims that there was an evolution in Ellen White’s teachings on the use of dairy products over the years. Yet careful study of Mrs. White’s writings shows a consistency in this development in her teachings concerning the various dairy products. Her statements made in 1872, 1881, and 1902, all cited in Prophetess of Health, are not contradictory or “evolutionary.” In following through a progression a start should be made with 1864. The 1872 statement quoted here and in the chapter head as already mentioned is more of a biographical account than a carefully worded delineation of instruction. She lumped a rather incongruous assembly of unwhole some items together against which she and her husband spoke: “tobacco, spirituous liquors, snuff, tea, coffee, flesh-meats, butter, spices, rich cakes, mince pies, a large amount of salt, and all exciting substances” (Testimonies for the Church 3:21). Butter, the only dairy product in this list, was often so contaminated that it was unfit for food. There is a vast difference between “a large amount of salt” and spirituous liquors. The first could hardly be said to be a sinful indulgence. The latter clearly is. CBPH 82.12

In the definitive 1881 statement she made a careful separation. She declared that the use of tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol were to be considered “sinful.” Not so with meat, dairy products and other articles. This is in perfect harmony with her 1872 generalization. It is not a new teaching. In 1902 she made the distinctions even more clear. Even though meat was not a sinful indulgence, it still was less desirable as a food than the dairy products. CBPH 82.13