A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health

Deleting Shut Door Teachings

On page 26 after mentioning that the Whites by 1851 had “abandoned much of their shut door doctrine the problem was what to do with all of Ellen’s inspired testimonies indicating the door of mercy had been shut.” Prophetess of Health explains that: CBPH 37.9

She and James collected her early writings, systematically deleted passages that might be construed as supporting the shut door, and published the edited version as Ellen’s first book, A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White in 1851. CBPH 37.10

It is asserted that “from then on the Whites publicly denied that Ellen had ever been shown that the door was shut.” CBPH 37.11

As mentioned on page 33 of this critique the shut door matter is very involved and must be approached in the setting of the times. As to James and Ellen White publicly denying that “she had ever been shown that the door was shut,” her 1883 statement, quoted on page 34 of this critique gives an accurate picture. CBPH 37.12

Now it is true that as materials were drawn from Present Truth articles and broadsides for her 1851 book, not all that had been published up to that time was included. The 64 page book carried the title A Sketch of the Experience and Views. Writing of this in later years Ellen White recounted that they “had been very short of means, and were able to print at first only a small pamphlet.” (Selected Messages 1:53). CBPH 37.13

In introducing her first vision in this pamphlet she wrote, “Here I will give the view that was first published in 1846. In this view I saw only a few of the events of the future. More recent views have been more full. I shall therefore leave out a portion and prevent repetition” (Experience and Views, p. 9). CBPH 37.14

This she did. Among items not included is a phrase embodying the words, “All the wicked world God had rejected.” (A Word to the Little Flock, 14, available in all Adventist Book Centers in facsimile reprint, and in Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 561-584). CBPH 37.15

But, interestingly, her first little book contained a chapter on “The Open and the Shut Door,” now published in Early Writings, 42-45, under that title. On page 45 these words appear: “My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it; for the time for their salvation is past.” If James and Ellen White were systematically combing the writings to delete all reference to the shut door, why was this statement not expunged? See “Historical Prologue” to Early Writings, pp xxvii-xxx. See also Ellen G. White and Her Critics, chapters 13-15. CBPH 37.16

The Power Struggle of 1855

The closing pages of Chapter One (pp. 27-30) are given to what is portrayed as of a power struggle between James White, on the one side, and 23-year-old Uriah Smith and Ellen White on the other. A careful review of the source documents reveals that the Prophetess of Health account omits significant evidence and misreads other evidence. Such words as “doubtless,” “ostensibly,” “probably,” characterize the presentation. Here is how Prophetess of Health portrays the “struggle:” CBPH 38.1

1. In 1851 there was perplexity over the visions “doubtless” because of Ellen White’s changing stand on the “shut door” and a resentment over publishing private testimonies revealing sins and names and because the visions were elevated above the Bible. CBPH 38.2

2. In 1851 James White decided not to print the testimonies in the Review, saving them for an EXTRA which would from time to time supply the believers. CBPH 38.3

3. The result was that Ellen White not being allowed to publish the visions in the Review for the next four years and being allowed only seven non-vision articles became an exile among Sabbathkeeping Adventists. CBPH 38.4

4. Her visions unappreciated she became discouraged, the visions diminished in frequency and she feared her gift was about gone. With her public ministry dependent almost entirely on the visions she resigned herself to that of a Christian wife and mother, which she held to be a significant role. CBPH 38.5

5. James provided little or no encouragement, being galled by the accusation that he made his wife’s visions “a test.” CBPH 38.6

6. In October, 1855, White exploded and in an editorial angrily asked: “What has the Review to do with Mrs. W’s views?” The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty was the motto of the Review. Not one vision, he declared, had been published in the Review for five years. CBPH 38.7

7. The same issue of the Review announced that a group of Battle Creek Adventists were taking over the publication of the paper, ostensibly because of James White’s failing health. CBPH 38.8

8. James White longed to be freed from the “whining” complaints of critics, probably those “who criticized him for his attitude toward the visions.” CBPH 38.9

9. A short time later he was asked in the Review to apologize for his low estimate of his wife’s gift. CBPH 38.10

10. With Ellen White in the shadows during the early 1850’s, and with the denomination not prospering and with James White’s outspokenness, he was made the “scapegoat” and at a general meeting in November, 1855, his colleagues replaced him with 23 year old Uriah Smith. CBPH 38.11

11. This was followed by a committee of elders sorrowfully confessing the unfaithfulness of the church in ignoring God’s chosen messenger. They made a special point of repudiating James White’s “visions not a test” position. CBPH 38.12

12. Smith as one of his first acts as new editor reopened the Review pages to Ellen G. White. CBPH 38.13

13. Ellen White’s humiliation now over and with her prophetic role now secure, she declared that God would now smile on the church. CBPH 38.14

14. Quick to sense the shift, Ellen White now emerged as a dominant force among Sabbatarians, being in a position to threaten God’s displeasure to sustain her influence. CBPH 38.15

15. From this time forward, “Adventist leaders coveted her approval, and submitted in public at least, to the authority of her testimonies.” CBPH 38.16

16. Despite occasional inconsistencies and insensitivities, “most members clung to the belief that she represented a divine channel of communication.” CBPH 38.17

Now let us look at the documented facts. Only as the documents of the times are reviewed are the distortions uncovered. We shall review these points one by one. CBPH 38.18

1. The perplexity over the visions. “The visions trouble many,” (Letter to Brother and Sister Dodge, July 21, 1851). This is attributed in Prophetess of Health to three probable causes: CBPH 38.19

a. The changing stand on the shut door. CBPH 38.20

b. Resentment over publishing private testimonies “revealing secret sins and names.” CBPH 38.21

c. The visions were elevated above the Bible. CBPH 38.22

As to the shut door matter, the deletion of the phrase from Ellen White’s first vision, “all the wicked world which God had rejected” occurs first in the The Review and Herald Extra, July 21, 1851. The same material appeared in her first book printed from the same type as the July 21 Extra. So the only publication which might link the perplexity to the “shut door” was not in the field when Ellen White said “the visions trouble many.” The day she wrote the letter they were folding the sheets for the July 21 Extra. This rules out the “shut door” conjecture. CBPH 38.23

As to the publishing of private testimonies with names and sins specified, this did not take place until some years later. None had been published up to this time. CBPH 38.24

As to elevating the visions above the Bible, this was a charge repeatedly made by Sundaykeeping Adventists, but there is no evidence of it among Sabbathkeepers. James White’s position was “The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty” (The Review and Herald, October 16, 1855, 7:61). CBPH 38.25

A more feasible explanation of why many were troubled by the visions is that there was among the general public a resistance against such manifestation from the very start. James White dealt with this in 1847 in A Word to the Little Flock and referred to it a number of times later. We must not forget that this was only a few years after the 1844 murder of Joseph Smith, leader of the Mormons, and there was great resistance throughout the land to any claims to visions. CBPH 38.26

With the new interest made possible by people now willing to listen to the message and with the influx of new members, which began in 1850, not all had had an opportunity to judge concerning the visions. As expressed by James White in the Review Extra carrying the date of the letter to the Dodges, July 21, strong prejudice existed in many minds against a portion of the contents of the Extra. (See the Extra in full in facsimile reprints of Ellen G. White Review and Herald articles, Volume 1, pp. 13-16.) CBPH 39.1

2. As a result, James White announced his plan to not include the visions in the regular issues of the Review now being used as a missionary paper designed for spreading the message. The facts are that while a number of the visions appeared in the Present Truth (published till November, 1850), Volume 1 of the Review and Herald (published from November, 1850, to July, 1851), contained no communications from Ellen White, so this omission of visions was not an altogether new policy. The apostle writes that “prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them that believe” (1 Corinthians 14:22). The believers who were well acquainted with the visions would be supplied in some manner other than through the regular issues of the paper. A fully documented treatment of this episode is given in Messenger to the Remnant, pages 51-53. CBPH 39.2

3-4. This expediency on James White’s part was very likely supported by Ellen White. The Review and Herald now reached the believers with only occasional references to the Spirit of Prophecy and no actual accounts of visions. Although this contributed to a general decline in appreciation for the Spirit of Prophecy and a lessening of the importance accorded it in the work, this does not mean that Mrs. White was an “exile” among her own people. The records reveal that she continued to function as she had. The visions continued. She continued to travel and speak to the believers and to write in personal communications. The records indicate, however, that as time advanced her ministry became less appreciated, so that by 1855 there was a decline in the number of visions and she lost her burden for the believers. Of this she wrote in January, 1856: CBPH 39.3

The visions have been of late less and less frequent, and my testimony for God’s children has been gone. I have thought that my work in God’s cause was done, and that I had no further duty to do, but to save my own soul, and carefully attend to my little family.—The Review and Herald, January 10, 1856 7:118; Messenger to the Remnant, p. 52. CBPH 39.4

There were factors other than the lack of the appearance of the visions in the Review which contributed to this. She specifically mentions that she was discouraged as she saw “how little the visions have been heeded, and what little affect they have had upon others.” We must remember that Sabbathkeeping Adventists were finding their way in these things. She did state in the January 10, 1856, Review that “the gifts had been slighted and neglected.” CBPH 39.5

5. What about James White’s attitude? Were the visions a test? Any unbiased observer can see that James was in a difficult position. Never at any time did he waver concerning the visions. But the fact that the agent of God’s choice was his wife put him in an awkward and sometimes defensive position. This was particularly so in the matter of a defense of the visions. “My relation to the instrument of the Lord’s choice,” he felt was “sufficient excuse for my silence. My position was one of trial” (The Review and Herald, February 14, 1856, 7:158). CBPH 39.6

He continued, “I have ever been slow to speak of Mrs. White’s visions in a public manner, but in consequence of the almost utter silence of those who should have spoken fit words in season,” he explained that he had spoken and acted as he did “with the welfare of the cause” in mind. CBPH 39.7

6. Prophetess of Health reports that in October, 1855, James White exploded and angrily asked, “What has the Review to do with Mrs. White’s views?” Such a sentence did appear in the October 16, 1855, issue of the Review and Herald. We put it in its proper context: CBPH 39.8

What has the Review to do with Mrs. White’s views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. The Review for five years has not published one of them. Its motto has been “the Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty.” CBPH 39.9

After quoting the one sentence, Prophetess of Health states, as if to link the seemingly likely events together, “The same issue of the Review and Herald containing this outburst also announced that a group of Battle Creek Adventists were taking over the publication of the paper, ostensibly because of James White’s declining health.” CBPH 39.10

An examination of the records of the time reveals no connection between James White’s statement on the visions and the change in the editing and management of the Review. In fact the documentation demolishes such an argument. CBPH 39.11

We will deal with the vision question first and James White’s “angry” question, “What has the Review to do with Mrs. White’s views?” The reader of Prophetess of Health is not informed that in the same October 16, 1855, issue of the Review four and three-fourths columns are given over to James White’s discussion of the prophetic gift and its place in the remnant church—forty-seven column inches. This defense appears under such titles as: CBPH 39.12

(a) “Adding To and Taking From,” with reference to last day manifestations of the gift of prophecy in the Sacred Canon. CBPH 39.13

(b) “Peter’s Testimony” providing the argument of Joel and Peter to the last day expectation of the gift of the spirit of prophecy. CBPH 39.14

(c) “Jannes and Jambres” deals with the resistance to the Spirit of Prophecy which can be expected in the last days and the declaration that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit promised in Joel 2, “Will of course fully attend the last message of the last days, when in its greatest power and glory.... No man can show that God has taken away the gifts He put in the church.” CBPH 39.15

(d) “The Counterfeit and No Genuine” showing that such would be absurd, and as the counterfeit is in the field we are assured “the genuine exists.” CBPH 39.16

(e) Then under the title “A Test” James White takes up the charge that “The Review and its conductors make the views of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship.” It is in his defense of the proposition that is was the policy of the Review to present doctrinal views from the Bible, for as a people we are not dependent upon the visions of Mrs. White for our doctrinal holdings, that White goes on to point out the unfairness of declaring as some of the enemies of the cause did that the doctrinal views presented in the Review were the “vision view,” and “not the Bible view of the subject.” CBPH 39.17

He then names a number of major points held by “the body of Sabbath keepers” that were brought out from the Scriptures before Mrs. White “had any view in regard to them.” It is in this setting, and not in “anger,” that White asked “What has the Review to do with Mrs. White’s views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures” (The Review and Herald, October 16, 1855, 7:61). CBPH 40.1

“Now,” wrote James White as he closed his four and three-fourths column presentation, “we shall go right along believing and teaching the word of the Lord. This is our business. And if we choose to believe Mrs. White’s views which harmonize with the Word, this is our business, and nobody’s else. But if we should leave the Word and look for a rule of faith and duty by some new revelation, then it would be the business of the church to silence me as a religious teacher.” (Ibid.) CBPH 40.2

In its proper and full setting, ignored in Prophetess of Health, James White’s declared position and one traceable back to 1847, emerges sound and consistent. Apparently some were disturbed, perhaps focusing, as does Prophetess of Health on a few phrases rather than on the presentation as a whole. CBPH 40.3

As to the relationship of this significant extended presentation by James White to changes in management and editorial staff of the Review and Herald, it is purely coincidental. James and Ellen White were just back from a three month trip and just as soon as he was able to pull things together he did two things: (1) He began to take the steps for the reorganization of the publishing work he had proposed earlier; and (2) He also took steps to set the Spirit of Prophecy before the church as he held it, in a clear manner. And both appeared in the same issue. If the change in the management of the Review was based upon his declared position on the visions, marked by his outburst on the relation of the Review to Mrs. White’s views, as is inferred, how is it that the one is mentioned in the same issue of the Review, October 16, 1855, as the other? It could hardly be a cause and effect relationship. Until this particular issue of the paper, White had been silent for many months on the subject of the visions, and if the action of the brethren was to be dependent upon his published statements, the result could not have come about until a later time. CBPH 40.4

7. Now as to the power struggle portrayed on pages 28-30. The full review of the documentation over a period of several months presenting the body of facts tells a different story than that set forth in the book. It is said that “ostensibly” because of James White’s broken constitution “a group of Battle Creek Adventists” took over the publication of the paper and “his colleagues replaced him with ... 23-year-old Uriah Smith.” Linking this with White’s position on the visions which they are said to have repudiated, it is strongly implied that Uriah Smith won out in the power struggle and Ellen White was also a winner, for with Smith as editor the paper was reopened to Ellen White, who now emerged “as a dominant force among Sabbatarians.” CBPH 40.5

We ask the reader to follow through a further presentation of the facts. First, we reiterate that there is no coercive evidence linking James White’s four and three-fourths column presentation on the visions and what is portrayed as a power struggle. The fact that one paralleled the other is purely coincidental. It must be remembered, too, that the events portrayed took place in the formative period five years before serious steps were taken toward church organization, and before there was any regular support for the ministers. While Sabbath keeping Adventists had contributed $700 to the purchase of the press, type and other equipment and supplies, the publishing enterprise had not only been managed by James White, but he was solely responsible for its finances and for any debts incurred in the business. CBPH 40.6

There came a time when these burdens were too great for one man to carry. James White’s health had been deteriorating for the past two years. In mid-June, 1855, White, with “one great object,” “the restoration of health,” and in the hope of not being “compelled to leave the work” (The Review and Herald, September 4, 1855, 7:36), embarked with his wife on an eleven week journey to the New England states, the vicinity of his birth, boyhood days and early ministry. CBPH 40.7

In Vermont as he reported in the Review of August 7, he took up with the brethren the question of the ownership and control of the office of publication, which he maintained belonged to the church, and he declared: CBPH 40.8

The Office is the property of the church. The church must wake up to this matter, and free us from responsibilities that have been forced upon us, and which we have reluctantly taken. We must have freedom and repose, or go into the grave.—The Review and Herald, August 7, 1855, 7:20. CBPH 40.9

White ascertained that the brethren in Vermont were willing and ready to assume the responsibility of the publishing enterprise if it was thought best to locate it there. It is obvious he thought a more central location was preferable. CBPH 40.10

In a letter he wrote on August 20, from Paris, Maine, he outlined several steps he felt should be followed, among them the following: CBPH 40.11

“Let Brother Uriah Smith be resident Editor. James White, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Andrews, J. H. Waggoner, corresponding editors—all five to have an equal voice in conducting the paper and each to be paid for services according to the judgment of the financial committee.”—James White letter to A. A. Dodge, Aug. 20, 1855. CBPH 40.12

He enumerated in five numbered points the steps he felt should be taken, and then proposed: “Let Brother Smith as resident Editor, attend to office matters, prepare matter for the press, read proof, etc.”—Ibid. CBPH 40.13

Returning from the East to the Rochester, New York, headquarters on August 31, Elder White was now prepared to report: CBPH 40.14

We are happy to say that brethren in Michigan cheerfully take upon themselves the responsibilities of the Review office. They will probably move it to that State this Fall. Brethren in Vermont are willing and ready to do the same, but regard Michigan to be more the center of the future field of labor, and are willing that the Press should be established in that State.—The Review and Herald, September 4, 1855, 7:36. CBPH 41.1

And James White added, “It will be our duty and privilege to be freed from the office at present, at least.” It is significant that the September 4 issue of the Review carries no editor’s name on the masthead. White had declared his intention to shift the load and made it clear by dropping his name as editor. CBPH 41.2

White hastened on to Michigan to confer with the brethren there. On Sunday, September 23, at a meeting with J. B. Frisbie, acting chairman, and A. A. Dodge as secretary, the major business was: CBPH 41.3

a. “That the Advent Review office still remain the property of the church.” CBPH 41.4

b. “That the Advent Review office be moved to Battle Creek, Michigan.” CBPH 41.5

c. “That a financial committee of three be chosen” to “move the office and publish the Advent Review.” CBPH 41.6

d. And that this committee devise and propose through the Review a plan for conducting the editorial department of the paper. (The Review and Herald, October 2, 1855, 7:56). CBPH 41.7

In the next issue the committee made the following proposal: Let there be chosen by the Church a Resident Editor, whose duty it shall be to take charge of the local interests of the Editorial department. Also let the Church select four or six brethren, from different portions of the field to act as a Committee, or corresponding Editors, who shall have equal voice in conducting, assist in the Editorial department as their circumstances may admit, and who shall have equal voice with the Resident Editor in deciding what is proper to be published in the Review.—The Review and Herald, October 16, 1855, 7:60. CBPH 41.8

Except for the number of corresponding editors, this was exactly what James White had recommended back in August. CBPH 41.9

The same issue on the last page called for a General Conference in Battle Creek November 16. The object of the meeting was declared to be “the choice of men to conduct the Review.” There was a call for delegates from the field and letters expressing viewpoints on the matter to be considered. The December 4 issue of the Review—the first published in Battle Creek—carries the minutes of the business session of the November 16 Conference. CBPH 41.10

A committee was appointed to investigate the financial condition of the Review office. CBPH 41.11

The committee appointed on September 3 was designated as the committee to “hold in trust the press for the benefit of the church.” CBPH 41.12

Vermont. These are,—with the addition of Pierce, the men whom James White had recommended for these positions. CBPH 41.13

James White was to receive pay for his investment in the office with the church being requested to furnish the funds. CBPH 41.14

In the management of the publication and sale of books James White was to be subject to the advice of the financial and publishing committee. CBPH 41.15

There was a vote of thanks to Brother White for his valuable services as editor in spreading the light of present truth. CBPH 41.16

While the masthead had carried no name as editor since James White on September 4th had announced that the brethren in Michigan would take upon themselves the “responsibilities of the Review office” and rejoiced in his “privilege to be freed from the office at present,” the issue of Dec. 4, 1855, reporting the selection of Uriah Smith as resident editor carried Smith’s name prominently on the masthead. CBPH 41.17

James White for reasons he had already stated, had called upon the church to take over the office and the paper for it belonged to the church. The church responded and the shift was made comfortably and promptly, with James White clearly engineering the step by step transfer. The issue carrying the name Uriah Smith, resident editor, also carried a note by James White reporting the completion of the new office building in Battle Creek, erected by four brethren in Michigan, the safe and propitious removal from Rochester of the press, type, etc., and that all connected with the office were entering upon their work “with fresh courage and pleasing hopes” (The Review and Herald, December 4, 1855, 7:78). CBPH 41.18

While Smith did not initial his editorials and articles, nearly every issue carried articles and notes initialed by James White (JW) and J. H. Waggoner (JHW), with White’s much in the majority. White was grateful to be relieved of the nitty gritty of publishing and editing, but he did not slink away as “one who had been made the likely scapegoat” of an unfortunate situation, “replaced” by “his colleagues” who “chose 23-year-old Uriah Smith” to edit the paper as Prophetess of Health insinuates. CBPH 41.19

These added pieces of evidence lead to conclusions quite different from those of Prophetess of Health and illustrate the necessity of weighing carefully all the evidence on the topic before reaching a conclusion. CBPH 41.20

8. The whining complaints of critics are said by Prophetess of Health probably to be from those who “criticized him for his attitudes toward the visions.” Taken in context the intent of the phrase in question is clear. The “whining complaints” concerning James White’s financial management of the office, not his attitudes towards the visions: CBPH 41.21

We must have freedom and repose, or go into the grave. Our interest in the precious cause has not abated. All we can do, we will do, but we desire freedom from our present position, and that the cause may be freed from the effects of the whining complaints of jealous ones. CBPH 41.22

Those persons take care and not come to us with their complaints; but we meet their poisonous letters addressed to others relative to our course in all quarters. Be it known to such that Office affairs are open to the investigation of any committee of decent men, at any proper time and place.—The Review and Herald, August 7, 1855, 7:20. CBPH 42.1

9. James White asked to apologize—in the communications column of the February 14, 1856, issue of the Review there appears a letter from a layman, Hiram Bingham, expressing the perplexity of some of the believers in his area concerning James White’s statements about the visions. They were concerned that White did not make them a test. They asked, “If duty demands he make some apology through the Review,” this would relieve the minds of those troubled. There was no formal request for an apology as might be implied. CBPH 42.2

In his response White declares that he did not make the visions the “rule of our faith,” nor would he test all men by the visions, and as it was known that he “was in union with the ‘address of the Conference’ published in No. 10 (Dec. 4, 1855) and my relation to the instrument of the Lord’s choice, were a sufficient excuse for my silence.” He closed his response with the words, “I believe them [the visions] to be the property of the church, and a test to those who believe them from Heaven” (The Review and Herald, February 14, 1856, 7:158). CBPH 42.3

10. The replacement of James White by Uriah Smith as Review editor has been dealt with above. CBPH 42.4

11. A “Conference Address” represented the conclusion of the believers attending the conference held at Battle Creek November 16, 1855. It made clear the inconsistency of holding that the visions came from God, harmonizing with “His written word” and at the same time that such believers would “not be tested by them.” Believers should be tested by the visions, but tolerance should be exercised with unbelievers. As noted above, James White was in full harmony with this. CBPH 42.5

12-16. The emergence of Ellen White as the winner in the power struggle is dealt with above CBPH 42.6