A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health

What Did Ellen White Borrow?

While Prophetess of Health refers to the contribution current health literature made to Mrs. White’s writings, no literary dependence on the writings of other health reformers is shown in Appeals to Mothers, published in April 1864. CBPH 53.8

And although there is an attempt to do so, no convincing evidence of specific literary dependence can be shown in the chapter on “Health” which appeared in Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 4, in August of that year. CBPH 53.9

Prophetess of Health on page 83 asserts that that chapter “reads in places like L. B. Coles,” and declares, “She recited the established principles of health reform, attributing them to her recent vision.” CBPH 53.10

At this point the book seems purposely cautious in this assertion compared with statements that in some of Mrs. White’s later health writings she made free use of Coles (p. 162) and she “borrowed from Coles” (p. 166). CBPH 53.11

Now, Mrs. White freely acknowledges that some time after publishing Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 4, and sketching out her six articles on “How to Live,” she read the works of other health reformers. Thus, her later employment of similar phraseology is an entirely different question from the alleged similarities between her Spiritual Gifts chapter and the writings of L.B. Coles. CBPH 53.12

In a footnote, Prophetess of Health cites four brief passages from Ellen White’s basic Spiritual Gifts’ chapter on health and lines them up in parallel columns with extracts from L. B. Coles’ books (pages 232, 233). How can these seeming similarities be explained? CBPH 53.13

First, as one examines these parallels and compares the wording he is struck by the similarity of sentiments expressed, but an absence of Coles’ phraseology. Second, both Ellen White and L. B. Coles lived in the same era and culture, they inherited the same language patterns, and they were discussing the same subject. It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the same words were employed in expressing similar thoughts. CBPH 53.14

At this point the reader should avoid the subtle pitfall of assuming that because there is a similarity of sentiment, one writer was indebted to another. Natural laws relating to physiology and nutrition may be discovered through research or may be given by revelation. If the findings of research are sound, they are bound to harmonize with revelation, for God is the author of these laws. It is neither correct nor in harmony with the facts to conclude that similarity of views or even language necessarily proves that Ellen White gained her information from men instead of from God. CBPH 53.15

Another point is also important. In the four brief passages which Prophetess of Health claims are similar to Coles, the statements in the case dealing with physicians and drugs are so remote from each other in their linguistic patterns that one strains to see any possible literary relationship. The other three passages all deal with tea, coffee, or tobacco—subjects on which Ellen White had received visions as early as 1848 and about which she had spoken and written (Testimonies for the Church 1:224) and concerning which the Review and Herald had been publishing articles for years. CBPH 53.16

J. N. Andrews wrote in 1856: CBPH 53.17

That tobacco is a stimulant, producing in many cases partial intoxication, is also an undoubted fact. That it is an active poison, seriously deranging the systems of those who use it, admits of the clearest proof. What right has any man to destroy his own nervous system and cut short his days by the habitual use of poison? What excuse can a man offer to God for intoxicating himself with tobacco?—The Review and Herald, April 10, 1856, 8:5. (Emphasis supplied.) CBPH 53.18

In 1859 James White wrote: CBPH 54.1

Thank God that it has been our privilege, as a people (though all have not acted upon it) to add to our faith virtue, knowledge and temperance, so as to dismiss the filthy weed, tobacco, and the useless herb, tea. But if the spirit of reform on these things had never entered our ranks, the poorest among us, who might be slaves to these slow poisons would surmount every obstacle in their way of obtaining them and would use them freely.—The Review and Herald, June 9, 1859, 14:22. (Emphasis supplied.) CBPH 54.2

John Bostwick of Minnesota also used terminology that was commonly used at the time to describe tobacco. In an article appearing in the Review of June 11, 1861, he says: CBPH 54.3

I have seen individuals who came for miles to get the advice of a hydropathic physician in abandoning the use of tobacco.... All will agree that it is generally a habit, and a dirty practice, and when the understanding is enlightened on this subject is it not a sin to thus pollute our bodies with this insidious poison?—The Review and Herald, June 11, 1861, 18:24. (Emphasis supplied.) CBPH 54.4

James White comments editorially: CBPH 54.5

The habitual use of tobacco is injurious to the constitution. As one proof of this we refer to those who have become so nervous and shattered by long using this slow poison that they are compelled to abandon it.—The Review and Herald, December 3, 1861, 19:4. CBPH 54.6

It is interesting to note that in describing tobacco the expressions “insidious poison” and “slow poison” are used. Thus it is apparent that when Ellen White used terminology that Prophetess of Health suggests came from Coles, the evidence indicates that it was not peculiar to him, but was used by people in general. CBPH 54.7

As to tea, M. B. Smith of Marion, Iowa, quotes numerous doctors on its deleterious effects. Observe the language commonly used at that time to describe these effects: CBPH 54.8

Dr. Wm. A. Alcott says, “One evidence that tea is poisonous, is found in the fact that, like alcohol, stramonium, belladonna, and many other medicines, it produces its specific disease—the tea disease.” This will be more fully appreciated, coming as it does from one who is so generally known in this country, and one who has written so much on the subject of life and health. CBPH 54.9

John Cole, member of the Royal College of surgeons in London, has written much on the tea disease, and has paid much attention to the effects of tea on the human system. He shows that all tea-drinkers are liable to the tea disease just as much as every dram-drinker is liable to the delirium tremens. He gives a list of ten patients who were suffering from this disease, and says that they were almost all cured by the disuse of tea. CBPH 54.10

The Catechism of Health, says that “tea when drank strong, and in large quantities, impairs the powers of the stomach, produces nervous symptoms,” etc. CBPH 54.11

Dr. Hooper, in his Medical Dictionary, says of tea, “When taken too copiously, it is apt to occasion weakness, tremor, palsies, and various other symptoms arising from narcotic plants.” CBPH 54.12

Dr. Beaumont, a surgeon in the United States army, whose experiments have attracted the attention of the whole medical world, says “Even coffee and tea, the common beverage of all classes of people, have a tendency to debilitate the digestive organs.”—The Review and Herald, May 21, 1861, 18:6. (Emphasis supplied.) CBPH 54.13

In October of the same year the Review published another article by M. B. Smith, this one on coffee. Again notice the language commonly used to describe the effects of coffee: CBPH 54.14

Coffee is a medicine, a narcotic. To prove this we will cite some of the best medical men of Europe and America. CBPH 54.15

Hooper, in his medical dictionary, says, “It possesses nervine and astringent qualities. It is said to be a good antidote against an overdose of opium, and to relieve obstinate spasmodic asthmas.” CBPH 54.16

Dr. Paris says, “It is suspected of producing palsies, and not without foundation.” CBPH 54.17

Do we need any stronger evidence of its narcotic tendency? CBPH 54.18

Dr. Combe, in his work on Diet and Regimen, says, “It acts as a strong stimulant, and certainly increases our comfort for the time. Like all other stimulants, however, its use is attended with the disadvantage of exhausting the sensibility of the part on which it acts, and induces weakness.” CBPH 54.19

He elsewhere says, “Coffee, like tea, is a slow poison to all under all circumstances.”—The Review and Herald, October 1, 1861, 18:142. (Emphasis supplied.) CBPH 54.20

Thus three of the four paralleling exhibits presented in Prophetess of Health, pp. 232-233 for the purpose of linking Ellen G. White’s 1864 Spiritual Gifts, statements on tobacco, tea, and coffee with Coles fade into insignificance for she and others were freely discussing these matters in terms common to all, years in advance of the basic health reform vision of June 6, 1863. (See Testimonies for the Church 1:224). CBPH 54.21

Even though Ellen White may have used words and phrases employed by Coles and Mann and other speakers and writers, we believe that the views and concepts behind these words and phrases came to her not from Coles and Mann and others but from God. In other words, the selection of words from human sources to express concepts received by divine inspiration does not mean that the concepts are of purely human origin. CBPH 54.22

Of the groups of parallels cited in Prophetess of Health all are found in the writings of L. B. Coles except one group from the works of Horace Mann. It should be noted that the Mann parallels were included in those portions of Mann’s Lecture which James and Ellen White had themselves selected to become a part of Health; or How to Live, Number 6, “Words from Horace Mann, Extracts from His Lectures,” pages 25-47. This was in 1865, after Ellen White had done her basic writing on health. CBPH 54.23

Articles from Coles’ Philosophy of Health are used on a number of occasions in the How to Live series. In How to Live, Number 2, his article “Particular Directions to Parents and Guardians” is used. In Number 3, a section titled “Cure Without Drugs” is included from Philosophy of Health. In How to Live, Number 4, Coles is represented by “The Respiratory System,” and in Number 5 two articles of his appear: “Lung Affections,” and “Spirits, Coffee, and Tea.” In Number 6, his “Obligations to Law” is included. CBPH 55.1

In the light of these facts, it is clear that Mrs. White was not trying to deceive anyone. Two of the passages which Prophetess of Health cites on pp. 166 and 167 were borrowed and published in later years, and were in 1865 published and distributed in How to Live right along with her own initial writings on health. CBPH 55.2

To summarize: In 1864, after she had published her account of her June 6, 1863, vision, which Mrs. White declares she received from God, not men, she did borrow phraseology from Mann and Coles, both of whom she includes among those health reformers whose views were “nearly in harmony” with what the Lord had revealed to her. But let it be emphasized, according to all evidence found to date these borrowings began to appear in her writings only after the time she freely acknowledges she read these very writers. CBPH 55.3