Ellen G. White and Her Critics

Charge Number 5

“Every person who knows anything about the Bible, must know that pork eating is forbidden, and yet, Mrs. White as the self-appointed mouthpiece for God, said that pork was ‘nourishing, strengthening food,’ and that those who taught that it was wrong to eat swine’s flesh were making ‘a time of trouble for themselves.’ EGWC 374.1

“This she claims was shown her in vision.” (See Testimonies for the Church 1:206, 207.) EGWC 374.2

Later she condemned the eating of swine’s flesh. (See Testimonies for the Church 2:96.) EGWC 374.3

What did Mrs. White really say on this matter of pork? The facts are these: In 1859 she wrote a letter to a family who are identified only as “Dear Bro. and Sister A.” The letter is printed in Testimonies, volume 1, under the title “Errors in Diet.” Note the plural, “Errors.” What these various errors may have been we can only infer from the letter that Mrs. White wrote to them. She says: EGWC 374.4

“I saw that you had mistaken notions about afflicting your bodies, depriving yourselves of nourishing food. These things lead some of the church to think that God is surely with you, or you would not deny self, and sacrifice thus.”—Page 205. Then she adds, “Some have gone to extremes in regard to diet.” EGWC 374.5

She goes on: “I was referred back to our experience in Rochester, N. Y. I saw that when we lived there we did not eat nourishing food as we should, and disease nearly carried us to the grave.” She explains that the reason was that they were poor and trying to save money to promote the work of God. But, she adds, “I saw that God does not require any one to take a course of such rigid economy as to weaken or injure the temple of God.” This is followed by her discussion of the general principle that those who labor with their hands and those who labor in word and doctrine “should eat of nourishing, strengthening food to build up their strength.” EGWC 374.6

It is clearly evident from this first half of her extended letter that Mrs. White was correcting these people in regard to (1) wrong ideas on economy, the kind of economy that would actually give them insufficient diet; and (2) wrong ideas about “afflicting” their bodies with a view to acquiring added holiness in the eyes of others. EGWC 374.7

Then, in a new paragraph, she declares: EGWC 375.1

“I saw that your views concerning swine’s flesh would prove no injury if you have them to yourselves; but in your judgment and opinion you have made this question a test, and your actions have plainly shown your faith in this matter. If God requires his people to abstain from swine’s flesh, he will convict them on the matter. He is just as willing to show his honest children their duty, as to show their duty to individuals upon whom he has not laid the burden of his work. If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine’s flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach his church their duty.”—Testimonies for the Church 1:206, 207. EGWC 375.2

There is nothing in Mrs. White’s letter to suggest that this family’s “views concerning swine’s flesh” were prompted by a sense of economy. There was nothing particularly expensive about swine’s flesh compared with other flesh or with other foods. In the first half of her letter Mrs. White rebukes them for some “mistaken notions about afflicting your bodies, depriving yourselves of nourishing food.” If she was trying to tell these people that swine’s flesh is “nourishing, strengthening food,” why would she say, “I saw that your views concerning swine’s flesh would prove no injury if you have them to yourselves”? EGWC 375.3

Patently, then, whatever counsel Mrs. White had for them concerning their views on swine’s flesh, it was not with regard to any possible nourishing, strengthening quality it might possess, but on other grounds. These other grounds are clearly set forth in the quotation already given. It is evident that this family had made the question of swine’s flesh “a test,” and an occasion for assuming a holier-than-thou attitude. It has been the sad experience throughout all the history of Christianity that eminently worthwhile and even necessary reforms have sometimes had to be rebuked, for the moment, by high-minded men, because those who sought to bring in the reform used imprudent haste and methods, and even worse, unwarranted reasons. There is nothing in Mrs. White’s statement that prevents the reader from believing in the possible importance of reform on the matter of swine’s flesh. Her only rebuke was to a certain family that she felt was approaching the matter in the wrong way. EGWC 375.4

Of course those who bring this particular charge—and those who have copied it—remind us that the Bible plainly forbids pork eating and declare that if Mrs. White were truly a prophet of God she would have known this and spoken out plainly. But she did not. Hence, they argue, she is not a true prophet. EGWC 376.1

But must a Prophet have all light and all knowledge on all questions of significance to the church at the very outset of the discussion of them? That question has been raised in earlier chapters, and illustrations provided to show that even to prophets God does not always give all the light at once. In view of this we hardly think that the fair-minded reader will find any grounds for indicting Mrs. White’s claim to the prophetic gift because at the very outset she did not see that swine’s flesh should not be eaten. Prophets are to be held to account, not for what they admit they do not know, but for what they claim God has revealed to them. EGWC 376.2