Ellen G. White and Her Critics

Reasons for Variations in Applying Health Laws

1. Difference in climate or country, with inevitable differences in available food supply. A certain combination of foods may be most ideal but may not be obtainable at certain seasons or in certain countries. EGWC 378.3

2. Difference in time. Foods that at one time might be banned as carriers of disease might at a later time and with different sanitary conditions be considered relatively unobjectionable. EGWC 378.4

3. Differences in the economic or educational status of people. Certain people may have neither the knowledge of dietary principles to enable them to cook without the use of certain ingredients nor the means to provide the most ideal foods. There was a time in America, for example, when fresh fruits, nuts, et cetera, were scarce—and hence costly—in some parts of the country, particularly, out of season. EGWC 378.5

4. Difference in people, as to age, temperament, physical state, and the like. EGWC 378.6

The strength of the charge that Mrs. White reversed herself on her dietary teachings resides in a refusal to take account of the various differences here listed. In judging Mrs. White, critics will not tolerate for a moment any application of the principle that circumstances alter cases, though they are ready to apply that adage to every other situation in life, including even some unusual situations in the Bible. Indeed, they are aware that Christ Himself provided an excellent illustration of the principle that circumstances alter cases. Said He to the caviling Pharisees: EGWC 378.7

“Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?” Matthew 12:3, 4. EGWC 379.1

Moses, the great prophet of God, had borne positive testimony that the shewbread should be eaten only by the priests. But Christ, who gave to all the prophets the words they should speak, informs the Pharisees of an exception to this positive testimony. By clear implication Christ indicates that David was blameless. EGWC 379.2

We cite this instance from Holy Writ, not to draw an exact parallel to anything that Mrs. White has written, but simply to illustrate the point that circumstances do alter cases, even to altering the application of a testimony given by a prophet of God. EGWC 379.3