Ellen G. White and Her Critics

423/552

A Postscript to the Exhibit

As a kind of postscript to the so-called false Daniels “testimony,” the critic charges: EGWC 494.1

“The mistake Mrs. White made in this case shook his faith in her testimonies, so much so that he came nearly leaving the work then. The writer had a long conference with him, trying to relieve his doubts; but they always stuck to him, and opened his eyes to other mistakes of Mrs. White. Finally, after years of struggle, he withdrew from the denomination, and opposes it now.” EGWC 494.2

Note the following in comment on this sweeping declaration: EGWC 494.3

1. We have only the critic’s word for this. He cites no document of any kind. EGWC 494.4

2. In the only documentary data known regarding this so-called false “testimony” there is nothing to suggest that Daniels’ faith in Mrs. White was shaken in any way. On the contrary, he relates the facts in defense of her work against a critic’s misrepresentation. EGWC 494.5

3. The file of correspondence between Mrs. White and Daniels in the years between the so-called false “testimony” and the critic’s departure from the denomination, in 1887, * reveals that Daniels was a devout believer in the divine source of Mrs. White’s testimonies. In his letters to her he addresses her by such names as these: “Dear Mother in Christ,” and “My dear Mother in Christ.” EGWC 494.6

4. The documentary evidence available for the 1880’s also discloses that Daniels had repeated difficulties with his finances. He stated that his heavy debts were due to illness in his home. More than once he dropped out of preaching for a time to recoup his finances. In 1885 his credentials were not renewed. Mrs. White counseled the brethren to deal gently with him. He was given credentials again in 1886. His financial condition failed to right itself, and on December 13, 1889, he turned in his credentials and left the ministry permanently. His letter of that date to J. N. Loughborough, who was then president of the California Conference, gives as his reason for withdrawing, his heavy debts, and the fact that the conference committee were not agreeable to his supplementing his salary with any nonministerial labors. EGWC 494.7

It is true that almost immediately after this he became bitter against Mrs. White. But was this because of her so-called false testimony “about the year 1882”? No. We have discovered no reference to it in the correspondence between them. But we do find that on November 5, 1889—only a few weeks before he relinquished his credentials—Mrs. White had written to him regarding one of his endeavors to improve his financial situation. He had been selling mining stock, and calling upon the members of the church to invest in it monies that might have been solicited for the work of God. We disclose no secret when we mention this fact. His dealings were known to all men. Nor do we relate this with any desire to throw a shadow over the dead. Far from it. We wish only to give an honest record of facts, so far as the record must be given, to refute false accusations made against Mrs. White. She, also, is among the dead! Human nature being what it is, how natural it would be for Daniels to set his heart against Mrs. White as a result of her reproof—but reproof of a different nature from that alleged in the charge. EGWC 495.1

Again we are led to remark: How different the picture looks when the facts are set down. EGWC 495.2