Ellen G. White and Her Critics

The Critic’s “Proof” From Deleted Names

Earlier published testimonies gave the names of the persons addressed, but since 1883, “when her testimonies were revised,” ^* the names were omitted. “But if it was proper for her to publish these names thus at first, why did she not continue to do so? The omission of these names in this way is an open confession on the face of it that she was not inspired by God to put them in the first place.” “One of her testimonies incriminating a certain individual provoked a $50,000 suit for damages. The suit was settled out of court.” EGWC 504.2

The critic offers no data by which we may identify names or places in connection with the alleged suit. There are none to submit. No suit was ever brought against Mrs. White for anything she ever wrote in any testimony to anyone. ^† Hence there was no suit to be “settled out of court.” Nor did Mrs. White ever pay a dollar on threat of suit to anyone, anytime, anywhere, because of any testimony she ever wrote. This statement can be made without fear of refutation. EGWC 504.3

With the obscuring dust of a “revision” and a “suit” removed, we come directly to the alleged evidence of the noninspired character of Mrs. White’s writings, her failure to continue using the names of individuals in the printings of the Testimonies. “If it was proper for her to publish these names thus at first,” the critic inquires, “why did she not continue to do so?” Has he not read the inspired dictum: “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient”? 1 Corinthians 6:12. And does he not know that Paul, who voiced those words, actually declared himself ready to refrain from doing certain things he had formerly done, even though lawful? We read: “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” 1 Corinthians 8:13. EGWC 505.1

When the Testimonies were first written the Adventist group was small. The testimonies frequently consisted of special messages to individuals or local church groups. There was ample reason for giving names and places, in order to deal most specifically with problems and crises. The very definiteness of the testimonies contributed to their authentication. But in later years the particular conditions that called forth the testimonies were simply memories, though the principles set forth were timeless. Why continue to focus on the individual? And, also, why bring needless embarrassment to such individuals in later years, when probably long ago they had rectified the mistakes discussed in the testimonies? Or why bring needless embarrassment to close relatives? EGWC 505.2