Ellen G. White and Her Critics


But What of Those Moons?

It is in the light of this larger view, as drawn from the record, that we see her 1846 astronomy vision in true perspective. EGWC 97.3

But now what of those moons? If the memory of those who wrote of the vision is wholly dependable, and if their tying together her description of different worlds with the number of moons—for she named no planets—is correct, why did she not name the true total of moons? The critic is sure that here is clear proof that she was a fraud. But let us go a little slowly. EGWC 97.4

Bates was honestly skeptical, and because of his study of astronomy he might most easily be impressed by a vision that dealt with the wonders of the heavens. Now if God was the author of Mrs. White’s visions, might He not seek to bring conviction to Bates’s mind as to her divine credentials by giving to her a vision of the heavens? But right here a problem arises: If the Lord caused her prophetic eye to be sharpened to the point where she could see far beyond what the greatest telescope of that time could see, would not her description in vision result only in filling Bates’s mind with doubt and bewilderment? EGWC 97.5

The essence of the charge before us is that if she had been a true prophet, she would have seen and announced the true total of moons for each planet, and thus “would have proved her vision to be of God.” Indeed! “Proved” to whom? Not to Bates. Nothing could have made him more certain that she was what his skeptical fears had told him she was, a misguided enthusiast. Why should he accept her in opposition to the best reports of all the astronomers of his day? EGWC 98.1