GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | GCO PRESS PRICE LIST | GCO Ministry Officers 2010-09-02 20:06Z

Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?

A Review of Graeme Bradford, Prophets Are Human (Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Co, 2004).

Presenter:   Kevin D. Paulson

Location:    Internet

Delivery:    2004-04-22

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2004-04-22

Type:        Book review

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php

In this short yet provocative book, Graeme Bradford, a former pastor and ministerial director and current theology teacher at Avondale College, seeks to direct inquiring minds through the current minefield of Internet-based Ellen White criticism.

Writing in story form with fictional characters, Bradford charts the pilgrimage of a young Adventist couple confronted by the reams of anti-Adventist invective on numerous Web sites, particularly the attacks directed at Ellen White. An honest truth-seeker who became an Adventist through what he considered compelling objective evidence, “Doug” now finds his faith severely shaken by the Internet revelations, many of which he claims to have verified by checking the sources (pp. 13-16). Eventually he tells his wife, a born-and-bred Adventist who soon shares her husband’s shock at having never been told these things (p. 18). As time passes and doubt intensifies, they start declining church offices and skipping church attendance (p. 19).

How their doubts are addressed, and their confidence in Ellen White presumably restored, fills the narrative that follows. Their pastor comes to visit them, discovers what is troubling them (pp. 21, 22), and soon invites a professor from the nearby Adventist college to come answer their questions (pp. 22, 23).

The answers thus given are the subject of this review.

Because of its sensitive pastoral tone, and apparent support for Ellen White’s prophetic gift in the face of myriad attacks, it is doubtful this book will remain within the confines of the Australian church. Indeed, its cover endorsement by the current Adventist Review editor—as well as the South Pacific Division president, ministerial secretary, and a leading Andrews University scholar—almost guarantee that it will receive a wide circulation. And considering the widespread, continuing impact of current assaults on Ellen White’s claims—not to mention the decisive impact of Ellen White’s teachings on current denominational issues—the book obviously touches a live nerve in the contemporary church.

But despite its positive message, and the inclusion of much that is good in its pages, what follows will demonstrate that the author’s effort to “humanize” Ellen White has in fact produced a dangerous compromise of her authority as God’s messenger to His end-time church.

Points of Agreement

Bradford is certainly right to address the error of what is commonly called verbal inspiration, citing Ellen White’s statement that “the writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen” (p. 30) (1). He rightly directs attention to peripheral discrepancies in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life (pp. 51, 52), thus drawing a parallel between these and similar perceived discrepancies in the historical sections of The Great Controversy (pp. 47-50). And he correctly cites the principle repeated often by Ellen White’s modern apologists, in answer to the charge of source usage, that “originality is not a test of inspiration” (p. 43).

Bradford does well in debunking the popular plagiarism charge against Ellen White, found not only on the various Internet sites but also in the writings of her prominent modern critics. He points to Luke’s use of sources in his Gospel as a Biblical parallel to what Ellen White did (Luke 1:1-4) (p. 39), together with Jesus’ uncredited reference to Rabbi Hillel in what we call the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) (p. 43). Another example, unmentioned by Bradford, is Paul’s unreferenced use of the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon in such passages as Romans 1:26, 27 and Ephesians 6:13-17 (2). The fictional professor of Bradford’s story states at one point:

If what I’m saying is true of the biblical writers, then perhaps some people ought to be more aware of this before they unjustly criticize Ellen White. The very points they take to criticize her could also be leveled at Bible writers such as Paul (p. 52).

In the introduction to his book, Bradford likewise maintains that a study of inspiration as it operated in Bible times has not been adequately considered by those who criticize Ellen White (p. 9).

Few observations are more accurate in the current debate over Ellen White’s inspiration and authority. The fact that the uncredited use of uninspired sources is found throughout the Bible remains a powerful—though often unrecognized—rejoinder to perhaps the most popular attack on Ellen White’s credibility. This has long been evident from the incredibly weak responses of Ellen White’s critics whenever these Bible facts are shared. Many have merely responded with emotion, denouncing Ellen White’s defenders as “damning the Bible in order to vindicate Ellen White” (3). (The fictional “Doug” of Bradford’s book shares similar thoughts on p. 52.) Such emotional reactions may involve a catharsis of feeling on the part of certain ones, but it neither changes the facts nor conveys the spirit of honest truth-seeking so often professed by these persons.

The more substantive of these responses, such as they have been, have included the claim that while the Bible writers allegedly used primary sources, Ellen White’s sources were secondary (4), that in Bible times the giving of credit for one’s sources was not necessary, while in Ellen White’s time it presumably was (5), and that while the sources used by Bible writers were well known in the communities where they wrote, those used by Ellen White were not thus known, therefore supposedly conveying a false impression of originality (6).

Each of these claims is demonstrably false, and so easily proven such that one wonders how persons supposedly sensitive to sound scholarship would use them. For starters, while some of the Bible writers certainly relied on primary sources—such as the eyewitness accounts recorded by the Gospel writers—one could certainly not make such a claim regarding such writings as the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon, noted earlier as a source used without credit in certain of Paul’s writings (7), nor could one call the uncredited use by Jesus of Rabbi Hillel’s saying—otherwise called the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12)—as the use of a primary source. Like Ellen White, Jesus was simply stating a spiritual truth that had formerly been stated by someone else, while giving no credit to the source in question. Many similar examples from Scripture could be cited (8).

The claim that Ellen White’s unreferenced use of sources was an unacceptable practice in her day—denounced as “abnormal” by one liberal Adventist scholar (9)—is equally untenable. The fact is that the meticulous crediting of one's sources is a relatively recent practice in literary history, unknown to most authors until the advent of modern copyright laws in 1930. In his reply to attacks on Ellen White in the early 1980s, Robert W. Olson cites a number of religious as well as secular scholars in Ellen White’s day, including some of her Adventist contemporaries, all of whom freely used sources without giving credit (10). Authors Conybeare and Howson, whose book on the life of Paul Ellen White was accused of copying, also engaged in this type of source utilization (11), as did one who himself condemned Ellen White for this practice—D. M. Canright (12). Bradford’s book calls attention to these facts (p. 40), though without the documentation included in the present review.

Finally, the claim that while the writers of Scripture borrowed from sources commonly known to those they wrote to, while Ellen White’s sources were not thus known, is likewise untrue. Paul’s Gentile readers would certainly not have been familiar with such Jewish apocryphal books as The Wisdom of Solomon, nor would a Gentile reader of Matthew’s Gospel have been familiar with the teachings of Rabbi Hillel. Moreover, to allege deception on Ellen White’s part in using sources which presumably her readers knew little or nothing of, is belied by the fact that both Ellen White and other Adventist leaders publicly advertised and recommended some of the very books she is said to have copied (13). Such actions are hardly consistent with one seeking to hide the fact that outside sources were being used in the production of her material.

In short, one must commend Graeme Bradford for so clearly bringing to view the borrowing practices of Bible writers as a parallel to what Ellen White did in the preparation of her writings. One wishes he might have spent more time citing the evidence noted here, which goes much further in demolishing the credibility of Ellen White’s critics in this regard.

What is equally instructive on this point is to simply compare the language structure, turns of phrases, use of Bible texts, and general themes found in all of Ellen White’s works, and to thus observe their obvious similarity. Whether in the Conflict Series or the Testimonies, other of her standard works, articles in Adventist church papers, letters of counsel to individuals, or unpublished manuscripts, the message and style is the same. Whatever sources were used were obviously placed in the spiritual and theological framework intended by Ellen White and the Bible-based message she taught. Whether or not one likes her messages, they were indeed hers, not some haphazard blend of others’ words and beliefs.

Bradford also cites the glaring misuse by Ellen White’s attackers of certain statements which seem to deny—when removed from context—any use of other sources in her writings. One of these is where she writes of how “the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own” (14), which Bradford rightly explains to be a description of her counsel in one setting regarding the length of women’s dresses, not a general description of how all her writings were prepared (p. 41). Another such statement is the one where she spoke of not reading anything for a time in either the Review and Herald or the Signs of the Times, so that none could say she was being influenced in her views on the law in Galatians by either Uriah Smith—who at the time was editor of the Review—or E. J. Waggoner, who was editor of the Signs (p. 42) (15).

Both of these statements have been used by Ellen White critics as evidence that she either blatantly lied about her use of sources (16), or was simply disingenuous about claiming not to be reading church papers when in fact she was borrowing material from outside the denomination (17). But the fact is, as Bradford correctly notes, neither of these statements were a general reference to the totality of her writings. The critics have simply failed to consider the context of either statement. No one has produced any evidence that Ellen White’s counsel about the length of women’s dresses in this context was in any way borrowed from others, nor that she had in fact read our church periodicals on the Galatians issue while claiming not to have done so.

Areas of Concern

Having noted areas of agreement with Bradford’s book, it is regrettably necessary to note other areas where the author seriously weakens the authority of Ellen White’s prophetic gift. While the book seeks to answer objections, it unfortunately raises a number of its own.

On an introductory note, one marvels at Bradford’s statement that “this book has been 20 years in preparation” (p. 10). We will note, in the course of this review, significant pieces of evidence in support of Ellen White entirely left out of this book, material the author could easily have found at an Adventist Book Center or by contacting the offices of the Ellen G. White Estate in America. Not a single reference, for example, can be found in Bradford’s book to Robert W. Olson’s One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and Ellen White (18), and only one reference is included to the even more comprehensive Messenger of the Lord, by Herbert E. Douglass (pp. 90, 91) (19).

These books, as we will see, offer well-documented, conclusive answers to nearly all the objections to Ellen White’s authority raised in Bradford’s book. Yet most of the material contained in these books goes without a mention by Bradford. Time and again I found myself wondering why the fictional professor of Bradford’s story didn’t simply hand gift copies of these books to the couple he was counseling. The answers provided would have been far more persuasive.

Issues of Doctrinal Authority

The following statements, sadly, provoke more questions than they answer:

Although we can see in her (Ellen White’s) method of writing some similarities (with Scripture), we would not claim the same authority for her works as we do for Scripture. She didn’t do this for her writings either. All she claimed was that her writings were a lesser light to lead people to the greater light, which is the Bible (p. 43).

The Great Controversy… was never intended to be the final word on history, prophecy, or theology. She borrowed freely from other Adventist writers, particularly J.N. Andrews and Uriah Smith. In 1911 The Great Controversy was revised when she had some suggestions made to her. She was willing to change the book when she had input from others, and no doubt she would do so again today if she were alive (p. 50).

All could agree with much of what is stated here, but enough is left unclarified to leave the reader open to serious misunderstanding. It is true, for example, that Ellen White called her writings the lesser light, in relation to the greater light of Scripture (20). But evidence from the totality of Ellen White’s writings, and her own statement of their purpose, makes it clear that her writings occupy this “lesser” status only because, in her words, “additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given” (21).

In other words, Ellen White’s writings are the lesser light because they teach no original truths, doctrines, or principles. All of these come from the Bible. Ellen White merely amplifies and simplifies what Scripture already teaches. Nowhere does Ellen White give her writings some lesser degree of authority over the beliefs and practices of church members, as if a statement from her pen need not be taken with quite the gravity or seriousness as a text from the Bible. Too often, in modern Adventism, Ellen White’s “lesser light” language has been taken to mean that while the words of Scripture can’t rightly be argued with, the words of Ellen White are another matter. In practical terms, such thinking assumes that while Biblical statements can properly be used to settle a theological or lifestyle issue, statements from Ellen White cannot be thus used. It is thus implied that while Ellen White statements regarding such topics as diet, dress, or worship may say one thing, the issue is left to the believer’s discretion so long as Scripture contains no explicit counsel on the subject in dispute.

Adventists who eat meat have often used this argument. They insist that because the Bible gives them permission to eat clean meat—never mind that it also says to use no fat or blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17), a rule I have yet to see observed by carnivorous Adventists—that on this basis the counsel of Ellen White forbidding the use of all meat can legitimately be ignored. In one Sabbath School class attended by the present writer, a man and his wife also claimed that Adventists should stop imposing “man-made” rules on church members, one of which they said was our stand against smoking. This counsel was “man-made,” in their view, because it is found in Ellen White’s writings but not in the Bible. (In retrospect, I wished I had asked if they thought cocaine or heroin use could rightly be forbidden by the church, since these too are unmentioned in Scripture.)

No distinction is made in the Bible between the authority of canonical and non-canonical prophets. A prophet is not authoritative because he or she is canonical. Rather, a prophet is canonical because he or she is authoritative. God does not have junior prophets. The testimonies of Elijah, Elisha, Huldah, and John the Baptist were no less authoritative in their application to God’s people than those of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Paul. In fact, Jesus declared John the Baptist to be the greatest of the prophets (Matthew 11:9-11). Yet no book of the Bible bears his name.

The Bible also speaks of prophetic books written by certain non-canonical prophets, such as those of Nathan and Gad (1 Chronicles 29:29). One could hardly view these inspired messengers as less authoritative than those whose writings were included in the 66 books of Scripture, especially when we note how God gave rebukes to King David—a canonical Bible writer—through the testimony of these non-canonical prophets (2 Samuel 12:1-14; 24:11-14).

According to Ellen White, “the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy” (22). The former is greater and the latter lesser in the sense that truth is original in the former and amplified in the latter. But nothing in the writings of Ellen White, or in the Biblical testimony concerning the work of prophets, lends any credence to the theory that one set of prophetic writings can lay a greater or lesser claim to the conscience than another.

Bradford’s claim that Ellen White adjusted certain historical details in The Great Controversy, in concert with advice she received from W. W. Prescott and others (p. 48), is quite correct (23). But minor historical details—such as the question of which bell tolled to signal the start of the St. Bartholomew Massacre (24)—are a far cry from matters of theology and prophetic interpretation. The popular claim that Ellen White, while professing divine inspiration, nevertheless contradicted herself in matters of doctrine, prophecy, or lifestyle counsel, is not supported by the facts.

1. The Shut Door

Along these lines, Bradford raises the issue of the shut-door doctrine, apparently endorsing the allegation that Ellen White taught—on the basis of visions, and for several years—that no one outside the little Adventist band could be saved after 1844 (pp. 13, 57). The fictional “Doug” of Bradford’s narrative states at one point: “I checked the statements and she admitted she did this” (p. 57). The fictional “Dr. Smithurst” agrees:

Ellen White did have a vision and she interpreted it to mean that no one could be converted to Christ after 1844 (p. 58).

Not so.

Let us review, carefully, what in fact Ellen White did and did not teach during this particular period:

Before receiving her first vision, she did for a time believe, as did other Millerites, that the door of mercy had closed for the entire world on October 22, 1844. (Let us remember, of course, that before she received her first vision, Ellen White had no claim to the prophetic office, nor could she have possessed any greater spiritual knowledge than her fellow believers.) But once she received her first vision and thus the prophetic gift, there is no evidence from her pen—nor any other conclusive evidence—that she ever taught such a concept.

Following is Ellen White’s own explanation of her convictions during this time, written in 1884 as she looked back on this experience:

For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the Advent body, that the door of mercy had then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given me. It was the light given me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position (25).

With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in forty-four, I did believe no more sinners would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted (26).

As in any court of law, the burden of proof rests on the accuser to find Ellen White statements from this period which taught that the door of mercy had indeed closed for the entire world in 1844. The critics have produced three main pieces of evidence in support of their case: (1) an Ellen White statement from her first vision where she speaks of “all the wicked world which God had rejected”; (2) a secondhand report from one of Ellen White’s acquaintances; and (3) a letter from Ellen White to Joseph Bates where she speaks of her efforts to convince fellow Adventists that the shut door teaching was true.

First, the Ellen White statement on the wicked world being rejected. Here is what it says:

It was just as impossible for them (those who gave up their faith in the ’44 movement) to get on the path again and go to the city, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path one after another (27).

As with anyone, we need to be fair and let Ellen White define her own words. She explains what she means by “the wicked world which God had rejected” in the following statement:

These two classes are brought to view in the vision—those who declared the light which they had followed a delusion, and the wicked of the world who, having rejected the light, had been rejected of God. No reference is made to those who had not seen the light, and therefore were not guilty of its rejection (28).

Further evidence that Ellen White did not consider the whole world lost except for those then in the Advent movement, is the fact that in her first vision—the very one is which she spoke of God rejecting “all the wicked world”—she spoke of the living saints at Jesus’ coming being “144,000 in number” (29). The records indicate that only 50,000 to 100,000 were waiting for Jesus’ coming in 1844, and by the time of Ellen White’s first vision, the overwhelming majority of these had given up the Advent hope. Whether one sees the number 144,000 as literal or figurative is beside the point; either way, there weren’t 144,000 Advent believers when Ellen White spoke of the number of living saints at Christ’s return. (If in fact the number is figurative, it would hardly make sense to speak of 144,000 as symbolic of a mere few hundred or thousand.)

We can see clearly how, just as Ellen White says (30), the light revealed in her first vision corrected the error she held before—that the door of mercy had closed for the entire world on October 22, 1844.

The second of the pieces of evidence noted earlier is a statement by Otis Nichols, a friend of Ellen White who claims to have heard her say at a January 1845 meeting that “our work was done for the nominal church and the world, and what remained to be done was for the household of faith” (31).

This report, of course, is secondhand, the opinion of someone who heard Ellen White speak. We all know how easy it is even for friends to misunderstand each other’s words. No one can fairly accept this as hard proof that she was teaching that the whole world was lost, especially since she not only denies ever teaching this, but also since no written statement of hers can be produced to support the claim that she did. Simple rules of evidence are involved here, understandable by any attorney or law enforcement officer. As crime writer and former police officer Joseph Wambaugh has stated, written evidence is far more decisive than spoken evidence since the latter is subject to the ear of the listener (32).

In Ellen White’s own words:

Do not give credence to unauthenticated reports as to what Sister White has done or said or written. If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works (33).

The third piece of evidence, purportedly showing that Ellen White taught for a time that the whole world was lost, is a letter she wrote to Joseph Bates on July 13, 1847, in which she spoke of visiting a group of believers and successfully persuading them that the shut door teaching was correct.

Here is the text of the letter:

The view about the Bridegroom’s coming I had about the middle of February, 1845.

While in Exeter, Maine, in meeting with Israel Dammon, James, and many others, many of them did not believe in a shut door. I suffered much at the commencement of the meeting. Unbelief seemed to be on every hand.

There was one sister there that was called very spiritual. She had traveled and been a powerful preacher the most of the time for twenty years. She had been truly a mother in Israel. But a division had risen in the band on the shut door. She had great sympathy, and could not believe that the door was shut. (I had known nothing of their difference.) Sister Durben got up to talk. I felt very, very sad.

At length my soul seemed to be in agony, and while she was talking I fell from my chair to the floor. It was then I had a view of Jesus rising from His mediatorial throne and going to the holiest, as Bridegroom to receive His kingdom. They were all deeply interested in the view. They all said it was entirely new to them. The Lord worked in mighty power setting the truth home to their hearts.

Sister Durben knew what the power of the Lord was, for she had felt it many times; and a short time after I fell she was struck down, and fell to the floor, crying to God to have mercy on her. When I came out of vision, my ears were saluted with Sister Durben’s singing and shouting with a loud voice.

Most of them received the vision, and were settled upon the shut door (34).

What Ellen White’s critics fail to recognize, in their consideration of this letter, is that the term “shut door” meant several different things to the early Advent believers. The first and most extreme meaning of the term was that the door of mercy had shut for the entire world on October 22, 1844. This view, as Ellen White acknowledges, was held by her before she received her first vision, and by many other Adventists for several years afterward. But as the reader can see, nothing in the above letter says anything about the door of mercy closing for the whole world.

The second definition of the term “shut door” meant that those who had rejected the light in the 1844 movement were shut out, and thus incapable of receiving greater light. The third definition was that those who failed to follow Christ from the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary into the second, were shut out, again because they had rejected a Bible truth and could therefore receive no further truth.

Definition One of the shut door was given up by Ellen White after her first vision—since, as we’ve seen already, her first vision indicated there would be at least 144,000 living saints, which was multiplied thousands more than at that time professed Adventism. Definitions Two and Three of the shut door were held by Ellen White until her death, and are still held today by Seventh-day Adventists who take seriously the Bible teaching that if we reject any truth persistently, God will eventually reject us (Hosea 4:6; John 9:41; Hebrews 6:4-6).

Returning to the Bates letter quoted above, we have already seen that nothing it says speaks of the entire world being shut out of God’s mercy. The only specific feature of the shut door teaching it refers to is the rising of Jesus from His mediatorial throne and going to the Most Holy Place. In other words, Definition Three, as stated above. Certainly this offers no proof that Ellen White taught at any time, on the basis of visions, that no more sinners could or would be converted after 1844.

In short, there is no written proof that Ellen White ever taught, while claiming to be inspired, that the whole world except for Adventists was lost after October 22, 1844. The claims of the critics are based on secondhand sources, a refusal to let Ellen White define her own vocabulary, and the near-universal acceptance by these critics of the unscriptural doctrine that no new event of redemptive significance is possible after Calvary, thus ruling out any salvational meaning for anything happening in 1844 (35).

The fictional “Dr. Smithurst” of Bradford’s story tries to compare the apostle Peter and the early Christians, with their initial misconception about Gentiles not being entitled to the message of salvation, with Ellen White’s presumed errors regarding the shut door (pp. 59, 60). The problem with this analogy, as the careful Ellen White critic will rightly seize upon, is that neither Peter nor any of the apostles taught the exclusion of Gentiles from the blessings of the gospel on the basis of purported divine revelation. If in fact Ellen White taught a shut door after 1844 for all besides Adventists, on the basis of visions, the critics are right to denounce her as a false prophet. But as we have demonstrated thus far, no substantive evidence that she taught such a doctrine has been produced.

Bradford’s reference to two Bible stories about prophets being disqualified by disobedience—Balaam and the unnamed prophet who cursed Jeroboam’s altar (p. 72)—unwittingly demonstrate exactly how much control God exercises over the prophetic gift. Balaam’s covetous spirit and collaboration with Israel’s enemies abruptly terminated his prophetic work; no record of his ever speaking for God again can be found following his abortive attempt to curse Israel (Numbers 23, 24). And the prophet who cursed Jeroboam’s altar, who immediately thereafter disobeyed a direct command of God, was killed that same day by a lion (1 Kings 13:24). We see the same principle at work when Nathan gave counsel to David about the building of the temple that misrepresented God’s will, and was corrected immediately that night by the Lord through a vision (2 Samuel 7:3-17; 1 Chronicles 17:2-15).

In the light of this, one cannot imagine God taking seven years—as some have alleged—to correct such a basic error on Ellen White’s part as the whole world being excluded from salvation after 1844. The Biblical examples we have seen, where the prophetic office was compromised or erroneous counsel given, indicate that God’s superintendence over the work of prophets is one of close micro-management. What is equally plain from the above examples is that non-canonical prophets are safeguarded just as closely as canonical ones. The claim of Desmond Ford some years ago, that because Ellen White’s writings were not canonical, God “has exercised more miraculous superintendence over Scripture than over the writings of Ellen G. White” (36), is in no way sustained by the Biblical record of God’s dealings with prophets.

Other alleged doctrinal inconsistencies in the writings of Ellen White—regarding the time to begin the Sabbath, the eating of pork, the two covenants, the law in Galatians, etc.—have all been effectively addressed in recent times. Those wishing to further study these issues are encouraged to consult the book One Hundred and One Questions, by Robert W. Olson (37), as well as the more recent Messenger of the Lord, by Herbert E. Douglass (38). The latter book includes perhaps the most comprehensive analysis available of the shut door teaching, and the total absence of its extreme version from the testimonies and visions of Ellen White (39).

2. Presumed Error in Biblical Prophets

In his effort to “humanize” prophets, Bradford moves into very dangerous territory, going so far as to find fault with the very messages given by certain Biblical prophets. While Bradford is to be commended for emphasizing the principle of conditional prophecy in explaining unfulfilled predictions by Jonah, Paul, and Ellen White (pp. 76-79), he seems to make no distinction between—on the one hand—faulty understandings and behavior on a prophet’s part, and on the other hand, faulty instruction in the context of the prophetic office. Not only did John the Baptist misunderstand the nature of Christ’s kingdom, as Bradford rightly notes (p. 67), but such prominent Bible writers as Moses and David committed grievous sins. However, what Bradford fails to consider is that, whatever imperfections may have existed in the beliefs or private thoughts of a prophet like John the Baptist, nowhere does Inspiration record him as preaching or writing such error to the people. Expressing private doubts about Jesus’ Messiahship and having his followers thus question the Saviour (Matthew 11:3), is not the same as delivering the prophetic voice in public or private counsel.

Unfortunately, Bradford moves beyond issues of private misunderstanding in his discussion of John the Baptist, and goes on to claim his public teaching was also incorrect. In the words of Bradford’s fictional professor:

John the Baptist had some things to learn and some things to unlearn. Remember when he was asked what was required for eternal life, he didn’t outline salvation by grace, by rather told his inquirers to reform their lives (Luke 3:11-14). Later his converts had to be rebaptized when they grew in their understanding beyond what he had imparted (Acts 19:1-5) (p. 67).

Has Bradford considered what Jesus Himself said about the conditions for receiving eternal life? When asked the selfsame question posed to John, by both the rich young ruler and the lawyer to whom He told the Good Samaritan story, Jesus firmly declared obedience to God’s commandments to be the condition for salvation (Matthew 19:16, 17; Luke 10:25-28). The apostle Paul taught the same thing (Romans 2:6-10; 8:13; Hebrews 5:9). Of course, both Jesus and Paul are clear that only through Heaven’s power in believers’ lives can such obedience be rendered and this condition met (Matthew 19:25, 26; John 15:5; Philippians 4:13). But there is certainly no Scriptural evidence that John the Baptist didn’t also understand that in man’s own strength the reform of one’s life is impossible. Had John in fact taught that in unaided human strength such obedience could be produced, he would indeed have taught something erroneous. But no evidence can be found to indicate he taught such a thing.

If Bradford sees conflict between salvation by grace and reforming the life as a condition of salvation, it may be that he is afflicted with the popular evangelical misconception of what salvation by grace is. Contrary to what many believe, Paul’s oft-repeated declaration that works do not save (Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8, 9), is not a reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the believer. This becomes obvious when we consider Paul’s equally clear statements that sanctification and the Spirit’s inward renewal are very much a part of the means of our salvation (Philippians 2:12, 13; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 3:5), as well as the texts we have seen already which teach that Spirit-empowered obedience is the condition of salvation (Romans 2:13; 8:13; Hebrews 5:9). Once this concept is understood, it becomes clear that no tension at all exists between salvation by grace and the declaration of John the Baptist that reforming the life is a condition for being saved (Luke 3:11-14).

Bradford seems to imply that those followers of John the Baptist mentioned in Acts 19:1-5 needed rebaptism because their understanding of salvation needed further development (p. 67). But nothing in this passage says anything of the kind. The only thing further needed by these disciples was to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and by the Holy Spirit (verse 5), which obviously had not happened when they were baptized by John.

In his listing of presumed imperfections on the part of Biblical prophets, Bradford also speaks of how “day after day he (Jeremiah) stood at the entrance to the Temple and plagued the life out of people with his doomsday predictions” (p. 73). But on what basis does Bradford see this as a shortcoming? Over and over again in Jeremiah, it is stated that the “word of the Lord” was being delivered by the prophet in these settings (Jeremiah 2:1; 3:6; 7:1; 8:1; 10:1; 11:1; 24:1, 3-5; 26:1, 2; 27:1; etc.). Where, may we ask, does the Bible indicate divine disapproval of Jeremiah’s methods?

3. Ellen White On Her Doctrinal Role

Bradford quotes favorably the words of H. C. Lacey, who attended the 1919 Bible Conference, regarding his view of Ellen White’s role in the church:

In our estimate of the Spirit of Prophecy, isn’t its value more in the spiritual light it throws into our hearts and lives than in the intellectual accuracy in historical and theological matters? Ought we not to take those writings as the voice of the Spirit to our hearts, instead of as the voice of the teacher to our heads? (p. 61).

Desmond Ford, in his lecture at Pacific Union College on October 27, 1979, in which he launched his public attack on the sanctuary doctrine, declared a concept similar to the one attributed to Lacey in the above reference. Ford claimed Ellen White’s role was “pastoral, not canonical” (40).

Perhaps we had best let Ellen White explain what God ordained her role to be in matters of theological doctrine:

God has, in that Word (the Bible), promised to give visions in the last days, not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth (41).

The Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors, and to specify what is truth (42).

Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given (43).

My accompanying angel presented before me some of the errors of those present, and also the truth in contrast with their errors. That these discordant views, which they claimed to be according to the Bible, were only according to their opinion of the Bible, and that their errors must be yielded, and they unite upon the third angel’s message. Our meeting ended victoriously. Truth gained the victory (44).

Serious errors in doctrine and practice were cherished.… God revealed these errors to me in vision and sent me to His erring children to declare them (45).

At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error (46).

On these grounds, and in contrast to the propositions of Desmond Ford at Glacier View in the summer of 1980, the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church affirmed the authority of the writings of Ellen White in matters of doctrine and Bible interpretation, declaring: “We believe that her authority transcends that of all noninspired interpreters” (47).

Scientific and Lifestyle Issues

Bradford’s book moves beyond theology into questions of Ellen White’s credibility regarding various scientific and lifestyle counsels. As with the shut door issue, Bradford apparently supports the allegation of Ellen White’s critics that she taught a variety of extreme, even ridiculous concepts:

Some of the ideas she published include: Support of phrenology, the study of the bumps on the head as a guide to intelligence. She opposed the wearing of the current fashionable wigs, which were massive and made up of bunches of curled hair, cotton, seagrass, and wool. She claimed that they covered the base of the brain, causing heat and exciting the spinal nerves centering in the brain. This caused recklessness in morals, so that ‘the animal organs are excited and the morals are enfeebled.’ She also wrote that the use of swine’s flesh, under certain circumstances, can cause leprosy. She indicated that self-abuse, or masturbation, could cause imbecility (pp. 63, 64).

Bradford goes on to say:

Such ideas fitted in well with the prevailing views of the 19th century, but they have been discounted by modern science. God doesn’t take prophets out of their culture. He meets them where they are. For the most part her ideas on health were sound, with evidence for this found in the many surveys made on Seventh-day Adventists showing they have longer life expectancy when they live out the principles of health given to them through her gift. What is important is the reason she wrote on health. Good health keeps the mind clear and the spirit in good condition—it is linked to our spiritual wellbeing (p. 64).

Perhaps Bradford doesn’t consider the implications of the concept he has just stated. In effect, such a concept commits the church to judging the counsel of Inspiration by scientific discoveries and opinions. In such a view, the authority of inspired counsel is subject as much to human research and judgment as to previously written inspired revelations—the latter test being identified in such passages as Isaiah 8:20 and Acts 17:11. But nowhere in the Sacred Scriptures is fallible human opinion given such authority over the written counsel of God. If such a principle had been applied to Ellen White’s counsel by the early Adventists, her warnings about tobacco would not have been accepted till the U.S. Surgeon General’s report a hundred years later.

Moreover, the above statement by Bradford implies support for what some might call a “kernel and shell” understanding of inspired counsel—a concept all too familiar in the history of the past two centuries of Christian theology. Those, for example, who apply the tools of higher criticism to the life and ministry of Jesus use this approach. While conceding the value of His teachings of love and brotherhood, they dispute the factual nature of the supernatural aspects of Jesus’ story, including His resurrection from the dead.

Bradford’s approach to Ellen White’s health message sounds similar. So long as the “kernel” of truth in Ellen White’s health counsel is acknowledged—that physical health is essential to spiritual wellbeing—the “shell” of her specific instructions regarding diet and other practices need not be fully accepted. The presence or absence of scientific proof for these instructions would seem, in Bradford’s view, to be decisive. Considering the frequent ambiguity of scientific research, especially with regard to competing dietary fads and the varying definitions of emotional and psychological health that often affect people’s choices, one can see how each person’s perspective on “scientific support” for Ellen White’s counsels could become very elastic indeed!

But the lack of scientific evidence for an inspired statement does not, in any way, release the Christian from responsibility to submit to the instruction found in such a statement. (On this basis, the people in Noah’s day were fully justified in rejecting his message.) At the same time, as Ellen White has written, we can be thankful that while God never removes all basis for doubt, He does provide evidence for revealed truth which appeals to our reason (48). With this in mind, we will consider the facts regarding the supposed shortcomings in Ellen White’s counsel as listed above.

For much of what follows, I am indebted to Chapter 43 of Messenger of the Lord, by Herbert Douglass (49). This chapter contains thorough and persuasive answers to several of the above objections, and readers of this review are strongly encouraged to consult it.

1. Phrenology

It is true that Ellen White took her sons Willie and Edson to a physician who gave them a phrenological examination (50). It is also true that she spoke favorably—though with dire and explicit qualification, as we will see—of the science of phrenology. But to call her statements “support,” as Bradford does, is not at all warranted by a careful reading of her statements.

Here are her statements on this subject:

The sciences of phrenology, psychology, and mesmerism, are the channels through which he (Satan) comes more directly to this generation, and works with that power which is to characterize his efforts near the close of probation (51).

Through the channel of phrenology, psychology, and mesmerism, he comes more directly to the people of this generation, and works with that power which is to characterize his efforts near the close of probation.… In many cases the imagination is captivated by scientific research, and men are flattered through the consciousness of their own powers. The sciences which treat of the human mind are very much exalted. They are good in their place, but they are seized upon by Satan as his powerful agents to deceive and destroy souls (52).

Because she writes that these sciences are “good in their place,” and because she took her sons to a doctor for a phrenological exam, it is assumed by Ellen White’s critics that she endorsed most if not all aspects of phrenology, a discipline now considered quackery.

But quite obviously, the above statements give no blanket endorsement to phrenology, but in fact warn strongly of its dangers. Some might legitimately wonder as to what value Ellen White could have seen in a such a discipline, so that she would say it was “good in its place.” But it is important to understand that despite its aberrations and even absurd conclusions in some cases, phrenology in its time was in notable ways an advancement over the largely metaphysical mind sciences of previous times. John D. Davies, in his standard work on phrenology, writes:

In its own time phrenology, like Freudianism, was a serious, inductive discipline, accepted as such by many eminent scientists, doctors, and educators; its aberrations were the result not so much of charlatanism or credulity as of the limitations of early nineteenth century scientific method and medical techniques. However mistaken some of its anatomical deductions may have been, scientific it was in its determination to study the mind objectively, without metaphysical preconceptions. Its priority in its field is recognized in the histories of medicine and psychology, and many of its fundamentals are as commonplace today as they were radical a century ago (53).

On this basis, it is clear that Ellen White’s statements about phrenology being “good in its place” are entirely consistent with those positive features of the discipline noted above, and do not imply an endorsement on her part of phrenology’s unscientific conclusions. Nor was the submitting of her sons to a phrenological exam accompanied by counsel to others to do this, nor by carte blanche endorsement of the methods and presuppositions of phrenology. Being a devoted mother, Ellen White was simply seeking to do what she thought was best for her children at the time.

We do well to remember that only the counsel and instruction of a prophet, written and delivered under divine inspiration, are authoritative for the church. Prophets are allowed to have a personal life, with personal opinions and practices and occasional flawed judgment. (What was said earlier about David and John the Baptist comes to mind yet again.) Ellen White makes a clear distinction, for example, between letters she sent for common purposes and those sent under divine inspiration (54). Only what is sent out as guidance and instruction for God’s people, whether corporate or individual, carries the seal of inspired authority. In Ellen White’s words:

In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne (55).

If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her (Sister White), read her published works (56).

Notice the list of written materials in these two statements where the will of the Lord was revealed through Ellen White—letters, testimonies, articles, and published works. Personal practices and opinions of the prophet are not included.

At the bottom line, Bradford’s claim that among Ellen White’s “published ideas” included “support for phrenology” (p. 63) is very misleading. As we have seen above, her support was very qualified, and in the light of many scientific fundamentals included in this discipline—ideas far in advance of earlier science and now taken for granted—this qualified support by Ellen White was entirely justified.

2. Amalgamation of man and beast

Bradford refers to two Ellen White statements which speak of the amalgamation of man and beast being observed in certain races of humanity (pp. 64, 65). Referring at the start of his book to the discoveries of the fictional “Doug” in his story, he simply writes that among other things, “Doug” had learned that “Mrs. White wrote that some races are a mixture of man and beast” (p. 13).

Here is the statement being referred to:

Every species of animals which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species, which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men (57).

In another statement, Ellen White wrote that the amalgamation of man and beast that had occurred before the flood was a crime of supreme magnitude, compelling the Lord to destroy the earth and its inhabitants:

But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God proposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him (58).

Arguments rage as to whether Ellen White was referring to the amalgamation of man with beast, or simply to the amalgamation of humans with each other and of beasts with each other (59). When viewed in the light of the inspired consensus, the evidence clearly gravitates toward concluding that she was talking—at least primarily—about amalgamation of man with beast. This does not rule out, of course, that cross-breeding between humans and between animals might in fact be part of what the first of the above statements is referring to, especially since it speaks of the endless varieties of animal species (60). But to conclude that the amalgamation of man and beast described by Ellen White—which God condemned so strongly that it merited global destruction (61)—refers to humans cross-breeding with each other and animals doing the same, raises other implications both unwarranted and dangerous.

If one were to decide that the amalgamation God condemned was between human beings, as well as between animals, which ones? Does this mean God forbids certain races to marry each other? Certainly nothing, in either Scripture or Ellen White, could sustain such a conclusion. Those cautions voiced by Ellen White regarding interracial marriage refer plainly, in context, to various social circumstances and obstacles which might result from such relationships, not from any moral prohibition by God against them (62).

In short, while the amalgamation of animals with humans can rightly be seen as a corrupt defacing of the image of God, nothing anywhere in the writings of Inspiration comes close to saying that intermarriage between different races involves such corruption.

Some have assumed that the cross-breeding of animals with humans is an idea both absurd and impossible, presumably making Ellen White’s amalgamation statements laughable if understood in this way. Such would do well to hold their laughter; the last laugh may well be on them. At least one scientific ethicist, featured in April 1998 on an episode of ABC’s “Good Morning America,” has written a book in which he warns of the likelihood, within a few decades, of cloning technology reaching the point where the crossing of animals with humans will be attempted (63). To his credit, Bradford does acknowledge these points, and thus upholds the harmony between Ellen White and modern science on this issue (p. 65).

When we consider the level of human genius existing in those living but scant generations from the tree of life, it is hard to dismiss so quickly the possibility that humans with such intelligence could experiment in this manner with the basics of biology. If nothing else, one observes in current bio-tech developments and speculation yet more evidence that the world is coming full-circle to its condition in the days of Noah, just prior to its destruction by the flood (Luke 17:26).

One more point, of course, deserves absolute clarification in this context. Nowhere, in any statement whatsoever, do the writings of Ellen White identify any particular race of humans as the product of amalgamation with animals, nor is there the slightest hint in those writings that because of such origins, certain races should be treated as subhuman. Bradford’s implication that because it was commonly held in Ellen White’s day that such races as the African Bushmen were a mixture of animal and human genes, that Ellen White probably held this view also (p. 65), is completely groundless. Whatever races of humanity might contain such elements, on the basis of the statement in question, was either not revealed to Ellen White by the Lord, or was deliberately left unsaid through divinely imparted wisdom. To reveal such a fact would have only created confusion—much like the pre-flood amalgamation itself (64)—very likely conveying the notion that different races were therefore deserving of different treatment. For anyone to even remotely imply Ellen White’s support of such a concept is to fly in the face of her uniformly-consistent declarations that all races of men stand equal before God, equally entitled to the blessings of the gospel and to just treatment by the laws of society.

3. The wearing of wigs

The Ellen White statement referred to by Bradford, regarding mental and moral harm resulting from the wearing of wigs, states as follows:

The artificial hair and pads (i.e. wigs) covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves centering in the brain. The head should ever be kept cool. The heat caused by these artificials induces the blood to the brain. The action of the blood upon the lower or animal organs of the brain, causes unnatural activity, tends to recklessness in morals, and the mind and heart is in danger of being corrupted. As the animal organs are excited and strengthened, the morals are enfeebled. The moral and intellectual powers of the mind become servants to the animal.

In consequence of the brain being congested its nerves lose their healthy action, and take on morbid conditions, making it almost impossible to arouse the moral sensibilities. Such lose their power to discern sacred things. The unnatural heat caused by these artificial deformities about the head, induces the blood to the brain, producing congestion, and causing the natural hair to fall off, producing baldness. Thus the natural is sacrificed to the artificial.

Many have lost their reason, and become hopelessly insane, by following this deforming fashion (65).

In the context of today’s comfortable wigs, critics have tended to laugh at the above statement. But in context, the wigs Ellen White was writing about consisted of “monstrous bunches of curled hair, cotton, seagrass, wool, Spanish moss, and other multitudinous abominations” (66). Another Health Reformer article quoted reports from such newspapers as the Marshall Statesman and the Springfield Republican (MA), which described the perils of wearing “jute switches”—wigs made from dark, fibrous bark. Apparently these switches were often infested with “jute bugs,” small insects that burrowed under the scalp. One woman reported that her head became raw, and that her hair started falling out. Her entire scalp was “perforated with the burrowing parasites.” “The lady… is represented as nearly crazy from the terrible suffering, and from the prospect of the horrible death which physicians do not seem able to avert” (67).

One can clearly see, with articles like these in the public press, that Ellen White would warn Adventist women to avoid such practices which might be fashionable for a time, but which destroyed health and comfort.

Equally important in considering the above counsel regarding wigs, is the fact that lead powder was commonly used in the fashionable wigs of that time (68). Such powder, rubbed into the scalp on a constant basis, can produce lead poisoning. The most recent edition of the Encyclopedia Americana notes that such poisoning can indeed cause “residual brain damage” (69).

In the light of this, one can clearly see how Ellen White could say, “Many have lost their reason, and become hopelessly insane, by following this deforming fashion” (70). While the Ellen White statement in question doesn’t mention lead poisoning, the historical facts noted above are clear that lead powder was commonly used in the wigs of that time, thus making it fully logical to assume that the effects of such poisoning—even if unknown to Ellen White—were likely a key part of the reason for which God gave this instruction to His prophet.

Some might question whether scientific proof exists for the connection between recklessness in morals, etc, with heat and blood induced to the brain in the manner described by Ellen White. The extent to which such proof exists might be argued, but the evidence noted above is sufficient to provide a sensible reason as to why this counsel was given.

4. Masturbation

Few of Ellen White’s counsels have provoked more scoffing from critics than her statements about “self abuse” (71), “solitary vice” (72), “self-indulgence” (73), “secret vice” (74), and “moral pollution” (75)—various terms Ellen White used to refer to the practice of masturbation. (The word masturbation itself is not found in her writings.) Because she lists a variety of physical ailments and adverse conditions—some quite severe—in connection with this practice, it is assumed by the critics that she endorsed the folklore of her day in claiming masturbation was the direct cause of all these afflictions.

First, let us acknowledge that Ellen White not only condemned the practice of masturbation, but did so for good reason. This practice is invariably associated with lust, which our Lord condemned as synonymous with adultery (Matthew 5:27, 28). Before debating whether or not physically destructive consequences might result from the practice, it should first be recognized that the practice is inevitably connected to thoughts of sin—at least in the various contexts where it is described by Ellen White. (Some have alleged that Ellen White’s statements on masturbation could be construed to forbid foreplay in marital relations, but nothing in the context or content of her counsel lends credibility to such a claim.)

Secondly, a number of extreme statements attributed by the critics to Ellen White on this subject were never written by her, nor did she incorporate them into her writings. For example, a recent video attacking Ellen White and various Adventist doctrines misrepresents Mrs. White as teaching—among other things—that boys engaging in this practice would acquire a “greenish tint,” and that feather beds had a tendency to induce the practice (76).

The book A Solemn Appeal, from which much of this material is taken, was compiled by James White, and included the writings of a number of contemporary physicians as well as a section containing counsel from Ellen White herself (77). The section containing Ellen White’s material is distinct and separate from the rest of the book. At no time did Ellen White claim the writings of these doctors, or those of her husband, as her own. The statements about greenish tints, feather beds, and a variety of other strange counsels—including the absurd notion that blond and blue-eyed people, even when married, should have sexual relations no more often than once a month (78)—were written by the doctors whose writings James White included in the book. Though a portion of Ellen White’s writings were included by her husband in this book, at no time did she ever endorse or repeat these bizarre ideas in any of her writings.

Another book written at the same time, Health and How to Live, was compiled by James White in much the same manner, with material written by his wife alongside the writings of other physicians, each clearly distinguished one from the other. And Ellen White clearly did not endorse everything that these doctors promoted, as is evident in the statement of one such doctor that pregnant mothers should drink hard liquor as a way of suppressing their own craving for such, thus presumably not transmitting such desires to their children (79). Ellen White explicitly denounced this teaching in a statement of her own (80).

Ellen White’s writings on masturbation do speak of a variety of physical and emotional disorders, as well as erratic behaviors (81), which can result from the obsession with sexuality that few would deny can result from habitual engagement in this practice. At no time does she write that masturbation directly or inevitably causes these problems. In context she writes that masturbation “leads to fornication and adultery” (82)—an observation which, once again, few could find fault with. She goes on to write of how “the state of our world is alarming” with the spread of many loathsome, incurable diseases (83). It isn’t hard to imagine that here she is speaking of the tertiary stages of gonorrhea and syphilis, which were both common and incurable in her day. The final stages of these diseases can include blindness, insanity, and many other symptoms that Ellen White mentions in this context.

It is a consistent pattern in the writings of Ellen White, when speaking of spiritual and physical problems, to strike at the root causes thereof. In addressing the problem of sexual immorality, she isn’t content merely to speak against fornication and adultery; she also speaks of the fantasies and secret practices which often lead to such conduct. Again we note that she never says those who engage in masturbation will inevitably experience these problems, any more than the person with lustful thoughts will inevitably have an adulterous affair or the one who smokes cigarettes will inevitably develop lung cancer. Indeed, Ellen White writes concerning masturbation, “The effect of such debasing habits is not the same upon all minds” (84). Her listing of adverse physical consequences in connection with condemning masturbation serves only to warn readers that these problems can result from a promiscuous lifestyle which frequently begins with this habit.

In sum, Bradford’s claim that “she (Ellen White) indicated that self-abuse, or masturbation, could cause imbecility” (p. 64) is dangerously misleading, implying a direct causal relationship from one to the other not warranted by the totality or context of Ellen White’s statements. The assumption Bradford conveys is that she was captive to her culture and its folklore on this topic, rather than giving what in context are common-sense counsels regarding the root causes of sexual immorality and the destructive physical and emotional consequences which often attend such behavior. In today’s society, where sexually transmitted diseases are often fatal as well as incurable, Ellen White’s warnings on this subject can be seen as more relevant now than when first given.

5. Swine’s flesh and leprosy

Bradford makes reference to an Ellen White statement which speaks of the connection between the consumption of swine’s flesh and contracting leprosy:

Pork, although one of the most common articles of diet, is one of the most injurious. God did not prohibit the Hebrews from eating swine’s flesh merely to show His authority, but because it was not a proper article of food for man. It would fill the system with scrofula, and especially in that warm climate produced leprosy, and disease of various kinds. Its influence upon the system in that climate was far more injurious than in a colder climate (85).

As with the other issues we have examined, closer study of the facts reveals greater credibility on Ellen White’s part than is first supposed. Those interested in a deeper study of this question are encouraged to consult the research of one Ray Foster, a Seventh-day Adventist physician and director of the Leprosy Research Foundation formerly based in Loma Linda, California. In two articles, published in journals specifically devoted to leprosy research, Dr. Foster gives evidence for the connection between diet and leprosy to which Ellen White refers in the above statement (86).

6. The Planetary Moons

At one point Bradford quotes some statements of Ellen White about moons surrounding a particular planet, and the simultaneous opinion of Joseph Bates regarding which planet she might have seen (p. 65). According to a liberal Adventist scholar quoted by Bradford, Bates said at one point that he thought Ellen White was describing Jupiter, and at another point describing Saturn (p. 65) (87). Since science has now demonstrated that both Jupiter and Saturn have more moons than Ellen White seems to have observed at the time, the scholar in question uses this as “proof” that Ellen White’s scientific awareness was confined to what was known in her day (88).

But the big problem with this claim is breathtakingly simple: Ellen White never said what planet she saw! She never said the planet she saw was in our solar system, nor did she indicate where the planet in question was. In no way does this constitute “evidence” that Ellen White was dependent on the limited scientific knowledge of her time.

The Charge of Deception

The claim that the issues noted in Bradford’s book and in this review, which presumably cast doubt on Ellen White’s credibility, were deliberately concealed and withheld from the Adventist public, is one Ellen White’s critics have trumpeted for many years. The fictional couple in Bradford’s book ask repeatedly why they haven’t been told before these potentially disturbing “facts” about Ellen White, rather than having to endure this unexpected test of their faith (pp. 19, 34, 37, 57, 68, 82, 84).

But like the other allegations we have considered, this one too is unsupported by the facts.

As early as 1933, W. C. White and D. E. Robinson issued a document titled, Brief Statements, which specifically acknowledged how Ellen White, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, used material from the writings of others in preparing her books. The document, 27 pages long, sold for 25 cents (89). Due to lack of interest in the subject, the document was soon forgotten (90).

W. C. White again addressed the issue at the Advanced Bible School in Angwin, California, in which he publicly asked, “Can the description of scenes and events copied from other writer find a proper place in the inspired writings of a messenger of God?” He then answered the question in the affirmative (91).

In 1951 Francis D. Nichol published Ellen G. White and Her Critics, which included sixty-five pages on the plagiarism charge against Mrs. White (92), not to mention numerous other charges. Some might complain that Nichol failed to acknowledge the extent of Ellen White’s borrowing, but none can deny he acknowledged that it occurred, nor has anyone produced evidence—to this reviewer’s knowledge—that Nichol was aware of facts in this regard that he deliberately concealed. One way or the other, there seemed to be little concern about the issue among Adventists in the 25 years that followed. None other than Walter Rea wrote, in 1965:

Controversy has flared from time to time concerning close similarities or outright adaptations in Mrs. White’s writings drawn from other contemporary sources.… If God in His infinite wisdom chooses to sanctify the thoughts of Conybeare and Howson, Wiley, or Edersheim and bring them to our attention by the pen of Ellen White or anybody else, so be it.… I have established myself in the writings of Ellen G. White, regardless of the human problems involved (93).

Arthur White likewise dealt with the issue of Ellen White’s use of sources in his supplement to volume 4 of The Spirit of Prophecy, published in 1969 (94). He addressed the same issue again in 1973, in his book The Ellen G. White Writings (95).

Perhaps it is fair to say that the illusion of cover-up and deception by the White Estate on these issues, has only been possible on the part of some because they haven’t been paying attention to the research and official statements that have long been available. If people aren’t interested in a subject at a given time, statements regarding that subject tend not to be noticed. And if suddenly interest does arise regarding the subject in question, it is easy for those not familiar with the record to claim nobody disclosed these things before, even if the facts say otherwise.

Conclusion: Comfort, Compromise, and the Loss of Transcendence

Earlier we noted a statement of Ellen White regarding the purpose of her prophetic ministry:

God has, in that Word (the Bible), promised to give visions in the last days, not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth (96).

Bradford seems to have no trouble with the comforting aspect of Ellen White’s ministry, as evidenced by his favorable reference to H. C. Lacey’s comment cited earlier—that the Spirit of Prophecy should be viewed more as the Spirit’s message to our hearts than a message of historical and theological accuracy to our heads (p. 61). The problem for Bradford’s view is that the above statement doesn’t stop with comfort. It goes on to speak of correction—the prophet’s duty to warn the church against straying from the Biblical message.

The secret of the prophetic gift, in relation to human ideas and conduct, is its transcendence. A prophet’s counsel is sought and delivered as a means of moving above the normal play of ideas, opinions, and social trends which characterize the human experience. A prophet’s testimony is solicited, not for the sake of getting just another viewpoint, but to hear the word of God Himself. When King Zedekiah took Jeremiah aside in the courtyard prison, he didn’t ask for his opinion or best analysis. Rather, he inquired, “Is there any word from the Lord?” (Jeremiah 37:17). The voice of a prophet, speaking for God, is the voice of transcendent authority.

Bradford’s book seems to miss this point entirely. In his chapter on how to test prophets (pp. 71-91), never do we find two classic, signature passages of Scripture, which make it clear that the words of one claiming prophetic authority must be tested by prior prophetic revelation:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:20).

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11).

Instead, Bradford writes that prophets should be tested on the basis of whether they teach obedience to God’s law and live a holy life (pp. 83, 84). Yet in the same context he admits, correctly, that prophets can live very unholy lives, as shown in the experiences of Moses, David, Elijah, and others (p. 79). So just how holy, in Bradford’s view, must a prophet’s life be? And how is obedience to God’s law defined, if in fact the testimony of prophets concerning that law is tainted with human error? Bradford apparently believes a prophet can err both in private conduct and in public instruction to the church, all the while retaining the prophetic office. But as we noted before, in the cases of Balaam (Numbers 23, 24), the unnamed prophet in Jeroboam’s time (1 Kings 13:24), and Nathan’s counsel to David about the temple (2 Samuel 7:3-17; 1 Chronicles 17:2-15), prophetic unfaithfulness and/or inaccuracy either results in immediate dismissal from the prophetic office or immediate correction of the inaccurate counsel given.

The Biblical record is clear that occasional errors in a prophet’s personal life are in an entirely different category than similar errors in the counsel and instruction a prophet gives. The former, from what we find in Scripture, do not disqualify one from being an inspired, authoritative messenger of God. The latter most assuredly do, for the simple reason that recorded prophetic instruction is mankind’s sole objective measure of the will and purposes of God.

Bradford writes as follows:

We must recognize that prophets are human, like the rest of us. They can make mistakes. They can follow poor advice. They can misjudge a situation. They can be discouraged and irritable. They may be well informed in some areas and not so in other areas. Even prophets used mightily by God are still very human (p. 80).

Rightly understood, we could all agree here, provided we are talking about a prophet’s personal life and not the instruction given under divine inspiration. Peripheral discrepancies in historical and other detail are likewise permissible, as we have seen, even in prophetic writings themselves. But if the shortcomings here listed ever cause a prophet’s counsel to stray from the Word of God, the authority of such a one must be rejected. Modern intellectuals may despise “all or nothing” dilemmas, but this is precisely the standard Ellen White has set for her own writings, as is clear in the following statements:

Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.

If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White’s human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human—Sister’s White’s opinion. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition (97).

God is either teaching His people, reproving their wrongs, and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work… bears the stamp of God, or the stamp of the enemy. There is no half-way work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil (98).

It is simply not possible to claim, in typical modern fashion, to receive benefit from some of Ellen White’s writings while disagreeing with others. If she is a true prophet, in full accord with Scripture, she is speaking for God, and all our ideas and opinions must submit to the correction and guidance of her counsel. As the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church declared at Glacier View, “her authority transcends that of all noninspired interpreters” (99).

If, however, she differs at any time from Holy Scripture, no benefit at all can be derived from her writings, any more than such benefit can be derived from Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Marshall Applewhite. Under such circumstances, her claim to speak for God would be nothing short of blasphemy, and her critics—on the Internet and elsewhere—would be fully justified in rejecting her authority. If indeed their allegations of Ellen White’s unfaithfulness to Scripture are true, we must follow Ellen White’s own counsel, and reject those writings utterly. In that case, we had best take her books off the shelf and into our backyards, stack them neatly in a pile, drench them with gasoline, and light them with a match. We can praise God, of course, that despite the vaunted, repetitive claims of critics, no such evidence of unfaithfulness to Scripture has ever been demonstrated in the writings of Ellen G. White.

In summary, Bradford’s book seeks to offer comfort to those who presumably find error, of one sort or another, in the writings of Ellen White. It offers the touch of a kind pastor seeking to restore shattered faith, and to stop the hemorrhage of inquiring minds from the church. But in seeking to offer such comfort, it has produced a dangerous compromise of the prophetic office, an attempt to “humanize” prophets by making their instruction to the church as tentative, as mistake-prone, as any other set of religious opinions. Quite obviously, Ellen White is but the first casualty of such a concept. The Bible itself is placed in the crosshairs of scholarly dispute, cultural preference, and the vagaries of experience. Little wonder that Ellen White warned how the weakening of faith in the Testimonies would eventually lead to similar doubts about Scripture:

It is Satan’s plan to weaken the faith of God’s people in the Testimonies. Satan knows how to make his attacks. He works upon minds to excite jealousy and dissatisfaction toward those at the head of the work. The gifts are next questioned; then, of course, they have but little weight, and instruction given through visions is disregarded. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition (100).

Recalling Bradford’s disparaging claim that Jeremiah “plagued the life out of people with his doomsday predictions” (p. 73), one sees clear evidence of the weakening of Biblical authority. Such a remark shows greater sympathy for the rejecters of God’s message than for the message itself—a mindset most disturbing at a time when smooth sermons increasingly supplant the voice of faithful rebuke.

Bradford’s theology reduces the prophetic voice to merely one among many, belittling inspired counsel as merely one perspective among many. Such a view is profoundly alien to the Bible doctrine of prophetic inspiration and authority. Without transcendence, without supremacy over all human theories, speculations, and lifestyle choices, the prophetic office—as defined by Holy Scripture—ceases to exist.

Yes, prophets are human. But the message they bear is divine. And by the grace of God, that message must be accepted, internalized, and practiced by the faithful. Any other course, by the clearest evidence of God’s Word, places the soul in peril of eternal loss.

Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established: believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper (2 Chronicles 20:20). GCO

Endnotes

1. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 21.
2. See Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 159, 160, 162.
3. Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 128.
4. “Evangelica Offers Objections to Answers,” Evangelica, November 1981, p. 23.
5. Jerry Gladson, A Theologian’s Journey from Seventh-day Adventism to Mainstream Christianity (Glendale, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 2000), p. 163.
6. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, p. 172.
7. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, pp. 159, 160, 162.
8. See Ibid, pp. 151-173, in which parallels are cited between the Apocryphal books of Tobit and Sirach and various passages from the four Gospels (Matthew 6:7, 14, 15; 7:12; Mark 11:25; Luke 16:21; John 6:35) as well as James (1:19) and Revelation (21:18-21) . For a detailed listing of these parallels, as well as the uncredited use by Paul of Greek poets (see Acts 17:28; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12) and other parallels between the Apocryphal book of Enoch and certain verses of Jude (14, 15) and Revelation (3:5; 7:9; 9:11; 14:20; 20:15; 21:1), see Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and Ellen White (Washington, D.C: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981), pp. 106, 107.
9. James Walters, “Ellen White and Truth-Telling: An Ethical Analysis of Literary Dependency,” Adventist Today, March-April 2000, p. 10.
10. See Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, pp. 66-68.
11. Ibid., p. 67.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., p. 69.
14. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 49, also in Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37.
15. ________, Letter 37, 1887, to E.G. Waggoner and A.T. Jones.
16. See Walter T. Rea, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M&R Publications, 1982), p. 52; Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, p. 150.
17. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, p. 151.
18. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and Ellen White (Washington, D.C: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981).
19. Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1998).
20. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30.
21. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
22. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30.
23. See Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years, 1905-1915 (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1982), pp. 326-332.
24. Ibid., p. 330.
25. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 63.
26. Ibid., p. 74.
27. Ibid., p. 62.
28. Ibid., p. 64.
29. Ibid., p. 63.
30. ________, Early Writings, p. 15.
31. Quoted by Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Early Years, 1827-1862 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1985), p. 76.
32. Joseph Wambaugh, Echoes in the Darkness (paperback edition) (New York: Bantam Books, 1987), p. 315.
33. Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 696.
34. ________, Letter to Joseph Bates, July 13, 1847, quoted by Arthur L. White, “Ellen G. White and the Shut Door Question” (Ellen G. White Estate paper), pp. 49-51.
35. See Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, pp. 35-64, 130-134, 137-141; Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Castleberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), pp. 350-368; Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource/An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Glendale, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996), pp. 117-152, 319-341.
36. Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 377.
37. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, pp. 54-57.
38. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, pp. 156, 157, 281, 458.
39. Ibid., pp. 500-512. It should be noted, since others will doubtless raise the issue if it is not addressed here, that Olson and Douglass differ on whether Ellen White’s first vision immediately corrected her belief that the door of mercy had closed for the entire world. On the basis of Otis Nichols’ testimony of January 1845, noted above in reference 31 (see Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Early Years, p. 76), Olson believes Ellen White misunderstood her first vision, and that her views experienced a gradual correction—as distinct from an immediate one—over the following six years (see Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, pp. 57-60). Olson maintains, however, that this “fundamental change” in her position “in no way invalidates the reliability of her visions” (Ibid., p. 60).

    With all due respect to Dr. Olson, the present writer reiterates his conviction that a secondhand testimony—even of a friendly eyewitness—does not constitute conclusive grounds as to what a person says or teaches, especially since Ellen White’s 1884 testimony implies strongly that her first vision changed her belief that the door was closed for the whole world (see Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 63). Moreover, the close superintendence God has exercised in sacred history over the prophetic office—as evidenced by the immediate correction of Nathan’s counsel to David (2 Samuel 7:3-17; I Chronicles 17:2-15) and the alacrity with which disobedient prophets were punished (Numbers 23, 24; 31:7-8; 1 Kings 13:24), stands sharply at odds with the idea that God would permit Ellen White to travel about teaching error for six years before her false teachings—promoted on the basis of visions, no less—were corrected.

40. Desmond Ford, “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?” Lecture delivered at the Association of Adventist Forums, Pacific Union College, Angwin, California, Oct. 27, 1979.
41. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 78.
42. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32.
43. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
44. ________, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98, 99.
45. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655, 656.
46. ________, Gospel Workers, p. 302.
47. “The role of the Ellen G. White writings in doctrinal matters,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 15.
48. Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 105.
49. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, pp. 489-499.
50. Ibid., p. 492.
51. Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 290.
52. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 352.
53. John D. Davies, Phrenology: Fad and Science—A Nineteenth Century American Crusade (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971), pp. x-xi.
54. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 59, 60.
55. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67.
56. Ibid., p. 696.
57. ________, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75.
58. Ibid., p. 64.
59. Gordon Shigley, “Amalgamation of Man and Beast: What Did Ellen White Mean?” Spectrum, June 1982, pp. 10-19.
60. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75.
61. Ibid., p. 64.
62. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 2, pp. 343, 344.
63. Jeremy Rifkin, The Bio-Tech Century (New York: Penguin Putnam, 1998), pp. 99-102.
64. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.
65. ________, Health Reformer, October 1871, pp. 120, 121.
66. Ibid., July 1867.
67. Ibid., January 1871.

68. See Max Joseph, A Short History of Cosmetics (New York: E.B. Treat & Co, 1910), p. 44; Charles De Zemler, Once Over Lightly: The Story of Man and His Hair (New York, 1939), p. 81

    Those wishing further documentation for the reasons behind Ellen White’s counsel on this point are encouraged to contact the Loma Linda University Branch (Loma Linda, CA) of the Ellen G. White Estate. Telephone: (909) 558-4942; Web: www.llu.edu/llu/library/heritage/, E-mail: jklittle@dwebb.llu.edu.

69. “Lead Poisoning,” Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 17 (Danbury, CT: Grolier Inc, 2002), p. 100.
70. Ellen G. White, Health Reformer, October 1871, p. 121.
71. ________, A Solemn Appeal, p. 27; Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 470.
72. ________, A Solemn Appeal, p. 5.
73. Ibid., p. 18.
74. ________, Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 391.
75. Ibid.
76. Dr. E.P. Miller, A Solemn Appeal, p. 96.
77. Ellen G. White, A Solemn Appeal, pp. 3-80.
78. Dr. O.S. Fowler, A Solemn Appeal, p. 200.
79. James and Ellen White, Health and How to Live, p. 50.
80. Ellen G. White, Ministry of Healing, p. 373.
81. ________, A Solemn Appeal, pp. 3-5; Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 347-349, 391, 392.
82. ________, A Solemn Appeal, p. 53.
83. Ibid., pp. 62, 63; see also Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 346.
84. ________, Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 392.
85. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 417.

86. See Dr. Ray Foster, “Effect of Diet on Growth of M.Lepre in Mouse Footpads,” Indian Journal of Leprosy, vol. 61, no. 3, July 1989; “Nutrition in Leprosy: A Review,” International Journal of Leprosy, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 66-81.

    Those interested in further evidence of the connection between diet and leprosy should contact Dr. Ray Foster at 19100 SE 408th Street, Enumclaw, WA 98022; Tel: (360) 825-4951; E-mail: nshc@ars.net

87. Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1991), p. 296.
88. Ibid., p. 297.
89. See Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 109.
90. Ibid.
91. Ibid.
92. Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1951), pp. 403-467.
93. Rea, Claremont Dialogue, vol. II, no. 2 (1965), pp. 31, 34, 36, quoted by Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 109.
94. Arthur L. White, supplement to Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, pp. 507-549.
95. Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1973), pp. 107-136.
96. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 78.
97. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 68.
98. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 671.
99. “The role of the Ellen G. White writings in doctrinal matters, ” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 15.
100. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 672.

© 2007 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Contributing author Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His published work has appeared in numerous venues. Kevin has also since 2002 served as the speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.