The written account of Ellen White’s visions, the experience of those closest to her, and her own recollections suggest that she did not readopt her initial prevision view that probation had closed for everyone. She declared in 1874: “I never have stated or written that the world was doomed or damned. I never have under any circumstances used this language to anyone however sinful. I have ever had messages of reproof for those who used these harsh expressions” ^{15EGW, Letter 2, 1874.}UEGW 169.4

This statement is, at least to a degree, in line with that of the Advent Mirror, which allowed for the salvation of individuals who had not rejected truth. A second contextual evidence that Ellen Harmon believed that certain people could still be saved is found in the earliest contemporary reference to her visions—the Israel Dammon trial in Maine, as recorded in an area newspaper. At the trial, Adventist witnesses who had recently heard Ellen Harmon explain her visions unanimously testified that individuals could still be saved, even from the “fallen” churches. ^{16“Trial of Elder I. Dammon: Reported for the Piscataquis Farmer” Piscataquis Farmer, March 7, 1845.} (Hereafter, Ellen Harmon will be referred to as Ellen White. ^{17Ellen Harmon married James White on August 30, 1846.})UEGW 170.1

In writing out her first vision, Ellen White used the expression “the wicked world which God had rejected,” although she did not elaborate on its meaning. ^{18Ellen G. Harmon, “Letter From Sister Harmon” Day-Star, January 24, 1846, 31, 32; EGW to Joseph Bates, Letter 3, 1847 (July 13). Her first vision was reprinted using the same “wicked world” expression in the broadside, To the Little Remnant Scattered Abroad, April 6, 1846, and J. White, A Word to the “Little Flock,” 14.} The Advent Mirror and William Miller had written of “the wicked world” as those who had rejected the Advent truth. ^{19A. Hale and J. Turner, “Has Not the Savior Come as the Bridegroom?” The Advent Mirror, January 1845, 3, 4; William Miller, Evidence From Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year 1843: Exhibited in a Course of Lectures (Boston: J. V. Himes, 1842), 188.} Ellen White’s own interpretation of the vision, when called upon to explain it in 1883, was that “no reference is made [in the vision] to those who had not seen the light and therefore were not guilty of its rejection.” ^{20EGW, Manuscript 4 (c. 1883).} Though her perspective on the shut door was not yet completely developed, she applied a biblical principle that a person is responsible for the light they receive through the working of the Holy Spirit. Ellen White’s experience with the developing shut-door teaching may be compared to the manner in which Bible writers had misconceptions that were corrected over time (see below).UEGW 170.2

Ellen White’s position on the shut door was influenced and modified by her second major vision, which she received in Exeter, Maine, in February 1845. Known as the Bridegroom vision, it presented a very different idea from that of Samuel Snow and Joseph Turner in the Jubilee Standard. ^{21Samuel S. Snow, “Letter From Br. Snow” Voice of Truth, April 16, 1845, 20.} As noted above, Snow would argue that Jesus had ended His work as High Priest in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary on one day, October 22, 1844. For Snow, Jesus was reigning as King and was no longer a mediator. ^{22See Burt, “Historical Background” 114-117.}UEGW 170.3

In contrast, Ellen White wrote of her vision: “There I beheld Jesus, as he was before the Father a great High Priest” ^{23Ellen G. Harmon, “Letter From Sister Harmon” Day-Star, March 14, 1846, 7 (written February 15, 1846).} Even her statements about those who remained “bowed before the throne” in the Holy Place, where she figuratively saw Satan taking God’s place, suggest hope. She wrote: “Satan’s object was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God’s children.” ^24Ibid. The fact that Satan was working so hard implied that there was hope for those who were deceived. She did not specifically define who the “deceived” ones were. Thus in February 1845 Ellen White was suggesting a post-1844 continuing atonement or intercession, which theologically diverged from the restrictive or one-day atonement idea that probation had closed. Her views were more comparable to those presented by Crosier.UEGW 170.4

The Bridegroom vision also seems to have anchored for Ellen White the idea that those who had willfully rejected light could close their own probation. This “shut door” was limited to those who resisted the Holy Spirit and remained indifferent to Jesus’ move into the Holy of Holies in the heavenly sanctuary.UEGW 171.1

Ellen White’s time of trouble vision, during the fall of 1845, further con-firmed that human probation had not closed. In October 1845, James White was teaching that Jesus would come at the end of the one-year period following the end of the 2,300 days. While in Carver, Massachusetts, Ellen White was shown that Jesus could not come yet because the time of trouble had not begun. ^{25Ibid.; James White, “Watchman, What of the Night” Day-Star, September 20, 1845, 26; James White, A Word to the “Little Flock,” 22.} She also clarified that God’s people still needed to be sealed. She wrote: “Just before we entered it [the time of trouble], we all received the seal of the living God.” ^{26Ellen G. Harmon, “Letter From Sister Harmon,” Day-Star, March 14, 1846, 7.}UEGW 171.2

Thus, Ellen White’s visions during 1845 theologically led away from the shut-door view. Her view of spiritual accountability for light received cannot be understood as promoting or confirming a universal shut door for salvation.UEGW 171.3

The Bridegroom view (January 1845 to about January 1847)

The sanctuary view: January 1847 to fall 1848