Affirming the Prophetic Gift, 1863-1872
During the years from 1863 to 1872 Seventh-day Adventists continued to deal with critics of their acceptance of Ellen White’s gift. On the one hand, the church had to respond to B. F. Snook and W. H. Brinkerhoff who became the first Seventh-day Adventist ministers to leave the church over issues related to Ellen White’s prophetic gift. In addition, in 1866 they also published The Visions of E. G. White, Not of God, questioning the validity of her prophetic claims. On the other hand, the denomination had to defend itself against external criticisms against its belief in Ellen White. In reality, people like William Sheldon and Miles Grant viewed the newly formed denomination as being another cult led by a false prophetic leader. Again, most of the critical arguments were repetitive from previous years, but Sabbathkeeping Adventists had to address two new nuances related to Ellen White’s gift. One was the critic’s claim that Sabbathkeeping Adventists “suppressed” some of her earlier writings because of doctrinal inconsistencies with the Scriptures and accused the Adventists of dishonesty. A second issue was the objections that there was nothing extraordinary or supernatural about Ellen White’s gift and therefore she was to be equated to the other false prophets. Seventh-day Adventists not only responded to the new questions, but also reaffirmed their position on the gifts. By the early 1870s Ellen White’s gift of prophecy became well established within their theological teachings.GOP 264.4
Responding to the issue of suppression, Seventh-day Adventists admitted that parts of Ellen White’s earlier writings were not republished in later publications, but that was done for practical and stylistic reasons rather than avoidance of doctrinal inconsistencies, as the critics claimed. Uriah Smith, for one, explained that whenever a decision to republish a vision was taken, it was not an unusual practice to omit some part from the earlier versions. He gave two reasons for this practice. First, the “suppression” of certain information was related to the original circumstances and aim of the vision. “Portions which are claimed to have been suppressed,” Smith explained, “are simply some things which related to particular and local circumstances, and having accomplished their object, have not been inserted when that which is of general interest has been republished.” Second, Smith observed that in cases where certain language or expressions were left out, the meaning of the vision had not changed. The visions contained “nothing but what we [Seventh-day Adventists] still fully endorse,” Smith argued. GOP 265.1
Thus for Smith and Seventh-day Adventists, the “suppression” or the “left out” parts of certain visions had nothing to do with hiding or changing of theological beliefs, but with making those visions suitable for the general readership. To prove their point further, Adventists also decided to republish some of the earliest writings of Ellen White and show that they had no intentions of hiding information from the visions. The question of “suppression,” therefore, was not connected to theology but practicality, and Adventist leadership saw nothing wrong doing it. GOP 265.2
Seventh-day Adventists also offered, for the first time, the supernatural argument for the authenticity of Ellen White’s visions and responded to the critics who claimed that there was nothing extraordinary about her visionary manifestations. Up to that time the Adventists seemed reluctant to use this type of argument since many fanatical visionaries and spiritualizes appeared to exhibit similar paranormal displays and their main emphasis was placed on the “extraordinary,” or the “supernatural.” By the mid-1860s, however, that would change. Seventh-day Adventists began to argue, because of the critics, that Ellen White’s gift had supernatural manifestations. These included: (a) the unnatural physical conditions while she was in vision; (b) revelations of facts unknown to her; and (c) the inability to control or influence the timing of her visionary experiences.GOP 265.3
In 1868 James White described some of the supernatural conditions while Ellen White was in vision. He pointed out, first, that she was “utterly unconscious of everything transpiring around her.” Second, she did not breathe during the entire vision “as has been repeatedly proved by pressing upon the chest, and by closing the mouth and nostrils.” Third, “immediately on entering vision” her muscles became “rigid” and her “joints fixed, so far as any external force can influence them.” Fourth, she could not see anything for a while after coming out of vision but her eyesight was not “impaired.” White also noted that up to 1868 she had had between 100 and 200 visions that had been witnessed by many people, both believers and unbelievers. Therefore what she was describing was not a secret to only a few of her followers. GOP 265.4
Likewise, Loughborough, who personally witnessed many of Ellen White’s visionary manifestations, reported that while in vision Ellen White did not breathe, her eyes were open, and “audible words were spoken without breath.” Loughborough also added that Ellen White had the ability to foresee things that were previously unknown to her and hidden from the rest of them. “So, to us, in this whole case,” he concluded, “there is a striking proof as to the source from whence these visions proceed. Works of darkness were reproved and brought to light by the testimony, wrongs in the church corrected; and this is the characteristic of true gifts.” GOP 266.1
Furthermore, Seventh-day Adventists also pointed out that Ellen White’s visionary experiences were not controlled by anyone. After all, they were unexpected to Ellen White herself. She got visions while addressing congregations, while “prostrated by sickness,” “while walking with friends,” or “when in prayer alone.” The timing of any of her visions was up to God only. As D. M. Canright put it, Ellen G. White could not “have a vision at any time she wished, nor avoid having them if she would like.” The supernatural, Seventh-day Adventists argued, was not absent from Ellen White’s experiences, although it was not particularly emphasized up to that time.GOP 266.2
It is in this context that in the late 1860s and early 1870s Seventh-day Adventists began to openly affirm their belief in Ellen White and acknowledge the gift of prophecy as part of their theological package. In 1868 Seventh-day Adventists published Uriah Smith’s The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White: A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures. It was an attempt to respond comprehensively to the specific objections raised by Snook and Brinkerhoff’s The Visions of E. G. White, Not of God. Smith’s work was considered to be of prime importance and was to be widely distributed among Seventh-day Adventists and their friends. The book became the first Seventh-day Adventist apologetic work exclusively defending Ellen White’s gift.GOP 266.3
In addition, the denomination affirmed its belief in Ellen White by issuing official General Conference resolutions. One example is the resolution from the ninth annual General Conference in 1871: “Resolved, That we reaffirm our abiding confidence in the Testimonies of Sr. White to the church, as the teaching of the Spirit of God, and that we have each year continual and growing evidence that they are such.” Curiously, this was the first time Ellen White’s name was used in such a document. Similar official resolutions continued to appear in later years. GOP 266.4
A more significant development took place in 1872, when the doctrine of spiritual gifts, including the gift of prophecy, became part of the first Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal statement of beliefs. Point 16 of the document, A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists, stated:GOP 267.1
That the Spirit of God was promised to manifest itself in the church through certain gifts, enumerated especially in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4; that these gifts are not designed to supersede, or take the place of, the Bible, which is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, any more than the Bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit; that in specifying the various channels of its operation, that Spirit has simply made provision for its own existence and presence with the people of God to the end of time, to lead to an understanding of that word which it had inspired, to convince of sin, and work a transformation in the heart and life; and that those who deny to the Spirit its place and operation, do plainly deny that part of the Bible which assigns to it his work and position. GOP 267.2
Although the name of Ellen White was not used specifically, the allusion to her gift is evident. While the document was never officially adopted nor had “any authority,” it acknowledged the gift of prophecy as being an inextricable part of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal package and one of the denomination’s identifying marks.GOP 267.3
The new charges of suppression and lack of supernatural evidences for Ellen White’s gift, therefore, did not diminish the Seventh-day Adventist confidence in her gift. Instead they prompted the church to become more open and affirmative of its acceptance of the gift of prophecy and Ellen White. It is because of this phenomenon that Seventh-day Adventists viewed themselves as the true end-time people of God who kept the commandments of God and had the gift of prophecy manifested among them. By 1872 Ellen White’s prophetic gift was affirmed as part of the Seventh-day Adventist identity.GOP 267.4