Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents

A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    II. A Look At Some Of The Prime Witnesses

    While the copious footnotes carry many names and titles, there are certain witnesses which are depended upon for negative evidence concerning crucial points. Among such are: M. G. Kellogg, J. H. Kellogg, E. S. Ballenger, D. M. Canright, H. E. Carver and F. E. Belden, etc.CBPH 15.8

    Since their testimony is of quite a different character than that of many that are cited in the footnotes, it may be well to examine them, noting the time their testimony was given, and this in relation to other events.CBPH 15.9

    Merritt G. Kellogg

    The testimony of Dr. Merritt G. Kellogg is summoned in regard to the visions of Ellen G. White. On page 19, it is stated that “the two Kellogg doctors, Merritt and John, believed she suffered from catalepsy, which as the latter described it ‘is a nervous state allied to hysteria in which sublime visions are usually experienced.’”CBPH 15.10

    The Merritt Kellogg letter of June 3, 1906, cited as documentation, (page 217) was written when he was 74 years of age. Sixteen years earlier he wrote freely for publication a favorable account of seeing Ellen White in vision. In the light of his testimony in old age, the 1890 statement written at age of 58 is significant. Elder J. N. Loughborough in preparing a volume for publication on the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church giving special attention to the work of Ellen G. White, called upon Kellogg to present his testimony recounting his observations of Ellen White in several of her visions. Kellogg reported in detail on the first vision he witnessed, given in Michigan, May 20, 1853, at a meeting held in Tyrone, Livingston County. He says:CBPH 15.11

    Sister White was in vision about twenty minutes or half an hour. As she went into vision everyone present seemed to feel the power and presence of God, and some of us did indeed feel the Spirit of God resting upon us mightily. We were engaged in prayer and social meeting Sabbath morning at about nine o’clock.CBPH 15.12

    Brother White, my father, and Sister White had prayed, and I was praying at the time. There had been no excitement, no demonstrations. We did plead earnestly with God, however, that He would bless the meeting with His presence, and that He would bless the work in Michigan. As Sister White gave that triumphant shout of “Glory! g-l-o-r-y! g-l-o-r-y!” which you have heard her give so often as she goes into vision, Brother White arose and informed the audience that his wife was in vision. After stating the manner of her visions, and that she did not breathe while in vision, he invited any one who wished to do so to come forward and examine her. Dr. Drummond, a physician, who was also a First-day Adventist preacher, who (before he saw her in vision) had declared her visions to be of mesmeric origin, and that he could give her a vision, stepped forward, and after a thorough examination, turned very pale, and remarked, “She doesn’t breathe!”CBPH 16.1

    I am quite certain that she did not breathe at that time while in vision, nor in any of several others which she has had when I was present. The coming out of the vision was as marked as her going into it. The first indication we had that the vision was ended, was in her again beginning to breathe. She drew her first breath, deep, long, and full, in a manner showing that her lungs had been entirely empty of air. After drawing the first breath, several minutes passed before she drew the second, which filled the lungs precisely as did the first; then a pause of two minutes, and a third inhalation, after which the breathing became natural.—M. G. Kellogg, MD, Battle Creek, Mich., Dec. 28, 1890; Great Second Advent Movement, p. 206 (quoted in Messenger to the Remnant, pp. 22-23).CBPH 16.2

    Dr. M. G. Kellogg’s rather strange statement made in a personal letter in 1906 can probably be attributed to his strong feelings over his brother’s (J. H. Kellogg) estrangement from the church and Ellen G. White. Certainly his former favorable statement should not be ignored.CBPH 16.3

    John Harvey Kellogg

    So far as our records go, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, twenty years younger than his half brother Merritt G., makes no reference to having personally seen Ellen G. White in vision. John Harvey’s March 3, 1933, statement written to A. B. Tower, when he was 81 years of age, quoted briefly on pages 19, 20 and noted above, should be read in the light of repeated statements made forty years earlier when he was in his prime.CBPH 16.4

    In 1897 Dr. J. H. Kellogg was requested to address the delegates at the General Conference Session. He did so on March 3, and no one could have been more clear as to the visions being the source of Ellen White’s information on health. Kellogg is speaking:CBPH 16.5

    “The brethren desired that there should be presented before you some of the special instruction which we have been receiving at the sanitarium from time to time upon the subject of health reform, and its important relations to the various branches of the work, especially to us as individuals. Now I will read first a statement here from a testimony received in 1893. It is dated Auckland, New Zealand, Feb. 19, 1893. These words apply to everybody, and not alone to those at the sanitarium: ‘Guilt rests upon us as a people who have had much light, because we have not appreciated the importance of the light given upon health reform.’ It is a very interesting fact that the Lord began giving us this light thirty years ago. Just before I came to the Conference I had a talk with Dr. Lay, and he told me of how he heard the first instruction about health reform away back in 1860, and especially in 1863. While he was riding in a carriage with brother and sister White, she related what had been presented to her upon the subject of health reform, and laid out the principles which have stood the test of all these years—a whole generation.CBPH 16.6

    “I am sure, as Dr. Riley said to me this morning, that it is impossible for any man who has not made a special study of medicine to appreciate the wonderful character of the instruction that has been received in these writings, It is wonderful, brethren, when you look back over the writings that were given us thirty years ago, and then perhaps the next day pick up a scientific journal and find some new discovery that the microscope has made, or that has been brought to light in the chemical laboratory,—I say, it is perfectly wonderful how correctly they agree in fact.CBPH 16.7

    “Now in the preface to Christian Temperance you will find a statement which I presume not very many of you have read. There is no name signed to the preface, but I wrote it. But if you will read it, you will find a statement to the effect that every single statement with reference to healthful living, and the general principles that underlie the subject, have been verified by scientific discovery. I sometimes see some of our brethren appear to be a little shaky on the testimonies; they do not know whether these things come from the Lord or not; but to those I invariably say that if you will study the subject of health reform from the testimonies, and then from the light of scientific discovery,—compare it with what science teaches at the present time,—you will be amazed; you will see what a flood of light was given us thirty years ago.CBPH 16.8

    “There is no evidence so powerful that can be deduced in support of these writings and the source from which they come, as the fact that the writings thirty years ago are fully substantiated by the scientific discoveries of today.”—The General Conference Bulletin, March 8, 1897.CBPH 16.9

    Some two years before this Dr. J. H. Kellogg was in New York City talking to Dr. David Paulson, who was just completing his medical training and would soon be coming to Battle Creek. As reported by Paulson, Kellogg asked the new physician:CBPH 16.10

    “Do you know how it is that the Battle Creek Sanitarium is able to keep five years ahead of the medical profession?”CBPH 16.11

    Dr. Paulson said he did not know. Then Dr. Kellogg explained:CBPH 16.12

    “When a new thing is brought out in the medical world I know from my knowledge of the Spirit of Prophecy whether it belongs in our system or not.”CBPH 16.13

    If it does, I instantly adopt it and advertise it while the rest of the doctors are slowly feeling their way, and when they finally adopt it, I have five years start of them.CBPH 16.14

    On the other hand, when the medical profession is swept off their feet by some new fad, if it does not fit the light we have received, I simply do not touch it. When the doctors finally discover their mistake, they wonder how it came that I did not get caught.—White Estate Document File #269 “Paulson Articles and Misc.”CBPH 17.1

    Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, in his prime is without any question the most competent and most important witness to Ellen White’s teachings in the field of health. He was a physician and surgeon well trained in scientific lines, having studied both in America and Europe. He traveled widely, lectured frequently, and carried on a constant line of investigation and experimentation. He was medical superintendent of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the foremost such medical institution in the world, which attracted such of the world’s great as Taft, Rockefeller, Edison, Ford, Burbank, etc. True, because of the innovations made at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, Kellogg was at times under fire by fellow physicians. But if the reader would see Ellen White emerge in her true image, he may well look to Kellogg before his defection, and even after his defection Kellogg never repudiated or discounted Ellen White’s health teachings. For this reason as we introduce his 1890 Preface statement to Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, the first part of which is a compilation of E. G. White materials, we quote at length, urging the reader to peruse it carefully to gain its full impact. Please note Kellogg’s frequent reference to “the principles taught” by Ellen White:CBPH 17.2

    Nearly thirty years ago there appeared in print the first of a series of remarkable and important articles on the subject of health, by Mrs. E. G. White. These articles at once commanded earnest consideration by those who were acquainted with Mrs. White’s previous writings and labors. Thousands were led to change life-long habits, and to renounce practices thoroughly fixed by heredity as well as by long indulgence. So great a revolution could not be wrought in a body of people without the aid of some powerful incentive, which in this case was undoubtedly the belief that the writings referred to not only bore the stamp of truth, but were endorsed as such by a higher than human authority. This is not the proper place for the consideration of the grounds upon which this belief was based, but the reader’s attention is invited to a few facts of interest in this connection:CBPH 17.3

    1. At the time the writings referred to first appeared, the subject of health was almost wholly ignored, not only by the people to whom they were addressed, but by the world at large.CBPH 17.4

    2. The few advocating the necessity of a reform in physical habits, propagated in connection with the advocacy of genuine reformatory principles the most patent and in some instances disgusting errors.CBPH 17.5

    3. Nowhere, and by no one, was there presented a systematic and harmonious body of hygienic truths, free from patent errors, and consistent with the Bible and the principles of the Christian religion.CBPH 17.6

    Under these circumstances, the writings referred to made their appearance. The principles taught were not enforced by scientific authority, but were presented in a simple, straightforward manner by one who makes no pretense to scientific knowledge, but claims to write by the aid and authority of the divine enlightenment.CBPH 17.7

    How have the principles presented under such peculiar circumstances and with such remarkable claims stood the test of time and experience? is a question which may very properly be asked. Its answer is to be found in facts which are capable of the amplest verification. The principles presented have been put to the test of practical experience by thousands; and whenever intelligently and consistently carried out, the result has been found in the highest degree satisfactory. Thousands have testified to physical, mental, and moral benefits received. Many of the principles taught have come to be so generally adopted and practiced that they are no longer recognized as reforms, and may, in fact, be regarded as prevalent customs among the more intelligent classes. The principles which a quarter of a century ago were either entirely ignored or made the butt of ridicule, have quietly won their way into public confidence and esteem, until the world has quite forgotten that they have not always been thus accepted. New discoveries in science and new interpretations of old facts have continually added confirmatory evidence, until at the present time every one of the principles advocated more than a quarter of a century ago is fortified in the strongest possible manner by scientific evidence.CBPH 17.8

    Finally, the reformatory movement based upon the principles advocated so long ago has lived and prospered until the present time, and the institutions developed by it have grown to be the most extensive and the most prosperous establishments of the sort in the world; while other efforts, looking somewhat in the same direction, but contaminated by error, have either abandoned the principles of truth, and been given over to error, or have fallen into obscurity, It certainly must be regarded as a thing remarkable, and evincing unmistakable evidence of divine insight and direction, that in the midst of confused and conflicting teachings, claiming the authority of science and experience, but warped by ultra notions and rendered impotent for good by the great admixture of error,—it must be admitted to be something extraordinary, that a person making no claims to scientific knowledge or erudition should have been able to organize, from the confused and error-tainted mass of ideas advanced by a few writers and thinkers on health subjects, a body of hygienic principles so harmonious, so consistent, and so genuine that the discussions, the researches, the discoveries, and the experience of a quarter of a century have not resulted in the over throw of a single principle, but have only served to establish the doctrines taught.CBPH 17.9

    The guidance of infinite wisdom is as much needed in the discerning between truth and error as in the evolution of new truths. Novelty is by no means a distinguishing characteristic of true principles, and the principle holds good as regards the truths of hygienic reform, as well as those of other reformatory movements. The greatest and most important reformatory movements of modern times have not been those which presented new facts and principles, but those which revived truths and principles long forgotten, and which have led the way back to the paths trodden by men of bygone ages, before the world had wandered so far away from physical and moral rectitude.—Preface, CTBH, pp. iii, ivCBPH 17.10

    In his later years Dr. Kellogg led his friends to believe that some of his pronouncements on health influenced Ellen G. White. “I gave her that inspiration,” he would declare. But in 1892 he wrote spontaneously to Ellen G. White, then in Australia, on the point of his observations that she was not influenced. Dr. Kellogg’s testimony may be of interest in view of the repeated assertions in Prophetess of Health that others had a profound influence on her writings:CBPH 18.1

    There are so many who are ready to say that Sister White has been influenced to do or to say this or that, I often hesitate about writing you concerning things which I would like to write to you about, so that in case remarks of that sort are made, I can say with the utmost confidence that there had been no possible opportunity for you to be influenced, by me at any rate. It has been to me a source of more confidence and satisfaction than I can express to you, that I have often seen, in my acquaintance with you and your work, wrongs set right through the special leading of your mind by the Lord.CBPH 18.2

    I used often to make a test in my mind, saying nothing to anybody. I would say to myself, Now here is an evident wrong. Sister White knows nothing about it, or if she knows anything about it, the circumstances are such as would produce a personal prejudice in favor of a wrong rather than against it. If the Lord leads her to denounce and correct this evil, I shall know that she is being specially led. In not a single instance did the test fail, and so my confidence grew. I mention these facts very often to those whom I find doubting.—Letter from J. H. Kellogg to E. G. White, Sept. 9, 1892. Quoted in The Messenger, 16-17.CBPH 18.3

    The careful investigator who weighs all the evidence will not ignore the J. H. Kellogg statements from the 1890’s, evidence not so much as mentioned in Prophetess of Health. As he looks at the J. H. Kellogg statements made in his later years discrediting Ellen White, he will tend to agree with the footnote on page 250 admitting that the “doctor was writing about fifty years after the events described and may have had a tendency to embroider.” This concession is significant in that it tends to weaken the arguments based on Kellogg’s assertions made late in life. Unfortunately it does not appear in the text.CBPH 18.4

    D. M. Canright

    Another witness seldom quoted, but often named in the footnotes, is D. M. Canright, the author of Life of Mrs. E. G. White (1919)—Canright’s late testimony on the visions, the work and the writings of Ellen G. White.CBPH 18.5

    Canright was a prominent and much respected Seventh-day Adventist minister and leader for a number of years.CBPH 18.6

    In February, 1887, six months before he was dropped—at his own request—from fellowship in the Seventh-day Adventist church, he declared to his nephew as he drove onto the Michigan camp grounds where a president for the state conference was to be chosen, “If I am not elected president of this conference at this meeting I am not going to preach for them any more” (Carrie Johnson, I Was Canright’s Secretary [Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, c 1971] p. 80). Another was chosen to fill that office. Canright stood by his declaration and was soon disconnected from Seventh-day Adventists, and, before long was at war with Ellen G. White and the church. In his old age with a bitter and frequently inaccurate pen he did all he could to discredit her. But the question is: How reliable is he as a witness in this book written in his mid to late 70’s, an embittered old man?CBPH 18.7

    But now let us look at Canright in his prime as a Seventh-day Adventist minister. He wrote for publication in the Review and Herald in an article entitled “A Plain Talk to Murmurers” published April 26, 1877:CBPH 18.8

    As to the Christian character of Sister White, I beg leave to say that I think I know something about it. I have been acquainted with Sister White for eighteen years, more than half the history of our people. I have been in their family time and again, sometimes weeks at a time. They have been in our house and family many times. I have traveled with them almost everywhere; have been with them in private and in public, in meeting and out of meeting, and have had the very best chances to know something of the life, character, and spirit of Brother and Sister White. As a minister, I have had to deal with all kinds of persons, and all kinds of character, till I think I can judge something of what a person is, at least after years of intimate acquaintance.CBPH 18.9

    I know Sister White to be an unassuming, modest, kindhearted, noble woman. These traits in her character are not simply put on and cultivated, but they spring gracefully and easily from her natural disposition. She is not self-conceited, self-righteous, and self-important, as fanatics always are....CBPH 18.10

    I have heard Sister White speak hundreds of times, have read all her testimonies through and through, most of them many times, and I have never been able to find one immoral sentence in the whole of them, or anything that is not strictly pure and Christian; nothing that leads away from the Bible, or from Christ; but there I find the most earnest appeals to obey God, to love Jesus, to believe the Scriptures, and to search them constantly. I have received great spiritual benefit times without number, from the testimonies...CBPH 18.11

    Another fact should have great weight with our Sabbathkeeping Adventists. All the leading men among us, those of the very strongest minds and the best talents, and who have had every facility for more than a quarter of a century to become thoroughly acquainted with Sister White and her writings, have the strongest faith in her testimonies. This, with our people who keep the Sabbath and believe in the Advent doctrines, should have great weight.—The Review and Herald, April 26, 1877, 49:132.CBPH 18.12

    Eight years later Canright placed another series in the Review, this time under the title “To Those in Doubting Castle.” In the first he pointed out:CBPH 18.13

    Sister White and her work have not only been connected with the message from the very first, but she has had a leading influence in that work, has stood front and foremost, and with voice and pen has done more to guide and mold the message than any other half dozen laborers now in the cause. From the beginning her teachings have been accepted by all the leading ministers and believers as light from God. Now would it not be the very height of absurdity to accept the message and the work as the truth and God’s work, and yet reject the very one who has done the work? A deceiver, an impostor, a false teacher stand at the head of God’s special work for forty years! No, that will never do.CBPH 19.1

    But are there not difficulties in these writings hard to explain?—Passages which seem to conflict one with another, or with some passage in the Bible, or with facts? I freely grant for myself that there are some passages which bother me, and which I do not know how to explain.CBPH 19.2

    If a man reads the Bible on purpose to find objections, as Tom Paine did, and as Ingersoll does, he will find plenty of them to satisfy his unbelief, and confirm him in his infidelity. But if, like thousands of others equally learned and intelligent, he goes to the Scriptures to find light and God and salvation, he will find them full and clear, to the joy of his soul. I am profoundly convinced in the depths of my soul, after an experience of twenty-five years, that the same thing is true of the testimonies.CBPH 19.3

    No, the real trouble lies close at home in a proud, unconverted heart, a lack of real humility, an unwillingness to admit to God’s way of finding the truth.—The Review and Herald, February 10, 1885, 62:85-86.CBPH 19.4

    From 1887 to 1919 Canright opposed Seventh-day Adventists and Ellen G. White, but told a close friend, D. W. Reavis, in 1903 when Reavis urged him to return to the church he loved and served in earlier years: “I would be glad to come back, but I can’t: It’s too late. I am forever gone! Gone!” (Counsels on Stewardship, 101).CBPH 19.5

    This sentiment he expressed a number of times between 1903 and 1913. See documented statements in I Was Canright’s Secretary pp 101-107. Then in 1915 while preparing his manuscript for his book against Ellen G. White, he attended her funeral and as he paused at the open casket declared, as heard by several witnesses: “There is a noble Christian woman gone!” (W. A. Spicer in The Spirit of Prophecy in the Advent Movement p. 127).CBPH 19.6

    E. S. Ballenger

    One whose name occasionally appears in the foot notes is E. S. Ballenger. One time a Seventh-day Adventist minister, manager of the Paradise Valley Sanitarium, and then Educational Secretary of the Southern California Conference, Ballenger parted company with the church over the Sanctuary teachings. From 1913 to the close of his life in the late 1950’s, he opposed the church and published a monthly journal, “The Gathering Call,“ each issue of which carried at least one article in opposition to Ellen G. White and the church. His lament near the close of his life was that he had been unsuccessful in forming an organization to carry on the work to which he had dedicated forty years of his life.CBPH 19.7

    F. E. Belden

    Another whose name occurs a number of times in the footnotes is F. E. Belden, hymn writer and publisher of hymn books and one time quite high in denominational publishing circles. He was one of several who demanded wages out of proportion with the denomination’s standards. He was one who while connected with the Review and Herald advocated business procedures to deal with authors in a manner as to strip them of their proper royalties, and then turned on the Review and Herald with the complaint that he was treated unfairly. Belden turned bitter and there is every evidence that he became the tool in the hands of Battle Creek Sanitarium leaders in a legal attempt in 1906 and 1907 to wrest from the denomination its largest meeting house—the Battle Creek Tabernacle. Although a nephew of Ellen G. White, being the son of her older sister Sarah, his communications to the members of the White family and to the Ellen G. White Estate were filled with venom.CBPH 19.8

    H. E. Carver

    In 1865 and 1866 Carver was an officer of the Iowa Conference, serving as secretary. During Civil War days he differed with church leaders in their relationship to the government and military service. He was early to join others in Iowa in turning against church organization, certain doctrines of the church and Ellen G. White.CBPH 19.9

    In July, 1866, Carver was dropped from his position as a conference officer because he was “in open opposition to some of the prominent doctrines held by this people” (The Review and Herald, July 7, 1866, 28:49). He was characterized by Ellen G. White as gathering testimonies of falsehood from rebels and traitors (The Review and Herald, February 20, 1866, 27:89).CBPH 19.10

    Admittedly, these witnesses do not provide the bulk of the evidence cited in the book, but since some of them are the source of significant “negative” evidence, it is well to keep their backgrounds and biases in mind.CBPH 19.11

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents