Dietetic Counsels

Influence of Joseph Bates.—Prophetess of Health declares on page 38 that a major factor in leading Ellen White to begin speaking out on tea, coffee and tobacco in 1848 was probably the influence of Joseph Bates upon her. The documents of the times do not indicate that Bates had such a strong influence on Mrs. White. When two years before, early in 1846, Bates pressed the Sabbath truth on Ellen Harmon she “did not feel its importance and thought that he erred in dwelling upon the fourth commandment more than the other nine” (Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, 95). But from the Scripture evidence presented in the Bates pamphlet on the Sabbath published in August 1846, both James and Ellen White took their stand.CBPH 44.12

According to James White, Bates did not press on the Whites or anyone else his views on dietetic reforms. He had given up tea, coffee, and tobacco as early as 1836 (See Life of Bates, pp. 178, 314, 342), but Mrs. White did not start speaking out against the use of these three stimulants until after her visions on the subject in 1848. Bates gave up the use of flesh meats in 1843 (The Health Reformer, July, 1871, 6:21), yet Mrs. White said nothing on the subject until twenty years later, when God showed her that “animal food was not the most healthy article of food for man” (4SG 121). Whatever influence Bates may have had on Mrs. White was apparently very little compared with the influence of the visions.CBPH 44.13

The Use of Pork.—Prophetess of Health on page 43 introduces the question of the White’s attitude toward the use of pork. Reference is made to the James White Present Truth article of November, 1849, in which he defends the use of swine’s flesh, and then the 1858 vision is introduced in which some extremists who were pressing the point of swine’s flesh were reproved.CBPH 44.14

This actually provides an excellent exhibit that tends to refute Prophetess of Health’s contention that the Whites were influenced in dietary matters by their contemporaries. In this case where the matter of swine’s flesh was being agitated, the Whites failed to accept the basis for the agitation, and Ellen White in 1858 declared that “if God requires His people to abstain from swine’s flesh, He will convict them on this matter” (Testimonies for the Church 1:207).CBPH 44.15

We must recognize that the Lord leads His people along only as they are able to follow intelligently. He did this through Bible study and the visions.CBPH 44.16

The prohibition on the use of swine’s flesh is not mentioned in the Ellen G. White writings until the presentation of the 1863 vision. This emphasizes the point that the Whites as leaders were unwilling to make moves of a far-reaching character without clear Biblical support or a clear call from God through the visions given to Ellen White. This is in harmony with James White’s Word to the Little Flock statement of 1847, and his observations when the question of church organization was being discussed in 1861: “We take the Bible and the gifts of the Spirit; embracing the faith that thus the Lord will teach us from time to time” (The Review and Herald, October 8, 1861, 18:148).CBPH 44.17

During the first fifteen years of our history, our pioneers, while very clear on the Decalogue of Exodus 20, were not at all certain on all phases of what are termed the laws of Moses. In 1858 and 1859, when we launched the tithing system, they hesitated to use the word “tithe.” They were not then certain that tithing was not one of those points which were nailed to the cross. Therefore, they adopted a plan of “systematic benevolence on the tithing principle.” Our spiritual forefathers soon became clear that the plan for the tithe was one which did not end at the cross. James White in his 1849 article on swine’s flesh took into account arguments of scripture and called attention to the references in Isaiah. He declared that the texts had no bearing for this time, because they were dealing with idol worship which involved the burning of incense upon altars of brick, remaining among graves and lodging in the mountains, and sacrificing in the garden. These were all clearly linked with idolatry and the eating of swine’s flesh was tied in with that. The other Old Testament support would be the general rule determining clean and unclean meats, and this he assumed was done away at the cross and came under the declaration of the apostles in Jerusalem relating to the ceremonial law.CBPH 45.1

So, a good many Adventists continued their use of swine’s flesh. James White is reported by H. E. Carver as “having just put down a two hundred pound porker” probably in the late 1850’s, and Mrs. J. N. Andrews’ first entry in her diary, October 25, 1859, reports the slaughtering of a hog. In the 1858 experience referred to above certain believers took extreme positions and were advocating the non-use of swine’s flesh on the basis of afflicting their bodies and rigid economy. Ellen White counseled that there was no need for manufacturing crosses to distress the body. She declared to these folk:CBPH 45.2

I saw that your views concerning swine’s flesh would prove no injury if you have them to yourself; but in your judgment and opinion you have made this question a test and your actions have plainly shown your faith in this matter. If God requires His people to abstain from swine’s flesh, He will convict them on the matter. He is just as willing to show His honest children their duty, as to show their duty to individuals upon whom He has not laid the burdens of His work. If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine’s flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach His church their duty.—Testimonies for the Church 1:206-7.CBPH 45.3

In the vision of June 6, 1863, in which the broad health reform program was set forth, not only was the use of meat introduced, but also the prohibition on the use of swine’s flesh. Ellen White was shown that pork should not be eaten for it is unclean and it produces disease (4SG 146). This settled the question and the church at the time saw this to be entirely in harmony with the 1858 statement, that is, If God wished His people to take a stand on this point He would make it clear to them. He did. All the evidence supports the position that the Sabbathkeeping Adventists were led by the Lord and not well-meaning folks advocating their own singular positions on diet.CBPH 45.4