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

    What Did James and Ellen White Know?

    Here is another point to consider: Why was it that, if, as Prophetess of Health avers, “by June of 1863 Seventh-day Adventists were already in possession of the main outlines of the health reform message,” (pp. 80-81) and a sizable number of individuals, friends of the Whites, who had accepted various phases of health reform had spoken to them, why was it that, we repeat, when the 1863 vision was given to Ellen White outlining the main features of reform it seemed foreign to her? Why did she feel so incapable of presenting intelligently what she had seen in vision? Why did she write: “I was astonished at the things shown me in vision. Many things came directly across my own ideas” (Ms 7, 1867)? See Appendix B.CBPH 50.14

    Willie White is quoted as reporting that about two weeks after the vision when Dr. Lay pressed Ellen White to give details of what she was shown in the vision, she “at first demurred, saying ‘that she was not familiar with medical language, and that much of the matter presented to her was so different from the commonly accepted views that she feared she could not relate it so that it could be understood’” (p. 82).CBPH 50.15

    The Whites treating diphtheria in February, 1863.—Another premise basic to Prophetess of Health is that in February, 1863, when confronted with two of their children with Diptheria, James and Ellen White found Jackson’s article on the dread disease in a rural New York newspaper and employed successfully in their family the methods of treatment advocated (pp. 47, 76, 80). The book declares: “At last she had stumbled onto a system of medicine that really worked. With the fervor of a convert she began sharing her faith in hydropathy, and to her death she remained one of its staunchest advocates.” (p. 47).CBPH 50.16

    This point, vital to Prophetess of Heath’s thesis that the Whites had accepted the basic tenets of health reform, or at least hydrotherapy, as “a system of medicine” four months before the vision of June 6, 1863, is reiterated in the next chapter:CBPH 51.1

    Of all Jackson’s writings, probably the most influential in terms of long-range effects was a modest-looking article on diphtheria published January 15, 1863, in a rural New York newspaper, the Yates County Chronicle. At the time of the article’s appearance, a severe diphtheria epidemic was raging through much of the United States, and by a twist of fate, the paper fell into the hands of an anxious mother who was nursing her two sons through an apparent attack. When the simple water treatments described by the Dansville physician proved successful, the grateful mother at once began sharing her discovery with others and thus embarked upon a lifelong career as a prophetess of health reform. Her name was Ellen G. White.—p. 76.CBPH 51.2

    Is this all-important deduction really supported by the facts? True, two of the White boys stricken with diphtheria recovered in response to the treatment. True, the employment of these methods with Elder Hull’s six-year-old son resulted in an early recovery. True, James White declared in introducing the article that he “had a good degree of confidence in his [Jackson’s] manner in treating diseases.” This was logical, if only transitory. But that this means she had “stumbled onto a system of medicine that really worked,” or that Ellen White “began proclaiming its wonders far and wide,” fails of support in the records.CBPH 51.3

    Although James White printed the article in the Review of Feb. 17, 1863 and they reprinted Jackson’s article again in 1865 in the How to Live pamphlets, neither James nor Ellen White, or others in subsequent months or at any future time, made any reference to this supposedly landmark experience with diphtheria or the discovery of a new system of medicine. At no time is this cited as one of the first indications of a health reform awakening. This is Prophetess of Health’s assumption.CBPH 51.4

    If, as Prophetess of Health avers, Ellen White had found a “system of medicine that really worked” (p. 47) and their experience “embarked” her “upon a lifetime career as a prophetess of health reform” (p. 76), why is it that even after the June 6 vision, in December, 1863, when their oldest son Henry contracted lung fever (pneumonia) the Whites called a local physician? There is no evidence that they were prepared to employ water treatment or indeed did so. They stood helplessly by while their boy died (An Appeal to the Youth, 24-31). Prophetess of Health pictures Mrs. White almost a year before this, beginning to share her faith in hydrotherapy “with the fervor of a convert” (page 47). Is it not strange that she failed to use her supposed “system of medicine” (Ibid.) to save her son’s life?CBPH 51.5

    The records are very scanty. None of those who report the event mention any attempt to employ water treatment in Henry’s case, although such may have been considered. Neither James nor Ellen White make mention of such, despite the fact that only ten months before, wet packs, etc. had been used successfully in treating two of their children with diphtheria. Except for casual mention of the death of her first born son, Ellen White’s only reference to the experience is the decision she and her husband made when Willie a few weeks later contracted the same dread disease. Writing in August, 1864, a few months after the experience, Ellen White contrasts the procedures in each case:CBPH 51.6

    In the winter of 1864, my Willie was suddenly and violently brought down with lung fever. We had just buried our oldest son with this disease, and were very anxious in regard to Willie, fearing that he, too, might die. We decided that we would not send for a physician, but do the best we could with him ourselves by the use of water, and entreat the Lord in behalf of the child.—4SG, pp. 151-152.CBPH 51.7

    She tells of the steps taken and reports that after the crisis, “He came up rapidly, and has had better health than he has had for several years before” (Ibid.).CBPH 51.8

    Another clear indication of the tentative nature of the Whites’ early knowledge of health reform is the fact that they confined Willie to a closed, heated room until Mrs. White was instructed in another vision that “He needs air.” This is in spite of the fact that a year earlier James White had written of the importance of fresh air and mentioned that he and his wife slept with their windows open summer and winter. This is also in spite of the fact that Jackson in his article on diphtheria had clearly and pointedly argued the value of “pure atmospheric air” both as a curative and a great preventive. In fact, Jackson was so insistent on the need for his patients suffering from diphtheria to have fresh air that he advocated in this article breaking a window pane or poking a hole in the wall to get it. James White had declared that he had a “good degree” of confidence in Jackson’s methods, but when it came down to the crisis with their own son suffering from pneumonia, they failed to generalize and apply his advice.CBPH 51.9

    Why? Apparently their understanding of, or acceptance of his ideas, was limited and anything but firm and fixed. Only when instructed in a vision to do so did Mrs. White act to properly ventilate the sickroom. This episode goes far toward supporting her claim that her light came from the Lord, not from physicians.CBPH 51.10

    Here was a case when even though she had read what a physician had to say on the value of fresh air, she did not fully accept it and practice it. The light from the Lord was the motivating force.CBPH 51.11

    We should also note that, although the health reform vision had occurred before Henry’s death, the vision had stressed the abandonment of harmful practices in the treatment of illness, specifically drug-taking, as well as health and dietary practices which would prevent illness. She was instructed to point the people to “God’s great medicine: water, pure soft water, for disease, for health, for cleanliness, for luxury” (Letter 4, 1863; The Story of Our Health Message, 78).CBPH 51.12

    The vision did not give practical, positive instruction in the treatment of specific illnesses. It dealt with principles, not with the minutiae of their application. Ellen White was left to learn how to give water treatments in the same way that anyone else would gain this knowledge.CBPH 52.1

    The Jackson article then, did contain various fragmentary ideas on health, but they were linked specifically to the treatment of diphtheria and the Whites apparently did not gain any systematic approach to health from it.CBPH 52.2

    We now turn to the implications of the Jackson article appearing in The Review and Herald, February 17, 1863. It helped the White family and James White felt it could help others. It should be noted that the allusions in the article to proper diet are very brief and ambiguous. They certainly do not give enough information upon which to base a whole system of medicine. The same is true of the statements about dress. Jackson’s recommendations about dress deal again with the clothing of the extremities in cold weather, but are further limited to little girls rather than to all women. He boldly asserts that diphtheria is not contagious—hardly a sound plank for a platform of a system of medicine that really worked. Jackson did mention the importance of fresh air in the sickroom, at least for the diphtheria patient. 2Jackson prescribed, “upon being wrapped in the wet sheet the windows are opened, and thorough ventilation and lowering of temperature is secured.” (The Review and Herald, February 17, 1863, 21.90)CBPH 52.3

    The last part of Jackson’s article is concerned with the water treatments to be given for diphtheria. He tells in detail how to administer a sitz bath, a pack, a rub, and wet bandages. But it was far from giving the Whites a “system of medicine” which they were ready to apply in other cases. As noted, in Henry’s case it is obvious that their understanding of how to treat the sick by methods of health reform was still fragmentary. They were still very unsure of themselves.CBPH 52.4

    The evidence is that neither the February experience with treating the children for diphtheria nor the handful of short items on health published in the Review and Herald in May, made the impact on Ellen White asserted in Prophetess of Health. One thing is crystal clear: Before June 6, 1863, Ellen White had not stumbled onto “a system of medicine that really worked.” Nor is there any evidence whatever that the February experience with diphtheria led her to “proclaim” the wonders of hydrotherapy “far and wide” (p. 47), “sharing her discovery with others” (p. 76).CBPH 52.5

    Even by December, 1863, six months after the vision, neither James nor Ellen White had had an opportunity to give study to applying the principles. James was too busy. Ellen would not read till she had written what was shown her.CBPH 52.6

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents