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

    I. The Crux of the Issue

    Prophetess of Health purports to be a study of Ellen G. White. Although some favorable words are spoken here and there in the book, an air of cynicism pervades the volume. She is depicted as deceptive, offering Seventh-day Adventists and the world health teachings of purely human origin which she claimed had their source in revelations from God. The book implies that though she firmly declared God gave health teachings to her In vision, primarily the vision of June 6, 1863, she actually learned them from fellow Adventists or borrowed from well known popular health writers. Note the following:CBPH 11.1

    Ellen WhiteCBPH 11.2

    It was at the house of Brother A. Hilliard, at Otsego, Mich., June 6, 1863, that the great subject of health reform was opened before me in vision.... As I introduced the subject of health to friends where I labored in Michigan, New England and New York, and spoke against drugs and flesh meats, and in favor of water, pure air, and a proper diet, the reply was often made, “You speak very nearly the opinions taught in the Laws of Life and other publications, by Drs. Trall, Jackson, and others. Have you read that paper and those works?”CBPH 11.3

    My reply was that I had not, neither should I read them till I had fully written out my views, lest it should be said that I had received my light upon the subject of health from physicians and not from the Lord.—The Review and Herald, October 8, 1867, 30:260.CBPH 11.4

    I was astonished at the things shown me in vision. Many things came directly across my own ideas....CBPH 11.5

    I ... crowded into [Spiritual Gifts,] Volume IV the most essential points in the vision in regard to health, intending to get out another testimony in which I could more freely speak upon the happiness and miseries of married life. That which I have written of health reform, attributing in regard to health was not taken from books or papers.... After the vision was given me, my husband was aroused upon the health question. He obtained books, upon our eastern journey, but I would not read them. My view was clear, and I did not want to read anything until I had fully completed my books. My views were written independent of books or the opinions of others.—Manuscript 7, 1867.CBPH 11.6

    Prophetess of HealthCBPH 11.7

    Even the Sabbatarians displayed more than passing interest in the health reform movement. Joseph Bates ... adopted Grahamism in 1843. John Loughborough took to eating Graham bread and reading the “Water Cure Journal” in 1848.CBPH 11.8

    J. P. Kellogg ... raised his sizable brood by the “Water Cure Journal”. Roswell F. Cottrell began experimenting in the late 1840’s with a vegetarian diet and a daily bath. All these were closely associated with the Whites and undoubtedly spoke to them of their experiences in health reform.... (p. 79). Thus by June, 1863, Seventh-day Adventists were already in possession of the main outlines of the health reform message. What they now needed was not additional information, but a sign from God indicating his pleasure. (pp. 80-81). (Emphasis supplied).CBPH 11.9

    Divine approval of the health crusade came on the evening of June 5, 1863. (page 81). Ellen White’s first published account of her June 5 vision, a short, thirty-two page sketch tucked into the fourth volume of Spiritual Gifts, did not appear until fifteen months after the event.... (page 82). In her essay “Health,” which reads in places like L. B. Coles, she recited the established principles of health reform, attributing them to her recent vision. (page 83). (Emphasis supplied.)CBPH 11.10

    The conflict between Ellen White’s assertions and those of Prophetess of Health constitute the crux of the matter. Prophetess of Health would trace the origin of her health teachings to earthly sources. Ellen White credits the Lord as the source of her teachings. The truth of the matter—the manner in which inspiration worked in the life of Ellen White—can only be known by carefully weighing all the evidence.CBPH 11.11

    She Did Not Live in a Vacuum

    We should recognize that Ellen White did not live in a vacuum. As a young woman she was well instructed by a very practical mother. As the mother of four boys she was not oblivious to certain matters that had a bearing on health. Such information she would naturally hold in the framework of opinions commonly expressed.CBPH 11.12

    We should recognize what the documents clearly show, that as early as 1848 Ellen White had received light in regard to tobacco, tea and coffee, and that in response to her testimony James White was able to report in 1870 that the denomination could “rejoice in victory with very few exceptions, over these pernicious indulgences of appetite” (The Review and Herald, November 8, 1870, 36:165).CBPH 11.13

    In 1854 in a “testimony for the churches In New York State” basing the message on the vision of February 12 she wrote of the importance of “cleanliness” and of “coarse food free from grease” in contrast to “rich,” “fine” foods. (Ms 3, 1854. Quoted in Arthur L. White, Messenger to the Remnant, p. 50. Hereinafter abbreviated Messenger.)CBPH 11.14

    What Ellen White Doubtless Knew

    By 1863 she doubtless knew of, but was apparently unimpressed by, the dietetic practices of Joseph Bates and Roswell Cottrell. She may have known that Cottrell took a daily bath and the Kellogg and Andrews families at times employed some hydropathic methods of treatment, just as she knew in 1858 that a Brother and Sister A in New England were advocating the non-use of swine’s flesh.CBPH 11.15

    It is probable that Mrs. White was aware of the five or six brief articles touching on health topics published in the Review prior to her vision. Indeed, we have some evidence that the Whites themselves observed certain elementary health practices prior to the 1863 vision.CBPH 12.1

    Among the articles which appeared in the Review and Herald during this period was one brief note about dress by Dio Lewis in the Review of November 25, 1862. Lewis writes that the extremities of females should be well clothed in cold weather if they are to have good health.CBPH 12.2

    The next article, on “Pure Air,” appeared in the February 10, 1863, Review. It explained the importance of proper ventilation in meeting houses. James White added some remarks, extending the application to the schoolhouse and home, and showing that even in winter fresh air is important. He then spoke of the practice in his own family, saying: “We usually sleep with two windows open at opposite sides of the room, summer and winter, and take a cold-water sponge-bath in the morning, hence a healthy atmosphere, not destroyed by heat, is more congenial to our feelings” (The Review and Herald, February 10, 1863, 21:84). White added:CBPH 12.3

    Had we allowed ourselves to be smothered in close sleeping-rooms, and given up to every pain and ache of the lungs, and throat, and head, and kept up a perpetual dosing with this and that medicine, we might now be silent in death.... Air, water, and light, are God’s great remedies. If the people would learn to use these, doctors and their drugs would be in less demand.—Ibid.CBPH 12.4

    A separate article on the importance of ventilating bedrooms also appeared in the February 10 Review.CBPH 12.5

    There is ample documentary evidence that James and Ellen White during a diphtheria epidemic in January, 1863, pulled two of their children through by employing the hydropathic procedures advocated in a letter by Dr. J. C. Jackson published in the Yates County Chronicle of Penn Van, New York. This James White published in the Review of Feb. 17, 1863.CBPH 12.6

    The next Review article to touch on health appeared May 12, 1863, recommending that in the spring, people ought to leave off their heavy winter diet of meats and fats and turn to lighter foods in smaller quantities. Another article in the May 19 issue teaches the two-meal-a-day diet as superior, but says nothing about eating between meals.CBPH 12.7

    Aside from the numerous articles on tobacco, tea, and coffee, this is a complete list of what appeared in the Review prior to Mrs. White’s vision of June 6, 1863.CBPH 12.8

    In summary it seems very likely that Mrs. White read these half dozen articles on health before her vision of June 6. James White testifies to their love of fresh air and sponge baths and designates air, water, and light, as “God’s great remedies.” He also speaks against drugs. But their awareness of the full significance of these things, and their practical knowledge of how to apply them in the treatment of illness remained quite vague.CBPH 12.9

    Prophetess of Health holds that, based on such exhibits, by the time the “health vision of June 6, 1863” was given, “Seventh-day Adventists were already in possession of the main outlines of the health message.” It is asserted that it was not “additional information” the church needed, but a “sign from God indicating his pleasure” (page 81).CBPH 12.10

    A Fine But Crucial Point

    This is a fine point, but a crucial one, and one which involves the integrity of Ellen G. White, James White and a number of others. It is true that there were glimmerings of knowledge of health principles among a few scattered Adventists prior to June 6, 1863, but that such limited and scattered examples support the conclusions asserted in Prophetess of Health is certainly open to question.CBPH 12.11

    How can the fact that a dozen or so scattered Adventist families were acquainted with certain incongruent health practices put the church as a whole “in possession of the main outlines of the health message” so that there was no need of “additional information?” Furthermore, there is evidence that it was the health vision of June 6, 1863, that marked the watershed of a systematized health program.CBPH 12.12

    James White referring to the 1863 vision states that “When the Lord saw that we were able to bear it, light was given on food and dress” (The Review and Herald, November 8, 1870, 36:165, quoted in Counsels on Diet and Foods, 496, hereinafter abbreviated CDF).CBPH 12.13

    And he wrote in 1870: “About seven years ago, the attention of our people was especially turned to the importance of thorough ventilation and to the proper relation of proper food and clothing to health. The question of flesh eating came up and was fully and candidly discussed” (E. G. White, Christian Temperance; James White, Bible Hygiene, p. 225, herein after abbreviated CTBH).CBPH 12.14

    The fact that James and Ellen White felt that changes in crucial matters relating to health should await the definite light from God is illustrated in the experience of 1858. Ellen White wrote to a Brother and Sister A, “I saw that your views concerning swine’s flesh would prove no injury to you if you have them to yourselves.” And she pointed out that “If God requires His people to abstain from swine’s flesh, He will correct them on the matter” (Testimonies for the Church 1:206-207. Herein after abbreviated 1T).CBPH 12.15

    When this testimony was reprinted in 1871 James White appended the following note:CBPH 12.16

    This remarkable testimony was written October 21, 1858, nearly five years before the great vision of 1863, in which the light upon health reform was given. When the right time came, the subject was given in a manner to move all our people. How wonderful are the wisdom and goodness of God!—Testimonies for the Church 1:206.CBPH 12.17

    True, the 1863 vision in its comprehensive treatment of the subject of health confirmed certain points of knowledge then held by some Adventists here and there, but it also opened up new vistas. And most important, it put the whole thing together in one harmonious body of teaching. It is in this connection that Ellen White declares that: “It was at ... Otsego, Michigan, June 6, 1863, that the great subject of Health Reform was opened before me in vision” (The Review and Herald, October 8, 1867, 30:260). Why would she write this if, as asserted in Prophetess of Health, “Seventh-day Adventists were already in possession of the main outlines of the health message?”CBPH 12.18

    In spite of the fact that there were some glimmerings of health knowledge among Adventists at the time, something of vital importance was opened to Ellen White on June 6, 1863. She began to write of it that day. She refers to it as “the great subject of health reform” (The Review and Herald, October 8, 1867, 32:260). James White refers to it as “the great vision of 1863 in which the light was given on health reform” (James White’s footnote in Testimonies for the Church 1:206). In another reference to the 1863 vision, already cited, he states that “light was given on food and dress” (RH 36:165, Nov. 8, 1870).CBPH 13.1

    Suppose that with what they had in hand up to the 1863 vision, God had said, “You know all about it, now put it into practice.” Was that all that was needed? Granted that Graham, Alcott, Trall, and Coles had lectured and written, presenting truth mixed with error and extremes, but where is the evidence that this produced a “systematic and harmonious body of hygienic truth?” (CTBH, p. iii. Preface by J. H. Kellogg see General Conference Daily Bulletin, March 8, 1897, p. 1). Why is it that at the time that the teachings of Graham, Alcott, and others were generally ignored by the public a systematic and harmonious body of hygienic teaching was being increasingly accepted by Seventh-day Adventists? The “missing evidence”—evidence which could and should have appeared in Prophetess of Health—would have supplied the answer.CBPH 13.2

    The Story the Witnesses Tell

    Mrs. J. N. Andrews’ diary for 1860 to 1864 shows that during those years the Andrews family did employ “a pack,” “wet cloths,” “a wet sheet,” “sitz bath,” or a “warm bath” in treating illness. Speaking of their family’s method of adopting health reform practices prior to March, 1864, J. N. Andrews wrote:CBPH 13.3

    It was in March, 1864, that myself and wife decided to adopt the principles of health reform. I had seen some numbers of the Laws of Life, and I knew that there was a hygienic institution at Dansville, N.Y. But I had so little knowledge of the hygienic system in general, and of this institution in particular, that I was not by any means decided that this was the only system to be relied upon for the preservation and recovery of health.—The Health Reformer, February, 1872, 7:44.CBPH 13.4

    James White, who with his wife nursed two of their boys through an attack of diphtheria employing a hot bath, sitz bath and packs as recommended by Dr. J. C. Jackson, wrote in the Review of Feb. 17, 1863, of “having a good degree of confidence in his manner of treating diseases,” and even “decided to give the entire article” to the readers of the Review. He could not have been too deeply impressed for Ellen White fixes the time of his interest being sparked in health matters:CBPH 13.5

    “After the vision was given me,” then “my husband was aroused upon the health question” (Ms 7, 1867). See Appendix B.CBPH 13.6

    J. P. Kellogg is said in a reminiscent statement by his son John Harvey in 1938 to have “raised his sizable brood by the Water Cure Journal,” and is known to have made an effective use of its methods when the children were attacked with measles. Yet John Harvey in 1890 writing of Ellen White’s first writings on health in 1864 and 1865, for which he set the type, declares that “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” (CTBH, p. iii).CBPH 13.7

    J. N. Loughborough, cited in Prophetess of Health as “eating Graham bread and at the age of 16 reading the Water Cure Journal in 1848,” illustrates the paucity of “instruction given in health lines in those days” by telling how he followed the counsel of his physician by smoking cigars as a remedy for “slight hemorrhages of his lungs” (The Medical Missionary, December 1899, 10:7)CBPH 13.8

    Loughborough in an article published in the The Review and Herald, December 6, 1864, eighteen months after the June 6, 1863, vision, and just three months after it was published, states: “For the short time I have been striving to live strictly in accordance with the laws of life, I have been greatly benefited.”CBPH 13.9

    How much the ongoing knowledge of health reform he gained in 1848 stuck by him is reflected in what he then says:CBPH 13.10

    With the short experience I have had, [the last two months] I would not, for any consideration go back to the meat, spice, pepper, sweet cake, pickles, mustard, headache, stomach ache and gloomy, and give up the good, wholesome fruit, grain, and vegetable diet, with pure cold water as a drink, no headaches, cheerfulness, happiness, vigor and health.—The Review and Herald, December 6, 1864, 25:14.CBPH 13.11

    Joseph Bates is mentioned. He is the only one cited who could be said to be a thoroughgoing health reformer. Of him James White wrote: “He did not mention his views of proper diet in public at that time or in private unless interrogated upon the subject” (Life of Bates, p. 311).CBPH 13.12

    It is not the purpose of this presentation to claim more for Ellen White than the facts support. But justice demands that we defend her against the implication in Prophetess of Health that in speaking of these matters she falsified.CBPH 13.13

    The Facts Not Hidden

    Seventh-day Adventist leaders in the 1860’s readily recognized, as did Elder J. H. Waggoner in the Review and Herald in 1867, that there were by the time of the 1863 vision various persons who were teaching reforms in living and in the care of the sick. The outstanding contribution of the vision was that its instruction was presented as a part of religious duty, not merely as interesting ideas on health. Waggoner, in clarifying this point, well said:CBPH 13.14

    We do not profess to be pioneers in the general principles of the health reform. The facts on which this movement is based have been elaborated, in a great measure by reformers, physicians, and writers on physiology and hygiene, and so may be found scattered through the land. But we do claim that by the method of God’s choice it has been more clearly and powerfully unfolded, and is thereby producing an effect which we could not have looked for from any other means.CBPH 13.15

    As mere physiological and hygienic truths, they might be studied by some at their leisure, and by others laid aside as of little consequence; but when placed on a level with the great truths of the third angel’s message by the sanction and authority of God’s Spirit, and so declared to be the means whereby a weak people may be made strong to overcome, and our diseased bodies cleansed and fitted for translation, then it comes to us as an essential part of present truth, to be received with the blessing of God, or rejected at our peril.—The Review and Herald, August 7, 1866, 28:77. (quoted in O. E. Robinson, The Story of Our Health Message, 79-80.)CBPH 14.1

    What was it then that made the vision of June 6, 1863, so memorable? Why did James White refer to it as “the great vision” and Ellen White speak of its contents as “the great subject of health reform.” What was it in this vision that led Seventh-day Adventists generally to make radical changes in their way of living and in many documented cases date these changes after the 1863 vision?CBPH 14.2

    Dr. J. H. Kellogg provides an answer. Kellogg, a talented and trusted leader of the medical work of the church, a man endorsed by God for this position, explained why Mrs. White’s counsels had such power and appeal. In her time, he observed, “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” (CTBH, p. III). (Emphasis supplied).CBPH 14.3

    Prophetess of Health argues that from the purely secular sources—Graham, Trall, Jackson, et al—“Seventh-day Adventists were already in possession of the main outlines of the health message” (page 80), and that Ellen White gained a knowledge of this from certain Adventists practicing reform principles for they “were closely associated with the Whites and undoubtedly spoke to them of their experience in health reform” (page 79). If this was the source of her knowledge, what prevented her from imbibing the errors and extremes which frequently formed a part of the teachings of Graham, Trall, etc.? Dr. Kellogg, who would rank with any of the best trained physicians of his time, points this out:CBPH 14.4

    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 overthrow of a single principle, but have only served to establish the doctrines taught.CBPH 14.5

    The guidance of infinite wisdom is as much needed in discerning between truth and error as in the evolution of new truths. CTBH, p. iv.CBPH 14.6

    Now it is not surprising that a public character such as Ellen G. White, whose ministry extended over a seventy-year period, and whose writings touched the lives of so many with guidance, encouragement, reproofs, and corrections, would be the subject of comment, favorable and unfavorable.CBPH 14.7

    Some, unfortunately, will reach their conclusions based on the limited and biased presentation of Prophetess of Health. But if the reader is to be fair to himself, fair to Ellen G. White and fair to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, he should judge by the full “weight of evidence.”CBPH 14.8

    The Weight of Evidence

       Historical statements can rarely be tested and proven with the certainty of a scientific experiment in a laboratory. To deal with historical records is to deal with records that are often incomplete, and are frequently ambiguous. We must also bear in mind that these records were produced by human beings with their differing backgrounds, experience, desires, and prejudices. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence can satisfy the open and candid mind on essential issues. Thus the truth can be approached only by a conscientious and thoughtful investigation of all the available evidence on all sides of a question.
    CBPH 14.9

    Ellen White held that her health teachings had their origin in the visions given to her by God. This position has always been taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The evidence for this position is clearly set forth in O. E. Robinson’s book, The Story of Our Health Message, first published in 1943, and available for 75¢ at Adventist Book Centers.CBPH 14.10

    Speaking of the relationship between evidence and doubt, Ellen White observed regarding the inspired messages of Scripture that, “While God has given ample evidence for faith, He will never remove all excuse for unbelief. All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them” (The Great Controversy, 527. Herein after abbreviated GC). And again, regarding her own writings, she declared:CBPH 14.11

    “Those who desire to doubt will have plenty of room. God does not propose to remove all occasion for unbelief. He gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit, and all should decide from the weight of evidence.” Testimonies for the Church 5:675.CBPH 14.12

    When there appears to be a conflict, the evidence on both sides must be carefully sifted. The reader might well ask himself the following questions: Have I considered all the available evidence? What were the circumstances? How credible are the witnesses to these events, and were they in a position to observe all that took place? How much weight should be given to this episode in the light of the overall picture? Have I separated assumptions from documentable facts and determined the credibility of the assumptions to the best of my ability? Finally, one must ask an important theological question as well: Do I have a correct and adequate concept of inspiration? (See Appendix F.)CBPH 14.13

    An Illustration

    An illustration of the need to separate assumptions from facts may be enlightening. The employment of the word “sex” gains immediate interest. Chapter Six, “Short Skirts and Sex,” portrays Ellen White as holding unrealistic, puritanical views (pages 158-159) concerning the sexual relationships between husband and wife. Documents are cited in which Ellen White counsels against excessive sexual activity, and then Prophetess of Health states:CBPH 15.1

    Although she never defined exactly what she meant by excessive, it seems likely—since she generally agreed with earlier health reformers in such matters—that she would have frowned on having intercourse more frequently than once a month. That was the maximum Sylvester Graham had condoned, and his disciple O. S. Fowler, who personally favored sex for procreation only, had stated that to “indulge, even in wedlock, as often as the moon quarters, is gradual but effectual destruction of both soul and body.”—pp. 157-158.CBPH 15.2

    This is purely an assumption. Not a line is cited from Ellen White to prove it, nor can such be found. At no time did Ellen White prescribe any rule except to avoid excesses. She wrote of the “privilege of the family relation” (Testimonies for the Church 2:90) and the “privilege of the marriage relation” (Testimonies for the Church 2:391) and explained that “Jesus did not enforce celibacy upon any class of men.... He looks with pleasure upon the family relationship where sacred and unselfish love bears sway” (Ms 126, 1903, published in The Adventist Home, 121).CBPH 15.3

    In discouraging early attachments Ellen White in Appeal to Mothers interestingly counseled: “The young affections should be restrained until the period arrives when sufficient age and experience will make it honorable and safe to unfetter them” (p. 8).CBPH 15.4

    The casual reader is left with the conclusion that Ellen White held that the rule should be once a month. Actually, Ellen White, rather than following Graham and Fowler in establishing a fixed rule, stands beside the discerning marriage counselor of today who leaves the matter of frequency of sexual relationship within marriage to the marriage partners.CBPH 15.5

    The discussion is closed by the statement that “Throughout her long life Ellen White remained generally antipathetic toward sex.... In her waning years she looked forward expectantly to an idyllic existence in the new earth free from such unpleasant activities.” This assumption is based on a misinterpretation of her reference to the teachings of our Lord that in the “resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30. See page 74 below).CBPH 15.6

    On one occasion when an Adventist layman urged in a tract he had prepared that “sexual indulgence should be only for the raising of children,” and sought Ellen White’s support for its publication, she listened to him and when he had finished she asked him if he was through. He replied that he was. According to J. N. Loughborough she said to him, “Go home and be a man” (quoted in Ministry, April, 1969). Does this accord with the pattern projected in Prophetess of Health? Are we to accept assumptions as facts?CBPH 15.7

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents