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

    Adventists Launch a Medical Institution

    Prophetess of Health states on page 103, that “While politicians in Washington quarreled bitterly over the best method of healing a divided and scarred nation, the Adventists of Battle Creek dedicated themselves to curing mankind with water.”CBPH 58.2

    This sentence, though rhetorically appealing, does less than full justice to Adventist activities and interests during this period. They were following developments in Washington with keen interest through the pages of the Review, but this statement would tend to picture them as oblivious to anything except the water cure. Actually, they were also launching a health program destined to bring physical relief to hundreds of thousands.CBPH 58.3

    On page 109 the Health Reformer is introduced and it is stated that “Ellen White contributed a composition, ‘Duty to Know Ourselves,’ based on L. B. Coles’ theme that to break one of the laws of life is ‘as great a sin in the sight of Heaven as to break the ten commandments.’”CBPH 58.4

    Since this kind of dependence and relationship is so difficult to prove, might it not be better to state that Mrs. White’s article merely “carried the same theme which L. B. Coles had earlier enunciated?” The concept, after all, was as common as water among the health reformers, and to say it was “Coles’ theme” is a little strong in any case.CBPH 58.5

    Prophetess of Health on page 110 refers to the hostility of the Health Reformer to medical practice of the times. The state of regular medicine being what it was in the 1860’s, was such hostility to be wondered at? We are told, “This hostility reflected not only a genuine distrust of orthodox physicians, but also deep-seated feelings of inferiority.”CBPH 58.6

    This is the author’s judgment, his interpretation of the editor’s [Dr. H. S. Lay] feelings. The article cited in the next sentence was in fact written to reassure readers that although many of the articles in the Health Reformer were not written by M.D.’s they could still be relied on. Lay’s first argument was that the writers had in their own experience acquainted themselves with health reform, and secondly, he added, “To those, however, who must have the magic of an M.D. to inspire confidence, we would say that all these articles are examined professionally and endorsed, before they are laid before the reader” (HA, 1:32, Sept. 1866).CBPH 58.7

    Charles Rosenberg, a leading authority on American medical history, says: “The American medical profession was in transition in 1866. While medical science had already entered an age of heroic achievement, the practitioner of medicine still occupied much the same lowly status he had in 1849.”—The Cholera Years, pp. 21 3-241.CBPH 58.8

    Why then should Adventists be singled out for ridicule as suffering from feelings of “inferiority” and engaging in an “ironic” denunciation of the medical profession in their time? The Adventist attitudes should not be contrasted, as they are here, with the finest achievements and advances of the profession at this time, but to the common popular image of the medical practitioner. Seen in this light, Adventist opinions are not “ironic.”CBPH 58.9

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents