The New Building

It was not until July 8, 1867, that construction on the new building actually began. The Health Reformer for that month announced: “On the 8th inst. the work of erecting a brick edifice 40 x 100 feet and five stories high including basement was commenced” (The Health Reformer, July, 1867). At last the exact dimensions of the ambitious plan were plain. The vision had endorsed a health institution, but how large? How soon? How could it be staffed with faithful and competent workers? Could the church carry the financial burden? All these questions had to be answered as they arose. The answers sometimes hinged on such factors as whether Dr. Lay would heed the counsels given him.CBPH 60.8

On August 27, 1867, the Review carried E. S. Walker’s appeal for an additional $15,000. He stated that all the timber and finishing lumber had been bought and paid for. This had cost $6,000. The first story, made of stone, had been completed as well, and now the directors of the Institute needed money for the brick to complete the four top stories. Actually, between the time Lay had first suggested the new building in January, and the appearance of Walker’s appeal for an additional $15,000, the Institute had received $14,735.65 in cash on the purchase of stock and payment of pledges, but this included a good deal of money from the original pledges. What with the cost of the stone, the cost of the lumber, the operating expenses of the Institute, and the salaries for doctors, helpers, and now builders, this money was apparently all consumed. Little wonder. Plans for financial operations made no allowance for reserve funds or depreciation. At the stockholders meeting in May, 1867, the directors had reported a patient income of $9,584.05; cost of labor, food, etc., was $7,980.62; leaving a balance of $1,753. This allowed, it seemed to them, a dividend payment of 10 percent to the stock holders.CBPH 60.9

While the building was at a standstill and the directors were apparently waiting for more funds to come in, Testimony No. 12 appeared. It was ready for distribution by September 17, 1867. The announcement said: “Testimony for the Church, No. 12, is now ready. It contains 100 pages of most important matter.” Among that important matter was another article titled “The Health Reform.” Here cautions were sounded and the explanations given concerning the relationship of Testimony No. 11 to Testimony No. 12.CBPH 60.10

Mrs. White referring back to her December 25, 1865, vision, wrote:CBPH 60.11

I saw that a very extensive work could not be accomplished in a short time, as it would not be an easy matter to find physicians whom God could approve and who would work together harmoniously, disinterestedly, and zealously.—Testimonies for the Church 1:554.CBPH 60.12

But how long is a “short time?” How does one determine if a group of physicians can work together “harmoniously, disinterestedly, and zealously?” In January there had appeared to be no urgent need for such caution, but now, confronted with the practical developments of the problem, a new picture had emerged. Mrs. White did concede that she should not have yielded to pressure and issued what she did in February in Testimony No. 11 without the cautions contained in Testimony No. 12. Even if the situation did not look so critical in January, the cautions, if given at that time, might have headed off the premature expansion of the Institute. Mrs. White conceded that she did wrong in yielding to human influence in this regard: “I yielded my judgment to that of others and wrote what appeared in No. 11 in regard to the Health Institute, being unable then to give all I had seen. In this I did wrong.” (Testimonies for the Church 1:563).CBPH 60.13

It was in Testimony No. 12 that she spoke specifically about the speed at which and the size to which the institution should expand:CBPH 60.14

As to the extent of the accommodations of the Health Institute at Battle Creek, I was shown, as I have before stated, that we should have such an institution, small at its commencement, and cautiously increased, as good physicians and helpers could be procured and means raised, and as the wants of invalids should demand; and all should be conducted in strict accordance with the principles and humble spirit of the third angel’s message.—Testimonies for the Church 1:558.CBPH 61.1

She went on to note that in many private conversations and in letters she had urged the “brethren” to move cautiously. (Testimonies for the Church 1:558).CBPH 61.2

She still favored providing means for the Health Institute, but things must be kept in balance:CBPH 61.3

The Health Reform is closely connected with the work of the third message, yet it is not the message. Our preachers should teach the health reform, yet they should not make this the leading theme in the place of the message.... Our people should furnish means to meet the wants of a growing Health Institute among us, as they are able to do without giving less for the other wants of the cause, and let the Health Reform and the Health Institute grow up among us as other worthy enterprises have grown.—Testimonies for the Church 1:559.CBPH 61.4

James White and other church leaders had been trying to educate the local churches concerning their responsibilities in Systematic Benevolence. The cause had many other needs, but now, with the tremendous burdens of constructing such a large building, things were becoming unbalanced. Very poor people, people who did not even own homes of their own, saw the promise of a good yield on their investment and were putting from one-fifth to one-third of all their possessions into Health Institute stock. This, Mrs. White said, was wrong (Testimonies for the Church 1:560). These poor people themselves should be charity cases at the Institute instead of investing their meager funds in it. “I do not see the providence of God in making great calculations for the future,” Ellen White wrote, “and letting those suffer who need help now. Move no faster, brethren, than the unmistakable providence of God opens the way before you” (Ibid.).CBPH 61.5

The implication that James White’s actions were somehow irrational in tearing down the incomplete building and the suggestion that he might have been mentally unbalanced, are manifestations of the hostile biases of certain witnesses relied upon in the Prophetess of Health account of these events. A look at the original sources allows a more generous and favorable interpretation.CBPH 61.6

On September 24, a week after the Review announced that Testimony No. 12 was ready, E. S. Walker, secretary of the Health Reform Institute, wrote a letter to James White proposing to buy some property which White had offered to the Institute. In his letter, Walker stated, “We have commenced the new building and have progressed so far that it would require a great amount of labor and be attended with considerable expense to undo what we have already done.” Walker concluded:CBPH 61.7

We think it best to erect the new building as soon as practicable and put it under roof where it can stand and be finished off as we get the means. We are confident that this can be accomplished in a short time by the aid of yourself and Sister White. If we understand Sister White’s views, our errors have been more in the management of the Institute in the treatment of patients, than in providing suitable rooms for lodging, lectures, etc. And we are now determined to work a change in the matters of error pointed out to us, so that Sister White and yourself can feel to work for the Institute as you did at its commencement.—E. S. Walker to James White, Sept. 24, 1867.CBPH 61.8

This letter indicates that the unfinished building still stood while the directors debated what should be done with it. Walker felt it should be finished; evidently other members of the board felt otherwise. Even after Mrs. White’s Testimony No. 12, they were not sure what to do, and some thought the best thing would be to complete the project.CBPH 61.9

At the stockholders meeting held earlier that year (May 17, 1867) the following were elected as directors:CBPH 61.10

J. N. Loughborough, J. N. Andrews, U. Smith, J. P. Kellogg, J. M. Aldrich, E. S. Walker, and N. N. Lunt (The Review and Herald, May 28, 1867). All the stockholders voted, and the top seven vote-getters were elected to the board. They are listed in descending order according to the number of votes they received.CBPH 61.11

The implication that there was some “hocus pocus” involved in the decision to tear down the building is based on the report of an interview which took place at the time Dr. Kellogg was disfellowshipped in 1907. As Kellogg is speaking, Amadon interrupts, saying, “You know we had a regular hocus-pocus, a foundation one time; then they had to be all taken out. Brother Loughborough and J. M. Aldrich encouraged it.” (Mimeographed report, “An Authentic Interview ...” [with] Dr. John Harvey Kellogg on October 7th, 1907, p. 88, White Estate Document File #45k.)CBPH 61.12

Amadon says that Loughborough and Aldrich—both members of the Board of Directors of the Institute—encouraged “it”—presumably they favored the plan of tearing down the large building, selling the materials, and rebuilding on a more modest scale. Thus the decision was not James White’s alone.CBPH 61.13

It is inconceivable that he would have been able to tear down the building without the majority support of the board whose legal responsibility it was. We know the names of two board members who supported the move and for all we know the decision may have been unanimous. James White most certainly did not act independently and arbitrarily.CBPH 61.14

And there may very well have been reasons not easily detected by all which motivated James and Ellen White in their attitude toward premature enlargement. Note the following reference to the experience, written by Ellen White in 1903:CBPH 61.15

Another time I was shown a large building going up on the site on which the Battle Creek Sanitarium was afterward erected. The brethren were in great perplexity as to who should take charge of the work. I wept sorely. One of authority stood up among us, and said, “Not yet. You are not ready to invest means in that building, or to plan for its future management.”CBPH 61.16

At this time the foundation of the sanitarium had been laid. But we needed to learn the lesson of waiting.—Letter 135, 1903, quoted in The Messenger, 11.CBPH 62.1

It should be noted here that it was not until June 16, 1868, a year after the construction began, that James White announced, “The large building is given up for the present, and the material is being sold. Still a debt of several thousands will be resting upon the Institute after this is done” (The Review and Herald, June 16, 1868, 31:409). Apparently months passed before the decision was made about what to do. Such a delay does not support the contention of Prophetess of Health that James White’s actions demonstrate “erratic” behavior.CBPH 62.2

At the meeting of the stockholders on May 15, 1868, James White and G. W. Amadon were elected to the Board of Directors. J. P. Kellogg and N. N. Lunt were not re-elected. Thus in June, when James White announced an alternative to the large building, he was an official member of the board. A smaller building was to be built for $7,000. Then two cottages were to be purchased for $6,000. Presumably this could be done as funds became available so that the project would not again serve to unbalance the denominational resources. The total of these two proposed projects, admittedly, would be $13,000, just $2,000 shy of the $15,000 that some felt would complete the original plan. But the $15,000 was called for “immediately,” whereas the new plan required only $7,000 for a smaller new building, then $6,000 when needed for additional space.CBPH 62.3

Based on these facts, Prophetess of Health should have:CBPH 62.4

1. Shown the true context and justification for the Uriah Smith letter of February 5.CBPH 62.5

2. Given a fuller account of the difficulties which were encountered in actually raising the amounts called for.CBPH 62.6

3. Shown the true extent of the “influence” to which Mrs. White yielded—that it was merely a matter of issuing Testimony No. 11 without the cautions contained in Testimony No. 12. Then shown the difference between issuing general endorsements for a project and meeting the specific problems as they arose and developed.CBPH 62.7

4. Shown that James White’s behavior concerning the 1867 building was not erratic or independent, but that he had acted as a member of the Board of Directors. (The book does mention that he had the concurrence of at least two board members.)CBPH 62.8

5. Shown that James White’s call for additional funds was not so “audacious” when it is noted that the money was to be raised in stages.CBPH 62.9