A.T. Jones' Letter to Mrs. E.G. White

Battle Creek , Mich. , April 26,1909

Mrs. E.G. White,

Takoma Park , Washington , D.C.

Dear Sister White: In April 1906 you sent out a communication dated March 30th, 1906 in which are the following words:

"Recently in the visions of the night I stood in a large company of people. There were present Dr. Kellogg, Elders Jones, Tenny and Taylor, Dr. Paulson, Elder Sadler, Judge Arthur and many of their associates. I was directed by the Lord to request them and any others who have perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and to make plain that which seems to be intricate.

"Let those who are troubled now place upon paper a statement of the difficulties that perplex their minds, and let us see if we cannot throw some light upon the matter that will relieve their perplexities. . . . .Let it all be written out, and submitted to those who desire to remove the perplexities.

"I ask that the leaders in the medical work at Battle Creek, and those who have been associated with them in gathering together criticisms and objections to the testimonies that I have borne, shall open to me the things that they have been opening to others. They should certainly do this, if they are to be loyal to the directions God has given. . . I am now charged to request those who are in difficulty in regard to Sister White's work to let their questions appear now, before the great day of judgment comes, when every work shall be made to appear with the motive underlying it, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made known, and every thought, word, and deed shall be tested by the Judge of the whole world, and each one will receive sentence according as his works have been. I present this before you all."

That appeal presents the solemn consideration of "loyalty to the directions God has given" and "the great day of judgment," as considerations requiring that the men named should write to you: and it is upon that consideration alone that I do write this to you. For when in view of' loyalty to God and the great day of judgment, you call upon me to write upon these things, I do not want to appear in the Judgment as disloyal to God through having failed to do what ought to have been done by me. Therefore again, I say, it is upon this consideration alone that I now write this to you. For there has come to my attention now a matter which, in view of' "the great day of Judgment" which you have cited, ought to be brought to your consideration: and which in justice to other people, ought to be corrected and counteracted. Therefore I write this in the interests of justice and truth, and also somewhat to speak on God's behalf."

And first, of all it is proper for me to state why I have not written before:

1. I never received from you, nor in any way by your instructions, any copy of that communication.

2. It was a long time before I obtained a copy. And only then did I get a copy from a brother who had never received any copy from you, although he was named in it; and he had obtained his copy from yet another brother to whom you had sent a copy though he was not named in it.

3. Before I obtained a copy of it, the word came to me that you had called on certain ones, and me amongst them, to write out what difficulties might be perplexing their minds concerning your writings, in order that you might   explain , etc., and thus it was only that special point that came to my attention: But upon   that   consideration I would not write, and never would have written: and this is for the reason that such a proposition in itself surrenders at once the whole ground of the claim in behalf of your writings as the word of God, or as given by inspiration of God. For if the writings were really the word of God -

a. They need no explanation.

b. If the writings to be explained were not the word of God, then I would not want any explanation of them; for I would not care any more for them than for any other writings that were not the word of' God.

Further I knew that the things that could be written, you simply could not explain; and that any explanation would be worse than no explanation. And the event has fully justified this view. For when in honest response to your call, Brother Sadler and Brother Paulson wrote to you in all sincerity their difficulties, in a communication dated June 3rd, 1906, you wrote the following words:

"Sabbath night, a week ago, after I had been prayerfully studying over those things, I had a vision, in which I was speaking before a large company, where many questions were asked concerning my work and writings.

" I was directed by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put into many minds.

When Brother Sadler had his letter to you all written and ready to send, he read it to me before he sent it. And then I said to him, "My Brother, you will never get an answer to that. Any answer would be worse than no answer." And just so it turned out. To this day Brother Sadler has received no answer to his letter: though in acknowledging the receipt of his letter you promised that you would answer. This promise you made it (in) a letter dated June14, 1906, in the following words:

"As soon as I can I will clear up, If possible, the misunderstanding regarding the work God has given me to do."

To Brother Paulson's letter you did make somewhat of an attempt at an answer on just one point, and this most largely by quoting from "Great Controversy" and from the printed Testimonies, matter with which he was already familiar.

That as relates to Sadler and Paulson: but it is even worse as relates to Dr. Stewart: To Dr. Stewart there was sent a copy of your communication calling for a writing out of doubts, objections, etc., though he was not named in the communication. In response to that call Dr. Stewart wrote a letter to you presenting just what you called for. This letter he sent to you alone, in the confidence of a personal letter. At the same time he sent a letter to W.C. White, your son, in which he asked that an answer should be made to his letter, and that this answer might be received by him within thirty days.

The next thing that Dr. Stewart heard from his letter, it was in the hands of Elder A.G. Daniells in Takoma Park, Washington, who was then making public use of it to the effect that "Here is a manuscript of seventy-eight pages of objections to the testimonies," etc.; with no intimation that you had written or sent to the author of the manuscript and others a communication calling upon them to do just what he had done; but conveying the impression that the whole thing of the manuscript was, on the part of the author, only a willful and voluntary attack upon the Testimonies. And that is the only kind of an answer to his letter that Dr. Stewart has ever seen or heard of. Neither from you nor from W.C. White has he ever received a word in answer to his letter.

Now Sister White, you wrote in the name of God, and appealed to men's Christian integrity, and in the presence of the judgment, that they should state to you their perplexities: "Let it, all be written out." And you put God under pledge for answer---"The Lord will help me to answer these objections." That communication was sent personally to Dr. Stewart. He accepted the communication as honestly intended, and wrote accordingly: then, in the presence of all that, can you think, or can you expect any Christian man to think, that the Judgment of God will justify or vindicate as fair, true, and Christian, the course that was pursued with Dr. Stewart's letter?

Now in the presence of the Judgment, it is only fair that I should believe and recognize the probabilities are that you never saw Dr. Stewart's letter, and never even had a chance to see it, for your sake it is only fair to suppose that the probabilities are altogether that W.C. White received the letter and read it, and then without ever giving you a chance to see it, posted it off to Elder Daniells at Washington.

That in fairness to you may be considered the probability. Nevertheless the question still recurs: Will the Judgment vindicate as fair, true and Christian such treatment of a man in the name of God?

And will the Judgment vindicate as fair, true and Christian, the public use of Dr. Stewart's letter to you, with the impression that it was a willful attack upon you and your writings, while concealing the fact made perfectly plain in Dr. Stewart's letter itself, that it was only and altogether in response to the call that you had made in the name of the Lord, which call itself was copied in the very letter of Dr. Stewart's that was being used? And then the public use of his letter has so advertised it that there was such a call for it that another man published it, then again Dr. Stewart was charged with attacking the Testimonies and warring on you. Will the Judgment of God vindicate as the righteousness of God  such dealings as that? Can anybody who knows God or has any respect for Him, believe of Him that He would sanction any such procedure as all this?

Thus the whole case as your communication calling for the writing out of doubts and perplexities concerning your writings, as that case has been worked out, requires that we shall think of God things that are impossible.

Now please let me say a word on Gods behalf: In your communication of May 30th, 1906, calling upon certain men by name to place upon paper the statement of the difficulties that perplexed their minds, you wrote the following words:

"In the visions of the night ----- I was directed by the Lord to request them and any others who have perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the Testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and to make plain that which seems intricate.... Let it all be written out. "

After having received in answer to that call what some brethren had honestly written, you wrote under date of June 3rd, 1906 the following words:

"I had a vision in which I was speaking before a large company, where many questions were asked concerning my work and writings. I was directed by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put into many minds."

Both of these communications profess to be as from God. As representing God, therefore, they present the impossible situation as to God, in truth, that God asked certain men by name that they put in writing a statement of all their difficulties, etc., with the promise of an answer, and then, after He got the statement, refused to answer.

I repeat, therefore, that as to God in truth, and to any mind that has ever received the revelation of God, that presents an impossible situation. For no person that knows God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, can ever believe it possible of God that He would call men personally by name to Him, only that they should receive a slap in the face, or to be condemned.

Didn't the Lord know what responses could be made to that call? Didn't He know what response might be made? Yea, didn't He know what responses would be made? Accordingly didn't He know before these statements were written, that there was to be no answer? And He knowing all that, then can anybody except sensible Christian men ever to believe of God that He would deliberately resort to an unworthy trick of mere child's play with sober, well-meaning, manly men, believers, in His own Son?

Let us set these two statements of yours side by side:

"Recently in the visions of the night I stood in a large company of people..... I was directed by the Lord to request them and any others who have perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the Testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and to make plain that which seems intricate... Let it   all be written out and submitted to those who desire to remove the Perplexities."

"I had a vision in which I was speaking before a large company where many questions were asked concerning my works and writings. I was directed by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put into many minds."

Sister White, can you or anybody else believe it possible for any person who knows God or has respect for him to accept both these statements as coming from God? Can you or anybody else expect that Christian men will believe of God that He will act like that, or that He will treat men in any such way as that?

Can you or anybody else expect that Christian men will accept any view of inspiration that involves the holy, just and good God in any such a slim and unworthy trick as that? Are we to believe of God that he is such an underling and so irresponsible of Himself, that He can be pledged to a thing that utterly fails? That He can be pledged and under pledged? That when under pledge He can be whiffled about, as the workings out, of this case show, so that His pledge shall be worse than nothing? And all this in order to be loyal to the Testimonies?"

Why, Sister White, to believe that and such as that, of God, the God of the Bible, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, would be nothing short of the utmost limit of irreverence.

Again: In those letters you were asked these questions:

1. "Do you approve of sending personal testimonies which the Lord has given to men, broadcast to other people?"

2. "Is it not a Bible rule that when we have any criticism of a brother, it shall be presented to him personally, then afterwards to two or three, and then if he rejects it, to the church?"

These are vital questions.

It is the truth that copies of the Testimonies to individuals are sent to the officials of the denomination, at the same time, or even before, they are sent to the individuals to whom they pertain.

It is the truth that Testimonies to individuals are sent to others than the ones most concerned, and are made public use of, and are even used in print and published everywhere, without their ever having been received, or seen or heard of, by the individual or the ones named in the Testimonies.

When Brother Tenney was cast out of the church, there was read and used against him, as a basis and authority for casting him out, passages from a Testimony that he never saw and that he never knew anything about until it was used against him in that meeting.

In the controversy over the Battle Creek Sanitarium, Testimonies that the Sanitarium Board never saw or heard of, have not only been published and used against them; but have been printed and spread broadcast, before the Sanitarium people ever know were such communications in existence.

Also myself: I have received letters from different, parts of the country stating that in the camp meetings Testimonies concerning me have been read, or quoted from, or referred to; but Testimonies that I had never seen.

That is exactly the case of your communication of February 4, 1907 , to Bro. Russell Hart in which I am twice mentioned by name, saying that I would "work in every way possible to get possession" of the Tabernacle. That was used by men (not by Brother Hart) as a "Testimony" to denounce and decry me, and yet I never saw it, nor knew of any of its contents till February 20, 1909 )--- more than two years after it was written.

Now does anybody expect me or anybody else to believe that in the Judgment I or any other man will be condemned, or held in any wise accountable, for something we never knew and never had a chance to know: that we will be held accountable for disregarding Testimonies that we never saw or even heard of?

In the Bible the Lord has directed that when a brother trespasses or is overtaken in a fault he is to be gained and restored: not condemned and denounced: and that in seeking to gain and restore him first of' all he is to be told his fault: "between thee and him alone." If that fails, then he is to be told a second time in the presence of' "one or two more." These two steps must be taken before it shall be told even to the congregation of which he is a member. And when it is told to the congregation of which he is a member, then that   congregation is to seek to gain him. And only when all these efforts have failed to gain and restore him---only then is it to be known before the public.

This is the word of the Lord directing us how we are to do toward the one that is overtaken in a fault, or who has trespassed. But in the use of your Testimonies this order has been and even disregarded altogether. A man's fault is published to the world in print, or told to everybody but himself. And he is condemned and denounced, without the thing having been told him at all, much less told to him in Christian kindness a second or a third time.

And this way is taken by you in the Testimonies and their use as the way of the Lord: and all are expected to conform to it or else be counted in rebellion against God, apostates from the truth, and be excluded from heaven because of such rebellion and apostasy.

This again presents an impossible situation as to God. For it makes it appear that God goes directly contrary to His own word: that while calling and requiring us to be followers of Him strictly according to His word in the Bible, yet in the Testimonies and their use He, Himself, is made to set us the example of going directly contrary to the way that He requires us to go in His word in the Bible.

I repeat that this is impossible as to God. For it is impossible for God to go thus contrary to His own word. And it makes it impossible for us to be followers of God while He requires us to go one way and He goes the opposite way. And in the Judgment I would far rather risk the consequences of following strictly Gods word in the Bible in telling to a brother his fault "between thee and him alone," and then telling it to him a second time in the presence of "one or two more", and then telling it to the congregation of which he is a member, with the purpose to gain and restore him, than to risk the consequences of the Testimonies and their use in telling the faults of a brother not to "him alone" at all, but telling it to everybody but him, and in publishing it to the world, and this be the first that he knows of it.

But there is more that should be said of that communication of February 4, 1907, to Brother Russell Hart in which I am twice named.

September 7, 1907 , this communication was copied with the usual filing marks " Sept. 7, 1907 -8 . . . H. 38 07." It is only fair to suppose that at least seven of these indicated "-8- " copies were sent to as many different persons and places, and that they have been diligently used to publish and emphasize what is said in the communication concerning me. Yet I never saw it till February 20, 1909 ; more than two years after it was written. I saw it then only because a brother told me that Brother Hart had a copy, and that others had a copy and were using it. Then when I met Brother Hart I said to him that I had heard that he had a copy of a Testimony in which I was personally mentioned; but that I had never seen it nor known that it was in existence and that I thought it only fair that I should have a chance to see it. He thought so too and let me take it. The passages that mention me are the following:

"I must act in accordance with the light that the Lord has given me; and I say to you that Brother A.T. Jones and Dr. Kellogg will make every effort possible to get possession of the Tabernacle, in order that they may present their doctrines. We must not allow that house to be used for the promulgation of error. The Tabernacle was built by the Seventh-day Adventist people. It is their property and their loyal representatives should control it. On this question I will stand firm, and if you and others will take a decided stand with us, you will be doing that which God requires of you at this time.

"We must make sure the control of the Tabernacle; for powerful testimonies are to be borne in it in favor of the truth. This is the word of the Lord to you and others. Elder A.T. Jones will work in every way possible to get possession of this house, and if he can do so, he will present in it theories that should never be heard. I know whereof I speak in this matter, and if you had believed the warnings that have been given, you would have moved understandingly."

Now in all kindness, with no feeling of resentment whatever, but with perfect good humor I say to you, Sister White, and to everybody; and I say it solemnly before God to be met in the Judgment as the truth: that those statements concerning me are not true. They were not true when they were written, they have never been true at any moment since they were written, and they will never come true in any sense whatever. I not only never did  "all" that I possibly could, to get possession of the Tabernacle, I never thought on it, nor thought of it. This I know in the same way that I know that I am alive, or that I am here this moment writing this to you.

It cannot be said that the communication prevented me from doing what is there said that I would do: for I did not know that the writing was in existence, for more than two years after it was written; nor until after the Tabernacle had passed into the sure possession that "safe-guarded" it against all possibility that I could ever have gotten it.

And all this time of a year and a half or more after it was copied  while the communication was being used far and wide to warn the people of my great wickedness, apostasy, and antagonism, there was I going quietly along totally ignorant of any such thing being in existence, and at the same time as innocent of what it charged as was any child in the world.

Yet in that communication you say: "I know whereof I speak." In respectful reply, and in all kindness, I say: Sister White, you did not know whereof you spoke; for there is not a vestige of truth in it; and neither you nor anybody else can know what is not so. And while I cannot absolutely know of another, as I know of myself, yet I do firmly believe that what is said of Dr. Kellogg is just as completely untrue, as I know to be untrue what is said of me.

Further there stand the words; "In accordance with the light the Lord has given me ... I say to you that Elder A.T. Jones and Dr. Kellogg will make every effort possible to get possession of the Tabernacle."

There stand the words: "This is the word of the Lord to you and to others. Elder A.T. Jones will work in every possible way to get possession of this house."

Sister White, the simple truth is that that is not light at all for it is not true at all. And the Lord never gave it to you, for the Lord does not give nor tell what is not true. This is not "the word of the Lord" at all; for it never was true:and I know that the Lord never says what is not true. Besides, if that were truly from the Lord, it would have been given to me first of all, instead of to everybody but me, and never at all to me. Do you suppose that I am going to believe that the Lord disregards His own word and takes a course directly contrary to that laid down for us to take that we may "follow in His steps?" That is impossible.

The Lord knows perfectly well that I never made any effort at all; that I never worked in any way at all; and that I never thought at all to get possession of the Tabernacle. And the Lord knows perfectly well that I and Dr. Kellogg never acted together, nor spoke together, nor thought together, to any such purpose as getting possession of the Tabernacle.

Yet, Sister White, none of that, nor all of it, has done any harm whatever to me. In it you have not injured me at all. Those who have read that to the people to expose me and to warn the people against me, have done no harm at all to me. This because it is not true: and what is not true can't harm me. But all of this has harmed other people for they believed it, and so have been deceived. And since it has been publicly used; and since the only effect of it could be to deceive; then it will be perfectly proper that I should tell publicly what I have here told, to relieve as far as possible those deceived ones from that deception.

Also Sister White, you may remember that this is not the first time that I have been placed by you under the necessity of telling you that what you had said was not at all true. The other time was in July 1903 in your home at, "Elmshaven" when you had called me at the Sanitarium to come down to your house. You began very positively to talk to me. When I had listened with some surprise for a considerable length of time you may remember that I halted you and, looking straight into your eyes, said: "Sister White, there is not a particle of truth in what you are saying." Upon this you instantly dropped that strain and turned the conversation to another subject.

You may remember that I called your attention to this fact at your house at "Elmshaven" July 31, 1908 . And I say to you now what I said then: The Judgment will confirm the truth of that occurrence as I have stated it. The Judgment will confirm also the truth of what I have said on what you have stated in that communication of February 4, 1907 .

At Berrien Springs , Michigan , in the time of the Lake Union Conference in 1904, speaking of the book " Living Temple ," you said publicly to the congregation in the assembly hall:

"I never read the book; but Willie sat down by my side and read to me some of the most objectionable passages. And I said to him, 'Willie, that is just what was back there in New England ,' etc., ect.,"

Now, Sister White, I said then, and I say now, and I shall say forever, that I have not a particle of confidence in Willie's inspiration to select and read to you "the most objectionable passages" of that book, or any other writing, as a basis for your denouncing the book or writing a Testimony on the subject. I know that John Huss and Jerome were burned at the stake, and Wickliffe and Luther were pursued and persecuted to their graves, solely upon "some of the most objectionable passages" of their writings selected and read by opposing and prejudiced people.

I know that Willie presented to me some of these "most objectionable passages" of his selection. And I know that the objectionable  meaning which he put into the passages to make them "objectionable passages" was directly contrary to the meaning that stands in plain passages in the plain printed words.

There has been published a communication from you in which I am reproved for what I did at the Lake Union Conference in Berrien Springs , Michigan in 1904. Since in view of the Judgment you have called upon we to write, it is proper that I should state the facts and the history of that matter.

In the six months preceding the Conference at Berrien Springs, in the Union Conferences that had been held from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back again, Elder W.W. Prescott had given addresses in which he set forth his views of "Pantheism" and some other things.

In 1902 there had been printed a leaflet sermon of mine on "The Revelation of God." I had been informed that in his addresses in these Union Conferences, Brother Prescott had taken a single sentence from this sermon of mine and had read that single sentence in with passages from books that he said were "Pantheistic" (and books not one of which I ever saw) in such a way as to make it appear that I was teaching " Pantheism" equally with those others. This information I made no use of in any way. But as I was to be at the Lake Union Conference, I made up my mind that if Brother Prescott should take up that thing there, I would answer him on it, and I went to Berrien Springs with the material in my possession with which to answer him if he should take that thing up there.

On Friday morning in the midst of that Conference session, you gave to your son W. C. White Testimony to take to Brother Prescott, in which Brother Prescott was instructed not to take up in that meeting the discussion of this question of "Pantheism," etc., that it was not good to make prominent before the people these erroneous things even for the purpose of exposing or refuting them. But instead of this to dwell only upon the truth, etc. Though you gave this testimony to W.C. White on Friday morning to deliver to Brother Prescott, Brother White kept it in his possession and did not deliver it. And on the same Friday evening Brother Prescott did enter upon the discussion of that very subject as he had in the other Union Conferences. I took notes of his sermon for the purpose of replying to him.

That same Friday morning you had sent to Elder Daniells the Testimony addressed to him and Elder Prescott, in which they were instructed to stretch out their hands to Dr. Kellogg as Christ was doing. A copy of that Testimony came into my hands on Sabbath forenoon. But I was surprised to find the whole days passing with no token whatever of their stretching out their hands to Dr. Kellogg or their taking any other move in the direction indicated by the Testimony. That Testimony said that the same words were to be given to the others at that meeting, for them to carry to those who were not at the meeting. But after the Testimony had been received by Brother Daniells, days had passed without the Testimony having been made known.

Under these circumstances of this Testimony and Brother Prescott's sermon, I concluded that it would be proper to make known the Testimony as well as my answer to Brother Prescott's sermon of Friday night. But even then I waited a whole day and a night, in which time I prayed earnestly to God for guidance as to whether or not I should really do it. And late in the night before I did it; the last thing that I did was to pray concerning that and to say to the Lord in prayer that I had no personal choice in the matter; that indications were that I ought to do it; but if He should in any way show me otherwise I would not do it. And then I said to the Lord that on the next morning when the early morning meeting should be opened if anything should occur to occupy the time of the meeting I would take that as evidence that I should not say anything; but that if when the meeting should be opened nothing should occur to occupy the time, that I should take that as an indication that the way was opened for me. The next morning Elder Daniells opened the meeting and then said, "Brethren the meeting is yours" and sat down in the audience. Everything was quiet. Nobody said anything nor did anything; there was no sign of anybody's doing anything; until I arose and stepped to the front and did what I did. And what I did that day did undoubtedly stop, in those meetings at least, Brother Prescott's discussion of that question of "Pantheism," etc.

Now, Sister White, when it was of such importance that the discussion of that subject should be stopped; and when the Lord so wanted it stopped; that He would have you write a Testimony to stop it; and when you sent that Testimony by W.C. White on Friday morning, in ample time to have stopped it; and when it was not stopped just because Brother White chose not to deliver that Testimony; then was not my action that did stop it, directly in line with that Testimony? And was not my action that did stop it, the fulfillment of the purpose of the Lord? in sending the Testimony to stop it? but which failed because W.C. White did not deliver the Testimony?

When it was the will of the Lord, expressed in the Testimony, that that discussion should be stopped, then in the Judgment will I be reproved for having done what did stop it? And will W.C. White at the same time be justified in withholding from Brother Prescott the Testimony that would have stopped it?

If Brother White had delivered that Testimony at any time on Friday, it is safe to say, and I believe, that Brother Prescott would not have spoken at all on the subject. If he had not spoken on the subject, I should not have had a word to say on the subject. Then when what I did was only because of what he did, and when what he did was because of Brother White's not delivering the Testimony that would have prevented it all, then in the Judgment will I be condemned for doing just what the Lord wanted done? but which could not be done in the Lord's first chosen way, because of W.C. White's intentional withholding of the Lord's message that would have done it?

Knowing all this, Sister White, can you wonder that I have never felt at all sorry what I did? And have never been ready to confess that I was wrong in doing what I did that day in the Lake Union Conference at Berrien Springs?

In the former part of this letter I said that to this day Brother Sadler has never received from you any answer to his letter. This is the truth. In your letter to Dr. Paulson June 14, 1906, you did say: "Now I must respond to the letters received from you, Elder Sadler, and others." But in truth and in fact you did not respond to Brother Sadler's letter; not to a single thing written in it- unless it be in these words:

"To some of the questions you have asked, I am not to answer yes or no. I must not make any statements that can be misconstrued."

This can be verified by anyone who will read the two letters.

Yet one of the questions asked by both Doctors Paulson and Sadler, while not worded exactly the same by both, was in effect this:

"Is everything that you speak and write inspired of God and to be received as the word of God?"

Under all the circumstances this is one of the most important questions that could be asked of you. Yet the only thing from you that can even be construed into an answer to it, is the words: "I am not to answer yes or no. I must not make statements that can be misconstrued."

Sister White, do you intend that to be your answer to that question? If it is claimed that your letter to Dr. Paulson, June 14, 1906 , is an answer to his and Dr. Sadler's letters, then that will have to be held as your answer to that question. But if you were to answer "Yes" how could it be misconstrued if it were true?

If you were to answer "No" How could that be misconstrued if it were true?

Sister White, plain yes or no simply never can be misconstrued if it be true.

Then since to the question, "Is everything that you speak or write inspired of God and to be received as the word of God?" you are not to answer yes or no because either, statement "can be misconstrued," then it plainly follows that:

•  "Yes," would not be true because some things that you speak and write are not inspired of God and are not to be received as the word of God, and it would be a misconstruction to say that they are.

•  "No", would not be true; because some things that you speak and write are inspired of God and are to be received as the word of God, and it would be a misconstruction to say that they are not.

Upon analysis, therefore, of the only words that you have given that can even be construed into an answer to that question, it stands as the inevitable and unescapable consequence that the one straight and true answer to that question is the simple and easy word "no."

Yet that is exactly what I hold. It is the truth.

And, Sister White, do not you know full well that this is the plain truth?

But more than this: In the Judgment, in the presence of which you called me by name to write- in the Judgment, Sister White, your plea that if you should answer truly in the word "No", it would "be misconstrued," and some would "take advantage of the answer," will not be sufficient. In the Judgment nothing will stand but the truth. You have been standing as one who is a mouthpiece for God. As such it is your place to tell the truth, and bear witness unto the truth. You have nothing whatever to do with what people make of the truth that you have to tell.

It is your place to tell the truth. In the Judgment it will be the part of those people and not you to answer for whatever misconstruction or wrong use they make of the truth.

And whatever the wrong use that a few perverse   minded people might make of the truth, will not in the Judgment prove a sufficient counterbalance to the willing if not known deception of thousands upon thousands of innocent, confiding, and honest-minded people, the Judgment will certainly settle. But meantime it is an issue that is certainly and justly open to Very serious question and doubt in Christian minds. And upon that issue now, Sister White, I assure you that I would far prefer to see you write the plain and simple truth in that plain and simple word "No" which I have reason to believe that you well know is the truth, than to see you longer risking the awful decision of the Judgment upon the alternative and the consequences of your refusal to write the pure truth in that simple word "No", which is the unescapable consequence of your refusal to say either yes or no, because either could be misconstrued.

And what a world of relief would be given to a deplorable situation by your writing the truth, that I am sure you must know is the truth in that word "No".

Infinite good and no possible harm could alone come of it. It is true that many people would be disappointed and others would be considerably perplexed. But is it not far better that they should be allowed to awake to that disappointment and perplexity now, while there is time to get their true bearings, than to awake to it all when it will be forever too late? Then everything would stand only in the truth; and would be received and known only in and by "the Spirit of truth."

Therefore, even yet, before it shall be for you too late, will you not, Sister White, write that truth in that word "No" to that honest, pertinent, and very important question?"

Now, Sister White, I bring this letter to a close. In view of your communication calling upon me by name to write a "statement of difficulties," etc., those things that I have here written have seemed to me of sufficient importance for me to state to you. Other items might be mentioned but I have no disposition at all to heap up matters.

Also, Sister White, allow me to assure you that I am not opposing you, and have not opposed you, and do not intend to oppose you. When in view of "the great day of Judgment" and by my "loyalty to the directions God has given," you call upon me to write to you on these matters, it cannot fairly be counted as opposing you when in answer, to that call I wrote what I have written.

I respect you as a sister in Christ and in the truth of God. I honor you for the truth you have told and that you have written and maintained all these years. I do not deny that you have divine enlightenment. I do not deny that you have the Spirit of prophecy. But I do deny that everything that you have ever written is of the divine inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy. I do deny that you are infallible, and I do deny that everything you have written is the infallible word of God. And, indeed, you in reality deny all this yourself in your refusal to say either Yes or No to the plain question, because either word could be misconstrued or taken unfair advantage of. Then, why cannot I be allowed to agree with you in this and follow the directions of the Scriptures to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good."

Another thing: Please Sister White, do not blame Dr. Kellogg or anybody else for anything that I have here written. Please do not connect Dr. Kellogg or anybody else in any way with this that I have written. Not a soul in the world knows that I have written it, but the stenographer who has taken it down and written it out. Not a soul knows that I have sent this copy to you; and nobody but the stenographer and myself knows that it is in existence.

But will this copy that I send to you ever reach you? Will you ever have a chance to read it? Or will my letter be treated as was Dr. Stewart's and the next thing I hear from it, it will be in the hands of Bro. Daniells, or someone else, exhibited before an audience as so many "passages of objections to the Testimonies?"

Will this letter reach you so that you will have a chance to read it yourself, or will Willie sit down by your side and read to you "some of the most objectionable passages?"

However this may be, it will not affect me personally. In view of the Judgment you called upon me to write: Because of that, and in view of the Judgment, I have written. And there I personally leave it. Whatever others may do in view of the Judgment or not, just as they choose; for there only will they have to answer, and not to me.

And now wishing you only all blessing and all good from the Lord in all things always, and only all of Romans 15:13 forever, I remain,

(Signed) Alonzo T. Jones.

(Note: This letter was never answered by Mrs. White)


Uriah Smith's Letters to D.M. Canright

Battle Creek, Michigan, March 22, 1883

Dear Brother Canright:

... I was interested in your queries to Uncle George [Butler] on the omissions in "Early Writings." We have the Marion paper in exchange, and I had noticed the article. Under the circumstances I think it must have come down on him something like an avalanche; and I have a curiosity to know how he has answered it, as he put a note on the margin that he had answered it. I have no doubt the quotations [given in the Marion paper] are correct. I remember coming across the tract, "Word to Little Flock," when we were in Rochester, but I have not seen a copy since [i.e., in more than 25 years], and did not know but Experience and Views contained the full text of the early visions. It seems to me that the testimonies, practically, have come into that shape, that it is not of any use to try to defend the erroneous claims that are now put forth for them. At least, after the unjust treatment I received the past year, I feel no burden in that direction. Theoretically, the doctrine of Spiritual Gifts is clear enough, and I think all our people stand together on that. Bro. Littlejohn has preached on the subject here, treating it mostly from a theoretical standpoint. But that does not touch the question at issue among us at all. I presume you noticed in the Review of March 13 Bro. Waggoner's extinguisher of the Mormon Gifts. But if the same reasoning will not apply somewhat to our own experience, I cannot see straight. The cases of Fuller, Cornell and Smith Sharp are stunners to me. If all the brethren were willing to investigate this matter candidly and broadly, I believe some consistent, common ground for all to stand upon, could be found. But some, of the rule or ruin spirit, are so dogmatical and stubborn that I suppose that any effort in that direction would only lead to a rupture of the body. I am sorry the meeting of the Michigan Ministerial Association has ignominiously fallen through this year. The two difficulties it had to contend against, as I view it, are first, a lack of literary taste on the part of many ministers. But this should be overcome, and I think could be, by practice and constant pressure. But second, the greatest I believe to be a fear on the part of the powers that be, of free thought and free discussion. So far as this is the case, it is a shame and a disgrace to us...

Very truly yours,

U. Smith


Battle Creek, Michigan, April 6, 1883

Dear Brother Canright:

Yours of March 24 was duly received. I herewith return Bro. Butler's letter, as you request, having read it, or spoken of it, only to Bro. Gage. Eld B. [Butler] writes to others making a very light matter of the omissions from "Early Writings." He wrote to Bro. M.C. Wilcox, now in this office, that if enough is made of the matter so that it call for an answer, if none of our "Great Writers" see fit to reply to it, he will try his hand at it. In regard to writing for the Review, the plan is to send requests to some nineteen different persons, and if all should write more than from one to three moderately lengthy articles, there would not be room for them in the paper, so that limit was fixed as to length. We would like one from you sufficient to go through say three numbers. I intend to write for the next paper a synoptical article on that subject, but if I should, it would in no wise interfere with what you might say on the subject. I do not take the disconsolate view of our experiences that you seem to; for if the visions should drop out entirely, it would not affect my faith on our Biblical theories at all; hence, I should not consider my experience worthless, nor my life thrown away; for I am rooted and grounded in our doctrines. I believe the system of prophetic interpretation we present is sound, and that so far as we have been instrumental in presenting it to the world, we have done a good work. I did not learn any of these things from the visions, and they don't stand on their authority. You ask if there is any way out. I do not know, or rather, while there must be some way through present difficulties (for God will carry on and bring through His own work) I do not now see what that way is. The idea has been studiously instilled into the minds of the people that to question the visions in the least is to become at once a hopeless apostate and rebel; and too many, I am sorry to say, have not strength of character enough to shake off such a conception, hence the moment anything is done to shake them on the visions, they lose faith in everything and go to destruction. I believe this state of things never would have occurred had the position of our people on this manifestation of the gifts been correct. If our people would come together and calmly, candidly, kindly, and freely deliberate upon this matter, I believe, as I have said to you and others, that a consistent position could be found, which would free the subject from difficulties, meet and satisfy the scoutings of an intelligent public, and not rob the gift a whit of the good it was intended to do. But there are too many doggedly bigoted and stubborn to offer any very flattering outlook in this direction. If the matter could be got along with without any violent disruption anywhere, it would be better. This is what I dislike, and fought against in our college troubles. I should like very much to see you and canvass together some of these questions. I may sometime accept your invitation and visit Otsego. You see by the Review that I get out occasionally. Tomorrow I go to Marshall - joint meeting of Marshall, Convis and Newton. A week from today I go to Hillsdale on the invitation of Bro. Lamson to attend their district quarterly meeting the 14 th and 15 th . The conception of a state of things that might exist among us occasionally flashes through my mind, when love and harmony would prevail; where there would be concert and union of action, a recognition of each other's rights and a courage and inspiration to make the land echo with the sound of the glorious truth, as souls are pointed to the Savior as their hope and refuge. Let us live as near right as we can, be watchful against all devices of the enemy to destroy our spiritual life, and hope in God for his providence to guide us in these times of danger. Dr. Sprague [an Adventist Physician] joined the Presbyterian Church last Sunday, and I am informed that his mother and Sister Nelson are to join next Sunday.

Yours truly,

U. Smith


Battle Creek, Michigan, July 31, 1883

Dear Bro. Canright:

Yours of July 28 is at hand. I have shown it to Bro. Gage as you request. It is true G.I.B. [Butler] has asked me to write something for the proposed Supplement [in reply to A.C. Long's attack], and in the presence of Bros..Littlejohn and Fargo, has urged it hard; or rather they three together have urged me to it. But I have not yet made up my mind to say anything, because I do not know what I can say that will be of any particular help to them. I told these brethren so plainly. And my reason is that Sr. W. has herself shut my mouth. In the "Special Testimony to the B.C. [Battle Creek] Church," quoted in the "Sab. Advocate Extra," (both of which I suppose you have seen) she has published me as having rejected not only that testimony, but all the testimonies. Now if I say that I haven't rejected them, I thereby show that I have, for I contradict this one. But if I say that I have, that will not do them any good that I can see, but will be saying that which I have not supposed to be true. Her attack on me seems to me most uncalled for and unjust. I told the brethren that I did not understand why she seemed so anxious, and in such haste, to publish me to the world as a disbeliever in the testimonies. She has forced me without cause into a very embarrassing position, because if I say nothing, of course it will be taken as a virtual acknowledgment of the correctness of the charges. But if I do say anything, I must speak my convictions, which will not be at all satisfactory to them. I have just written a letter to Bro. Waggoner on the subject giving my position quite fully. I am going to keep a copy, and if you would like to see it, I will send it out to you to read and return. I would like to have you see some correspondence I have had with Sr. W. ...

In haste and love,

Yours, U. Smith


Battle Creek, Michigan, Aug. 7, 1883

Dear Bro. Canright:

Yours mailed yesterday is at hand. I enclose in this what I wrote to Bro. Waggoner on the question before us. The first part of the letter was on some criticism of Hebrew words which you would not care to see. I have concluded to write a little for the "Supplement" for this reason: those who write in the "Advocate Extra", most of them, manifest a spitefulness and bitterness of feeling which I cannot affiliate with, and do not wish to be considered as endorsing. In this I state, what I have told you, that I still hold that Sr. W. has been shown things in vision, and that this is a manifestation of Spiritual gifts; but they do not stand on a level with the Scriptures, and should not be made a test of fellowship. I close by saying that they should manifest "more of that charity which the apostle sets forth as more desirable than all gifts and without which even the best gifts are but a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal." I am aware that what I have written will not materially help my case in regard to the testimonies; for it brings me into direct antagonism with what Sr. W. has last published about me, which the "Advocate" of course will not be slow to pick up. But I think Bro. Green has prematurely set this ball rolling, and we shall not be likely to see so decisive steps taken at our next annual meetings as we should doubtless otherwise have seen. I should not have said anything, had not these men embarrassed the situation by rushing in and manifesting the spirit they do. Logically, my case cannot be let alone till I have acknowledged what Sr. W. Wrote in our School troubles, which I have no evidence was or is vision, and as I write to Bro. W., I know I have to discriminate between "testimony" and "visions." Well, I think I know myself as well as Sr. W. knows me. And I leave all these things in the hand of God, determined to seek to do his will here, and find a place in his kingdom hereafter.

Yours truly,

U. Smith


Battle Creek, Michigan, Oct. 2, 1883

Dear Bro. Canright:

Yours of the 28th was duly received. Should have been very glad to see you at the C.M. We had in some respects a most powerful meeting. A.N. Seymour and wife were present, Sabbath and Sunday, and even he acknowledged to Bro. Dodge that it seemed like 1844. Wish you could have been here. Both myself and Harriet have had a talk with Sr. W., and in many things wherein my mind was most severely perplexed, it has been relieved, which of course makes me feel quite differently. Then again, I have had opportunity to learn that quite a good many are disposed to be affected by my course in their relation to this cause. I am very vulnerable on the point of standing in another's way. I would rather do almost anything than that. Of course, I would not think it would make so much difference, if others would go no farther than I go. But they do not stop there. Right or wrong, they have got the idea fast in their minds that the testimonies and the messages stand or fall together; and if they give up the former they give up the latter also. Now I would much rather a person would be radical on the testimonies, even if they are not all what they claim to be, than give up the present truth; for this latter I believe to be vital to our future well-being. So the best light I see for myself is to case my influence in so far as it will go, with the body, and wait further developments.

Sr. W., is certainly doing a work which no other person seems fitted for doing, and which is of great value to this cause. So I will get along with my private trials and hold them in abeyance for the general good.

Yours truly,

U. Smith


Dr. John Harvey Kellogg's
Letter about Mrs. White

January 9, 1936

Mr. E. S. Ballenger,
4138 Mulberry Street,
Riverside, California.

Dear Ballenger:

I have your letter of December 30.

Mrs. White ate meat and plenty of it. The next day after she arrived in America on her return from Scandinavia. I took dinner with her at the house of a mutual friend near New Bedford, Massachusetts. A large baked fish occupied the center of the table. Mrs. White ate freely of it as did all the rest with the exception of the hostess and myself. From this circumstance I think Mrs. White began the use of meat during the several years she spent abroad, chiefly In Switzerland and Scandinavia. She visited the Sanitarium frequently during the years that intervened before she went to Australia. When there she always called for meat and usually fried chicken. Dr. H. F. Rand was then the cook at the Sanitarium and had became an ardent vegetarian and he on more than one occasion said to me, "It goes very hard on me to have to prepare fried chicken for Mrs. White." In those days we had a liberal table at the Sanitarium where we served meat to friends of patients who insisted on having it, although we did not prescribe it for patients.

At the annual meetings of the General Conference, which were always held in Battle Creek, we used to give the Conference a banquet. Most of the members were members of the Sanitarium constituency. We thought we owed them that courtesy. At these banquets they expected us to serve meat.

In those days practically all Seventh-Day Adventist ministers ate meat.

They knew that Mrs. White ate it and with not more than two or three exceptions they all ate chicken or mutton stew that was usually served them.

On the day of Elder White's funeral, his brother, who attended the funeral, and his two sons, J. E. and W. C., took dinner at the Sanitarium. They ate the liberal table and both ate meat within an hour after their father was buried.

After Mrs. White return from Scandinavia she visited many camp meetings at some of which I was present. She was then in the habit of eating meat and the fact must have been generally known. I heard J. E. on one occasion, standing in front of his mother's tent, call out to a meat-wagon that visited the grounds regularly and was just leaving, "Say, hello there! Have you any fresh fish?" "No was his reply. "Have you got any fresh chicken?" Again the answer was "No," and J. E. bawled out in a very loud voice, "Mother wants some chicken. You had better get some quick."

It was always lay suspicion that he was the one who was hankering for the chicken and that Mrs. White ate it also and that it was then her habit.

I am surprised that Elder Star should state that Mrs. White did not eat meat in Australia. He must have been acquainted with the fact that she ate it regularly. She was eating meat when she went there and continued to eat it for several years until she got rheumatism so bad she was not able to walk and had to be wheeled about and sat in a chair while she talked.

After a while she gave up the use of meat and wrote me about it. She said that one of her addresses on Christian temperance was attended by a Catholic woman who was president of the W. C. T. U. and happened to be a vegetarian.

After the lecture she called on Mrs. White and thanked her for the lecture and remarked, "Of course you do not eat meat, Mrs. White." Mrs. White replied she did sometimes, whereat the lady dropped upon her knees and with tears streaming down her face besought Mrs. White never again to allow a morsel of meat to pass her lips. Said Mrs. White in her letter to me, "I thought it was about time for me to begin my own teaching." So who said, "I have stopped the use of meat myself, but I still serve it to my workers."

Fanny Bolton was with her at that time. A year or two later she returned to Battle Creek. She left Mrs. White who incorporated in one of her books something she had herself written and without giving her credit . She said Mrs. White was in the habit of doing this, copying from various other books, so that she and Mary Ann Davis had to go over the material and transpose sentences and change paragraphs and in other wise endeavor to hide the piracy. She spoke to Mrs. White about it and objected to having her own manuscript used without credit. Mrs. White was very angry and slapped her face. She mentioned the circumstance to one of the preachers and was forthwith dismissed from Mrs. White's employ and came back to America.

I do not remember the name of any minister who was advised by Mrs. White to eat meat, but I do remember clearly that she did advise some persons to eat meat.

The fact is many people were injured by the practice of what they called health reform in those days which was not soundly based. The principal fault was in discarding butter which eliminated vitamin A and lowered the vital resistance and I think led to tuberculosis in many cases. Many people were doubtless suffer(ing) from the lack of fat especially fat containing vitamin A as does butter fat and also tallow and suet.

When George I. Butler was in the presidential chair of the S. D. A. denomination meat was freely used and served in the provisions stands at all the camp meetings. There had been a universal backsliding on health reform. The backsliding probably saved a good many lives, for the people were suffering for lack of vitamins, not because they did not use meat, but because they did not use butter.

With reference to Fanny Bolton's story about Mrs. White eating oysters, Fanny told me that the first time she net Mrs. White was in Chicago in a restaurant. She had been informed that Mrs. White was eating her dinner at a certain restaurant and went there and found she was eating stewed oysters.

Mrs. White I think was not so much to blame for eating meat oysters etc. as the people associated with her. They made her believe that she needed meat and ought to eat it.

When I visited the Grand Rapids camp grounds, one of the first camp meetings held, I found in the provision stand conspicuously displayed whole codfish, large slabs of halibut, smoked herring, dried beef and Bologna sausage. I found some of the same things at all the camp meetings I visited.

After a few years I succeeded in getting these things cleared out. On one occasion in order to clean up the provision stand I paid what the whole stock of meat, strong cheese and some detestable bakery stuff cost, which was fifteen dollars, and ordered it thrown into the river. I was assured that this would be done, but learned afterwards that it was put away and after the camp meeting was over was divided up among the preachers of the Conference. This was in Indiana. I received information concerning its disposal from Elder Covert who was President of the Conference.

The health reform that was taught in those days was badly mixed with error and it probably did more harm than good and it is a shame to lay the responsibility on the Almighty.

Of course I do not want to have my name used in this connection at all. I am not fighting the Seventh-Day Adventists for two reasons: I think that on the whole they are doing good and I do not want to hinder any good cause. Their errors I regret and repudiate as much as you do, probably more so. My job in the world is to create and to build up and not to destroy. I have nothing to say as to what is the duty of other people.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Harvey Kellogg


Prescott Letter to W.C. White

Takoma Park, D.C., April 6, 1915.

Elder W. C. White
Sanitarium, Napa County

Dear Brother White:

I appreciated your letter of March 12 and I thank you for your message of sympathy concerning my father's death.

I have noted what you have said about your mother's condition, although you neglected to enclose the statement which you mentioned. When I see these early believers, like your mother, my father, and Elder Olsen passing away so rapidly, and then think of how little has really been accomplished in seriously warning the whole world of the impending second advent, I am led to wonder whether any of us now connected with this movement will, after all, live to see the consummation. It is a serious question.

It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorized books and yet make no special effort to correct them . The people and our average ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use our books as sufficient authority in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things which we know to be untrue. I cannot feel that this is right. It seems to me that we are betraying our trust and deceiving the ministers and people. It appears to me that there is much more anxiety to prevent a possible shock to some trustful people than to correct error.

Your letter indicates a desire on your part to help me, but I fear that it is a little late. The experience of the last six or eight years, and especially the things concerning which I talked with you, have had their effect on me in several ways. I have had some hard shocks to get over, and after giving the best of my life to this movement, I have little peace and satisfaction in connection with it, and I am driven to the conclusion that the only thing for me to do is to do quietly what I can do conscientiously and leave the others to go on without me. Of course this is far from a happy ending to my life-work, but this seams to be the best adjustment that I am able to make. The way your mother's writings have been handled and the false impressions concerning them, which is still fostered among the people, have brought great perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to deception, though probably not intentional, has been practiced in making some of her books, and that no serious effort has been made to disabuse the minds of the people of what was known to be their wrong view concerning her writings.

But it is no use to go into these matters. I have talked with you for years about them, but it brings no change. I think, however, that we are drifting toward a crisis which will come sooner or later and perhaps sooner. A very strong feeling of reaction has already set in.

It has been very quiet here for a few weeks, as many of the brethren are in the field. The weather has been quite cold and we had about five inches of snow last Sabbath, but it is more like spring today.

My mother is quite feeble, although she bears up full better than I really expected. She misses Father very much. They lived together more than 67 years.

The work of the office seems to be prospering, and we are all very busy trying to meet the demands upon us.

I should be glad to hear from you at any time. If you can properly do so, I would be glad to have you express to your mother my sympathies for her in her affliction.

Yours faithfully,

W. W. Prescott


E.W. Waters

E.W. Waters
Hubardsville, N.Y.
( Hope of Israel , Nov. 16, 1864, vol. 1 no. 22)

Myself and wife embraced the Advent faith in '42 '43, and passed through our experience with the Advent body up to the passing of the time; but could believe nothing less of our experience, than that it was of God. Our next move was to believe that the door of mercy was shut against all who did not believe in the Advent proclamation. The next step was "The Commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ." And by degrees the "testimony of Jesus Christ"became the Visions of Ellen G. White, or the Visions of Ellen G. White became "the testimony of Jesus Christ." We fully endorsed the "Visions" as being of God; and, apparently, all things moved on safely until I received a paper called the "Messenger of Truth." At first I felt much hurt at the thought of daring to question Ellen's visions being of God, but thought they would shine all the brighter for scouring them with an investigation. So at it I went, comparing the "Visions" with the unerring "word," and with facts. And to my great astonishment, the visions of that much loved Sister White were "found wanting."

I then confessed my errors, and wrote my confession to Bro. & Sr. White, requesting them to publish it. But they refused to do so, but have added error to error, and have not ceased to publish and brand me as wide as their circulation extends, as a bad and dangerous man. And yet they have not been willing to grant me a trial of any kind. Yet I never felt any unkindness towards them; for I always loved the name of the Advent people. And if they have erred, I can forgive them and still love them. But their organization I have no sympathy with.


W. Phelps

W. Phelps
( Hope of Israel , Oct. 28, 1863, vol. 1, no. 4)

I was a believer in the soon coming of the Lord, in 1843. But having emigrated from the East, and settled in the West, where there were not many believers in the doctrine of the Advent in 1843, I escaped the fanaticism through which the Adventists passed in the East, for which I feel thankful. In the Fall of 1851 I identified myself with the people called the "Review Adventists," and remained with them until something less than two years ago, altho' I knew they held, and taught some views which did not harmonize with the Bible. Yet they adhered strictly to the commandments of God, which I loved; and thought them to be the nearest right of any people I could find. They professed to have the gifts of the Spirit among them, which I have ever been a believer in. But I have long since found that all the gifts of the Spirit which they have among them, are the Visions of Ellen G. White ; and them I have investigated with candor, in hope to become settled in the belief that the "Visions" were a revelation from God. But the more I investigated them, and compared them with the Bible, the less confidence I have had in them; and I have become perfectly satisfied that God has nothing to do with them and I believe the time will come when the candid will know it . But notwithstanding my want of confidence in the "Visions," perhaps I should have been with that people yet, had it not been for their making faith in the "Visions" a test of Christian fellowship.....


George and Jane Stults

George and Jane Stults
( Hope of Israel , Jul. 10, 1866)

In regard to the visions of E.G. White, we never could believe they were from God. We often tried to feel right about them, and tried to reconcile them with the word, but never could. We have been judged, condemned and rejected by those that we expected better things from on account of it.


Elder S. McCullagh

Elder S. McCullagh resignation letter,
March 23, 1897
( Ellen G. White: The Australian Years 1891-1900 , vol. 4, p. 280.)

I utterly reject Mrs. E. G. White's claims that 'in these days God speaks to men by the testimonies of His Spirit' through Mrs. White.

I also regret Seventh-day Adventists' views of the atonement. I dare not believe that the blood of Christ had no real efficacy until 1844. I have found by observation that the views of the sanctuary placing the atonement of Christ at 1844 takes from the people their confidence in the perfection of the most glorious gospel of full salvation, made perfect by the offering of the blood of Jesus Christ once and for all.

[You] yourselves know also that a minister in your connection would not be tolerated as such if he should express his unbelief in the plenary inspiration in every word of Mrs. White's writings.

The same is true of the doctrine of discrimination between meats and drinks--commonly termed amongst us 'Health Reform.' The rigid rules of diet as a test in religious standing, and further, in being made a final test for heaven, are a very decided article of faith. Members have been turned out of the churches on account of their unbelief in these, in the sanctuary question, and other lines of creed.