THE WHITE

ELEPHANT
THE WHITE
ELEPHANT
In Seventh-day Adventism

Brian S. Neumann
The White Elephant

Copyright © 2016 by Brian Neumann (Ph.D.). All rights reserved.

2nd edition 2019
_____________________________________________________________________

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted

in any way by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise
without the prior permission of the author except as provided by USA copyright law.

Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, King James Version, Cambridge,
1769. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

This book is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the
subject matter covered. This information is given with the understanding that the author
is not engaged in rendering legal, professional advice.

If you would like to book Brian S. Neumann for speaking appointments then e-mail him
at: thewhiteelephantbook@gmail.com

To contact Brian by phone, call: (720) 402-4413

_____________________________________________________________________

Published by Neu Creation Ministry

326 South 28th Avenue | Brighton CO 80601 USA

Book design copyright © 2016 by Brian S. Neumann. All rights reserved.

Cover design by Brian & Kamy Neumann

Interior design by Brian & Kamy Neumann

_____________________________________________________________________

Published in the United States of America

ISBN: 978-11546626091

Religion / Politics / Christianity / Seventh-day Adventist

16.06.17
 The White Elephant

PRESENT PROPRIETOR: “See here, Governor! She’s

a likely-looking animal,–but I cannot manage her.
If you won’t take her, I must let her go!!”
(adapted from Punch, 1892)
 Introduction

5ISFF
UJNFT
XIJMF
XSJUJOH
5IF
8IJUF
&MFQIBOU
*
IBWF
IBE
UP

SFBEKVTU
UIF
DPOUFOU
BOE
SFUIJOL
NZ
BQQSPBDI
JO
QSFTFOUJOH
NZ

DBTF
5IJT
IBT
OPU
CFFO
BO
FBTZ
UBTL
8IFO
*
TUBSUFE
PVU
*
JOUFOEFE

UP
XSJUF
B
CPPL
UIBU
XBT
HPJOH
UP
IFMQ
TQFDJGJDBMMZ
4FWFOUIEBZ

"EWFOUJTUT
4%"T

QVU
UIF
QSPQIFUJD
XPSL
PG
&MMFO
(
8IJUF
JOUP
B

CBMBODFE
QFSTQFDUJWF
*
FNCBSLFE
PO
UIJT
KPVSOFZ
XJUI
OP
QSFEJTQPTFE

CJBT
)PXFWFS
*
DPOTDJPVTMZ
QVSQPTFE
UP
MFBWF
OP
TUPOF
VOUVSOFE
JO

NZ
RVFTU
GPS
QSPPG
UIBU
XPVME
FJUIFS
WJOEJDBUF
PS
JG
UIF
PWFSXIFMNJOH

FWJEFODF
MFGU
OP
PUIFS
PQUJPO
QSPWF
&MMFO
8IJUF
UP
CF
B
GBMTF

QSPQIFU‰4DSJQUVSF
CFJOH
UIF
TVQSFNF
TUBOEBSE
GPS
FWFSZ
UFTU
*
EJE
OPU
UBLF
PO
UIJT
QSPKFDU
BT
B
TUSBOHFS
UP
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
PS

UIF
NJOJTUSZ
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
*
BN
B
GPVSUI
HFOFSBUJPO
4%"
BOE

UIF
NBKPSJUZ
PG
NZ
GBNJMZ
IBWF
CFFO
PS
BSF
TUJMM
FJUIFS
QBTUPST

FEVDBUPST
NJTTJPOBSJFT
PS
DIVSDI
XPSLFST
PG
TPNF
PS
PUIFS
TPSU
JO
UIF

EFOPNJOBUJPO
8IFO
*
XBT
B
UFFOBHFS
*
MFGU
UIF
DIVSDI
BOE

XPSLFE
BT
B
QSPGFTTJPOBM
NVTJDJBO
JO
UIF
3PDL
.VTJD
*OEVTUSZ
JO

&VSPQF
BOE
4PVUI
"GSJDB
*O
NZ
NJE
UIJSUJFT
BGUFS
BDDFQUJOH

$ISJTU
*
XBT
CBQUJ[FE
KPJOFE
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
BOE
JNNFEJBUFMZ

CFDBNF
BDUJWFMZ
JOWPMWFE
JO
NJOJTUSZ
NZTFMG
'PS

OFBSMZ
FJHIUFFO
ZFBST

*

EFEJDBUFE

NZ
MJGF
UP

NJOJTUSZ

JO
IF
4%"
EFOPNJOBUJPO
*
XBT
BO
PSEBJOFE
&MEFS
XPSLFE
BT
B

DPOGFSFODF
FWBOHFMJTU

BU
WBSJPVT
UJNFT
TBU

PO
UIF
&WBOHFMJTN
$PNNJUUFF
PG
UIF
$BQF
$POGFSFODF
JO
4PVUI
"GSJDB
BOE

XBT
BDUJWFMZ
JOWPMWFE
JO
PUIFS
BSFBT
PG
NJOJTUSZ
'PS
UIF

NBKPSJUZ
PG
UIBU
UJNF
*
XBT
B
TQFBLFS
GPS
B
TFMGTVQQPSUJOH

4%"
NJOJTUSZ
"NB[JOH
%JTDPWFSJFT
BOE
USBWFMFE
UIF
XPSME

EPJOH
MFDUVSFT
PO
NVTJD
#JCMF
1SPQIFDZ
BOE
UIF
NJOJTUSZ

PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
"U
POF
UJNF
*
IPTUFE
B
QSFSFDPSEFE
SBEJP

QSPHSBN
GPS
"NB[JOH
%JTDPWFSJFT
JO
8BTIJOHUPO
4UBUF
*
BMTP

QSPEVDFE
NBOZ
WJEFPT
PO
B
WBSJFUZ
PG
UPQJDT
NZ
BSFB
PG

FYQFSUJTF
CFJOH
NVTJD
BOE
XPSTIJQ
*
BVUIPSFE
GPVS
CPPLT

TPNF
PG
XIJDI
IBWF
CFFO
QVCMJTIFE
JO
B
OVNCFS
PG

EJGGFSFOU
MBOHVBHFT
DPOUSJCVUFE
UP
PUIFS
DIVSDI
QVCMJDBUJPOT

BOE
BQQFBSFE
PO
57
JOUFSWJFXT
JO
WBSJPVT
DPVOUSJFT
JO

DPOOFDUJPO
XJUI
NZ
NJOJTUSZ
*O
BEEJUJPO
*
XBT
JOUFSWJFXFE
PO

"#/
BOE
QSFTFOUFE
B
TFSJFT
PG
MFDUVSFT
GPS
)PQF
$IBOOFM

FOUJUMFE
$SJTJT
)PVS‰CPUI
UIFTF
BSF
PGGJDJBM
4%"
57

DIBOOFMT
.VDI
PG
UIJT
NBUFSJBM
MFDUVSFT
PO
#JCMF
QSPQIFDZ

BOE
PUIFS
SFMJHJPVT
UPQJDT
NVTJD
EPDVNFOUBSJFT
FUD

BSF

BWBJMBCMF
PWFS
UIF
JOUFSOFU
"
TJNQMF
HPPHMF
TFBSDI
PG
NZ

OBNF
#SJBO
4
/FVNBOO

XJMM
QSPEVDF
BEFRVBUF
FWJEFODF
PG
NZ

GPSNFS
NJOJTUSZ
5IF
#JCMF
BOE
DPVOTFM
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
BT
*
TBX
JU
BU
UIF
UJNF


XFSF
UIF
CBTJT
GPS
NVDI
PG
XIBU
*
CFMJFWFE
BOE
UBVHIU
JO
BOZ

TQIFSF
BOE
BO
JOUFHSBM
QBSU
PG
NZ
NJOJTUSZ
XBT
EFEJDBUFE

UP
EFGFOEJOH
IFS
QSPQIFUJD
DBMMJOH
*
QSPEVDFE
B
OVNCFS
PG

WJEFP
MFDUVSFT
EFEJDBUFE
UP
UIJT
FOE

.Z
CFMJFG
BT
JU
JT
GPS
TP

NBOZ
JO
UIF
4%"
GBJUI
XBT
UIBU
&MMFO
8IJUF
XBT
B
USVF

NFTTFOHFS

QSPQIFU
PG
(PE
0O
KVTU
BCPVU
BOZ
HJWFO
UPQJD

DPOOFDUFE
UP
UIF
VOEFSTUBOEJOH
PG
4DSJQUVSF
BOE
PUIFS
JTTVFT

SFMBUFE
UP
EBJMZ
MJWJOH
PS
TBMWBUJPO
IFS
JOTQJSFE
JOTJHIU
BOE

DPVOTFM
XFSF
VTVBMMZ
UIF
MBTU
XPSE
"GUFS
FYQFSJFODJOH
B
MJGFDIBOHJOH
DSJTJT
*
XBT
DPNQFMMFE
UP

SFFYBNJOF
FWFSZ
BTQFDU
PG
NZ
MJGF
/PUIJOH
XBT
MFGU
VOUPVDIFE

JODMVEJOH
FWFSZUIJOH
*
IBE
PODF
GFSWFOUMZ
CFMJFWFE
BOE
UBVHIU

"OZPOF
XIP
IBT
HPOF
UISPVHI
B
NBKPS
DSJTJT
JO
MJGF
XJMM
LOPX

UIBU

NPSF

PGUFO

UIBO

OPU
UIF
SPBE
CBDL
UP
IFBMJOH
BOE
SFWJWBM

JT
BDDPNQBOJFE
CZ
B
DPNQMFUF
SFFWBMVBUJPO
PG
XIPN
BOE
XIBU
ZPV

BSF
*OEFFE
JO
NBOZ
DBTFT
JU
UBLFT
BO
FYQFSJFODF
UIBU
BCTPMVUFMZ

EFWBTUBUFT
BOE
IVNJMJBUFT
POF
UP
CSJOH
POF
UP
UIF
QPJOU
PG

UPUBM
SFFWBMVBUJPO
BOE
SFWJWJGJDBUJPO
5IBOLGVMMZ
UIJT
QSPDFTT
PG
SFEJTDPWFSZ
XBT
OPU
POF
*
FOEFE
VQ

IBWJOH
UP
HP
UISPVHI
BMPOF
"GUFS
B
EJGGJDVMU
EJWPSDF
*
XBT

SFNBSSJFE
UP
,BNZ
B
GFMMPX
4%"
"OE
TP
CZ
UIF
HSBDF
PG
(PE

UIF
QSPDFTT
CFDBNF
B
QBSUOFSTIJQ
JO
SFTFBSDI
SFFYBNJOBUJPO

SFEJTDPWFSZ
SFPSJFOUBUJPO
BOE
SFWJWBM
,BNZT
JOQVU
PO
TP

NBOZ
MFWFMT
IBT
CFFO
JOWBMVBCMF
UP
UIF
FYFDVUJPO
BOE

VMUJNBUF
DPNQMFUJPO
PG
UIJT
XPSL
*O
PSEFS
OPU
POMZ
UP
SFFYBNJOF
BOE
SFEJTDPWFS
PVSTFMWFT

CVU
UIF
FOUJSF
CBTJT
GPS
PVS
CFMJFGT
XF
DPOTDJPVTMZ
TFU
B
DPVSTF

BJNFE
BU
GJOEJOH
BOTXFST
UP
RVFTUJPOT
XF
CFMJFWFE
XPVME
OPU

POMZ
DPOGJSN
PS
EFCVOL
PVS
CFMJFGT
CVU
XPVME
BMTP
IFMQ
JO
UIF

QSPDFTT
PG
FNPUJPOBM
BOE
TQJSJUVBM
SFEJTDPWFSZ
5IF
CPUUPN
MJOF

XBT
UP
DPOGJSN
PS
SFEJTDPWFS
USVUI
BU
BMM
DPTUT
PO
UIF
CBTJT
PG

XIBU
4DSJQUVSF
DMFBSMZ
SFWFBMFE
"
NPTU
JOUFHSBM
QBSU
PG
UIJT
RVFTU

XBT
DPNJOH
UP
UFSNT
XJUI
XIBU
IBE
CFFO
POF
PG
UIF

FTTFOUJBM
DPNQPOFOUT
PG
PVS
4%"
CFMJFG
QMBUGPSN
UIF

QSPQIFUJD
NJOJTUSZ
PG
&MMFO
(
8IJUF
5IF
FWJEFODF
UIBU
DBNF
UP
MJHIU
BT
B
SFTVMU
PG
NPSF
UIBO

UISFF
ZFBST
PG
JOUFOTJWF
SFTFBSDI
MJUFSBMMZ
UVSOFE
PVS
XPSME

VQTJEF
EPXO
*U
BMM
TUBSUFE
PVU
XJUI
TJNQMZ
USZJOH
UP
GJOE

BOTXFST
UP
USPVCMJOH
RVFTUJPOT
XF
IBE
CFFO
DPOGSPOUFE
XJUI

CFGPSF
CVU
OFWFS
SFBMMZ
QVSTVFE‰UIJOHT
UIBU
IBE
KVTU

CFFO
TIFMWFE
TPNFXIFSF
JO
UIF
TVCDPOTDJPVT
XBJUJOH
GPS

UIF
SJHIU
PQQPSUVOJUZ
PS
TFU
PG
DJSDVNTUBODFT
UP
FYQPTF
UIFN
UP

UIF
MJHIU
PG
EBZ
'SPN
UIF
PVUTFU
*
EFDJEFE
UIBU
XIBUFWFS
JU
XBT
UIBU
XF
XFSF

HPJOH
UP
EJTDPWFS
IBE
UP
CF
SFDPSEFE
BOE
QVU
JOUP
CPPL
GPSN

.Z
SFTFBSDI
XBT
QBJOTUBLJOH
BOE
EFUBJMFE
*
DPWFSFE
FWFSZ
CJU
PG

FWJEFODF
*
DPVME
GJOE
IJTUPSJDBM
BOE
QSFTFOUEBZ‰CPPLT

XFCTJUFT
WJEFPT
QFSTPOBM
JOUFSWJFXT
#JCMJDBM
FWJEFODF
FUD

UIBU
IBE

BOZUIJOH
UP
EP
XJUI
&MMFO
(
8IJUF‰GPS
PS
BHBJOTU
'PS
NF
QFSTPOBMMZ
UIF
QSPDFTT
PG
SFTFBSDI
BT
JU
QFSUBJOFE
UP

GJOEJOH
BMM
UIF
DPNFCBDLT
UIBU
EFCVOLFE
UIF
DSJUJDT

BSHVNFOUT
BHBJOTU
&MMFO
8IJUF
XBT
OPU
EJGGJDVMU
BU
BMM
*
IBE

TQFOU
TP
NBOZ
ZFBST
EFGFOEJOH
IFS
NZTFMG
UIBU
*
LOFX
FWFSZ

EFGFOTF
UIBU
IBT
FWFS
CFFO
VTFE
CZ
IFS
BQPMPHJTUT
*
XBT

UIPSPVHIMZ
GBNJMJBS
XJUI
IFS
XSJUJOHT
PO
FWFSZ
UPQJD
BOE
BMTP

GVMMZ
VOEFSTUPPE
IPX
4%"
TDIPMBST
DPOTUSVDU
BO
BQQBSFOUMZ
TPMJE

CJCMJDBM
QMBUGPSN
JO
TVQQPSU
PG
IFS
QSPQIFUJD
NJOJTUSZ
BOE
IPX

TIF
JO
UVSO
CFDPNFT
UIF
QPJOU
PG
GJOBM
SFGFSFODF
GPS
UFTUJOH
BOZ

JOUFSQSFUBUJPO
PG
4DSJQUVSF
0G
DPVSTF
NPTU
4%"
#JCMF
TDIPMBST
XJMM
OFWFS
BENJU
UP

UIJT
*OEFFE
TPNF
EP
OPU
FWFO
SFBMJ[F
UIBU
B
TJNQMF

DPOTFRVFODF
PG
VTJOH
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
UIF
#JCMF
UIF
XBZ

UIFZ
EP
JOWBSJBCMZ
MFBET
UIFN
UP
UFTU
UIFJS
DPODMVTJPOT
BHBJOTU

IFS
JOTQJSFE
XPSET‰IFS
JOGMVFODF
PWFS
FWFSZ
4%"
CFMJFG
JT
BMM
FODPNQBTTJOH
5IF
BWFSBHF
MBZQFSTPO
BOE
FWFO
NBOZ
QBTUPST

UIFNTFMWFT
EP
OPU
SFBMJ[F
IPX
EFFQMZ
IFS
JEFBT
BGGFDU

CFMJFGT
UIFZ
BTTVNF
BSF
CBTFE
QVSFMZ
PO
4DSJQUVSF
BMPOF
*O
GBDU
UIPTF
XIP
BSF
GBNJMJBS
XJUI
UIF
4%"
#JCMF

$PNNFOUBSZ
TFSJFT
XJMM
LOPX
UIBU
UIF
DPNNFOUBSZ
GPVOE
JO

UIPTF
CPPLT
BMUIPVHI
DSFBUJOH
UIF
JNQSFTTJPO
UIBU
UIFZ
BSF

TPMJEMZ
TDSJQUVSBM
SFMZ
IFBWJMZ
PO
&MMFO
8IJUFT
iSFWFMBUJPOTw
5IVT
SFHBSEMFTT
PG
UIF
4%"
EFDMBSBUJPO
iUIF
#JCMF
BOE
UIF

#JCMF
BMPOFw

4PMB
4DSJQUVSB
JU
OFFET
UP
CF
VOEFSTUPPE
UIBU

UIJT
JT
TJNQMZ
OPU
UIF
DBTF
*OEFFE
&MMFO
8IJUF
IFSTFMG
TUBUFE

i*U
JT
4BUBOT
QMBO
UP
XFBLFO
UIF
GBJUI
PG
(PET
QFPQMF
JO
UIF

5FTUJNPOJFT
<IFS
JOTQJSFE
DPVOTFM>
/FYU
GPMMPXT
TLFQUJDJTN
JO

SFHBSE
UP
UIF
WJUBM
QPJOUT
PG
PVS
GBJUI
UIF
QJMMBST
PG
PVS

QPTJUJPO
UIFO
EPVCU
BT
UP
UIF
)PMZ
4DSJQUVSFT
BOE
5)&/
UIF

EPXOXBSE
NBSDI
UP
QFSEJUJPOw
5FTUJNPOJFT
7PM

Q


&NQIBTJT

JUBMJDT
TVQQMJFE

*U
XBT
UIJT
VOEFSMZJOH
LOPXMFEHF
PG

IPX
UIF
BVUIPSJUZ
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
PQFSBUFT
XJUIJO
4%"

GBJUI
UIBU
DPOTUBOUMZ
JOGPSNFE
NZ
SFTFBSDI
JOUP
FWJEFODF
PO

CPUI
TJEFT
PG
UIF
&MMFO
8IJUF
EFCBUF
8IFO
ZPV
VOEFSTUBOE
BT

TIF
IFSTFMG
TUBUFE
UIBU
UIF
SPBE
UP
QFSEJUJPO
IFMM

SFBMMZ

DPNNFODFT
XJUI
MPTJOH
GBJUI
JO
IFS
JOTQJSFE
DPVOTFM

UIFO
JU

CF
DPNFT
PCWJPVT
JO
XIBU
UIF
TJODFSF
4%"
CFMJFWFS
XJMM
CF

DPNQFMMFE
UP
HSPVOE
UIFJS
CFMJFG‰DPOTDJPVTMZ
PS
OPU
8JUI
FBDI
OFX
QJFDF
PG
FWJEFODF
VODPWFSFE
XF
XFSF

PWFSDPNF
XJUI
B
QSPHSFTTJWF
TFSJFT
PG
SFBDUJPOT
'JSTU
VODFSUBJOUZ

VODFSUBJOUZ
UIFO
HBWF
XBZ
UP
EJTBQQPJOUNFOU
EJTBQQPJOUNFOU

UP
JODSFEVMJUZ
BOE
IFBSUCSFBL
XIJDI
UVSOFE
JOUP

JOEJHOBUJPO
BOE
UIFO
BCTPMVUF
PVUSBHF
*G
CZ
UIF
HSBDF
PG

(PE
XF
IBE
OPU
USBOTJUJPOFE
QBTU
UIF
PVUSBHF
XF
XPVME

QSPCBCMZ
IBWF
FOEFE
VQ
JO
UIF
TBNF
TJUVBUJPO
BT
TP
NBOZ
XIP

PO
EJTDPWFSJOH
UIF
USVUI
BCPVU
&MMFO
8IJUF
BHHSFTTJWFMZ
SFTJTU

BOZ
UFBDIJOHT
UIBU
FWFO
SFTFNCMF
"EWFOUJTU4%"
EPDUSJOF

5IBOLGVMMZ
UIJT
EJE
OPU
IBQQFO
5ISPVHI
QSBZFS
GPS

EFFQFS
JOTJHIU
BOE
XJTEPN
BOE
BT
UIF
SFTVMU
PG
DPOTUBOU

SFTFBSDI
DPWFSJOH
UIF
TBNF
HSPVOE
PWFS
BOE
PWFS
GSPN

FWFSZ
QFSTQFDUJWF
UJMM
BMM
BWFOVFT
IBE
CFFO
FYIBVTUFE

4DSJQUVSF
BMXBZT
CFJOH
UIF
MBTU
XPSE
XF
XFSF
BCMF
UP
LFFQ
UIJOHT

JO
GPDVT
*O
GBDU
*
NBEF
B
QSFEFUFSNJOFE
DPOTDJPVT

DPNNJUNFOU
UIBU
PODF
*
IBE
DMFBSMZ
EFCVOLFE
BOZ
UFBDIJOH

PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
*
XPVME
HP
CBDL
BOE
PODF
NPSF
FYIBVTU
BMM

BWFOVFT
UP
USZ
WJOEJDBUJOH
IFS
BHBJO‰UP
UFTU
BOE
SFUFTU
FWFSZ

DPODMVTJPO
*U
JT
OP
TFDSFU
UIBU
NBOZ
QFPQMF
UPEBZ
GSPN
MBJUZ
UP
MFBEFSTIJQ

IBWF
B
WBSJFUZ
PG
WJFXT
PO
IPX
UIFZ
TIPVME
SFMBUF
UP
UIF
NJOJTUSZ

PG
&MMFO
(
8IJUF
*U
JT
BMTP
OP
TFDSFU
UIBU
UIFSF
BSF
NBKPS
TQMJUT

JO
UIF
DIVSDI
GSPN
UIF
(FOFSBM
$POGFSFODF
UP
EJWJTJPOT

VOJPOT
DPOGFSFODFT
DPOHSFHBUJPOT
BOE
UIFO
JOEJWJEVBM

NFNCFSTIJQ
JO
SFHBSE
UP
XIFUIFS
UIFZ
TIPVME
JOWFTU
TVQSFNF

BVUIPSJUZ
PS
BOZ
TJHOJGJDBOU
BVUIPSJUZ
JO
UIF
XSJUJOHT
PG
&MMFO

8IJUF
BU
BMM
8FSF
BMM
IFS
QVCMJTIFE
XPSLT
SFBMMZ
JOTQJSFE
CZ

(PE
PS
JT
UIFSF
TPNF
PUIFS
FYQMBOBUJPO
4PNF
QMBDF
B C T P M V U F
GBJUI
JO
BMM
TIF
IBT
UP
TBZ
JO

QSPQIFUJD
GPSFTJHIU
BOE
TQFDJGJD
JOTUSVDUJPOT
MJGFTUZMF
BOE
UIF

$ISJTUJBO
XBML
FUD

BOE
SFHBSE
IFS
BT
UIF
GJOBM
WPJDF
PG

BVUIPSJUZ
PO
BMM
NBUUFST
FWFO
BT
BMSFBEZ
BMMVEFE
UP
XIFO
JU

DPNFT
UP
UIF
JOUFSQSFUBUJPO
PG
4DSJQUVSF

5IJT
JT
B
USFOE
UIBU

TFFNT
UP
CF

NPTU

QSFWBMFOU

JO

UIF

TFMGTVQQPSUJOH

JOEFQFOEFOU
 TFDUPS
PG

UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
BOE
JO
UIF
NPSF
USBEJUJPOBM
DPOTFSWBUJWF


NBJOTUSFBN
TFDUPS
0UIFST

IBWF

XIBU

UIFZ

VOEFSTUBOE

UP

CF

B

NPSF


CBMBODFE

QSBDUJDBM

BQQSPBDI

QMBDJOH

FNQIBTJT

PO

XSJUJOHT


TVDI

BT

UIF

$POGMJDU

PG

UIF

"HFT


TFSJFT

PG

CPPLT

XIJMF


EPXOQMBZJOH

UIF

TUSPOHFS

JOTUSVDUJPOT

DPOUBJOFE

JO

UIF


5FTUJNPOJFT

UP

UIF

$IVSDI

TFSJFT

DPVOTFM

PO

ESFTT

EJFU

BOE


NBOZ

PUIFS

MJGFTUZMF

JTTVFT

FUD


*O

4%"

DJSDMFT

UIFTF

UXP


QSJNBSZ

QBSUJUJPOT

BSF

VTVBMMZ

MBCFMFE
DPOTFSWBUJWF

BOE
MJCFSBM

8IFO
DPOGSPOUFE
XJUI
UIF
TUBUFNFOU
UIBU
TIF
XBT
B
QSPQIFU


PG

(PE

BOE

UIVT

IFS

JOTUSVDUJPO

OFFET

UP

CF

VOFRVJWPDBMMZ


BQQMJFE

JO
FWFSZ

JOTUBODF

UIFZ

XJMM

SFTQPOE

CZ

TBZJOH

UIBU

TIF


IFSTFMG

TBJE
UIBU

TIF

XBT

POMZ

B

iNFTTFOHFSw

*O

TP

EPJOH

UIFZ


TVHHFTU

UIBU
TPNF
PG
XIBU
TIF
JOTUSVDUFE
JT
SFBMMZ
MFGU
VQ
UP
UIF


JOEJWJEVBM

UP

JOUFSQSFU

BOE

BQQMZ

5IF

BMUFSOBUJWF

UP

UIJT


BQQSPBDI

JT

UP

MPPL

UP

4%"

DIVSDI

IJTUPSJBOT

PS

#JCMF


TDIPMBST

GPS

GJOBM

UFBDIJOH

PO

IPX

UIFZ

TIPVME

JOUFSQSFU

UIF


NPSF
iEJGGJDVMU
UP
VOEFSTUBOEw
QPSUJPOT
PG
IFS
XSJUJOHT
4UJMM

PUIFST

B

HSPXJOH

OVNCFS

PG

4%"T

QBSUJDVMBSMZ

JO

UIF


NPSF

BGGMVFOU

8FTUFSO

/BUJPOT


TFF

IFS

JOTUSVDUJPOT

BT


FJUIFS

PVUEBUFE

BQQMZJOH

POMZ

UP

UIF

UJNF

BOE

DVMUVSF

PG

IFS


EBZ


UIBU
UIFZ

XFSF

OFWFS

BDUVBMMZ

SFMFWBOU

PS

JO

UIF

FYUSFNF


EFTQJTF

PS
JHOPSF
IFS
BMUPHFUIFS
5IFO

UIFSF

JT

UIF

NBKPSJUZ

XIP

IPME

UP

WBSJBUJPOT

PG


UIFTF
BTTPSUFE

PQJOJPOT

BOE

XIP

QSFGFS

UP

KVTU

TBZ

OPUIJOH

GPS


GFBS

PG

CFJOH

DSJUJDJ[FE

PS

BDDVTFE

PG

SPDLJOH

UIF

CPBU

"O


VODPNGPSUBCMF

iTUBUVT

RVPw

JT

SFUBJOFE

BOE

UIF
XIJUF

FMFQIBOU



DPOUJOVFT

UP

NBSDI

VQ

BOE

EPXO

UIF

QSPWFSCJBM

BJTMFT


PG

4%"

DIVSDIFT

BSPVOE
UIF
XPSME
5IF

ZPVUI

TFF

UIFTF

DPOUSBEJDUJPOT

TFOTF

UIF

VOEFSDVSSFOU


OPUJDF

UIF

EJWJTJPOT

BOE

GJOE

UIFNTFMWFT

DBVHIU

JO

B

DIVSDI

UIBU

JT


EFTQFSBUFMZ

USZJOH

UP

KVHHMF

B
XIJUF

FMFQIBOU


UIBU

JT

CPVOE

UP


TPPOFS

PS

MBUFS

DPNF

DSBTIJOH

UP

UIF

HSPVOE


"U

PUIFS

UJNFT


UIFZ

BSF

DPOGSPOUFE

XJUI



BO

PDFBO

PG



BEEJUJPOBM


FYUSBCJCMJDBM

JOTUSVDUJPO
UIF
4%"
5BMNVE
UIBU
DBOOPU
BQQBSFOUMZ


XIFO
DBSFGVMMZ
EJTTFDUFE
CF
TVCTUBOUJBUFE
CZ
UIF
DMFBS
TJNQMF

UFBDIJOHT
PG
4DSJQUVSF
*OTUFBE
PG
UIFJS
SFMJHJPVT
FYQFSJFODF

CFDPNJOH
TJNQMJGJFE
XJUI
CSPBE
HVJEFMJOFT
CBTFE
PO

BCTPMVUFMZ
DMFBS
CJCMJDBM
QSJODJQMFT
UIFSF
TFFN
UP
CF
MJTUT
BOE

MJTUT
PG
BEEFE
CZMBXT
5IFTF
UFBDIJOHT
FODPNQBTT
FWFSZ

BTQFDU
PG
UIFJS
MJWFT
TVDI
BT
ESFTT
KFXFMSZ
GPPE
ESJOL

TQPSUT
NVTJD
BOE
FOUFSUBJONFOU‰FYIBVTUJWF
JOTUSVDUJPOT
UIBU

NVTU
CF
GPMMPXFE‰UIFJS
SFMJHJPO
CFDPNFT
BO
BCTPMVUF
NJTFSZ

"OE
UIFO
UIFSF
BSF
UIF
EJSF
XBSOJOHT
PG
FUFSOBM
DPOTFRVFODF

GPS
OPU
PCFZJOH
UIFTF
iSVMFTw
"T
B
SFTVMU
UIF
ZPVUI
CFDPNF

TP
EJTDPVSBHFE
BOE
EJTJMMVTJPOFE
UIBU
UIFZ
TJNQMZ
HJWF
VQ
BOE

HFU
PVU
BT
GBTU
BT
UIFZ
QPTTJCMZ
DBO
"EEFE
UP
UIJT
XIJMF
IFBSJOH

BMM
UIFTF
UFBDIJOHT
PG
iFUFSOBM
DPOTFRVFODF w
UIFZ
TFF

TPNFUIJOH
DPNQMFUFMZ
EJGGFSFOU
JO
UIF
FYBNQMF
PG
UIFJS
DIVSDI

MFBEFST‰DPGGFF
ESJOLJOH
NFBUFBUJOH
DPOTVNQUJPO
PG

BMDPIPM
DPNQFUJUJWF
TQPSUT
BOE
NPEFT
PG
ESFTT
UIBU
DMFBSMZ

WJPMBUF
UIF
TUBOEBSET
HJWFO
CZ
&MMFO
8IJUF
5IF

VOBWPJEBCMF
SFTQPOTF
iJG
UIF
MFBEFST
DBOOPU
EP
JU
XIZ
TIPVME

XF
CF
FYQFDUFE
UP w
5P
BEE
GVFM
UP
UIF
DPOUSPWFSTZ
UIFSF
BSF
UIF
NBOZ
WFSZ
WPDBM
BOE

PGUFO
WFIFNFOU
DSJUJDT
XIP
DPOTUBOUMZ
QVCMJTI
UIFJS
DPODMVTJPOT

PWFS
UIF
JOUFSOFU
CSJOHJOH
QFPQMFT
BUUFOUJPO
UP
XIBU
UIFZ
TFF
BT

HMBSJOH
DPOUSBEJDUJPOT
JO
UIF
XSJUJOHT
BOE
MJGFIJTUPSZ
PG

&MMFO
8IJUF
5IVT
CZ
EJTDSFEJUJOH
IFS
UIFZ
TFFL
UP
TIPX
UIBU

UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
CFDBVTF
PG
UIF
FNQIBTJT
JU
QMBDFT
PO
JUT

iQSPQIFUFTT w
JT
KVTU
BOPUIFS
POF
PG
UIF
NBOZ
DVMUT
JO

$ISJTUJBOJUZ
UPEBZ
"
OVNCFS
PG
UIFTF
JOEJWJEVBMT
ZFU
OPU
BMM
PG

UIFN
BSF
FYNFNCFST
PG
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
TPNF
PG
UIFN
XFSF

PODF
QBTUPST
PS
DIVSDI
MFBEFST

*O
GBDU
UIFSF
BSF
B
OVNCFS

XIP
BSF
TUJMM
NFNCFST
PG
UIF
4%"
EFOPNJOBUJPO
0G
DPVSTF
UIF
IJTUPSZ
PG
DSJUJDJTN
HPFT
CBDL
UP
UIF
UJNF
PG

&MMFO
8IJUF
IFSTFMG
$BOSJHIU
#BMMFOHFS
,FMMPHH
+POFT

8BHHPOFS
BOE
PUIFST
DSJUJDJ[FE
&MMFO
8IJUF
UP
WBSJPVT
EFHSFFT

BOE
BU
TPNF
QPJOU
JO
UJNF
XFSF
QSPNJOFOU
MFBEFST
JO
UIF
4%"

$IVSDI

*O

SFDFOU

EFDBEFT

PUIFST
TVDI

BT
8BMUFS
3FB


GPSNFS

4%"
1BTUPS

BVUIPS
PG
5IF
8IJUF
-JF
%FTNPOE
'PSE

GPSNFS
4%"
QSPGFTTPS
BOE
#JCMF
TDIPMBS

BOE
B
TUSJOH
PG
MFTTFS

LOPXO
DSJUJDT
IBWF
BEEFE
UIFJS
WPJDF
UP
UIF
MJTU
PG
EFUSBDUPST
GPS

SFBTPOT
UIFZ
SJHIUGVMMZ
TFF
BT
SFMFWBOU
5IF
$IVSDI
BOE
JO
QBSUJDVMBS
UIF
&MMFO
(
8IJUF
&TUBUF

IBWF
QVCMJTIFE
PGGJDJBM
SFTQPOTFT
UP
DSJUJDJTNT
TVDI
BT
UIF
GBNPVT

CPPL
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
)FS
$SJUJDT
CZ
'SBODJT
/JDIPM

JO
BO

BUUFNQU
UP
TIPX
VQ
UIF
WJOEJDUJWFOFTT
QSFKVEJDF
BOEPS

JOBDDVSBDZ
PG
UIPTF
TQFBLJOH
PVU
BHBJOTU
&MMFO
8IJUF
4PNF
PG

UIFTF
EFGFOTFT
IBWF
CFFO
FGGFDUJWF
FTQFDJBMMZ
XIFO
BEESFTTJOH

TPNF
PG
UIF
XFBLFS
PS
NPSF
PQQPSUVOJTUJD
iTUSBXHSBCCJOHw

BUUFNQUT
CZ
UIF
DSJUJDT

XIJMF
TPNF
IBWF
OPU
CFFO
BEFRVBUF

BU
BMM
5IJT
IBT
FTQFDJBMMZ
CFFO
UIF
DBTF
XIFO
JOUFMMJHFOU

DSJUJDJTNT
CBTFE
PO
GBDUVBM
IBSEDPSF
FWJEFODFT
IBWF
CFFO

QSFTFOUFE
*OEFFE
JO
NBOZ
JOTUBODFT
UIF
DIBSBDUFS
PS
MJGF
PG

TPNF
DSJUJDT
IBWF
CFFO
BUUBDLFE
JOTUFBE
PG
UIF
BDUVBM
TVCKFDU

NBUUFS
*O
PUIFS
DBTFT
SFTQPOTFT
UP
DSJUJDJTNT
IBWF
TLJSUFE
UIF

SFBM
JTTVF
PS
BU
CFTU
SFOEFSFE
POMZ
BOPUIFS
JOUFSQSFUBUJPO

UP
UIBU
PG
UIF
DSJUJDT
JOTQJSJOH
FWFO
NPSF
RVFTUJPOT
JOTUFBE

PG
DPNQMFUFMZ
EJTQFMMJOH
BMM
EPVCU
*
XJMM
BEESFTT
UIFTF
JTTVFT
JO

UIF
BDUVBM
CPPL

5IF
BDDVTBUJPO
PG
QMBHJBSJTN
MFWFMFE
BU
&MMFO
8IJUF
JO
UIF

CPPL
5IF
8IJUF
-JF
CZ
8BMUFS
3FB
XFSF
BQQBSFOUMZ
EFCVOLFE
‰UIF
PVUDPNF
PG
B
MFOHUIZ
DPVSU
DBTF
5IJT
4%"
WJDUPSZ
JT

PGUFO
CSBOEJTIFE
BT
QSJNBSZ
FWJEFODF
BHBJOTU
UIF
DSJUJDT
:FU

XIBU
NPTU
QFPQMF
EP
OPU
SFBMJ[F
JT
UIBU
UIFSF
IBT
CFFO

TVCTUBOUJBMMZ
NPSF
DPNNVOJDBUJPO
PO
UIJT
NBUUFS
CFUXFFO

QFPQMF
BU
UIF
&MMFO
(
8IJUF
&TUBUF
BOE
8BMUFS
3FB
IJNTFMG

UIBU
TFFN
UP
QBJOU
B
EJTUVSCJOHMZ
EJGGFSFOU
QJDUVSF
*G
UIF

USVUI
CF
UPME
BOE
JU
XJMM
UIFSF
BSF
PUIFS
JTTVFT
JO
SFMBUJPO
UP

&MMFO
8IJUF‰IFS
MJGF
BOE
IFS
XSJUJOHT
BT
UIFZ
SFMBUF
UP

4DSJQUVSF
BOE
NPSF‰UIBU
XJMM
NBLF
UIF
BDDVTBUJPO
PG
QMBHJBSJTN

BEESFTTFE
JO
5IF
8IJUF
-JF
MPPL
MJLF
B
NJOPS
PGGFOTF
*O
UIJT
CPPL
UIF
IJTUPSJDBM
SFDPSE
PG
&MMFO
8IJUFT
MJGF
BOE

XPSL
PGGJDJBM
BOE
VOPGGJDJBM

XJMM
CF
JOWFTUJHBUFE


CZ
FYBNJOJOH

4%"
BOE
OPO4%"
TPVSDFT
7PJDFT
PG
UIPTF
UIBU
XFSF
DMPTF

UP
IFS
BU
WBSJPVT
UJNFT
BOE
BU
EJGGFSFOU
MFWFMT
EVSJOH
IFS
MJGF

XJMM
CF
BMMPXFE
UP
UFTUJGZ‰QPTJUJWFMZ
PS
OFHBUJWFMZ
"SHVNFOUT

BOE
DPVOUFS
BSHVNFOUT
XJMM
CF
QSFTFOUFE
BOE
FYBNJOFE
"O

JOUFHSBM
QBSU
PG
UIF
JOWFTUJHBUJPO
BOE
VMUJNBUF
DPODMVTJPO
XJMM

CF
CBTFE
PO
UIF
FWJEFODF
PG
&MMFO
(
8IJUFT
PXO
XPSET
5IF

XFJHIU
PG
FWJEFODF
JO
MJHIU
PG
"--
DPOTJEFSBUJPOT
XJMM
IFMQ
UP

BSUJDVMBUF
B
GJOBM
WFSEJDU
"MUIPVHI
*
NJHIU
OPU
DPWFS
FWFSZ
DSJUJDJTN
PS
RVFTUJPO

UIBU
IBT
FWFS
CFFO
QSFTFOUFE
*
XJMM
TIBSF
FOPVHI
FWJEFODF
UP

BEESFTT
UIF
QSJNBSZ
DBUFHPSJFT
PG
DPODFSO
BOE
XJMM
GPS
SFBTPOT

UIBU
XJMM
CF
DMFBSMZ
TUBUFE

JO
NZ
DMPTJOH
BSHVNFOU
VSHF
UIF

OFDFTTJUZ
VQPO
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
UP
DMFBSMZ
BOE
PGGJDJBMMZ
BEESFTT

UIF
JTTVF
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
-FU
JU
OPU
CF
NJTVOEFSTUPPE
FWFO
UIPVHI
*
EP
OPU
BHSFF

XJUI
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
PO
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
UIF
FGGFDU
IFS

UFBDIJOHT
IBWF
IBE
PO
NBOZ
PG
UIFJS
DPSF
CFMJFGT
*
MPWF
UIF

DIVSDI
BOE
JUT
NFNCFST
MFBEFST
BOE
MBJUZ
BMJLF
*
SFDPHOJ[F
UIF

USFNFOEPVT
BNPVOU
PG
HPPE
UIJT
EFOPNJOBUJPO
IBT
EPOF

BSPVOE
UIF
XPSME
BOE
LOPX
UIBU
TP
NBOZ
XIP
BSF
JOWPMWFE
JO

UIFTF
FGGPSUT
EP
TP
PVU
PG
MPWF
GPS
(PE
BOE
UIFJS
GFMMPXNBO
*U
JT
IPXFWFS
B
NBUUFS
PG
FYUSFNF
VSHFODZ
UIBU
UIF
4%"

$IVSDI
SFDPHOJ[F
UIBU
GSPN
XJUIPVU
BOE
XJUIJO
BU
UIF
IJHIFTU

MFWFMT
PG
DIVSDI
TUSVDUVSF
UIFSF
BSF
IJEEFO
BHFOEBT
EPVCMF

EFBMJOH
BOE
EFOJBM
"U
UIF
MPXFS
MFWFMT
UIFSF
JT
SJHIUGVMMZ
PS

XSPOHGVMMZ
TVTQJDJPO
BOE
GFBS
UIBU
UIF
DIVSDI
IBT
DPNQSPNJTFE

JUT
NJTTJPO
5IF
VQTIPU
PG
UIFTF
QSPCMFNT
IBT
QSPEVDFE

FYUSFNF
GBOBUJDJTN
PO
UIF
POF
IBOE
BOE
FYUSFNF
MJCFSBMJTN

PO
UIF
PUIFS
"MM
PG
UIJT
DBO
FJUIFS
EJSFDUMZ
PS
JOEJSFDUMZ
CF

USBDFE
UP
UIF
BVUIPSJUZ
FYFSDJTFE
CZ
&MMFO
8IJUFT
UFBDIJOHT

UIBU
PGUFO
TVQFSTFEF
FWFO
UIF
8PSE
PG
(PE
JUTFMG
PS
UIF
LOFF
KFSL
SFBDUJPO
JO
SFKFDUJPO
PG
IFS
UFBDIJOHT
UIBU
MFBE
UP

VOTDSJQUVSBM
EPDUSJOF
BOE
QSBDUJDF‰FJUIFS
XBZ
TDSJQUVSBM

BVUIPSJUZ
JT
TBDSJGJDFE
5IPTF
XIP
BSF
USZJOH
UP
CF
iCBMBODFEw
BSF
DPOUJOVBMMZ
GBDFE

XJUI
UIF
TQFDUFS
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
JO
UIBU
JU
TFFNT
UP
CF

WJSUVBMMZ
JNQPTTJCMF
GPS
UIFN
UP
EP
XIBU
UIFZ
CFMJFWF
UP
CF

TDSJQUVSBM
XJUIPVU
CFJOH
DPOTUBOUMZ
SFNJOEFE
PG
UIPTF

JOTUSVDUJPOT
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
UIBU
DBOOPU
CF
GPVOE
JO
UIF

TDSJQUVSFT
*U
JT
UIVT
NZ
TJODFSF
IPQF
BOE
EFTJSF
UIBU
UIF
SFBEFS
XJMM

TFF
UIBU
*
BN
BUUFNQUJOH
UP
CSJOH
UP
HSFBUFS
MJHIU
BOE

DMBSJUZ
UIF
POMZ
USVF
BOE
USVTUXPSUIZ
GPVOEBUJPO
GPS

$ISJTUJBO
MJGF
BOE
UFBDIJOH‰UIF
#JCMF
*G
JU
EPFT
OPU
TQFBL

BDDPSEJOH
UP
XIBU
JT
DMFBSMZ
BOE
VOBNCJHVPVTMZ
SFWFBMFE
JO

4DSJQUVSF
UIFO
UIFSF
JT
OP
MJHIU
JO
JU
*TBJBI


i2VFODI

OPU
UIF
4QJSJU
%FTQJTF
OPU
QSPQIFTZJOHT
1SPWF
BMM
UIJOHT
IPME

GBTU
UIBU
XIJDI
JT
HPPEw

5IFTTBMPOJBOT


5IJT
JT
UIF

TDSJQUVSBM
JOKVODUJPO
BOE
UIJT
JT
NZ
NPUJWBUJPO
 Author’s
Recommendation

*U
NJHIU
CF
UIBU
TPNF
QSPTQFDUJWF
SFBEFST
BSF
KVTU
DVSJPVT

BOE
XBOU
UP
QFSVTF
PS
TDBO
UIF
NBJO
QPJOUT
PG
UIJT
CPPL
0UIFST

XIJMF
EFTJSJOH
UP
SFBE
FWFSZ
QBHF
NBZ
TUJMM
CF
MPPLJOH
GPS
B

SFMBUJWFMZ
FBTZ
SFBE
)PXFWFS
*
EP
TVTQFDU
UIBU
UIF
NBKPSJUZ

XJMM
XBOU
UP
EFMWF
JOUP
BMM
UIF
FWJEFODFT
BOE
BSHVNFOUT
*

QSFTFOU‰PG
XIJDI
UIFSF
JT
QMFOUZ
8JUI
UIFTF
DPOTJEFSBUJPOT
JO

NJOE
*
XPVME
MJLF
UP
NBLF
B
GFX
SFDPNNFOEBUJPOT
*G
ZPV
TJNQMZ
XBOU
UP
TDBO
PS
iTQPUDIFDLw
UIJT
CPPL
TP
BT
UP

HBJO
BO
PWFSBMM
JNQSFTTJPO
UIFO
QMFBTF
CFBS
JO
NJOE
GSPN

UIF
PVUTFU
UIBU
ZPV
XJMM
OPU
XBML
BXBZ
XJUI
B
UIPSPVHI

LOPXMFEHF
PG
BMM
UIJT
XPSL
DPOUBJOT
&WFO
TP
CZ
BMM
NFBOT

SFBE
JU
BOZXBZ
CFDBVTF
JU
NBZ
XFMM
CF
UIBU
JO
UIF
QFSVTJOH
PG

UIF
CPPL
ZPV
XJMM
GFFM
JOTQJSFE
UP
EJH
NPSF
EFFQMZ
PS
BU
UIF
WFSZ

MFBTU
DPNF
CBDL
UP
JU
BHBJO
BU
B
MBUFS
EBUF
5IPTF
XIP
BSF
MPPLJOH
GPS
BO
FBTJFS
SFBE
CVU
TUJMM
JOUFOE

UP
DPWFS
FBDI
QBHF
DBO
HBJO
DPOTJEFSBCMF
LOPXMFEHF
PG
UIF

TVCKFDU
CZ
TJNQMZ
OPU
TQFOEJOH
BO
JOPSEJOBUF
BNPVOU
PG

UJNF
JO
UIF
NPSF
TDIPMBSMZJOGPMBEFO
QPSUJPOT
PG
UIF
CPPL

)PXFWFS
*
XPVME
TVHHFTU
UIBU
TVDI
SFBEFST
XIFO
EPJOH

UIFJS
GJSTU
iFBTZ
SFBEw
DPOTJEFS
BQQSPBDIJOH
UIF
CPPL
B

TFDPOE
UJNF
XJUI
B
NJOE
UP
EFMWF
NPSF
EFFQMZ
5IF
SFBEFS
XIP
XBOUT
UP
TDSVUJOJ[F
BMM
UIF
JOGPSNBUJPO
XJUI

UIF
JOUFOUJPO
PG
EPJOH
BEEJUJPOBM
SFTFBSDI
UIFNTFMWFT
XJMM

GJOE
QMFOUZ
UP
LFFQ
UIFN
CVTZ
GPS
B
MPOH
UJNF
*OEFFE
BT

NFOUJPOFE
FMTFXIFSF
JO
UIJT
XPSL
*
FODPVSBHF
BO

JOWFTUJHBUPSZ
UZQF
PG
BQQSPBDI
*O
GBDU
FWFO
UIPVHI
UIJT
CPPL

JT
MFOHUIZ
BOE
DPOUBJOT
TP
NVDI
*
DPVME
FBTJMZ
IBWF
XSJUUFO

BOPUIFS
XIPMF
WPMVNF
QSFTFOUJOH
FWFO
NPSF
FWJEFODF
UIBO
JT

DPOUBJOFE
JO
UIJT
QSFTFOU
XPSL‰UIJT
NBZ
ZFU
CF
GPSUIDPNJOH
*
XJTI
BMM
NZ
SFBEFST
NBOZ
QSPEVDUJWF
IPVST
PG
SFBEJOH
BOE

NPTU
PG
BMM
EFTJSF
UIBU
UIF
SFBEJOH
PG
UIJT
CPPL
XJMM
JOTQJSF
BMM

UP
NBLF
UIF
#JCMF
UIF
TVQSFNF
TUBOEBSE
CZ
XIJDI
UIFZ
XJMM

UFTU
BOZUIJOH
BOE
FWFSZUIJOH
UIBU
DMBJNT
UP
DPNF
GSPN
(PE

—Brian S. Neumann
 5IJT
CPPL
JT
EFEJDBUFE
UP
BMM
UIPTF
XIP
BSF

TFBSDIJOH
GPS
USVUI‰OP
NBUUFS
XIBU
UIF
DPTU
 Contents
Chapter I: The Standard ........................................................... 37

Chapter II: In Vision ................................................................ 59

Chapter III: Prophets & Pretenders.......................................... 69

Chapter IV: The Anvil Strikes ................................................ 127

Chapter V: The Shut Door ..................................................... 163

Chapter VI: Here a Little, There a Little ................................ 203

Chapter VII: The Fannie Bolton Story ................................... 247

Chapter VIII: Black & White ................................................ 279

Chapter IX: The Word or White ............................................ 321

Chapter X: A Case in Point .................................................... 345

Chapter XI: Where in Scripture is it? ..................................... 381

Chapter XII: 2300 Days—Alternative .................................... 433

Chapter XIII: The American Exception ................................. 517

Chapter XIV: Visions of War ................................................. 573

Chapter XV: To Vote or Not to Vote ...................................... 613

Chapter XVI: A Trunk-Full of Contradictions ....................... 685

Author’s Plea .......................................................................... 753

 A Personal Testimony

Kamy Lynn Smith—joining the

SDA Faith
*
XBT
FJHIU
ZFBST
PME
XIFO
NZ
GBUIFS
%BWJE
4NJUI
FYDJUFEMZ

BOOPVODFE
UIBU
XF
XFSF
HPJOH
UP
BUUFOE
TPNF

FWBOHFMJTUJD
NFFUJOHT
CFJOH
IFME
JO
UIF
FWFOJOHT
JO
BO

BVEJUPSJVN
JO
B
UPXO
JO
$PMPSBEP
XIFSF
XF
MJWFE
BU
UIF

UJNF
)JT
FOUIVTJBTN
XBT
NBJOMZ
TQBSLFE
CFDBVTF
PG
IJT
FWFS

JODSFBTJOH
JOUFSFTU
JO
UIF
QSPQIFUJD
CPPLT
PG
%BOJFM
BOE

3FWFMBUJPO
BOE
IJT
EFTJSF
UP
VOEFSTUBOE
BT
NVDI
BT
IF
DPVME

BCPVU
UIF
USVUIT
JO
UIF
#JCMF
)JT
FBSOFTUOFTT
UP
CFMJFWF
BOE

GPMMPX
UIF
USVUI
IBE
MFE
PVS
GBNJMZ
PVU
PG
UIF
$BUIPMJD
DIVSDI

UP
XIJDI
NZ
NPUIFST
FOUJSF
GBNJMZ
CFMPOHFE
BOE
UISPVHI

TFWFSBM
PUIFS
1SPUFTUBOU
EFOPNJOBUJPOT
BOE
WBSJPVT
PUIFS

UZQFT
PG
DIVSDIFT
TPNF
PG
XIJDI
XFSF
NPSF
PS
MFTT
JOUPMFSBOU

PG
UIF
JEFB
UIBU
(PET
QFPQMF
DPVME
CF
GPVOE
JO
PUIFS
DIVSDIFT

UIBO
UIFNTFMWFT
5IF
MBTU
GFX
ZFBST
IBE
GPVOE
VT
JO
UIF
#BQUJTU
DIVSDI
XIJDI
NZ

QBSFOUT
GFMU
IFME
UP
B
#JCMJDBM
WJFX
PG
TBMWBUJPO
BOE
UIF
HPTQFM
CVU

XBT
RVJUF
MBDLJOH
JO
QSPQIFUJD
VOEFSTUBOEJOH
TP
NZ
GBUIFS
XBT

WFSZ
IBQQZ
UP
GJOE
B
QMBDF
UP
HFU
TPNF
PG
IJT
RVFTUJPOT
BOTXFSFE
.Z
QBSFOUT
XFSF
JNQSFTTFE
XJUI
UIF
FWBOHFMJTUT
LOPXMFEHF
PG

UIF
#JCMF
BOE
XFSF
XBSNMZ
HSFFUFE
BOE
FODPVSBHFE
BU
FBDI

NFFUJOH
5IFZ
MFBSOFE
BCPVU
UIF
4BCCBUI
PG
UIF
GPVSUI

DPNNBOENFOU
BOE
UIF
HJGU
PG
SFTU
BOE
SFMBUJPOTIJQ
UIBU
JU


CSPVHIU
5IFZ
MFBSOFE
PUIFS

JNQPSUBOU
#JCMJDBM
USVUIT
UIBU

UIFZ
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

IBE
OPU
GPVOE
JO
UIF
PUIFS
DIVSDIFT
UIFZ
IBE
QSFWJPVTMZ
BUUFOEFE

BOE
TBX
OP
SFBTPO
UP
OPU
CFHJO
BUUFOEJOH
B
4BCCBUI

LFFQJOH
DPNNBOENFOU
LFFQJOH
CJCMJDBMMZ
CBTFE
DIVSDI

8IFSF
XPVME
UIFZ
GJOE
TVDI
B
QMBDF
5IF
TQFBLFS
PG
UIF

3FWFMBUJPO
TFNJOBST
IBE
OFWFS
NFOUJPOFE
B
QBSUJDVMBS

EFOPNJOBUJPO
*O
GBDU
UIF
NFFUJOHT
XFSF
CJMMFE
BT
OPO
EFOPNJOBUJPOBM
'JOBMMZ
NZ
QBSFOUT
BQQSPBDIFE
UIF
FWBOHFMJTU
BOE
BTLFE

XIBU
DIVSDI
XBT
TVQQPSUJOH
UIF
NFFUJOHT
i5IJT
JT

OPOEFOPNJOBUJPOBMw
)F
FNQIBUJDBMMZ
TUBUFE
i8FMM
XIBU

DIVSDI
EP
ZPV
BUUFOE
UIFO w
.Z
NPUIFS
NPSF
QPJOUFEMZ

BTLFE
i0I
*
QFSTPOBMMZ
BN
B
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTUw
UIF

FWBOHFMJTU
SFQMJFE
.Z
QBSFOUT
IBE
OFWFS
IFBSE
PG
UIF

4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
$IVSDI
BOE
UIFSFGPSF
OP
OFHBUJWF
PS

QSFDPODFJWFE
JEFBT
DSPTTFE
UIFJS
NJOET
BT
IF
GJOBMMZ
EJWVMHFE

UIJT
JOGPSNBUJPO
i8FMM
XF
NJHIU
BT
XFMM
GJOE
POF
UP
BUUFOE

UIFO
BOE
HP
UP
DIVSDI
PO
UIF
#JCMF
4BCCBUIw
5IF
FWBOHFMJTU

XBT
FMBUFE
BOE
JNNFEJBUFMZ
CFHBO
UP
NBLF
BSSBOHFNFOUT
GPS

PVS
CBQUJTNT
.Z
NPUIFS
XIJMF
WJTJUJOH
B
OFJHICPS
XBT
TIBSJOH
TPNF
PG

UIF
OFX
USVUIT
TIF
XBT
MFBSOJOH
BCPVU
XIFO
UIF
XPNBO

CFDBNF
JOUFSFTUFE
BOE
BTLFE
XIJDI
DIVSDI
XBT
CFIJOE
JU
.Z

NPUIFS
UPME
IFS
UIF
TQFBLFS
XBT
B
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
"
GFX

EBZT
MBUFS
UIJT
XPNBO
TBJE
DPODFSOFEMZ
i:PV
LOPX
UIFZ
BSF
B

DVMU
SJHIU w
.Z
NPUIFS
HB[FE
BU
IFS
XJUI
IFS
CJH
CMVF

JORVJTJUJWF
FZFT
BOE
BTLFE
XIBU
TIF
NFBOU
i5IFZ
GPMMPX
UIF

UFBDIJOHT
PG
B
XPNBO
OBNFE
&MMFO
8IJUF
*
IBWF
B
CPPL
ZPV

TIPVME
SFBE
DBMMFE
5IF
8IJUF
-JF
5IFZ
EP
OPU
POMZ
VTF
UIF

#JCMF
GPS
UIFJS
TPVSDF
PG
EPDUSJOF
BOE
UFBDIJOH
BOE
UIF
XPNBO

UIFZ
DBMM
B
QSPQIFU
QMBHJBSJ[FE
NVDI
PG
XIBU
TIF
DMBJNT
UP
CF

EJWJOFMZ
JOTQJSFEw
5IF
MBTU
UIJOH
NZ
QBSFOUT
XBOUFE
UP
EP
XBT
KPJO
B
DVMU
BT
UIFZ

XFSF
GBNJMJBS
XJUI
DIVSDIFT
UIBU
TUBSUFE
GPMMPXJOH
POF
QFSTPO

BOE
CFMJFWJOH
UIBU
UIFZ
XFSF
UIF
POMZ
USVF
DIVSDI
TP
UIJT
QVU
BO

JNNFEJBUF
EBNQFS
PO
NZ
QBSFOUT
FOUIVTJBTN
BOE
XJMMJOHOFTT
UP

CF
CBQUJ[FE
BOE
KPJO
UIJT
OFX
GPVOE
DIVSDI
5IF
OFYU
FWFOJOH
UIFZ


BQQSPBDIFE

UIF

TQFBLFS
BOE

BTLFE
IJN
XIP
&MMFO
8IJUF

XBT
 Th e W h i t
e E l e p h a n t

BOE
XIZ
TIF
IBE
OPU
FWFO
CFFO
NFOUJPOFE
EVSJOH
UIF
NFFUJOHT
BOE

FTQFDJBMMZ
XIFO
UIFZ
XFSF
HFUUJOH
SFBEZ
UP
KPJO
UIF
DIVSDI
)F
BOE

POF
PG
UIF
QBTUPST
CFHBO
UP
BTTVSF
NZ
QBSFOUT
UIBU
BMUIPVHI

&MMFO
8IJUF
XBT
POF
PG
UIF
GPVOEFST
PG
UIF
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU

$IVSDI
BOE
UIFZ
IBWF
UIF
XSJUJOHT
PG
XIBU
UIFZ
QFSTPOBMMZ
DPOTJEFS

UP
CF
B
NPEFSO
EBZ
QSPQIFU
BOE
CFMJFWF
(PE
TQPLF
UISPVHI
IFS
BCPVU

WBSJPVT
UIJOHT
UP
IFMQ
UIF
DIVSDI
UIBU
UIF
DIVSDI
JO
OP
XBZ
CBTFE

UIFJS
EPDUSJOF
PS
UFBDIJOHT
PO
IFS
XSJUJOHT
BOE
UIBU
ZPV
EJE
OPU
IBWF

UP
CFMJFWF
JO
&MMFO
8IJUF
UP
CF
B
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
CFDBVTF
BMM

UIF
EPDUSJOF
XBT
CBTFE
PO
UIF
#JCMF
"U
UIBU
UJNF
UIF
JOUFSOFU
EJE
OPU
FYJTU
BOE
UIFZ
XFSF
OPU
BCMF
UP

SFTFBSDI
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
EJE
OPU
LOPX
FOPVHI
BCPVU
UIF

QMBHJBSJTN
JTTVF
UP
VOEFSTUBOE
BOZ
PG
UIBU
TP
XJUI
UIF
BTTVSBODF
PG

UIF
FWBOHFMJTU
BOE
QBTUPS
PG
UIF
DIVSDI
JO
UIF
UPXO
NZ
QBSFOUT

XPVME
TPPO
CF
NPWJOH
UP
UIFZ
XFSF
QFSTVBEFE
UIBU
UIFSF
XBT
OP

SFBTPO
OPU
UP
KPJO
#PUI
NZ
QBSFOUT
BMPOH
XJUI
NZ
TJTUFS
BOE
*

XFSF
CBQUJ[FE
JOUP
UIF
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
DIVSDI
JO

*

XBT
FJHIU
BOE
NZ
TJTUFS
XBT
TJY
POMZ
NZ
ZPVOHFTU
TJTUFS
XIP

XBT
GPVS
XBT
OPU
CBQUJ[FE
ZFU
8F
TPPO
EJTDPWFSFE
UIF
iHIPTUw
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
XBT
NPSF

JOGMVFOUJBM
UIBO
XF
XFSF
GJSTU
MFE
UP
CFMJFWF
BT
XF
XFSF
NBEF

BXBSF
PG
TPNF
VOBDDFQUBCMF
UIJOHT
XF
XFSF
EPJOH
'PS
FYBNQMF
NZ

4BCCBUI
TDIPPM
UFBDIFS
LJOEMZ
BOE
*N
TVSF
XJUI
UIF
CFTU
PG

JOUFOUJPOT
*
EP
OPU
TBZ
UIJT
TBSDBTUJDBMMZ

JOGPSNFE
NZ
TJTUFST

BOE
*
UIBU
PVS
NPUIFS
TIPVME
OPU
CF
XFBSJOH
KFXFMSZ
JODMVEJOH

IFS
XFEEJOH
SJOH
6OUJM
UIFO
XF
IBE
OPU
CFFO
BXBSF
PG
UIFTF

FYUSBCJCMJDBM
UFBDIJOHT‰JOTUSVDUJPOT
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
.Z
'BUIFS

XBT
NPSF
PQFO
NJOEFE
BOE
XJMMJOH
UP
TUVEZ
UIF
XSJUJOHT
PG
&MMFO

8IJUF
UIBO
NZ
NPUIFS
CVU
NZ
NPUIFS
EJE
FOKPZ
4UFQT
UP

$ISJTU
BOE
SFBE
TPNF
PG
UIF
NPSF
XJEFMZ
TQSFBE
CPPLT
MJLF
UIF

%FTJSF
PG
"HFT
BOE
5IF
(SFBU
$POUSPWFSTZ
0O
UIF
XIPMF
NZ
NPUIFS
UPPL
&MMFO
8IJUF
XJUI
B
QSPWFSCJBM

HSBJO
PG
TBMU
BMUIPVHI
OPU
EJTDMBJNJOH
IFS
BT
(PET
NFTTFOHFS
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

TIF
EJE
OPU
UBLF
UIF
UJNF
UP
SFBMMZ
TUVEZ
IFS
XSJUJOHT
PS
NBLF
UIF

UFBDIJOHT
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
BO
JOUFHSBM
QBSU
PG
IFS
CFMJFGT

XIFSFBT
PWFS
UJNF
NZ
GBUIFS
EJE
BOE
DBNF
UP
BDDFQU
IFS
BT
B
USVF

QSPQIFU
BOE
BVUIPSJUZ
PO
BMM
UIJOHT
TQJSJUVBM
0G
DPVSTF
BT

NPTU
QFPQMF
EP
IF
GPVOE
TPNF
UIJOHT
FBTJFS
UP
TXBMMPX
BOE

GPMMPX
UIBO
PUIFST
CVU
IF
EJE
UFOE
UPXBSET
NPSF
PG
B
MFHBMJTUJD

NJOETFU
BOE
TUSVHHMFE
CPUI
QFSTPOBMMZ
BOE
XJUI
IJT

GBNJMZ
PO
IPX
DPOTFSWBUJWF
POF
TIPVME
MJWF
8F
USJFE
HJWJOH
VQ
NFBU
FWFO
EBJSZ
GPS
B
TIPSU

BOE
VOQMFBTBOU
UJNF

BOE
XJUI
UIF
SFTQPOTJCJMJUZ
PG
SBJTJOH

UISFF
EBVHIUFST
NZ
GBUIFS
XBT
NPSF
UIBO
IBQQZ
UP
NBLF
TVSF

XF
XFSF
FYUSFNFMZ
NPEFTUMZ
BUUJSFE
*
TBZ
UIJT
BMM
XJUI
GPOE

IVNPS
JO
SFNFNCSBODF
PG
NZ
GBUIFS
BOE
OPUIJOH
CVU
UIF

VUNPTU
SFTQFDU
)PXFWFS
*
LOPX
NZ
GBUIFS
TUSVHHMFE
IPQFMFTTMZ

BHBJOTU
GFFMJOHT
PG
JOTVGGJDJFODZ
BOE
HVJMU
)F
TFFNFE
OFWFS

SFBMMZ
TFDVSF
JO
IJT
CFMJFG
UIBU
IF
XBT
TBWFE
BOE
UIBU
+FTVT
IBE

GPSHJWFO
IJN
PG
BMM
IJT
QBTU
TJOT
BOE
QSFTFOU
GBJMVSFT
BMXBZT

EFNBOEJOH
QFSGFDUJPO
JO
IJNTFMG
BOE
PUIFST
NPUJWBUFE
CZ
B
USVF

BOE
IPOFTU
EFTJSF
UP
CF
BDDFQUBCMF
JO
(PET
TJHIU
)F
XBT
BMXBZT

TUSVHHMJOH
XJUI
XIBU
IF
LOFX
UIBU
+FTVT
EJFE
BOE
QBJE
JU
BMM
GPS

IJN
PO
UIF
DSPTT
CVU
ZFU
UIF
JEFB
UIBU
POF
NVTU
POF
EBZ

CFDPNF
QFSGFDU
BOE
FWFO
TUBOE
CFGPSF
(PE
XJUIPVU
B
NFEJBUPS

BT
TUBUFE
JO
&MMFO
8IJUFT
CPPL
5IF
(SFBU
$POUSPWFSTZ

XBT

EBVOUJOH
BOE
VOEFSTUBOEBCMZ
MFGU
IJN
PO
TIBLZ
HSPVOE
.Z
NPUIFS
OFWFS
BDDFQUFE
UIJT
BOE
PUIFS
RVFTUJPOBCMF
OPUJPOT

BCPVU
TBMWBUJPO
.PSF
BOE
NPSF
PG
UIF
TUBUFNFOUT
BOE
UFBDIJOHT
PG

&MMFO
8IJUF
CFDBNF
B
TPVSDF
PG
NBOZ
CJUUFS
BSHVNFOUT

CFUXFFO
NZ
QBSFOUT
UIBU
NZ
TJTUFST
BOE
*
VOGPSUVOBUFMZ
IBE
UP

XJUOFTT
"T
*
HSFX
PMEFS
BOE
FOUFSFE
"EWFOUJTU
TDIPPMT
BOE

DPMMFHFT
*
CFDBNF
LFFOMZ
BXBSF
PG
UIF
GBDU
UIBU
JO
BMM
IPOFTUZ
POF

DPVME
OPU
SFBMMZ
CF
B
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
BOE
OPU
CFMJFWF
JO

&MMFO
8IJUF
BT
TPNF
PG
UIF
WFSZ
GPVOEBUJPOT
PG
UIF
DIVSDI
BOE
JUT

CFMJFGT
XFSF
SPPUFE
JO
IFS
iJOTQJSFE
QFOw
BOE
FWFO
UIF
#JCMF

XBT
CFJOH
JOUFSQSFUFE
UISPVHI
UIF
NBHOJGZJOH

HMBTT
PG

UIF
iTQJSJU
 Th e W h i t
e E l e p h a n t

PG
QSPQIFDZw
XIJDI
XBT
BT
*
IBE
CFFO
UBVHIU
CZ
TPNF
QBTUPST

UFBDIFST
BOE
FWBOHFMJTUT
&MMFO
8IJUFT
XSJUJOHT
"GUFS
NZ
GBUIFS
USBHJDBMMZ
EJFE
BU
B
ZPVOH
BOE
VOFYQFDUFE

BHF
*
UPPL
VQ
UIF
BOWJM
PG
UIF
GBNJMZ
BMUFS
BOE
CFDBNF
BO

BWJE
TUVEFOU
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
GJSNMZ
QMBDFE
NZ
TUBOE

XJUI
UIF
CFMJFG
UIBU
UIF
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
$IVSDI
XBT

(PET
SFNOBOU
DIVSDI
UIBU
&MMFO
8IJUF
XBT
JOEFFE
B
USVF

QSPQIFU
BOE
NVTU
CF
IFFEFE
BT
NVDI
BT
BOZ
#JCMJDBM
QSPQIFU
*

CFDBNF
NPSF
DPOTFSWBUJWF
FWFO
UIBO
NZ
GBUIFS
BOE
GPS
B
GFX

ZFBST
CFMJFWFE
UIBU
QBSUJDJQBUJOH
JO
DFSUBJO
BDUJWJUJFT
MJLF
QMBZJOH

DIFTT
DIFDLFST
BOE
DBSET
XBT
TPNFUIJOH
UP
CF
TIVOOFE
BT

TIF
DMFBSMZ
IBE
XSJUUFO
UIBU
i)FBWFO
GPSCJETw
JU
BMPOH
XJUI

PUIFS
QBTUJNFT
*
UPPL
PGG
NZ
PXO
XFEEJOH
SJOH
UIBU
*
IBE

XPSO
JO
NZ
NPSF
ZPVUIGVM
BOE
MFTT
DPOTFSWBUJWF
ZFBST
BOE
EJE

NZ
CFTU
UP
CF
BT
QSPQFS
BOE
VOXPSMEMZ
BT
*
QPTTJCMZ
DPVME
*O
NZ
FBSOFTUOFTT
*
FWFO
USJFE
UP
XJUI
UIF
CFTU
PG

JOUFOUJPOT

TUFFS
NZ
NPN
BOE
TJTUFST
BOE
UIFJS
GBNJMJFT
CBDL

PO
UP
UIF
iSJHIU
BOE
QSPQFSw
QBUI
PG
TBMWBUJPO
UP
UIFJS
VUUFS

EJTEBJO
BOE
BOOPZBODF
5IFZ
XFSF
BDUVBMMZ
B
MPU
NPSF
QBUJFOU

XJUI
NF
UIBO
*
QSPCBCMZ
EFTFSWFE
5IFZ
LOFX
UIBU
*
XBT
TJODFSF

BOE
USVMZ
DBSFE
BCPVU
UIFN
PS
UIFZ
XPVME
IBWF
IBE
NF
UBSSFE

BOE
GFBUIFSFE
GPS
TVSF
"HBJO
*
TBZ
UIJT
IVNPSPVTMZ
#VU
FWFO

JO
UIF
NJETU
PG
NZ
TPMEJFSJOH
PO
JO
UIF
CBUUMF
PG
EFGFOEJOH
NZ

GBJUI
*
XPVME
PGUFO
TUVNCMF
VQPO
UIJOHT
UIBU
*
TJNQMZ
DPVME

OPU
VOEFSTUBOE
PS
TFF
IPX
JU
GJU
JO
XJUI
XIBU
UIF
#JCMF

TFFNFE
UP
CF
TBZJOH
BOE
BU
UIPTF
DSJUJDBM
KVODUVSFT
*
XPVME

PGUFO
IBWF
UP
UISPX
NZ
IBOET
VQ
BOE
SFTJHO
CZ
TBZJOH
iXFMM
*

EPOU
VOEFSTUBOE
JU
CVU
TIF
JT
UIF
QSPQIFU
TP
XIP
BN
*
UP

RVFTUJPOw
8PX
JU
JT
B
QBJOGVM
SFBMJ[BUJPO
GPS
NF
OPX
UP
UIJOL

UIBU
*
DPVME
IBWF
FWFS
UVSOFE
PWFS
NZ
PXO
(PE
HJWFO
SFBTPO

UP
BOPUIFS
QFSTPO
XIFO
*
IBE
UIF
#JCMF
SJHIU
UIFSF
JO
GSPOU
PG

NF
UFMMJOH
NF
iUIJT
JT
UIF
XBZ
XBML
JO
JUw
*U
XBT
OPU
VOUJM
*
XFOU
UISPVHI
B
QBJOGVM
FDPOPNJD
DPMMBQTF

CBOLSVQUDZ
CJUUFS
EJTBQQPJOUNFOU
BOE
B
GBJMFE
NBSSJBHF
UIBU

NZ

GBJUI
XBT

TIBLFO

UP
UIF

EFHSFF
UIBU
JU
DBVTFE
NF
UP
RVFTUJPO
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

FWFSZUIJOH
*
FWFS
CFMJFWFE
BOE
XIBU
JU
XBT
UIBU
*
XBT
SFBMMZ

IPMEJOH
PO
UP
.Z
DSVUDIFT
XFSF
DPNQMFUFMZ
LOPDLFE
PVU
GSPN

VOEFS
NF
BOE
*
XBT
USVMZ
BU
UIF
MPXFTU
QPJOU
JO
NZ
FYJTUFODF

GBDF
EPXO
BOE
CSPVHIU
UP
NZ
LOFFT
8IFO
UIF
EVTU
GJOBMMZ

TFUUMFE
BOE
*
MPPLFE
VQ
+FTVT
XBT
TUJMM
TUBOEJOH
UIFSF
*
DPVME

IFBS
IJN
TBZJOH
UP
NZ
IFBSU
iUIPVHI
PUIFST
IBWF

SFKFDUFE
EFOPVODFE
DPOEFNOFE
BOE
KVEHFE
ZPV
*
MPWF
ZPV
*

EP
OPU
DPOEFNO
ZPV
*
XJMM
OFWFS
MFBWF
ZPV
PS
GPSTBLF
ZPV
*
BN

BMM
ZPV
IBWF
BOE
*
BN
BMM
ZPV
OFFE
HP
BOE
TJO
OP
NPSF
CVU
JG

ZPV
EP
DPOGFTT
ZPVS
TJOT
BOE
*
XJMM
BMXBZT
CF
GBJUIGVM
BOE
KVTU

UP
GPSHJWF
ZPV
BOE
UP
DMFBOTF
ZPV
GSPN
BMM
VOSJHIUFPVTOFTT
GPS

*
FWFS
MJWF
UP
JOUFSDFEF
GPS
ZPVw
*
TUBSUFE
SFBMJ[JOH
UIBU
BMUIPVHI
*
IBE
CFFO
TJODFSF

BOE
[FBMPVT
*
IBE
BDUVBMMZ
CFFO
GBJUIGVM
UP
B
DBVTF
JOTUFBE
PG
UP

$ISJTU
*
IBE
NBEF
BO
JEPM
PG
NZ
XBZ
PG
MPPLJOH
BU
(PE
BOE

SFMJHJPO
BOE
XPVME
IBWF
NBEF
BO
FYDFMMFOU
1IBSJTFF
CVU
IBE

NBEF
B
WFSZ
MPVTZ
$ISJTUJBO
*
EFUFSNJOFE
UIBU
*
XBT
HPJOH

UP
PQFO
VQ
NZ
IFBSU
BOE
NJOE
JO
B
XBZ
UIBU
*
IBE
OFWFS
PQFOFE

JU
CFGPSF
UP
+FTVT
$ISJTU
*
EP
OPU
UIJOL
UIBU
OPX
*
IBWF

BMM
UIF
BOTXFST
PS
VOEFSTUBOE
BMM
UIF
USVUI
UIFSF
JT
UP

VOEFSTUBOE
BCPVU
(PE
BMUIPVHI
OPX
JU
JT
B
MPU
FBTJFS
KVTU

VTJOH
UIF
#JCMF
BOE
MFUUJOH
UIF
)PMZ
4QJSJU
TQFBL
UP
NF

UISPVHI
JU
XIJDI
IBT
MFE
NF
PO
B
EJGGFSFOU
QBUI
UIBO
GPMMPXJOH

JO
UIF
GPPUQSJOUT
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
BMM
UIF
UFBDIJOHT
PG
UIF

4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
$IVSDI
#VU
UIFSF
JT
POF
UIJOH
*
LOPX

GPS
TVSF
BOE
UIBU
JT
UIBU
UIF
MPWF
PG
$ISJTU
DPOTUSBJOT
NF
BOE

UIFSF
JT
OPUIJOH
UIBU
DBO
TFQBSBUF
NF
GSPN
)JT
MPWF
BOE

NFSDZ
BOE
GPSHJWFOFTT
*
LOPX
UIBU
*
DBOOPU
BGGPSE
UP

TUBOE
GPS
FWFO
POF
TFDPOE
XJUIPVU
+FTVT
BT
NZ
JOUFSDFTTPS

BOE
UIBU
*
IBWF
BCTPMVUFMZ
OP
SJHIUFPVTOFTT
PG
NZ
PXO
CVU

UIBU
*
BN
DPWFSFE
GVMMZ
BOE
DPNQMFUFMZ
CZ
UIF
HSBDF
BOE

SJHIUFPVTOFTT
PG
$ISJTU
BOE
BMXBZT
XJMM
CF
UIBU
NZ
TBMWBUJPO
JT

GPVOE
JO
)JN
BOE
)JN
BMPOF
OPU
JO
B
DIVSDI
B
EFOPNJOBUJPO
B

EPDUSJOF
PS
B
DBVTF
KVTU
+FTVT
$ISJTU
"OE
*
BN
TP
UIBOLGVM
UP

GJOBMMZ
LOPX
UIBU
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Kamy Lynn Neumann—separation from the SDA Faith

*
TFOU
B
MFUUFS
UP
UIF
9
$IVSDI
#PBSE
%FOWFS
$PMPSBEP
BSFB

64"

PO
5VFTEBZ
+VOF


SFRVFTUJOH
UIBU
NZ
CPZT

OBNFT
BOE
NZ
OBNF
CF
SFNPWFE
GSPN
NFNCFSTIJQ
PG
UIF
4%"

$IVSDI
*
SFDFJWFE
B
NFTTBHF
PO
NZ
QIPOF
PO
5IVSTEBZ
OJHIU

GSPN
POF
PG
UIF
QBTUPST
1BTUPS
;
BO
PMEFS
NBO
JO
IJT
T
XIP

TFSWFE
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
BT
B
QBTUPS
BOE
FWBOHFMJTU
GPS
NBOZ

ZFBST
5IF
OFYU
NPSOJOH
XIFO
*
SFUVSOFE
IJT
DBMM
IF
UPME
NF
UIBU

UIF
DIVSDI
IBE
SFHSFUGVMMZ
BHSFFE
UP
BDDFQU
NZ
SFRVFTU
GPS

NFNCFSTIJQ
SFNPWBM
CVU
IF
XBT
TVSQSJTFE
CFDBVTF
IF
BMXBZT

UPPL
NF
GPS
B
EFWPVU
$ISJTUJBO
BOE
XBT
XPOEFSJOH
XIBU

IBQQFOFE
*
XPOEFSFE
XIZ
NZ
$ISJTUJBOJUZ
XBT
CFJOH

RVFTUJPOFE
BOE
SFBMJ[FE
UIFZ
NVTU
OPU
IBWF
SFBE
NZ
MFUUFS
UP

UIF
DIVSDI
CPBSE
PS
UIFZ
XPVME
OPU
RVFTUJPO
NZ
GBJUI
JO
(PE

BOE
CFMJFG
JO
+FTVT
$ISJTUJBOJUZ

)F
TBJE
UIBU
B
SFGFSFODF
XBT

NBEF
BT
UP
NZ
OPU
BDDFQUJOH
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
UIPVHIU
TPNF
PG
UIF

EPDUSJOF
XBT
CBTFE
PO
IFS
XSJUJOHT
*
XBT
EJTBQQPJOUFE
BU
UIF

GBDU
UIFZ
IBE
OPU
FWFO
SFBE
NZ
MFUUFS
CVU
QSPDFFEFE
OPOFUIFMFTT
UP

FYQMBJO
XIZ
*
IBE
NBEF
UIF
EFDJTJPO
UP
TFQBSBUF
GSPN
UIF
4%"

EFOPNJOBUJPO
*
UPME
IJN
BCPVU
UIF
SFTFBSDI
XF
IBE
EPOF
PWFS

UIF
QBTU
DPVQMF
ZFBST
BOE
XIBU
XF
IBE
EJTDPWFSFE

SFHBSEJOH
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
IPX
TPNF
PG
UIF
DIVSDIT
WJUBM

UFBDIJOHT
XFSF
VOCJCMJDBM
CFDBVTF
PG
UIF
JOGMVFODF
PG
IFS

XSJUJOHT
5ISPVHIPVU
UIF
DPOWFSTBUJPO
IF
UPME
NF
IF
LOFX
BCPVU
TPNF

PG
UIF
UIJOHT
*
XBT
TBZJOH
BOE
LOFX
UIFN
UP
CF
USVF
)F
TBJE

IF
QFSTPOBMMZ
LOFX
8BMUFS
3FB
BVUIPS
PG
UIF
CPPL
5IF
8IJUF

-JF

BOE
UIBU
3FB
IBE
TIPXO
IJN
BMM
UIF
CPPLT
&MMFO
8IJUF
IBE

VTFE
BOE
UPPL
DSFEJU
GPS
JO
IFS
PXO
XSJUJOHT
8BMUFS
3FB
IBE

EFNPOTUSBUFE
UIJT
UP
IJN
CZ
BMMPXJOH
IJN
UP
QPJOU
BOZXIFSF
IF

XBOUFE
JO
&MMFO
8IJUFT
CPPLT
UFO
UJNFT
BU
SBOEPN
UIFO
3FB

XPVME
HP
BOE
HFU
UIF
CPPL
UIBU
TIF
IBE
UBLFO
JU
GSPN
)F
XBT
BCMF

UP
QSPEVDF
BOPUIFS
CPPL
BOE
BVUIPS
FWFSZ
TJOHMF
UJNF
1BTUPS
;

UPME
NF
UIBU
IF
LOFX
UIBU
&MMFO
8IJUF
MJFE
BOE
QMBHJBSJ[FE
BOE

TBJE
B
MPU

PG
UIJOHT
UIBU
XFSF
OPU
DPSSFDU
BOE
QVSQPTFMZ

NJTMFE
B RIAN N EUMAN N

QFPQMF
)PXFWFS
IF
TBJE
TIF
BMTP
EJE
B
MPU
PG
HPPE
UIJOHT
BOE
XBT
B

WFSZ
JNQPSUBOU
GPVOEFS
PG
UIF
DIVSDI
BOE
UIBU
UIF
4%"
DIVSDI

XPVMEOU
CF
XIBU
JU
JT
UPEBZ
JG
JU
XFSFOU
GPS
&MMFO
8IJUF
*
SFTQPOEFE
CZ

TUBUJOH
UIBU
JG
HSPXUI
XFBMUI
BOE
OVNCFST
XFSF
TJHOT
PG
UIF
USVF

DIVSDI
UIFO
UIF
$BUIPMJD
$IVSDI
XPVME
CF
JU

8IFO
IF
TBJE
&MMFO
8IJUF
IBE
EPOF
HPPE
UIJOHT
UPP
*
TBJE
TP
IBT

UIF
1PQF
*U
XBT
MJLF
MJTUFOJOH
UP
TPNFPOF
MJUFSBMMZ
UBMLJOH
GSPN
CPUI

TJEFT
PG
UIFJS
NPVUI

)F
TBJE
UIBU
BMM
UIF
EPDUSJOF
PG
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI

XBT
#JCMJDBM
CVU
XIFO
*
BTL
IJN
BCPVU
UIF

TBODUVBSZ
EPDUSJOF

UIF
JOWFTUJHBUJWF
KVEHNFOU
+FTVT
MFBWJOH
IJT
1SJFTUMZ
QPTJUJPO
BOE
OPU

CFJOH
PVS
JOUFSDFTTPS
TVCKFDUT
UIBU
XJMM
CF
EJTDVTTFE
JO
UIJT
CPPL

IF
TBJE

IF
EJEOU
CFMJFWF
BOZ
PG
UIPTF
UIJOHT
FJUIFS
FWFO
UIPVHI
UIBU
JT
XIBU

UIF
DIVSDI
UFBDIFT
#FDBVTF
JU
JT
OPU
TQFDJGJDBMMZ
TQFMMFE
PVU
BOE
FYQMBJOFE

JO
JUT
FOUJSFUZ
JO
UIF

GVOEBNFOUBM
CFMJFGT
UIBU
IF
EJEOU
UIJOL
JU
XBT

QBSU
PG
UIF
BDUVBM
EPDUSJOF
)F
TBJE
UIBU
JU
XBT
UIF
CJHHFTU
USBWFTUZ
JO
UIF

"EWFOUJTU
$IVSDI
XIFO
UIFZ
EFGSPDLFE
%FTNPOE
'PSE
GPS
UFBDIJOH
UIBU

UIFSF
XBT
B
QSPCMFN
XJUI
UIF
TBODUVBSZ
EPDUSJOF
5IJT
QSPWFT
UIBU

JOEFFE
UIF
"EWFOUJTU
DIVSDI
EPFT
JOUFSQSFU
4DSJQUVSF
UISPVHI
&MMFO

8IJUF
BOE
EPFT
OPU
UFTU
IFS
XJUI
UIF
#JCMF


)F
BMTP
DPOGJEFE
UIBU
IF
IBE
NFU
"SUIVS
8IJUF
&MMFO
8IJUFT

HSBOETPO
XIP
XSPUF
IFS
CJPHSBQIZ
BOE
UIFZ
TQFOU
RVJUF
B
CJU
PG

UJNF
BSHVJOH
5IF
BSHVNFOU
GSPN
"SUIVS
XBT
FJUIFS
&MMFO
8IJUF
XBT

JOTQJSFE
PS
TIF
XBT
OPU
4IF
XBT
FJUIFS
B
USVF
QSPQIFU
BOE

FWFSZUIJOH
TIF
XSPUF
PS
TBJE
XBT
GSPN
(PE
PS
JU
XBT
OPU
&MMFO
8IJUF

IFSTFMG
XSPUF
UIBU
IFS
XPSL
XBT
FJUIFS
GSPN
i(PE
PS
UIF
EFWJMw
BOE

UIBU
UIFSF
XBT
OP
iIBMGXBZw
NBSL
JO
UIF
NBUUFSw
5FTUJNPOJFT
UP

UIF
$IVSDI
7PM

Q



1BTUPS
;
TBJE
UIBU
IF
EJEOU
BHSFF
XJUI
UIBU

CVU
UIPVHIU
UIBU
TIF
DPVME
IBWF
CFFO
HJWFO
TPNF
NFTTBHFT
GSPN
(PE

CVU
TPNF
UIJOHT
OPU
GSPN
)JN
BOE
UIBU
JU
JTOU
BMM
PS
OPUIJOH


*
TBJE
UP
1BTUPS
;
UIBU
TIF
DPVME
OPU
CF
CPUI
B
USVF
QSPQIFU
BOE
B

GBMTF
QSPQIFU
)F
TBJE
OP
IF
EJEOU
CFMJFWF
JO
BMM
PS
OPUIJOH

 Th e W h i t
e E l e p h a n t

#VU
UIF
USVUI
JT
BDDPSEJOH
UP
IFS
PXO
DMBJNT
BT
XFMM
BT
UIF

DMBJNT
PG
UIF
DIVSDI
JU
DBOOPU
CF
CPUI
XBZT
*G
TIF
JT
B
MJBS
B

QMBHJBSJTU
BOE
B
GBMTF
QSFEJDUPS
BOE
JOUFSQSFUFS
UIFO
TIF
JT

TJNQMZ
B
GBMTF
QSPQIFU
BOE
UIFSF
JT
KVTU
OP
HFUUJOH
BSPVOE
UIBU

0VS
EJTDVTTJPO
FOEFE
XJUI
1BTUPS
;
EFDMBSJOH
IJT
IBQQJOFTT
BU

CFJOH
B
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
BOE
FYQSFTTJOH
IJT
MPZBMUZ
UP

UIF
DIVSDI
)F
BDUVBMMZ
VTFE
&MMFO
8IJUFT
RVPUF
BCPVU
UIF

DIVSDI
MPPLJOH
BT
JG
JU
XPVME
GBMM
CVU
UIBU
JU
XPVME
DPNF
UISPVHI
JO

UIF
FOE
)F
TBJE
IF
EJEOU
UIJOL
UIF
DIVSDI
XBT
QFSGFDU
BOE
UIBU

QSFTFOUMZ
UIFSF
BSF
MFBEFST
USZJOH
UP
QVTI
BO
BHFOEB
UIBU

QSPNPUFT
IPNPTFYVBMJUZ
BOE
BMMPXJOH
IPNPTFYVBMT
UP
IPME

QPTJUJPOT
PG
MFBEFSTIJQ
JO
UIF
DIVSDI
CFDBVTF
UIFZ
TBZ
JU
JT

OPU
B
TJO
5IFZ
RVFTUJPO
UIF
BVUIFOUJDJUZ
PG
UIF
#JCMF
JUTFMG
BOE

EP
OPU
CFMJFWF
FWFSZUIJOH
JO
UIF
#JCMF
JT
EJWJOFMZ
JOTQJSFE‰
UIBU
UIFSF
BSF
UXP
FOET
PG
UIF
TQFDUSVN
JO
UIF
DIVSDI
5IF
POF
TJEF
CFMJFWFT
JO
UIF
#JCMF
CVU
UIFZ
BMTP
CFMJFWF
KVTU
BT

TUSPOHMZ
JO
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
TP
BSF
GPSDFE
UP
JOUFSQSFU
4DSJQUVSF

UISPVHI
IFS
CVU
UIFSF
JT
NPSF
UIBO
FOPVHI
FWJEFODF
UP
QSPWF
UIBU

&MMFO
8IJUF
DPOUSBEJDUT
UIF
#JCMF
BOE
BEET
UP
JU
'PVS
UJNFT
JO

CPUI
UIF
PME
BOE
OFX
UFTUBNFOU
UIF
#JCMF
XBSOT
BHBJOTU
BEEJOH
UP

BOE
UBLJOH
BXBZ
GSPN
JU
4IF
QMBHJBSJ[FE
UIJOHT
UIBU
TIF

DMBJNFE
XFSF
EJSFDU
SFWFMBUJPOT
GSPN
(PE
BOE
NBEF
QSFEJDUJPOT

UIBU
EJE
OPU
DPNF
USVF
UIFSFGPSF
NBLJOH
IFS
B
GBMTF
QSPQIFU
5IF

PUIFS
TJEF
JT
USZJOH
UP
DMBJN
CBTJDBMMZ
UIF
TBNF
UIJOH
1BTUPS
;
JT

DMBJNJOH
BCPVU
&MMFO
8IJUF‰UIBU
TPNF
UIJOHT
XFSF
JOTQJSFE
BOE

TPNF
UIJOHT
XFSF
OPU
CVU
BSF
BMTP
BUUFNQUJOH
UIF
TBNF
BSHVNFOU

BCPVU
UIF
#JCMF
"NPOH
UIF
MFBEFSTIJQ
PG
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
OPU
UP

NFOUJPO
UIF
SFTU
PG
JU
JU
JT
UVSOJOH
JOUP
B
USVF
GSFF
GPS
BMM
KVTU
MJLF

XIFO
*TSBFM
IBE
OP
,JOH
BOE
UVSOFE
BXBZ
GSPN
(PE
%VSJOH
B

UJNF
XIFO
iFWFSZPOF
EJE
BT
IF
TBX
GJUw

+VEHFT



,BNZ
SFDPVOUFE
UIJT
XIPMF
DPOWFSTBUJPO
UP
NF
SJHIU
BGUFS
JU
IBE

IBQQFOFE
*
UPME
IFS
UP
XSJUF
FWFSZUIJOH
EPXO
TP
TIF
XPVME
OPU

GPSHFU
BOZ
EFUBJMT
0OF
PG
UIF
NBJO
SFBTPOT
GPS
UIJT
PG
DPVSTF

XBT

UIBU
*
JNNFEJBUFMZ
LOFX
UIBU

*
OFFEFE
UP
JODPSQPSBUF
IFS
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

FYQFSJFODF
JOUP
UIF
CPPL
8IBU
IBE
USBOTQJSFE
XBT
OPU
B
TVSQSJTF
UP

NF
BT
*
IBE
CFFO
FYQPTFE
UP
UIJT
UZQF
PG
MPHJD
GSPN
4%"

MFBEFST
CFGPSF
*OEFFE
*
IBE
CFFO
FYQPTFE
UP
PVUSJHIU
BOJNPTJUZ

BHBJOTU
&MMFO
8IJUF
GSPN
QBTUPST
BOE
DIVSDI
MFBEFST
JO
UIF
4%"

EFOPNJOBUJPO
NBOZ
UJNFT
EVSJOH
NZ
ZFBST
PG
NJOJTUSZ
8IBU

NBEF
,BNZT
FYQFSJFODF
VOJRVF
BOE
EJTUVSCJOHMZ
JOUFSFTUJOH
XBT
UIF

GBDU
UIBU
UIJT
QBTUPS
MJLF
TP
NBOZ
PUIFST
*
IBWF
IBE
DPOUBDU
XJUI

TFFNFE
UP
IBWF
TVDI
B
DPOUSBEJDUPSZ
SFMBUJPOTIJQ
UP
&MMFO
8IJUFT

QSPQIFUJD
NJOJTUSZ
5IF
OFYU
QIBTF
PG
,BNZT
FYQFSJFODF
XBT
UP
FMFWBUF
UIJOHT
UP
BO

FWFO
NPSF
USPVCMJOH
EJNFOTJPO
"
EBZ
PS
UXP
MBUFS
UIF
TFOJPS

QBTUPS
1BTUPS
"

PG
UIF
DIVSDI
DBMMFE
BOE
TFU
VQ
BO
JOUFSWJFX

XJUI
,BNZ
BOE
IFS
UXP
TPOT
*OUFSFTUJOHMZ
FOPVHI
BMUIPVHI

1BTUPS
;
IBE
UPME
,BNZ
UIBU
UIF
DIVSDI
IBE
BDDFQUFE
IFS
SFRVFTU
GPS

NFNCFSTIJQ
XJUIESBXBM
1BTUPS
"
NBEF
JU
DMFBS
UIBU
OP
TVDI

UIJOH
IBE
BT
ZFU
CFFO
PGGJDJBMMZ
WPUFE
PO
CZ
UIF
DIVSDI
BU
B
CVTJOFTT

NFFUJOH
MFWFM
"
EBUF
XBT
TFU
GPS
UIJT
OFYU
QIBTF
JO
UIF
QSPDFTT
BOE

*
XBT
BTLFE
UP
CF
QFSTPOBMMZ
QSFTFOU
BU
UIJT
NFFUJOH
8F
NFU
XJUI
1BTUPS
"
BU
PVS
IPNF
KVTU
PWFS
B
XFFL
BGUFS

,BNZ
IBE
IBE
UIF
UFMFQIPOF
DPOWFSTBUJPO
XJUI
1BTUPS
;
5IF

NFFUJOH
MBTUFE
GPS
PWFS
BO
IPVS
CVU
UIJT
XBT
BMM
NBKPS
QPJOUT

DPOTJEFSFE
XIBU
USBOTQJSFE
,BNZ
IFS
UXP
TPOT
1BTUPS
"
UIF
ZPVUI
QBTUPS
BOE
NZTFMG
TBU

EPXO
BU
UIF
LJUDIFO
UBCMF
XIFSF
UIF
EJTDVTTJPO
WFSZ
RVJDLMZ
CFHBO
UP

DFOUFS
PO
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE
UIF
TQJSJU
PG
QSPQIFDZ
&WFSZ
QPJOU
UIBU

TIF
SBJTFE
DPODFSOJOH
&MMFO
8IJUF
QMBHJBSJTN
FYUSFNF
WJFXT

UIBU
TIF
GFMU
DPVME
OPU
CF
TVCTUBOUJBUFE
CZ
4DSJQUVSF
&MMFO
8IJUFT

EJTIPOFTUZ
JO
IPX
TIF
PCUBJOFE
JOGPSNBUJPO
BCPVU
QFPQMF
JO

UIF
QFSTPOBM
UFTUJNPOJFT
TIF
HBWF
FUD

BMM
PG
UIJT
XBT
DPOGJSNFE

BOE
BHSFFE
VQPO
CZ
1BTUPS
"
/PU
POMZ
EJE
IF
BHSFF
XJUI
UIFTF

WJFXT
IF
XFOU
PO
UP
UFMM
VT
UIBU
IF
XBT
JOWPMWFE
JO
B
NJOJTUSZ

5IF
0OF
1SPKFDU

XJUI
B
HSPVQ
PG
PUIFS
MJLFNJOEFE
QBTUPST
JO

/PSUI
"NFSJDB
XIP
XFSF
BDUJWFMZ
TFFLJOH
UP
DIBOHF
UIF


EJSFDUJPO

PG
UIF

4%"
$IVSDI

)F
TP
NVDI
BT

TUBUFE
UIBU
 Th e W h i t
e E l e p h a n t

IF
XBT
RVJUF
DPNGPSUBCMF
UFMMJOH
UIF
DPOGFSFODFPGGJDJBM
DIVSDI

UIBU
IF
CFMJFWFE
JO
&MMFO
8IJUF
XIJMF
JO
SFBMJUZ
IF
CFMJFWFE

TIF
XBT
B
GBMTF
QSPQIFU‰BDUJWFMZ
TFFLJOH
UP
QIBTF
IFS
PVU
BU

MFBTU
JO
UIF
TFOTF
PG
IFS
CFJOH
TFFO
BT
B
QSPQIFU
PG
(PE

*U

TFFNFE
UIBU
IF
XBT
RVJUF
GSFF
PG
DPOTDJFODF
UP
MJF
GPS
UIF
TBLF
PG

PCUBJOJOH
XIBU
IF
CFMJFWFE
XPVME
CF
B
CFUUFS
NPSF
$ISJTU
DFOUFSFE
4%"
GBJUI
*U
OFFET
UP
CF
FNQIBTJ[FE
UIBU
1BTUPS
"
BOE
UIF
PUIFS
MFBEFST

XIP
BSF
QBSU
PG
IJT
HSPVQ
BSF
OPU
BO
FYDFQUJPO
XIFO
JU
DPNFT
UP

4%"
$IVSDI
MFBEFSTIJQ‰BT
JG
UIFZ
BSF
TPNF
TPSU
PG
GSJOHF

HSPVQ
GBOBUJDBMMZ
BOE
EJTIPOFTUMZ
CFOU
PO
iSFWPMVUJPOJ[JOHw
UIF

DIVSDI
5IFSF
BSF
QBTUPST
PG
XIPMF
DPOHSFHBUJPOT
BOE
EJTUSJDUT
JO

UIF
HFPHSBQIJDBM
WJDJOJUZ
PG
%FOWFS
$PMPSBEP
BMPOF
OFWFS
NJOE

UIF
SFTU
PG
UIF
64"
BOE
BSPVOE
UIF
XPSME
XIP
IBWF
MJUFSBMMZ

UBLFO
BMM
PG
&MMFO
8IJUFT
CPPLT
PVU
PG
UIFJS
DIVSDI
MJCSBSJFT
TP

UIBU
UIFZ
DBO
CF
TVSF
UIBU
OP
OFX
NFNCFST
BSF
FYQPTFE
UP
XIBU

TIF
UFBDIFT
*O
PUIFS
DIVSDIFT
XIFSF
UIFZ
IBWF
OPU
EJTDBSEFE
IFS
CPPLT

UIFZ
QBZ
TFMFDUJWF
MJQTFSWJDF
UP
IFS
TPNF
QBTUPST
SFGFS
UP
IFS
BT

iNZ
GBWPSJUF
BVUIPS
PS
BO
iJOTQJSFE
XSJUFS w
FUD

XIJMF
JU
JT

DMFBS
UIBU
JO
BOZUIJOH
BOE
FWFSZUIJOH
GSPN
TUZMF
PG
XPSTIJQ

ESFTT
IFBMUI
SFGPSN
BOE
NVDI
NPSF
UIFZ
JHOPSF
IFS
FOUJSFMZ
*U
JT

TJHOJGJDBOU
XJUI
SFGFSFODF
UP
UIF
iGBWPSJUF
BVUIPSw
BOE
iJOTQJSFE

XSJUFSw
TUBUFNFOUT
UIBU
NPTU
PG
UIF
MFBEFSTIJQ
XIP
VTF
UIFTF

RVJQT
SFBMMZ
EP
OPU
WJFX
IFS
BT
UIFJS
GBWPSJUF
BVUIPS
BOZXBZ
*U
JT

TJNQMZ
QPMJUJDBMMZ
DPSSFDU
MJQTFSWJDF
GPS
UIPTF
NFNCFST
XIP

TUJMM
CFMJFWF
JO
IFS
QSPQIFUJD
TUBUVT
*O
SFBMJUZ
NBOZ
PG
UIFN
BSF

FNCBSSBTTFE
UP
NFOUJPO
IFS
CZ
OBNF
CFDBVTF
TP
NVDI
PG
XIBU

TIF
UBVHIU
UIFZ
QFSTPOBMMZ
WJFX
BT
FYUSFNF
PS
VOTDSJQUVSBM
8IJMF
UIJT
KVHHMJOH
BDU
JT
IBQQFOJOH
FWFSZXIFSF
JO
UIF
/PSUI

"NFSJDBO
%JWJTJPO
JO
&VSPQF
UIF
SFKFDUJPO
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOE

CMBUBOU
PVUSJHIU
BOJNPTJUZ
UPXBSET
IFS
UFTUJNPOJFT
IBT
CFDPNF
B

QBSU
PG
FWFSZEBZ
4%"
$IVSDI
MJGF
JO
TPNF
DPVOUSJFT

BOE
TQFDJGJD
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

%"
JOTUJUVUJPOT
PG
FEVDBUJPO
UIF
QSPCMFN
JT
XPSTF
UIBO
PUIFST


.VDI
UIF
TBNF
DBO
CF
TBJE
GPS
UIF
6OJUFE
,JOHEPN
#FBS
JO
NJOE
*
LOPX
UIJT
UP
CF
USVF
BT
*
NJOJTUFSFE

TQFDJGJDBMMZ
JO
UIF
DPOUFYU
PG
WJOEJDBUJOH
&MMFO
8IJUF

BMM
PWFS

&VSPQF
&OHMBOE
BOE
PUIFS
QBSUT
PG
UIF
XPSME
5JNF
BOE
UJNF

BHBJO
*
QFSTPOBMMZ
EFBMU
XJUI
MFBEFSTIJQ
JO
UIJT
SFHBSE
*
SFDBMM

UIBU
JO
(FSNBOZ
XIFO
QVCMJTIJOH
TUBUFNFOUT
CZ
&MMFO
8IJUF

SFHBSEJOH
NVTJD
BOE
XPSTIJQ
UIFZ
UIF
PGGJDJBM
4%"
1VCMJTIJOH

)PVTF‰4BBULPSO7FSMBH
(.#)

MJUFSBMMZ
NJTUSBOTMBUFE

IFS
TUBUFNFOUT
BEBQUJOH
IFS
iFYUSFNFw
SFNBSLT
TP
BT
UP
CFUUFS

CMFOE
XJUI
UIF
TFOUJNFOUT
PG
UIFJS
PXO
DPOUFNQPSBSZ
XPSTIJQ

BHFOEB
#FBS
JO
NJOE
UIBU
*
BN
OPU
TQFDVMBUJOH
PS
CBTJOH
NZ

SFNBSLT
PO
IFBSTBZ
*
LOPX
UIJT
CFDBVTF
*
EFBMU
XJUI
UIJT
PO
BO

BCTPMVUFMZ
GJSTUIBOE
CBTJT
*G
SFCFMMJPO
JO
JUT
WBSJPVT
GPSNT

BHBJOTU
&MMFO
8IJUFUIF

UFTUJNPOJFT
JT
POF
PG
UIF
TJHOT
PG
UIF
FOEUJNF
BT
&MMFO
8IJUF

IFSTFMG
TUBUFE
UIFO
NPTU
BTTVSFEMZ
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
BU
UIF
WFSZ

UPQ
PG
JUT
TUSVDUVSF
XIFSF
JU
DPVOUT
UIF
NPTU
BOE
GJMUFST
EPXO

XJUI
HSFBUFTU
JOGMVFODF
JT
GVMGJMMJOH
UIF
QSFEJDUJPO
5IJT
CFJOH

USVF
UIFO
JO
B
WFSZ
QSPGPVOE
TFOTF
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
IBT
CFFO

5SPKBOIPSTFE‰UIF
JOTVSHFOUT
IBWF
CMFOEFE
TP
EFFQMZ
BOE

FGGFDUJWFMZ
JOUP
UIF
QSPWFSCJBM
CZXBZT
PG
JUT
JOGSBTUSVDUVSF
UIBU
UIF

iPME
HVBSE w
UIF
POFT
TUJMM
MFGU
TUBOEJOH
EP
OPU
FWFO
IBWF
B

GJHIUJOH
DIBODF
&MMFO
8IJUF
PODF
XSPUF
DPODFSOJOH
4BUBOT
BUUBDL
PO
UIF

UFTUJNPOJFT
JO
UIF
MBTU
EBZT

5IF
WFSZ
MBTU
EFDFQUJPO
PG
4BUBO
XJMM
CF
UP
NBLF
PG
OPOF

FGGFDU
UIF
UFTUJNPOZ
PG
UIF
4QJSJU
PG
(PE
<IFS
JOTQJSFE

NFTTBHFT>
4FMFDUFE
.FTTBHFT
7PM

Q

&NQIBTJT


JUBMJDT
TVQQMJFE


5IF
GPMMPXJOH

TUBUFNFOU
DBO

CF
GPVOE

PO

UIF
TBNF
QBHF

PG
4FMFDUFE
.FTTBHFT
 Th e W h i t
e E l e p h a n t

5IFSF
XJMM
CF
B
IBUSFE
LJOEMFE
BHBJOTU
UIF
UFTUJNPOJFT
XIJDI
JT

TBUBOJD
5IF
XPSLJOHT
PG
4BUBO
XJMM
CF
UP
VOTFUUMF
UIF
GBJUI
PG

UIF
DIVSDIFT
JO
UIFN
GPS
UIJT
SFBTPO
4BUBO
DBOOPU
IBWF
TP
DMFBS
B

USBDL
UP
CSJOH
JO
IJT
EFDFQUJPOT
BOE
CJOE
VQ
TPVMT
JO
IJT
EFMVTJPOT
JG

UIF
XBSOJOHT
BOE
SFQSPPGT
BOE
DPVOTFMT
PG
UIF
4QJSJU
PG
(PE
BSF

IFFEFE
*CJE
Q

&NQIBTJT

JUBMJDT
TVQQMJFE


"OE
UIJT
TJHOJGJDBOU
TUBUFNFOU
RVPUFE
JO
NZ
JOUSPEVDUJPO


*U
JT
4BUBOT
QMBO
UP
XFBLFO
UIF
GBJUI
PG
(PET
QFPQMF
JO
UIF

5FTUJNPOJFT
/FYU
GPMMPXT
TLFQUJDJTN
JO
SFHBSE
UP
UIF
WJUBM

QPJOUT
PG
PVS
GBJUI
UIF
QJMMBST
PG
PVS
QPTJUJPO
UIFO
EPVCU
BT
UP

UIF
)PMZ
4DSJQUVSFT
BOE
UIFO
UIF
EPXOXBSE
NBSDI
UP

QFSEJUJPO
8IFO
UIF
5FTUJNPOJFT
XIJDI
XFSF
PODF
CFMJFWFE

BSF
EPVCUFE
BOE
HJWFO
VQ
4BUBO
LOPXT
UIF
EFDFJWFE
POFT
XJMM

OPU
TUPQ
BU
UIJT
BOE
IF
SFEPVCMFT
IJT
FGGPSUT
UJMM
IF

MBVODIFT
UIFN
JOUP
PQFO
SFCFMMJPO
XIJDI
CFDPNFT
JODVSBCMF

BOE
FOET
JO
EFTUSVDUJPO
5FTUJNPOJFT
7PM

Q


&NQIBTJT

JUBMJDT
TVQQMJFE


At so many different levels of its infrastructure, regardless of

official statements to the contrary, the SDA Church, in the person
of respected leaders and educators, is doing just this. In some
cases, in total and absolute contradiction to and willful outright
rebellion against Ellen White, the one they still outwardly
proclaim to be a prophet/messenger of God, the fulfillment of
the “spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). Th e worst part of
this debacle is that there are literally scores of SDA leaders
(pastors, scholars, etc.), as in Kamy’s testimony, who know that
they are covering up (willfully being deceitful) in how they
really feel about Ellen White.
According to observers of the traditional SDA psyche, there
is an inbred superstition when it comes to questioning Ellen
White beyond accepted parameters (warnings in connection
with this and dire consequences connected to it, were made by
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

&MMFO
8IJUF
IFSTFMG‰TVDI
BT
UIF
POFT
RVPUFE
BCPWF



8IP
XBOUT
UP
HP
PVU
PO
B
MJNC
BOE
iUFTUw
UIF
NFTTFOHFS
PG

(PE
SJTL
CFJOH
NJTMFE
JOUP
TLFQUJDJTN
BOE
GJOBMMZ
FOE
VQ

CFJOH
MBCFMFE
BO
BHFOU
PG
4BUBO
"GUFS
BMM
UIF
GJOBM
DPOEJUJPO

JT
BDDPSEJOH
UP
&MMFO
8IJUF
iJODVSBCMF
BOE
FOET
JO

EFTUSVDUJPOw
5IJT
NBZ
CF
QBSU
PG
UIF
SFBTPO
GPS
TP
NVDI

VOEFSDPWFS
QIBTJOH
PVU
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
CFDBVTF
UIF

VOJOGPSNFE
GBJUIGVM
3&"--:
EP
CFMJFWF
UIBU
UP
RVFTUJPO

&MMFO
8IJUF
JT
BT
NVDI
IFSFTZ
BT
RVFTUJPOJOH
UIF
TDSJQUVSFT
&MMFO
8IJUF
XBT
SJHIU
XIFO
TIF
TBJE
UIBU
UIFSF
XBT

OP
iIBMGXBZw
NBSL
JO
UIF
NBUUFS‰DPODFSOJOH
IFS
NJOJTUSZ‰JU

XBT
FJUIFS
GSPN
i(PEw
PS
UIF
iEFWJMw
4IF
TFU
UIF
CFODINBSL

IFSTFMG
4IF
QVU
JU
PVU
UIFSF
BT
JU
XFSF
JO
OP
VODFSUBJO
UFSNT

"DDPSEJOH
UP
UIF
WFSZ
XPSET
PG
UIF
NFTTFOHFS
PG
UIF
-PSE
UP

UIF
4%"
$IVSDI
UIF
SFNOBOU

UIPTF
NFO
XIP
WBDJMMBUF
BOE

EJTTFDU
IFS
XSJUJOHT
EFUFSNJOJOH
XIBU
UIFZ
UIJOL
JT
SFMFWBOU

PS
OPU
UIF
1BTUPS
;T
PG
UIF
4%"
XPSME

BSF
CZ
TJNQMF

EFGBVMU
MBCFMJOH
IFS
QSPQIFUJD
NJOJTUSZ
BT
GSPN
4BUBO
5IF
&MMFO
8IJUF
BOUBHPOJTUT‰SFWPMVUJPOBSJFT
BOE

BDUJWJTUT
JO
UIF
4%"
$IVSDI‰BSF
FJUIFS
SJHIU
PS
XSPOH

5IFZ
DBOOPU
CF
CPUI
5IVT
SFHBSEMFTT
PG
XIBU
UIF
GJOBM
WFSEJDU

NJHIU
CF
POF
UIJOH
JT
BCTPMVUFMZ
DMFBS‰UIF
4%"
GBJUI
JT
PO
UIF

SPBE
UP
SBEJDBM
BOE
JSSFWFSTJCMF
DIBOHF
OFWFS
UP
SFUVSO
UP
UIBU

XIJDI
EFGJOFE
JUT
QJPOFFSJOH
SPPUT
"OE
UIPTF
XIP
XJMM
CF

SFTQPOTJCMF
GPS
CSJOHJOH
IFS
UP
UIJT
QPJOU
XJMM
LOPX
UIBU
UIFZ

IBWF
EPOF
UIJT
UISPVHI
EFDFJU
EPVCMF
EFBMJOH
BOE
DPWFSU

NBOFVWFSJOH‰EFTJSJOH
DIBOHF
OPU
GPS
UIF
TBLF
PG
UIBU
XIJDI

4%"T
IBWF
USBEJUJPOBMMZ
IFME
USVF
CVU
GPS
UIF
TBLF
PG

QSPKFDUJOH
BO
JNBHF
UP
UIF
XPSME
UIBU
XJMM
BU
BMM
DPTUT
QSFWFOU

UIFN
CFJOH
MBCFMFE
B
DVMU
B
DVMU
XIP
GPMMPX
UIF
UFBDIJOHT
PG
B

QSPQIFUFTT
JOTUFBE
PG
UIF
#JCMF
BOE
UIF
#JCMF
BMPOF
5IF

XSJUJOH
JT
PO
UIF
XBMM
BOE
BT
JU
XBT
XIFO
#BCZMPO
GFMM
PODF

UIF
XSJUJOH
BQQFBSFE
UIFSF
XBT
OPUIJOH
UIBU
DPVME
CF
EPOF
UP

SFWFSTF
UIF
QSFEJDUFE
PVUDPNF
 Chapter I

The Standard
To the law and to the testimony:
if they speak not according to this word,
[it is] because [there is] no light in them.

—Isaiah 8:20

W
hen submitting evidence in a court of law, it is of
vital importance that all the facts are carefully and
accurately researched and clearly presented. Not only
should everything be “lined up” in regard to these factors, but
the defense and prosecution need to be sure that how they have
researched and prepared their arguments and how they are finally
presented, will be compatible with the law of the land—evaluated
in relation to the existing “legal standard.” In presenting the case
for The White Elephant, my “legal standard” will be the highest
authority of all—Scripture. What needs to be confirmed, right
from the start, by direct scriptural pattern, is how the calling and
work of a prophet is established and then carried out.
Ultimately, the calling and work of Ellen White and other
extra-biblical prophets needs to be compared to the exemplar
of Bible prophets to see where parallels or contradictions might
exist
Th e aspects of the physical signs when in vision, the example
of the prophet’s life (integrity, etc.), whether their teaching is in

37
Brian Neumann

accord with the “law and the testimony”/the scriptures (Isaiah

8:20) and whether their work truly edified and brought about
unity of faith, all need to be examined.
It is not my intention to cover every detail of the prophetic
calling and execution of labour as it pertains to each and every
prophet contained in and outside of Scripture. Rather, I will look
at the broader representation and focus on certain aspects that
are most relevant to what we will be examining throughout the
rest of the book.
Over and above what I will cover in this book, I would
encourage everyone to do their own additional research. If I was
simply going to publish my own conclusions without encouraging
further investigation and confirmation, I would, rightfully, be
viewed as supercilious and closed minded. So, having said that,
let us proceed to the first section of this chapter.

THE SCRIPTURES AND THE PROPHETS

Jude records that Enoch was the first prophet of God:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these,

saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly
among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly
committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly
sinners have spoken against him. Jude 1:14, 15

TIe Bible does not state whether Enoch received his views of
the future while in vision or as a direct communication from
God. However, it might be safe to assume, based on the fact that
Enoch “walked with God” (Genesis 5:22-24), that he may very
well have been communicated to, face to face, at some time prior
to his being translated to heaven.

38
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Th e next person, according to scriptural evidence, to be called to

the prophetic office, is Noah. He warned the Antediluvians of
the impending deluge and called them to repentance.
Th e succession of prophets/prophetesses, after the flood,
is also quite clearly recorded in the Bible, starting with
Abraham (Genesis 20:7). After that there was Moses
(Hosea 12:13) and on through the whole Old Testament,
both prophets and prophetesses, who fulfilled the specific
tasks which God had called them to. Other well known
prophets in the Bible are, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, to mention a few. Old Testament
prophetesses include, Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Hulda (2 Kings
22:14) and Deborah (
Judges 4:4).
Of course, there are also the New Testament prophets and
prophetesses: John the Baptist (Luke 7:26), Philip’s four daughters
(Acts 21:9), Simeon (Luke 2:26), Anna (Luke 2:36), Agabus
(Acts 11:28), and Barnabas (Acts 13:1). Paul had the prophetic
gift, and John, UIF
author of the book of Revelation.
TIese are just a few of the prophets mentioned in Scripture.
God revealed Himself to them in different ways. Sometimes via
impressions given by the Holy Spirit, direct communication, as a
voice in the wind, through dreams as they slept and then at other
times, while awake, they were taken off in vision.
In the book of Numbers God speaks to Miriam (a prophetess)
and Aaron and there mentions some of the ways in which He
chooses to communicate to His chosen instruments:

And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood [in] the door of
the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.
And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, [I] the
Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, [and] will speak
unto him in a dream. My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in
all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently,
and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold.
(Numbers 12:5-8)

39
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Th ese Godly men and woman, yet prone to weakness as all

humans are (their failings are recorded in Scripture), were
especially selected by God. Some remained faithful and others
failed at certain times during their ministry. Still others, in the
end, apostatized and even ended up working against God—
Balaam being a prime example of this.
Th ere was no blanket clause stating that once someone
answered the prophetic call and worked for God that they would
forever remain true.
No doubt, for this very reason, God gave specific tests so that
the calling and labor of those who claimed to be speaking on
His behalf could be verified and tested.
This was not just for those who were suspected of being false
prophets. The tests were to be applied to all who claimed to be
speaking as messengers for God. Thus, it is not only expedient, in
fact, it is even commanded in Scripture that all prophets should
be tested. This would include anyone from Nostradamus to
Joseph Smith, and indeed Ellen White herself—tested according
to the evidence of the Word of God. Or, as Isaiah 8:20 puts it, “to
the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this
word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.”
In Old Testament times (to the Jew) and on till the time of
Christ and after, the testing standard would have been, as Jesus
put it in Luke 24:44, Moses, the prophets and the Psalms (the
writings of the Old Testament), the scriptures. In our day this
constitutes the Old and New Testaments—the whole Bible.
Thus, as I analyze the various prophets and make comparisons, I
will continually bring us back to this supreme standard.
Th e fundamental standard for testing a “thus saith the
Lord” must be the whole Bible—“For precept [must be]
upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon
line; here a little, [and] there a little.” (Isaiah 28:10).

40
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

A further principle with relation to ensuring a “full-proof
”

testimony is found in Deuteronomy 19:15 where it states that, “…
at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”
At the risk of repeating the obvious, this means that clear
unambiguous evidence, in favor of or against any prophecy/
teaching/doctrine, etc., must be established from the Bible. By
following this instruction we can fully understand and apply
Paul’s admonition to Timothy:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profit-able for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Th at the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
good works. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17

By the Bible and the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura, as the

reformers stated), is how everything is tested and verified.
Whether we are listening to a message being given (by a
prophet, Bible scholar or a simple lay-member) or whether we
ourselves are the one delivering the message, Scripture should be
the means for determining whether it is authentic or not.
No wonder Paul continues his instruction in the very next
chapter by bringing Timothy’s attention back to what he had just
said in the closing verses of chapter three.

I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who
shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke,
exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doc-trine; but after their own
lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be
turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure
afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy
ministry. 2 Timothy 4:1-5 (Emphasis supplied)

41
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

To be sure that our message/ministry (our “thus saith

the Lord”) is sound and “full-proof,” we have to be able
to substantiate it clearly and with sufficient witness from the
Word of God. Although (in this specific context) Paul warns of
teachers that will say what people’s “itching ears” want to hear
(what the people themselves may wrongfully desire), it is quite
clear that the warning can apply to any teacher’s instruction
that is not in accordance with the Bible (whether it is what the
people desire or not).
From the early years, the pioneers of the SDA faith, based
on what they found in Scripture, outlined a series of proofs
that could be applied when confirming extra-biblical/end-time
manifestations of the prophetic gift. They, according to their
profession, used the same standard for “proving” the authenticity
of this gift. James White, Ellen White’s husband, comments on
some of these proofs. Firstly, he quotes Acts 2:17, 18 (Peter was
quoting Joel 2:28, 29) in order to establish that the gift will be
found among God’s people in the “last days.”
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of
my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daugh-ters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men
shall dream dreams: and on my servants, and on my handmaidens I
will pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 1

He then points out:

As the signs of that day have been, and still are fulfilling, it must
be clear to every unprejudiced mind that the time has fully come
when the children of God may expect dreams and visions from the
Lord. 2

He continues, referring to the Bible as the “complete” and,

thus, ultimate revelation of God:

42
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Th e Bible is a perfect and complete revelation. It is our only rule of

faith and practice. But this is no reason why God may not show the
past, present, and future fulfillment of His Word, in these last days,
by dreams and visions, according to Peter’s testimony. True visions
are given to lead us to God, and His Written Word; but those that
are given for a new rule of faith and practice, separate from the Bible,
cannot be from God, and should be rejected. 3

Later on, as editor for the Review and Herald, James, once
again, made a similar point in reference to the “gifts” (in particular
the prophetic gift):

Th e position that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the rule of faith
and duty, does not shut out the gifts which God set in the church. To
reject them is shutting out that part of the Bible which presents
them. We say, let us have a whole Bible, and let that, and that alone,
be our rule of faith and duty. Place the gifts where they belong, and
all is harmony. 4

What James White is saying in the above two statements is

of great significance and is, indeed, in accordance with Bible
teaching on how the ministry of a prophet is to conform to the
“law and the testimony.” Later on, when we examine the biblical
teaching in comparison to how it was carried out in the work of
Ellen White, I will resubmit these quotes as primary evidence.
Consistent with her husband’s view, Ellen White spoke of
the prophetic gift’s function (in specific reference to her calling
as God’s messenger to the church) as bringing people back to
the Bible as the supreme standard. In Early Writings, she makes
this comment:

I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your
faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in
that
Word,
promised
to
give
visions
in
the “last
days”;

ЪЫа

ТЫЮ

43
Brian Neumann

a new
rule of faith, but
for the comfort of
His people,
and
to
correct
those who err from Bible truth. 5

She also states:

Th e Word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind,

and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it.
But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the Word of God
their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings.
Th en, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and
pointed testimo-nies, bringing them back to the Word that they have
neglected to follow. 6

J. N. Andrews was one of the church’s greatest theologians in the

early years (it is said that he had memorized the entire New
Testament). In 1870 he published his perspective of the prophetic
gift—its function. It will be noticed that his view is essentially in
accordance with the view expressed by James and Ellen White.
However, there are a few added comments he makes that we will
also examine.

… Now it is plain that those who reject the work of the Spirit of
God under the plea that the scriptures are sufficient, do deny and
reject all that part of the Bible which reveals the office and work
of the Holy Spirit…In short, their work is to unite the people of
God in the same mind and in the same judgment upon the
meaning of the scriptures. Mere human judgment, with no
direct instruction from heaven, can never search out hidden
iniquity, nor adjust dark and complicated church difficulties,
nor prevent different and conflicting interpretations of the
scriptures. 7

Above we have a fair representation of how, since the early

years, the leaders of the SDA faith, including Ellen White,
understood the continuation of and function of the prophetic

44
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

gift, after Bible times. I will supply many more statements by

leading SDA pioneers and present leadership later on.
There is no debate that the SDA pioneers, rightfully,
understood, on most points, the Bible teaching on the gift of
prophecy, as it related to the unambiguous scriptural instruction
for testing prophets, except the so-called “physical signs” while
in vision. What we will have to establish however, is whether
indeed Ellen White, through her prophetic ministry and the
level to which the brethren supported and endorsed her, did stay
true to the clear teaching of Scripture—“to the law and to the
testimony.” Or, was there a discrepancy between the Bible-based
position of the church on the calling and function of a prophet
(i.e. Ellen White’s prophetic work) and how things actually
happened in real life?
Another aspect we need to look at, in relation to the message
of the prophet has to do with predictions. How much of what a
prophet predicts, when the claim is made of divine revelation,
needs to come to passΘ We do not need to spend an inordinate
amount of time on this as it already goes without saying that
when God says something will come to pass, it does. Yet, having
said that, are there any exceptions to this basic rule? If there are,
then what are they? Firstly, the Bible does give a general rule by
which a prophet can be tested in this regard:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing

follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the Lord hath
not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptu-ously: thou
shalt not be afraid of him. Deuteronomy 18:22

Barring some exceptions, which we will consider shortly, the

Bible teaches quite emphatically that when a prophet makes a
prediction it must come to pass. If it does not then it will be
known that the prophet is false—“thou shalt not be afraid of
him.” God would not give such a test for nothing and thus, it
presupposes that this must be applied as a general rule/test.

45
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

We have a clear example in Scripture where this test was

put into actual practice. In Jeremiah 28 we read about the
confrontation between Hananiah and Jeremiah (two prophets).
Hananiah claims God gave him a message that the Israelites
would be freed from Babylonian captivity within two years. He
addresses Jeremiah and uses the phrase that Bible prophets are so
famous for using: “Th us speaketh the Lord of hosts …” In
response Jeremiah says:
Th e prophets that have been before me and before thee of old
prophesied both against many countries, and against great
kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. Th e prophet which
prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to
pass, [then] shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath
truly sent him. Jeremiah 28:8, 9 (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, unless some conditions are either made plain by

God or are inherently obvious in how He generally deals with
mankind (as revealed in Scripture), a true prophet does not make
a prediction that does not come to pass. Indeed, God goes out of
His way to make this a definite test.
Having said this though, there are examples in the Bible
where God attaches a condition to the fulfillment of prophetic
statements. One example of this is the condition of obedience.
God made a covenant with Israel, right back to the time of
Abraham and Jacob—that involved their offspring. Wonderful
promises were attached to this. Yet, when God addressed the
nation during their time in the wilderness, he made the condition
of obedience, for the fulfillment of those promises, clear:

But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for [it is] he that giveth
thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his cov-enant which
he sware unto thy fathers, as [it is] this day. And it shall be, if thou
do at all forget the Lord thy God, and walk

46
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify
against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which
the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye
would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 8:18-20 (Emphasis supplied)

Often the Israelites lost sight of the primary spiritual

connection to the fulfillment of God’s promises. Israel was,
above every other consideration, called to be a spiritual
nation—a peculiar people, followers of Jehovah. Th ey were to
be a living example to the world and were commanded not to
follow the practices of the pagan nations that surrounded
them. It must be noted though that in making these
promises/predictions regarding Israel (the Jewish nation) God
made the condition clear—no guesswork is involved.
Th e Bible is also clear that God is a God of love and mercy
and that it was His desire (through the witness of His people)
that other peoples also become part of Israel (spiritually, where
it counted the most). It was and still is his desire that all shall
be saved. Thus, when individuals or whole collective bodies or
communities of people repented, He had mercy on them. It is in
this type of context that we understand the conditional nature of
God’s prophetic curses or promises.
Jonah was sent to prophecy to Nineveh that the city would
be destroyed in forty days because of the great wickedness of
the people (
Jonah 3:4). But, on hearing the message, the people
repented in ashes and sackcloth, hoping that God would change
His mind. God did (
Jonah 3:8-10). It almost seems that they
were aware of the compassionate nature of the God of Israel.
Jonah certainly was, because, in His disappointment at God’s act
of mercy towards that city, the scriptures record:

But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. And he

prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, [was] not
this my saying, when I was yet in my country?

47
Brian Neumann

Th erefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou [art]
a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great
kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. Jonah 4:1, 2 (Emphasis
supplied)

TIis is exactly why Jonah ran away from God—he already

knew that it was not in the character of God to destroy people if
they repented. He was afraid of them repenting, God forgiving
them and then, as a result, making a fool of himself. He knew
that prophets were deemed true or false by the accuracy of their
predictions. But, he also knew that God’s destruction of people
was on condition that they remained rebellious.
TIus, the condition of obedience or repentance and turning
to God is an important factor in whether God does or does not
carry out a promised blessing or curse.
If God had told Jonah to tell the city of Nineveh that some
people would repent and be saved and some would rebel and
be lost but still the city would be destroyed, it would change
the underlying condition of this prophecy. The condition of
repentance, in conjunction with the gracious nature of God’s
general dealings with man, would be forfeited. In this case God
would be making it clear that He has chosen to destroy the city
and that those who would be repentant would be spared while
the rebellious would die.
God does not arbitrarily change His mind about prophecies
He has made—especially if the statement is categorical and
does not hinge on the obvious condition that Jonah, FH., clearly
understood. They always come to pass and, when they do not, we
can find grounds, based on an established condition (clearly stated
or relating to the obvious way in which God deals with mankind)
for it not happening. We will revisit this issue again when we
examine some of Ellen White’s predictions.
What I would like to highlight in the last category of this
chapter, are the physical signs that accompany the prophet while

48
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

in vision. The physical manifestations, while Ellen White was

in vision, according to James White and other pioneers of the
church, were in harmony with that which is found in the biblical
record. I would like us to consider this because it is in the area of
the physical manifestations while in vision that great significance
was placed by James White and other SDA pioneers.

PROPHETS IN VISION
Were the physical manifestations of prophets while in vision
meant to be an important test for determining a true prophet?
Because of the significance placed on this aspect by the SDA
pioneers (still presented, by some, as a primary proof ), it needs
to be ascertained if, indeed, the physical signs were even a test in
biblical times.
The question may well be asked, is any type of miracle, wonder
or extraordinary physical manifestation a full-proof factor
in determining whether someone is of God or not? Is it not
possible for many of these manifestations to be counterfeited? In
addition, how often did the Bible prophets publically, in religious
assemblies or other large gatherings, receive visions from God,
to prove (via examination of these physical signs), that they were
genuine prophets, as regularly happened with Ellen White?
Was it the norm for prophets to have their visions in public or
was it an extremely unusual occurrence when they did? And,
indeed, whether in public or not, was the mention of any physical
phenomena in Scripture, presented in such a way as to designate
that these physical symptoms be used as a so-called check-list to
prove the prophet true or false? Firstly, let’s try to establish a list
of symptoms that the Bible records were manifest in the vision
experience of some prophets.
There is, what some SDA’s may call a “Bible-based check-list,”
that establishes exactly what physical signs a true prophet will
manifest when in vision. The so called essential points of this list,
and SDA interpretation, are as follows:

49
Brian Neumann

" Falls face down (according to the text).

# Has eyes wide open (literally).
$ Is raised up (physically) and strengthened by God.
% Has no breath but can speak.

In the book of Numbers, in connection with Balaam, once

true prophet who had become an apostate prophet (when he
blessed Israel instead of cursing them), we have this record of
two of the “signs”:

And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding [in his
tents] according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon
him. And he took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor
hath said, and the man whose eyes are open hath said: He hath said,
which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty,
falling [into a trance], but having his eyes open. Numbers 24:2-4
(Emphasis supplied).

Th is portion of Scripture is one of the proofs used to show the

physical condition of a prophet when in vision. Th e words that I
have put in italics are the key portions we will consider.
A few points would be worth considering when using this
text as an example for the physical signs prophets manifest when
going into vision.
The phrase, “whose eyes are open,” is used in verse 3 (the first
of the physical signs mentioned by Balaam). The Hebrew word
used here for “eye” is, ayin, which can mean the physical eye or can
be a reference to mental and spiritual faculties. The word “open,”
is from the Hebrew, shatham. The exact meaning of the word is
dubious and thus commentators vary in their opinions regarding
it. Many render it, “whose eyes are shut.” This would mean that
the natural/physical sight is not operational. Taken in context
though, it could well imply that the eyes may be physically open,

50
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

not seeing the literal world but rather, with “spiritual eye-sight,”
the vision that God is revealing—the spiritual realm.
The part of the text (verse 4) that speaks of the prophet “falling
into a trance, but having eyes open,” is not, in its entirety to be
found in the original. The word in the Hebrew for “falling,” is
naphal. It can mean to “fall to a violent death” or to “lie prostrate,”
etc., but in this context it can literally mean that the prophet
falls down to the ground and then remains lying there. Based on
the other evidences of Scripture where this “falling” is referred
to the prophet seems to always fall “face-down.” The part of the
phrase that says “into a trance,” is supplied and not in the original.
Literally translated, the phrase would thus read, falling down and
his eyes uncovered. Uncovered (“open,” in the Old King James
English Bible), would mean the same as what we noted in verse 3.
A number of other portions in Scripture talk about the aspect
of falling down or lying on the ground. The first is to be found in
relation to Saul, in the book of 1 Samuel:

And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the spirit of God

was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to
Naioth in Ramah. And he stripped off his clothes also, and
prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all
that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, [Is] Saul also
among the prophets? 1 Samuel 19:23, 24 (Emphasis supplied)

Of course, the term “naked,” in reference to Saul, does not

need to mean, literally without any clothes, but can simply mean
that he stripped off his outer garments. Th e important aspect
is that Saul was lying down. Apparently, all day and all night
while in vision.
Another experience is that of Ezekiel:

51
Brian Neumann

As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so
[was] the appearance of the brightness round about. Th is [was]
the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I
saw [it], I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.
And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will
speak unto thee. And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto
me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.
Ezekiel 1:28, 2:1, 2 (Emphasis supplied)

TIe first thing to notice here is that Ezekiel (after the vision had
begun and then when finally beholding the Th
rone of God) fell
face down. We do not have a specific mention of the “face down”
aspect in the experience of Balaam or Saul, yet (without being
dogmatic about it), it could be inferred, based on the fact that if
these men were possibly being confronted by the glory of God
(albeit, perhaps, in a veiled sense) that they would instinctively
have fallen, face down. Th
is did not always happen at the very
start of the vision.
In this instance, Ezekiel does not remain lying down, but is
made to stand on his feet by the spirit of God. In Saul’s case he
was in a prostrate state for a day and night.
There is the case of Abraham in Genesis 15:12 where it simply
says that “a deep sleep fell upon Abraham,” and then God
communicated with him regarding the future captivity of Israel
in a strange land (Egypt). The implication is clear that Abraham
seemed to have remained lying down. Indeed, his experience
seems to be more in line with a dream rather than a vision in the
usual sense. Based on other texts we will look at, it does not seem
to be that the prophet is always made to stand.
There is also the experience of Daniel, recorded in Daniel 8
where, on the bank of the River Ulai, he saw the vision of the ram
and goat (Medo-Persia and Greece):

52
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and
fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man:
for at the time of the end [shall be] the vision. Now as he was
speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the
ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. Daniel 8:17, 18
(Emphasis supplied)

Here we see some of the same characteristics as that of Ezekiel

when in vision. Th
e difference here seems to be (according to
the text), that Daniel was actually standing for the first part of
the vision, observing the ram and goat. Th
e word for “vision,”
used in reference to the first part, where Daniel is observing the
Ram and goat, is chazon (verse 1&2). Th
en when he seeks the
meaning of what he has just seen (which seems to imply that
Daniel was actually asking a question/speaking), Gabriel is sent
to give him “understanding.” At that point, when he is
confronted with the glory of the Angel Gabriel, he falls face
down to the ground and is then lifted “upright” (this is the
second part of the vision). Th
is second part, where
understanding is given by Gabriel, is referred to in the original
as the Mareh (verse 16, 26, 27). Later, in Daniel 9, when he is
told to consider the “vision” (so that he can better understand
what he was addressing in his prayer) Gabriel (who spoke to
him in the vision of Daniel 8), uses the word Mareh, for vision.
Gabriel does this in order to bring his attention to the second
part of the overall vision of Daniel 8—the part that he did not
understand. Th
is is important to mention because although (for
those who might be aware of these two different Hebrew
words being used for the “vision” in chapter 8) it might seem to
imply two separate visions, it is not. In verse sixteen Daniel is
still in vision, standing on the bank of the River Ulai, when
Gabriel is commissioned to give him understanding. Gabriel
immediately approaches him and then Daniel falls on his face.
Clearly there is simply a transition that is taking place in the
whole vision. In regard to Daniel’s physical manifestations:

53
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

*O
UIF
GJSTU
QBSU
he is standing and in the second he falls down

and then stands, when strengthened. Even if they were two
separate visions, the fact would still remain that he stood
throughout the first (no scriptural evidence implies he fell
down) and then fell down at the start of the second.
John’s experience, in the book of Revelation, records the same
physical reactions as Daniel and Ezekiel (as far as the falling
down is concerned):
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right
hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the
last. Revelation 1:17 (Emphasis supplied)

Although John does not mention falling face-down, he seems to

imply it with the expression, “I fell at his feet as dead.” Th e
fact that he must have been facing him and falling “at his feet,”
suggests falling forwards rather than backwards. John does not
either say whether he was made to stand. It seems quite probable
that he remained lying down for the duration of the vision.
Due to the lack of textual evidence in this regard, any dogmatic
position taken in favour of him standing should be avoided.
Based on the evidence we have considered here, it would
seem that the vision experience of these various prophets,
although similar in many key respects, also differ from time
to time. It does not seem that there is a “set recipe” in exactly
the order of standing, falling or, for that matter, that the eyes
were always literally open or closed. In all accounts, other than
Balaam, the eyes are not mentioned at all. Some translators
choose to render the “eyes open” as figurative for “spiritual
vision”—not to be taken literally. Due to lack of explicit biblical
evidence and only the one account given by Balaam in the book
of Numbers, it is better not to be overly dogmatic on this point.
Of course, in the figurative sense we can safely say, the eyes were
always open.
Th en, finally, there is the biblical record of Daniel describing
his experience in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, when he
54
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

was taken off in vision while on the bank of the Great Hiddekel
River. There are some significant features to note in this account
as, barring the matter of the eyes being open, Daniel covers
all the other manifestations and also refers to something else
we have not touched on before. Below are the portions of the
biblical text (Daniel 10:7-19) which pertain specifically to the
physical manifestations:

Verse 7: And I Daniel alone saw the vision …

Verse 8:…I retained no strength …

Verse 9:…in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the

ground…

Verse 10:…hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and

[upon] the palms of my hands …

Verse 11:…O Daniel, a man greatly beloved…stand upright…when

he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling…

Verse 15: And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my
face toward the ground, and I became dumb.

Verse 16:…then I opened my mouth, and spake…I have

retained no strength…

Verse 17-19: For how can the servant of this my lord talk with
this my lord? For as for me, straightway there remained no strength
in me, neither is there breath left in me. Th en there came again and
touched me [one] like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened
me, And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace [be] unto thee,
be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was
strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened
me. (Emphasis supplied).

55
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Here we have a far more comprehensive account of the physical

experience of the prophet when he was in vision. Daniel seems
to have the full range of symptoms in this vision and mentions
them in the general sequence they occurred (adding in
something that we do not read about anywhere else—the no
breathing but yet talking symptom). Th e only one he does not
refer to is the eyes being “open.”
It is also of interest to note that Daniel “stood
trembling” (Verse 11). Make a mental note of this point as I will
be referring to it in the next chapter.
In further reference to Daniel, it might be mentioned here
that he had received visions on a number of occasions prior to
the one referred to above. Thus, it is certain that he was quite
familiar with the kinds of physical phenomena accompanying
the vision experience. What strikes one about this account in
Daniel chapter ten though, is not just the fact that he mentions
in fair detail, the physical aspects he is experiencing but seems to
be expressing surprise at the fact that he is not breathing but yet
can speak. It is almost as if there is something happening on this
occasion that he has not experienced in visions prior to this event.
The point can be debated, of course, but nonetheless, his
surprise at this specific phenomena and his deliberate mention of
it, does raise the question as to whether all the physical phenomena
that are associated with a prophet in vision are always manifest
in just that way and in just that order (as questioned already) or,
if it happens in different ways, depending on how God wills. We
also need to bear in mind, as mentioned before, that Daniel does
not mention what Balaam mentions in relation to the eyes being
“wide open.” This may be seen as a minor deletion or detail, but
is this or any of the other points, like Daniel’s surprise, really
minor? After all, Daniel seems to be specific about the other
physical symptoms he is experiencing, so why would he leave that
one out? Can it be glossed over when one considers that these
physical signs were very carefully examined on various occasions

56
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

when Ellen White was in vision, to see if they were exactly as

the Bible says (under encouragement from James White)? Does
it really mean that because these signs were manifest, just as the
so-called “biblical list” described, a “list” that in reality does not
exist, she must be a true prophet?
In the following chapter we will take a closer look at these and
other questions.

SOURCES
1. A Word to the Little Flock., p. 13.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Review and Herald, October 5, 1854
5. Early Writings, p. 78.
6. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, p. 663, 664.
7. Review and Herald, February 15, 1870 (Emphasis supplied).
 Chapter II

In Vision
Applying the Standard—part: one

Quench not the Spirit.

Despise not prophesyings.
Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good.

—1Thessalonians 5:19-21

W
e have already established that Scripture is the standard
by which all things need to be proved. Applying this
same biblical standard, we will compare Ellen White
to the experience of biblical prophets while in vision.

CLAIMS
It is claimed, by those who believe in the full authenticity of Ellen
G. White’s prophetic ministry, that one of the primary factors
that presents irrefutable evidence in support of her genuine
prophetic status, are the physical phenomena that accompanied
her vision experiences. I would like to re-ask a question posed
in the previous chapter: when the Bible categorically spells
out criteria for testing a prophet, do the physical phenomena
experienced by the prophet when in vision, make up part of that

59
Brian Neumann

“test-list?” Where are the texts in the Bible that clearly say that if
a prophet does not manifest these physical phenomenon you may
know that their vision is not from God?
The answer to this question is quite simple. Nowhere in the
Bible does God say that some physical phenomena, manifested by
the prophet when in vision, should be used to prove if a prophet is
true or false (there is not one text in Scripture that can be found
as clear evidence for this). In other words, the so called biblical
tests presented for these physical criteria, by James White, other
early SDA pioneers, and, no doubt other non-Adventists who
also saw these criteria as a Bible-based test, are not based on any
patent scriptural command.
They took what were simply accounts given by various
individuals and extrapolated, from the mere fact that these
prophets were describing some physical manifestations they were
experiencing (which were not identical in any instances), that
the Bible was laying out a fool-proof test for evaluating someone
while in vision.
We noted earlier on that Balaam only mentions that his eyes
were open and falling down. Daniel, for example, does not mention
the aspect of the eyes being open but he does speak about having
no strength, falling face-down, being strengthened by God, put into a
kneeling position and then finally made to stand on his feet.
And then, of course, there is the major aspect of him not
breathing but yet talking, often presented as a physical manifestation
that cannot be counterfeited by a false prophet. It might be noted,
the Bible does not say that some of these manifestations, or even
all of them, cannot be counterfeited.
In the first chapter I noted the fact that Daniel, based on his
expression of amazement and surprise, seems to be experiencing
the not breathing but talking for the first time when in vision.
Even if this point was considered as open for debate, it
still leaves room for plausible doubt as to whether it always
accompanied the vision experience.

60
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

TIere is no record in the Bible of people doing a physical

exam on a prophet while in vision—as if a true prophet of God
needs to be examined for trickery like some magician performing
magic tricks in a circus act. It almost seems below the dignity of
such a profound and holy experience to be encouraging people to
pull, push, feel, poke around and conduct breathing and vision tests
to prove that the person is the genuine article. God never needed
to test the prophets in this way in the past, why do it now? Are
there not the fool-proof tests that the Bible explicitly
outlines, that do not run the risk or potential of being

counterfeited?
In light of these considerations, what are we left with? We are
left to surmise or deduct that the purpose for Balaam, Daniel
and the other prophets relating what they were experiencing
while in vision was done in order to show that, most of the
time (at the very least), this is what physically happens when a
real prophet receives a vision. We are then left to assume (on
top of the first assumption) that by this God was laying out
criteria for a full-proof test.
In reality, this leaves us with a “straw-man-evaluation.” It is
quite evident, even from the accounts of Ellen White’s vision
experiences (which we will shortly consider), that she did not
always manifest all these physical test criteria. Just this fact alone
is evidence enough that God does not always have the prophet
manifest the same physical phenomena in the same way while
in vision.
TIis being the case, it would be unfair to apply these tests to
someone in a state of trance who might not be manifesting ALL
the signs and then, for lack of them, label their vision as not
from God.
Arguably, the only phenomena that cannot be counterfeited,
is the not breathing but yet talking symptom, mentioned only
by Daniel. Th
is is not because the Bible states that it cannot be
counterfeited. Every single one of the other phenomena can be
counterfeited and are, indeed, observed in certain types of seizures

61
Brian Neumann

related to real medical conditions or testimonies of extra-biblical

prophets. Some were not even Hebrew or Christian.
When it comes to Ellen White, even the methods used to
test her while in vision, when she was reportedly speaking while
not breathing, were not fool-proof. Doctors in those days did
not have the equipment to do tests so as to obtain irrefutable
results—especially in rooms full of people that may not always
have been well lit. The circumstances simply did not provide for
obtaining irrefutable results.
Below I present a few exhibits of eye-witness accounts of
Ellen White when in vision. It is important to consider these
statements and to then evaluate them in light of what has already
been said. The first is by J. N. Loughborough, SDA historian, who
claimed to have seen Ellen White in vision fifty times:

In passing into vision, she gives three enrapturing shouts of

“Glory!” which echo and re-echo, the second, and especially the third,
fainter but more thrilling than the first, the voice resem-bling that of
one quite a distance from you, and just going out of hearing. For
about four or five seconds she seems to drop down like a person in a
swoon, or one having lost his strength; she then seems to be
instantly filled with superhuman strength, sometimes rising at
once to her feet and walking about the room. Th ere are frequent
movements of the hands and arms, pointing to the right or left as
her head turns. All these move-ments are made in a most graceful
manner. In whatever position the hand or arm may be placed, it
is impossible for anyone to move it. Her eyes are always open, but
she does not wink; her head is raised, and she is looking upward, not
with a vacant stare, but with a pleasant expression, only differing
from the normal in that she appears to be looking intently at
some distant object. She does not breathe, yet her pulse beats
regularly. Her countenance is pleasant, and the color of her face
as florid as in her natural state. 1

62
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

And then the account of Friday, June 12th, 1868, in Battle

Creek, when Ellen White, during a public meeting, was taken off
in vision. Published by James White in the Review and Herald:

She spoke to the young generally, and addressed several person-

ally. And while [she was] speaking from the platform in front of
the pulpit, in the most solemn and impressive manner, the power
of God came upon her, and in an instant she fell upon the carpet
in vision. Many witnessed this manifestation for the first time,
with astonishment and perfect satisfaction that it was the work
of God. Th e vision lasted twenty minutes. No one was expecting
it. 2

In 1931, at a camp meeting in California, witness, Nellie Sisley

Starr recounted this same Friday night meeting:

4IF
XBMLFE
CBDL
BOE
GPSUI
BOE
UBMLFE
UP
VT
BOE
BT
TIF
XBMLFE

TIF
GFMM
SJHIU
EPXO
4IF
GFMM
EPXO
HFOUMZ
4IF
XFOU
EPXO
as if an
angel’s hands were under her.…We thought she had GBJOUFE
CVU

#SPUIFS
8IJUF
TBJE
i$BVTF
ZPVSTFMWFT
OP
BMBSN
8JGF
IBT
OPU

GBJOUFE
CVU
IBT
GBMMFO
JO
WJTJPOw
*
XJTI
*
DPVME
EFTDSJCF
UIF

GFFMJOH
UIBU
XF
BMM
IBE
*U
XBT
QFSGFDU
RVJFUOFTT
FWFO
UIF
DIJMESFO

NBEF
OP
OPJTFy




*U
TFFNFE
BT
UIPVHI
heaven was settling down upon us and
closing us in…Sister White lay perfectly quiet and
unconscious. Oh, the feeling that was sensed in that building.
Brother White said, “… some in the congregation that may have
doubts in regard to my wife’s inspiration. If there are any such we
would be glad to have them come forward and try the physical tests
given in the Bible. It may help some of you.”
… Brother White had knelt down, and he raised Sister
White’s head and shoulders on his knees.
Others came up, and there were two unusually large men.
Th ey
stood
one
on
each side of her shoulders.
“Now,”
Brother
White
said,
“we
all
saw
Sister
White
fall; we know she lost her OBUVSBM

63
Brian Neumann

strength. Now we will see if she has supernatural strength.” She

was lying with her hands gently folded over her chest. She was lying
quietly and looking up in the corner of the building. Her eyes were open,
with a pleasant expression on her face. Nothing unnatural or unusual.
Brother White said to these large men, “Take her hands apart.
You have two hands to her one. Just pull her hands apart.” So they
tried. Th ey pulled and pulled till some of us got anxious that they would
hurt her. Brother White said, “Don’t be anxious; she is safe in God’s
keeping, and you can pull until you are perfectly satisfied.” Th ey said, “We
are satisfied now. We don’t need to pull anymore.”
He said, “Take up one finger at a time.” Th at was impossi-ble. Th ey
could not do so much as move a finger. It seemed like a block of
granite. Th ere was no change in appearance, but it just couldn’t be
moved. We looked to see if her eyes were closed and see if she was
breathing. Th en she took her hands apart and waved her hands. We
said, “We will see when she comes out of vision that she has been flying.”
Brother White said to these men, “Now hold her.” I think they
thought they could. Th ey grasped her by the wrists, but they could not
retard the motion. It looked like any child could hold her, but she went
on just the same.
Elder White said, “Now we are satisfied with that. Now we must
see if her eyelids will close.” Th ere was a large Rochester
[kerosene] lamp close by on the stand. He removed the shade and put
this light right in front of her eyes. We thought she would move her
eyes to protect them. She didn’t. She was perfectly unconscious.
Th e expression of her countenance changed at times.
Sometimes she looked pleased. At other times we could see that there was
something distressing her, but the eyelids did not close.

64
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

“Now,” Brother White said, “we must see if there is any breath in
her body.” Th ere didn’t seem to be any. Everything looked all right,
only there was no breath. Brother White said, “Now we will send
out and get a mirror, and we will test it.” So someone went to the
next door and got a mirror, and it was held close to her face, but no
moisture gathered. So there was
no breathing.…3

Let’s consider the foregoing eyewitness accounts in light of

biblical evidence.
Can it even be inferred, from the fact that prophets mentioned
their physical status while in vision, that this was done in order
for skeptics or even believers to have a fool-proof check-list for
establishing if the vision was coming from God or not? The
answer is conclusively “no.”
People were not always present when prophets (including
Ellen White) received visions. Who was to test the signs at those
times? The fact is, as we have clearly seen from the Bible, that
the physical manifestations, although similar in most cases, did
not always happen in exactly the same way. A test carried out
on this basis, not to mention the inability to always have ideal
environments in which to carry out these tests, is not a proper
test at all—too much room is left for plausible doubt.
Then, at the risk of being overly repetitive, there is the need to
examine more closely the physical symptom of not breathing yet
speaking. Reasonable and quite logical questions to ask are: Was it
a requirement for a prophet to stop breathing in order to receive
a vision from God? Was it necessary for God to put him/her
in a state where they were not naturally sustaining themselves,
in order for God to show them the vision? When they received
revelations in dreams and not visions, did they stop breathing as
well? Is there biblical evidence to prove this?
Again, with so many obvious loopholes and no clear,
unambiguous biblical directive or even example that shows that

65
Brian Neumann

Bible prophets were tested for these signs, can we challenge

people, as James White did, to try the physical tests given in
the Bible?
Not once, as stated a number of times already, has the Bible,
even vaguely, made these physical symptoms a test—for all the
reasons we have already addressed. How could James White have
established and put into practice what he called the tests given in
the Bible, when the Bible never said such a thing?
Regardless of how graceful, no matter how serine or calm the
facial expressions, no matter the apparent superhuman strength
of the person, do these things indicate authenticity? Even if there
is an atmosphere of awe and reverence among the people (the
psychological effect upon people in that sort of context can easily
inspire such results), does it indicate that the prophet is having a
genuine vision? Without a clear biblical injunction, establishing
these things as signs, dare we attempt to use these criteria as a
full-proof test?
There is enough modern medical evidence available today that
record people manifesting all the same physical/bodily symptoms
as did Ellen White and the prophets of old—in this information-
age, these materials are freely available. Thus, I will not spend too
much time on this as, in my opinion, these facts are not conclusive
evidence to prove or disprove the authenticity of a prophet—
there are far more pertinent proofs than the so called physical
test. Besides, as alluded to already, there have been and are many
false prophets who also manifest some of the same physical
symptoms. In fact, many of them arose in Ellen White’s era
and many of them made similar, if not identical, claims to those
made by Ellen White. I will have a bit more to say regarding the
issue of these other prophets shortly. Before ending this chapter
though, let me share a final quote (relating to the physical signs)
from A.G. Daniells, who was the General Conference President
of the SDA Church in the early Twentieth Century. He was a
close friend of Ellen White and a supporter of her ministry. Yet,

66
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

at the Conference on the Spirit of Prophecy, held in 1919, he made

these pertinent remarks concerning the use of the physical signs
as a means for testing the authenticity of a prophet. Many would
do well to put this approach into practice today.

Now with reference to the evidences [physical signs]: I differ with

some of the brethren who have put together proofs or evi-dences of
the genuineness of this gift, in this respect,–I believe that the
strongest proof is found in the fruits of this gift to the church, not
in physical and outward demonstrations. For instance, I have
heard some ministers preach, and have seen it in writing, that
Sister White once carried a heavy Bible–I believe they said it
weighed 40 pounds–on her out-stretched hand, and looking up
toward the heavens quoted texts and turned the leaves over and
pointed to the texts, with her eyes toward the heavens. I do not
know whether that was ever done or not. I am not sure. I did not see
it, and I do not know that I ever talked with anybody that did
see it. But, brethren, I do not count that sort of thing as a very
great proof. I do not think that is the best kind of evidence. If I
were a stranger in an audience, and heard a preacher enlarging
on that, I would have my doubts. Th at is, I would want to know
if he saw it. He would have to say, No, he never did. Th en I would
ask, ‘Did you ever see the man that did see it?’ And he would have to
answer, ‘No, I never did.’
Well, just how much of that is genuine, and how much has
crawled into the story?–I do not know. But I do not think that
is the kind of proof we want to use. It has been a long time since I
have brought forward this sort of thing,–no breath in the body,
and the eyes wide open. Th at may have accompanied the exercise
of this gift in the early days, but it surely did not in the latter
days, and yet I believe this gift was just as genuine and exercised
just the same through these later years as in the early years. 4

67
B
r i a
n N

e u m a
n n

"
(
%BOJFMMT
PCWJPVTMZ
CFMJFWFE
JO
iUIF
(JGU w
CVU
IF
EJE
OPU
TFF
UIF

QIZTJDBM
UFTU
BT
B
GVMMQSPPG
BSHVNFOU
JO
GBWPS
PG
&MMFO
8IJUFT

QSPQIFUJD
NJOJTUSZ
)F
CFMJFWFE
iUIF
TUSPOHFTU
QSPPG
JT
GPVOE
JO
UIF

GSVJUT
PG
UIJT
HJGU
UP
UIF
DIVSDI
OPU
JO
QIZTJDBM
BOE
PVUXBSE

EFNPOTUSBUJPOTw
$FSUBJOMZ
%BOJFMMT
JT
DPSSFDU
JO
TUBUJOH
UIBU
UIF

QIZTJDBM
TJHOT
BSF
OPU
QSPPG
PG
TPNFPOF
CFJOH
B
USVF
QSPQIFU
)PXFWFS


JU
JT
EFCBUBCMF
CBTFE
PO
UIF
FWJEFODF
PG
4DSJQUVSF
JUTFMG
XIFUIFS
QSPQIFDZ

JT
POMZ
GPS
UIF
FEJGJDBUJPO
PG
UIF
DIVSDI
4DSJQUVSF
SFDPSET
QSPQIFUJD

JOTJHIU
HJWFO
UP
QBHBO
LJOHT
BOE
NFTTBHFT
GSPN
(PE
UIBU
XFSF
EFMJWFSFE

OPU
UP
UIF
DIVSDI
CVU
UP
QFPQMF
XIP
XFSF
OPU
DPOOFDUFE
UP
)JN
JO
BOZ
XBZ

BU
BMM
5IF
#PUUPN
MJOF
VTJOH
BMM
UIFTF
TP
DBMMFE
TDSJQUVSBM
UFTUT
SFMBUFE

UP
QIZTJDBM
TZNQUPNT
XIJMF
JO
WJTJPO
UP
FTUBCMJTI
UIF
BVUIFOUJDJUZ
PG

&MMFO
8IJUF
JT
QSFTVNQUVPVT
GSBVHIU
XJUI
GPMMZ
BOE
JOTUFBE
PG

QSPWJEJOH
DMFBSFS
BOTXFST
BDUVBMMZ
QSPWPLFT
RVFTUJPOT
UIBU
DBOOPU
CF

BEFRVBUFMZ
BEESFTTFE

SOURCES

1. The Great Second Advent Movement, pg. 204, 205 by

J. N. Loughborough. 1BIO, pg. 122 by Arthur L. White
(Emphasis supplied).
2. Review and Herald, June 16, 1868. 2BIO, pg. 232, Arthur L.
White (Emphasis supplied).
3. 2BIO, pg. 234, Arthur L. White (Emphasis supplied).
4. 1919 Conference on the Spirit of Prophecy—A. G. Daniells’
statement (Emphasis supplied).
 Chapter III

Prophets & Pretenders

Applying the Standard—part: two

Then said the prophet Jeremiah

unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now,
Hananiah; The Lord hath not sent thee; but
thou makest this people to trust in a lie.

—Jeremiah 28:15

W
hen we consider prophets in general, by this I
mean extra-biblical prophets that were not, strictly
speaking, Christian, what kind of conclusions can be
drawn? How do we discern their authenticity? Can we make a
blanket assumption that a non-Christian, who had a dream or
vision, received a false revelation? We know that the Bible records
pagan kings and pharaohs receiving dreams from God. In certain
instances, God even used apostate prophets, who were working
counter to His design, such as Balaam. So, based on those factors,
how can we know for sure that a “prophet” was sent a dream or
vision from God or was acting according to God’s will?
For example, in the case where God gave a dream to a pagan
king, the Bible consistently records that the dream and its
meaning was usually told to and interpreted by God’s chosen

69
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

expositor (Nebuchadnezzar–Daniel, Pharaoh–Joseph, etc.). In

other words, the receiver of the vision or dream, in these cases,
was not a prophet and thus God did not give the interpretation
of the dream or vision up to them.
In the case where God used an apostate prophet, such as
Balaam, it was for the purpose of carrying out God’s agenda, thus
revealing who was really in control, and in the process, exposing
the prophet for what he really was—a prophet corrupted by greed.
Having dealt with those scenarios, let’s move on to some real
examples of extra-biblical prophets and see what we discover.

PROPHETS …
To closely examine every non-biblical prophet that claimed
inspiration from God or otherwise, would take literally volumes
of books. Indeed, this is not the purpose of this evaluation.
Rather, the purpose is to bring to light key features relating to
some points while not laboring on unnecessary detail, unless it is
absolutely required.
Although there are apparent differences in source of
inspiration and in the carrying out of their respective missions,
when compared to each other and certainly when compared to
Ellen White, there are also similarities.
Unimportant though these commonalities may at first appear,
they are, on closer inspection, significant enough to weigh as
evidence, light or weightier, in examining the case of Ellen White
and her prophetic ministry. Indeed, in the case of one or two
of these prophets, the revelations they received (the manner of
reception and content of their visions), have direct bearing and
implication on that of Ellen White.

The Prophet Mohammad (570 A.D—632 A.D):

The faith of Islam/Muslim faith (also known as Mohammadism),
claims as its divinely appointed prophet, Mohammad. They believe

70
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

JO
UIF
(PE
"MMBI

PG
"CSBIBN
BOE
DMBJN
UIBU
.PIBNNBE

SFDFJWFE
NFTTBHFT
GSPN
)JN
5IFTF
i%JWJOFw
UFBDIJOHT
BSF
UP
CF

GPVOE
JO
UIF
)PMZ
CPPL
PG
*TMBN
5IF
,PSBO‰.VTMJNT
CFMJFWF
UIF

XSJUJOHT
PG
UIF
,PSBO
UP
CF
JOGBMMJCMF
WFSCBUJN
DPNNVOJDBUJPOT
HJWFO

UP
.PIBNNBE
XIP
UIFO
XSPUF
UIFN
EPXO
"MUIPVHI
*TMBN
UFBDIFT

UIJOHT
UIBU
DMFBSMZ
DPOUSBEJDU
CJCMJDBM
$ISJTUJBO
UFBDIJOH
JF
UIF

SFKFDUJPO
PG
$ISJTU
BT
UIF
.FTTJBI
IPXFWFS
UIFZ
CFMJFWF
+FTVT
UP

IBWF
CFFO
BO
JOTQJSFE
QSPQIFU

UIFSF
BSF
TUJMM
NBOZ
UFBDIJOHT

UIBU
JO
UIFJS
CSPBEFS
QIJMPTPQIZ
BSF
OPU
VOMJLF
DFSUBJO
WBMVFT
BOE

QSJODJQMFT
UBVHIU
BOE
QSBDUJDFE
CZ
4%"
$ISJTUJBOT
5IFZ
IBWF

JOTUSVDUJPO
DPODFSOJOH
ESFTT
TPNF
WFSZ
FYUSFNF
BOE
NPTUMZ
SFMBUFE

UP
XPNFO

BOE
BMTP
UFBDIJOHT
JO
SFMBUJPO
UP
EJFU‰POF
NBZ
DBMM
JU

IFBMUISFGPSN
5IFZ
UFBDI
BCTUJOFODF
GSPN
BMDPIPM
5IFTF
JOTUSVDUJPOT
BSF
CBTFE
PO
UIF
JOTQJSFE
UFBDIJOHT
PG

.PIBNNBE
UIFJS
QSPQIFU
*O
UIJT
SFTQFDU
XJUI
SFHBSE
UP
IFBMUIEJFU

BOE
ESFTT
.PIBNNFE
JT
NVDI
MJLF
&MMFO
8IJUF
XIP

BQQBSFOUMZ
SFDFJWFE
EJSFDU
JOTUSVDUJPO
GSPN
(PE
DPODFSOJOH

UIFTF
UZQFT
PG
UIJOHT
*O
TQJUF
PG
TPNF
PG
UIFTF
QPTJUJWF
JEFBT
JO
UIFJS
CSPBEFS

BQQMJDBUJPO

4%"
$ISJTUJBOT
XPVME
SFHBSE
.PIBNNBE
BT
B

GBMTF
QSPQIFU
5IF
SFBTPO
GPS
UIJT
DPODMVTJPO
JT
CBTFE
PO
UIF
LFZ

CJCMJDBM
UFTU
GPS
QSPQIFUT
iUP
UIF
MBX
BOE
UP
UIF
UFTUJNPOZ
yw

*TBJBI

BOE
UIF
GBDU
UIBU
UIFZ
EP
OPU
BDDFQU
$ISJTU
BT
UIF

.FTTJBI
"T
GBS
BT
UIF
QIZTJDBM
TZNQUPNT
.PIBNNBE
NBOJGFTUFE

XIJMF
JO
WJTJPO
JU
JT
SFDPSEFE
UIBU
QSJPS
UP
HPJOH
JOUP
USBODF

TXFBU
XPVME
BQQFBS
PO
IJT
CSPX
BOE
IF
XPVME
UIFO
ESPQ
UP
UIF

HSPVOE
#JCMF
QSPQIFUT
BMTP
XSPUF
BCPVU
GBMMJOH
UP
UIF
HSPVOE
BT
UIFZ

XFOU
JOUP
WJTJPO

0ODF
JO
USBODF
UIF
"OHFM
(BCSJFM
XPVME
BQQFBS

UP
IJN
BOE
XPVME
UIFO
DPOWFZ
UIF
NFTTBHFT
(PE
IBE
TFOU
8IFO
XF
MPPL
BU
UIF
GSVJUT
PG
UIF
*TMBNJD
'BJUI
JO
TQJUF
PG
UIF

DMBJN
UIBU
UIF
NFTTBHF
PG
.PIBNNBE
DBNF
EJSFDU
GSPN
(PE
"MMBI

NPTU
BSF
RVJDL
UP
MBCFM
JU
BT
B
EBOHFSPVT
SFMJHJPVT
DVMU

:FU
FWFO
UIFTF
GSVJUT
BT
NBOJGFTU
JO
UIF
WJPMFOU
BDUJPOT
PG
TPNF

71
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

*TMBNJD
TFDUT
TVDI
BT
*TJT
BSF
OPU
BDDPSEJOH
UP
NBJOTUSFBN
*TMBN

B
USVF
SFGMFDUJPO
PG
.PIBNNBE
UIF
NBO
*U
XPVME
BMNPTU
BQQFBS

UIBU
GBOBUJDT
DMJOH
UP
TPNF
PG
IJT
NPSF
FYUSFNF
FYQSFTTJPOT
BOE

NBLF
UIFN
UIF
SVMF‰DSFBUJOH
BO
JNCBMBODF
UIBU
.PIBNNBE

IJNTFMG
iBQQBSFOUMZ w
OFWFS
JOUFOEFE
*O
GBDU
BDDPSEJOH
UP
TPNF
IJTUPSJDBM
SFDPSET
.PIBNNBE

BQQFBST
UP
IBWF
CFFO
B
WFSZ
CBMBODFE
JOEJWJEVBM
*U
JT
TBJE
UIBU
IF

OFWFS
VTFE
GPVM
MBOHVBHF
BOE
OFWFS
FOUFSUBJOFE
QFPQMF
XJUI

PCTDFOF
KPLFT
)F
XBT
XFMM
CFIBWFE
JO
QVCMJD
)F
EJE
OPU
SFQBZ

FWJM
XJUI
FWJM
BOE
IBE
B
GPSHJWJOH
TQJSJU
)VTBJO
.PIBNNBET

HSBOETPO
TBJE
UIBU
IF
IBE
B
DIFFSGVM
NJME
HFOUMF
UFNQFSBNFOU

BOE
XBT
OPU
SJHJE
PS
DPVSTF
JO
IJT
DPOEVDU
)F
EJE
OPU
FOHBHF
JO

GVUJMF
QVSTVJUT
XBT
OPU
QSFEJTQPTFE
UP
GBVMUGJOEJOH
EJE
OPU

HPTTJQ
PS
CPBTU
BOE
XBT
OPU
B
IPBSEFS
PG
XFBMUI
0G
DPVSTF

XIBU
JT
OPU
DMFBSMZ
TUBUFE
JO
UIF
QSFTFOU
QPMJUJDBMMZ
DPSSFDU

FOWJSPONFOU
JT
UIBU
UIF
BQQBSFOU
iCBMBODFw
PG
UIJT
QSPQIFU
XBT
OPU

EJSFDUFE
UPXBSET
JOGJEFMT
XIP
SFKFDUFE
IJT
GBJUI
BOE
UIBU
UIF

,PSBO
NPTU
EFGJOJUFMZ
QSPOPVODFT
EFBUI
PO
UIPTF
XIP
EP
OPU

XPSTIJQ
"MMBI
#BSSJOH
UIFTF
EJTUVSCJOH
GBDUT
B
UFTUJNPOZ
TVDI
BT
XBT

EFTDSJCFE
CZ
UIPTF
XIP
XFSF
DMPTF
UP
IJN
XPVME
CF
TPNFUIJOH

BOZ
JOEJWJEVBM
DPVME
CF
QSPVE
PG
#VU
ZFU
CBTFE
PO
UIF
CJCMJDBM

DSJUFSJB
GPS
UFTUJOH
QSPQIFUT
JU
XPVME
CF
EJGGJDVMU
UP
TBZ
XJUI

BOZ
DFSUBJOUZ
UIBU
IF
XBT
B
USVF
QSPQIFU
PG
(PE
:FU
FWFO
UIPVHI
.PIBNNFE
XBT
OPU
$ISJTUJBO
BOE
NJHIU

OPU
DPOGPSN
UP
UIF
CJCMJDBM
DSJUFSJB
IF
KVTU
MJLF
&MMFO

8IJUF
XBT
UIF
GPVOEFS
BOE
QSJNBSZ
QSPQIFUJD
BVUIPSJUZ

CFIJOE
UIF
GBJUI
IF
FTUBCMJTIFE

Roman Pontiffs:
TIe Pope, as Vicar of Christ, is the supreme leader and voice of
authority in the Catholic Faith. History records
that
numerous popes received
revelations
from
God.



It is said that

72
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

TQFBL
FYDBUIFESB
UIFZ
BSF
DPNNVOJDBUJOH
UIBU
XIJDI
JT
PG

EJWJOF
PSJHJO
BOE
UIVT
CFBST
UIF
TUBNQ
PG
(PET
BVUIPSJUZ

6OEFS
UIFTF
DJSDVNTUBODFT
XIFO
B
QPQF
JOUFSQSFUT
4DSJQUVSF
IJT

JOUFSQSFUBUJPO
JT
SFHBSEFE
BT
JOGBMMJCMF
.BOZ
QPQFT
SFDFJWFE
QSPQIFUJD
WJTJPOT
*
XJMM
KVTU
NFOUJPO

B
GFX
BT
POF
DPVME
GJMM
NPSF
UIBO
POF
CPPL
XSJUJOH
BCPVU
UIF

QSPQIFUJD
WJTJPOT
PG
UIF
QPQFT
1PQF
1JVT
*9


BGUFS
SFDFJWJOH
B
WJTJPO
TBJE
iUIFSF
XJMM

DPNF
B
HSFBU
XPOEFS
XIJDI
XJMM
GJMM
UIF
XPSME
XJUI
BTUPOJTINFOU

5IJT
XPOEFS
XJMM
CF
QSFDFEFE
CZ
UIF
USJVNQI
PG
SFWPMVUJPO
5IF

DIVSDI
XJMM
TVGGFS
FYDFFEJOHMZ
)FS
TFSWBOUT
BOE
IFS
DIJFGUBJO
XJMM

CF
NPDLFE
TDPVSHFE
BOE
NBSUZSFEw
1PQF
-FP
9***


BGUFS
TBZJOH
.BTT
PO
0DUPCFS



TVEEFOMZ
DPMMBQTFE
6QPO
XBLJOH
IF
SFDPVOUFE
B
WJTJPO
IF

IBE
TFFO
)F
EFTDSJCFE
UIF
IPSSPS
PG
XIBU
IF
IBE
CFFO
TIPXO

BOE
IPX
UIF
XPSME
XPVME
HP
JOUP
B
IVOESFE
ZFBST
PG
NPSBM
BOE

TQJSJUVBM
EFDMJOF
1PQF
1JVT
9


IBE
OVNFSPVT
WJTJPOT
*O

XIJMF

IBWJOH
BO
BVEJFODF
XJUI
UIF
'SBODJTDBO
PSEFS
IF
GFMM
EPXO
BOE

XFOU
JOUP
B
USBODF
"GUFS
UIF
WJTJPO
IJT
FZFT
PQFOFE
IF
KVNQFE
UP

IJT
GFFU
BOE
UIFO
SFDPVOUFE
XIBU
IF
IBE
TFFO
1PQF
1JVT
9**


SFDFJWFE
WJTJPOT
BOE
NPTU

TVCTFRVFOU
QPQFT
IBE
SFWFMBUJPOT
PG
TPNF
PS
PUIFS
TPSU
1PQF

+PIO
1BVM
**
GPS
FH
DMBJNFE
UP
IBWF
SFDFJWFE
B
OVNCFS
PG

SFWFMBUJPOT
GSPN
(PE
4U
.BMBDIZ
0.PSHBJS
"SDICJTIPQ
PG
"SNBHI
*SFMBOE

BMUIPVHI
OPU
B
QPQF
JT
QSPCBCMZ
POF
PG
UIF
NPTU
GBNPVT
PG
UIF

$BUIPMJD
QSPQIFUT
XIP
SFDFJWFE
B
WJTJPO
PG
BMM
UIF
QPQFT
UIBU

XPVME
SFJHO
GSPN
UIF
UJNF
PG
1PQF
*OOPDFOU
**
JO

UJMM
UIF
FOE

PG
UIF
XPSME
5IF
EPDVNFOUT
PG
UIFTF
QSPQIFDJFT
XFSF
IJEEFO

BXBZ
BOE
GJOBMMZ
QVCMJTIFE
JO

5IFSF
JT
B
EFCBUF
BT
UP
UIFJS

BVUIFOUJDJUZ
ZFU
JU
JT
DMBJNFE
UIBU
UIFTF
QSFEJDUJPOT
BSF
BNB[JOHMZ

BDDVSBUF
"MUIPVHI
UIF
NBOOFS
JO
XIJDI
WBSJPVT
QPQFT
SFDFJWFE

WJTJPOT
XBT
OPU
BMXBZT
UIF
TBNF
NBOZ
PG
UIFN
BU
UIF
WFSZ
MFBTU

73
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

NBOJGFTUFE
TPNF

PG
UIF
QIZTJDBM
TZNQUPNT
BTTPDJBUFE
XJUI
#JCMF


QSPQIFUT

XIFO

JO

WJTJPO
5IF

NPTU

DPNNPO

PG

UIFTF

JT

UIBU

PG


GBMMJOH
EPXO
XIFO
HPJOH
JOUP
USBODF

"T
OPOF
PG
VT
XFSF
BSPVOE
UP
FYBNJOF
UIF
GVMM
QIZTJDBM
TUBUF


PG
UIFTF
QPQFT
XIFO
JO
WJTJPO
XF
DBO
POMZ
UFTU
UIFJS
NJOJTUSZ
CZ


UIF
iMBX
BOE
UIF
UFTUJNPOZ w
UIF
#JCMF
#FTJEFT
UIJT
XF
DBO
USZ
UP


BTDFSUBJO
XIFUIFS
UIFJS
QSFEJDUJPOT
DPOTJTUFOUMZ
DBNF
UP
QBTT
BT


UIF
#JCMF
JT
FNQIBUJD
BCPVU
UIJT
CFJOH
POF
PG
UIF
XBZT
GPS
UFTUJOH


B
QSPQIFU
0G
DPVSTF
FWFO
UIF
GBDU
UIBU
TPNF
PG
B
QSPQIFUT
QSFEJDUJPOT


IBWF

DPNF

UP

QBTT

JT

OPU

JO

BOE

PG

JUTFMG

GPPMQSPPG

FWJEFODF


PG

UIFN

CFJOH

HFOVJOF
5IFSF

BSF

BMM

UIF

PUIFS

CJCMJDBM

DSJUFSJB


BMSFBEZ

NFOUJPOFE

UIBU

OFFE

UP

CF

DPOTJEFSFE

5IFTF

XJMM


CF
SFWJTJUFE
TIPSUMZ
$FSUBJOMZ
OP
IBSE
BOE
GBTU
DPNQBSJTPOT
DBO
CF
NBEF
CFUXFFO


UIF
QPQFT
BOE
UIF
QSPQIFUJD
DBMMJOH
PG
&MMFO
8IJUF
FYDFQU
XIFO


JU

DPNFT

UP

UIF

RVFTUJPO

PG

UIF

BVUIPSJUZ

BOE

JNQBDU

PG

UIFJS


UFBDIJOHT
PO
TPNF
PG
UIF
NPSF
QFDVMJBS
CFMJFGT
PG
UIF
GBJUIT
UIFZ


SFQSFTFOU
*O
SFMBUJPO
UP
&MMFO
8IJUF
UIF
RVFTUJPO
PG
iBVUIPSJUZw


XJMM
CF
DBSFGVMMZ
FYBNJOFE
MBUFS
PO

.JDIFM
EF
/PTUSFEBNF


/PTUSBEBNVT

BSHVBCMZ
UIF
NPTU
GBNPVT
FYUSBCJCMJDBM
QSPQIFU


XBT
B
'SFODI
BQPUIFDBSZ
BOE
TFFS
XIP
DMBJNFE
UP
IBWF
SFDFJWFE


NBOZ

QSPQIFUJD

WJTJPOT

EVSJOH

IJT

MJGFUJNF

)JT

CPPL

-FT


1SPQIFUJFT

5IF

1SPQIFDJFT


GJSTU

QSJOUFE

JO



BOE


SBSFMZ
PVU
PG
QSJOU
TJODF
IJT
EFBUI
DPOUBJOFE
BMM
PG
IJT
NBKPS


WJTJPOT
DBMMFE
RVBUSBJOT
/PTUSBEBNVT

IBT

CFFO

DSFEJUFE

XJUI

BDDVSBUFMZ

QSFEJDUJOH


NBOZ

NBKPS

XPSME

FWFOUT

UIPVHI

NPTU

BDBEFNJD

TPVSDFT


NBJOUBJO

UIBU

UIJT

SFDPSE

JT

JO

NPTU

DBTFT

UIF

SFTVMU

PG


EFMJCFSBUF
NJTJOUFSQSFUBUJPO
5IF

NFUIPE

CZ

XIJDI

/PTUSBEBNVT

SFDFJWFE

NPTU

PG

IJT


WJTJPOT
XBT
CZ
JOUFOUMZ
HB[JOH
JOUP
B
CPXM
PG
XBUFS

NVDI
MJLF

74
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

TPNFPOF
MPPLJOH
JOUP
B
DSZTUBM
CBMM


8IJMF
EPJOH
UIJT
IF

XPVME
HP
JOUP
B
USBODFTUBUF
BOE
WJTJPOT
PG
UIF
GVUVSF
XPVME

UIFO
QMBZ
PVU
CFGPSF
IJN
5IF
NFUIPE
VTFE
GPS
SFDFJWJOH
IJT
WJTJPOT
DMFBSMZ

SFTFNCMFT
NFUIPET
VTFE
CZ
NZTUJDT
PG
UIF
PDDVMU
BOE
UIF

BDDVSBDZ
PG
UIF
NBKPSJUZ
PG
IJT
QSFEJDUJPOT
BT
BMSFBEZ

NFOUJPOFE
TFFNT
UP
CF
EFCBUBCMF
#BTFE
PO
UIFTF
GBDUPST
BMPOF

EPFT
IF
OPU
GBMM
JOUP
B
WFSZ
EVCJPVT
QSPQIFUJD
NPME
"MUIPVHI
IJT
MBOHVBHF
XIFO
SFDPSEJOH
IJT
WJTJPOT
IBT

B
CJCMJDBM
GMBWPS
BOE
BMUIPVHI
CJCMJDBM
TZNCPMJTN
PGUFO
BQQFBST
JO

UIFTF
EFTDSJQUJPOT
EPFT
IF
DPOGPSN
UP
UIF
TDSJQUVSBM
DSJUFSJB
GPS

B
USVF
QSPQIFU
PG
(PE
)F
EJE
OPU
DMBJN
BMMFHJBODF
UP
BOZ
DIVSDI
FWFO
UIPVHI
IJT

SPPUT
XFSF
$BUIPMJD
)JT
QVSQPTF
XBT
QVSFMZ
UP
NBLF
QSFEJDUJPOT

BCPVU
UIF
GVUVSF
TPNF
XIJDI
DBNF
UP
QBTT
BOE
TPNF
XIJDI

EJE
OPU
*O
UIJT
SFTQFDU
IF
BOE
&MMFO
8IJUF
TIBSF
DPNNPO
HSPVOE

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772):

*U
JT
SFQPSUFE
PG
4XFEFOCPSH
UIBU
IF
XBT
B
NBO
PG

QVSF
DIBSBDUFS
UIBU
OP
NPSBM
TUBJO
DPVME
CF
GPVOE
PO

IJN
BOE
UIBU
IF
XBT
EFWPVUMZ
SFMJHJPVT
JO
UIF
$ISJTUJBO
DPOUFYU


*U
XBT
BU
UIF
BHF
PG
GJGUZGJWF
UIBU
IF
SFDFJWFE
IJT
GJSTU
WJTJPOT
PG

IFBWFO
BOE
IFMM
BOE
UIF
TQJSJUVBM
SFBMNT
"DDPSEJOH
UP

4DIBGG)FS[PHT
&ODZDMPQFEJB
4XFEFOCPSH
SFDFJWFE
B
EJSFDU

DPNNJTTJPO
GSPN
(PE
IJNTFMG
UP
CF
B
TFSWBOU
GPS
)JN
5IJT

JT
IPX
IF
TUBUFT
JU
i*
IBWF
CFFO
DBMMFE
UP
B
IPMZ
PGGJDF
CZ
UIF

-PSE
IJNTFMG
XIP
NPTU
NFSDJGVMMZ
BQQFBSFE
UP
NF
IJT
TFSWBOU

JO
UIF
ZFBS

XIFO
IF
PQFOFE
NZ
TJHIU
JOUP
UIF
TQJSJUVBM

XPSME
yw
)F
DMBJNFE
UIBU
JO
IJT
WJTJPOT
IF
XBT
DPNNVOJDBUFE
UP

CZ
BOHFMT
BOE
TQJSJUT‰QFPQMF
XIP
IBE
EJFE
BOE
XFSF
OPX
JO
UIF

TQJSJUVBM
SFBMN

75
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Schaff-Herzog’s Encyclopedia records Swedenborg describing

how, when in vision, his bodily functions of respiration and
circulation cease and how, when in the vision state, he is in a
“state of dying”: “I was brought into a state of insensibility as to
the bodily sense, thus almost into the state of the dying; yet the
interior life with thought remaining entire, so that I perceived
and retained in memory the things which occurred …”
He does, however, speak of his belief that there is life after
death. Th is factor would certainly be a problem for SDA’s who
hold to the teaching that there is no cognizance after death.
However, Swedenborg’s philosophy of spiritual growth, based
on the teachings of Christ, are stated in a way that could easily
be understood and accepted by any Bible-believing Christian, in
particular SDA’s:

“We can now see that it is not as hard to lead a heaven-bound life as
many people think. When something gets in the way that people
know is dishonest and unfair, something their spirit moves
toward, it is simply a matter of thinking that they should not do it
because it is against the divine precepts…As this takes place, the
higher reaches of their mind are opened; and as they are opened,
they see which things are dishonest and unfair; and as they see them,
they can be broken off. No evil can be broken off until after it is seen.
“… once this is begun, the Lord works out all good things for
them, arranging things so that they not only see evil ele-ments but
dislike them, and eventually turn away from them. Th
is is the
meaning of the Lord’s words, ‘My yoke is easy, and my burden light.’
“A heaven-bound life is not a life withdrawn from the world
but a life involved in the world. A life of piety without a life of love
(which occurs only in this world) does not lead to heaven. Rather, it is
a life of love, a life of behaving honestly BOE
GBJSMZ
JO
FWFSZ
UBTL
FWFSZ
USBOTBDUJPO
FWFSZ
XPSL
BOE
GSPN
B
NPSF
JOXBSE
TPVSDF

UIBU
MFBET
UP
B
IFBWFOMZ
POF

76
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

TIis source is present in that life when a person behaves

honestly and fairly because it is in keeping with divine laws.”

4XFEFOCPSH
EJE
GPDVT
B
MPU
PG
IJT
EFTDSJQUJPO
PG
UIF
TQJSJUVBM

XPSME
PO
UIF
TUBUF
PG
UIPTF
XIP
IBWF
EFQBSUFE
BGUFS
EFBUI
:FU
JO

IJT
DPODFQUT
PG
TQJSJUVBM
HSPXUI
UPXBSET
B
IFBWFOMZ
MJGF
IF
JT
JO

BHSFFNFOU
XJUI
UIF
#JCMF
*O
SFHBSE
UP
UIF
OFBS
iEFBUIMJLFw
TUBUF

XIJMF
JO
WJTJPO
IF
TFFNT
UP
CF
WFSZ
DMPTF
JO
IJT

EFTDSJQUJPOT
UP
UIBU
XIJDI
&MMFO
8IJUF
JT
TBJE
UP
IBWF

FYQFSJFODFE
BOE
BMTP
UP
8JMMJBN
'PZF
XIPN
XF
XJMM
DPOTJEFS

TIPSUMZ
*O
NPSBM
TUBOEJOH
BOE
QVSFOFTT
PG
DIBSBDUFS
IF
TUBOET
BCPWF
BOZ

BWFSBHF
QFSTPO‰KVTU
BT
&MMFO
8IJUF
JT
DMBJNFE
UP
IBWF
CFFO
-JLF
&MMFO
8IJUF
IF
DMBJNFE
B
EJWJOF
DPNNJTTJPO
UP
B
IPMZ

PGGJDF‰DBMMFE
CZ
(PE
UP
CF
B
NF
TT FOHFS
GPS
)JN
)F
GPVOEFE

B
DIVSDI
NPSF
JO
UIF
MJOF
PG
B
TPDJFUZ
PG
GPMMPXFST

BOE
UIFTF

TPDJFUJFT
BSF
TUJMM
UP
CF
GPVOE
BSPVOE
UIF
XPSME
UPEBZ
0G
DPVSTF
JO
DFSUBJO
QBSUJDVMBS
SFTQFDUT
IF
EJGGFST

GSPN
&MMFO
8IJUF
FTQFDJBMMZ
JO
SFHBSE
UP
IJT
CFMJFG

DPODFSOJOH
UIF
iTUBUF
PG
UIF
EFBEw
*O
TPNF
QPJOUT
IF

DPOGPSNT
UP
TPNF
PG
UIF
DSJUFSJB
GPS
USVF
QSPQIFUT
PVUMJOFE
JO
UIF

#JCMF
:FU
XIFO
BQQMZJOH
UIF

CJCMJDBM
TUBOEBSE
BT
B
XIPMF
DBO
IF
CF
DBMMFE
B
USVF
QSPQIFU

PG
(PE

Ann Elizabeth Lee (1736-1784):

.PUIFS
"OO
-FF
BT
TIF
JT
GPOEMZ
DBMMFE
CZ
IFS
GPMMPXFST
XBT
UIF

GPVOEFS
PG
UIF
NPWFNFOU
UIBU
CFDBNF
LOPXO
BT
UIF
6OJUFE
4PDJFUZ
PG

#FMJFWFST
JO
$ISJTUT
4FDPOE
"QQFBSJOH
PS
UIF
4IBLFST


5IFJS
XPSTIJQ
XBT
DIBSBDUFSJ[FE
CZ
B
UZQF
PG
EBODJOH
PS

iTIBLJOHw‰IFODF
UIF
MBCFM
i4IBLFSTw
%FTQJUF
UIFJS
WFSZ
DIBSJTNBUJDMJCFSBUFE
TUZMF
PG
XPSTIJQ
UIF

TIBLFST
XFSF
WFSZ
TUSJDU
JO
NBOZ
SFTQFDUT
XIFO
JU
DBNF
UP
UIFJS

MJGFTUZMF
BOE
BTTPDJBUJPO
XJUI
UIF
XPSME
5IFJS
UFBDIJOHT
XFSF


B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

derived from the instructions Mother Ann Lee received while

in vision.
Like Ellen White, she called her messages to the church,
testimonies. Similar to Ellen White, she instituted a special type
of dress for her followers, was against the eating of pork and
opposed war. Much like the early SDA pioneers, her followers
avoid association with other churches and are well known for
their devotion, purity and honesty—good fruits seem to be the
result of her influence.
On the basis of the extreme physical manifestations in their
worship alone, some may already not hesitate to label Mother
Ann Lee as a false prophet—these activities seem contrary to
Paul’s teaching on principles of “edifying” worship (1 Corinthians
14). Yet, it is interesting to note that, once again, like most of the
other prophets we have looked at so far, there are certain things
that could be viewed as being in her ТНвЫЮ.
Surely, if one was to ask any of her followers, whether she
edified the church or not, they would not hesitate to say that
she did—through her testimonies and personal influence. But,
from an unbiased and purely Bible-based perspective, does ЯФС
conform to all the criteria for a true prophetΘ

Joanna Southcott (1750-1814):

Joanna was born in England to poor parents and was almost
wholly (at least in an official capacity) uneducated. She grew up
in a devout religious atmosphere and was made to read a chapter
of the Bible every day. At the age of twenty-one her father took
ill and she managed his farm for a couple of years. After that she
worked as a domestic servant and in 1790, at the age of forty,
joined the Methodist Church. Two years later she announced
that she was a prophetess and published over sixty pamphlets
setting forth the revelations she received while in states of trance.
Among these revelations was her announcement that Christ was
soon going to return.

78
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

She carried on a lucrative trade selling the books which she

wrote and after a few years her followers numbered one hundred
thousand. Many leading ministers in England were among
her followers.
She became more and more deluded as time passed and by
the time she was in her sixties she declared that she was the
bride of the lamb, pregnant with the true Messiah. A Chamber’s
Encyclopedia article on Joanna Southcott states:

Th e history of Joanna Southcott herself has not much in it that is

marvelous; but the influence which she exercised over others may well
be deemed so, and the infatuation of her followers is hard to be
understood, particularly when it is considered that some of them
were men of some intelligence and of cultivated mind. Probably the
secret of her influence lay in the fact that the poor creature was in
earnest about her own delusions.

Although she was, quite clearly deluded, she functioned, at

least for the most part, as a prophetess within the realms of the
Christian faith. It is significant to note, as Chamber’s Encyclopedia
so aptly stated, with reference to her supporters that “some of
them were men of some intelligence and of cultivated mind.”
I do not want to draw any hard and fast parallels between
Southcott and Ellen White. Yet, I will say, in light of the fact that
SDA’s often mention Ellen White’s literary feats as extraordinary,
considering her lack of education, that this, in and of itself, is
not proof of Divine inspiration. Southcott, like Ellen White, was
admired by many educated, intellectual men and woman, but in
spite of her writing abilities, apparent religious piety and self-
proclaimed prophetic calling, she НЬЬСНЮСР
аЫ
ОС deluded, and
at the very least, self-inspiredΔ
τn the basis of biblical
evaluation, ПНЪ
ЯФС
ОС
ПНШШСР
Н
аЮбС
ЬЮЫЬФСаΘ

79
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Joseph Smith (1805-1844):

As founder and prophet of the Mormon Faith (The Church of
Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith is very well
known. In his childhood his family moved to an area in Western
New York later to become known as the burned-over district in
honor of the way it was repeatedly swept by religious revivals
during the Second Great Awakening—an era of sectarian fervor
and profound “millenarian expectation.”
His family was very religious and participated in the various
Christian revivals that took place. Their spiritual discernment
could be questioned however as they also got involved in spiritual
mysticism. These kinds of practices were quite common, even
among Christians at that time.
In 1823, investigating the Methodist Faith, Joseph began
to receive visions. He had become disillusioned with all
denominations (he said that they were “all wrong”) and had set
out on a quest to find the truth.
From this time on he regularly experienced visions. While in
vision he ЯбЬЬЫЯСРШе
spoke to angels who gave him
revelations that would become foundational teachings of the
Mormon Faith. He was shown that the second coming of
Christ was at hand (hence the name for his church: Latter-day
Saints). He was shown that all the other churches were
“heathen” or Babylon, that the world was “spiritually dead”
that his sins had been forgiven and that it was his Рivine calling
to introduce the “new dispensation.” Like Ellen White, he also
had visions about the Civil War. Unlike her though, his visions
of the war were received decades before Ellen White who,
reportedly, received her first viewshortly before the war
commenced. Th
is will be discussed in great detail in a later
chapter.
Smith’s followers regarded him (still do) as a prophet of, at
the very least, the stature of Elijah and Moses. In spite of many
teachings that cannot be reconciled with the Bible, Joseph Smith

80
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

said, in his later life, “I believe the Bible, as it ought to be, as it

came from the pen of the original writers.”
A witness gave his testimony as to how Smith’s visions were
written down and then published: “Each sentence was uttered
slowly and very distinctly, and with a pause between each,
sufficiently long for it to be recorded, by an ordinary writer, in
long hand. This was the manner in which all his revelations were
dictated and written. There was never any hesitation, reviewing,
or reading back, in order to keep the run of the subject; neither
did any of these communications undergo revisions, interlinings,
or corrections. As he dictated them so they stood, so far as I have
witnessed.” 1
The Mormon faith, in the face of great odds (persecution being
one of the things they say was against them) grew in leaps and
bounds. They started a world-wide outreach mission, established
churches and set up publishing houses. In the late 1800’s to
early 1900’s, their denomination numbered over five-hundred
thousand—almost four times more than the SDA Church at that
same time.
They claimed that these facts were proof that God was with
them and was leading them. Even today, the Mormon Church
is constantly growing and enjoys a profile that few other
denominations in America enjoy. One of their own, Mitt Romney,
was runner-up in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election.
There are certainly parallels that can be drawn between Joseph
Smith and Ellen White. Parallels in regard to how their followers
view their prophetic status and in regard to the apparent fruits of
their labour—in the rapid growth of the institutions they helped
establish and prophetically lead and how this happened in the
face of tremendous odds.
Like SDA’s, on the basis of the teachings of an extra-biblical
prophet, Mormons have doctrines that cannot be clearly
substantiated by the Bible. Key teachings of the Mormon faith
are found in their own inspired book, The Book of Mormon, which

81
Brian Neumann

they desperately try to reconcile with the Scriptures. When this

fails, they take the word of their prophet, who they claim was
directly communicated to by angels, as the final authority on any
matter. Similarly, SDA’s have the writings of Ellen White. It will
be shown, later in this book, how her ideas heavily influence SDA
interpretation of Scripture.

Hazen Foss (1819-1893):

Hazen Foss was related to Ellen White. His brother was married
to her older sister, Mary. He had, reportedly, received visions from
God and was commissioned by God to go out and share what he
had been shown. Fearful of being mocked, especially in light of
the disappointment that had just happened on October 22nd, 1844
and his own disillusionment that followed as a result, he rejected
the calling. Prior to him God had apparently called another man,
William Foye (we will examine his case shortly), who likewise did
not rise to the task. It is said that as a result of their refusal, God
then chose Ellen Gould Harmon (later Ellen Gould White), the
weakest of the weak, who answered His call.
The SDA Commentary Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pp. 474, 474 has
this to say about Hazen Foss: “A young man who experienced
visions in the Autumn of 1844. There is no published record of
Foss’ vision or that he experienced visions in the autumn of 1844.”
In 1890 J. N. Loughborough was writing his book on the
history of the SDA Church, The Great Second Advent Movement.
He wrote to Ellen White asking her for information that would
validate her prophetic calling. She in turn wrote a letter to her
sister Mary, asking her if she recalled the events surrounding
Hazen Foss, his rejection of the prophetic call and the subsequent
transference of the call to her. In this letter (towards its close)
you will, interestingly enough, notice Ellen White prompting her
sister to remember the events:

82
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Dear Sister Mary,

… You know Hazen Foss had visions once. He was firm in the faith
that Christ would come in 1844. He interpreted the visions given
him in harmony with his belief that time would close in 1844.
After the time passed, he was told by the Lord to relate the visions to
others. But he was too proud spirited to do this. He had a severe conflict,
and then decided he would not relate the visions. Th e people had
assembled to hear him but he refused.
Th e first vision given to me while in Portland, Maine, was
right after this decision. I had three visions, and was then bidden to
relate these to others …
I went with you and your husband [to a meeting in
Portland]. Th ere, that night, I stood upon my feet to relate the
testimony given me of God. For above five minutes I labored to
speak, and then everything broke away, and my voice was as clear
as a bell, I talked for about two hours. I knew nothing of the
experience Hazen Foss had been passing through…
Th e next day I had related to me the exercises of Hazen Foss.
I was told by one, in the presence of a room full, that they had urged
Hazen Foss to tell them the things which the Lord had shown him.
He had been greatly disappointed that the Lord did not come in
‘44. He said that he had been deceived, and he refused to obey the
promptings of the Spirit of God …
Th e next morning, I met Hazen Foss. Said he, ‘Ellen, I
want to speak with you. Th e Lord gave me a message to bear to
His people, and I refused after being told the consequences. I was
proud; I was unreconciled to the disappointment. I murmured
against God, and wished myself dead. Th en I felt a strange feeling
come over me. I shall be henceforth as one dead to spiritual things.
I heard you talk last night. I believe the visions are taken from
me, and given to you. Do not refuse to obey God, for it will be at
the peril of your soul. I am a lost man. You are chosen of God; be
faithful in doing your work, and the crown I might have had, you
will receive.’

83
Brian Neumann

He looked as I never saw him look before, so full of despair.

Now, Mary, you were at the meeting, were you not? Your memory
is so good. Do you have any remembrance of this? 2

Of course, there is no record of how Hazen received his

visions. Indeed, there is no written account from his side to
validate anything. Neither is there any known or published
record of whether Ellen White’s sister, Mary, replied to her.
Notwithstanding Ellen Whites request to her sister and her
appeal to her sister’s “good” memory, Ellen White herself seems
quite able to recollect, apparently verbatim, what Foss said when
meeting with her that morning.
Of course, this point is debatable as some would say that she
was simply recounting what he had said from memory and that
she did not claim it to be a direct quote. What remains relevant
for now is the fact that Hazen Foss, based on the testimony of
Ellen White, did receive authentic visions from God. In other
words (if one accepted that everything surrounding his case was
true), НЪ
ψιζ ЩХУФа
ШНОСШ him as one who
was genuinely called by
God to be a prophet/messenger.

William Foye (1818-1893):

The most significant prophet we will consider, in direct connection
to Ellen White, is William Foye—they not only knew each other
but shared similar visions. It could be said that Hazen Foss and
Ellen White shared the same types of visions and were connected
in a similar way to her and William Foye, but this would only be
true in one or two respects. In Foss’ case, he claimed to have had
“the visions,” but there is no testimony from him or anyone else
about the content of these visions. We only have Ellen White’s
record of what he said to her regarding his belief that “the visions”
were “taken from” him and “given to” her. Of course, he was a

84
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

relative of Ellen White’s and this makes the personal connection

significant—but mainly in that respect.
In Foye’s case however, we will see that there are documented
records (his own descriptions) of the physical symptoms when in
vision, what he saw when given these revelations and also general
information about his life. Some contradictions exist among
various accounts, but as we go along we will examine these too.
Delbert W. Baker (author of the well known book, The
Unknown Prophet, referred to in the section below) writes, in the
introduction of Heritage Treasures Number 1, Christian Experience,
by William E. Foy (Andrews University press):

William Ellis Foy (1818-1893) was a seminary-trained black

Freewill Baptist and Millerite preacher who experienced two visions
during 1842. His visions convinced him of the soon coming of
Jesus and he travelled to various places sharing them.
Foy, a native of Maine, received his first vision in Boston on
January 18, 1842. It lasted for two and a half hours. “I was
immediately seized as in the agonies of death,” he wrote, “and my
breath left me; and it appeared to me that I was a spirit separate
from this body. I then beheld one arrayed in white raiment.” In
this vision he saw the saints in paradise and some of their
experiences. His second vision occurred two weeks later on February
4, 1842, in Boston. “I heard a voice, as it were, in the spirit,
speaking unto me,” he recalled. “I immediately fell to the floor, and
knew nothing about this body, until twelve hours and a half had
passed away as I was afterwards informed.” In this vision he saw the
judgment bar of God and “innumerable multitudes” gathered before
it.
With the help of two Millerite publishers, John and Charles H.

Pearson, Foy published his first two visions on January 3,
1845, in
this twenty-four-page tract. Ellen G. Harmon, who

later married
James White and became one of the founders of

the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, received her first vision

just before the
publication of this tract.

85
Brian Neumann

ψФС
ЮСЩСЩОСЮСР
ФСНЮing and talking with Foy. On one occasion

Foy heard Harmon describe her vision at an Adventist meeting.
He gave “a shout,” and “jumped right up and down” and kept
saying that “it was just what he had seen [in vision], just what he
had seen.” Some contemporaries remembered that Foy had
additional visions [there is no corroboration for this except
conflicting state-ments by Ellen White and Loughborough
which will be examined shortly]. He actively shared his
visions both in print and as an itinerant preacher.
Before the publication of Th
e Unknown Prophet, which
chronicles the life and times of Foy, little was know about him, and
much of what was known was misleading and errone-ous. People
often confused William Foy with Hazen Foss, an Adventist who
refused to share what God had shown him in vision and who later
gave up confidence in religion. Others believed that Foy never
shared or refused to share his visions because he was afraid of a
racial backlash. Others believed there had been a studied effort by
church historians to suppress Foy’s contribution to religious and
Advent history because he was a person of color. 3

Delbert W. Baker gives a brief but fair summary of the

experience of William Foye and the connection between Him and
Ellen G. White, in spite of some inaccuracies. Before moving on
to examining certain aspects of Foye’s visions, I want to deal
with the SDA legend of the prophetic calling (the “visions”)
being passed from Foye, via Foss, to Ellen White.

From Foye to White:

In the Biographical series of books (Book One), authored by
Arthur L. White, a brief account is given regarding the origins and
nature of relationship that came to exist between Ellen White
and William Foye. I will quote it as it is found in the Appendix B
section (p.488-490) of the book (I am copying it from the Ellen

86
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

White Estate CD- Rom version, where it is published in higher-

case letters):

SOMETIME BEFORE THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF

OCTOBER 22, 1844, ELLEN HARMON HEARD HIM
[William Foy] SPEAK IN BEETHOVEN HALL IN
PORTLAND, MAINE. SOMETIME AFTER THE
1844 DISAPPOINTMENT, UNBEKNOWN TO ELLEN
HARMON AT FIRST, HE WAS PRESENT IN A MEETING
HELD IN THE COUNTRYSIDE EAST OF PORTLAND,
TOWARD CAPE ELIZABETH, AT WHICH SHE
SPOKE, TELLING OF HER FIRST VISION. WHILE
SHE WAS SPEAKING, FOY STOOD TO HIS FEET AND
PRAISED THE Lord, DECLARING THAT IT WAS JUST
WHAT HE HAD SEEN. AFTER THE MEETING HE
WANTED TO TALK WITH HER, AND THEY HAD A
LITTLE VISIT.
… THE TWO INITIAL VISIONS OF WILLIAM FOY,
TOGETHER WITH A BRIEF SKETCH OF HIS
CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE, όκχκ PUBLISHED IN
1845 [
January 3, 1845] IN A υζςνρκω
IN PORTLAND,
MAINE. THE FIRST VISION WAS GIVEN TO HIM ON
JANUARY 18, 1842, WHILE HE WAS ATTENDING
SERVICE IN A BOSTON CHURCH ON
SOUTHARK STREET. EYEWITNESSES TO THE
EXPERIENCE TESTIFY THAT HE WAS IN
VISION TWO AND A HALF HOURS. A
PHYSICIAN WHO EXAMINED HIM TESTIFIED
THAT HE COULD FIND NO APPEARANCE
OF LIFE “EXCEPT AROUND THE HEART.” IN
HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT FOY DECLARES,
“MY BREATH LEFT ME.”
… FOY ’S UNWILLINGNESS TO RELATE TO
OTHERS WHAT HAD BEEN SHOWN TO HIM
STEMMED FROM BOTH THE PREJUDICE
AGAINST

ANY

WHO
CLAIMED
TO
HAVE
DIVINE

87
Brian Neumann

REVELATIONS AND THE PREJUDICE AGAINST

THOSE OF HIS COLOR. HE QUESTIONED IN HIS
MIND, “WHY SHOULD THESE THINGS BE GIVEN TO
ME TO BEAR TO THE WORLD?”
A FEW DAYS LATER THE PASTOR OF THE
BLOOMFIELD STREET CHURCH IN BOSTON
CALLED UPON FOY TO RELATE THE VISIONS IN
HIS HOUSE OF WORSHIP. RELUCTANTLY HE
CONSENTED, AND THE NEXT EVENING HE
FOUND A LARGE CONGREGATION ASSEMBLED
AWAITING HIS MESSAGE. AS HE BEGAN TO
SPEAK, HIS FEAR LEFT HIM, AND HE RELATED
WITH GREAT FREEDOM THE THINGS THAT
WERE SHOWN TO HIM, TO A CONGREGATION THAT
GAVE RAPT ATTENTION.
WITH THIS AS A BEGINNING HE TRAVELED FOR
THREE MONTHS, DELIVERING HIS MESSAGES
TO CROWDED HOUSES OF ALL
DENOMINATIONS …AS HIS FAMILY NEEDED
SUPPORT, AFTER THREE MONTHS IN THE FIELD, FOY
RETIRED FROM PUBLIC WORK TO LABOR WITH HIS
HANDS. HE ENGAGED IN SUCH WORK FOR THREE
MONTHS, AND THEN, FEELING IMPELLED TO
STAND BEFORE THE PEOPLE, HE AGAIN TOOK
UP HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY, EXPECTING SOON TO
SEE HIS SAVIOUR WHEN HE SHOULD COME. WHEN
SPEAKING, HE WORE THE CLERICAL ROBES OF
THE EPISCOPAL CLERGY.
ACCORDING TO J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, NEAR THE
TIME OF THE EXPECTATION IN 1844 FOY WAS
GIVEN A THIRD VISION IN WHICH WERE
PRESENTED THREE PLATFORMS THAT HE
COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IN THE LIGHT OF HIS
BELIEF IN THE IMMINENT COMING OF θνχξψωΔ

88
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ACCORDING TO
LOUGHBOROUGH,
IN

PERPLEXITY FOY CEASED PUBLIC WORK. IT IS
KNOWN THAT IN THE 1850’S AND THROUGH MID-
LIFE HE FILLED POSITIONS AS A FREEWILL BAPTIST
MINISTER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND MAINE, AND
THEN TURNED TO FARMING IN SULLIVAN
COUNTY IN MAINE. WHILE BUT LITTLE IS
KNOWN OF HIS LATER EXPERIENCE, HIS
TOMBSTONE BEARS THE RECORD THAT HE
DIED IN 1893.
THERE IS NO OCCASION TO QUESTION THE
GENUINENESS OF WILLIAM FOY’S EXPERIENCE.
LOUGHBOROUGH FELT THAT THE VISIONS BORE
CLEAR EVIDENCES OF BEING THE GENUINE
MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD.
MORE SIGNIFICANT, PERHAPS, IS THE FACT THAT
ELLEN WHITE, WHO AS NOTED ABOVE HAD
SOME ACQUAINTANCE WITH HIM, IN AN
INTERVIEW IN 1912 TREATED HIS EXPERIENCE AS
GENUINE. 4

TIere are a number of important things that need to be

noted in the above statement. Firstly, it is no doubt
significant that the author was Ellen White’s grandson and
thus, it would naturally be assumed, he would have gone to
great pains to ensure that all his research was accurate so as to
leave no room for niggling discrepancies.
Arthur White quotes a number of sources to support his
facts, including the book by Loughborough, Th
e Great Second
Advent Movement. Th
e sources Arthur uses are official, and in
the case of Loughborough’s book, considered to be bona-fide
records of SDA Church history. In light of these considerations, I
would like to quote some of what Loughborough has to say
about William Foye in his book.

89
Brian Neumann

In the year 1842 there was living in Boston, Mass., a well-

educated man by the name of William Foy, who was an elo-quent
speaker. He was a Baptist, but was preparing to take holy orders as
an Episcopal minister. Th
e Lord graciously gave him two visions
in the year 1842, one on the 18th of January, the other on
February 4. Th
ese visions bore clear evidence of being the
genuine manifestations of the Spirit of God. He was invited from
place to place to speak in the pulpits, not by the Episcopalians only,
but by the Baptists and other denomi-nations. When he spoke, he
always wore the clergyman’s robe, such as the ministers of that
church wear in their services.
Mr. Foy’s visions related to the near advent of Christ, the
travels of the people of God to the heavenly city, the new earth,
and the glories of the redeemed state. Having a good command of
language, with fine descriptive powers, he cre-ated a sensation
wherever he went. By invitation he went from city to city to tell
of the wonderful things he had seen; and in order to accommodate
the vast crowds who assembled to hear him, large halls were
secured, where he related to thou-sands what had been shown him
of the heavenly world, the loveliness of the New Jerusalem, and of
the angelic hosts. When dwelling on the tender, compassionate love
of Christ for poor sinners, he exhorted the unconverted to seek
God, and scores responded to his tender entreaties.
… His work continued until the year 1844, near the close
of the twenty-three hundred days. Th
en he was favored with
another manifestation of the Holy Spirit, a third vision, one which
he did not understand. In this he was shown the pathway of the
people of God through to the heavenly city. He saw a great
platform, or step, on which multitudes of people gathered.
Occasionally one would drop through this platform out of sight,
and of such a one it was said to him, “Apostatized.” Th
en he saw
the people rise to a second step, or platform, and some there also
dropped through the plat-form out of sight. Finally a third
platform appeared, which extended to the gates of the holy city. A
great company gathFSFE
XJUI
UIPTF
XIP
IBE
BEWBODFE
UP
UIJT

QMBUGPSN

90
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

As he expected the Lord Jesus to come in a very short time, he

failed to recognize the fact that a third message was to follow the
first and second messages of Revelation. $POTFRVFOUMZ
UIF

WJTJPO
XBT
UP
IJN
VOFYQMBJOBCMF
BOE
IF
DFBTFE
QVCMJD

TQFBLJOH
"GUFS
UIF
DMPTF
PG
UIF
QSPQIFUJD
QFSJPE
JO
UIF

ZFBS

IF
IFBSE
BOPUIFS
<&MMFO
8IJUF>
SFMBUF
UIF

TBNF
WJTJPO
XJUI
UIF
FYQMBOBUJPO
UIBU
iUIF
GJSTU
BOE

TFDPOE
NFTTBHFT
IBE
CFFO
HJWFO
BOE
UIBU
B
UIJSE
XBT

UP
GPMMPXw
4PPO
BGUFS
UIJT
.S
'PZ
TJDLFOFE
BOE
EJFE

/05&
5IF
SFBEFS
XJMM
OPUJDF
UIBU
NZ
TQFMMJOH
PG
i'PZFw

JT
EJGGFSFOU
UP
UIF
PGGJDJBM
4%"
SFDPSE
XIJDI
TQFMMT
IJT

OBNF
i'PZw
5IJT
JT
OPU
B
NJOPS
EJTDSFQBODZ
CFDBVTF

FWFSZ
TJOHMF
4%"
TPVSDF
&MMFO
8IJUF
-PHICPSPVHI

"SUIVS
8IJUF
"OESFXT
6OJWFSTJUZ
QVCMJDBUJPOT
FUD

FWFO

XIFO
NBLJOH
SFGFSFODF
UP
IJT
UPNCTUPOF
DPOTJTUFOUMZ

TQFMM
'PZFT
TVSOBNF
JODPSSFDUMZ
5IJT
JOEJDBUFT
TMPQQZ

SFTFBSDI
BOE
OFHMJHFODF
UP
CF
DPOTFRVFOU
JO
FWFSZ
EFUBJM
‰FWFO
XIFO
OFXFS
FWJEFODF
DPNFT
UP
MJHIU

When considered superficially, the accounts given by Arthur

White and Loughborough seem to be similar—Arthur White
draws a fair amount of his information from Loughborough’s
book. Yet there are differences and in the case of Arthur White,
when quoting Loughborough, an important exclusion as well.
I would like to make some observations and offer comment in
reference to these. After this I will look at more evidence, found
in the works of other authors and in the testimony of Ellen
White herself.
Th e most obvious difference between the two accounts
has to do with the date of Foye’s death. Loughborough states
that shortly after 1845, Foye “sickened and died.” Arthur
White states that there is a tombstone that “bears record” of
аФС
ТНПа
аФНа
ФС
РХСР
ХЪ
ΜӓӚӛӕΔΝ
ωФХЯ
ХЯ
Н
ФбУС
РХЯПЮСЬНЪПеΖ

91
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

It might also be noted, as the reader will see when looking at the
picture of that tombstone, that Foye still bore the respected
title of Reverend when he died.
Th
e correct date is the date given by Arthur White. Later
research (which I will refer to later on) revealed that William
Foye actually continued in the Lord’s work, in the context of
the Baptist Faith (at one time he did farming as well), and lived
for many years, working as a minister in the community where
he lived, till he died. Not only was Loughborough incorrect
regarding his death but was also incorrect in saying that he quit
speaking publically, obviously in the context of his faith. Th
e
facts indicate that he worked as a minister (Reverend) which
would inevitably involve speaking publically.
What is noteworthy is the
fact that an official account of SDA
history, bumbled in some important respects. Something which
should have been thoroughly researched, facts authenticated
and only then published, especially when giving an account of
someone’s demise, was botched. I say “botched,” because of the
perception/legend that has been created for generations as a
result of this inaccurate/fictitious history.
Generations of SDA’s have been taught that after Foye rejected
his calling, which would have had to have been before October
1844, who rejected the call as a result of the great
disappointment, became disillusioned. He, after receiving a third
vision about the platforms and failing to interpret it, became
discouraged, sunk into obscurity and shortly after died. Foss,
who was allegedly the next one God approached, felt that he had
lost his “crown”—that he was a lost man because of rejecting the
callΔ
What is interesting to note is that the impression is created
that Foye’s failure to interpret this “third” vision and thus move
forward with his calling is what caused God to move on, via
Foss, to Ellen White, “the weakest of the weak,” giving her the
same visions. Foye then heard Ellen White give an account of

92
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

this vision, apparently standing up in the meeting (as we read in

Arthur’s account), declaring that it was just what he had seen.
After that he made an appointment to speak to Ellen White
(we will examine the circumstances surrounding this meeting
shortly). All these events seem to have been what finally led Foye
to give up public speaking, plunging him into despair and then
shortly after an early graveΔ
Let me state, for the record, there is no other primary source
that can be found (other than Loughborough) to substantiate
that Foye even had a third vision, let alone what the exact content
of the vision was about—unless the Ellen White Estate has
something in their archives which they have not made public.
The only PRIMARY record of Foye’s visions, published by
Foye himself, AFTER the great disappointment is of the two
visions we already examined. This chronology of events, on its
own, already puts into question the theory that Foye gave up
on his religious pursuits. It also puts into question this third
vision, which, based on Loughborough’s account, must have been
received before the great disappointment.
Why did Foye not publish that third vision, together with
the other two? If he had given up in despair because of the
disappointment and/or could not understand the third vision,
why did he even continue to publish a whole pamphlet on his
visions at all—to encourage the saints who were looking forward
to Christ’s soon return? If Loughborough was wrong regarding
the date of Foye’s death, then it could well be that he was just
as wrong about the so called “third” vision and its content—his
sources of information were clearly not full-proof.
Of course, if there was no third vision then, the whole basis
upon which the “baton” being passed to Ellen White scenario is
based falls apart. It was this supposed third vision and its affect
on Foye that caused God

to move to Foss and then, finally, to
Ellen White.

93
B
r i a
n N

e u m a
n n

Foye’s published account of his experience and visions do

not leave the faintest impression that he was reneging on the
calling God gave him or that he was struggling to understand
a third vision. Th
ere are some serious questions that arise from
the anomalies in this regard.
As will be seen, even Ellen White’s testimony regarding the
number of visions Foye received, contradicts Loughborough’s
account and Foye’s own published recordΔ
It is also somewhat disturbing that when Arthur White quotes
Loughborough’s book, regarding the closing period of Foye’s life,
he does not attempt to make a significant note of the fact that
Loughborough was incorrect on the date of Foye’s passing—so
as to clear some longstanding misconceptions and correct the
historical record. He quotes Loughborough till the point where
Foye ceases public speaking but does not quote and correct date
of death by stating directly that Loughborough made a blatant
error in saying that Foye got sick and died shortly after 1844. He
simply glosses over that and then makes his own statement that
Foye’s gravestone bears the date 1893.
Why did he not use the opportunity to CLEARLY set the
record straight? Was he trying to avoid the fact that if he made
an overt statement about Loughborough (an SDA historian of
high standing) being blatantly wrong with his facts it might have
a serious effect on the whole E. G. White legend?
Was it perhaps that the cause and effect result of trying to
set this record straight would have raised more questions and
provide less favorable answers? Or, that it would potentially lead
to a more thorough reinvestigation of the whole history between
Foye’s so called rejection of the call and the connection it had to
Ellen White’s resultant chosen statusΘ
Reinvestigation most certainly discloses that a number
of discrepancies exist in the various accounts. More than this,
these inaccurate accounts come from a few singular and widely
respected sources that lack any real corroboration. To make this

94
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

plain, let’s consider additional evidence. Following is an interview

with Ellen White (February 13th, 1906). D. E. Robinson conducted
this interview and asks questions directly related to Ellen White
and William Foye (I will add some comment in between):

… Th en another time, there was Foy that had had visions. He

had had four visions. He was in a large congregation, very large.
He fell right to the floor. I do not know what they were doing in
there, whether they were listening to preaching or not. But at any
rate he fell to the floor. I do not know how long he was [down]—
about three quarters of a hour, I think— and he had all these
[visions] before I had them. Th ey were writ-ten out and
published, and it is queer that I cannot find them in any of my
books. But we have moved so many times. He had four. 6

It was in 1842, according to Delbert W. Baker, that Ellen White

attended Foye’s meetings. Arthur White simply states that it was
some time before the 1844 disappointment. Probably drawing
from this interview with Ellen White, Baker writes, in his book
Th e Unknown Prophet, that Ellen White actually witnessed Foye
while he was in vision. Th e words of Ellen White however,
when contextually read, disagree with this view. She makes
reference to the fact that he was in a large congregation when
he fell down (she
could have been referring to his own
testimony, published in his pamphlet). Her following words
clearly indicate that she heard or read about it but was not,
personally, present. She says: “I do not know what they were
doing in there, whether they were listening to preaching or
not…at any rate he fell to the floor…he had all these [visions]
before I had them. Th ey were written out and published.”
Clearly, according to Ellen White’s own account, she was not
present—she did not “know what they were doing in there.”
Th ere is no other account, other than the two comments by
Ellen White in the paragraph above, that Foye had four visions.

95
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

The other authors that mention this number (Arthur White

and Delbert E. Baker, to name a few), get this information from
Ellen White—taken from this interview. When Loughborough
published his book he mentioned a third vision, the only record of
this being his account. According to Foye’s testimony, published
in 1845, he only had two visions.
How could Ellen White have known of four? Later in this
same interview she states that she did not know what became
of him. Indeed, it seems that no one in the SDA Church really
knew what happened to him because Loughborough, who was
giving an historical record of the Advent movement did not even
have his facts straight—he thought that he was dead.
Another aspect of Ellen White’s account that most
critics make
a point of mentioning is that she says she had a copy of Foye’s
pamphlet and had, even before her first vision, attended meetings
where Foye shared his vision experiences. The reason the critics
latch onto this is because of various similarities between Foye’s
visions and the visions received by Ellen White. The accusation
is made that Ellen White never really had her own visions but
simply stole things from Foye’s published visions and what she
recollected when hearing him speak. Of course, if the accusation
were true then it would make the scenario of the transition of
prophetic calling from Foye, to Foss, and then to Ellen White
even more complicated than ever.
Following is Ellen White’s account of her meeting with Foye,
from the same interview with Robinson:
Question: Did you ever have an interview with him?
I had an interview with him. He wanted to see me, and I
talked with him a little. Th
ey had appointed for me to speak that
night, and I did not know that he was there. I did not know at
first that he was there. While I was talking I heard a shout, and he is
a great, tall man, and the roof was rather low, and he jumped right
up and down, and oh, he praised the Lord, praised the Lord. It
was just what he had seen, just XIBU
IF
IBE
TFFO

96
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

But they extolled him so I think it hurt him, and I do not know what
became of him.
His wife was so anxious. She sat looking at him, so that it
disturbed him. “Now,” said he, “you must not get where you can look
at me when I am speaking.” He had on an episcopalian robe. His
wife sat by the side of me. She kept moving about and putting her
head behind me. What does she keep moving about so for? We found
out when he came to his wife. “I did as you told me to,” said she. “I
hid myself. I did as you told me to.” (So that he should not see her
face.) She would be so anxious, repeating the words right after him
with her lips. After the meeting was ended, and he came to look
her up, she said to him, “I hid myself. You didn’t see me.” He was a
very tall man, slightly colored. But it was remarkable [the]
testimonies that he bore. 7

Both Delbert E. Baker and Arthur White, seem to support the

view that Ellen White, by her comment: “But it was remarkable
[the] testimonies that he bore,” endorsed Foye’s visions and
saw them as genuine. Arthur White made it clear that both
Loughborough and Ellen White regarded Foye’s visions as
genuine. Th e conclusion can thus be drawn that at least three
SDA authors (
J. N. Loughborough, Arthur White and Delbert
E.
Baker), writing about Adventist history, and Ellen White

herself, seemed to find no doctrinal problems in Foye’s visions—
problems, that I will prove, contradict SDA teaching.
Was it that they simply did not read his visions comprehensively
enough or were they simply too anxious to make the transition
of calling between Foye and Ellen White an established fact that
they did not see it? Who knows? On top of this there are all the
other discrepancies contradictory historical records (dates and
events, etc.) and uncorroborated accounts.
Ellen White continues:

97
Brian Neumann

I always sat right close by the stand. I know what I sat there for
now. It hurt me to breathe, and with the breaths all around me I
knew I could breathe easier right by the stand, so I always took my
station.
Question: Th en you attended the lectures that Mr. Foy gave?
He came to give it right to the hall, in the great hall where we
attended, Beethoven Hall. Th at was quite a little time after the
visions. It was in Portland, Maine. We went over to Cape
Elizabeth to hear him lecture. Father always took me with him
when we went, and he would be going in a sleigh, and he would
invite me to get in, and I would ride with them. Th at was
before I got any way acquainted with him.
Question: Where did you see him first?
It was there, at Beethoven Hall. Th ey lived near the bridge where we
went over to Cape Elizabeth, the family did. 8

NOTE: According to the official dates, published by the

Ellen White Estate, this interview was conducted in 1906.
Arthur makes reference to this interview and Ellen White’s
testimony regarding Foye, using the date 1906 and 19012—
this might be a misprint of course. Delbert W. Baker, author of
Th e Unknown Prophet, uses the date 1912. Whether he got that
date from the Ellen White Estate or from Arthur White’s
biographical series, I am not sure. However, discrepancies like
this, without explanation, do not help to clarify and “positivise”
the issues we are dealing with here.

As already alluded to, the content of Foye’s visions also create

problems for SDA’s regarding the belief that he was a genuine
prophet. Some of what he saw seems to contradict Scripture
and SDA/Ellen White teachings. Th ere are some
extremely important facts, in connection to Foye’s two personally
recorded vision experiences that need to be considered.
We will look at TPNF
PG
UIF
LFZ
BTQFDUT
PG
UIF
WJTJPOT‰UIF

QIZTJDBM
FYQFSJFODF
BOE
DPOUFOU
PG
UIF
WJTJPOT

98
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

I will copy his descriptions, as taken from his twenty-four page

tract, Christian Experience (Th is will be interspersed with some of
my comments and observations):

Portions from Foye’s 1st vision (
January 18, 1842—

lasted 2 ½ hours):

On the 18th of January 1842, I met with the people of God in

Southark St., Boston, where the Christians were engaged in solemn
prayer, and my soul was made happy in the love of God. I was
immediately seized in the agonies of death, and my breath left me,
and it appeared to me that I was a spirit separate from this body. I
then beheld one arrayed in white raiment, whose countenance shone
beyond the brightness of the stars, and a crown was upon his head
which shone above the brightness of the sun.
Th is shining one took me by my right hand and led me upon
the bank of a river; in the midst was a mound of pure water.
Upon the bank I beheld a multitude, both great and small; they
were the living inhabitants of this earth. Soon all moved
towards the west, walking on the water, until we reached the
mount. Th is became the separating line between the righteous and
the wicked. Th e righteous crossed it, passed through three changes;
1st, their bodies were made glorious, 2nd, they received pure and
shining garments. 3rd, bright crowns were given them.
But when the wicked reached the spot where the right-eous
were changed, they cried for mercy, and sank beneath the mount.
Th e saints then passed on to a boundless plain hav-ing the
appearance like pure silver. Our guide then spake and said, “Th is is
the plain of Paradise.” 9

It is interesting to note that Foye’s description of his experience,

from the point of going into vision and during the vision itself,

99
Brian Neumann

appears to be an account of one who is dying (much like the

descriptions people give of near-death experiences). His narrative
of his spirit leaving the body sounds much like the description of
what happens at death by those who believe in cognizance of the
soul after death. In fact, it resembles the reports of people who
have practiced astral-travelling (an occult out of body experience).
There is little doubt, regarding the manner in which he goes
into vision, that someone will argue that what he is describing is
simply what “normally” happens when a prophet goes into vision
and loses their own strength and stops breathing, etc., and that
he is not necessarily describing people who have just died and
are going direct to heaven. I would disagree, not only in light of
what we will see him describe later on, but also, because of his
description of how he finds himself “in the agonies of death.” He
does not only speak of breath leaving him but also associates the
agonies that go along with death, as part of the experience. It is not
a case of saying, AS one who is dead, a description Bible prophets
use. Foye, expresses his “death” experience in a much more literal
way. I raise these points on this death aspect now as later on in
Foye’s vision accounts his view on the “state of the dead” becomes
more obvious. This is an important consideration as SDA’s could
not accept revelations as “Divine” that contradict their position
on one’s state after death. This would be problematic in the case
of Foye as SDA pioneers definitely regarded him as a receiver of
true visions.
Once in vision, Foye joins a “multitude” of “living inhabitants
of the earth,” walking on water and heading towards the mount.
At this point a distinction or division is made between the
righteous and unrighteous. The righteous move on through three
stages and the unrighteous “sink beneath the mount.”
Foye also describes someone “arrayed in white raiment, whose
countenance shone beyond the brightness of the stars, and a
crown was upon his head which shone above the brightness of

100
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the sun.” He does not, at this juncture, say whether this being is
an angel or Christ.
Assuming he was talking about an angel, I make the point that
nowhere in Scripture does it ever state that angels wear crowns.
The crown is a sign of kingship or royalty. In the heavenly context
the crown is always associated with the redeemed (such as the
twenty-four elders in Revelation chapter four) or with Christ as
King of Kings and Lord of Lords. A crown is given to an individual,
signifying some sort of status that is theirs by birthright (as in the
case of earthly monarchs) or that is conferred on them for a very
specific reason (such as in the heavenly context).
It is interesting to note that, in the main, SDA Bible scholars,
unlike some non-SDA counterparts, seem to avoid making too
much comment in regard to whether angels wear crowns or not.
Here are some samples—from SDA and non-SDA sources (with
my comments added).
SDA Bible Commentary Volume 7 (comments on the 24 elders
of Revelation Chapter 4:4):

Th at fact that the elders here portrayed are clothed in white

garments, which may be symbolic of righteousness (see on Rev. 3:4),
and have on their heads “crowns” (stephanoi, emblems of victory;
see on ch. 2:10), has led some to suggest that they represent
redeemed men. 10

As far as the crowns are concerned, this is the only comment

made, unlike the expanded comments one might find in other non-
SDA commentaries. Part of the reason why other commentators
make specific comment on the aspect of the crowns is to counter
the interpretation of some that the twenty-four elders are angels.
Th
e argument being that they cannot be angels because angels
do not wear crowns (I will show a few samples shortly). When
the SDA Bible Commentary gets to the specific word “crown,”
used in verse 4, it simply states: “see the foregoing on four and
twenty elders” (the portion already posted above), and makes
no further DPNNFOU
101
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Most Bible scholars who would be trying to correct the

teaching that these elders were angels, would hone in on the
crown aspect and refer to the lack of ANY biblical evidence in
support of angels wearing crowns. In light of the fact that SDA
commentators, with Ellen White’s backing, see these elders as
redeemed men and not angels, one would expect them to expand
on the crown issue as further biblical proof in support of their
argument. After all, if one stuck to purely biblical evidence then
it would clearly support such a view.
Later on in the commentary, at verse 10, where the elders cast
their crowns before the throne, they simply refer the reader back
to verse 4, thus confirming, by their silence, that they have no
desire to get into any remark on the crowns.
The reason for this absence of clear-cut comment is simple
and stems from revelations found in an extra-biblical source,
Ellen White. She claims that while she was in vision she saw
angels casting their crowns before Jesus feet:
Th en I was pointed to the glory of heaven, to the treasure laid up for
the faithful. Everything was lovely and glorious. Th e angels would
sing a lovely song, then they would cease sing-ing and take their
crowns from their heads and cast them glittering at the feet of the
lovely Jesus…11

5 I ere is little doubt that the SDA Commentary’s

decision to not use the crown issue as primary evidence, in
favor of the elders not being angels, and indeed, to not
expand on the topic, is because it would contradict Ellen
White. Furthermore, this silence on the crown issue, as one


will
notice
in
comments

found

throughout

the SDA


Bible
Commentary,
indicates
that
SDA
scholars doЪӁа ЫЪШе



rely
Scripture but also use, as a PRIMARY source for
interpreting Scripture, the writings of Ellen White.


Below is a
sample from a non-SDA commentary
on
Revelation
4


that
refers
solely
to the overwhelming evidence of Scripture:

102
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Whether to understand the elders as human or angelic beings, turns

on several factors: Can the term “elder” describe an angel? Do angels
wear crowns, symbols of reward not found in asso-ciation with
angels elsewhere? 12

After posing these questions and commenting on various

aspects relating to the elders, the commentator focuses in on the
question of ‘crowns’:

… Th
e crowns may indicate that the elders are among those who
have been made “kings and priests” or “a kingdom of priests,”
NU text) as is promised the overcomers (Rev 2:10; 3:11)…Th
ey
are rewarded these crowns, yet they repeatedly cast them before the
Father’s throne in recognition of the supe-riority and source of
their blessing…In Scripture, angelic beings are never promised
nor found wearing crowns. Yet some suggest the elders to be angels.
Crowns (other than those worn by God) are typically associated
with rewards attend-ing judgment…13

/05&

i/PXIFSF
JO
4DSJQUVSF
EP
BOHFMT
TJU
PO
UISPOFT
OPS
BSF

UIFZ

QJDUVSFE

SVMJOH

PS

SFJHOJOH

5IFJS

SPMF

JT

UP

TFSWF

BT


ANJOJTUFSJOH

TQJSJUT

TFOU

PVU

UP

SFOEFS

TFSWJDF

GPS

UIF

TBLF

PG


UIPTF

XIP

XJMM

JOIFSJU

TBMWBUJPO

)FC



DG

.BU


wo

+PIO

.BD"SUIVS

3FWFMBUJPO





5IF

.BD"SUIVS

/FX


5FTUBNFOU
$PNNFOUBSZ
$IJDBHP
*-
.PPEZ
1SFTT


3FW



It is clear that in the case of the above commentary the reliance

upon scriptural evidence (via direct, unambiguous scriptural
statement or silence) is primary. SDA’s who proudly claim a
Sola Scriptura as the basis for proof of belief, in the spirit of the
Protestant Reformation, do not, as seen in the non-SDA
sample above, rely solely on biblical evidence for what they
establish as teaching or practice.

103
B
r i a n N
e u m a
n n

I will bring your attention to other such cases throughout this

book. By simple default, SDA Bible commentators have to make
sure that their commentary does not contradict the revelations
of God’s inspired extra-biblical prophet
(her materials are
referenced to make sure that the commentary does not
contradict them). Th
is, by way of one example,is because Ellen
White gives exhaustive detail of events/history in the Bible
that are not to be found in Scripture itself or even extra-
biblical history, but that could have an indelible impact on
how certain portions of Scripture are finally interpreted—
examples of these will also be given later on.
For the SDA commentator, throwing her out would be an
admission that her accounts might not be reliable. For obvious
reasons, this would be like shooting yourself in the foot. On the
other hand, using her work as an “inspired reference,” creates the
potential for drawing conclusions that cannot be confirmed, in
absolute terms, by Scripture itself—one needs to simply accept
that what she claims to have been shown under inspiration is
exactly how it was.
This does not suggest that certain essential SDA fundamental
beliefs are unscriptural. As stated previously, many are firmly
grounded in Scripture. However, I do make the point that, in
addition to what is clearly scriptural in their beliefs, there is an
extra-biblical source that becomes an authoritative or primary
factor in how the Bible is understood in certain respects. This has
the potential to lead members to practices and teachings that are
not expressly provable from Scripture.
It is also interesting to note, getting back to another aspect of
Foye’s vision, the contrast between the attitudes of Bible prophets
who practically prostrate themselves in awe and reverence, hardly
able to speak, when confronted with the majesties of heaven and
that of Foye.
Foye meets a majestic being of dazzling brightness (the one
who was also wearing the crown), who then takes him by the

104
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

“right hand” and leads him. Foye does not fall on his face in front
of this being, who may well have been Christ Himself—the
description is rather like John’s description of Christ in the book
of Revelation.
Foye, as with Ellen White, on many occasions seem to be
out of sync with descriptions given in Scripture. Whether
it is Moses (Deuteronomy 9:18) Daniel, Ezekiel or John (The
book of Revelation), in every case where they actually describe
being confronted by Christ or heavenly majesty, they prostrate
themselves. Why do Ellen White and Foye not manifest the
same type of reaction?
Let’s move on and consider some further aspects of
Foye’s vision:

… I then beheld countless millions of shining ones coming with cards

in their hands. Th
ose shining ones become our guides. Th
e cards
they bore shone above the brightness of the sun; and they placed
them in our hands, but the names of them I could not read…I
then beheld an innumerable multitude, arrayed in white raiment,
with cards upon their breasts; and unto each was given a crown
of brightness. Th
e guide spake, saying, “Th
ese are those which
have passed through death.”
… I then saw an individual which had passed through death.
Her brightness was beyond the expression of mortals, and at her
right side stood a guardian angel, the angel’s rai-ment was like
pure gold and his wings like flaming fire, and as she passed me, she
cried with a lovely voice, “I am going to the gate to meet my friends.”

At the right side of the mountain appeared a mighty
angel, with raiment like unto burnished gold, his legs were like
pillars of flaming fire, his countenance was like the
lightning, and his crown gave light to this boundless place, and
those that had not passed through death could not look upon
his countenance. I then beheld upon the side of this mount letters
like pure gold, which said, “THE FATHER, AND 5)&
40/w

105
Brian Neumann

Directly under these letters stood the mighty angel whose crown
lighted up the place, and all the heavenly host worshipped
at his feet, round about the mountain. Th
is angel then raised his
right hand, which appeared like a flam-ing sword and all the
multitude of those who had not passed through death were
caught up to the top of the mountain; and there was a large book
opened, and their names came up out of the book in the forms of
cards which were stamped upon their foreheads.
We then stood again upon this pure sea of glass before the
mountain; and our bodies had become like transparent glass; but
the being that was within the mountain I was unable to behold.
While I was gazing upon the glories before me, a great voice spake
in the mountain, and the place was mighty shaken, and the
countless multitude of saints and angels, bowed at the feet of the
mighty angel, and worshipped him crying with a loud voice,
“Hallelujah!”
… I then beheld this lower world, wrapt as it were in rolling
mountains of flame, and in thisfire I saw a countess multitude
crying for mercy. Th
ey appeared to be the aged and those who had
come to the years of understanding. Th
eir cries came up before the
mountain while all the heavenly host were bowed in solemn stillness.
Th
e voice from the mountain spake again and all the saints and
angels arose, and with loud voices cried, “Amen!”
I then began to converse with my guide and inquired, why there
was no mercy for those whom I had seen in distress. He answered,
“Th
e gospel has been preached unto them, and the servants have
warned them, but they would not believe; and when the great day
of God’s wrath comes, there will be no mercy for them.” 14

ωФСЮС

are a number of things in this section that do
not

provide any answers but instead raise more questions—in regard

106
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

to the living and the dead and what appears to be the “worship”
of an “angel,” etc.
Foye speaks of shining ones with golden cards (that shone
brighter than the sun) that are given to the redeemed. This is a
different group to those he saw in the first part of the vision. He
refers to these as ones who have “passed through death.” This is a
significant phrase that is used quite frequently by Foye.
Later on he describes other cards that come up out of the
book and are stamped on the foreheads of this group (those
whose names are in the book). Is this meant to be symbolic? Th e
Bible does not seem to give any hint that the redeemed will have
a “card” stamped on their foreheads.
His reference to cards is reminiscent of Ellen White’s
description of golden cards used by the angels so that they can
pass into the city (like some sort of identity card).
A strange and one might say new concept, is that those who
are redeemed (“passed through death”) have bodies that are as
“transparent glass.” It would almost seem, consistent with the
idea that these are the “souls” of those who have gone straight to
heaven when they die, really spirits and for this reason are still
“transparent.”
It will become more and more evident, as we proceed, that
Foye believed in the continuance of the soul/spirit after death.
Of course this is what all mainstream Christians believed at the
time. They still do. SDA’s, however, as already mentioned, do not
believe this.
From an SDA point of view, this begs the question: Did God,
when revealing such vital information regarding preparation for
His return want to leave Foye in a delusion on the matter of
the state of the dead? SDA’s believe, and this is substantiated
by the inspired insight of Ellen G. White, that one of the great
deceptions before the return of Christ, that prepares people for
the reception of spiritualistic ideas, is this false doctrine. 15

107
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Was it only important for God to warn people of this after the
great disappointment? I will let the question rest as I am sure any
thinking reader will know the answer. Does God allow for
specious error in the visions He gives to His chosen prophets?
Is He happy to just leave them guessing as to the meaning of
what they are seeing, especially if it could lead to supporting
unscriptural teachings?
I am almost tempted to give Foye the benefit of the doubt
regarding the “angel” he refers to, standing by the mountain
(fitting the general description of Christ in John’s Revelation).
He refers to this being as an angel, using a lower-case “a,”
which clearly indicates that he did not mean to convey the idea
that he was talking about Christ. It might be good to remind
ourselves, based on scriptural evidence, that angels do not want
our worship. For example, when John falls at the feet of the angel
while in vision, in an act of worship (Revelation 19:10) the angels
says: “See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy
brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God …” See
also Revelation 22:8.
Just like Foye, John was in vision and fell down to worship an
angel—the response from the angel is immediate and emphatic.
The “angel” in Foye’s vision does not react this way.
The last two paragraphs above, of Foye’s first vision, are
somewhat confusing. Foye makes reference to those people in
the “lower world,” wrapped in flames. It is not clear if they are
on planet earth or if he is making reference to another—perhaps
a place where the unrighteous are kept in reserve for the day of
final judgment, a type of purgatory. Foye says, regarding them:
“They appeared to be the aged and those who had come to the
years of understanding.” Then, further on, his guide says of them:
“The gospel has been preached unto them, and the servants have
warned them, but they would not believe; and when the great
day of God’s wrath comes, there will be no mercy for them.” This
statement, in and of itself, is an indication that these are people

108
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

who have died (who rejected Christ) and at the final judgment
they will face the wrath of God—another indication of Foye’s
position regarding life after death.
The problem with this is that it simply does not seem to make
any real sense in light of Scripture. It would be hard to imagine
the righteous kneeling before the mount of God in solemn
stillness, listening to the cries of anguish coming from those who
are “wrapped in flames” in the “lower world.”
The last section of this has one or two more aspects that I
would like to bring to your attention:

I then beheld in the middle of this boundless place a tree, the body
of which was like unto transparent glass, and the limbs were like
transparent gold, extending all over this boundless place. On every
branch of the tree were small angels stand-ing. Th ere was an
innumerable multitude of them, and they sung with loud voices,
and such singing has not been heard this side of heaven.
I saw some that I knew while they were living upon the
earth, and they were all singing with loud voices and lifting their
glittering hands plucking fruit from the tree; the fruit appeared
like clusters of grapes in pictures of pure gold. With a lovely voice
the guide then spoke to me and said, “Th ose that; eat of the fruit of
this tree [tree of life] return to earth no more. 16

Foye’s descriptions of, what can only be the tree of life, are quite
unusual. His descriptions differ somewhat to the descriptions
given by Ellen White in Early Writings, pg. 17. She speaks of
the tree of life as having, what appears to be, two trunks—the
river that flows from God’s throne flows between this divided
trunk.
Ellen White says the fruit looked like “gold mixed with
silver.” Foye says he saw them as “clusters of grapes in pictures of
gold.” Exactly what he meant by that is not clear. Did the fruit,
while hanging on the tree, look like it was in pictures of
gold? Did the GSVJU
JUTFMG
IBWF
UIF
BQQFBSBODF
PG
HPME

109
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

Were they in bunches or clusters (like grapes)? It would

seem that they must have looked like clusters of grapes, at
the very least. Still, there are discrepancies, when compared to
what Ellen White apparently saw, that
seem to be somewhat
curious.
The part that seems to be the most unusual is the “small
angels” sitting on the branches of the tree—“an innumerable
multitude of them.” Nowhere in Ellen White’s visions did she
ever describe small angels. She did, however, describe little
infants as having wings. Certainly, nowhere in Scripture, does
one find any reference to miniature angels or infants with wings.
Yet, Foye sees miniature angels sitting on the branches of a tree
as if they were a flock of birds! Strange indeed, especially when
one considers that the Bible and even Ellen White portray angels
as majestic beings. According to Ellen White they are above
human stature and never portrayed as sitting on the branches
of trees.
Once again, there is further evidence that Foye believed in
continued life after death. This comes through in his statement
about seeing some people he “knew while they were living
upon the earth.” He obviously knows they were once upon the
earth but had “passed through death,” as stated earlier in his
description (this is a phrase he uses quite often and seems to
quite obviously imply that they had died and “passed” on to
another level).
It could be argued that the SDA teaching on the state of the
dead is wrong and God let Foye see and understand the state of
the dead just as it really is. Thus, Ellen White is wrong on her
teaching about the dead and her warnings about a false concept
on this doctrine leading to spiritualism are erroneous too. The
implications of this are simply too horrendous for SDA’s to
consider. Yet, it needs to be remembered that, historically, Foye
is believed to be a true prophet. If he is not and if his teaching
on the state of the dead is indeed not biblical, then the SDA’s

110
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

still face a problem that they would be hard pressed to explain.

Indeed, evidence from Foye’s second vision, puts the question of
his belief on the state of the dead beyond doubt.

Portions from Foye’s 2nd vision (February 4, 1842—

lasted 12 ½ hours):
This following extract from Foye’s second vision, is very significant
as it is the ultimate piece of evidence in the case regarding his
true position on the question of life after death:

… I watched the chariot, listening to the lovely sound of the

wings. It passed towards the earth; and there appeared a spirit,
arrayed in white raiment as it were, standing upon a mountain,
and there was given him a crown of bright-ness; and he stepped
into the chariot with the angel, and in a moment he was in this
boundless place. Although he shone with great brightness, yet this
individual I knew; it was the one referred to by the witness who
said “I see the chariot com-ing!” He departed this life in just two
weeks after I saw him in vision. 17

Foye sees a “spirit” coming from the mountain. Th is spirit

then gets into the chariot with the angel. Although the spirit is
bright, Foye recognizes him as someone he knew on earth and
states that just two weeks after he had received this vision the
man departed/died. Clearly, this man was NOT flesh and blood
(with a new body, after the first resurrection, but a spirit). Next
in order to authenticate what he saw in vision, he adds a
testimony from the wife of the man who died in his published
pamphlet. Below is the testimony. Once you have read it I will
make a few more observations:

Mary Black, the wife of the deceased Eld. George Black [the
individual seen in the vision] testifies, “These are his dying

111
Brian Neumann

words, ‘I see the chariots coming to waft my spirit home.’
He then
left the world with a shout.” 18

Mrs. Black’s testimony speaks for itself. Not only is it a

testimony to the fact that her husband did die and was the same
man Foye saw in vision, it is also a testimony and thus evidence
to the fact that the wife, the husband and Foye, believed that
when the righteous die they go straight to heaven—in his case,
in a chariot, like Foye saw him (as a spirit) in vision. Th is cannot
be explained away or rationalized as something symbolic. It
clearly reveals that the descriptions given, in both visions, of
transparent people, who passed THROUGH death and are
spirits are, indeed, not views of the saints after the first
resurrection, with glorified bodies but disembodied spirits of the
righteous who have just died and are now in heaven. Following
are the final two paragraphs of this vision:

My guide now informed me what I must do, saying, “Th y spirit

must return to yonder world, and thou must reveal these things
which thou hast seen, and also warn thy fellow creatures to flee
from the wrath to come.” I then answered his saying, “How can I
return to yonder world?” He answered me, “I will go with thee,
and support and help thee to declare these things unto the world.”
Th en, I answered the angel, “I will go.”
… My guide then spread his wings, and brought my spirit
gently to the earth, then soared away; and immediately I found
myself in the body. 19

5Ie issue of the spirit, the state of the dead and Foye’s
obvious belief has been settled so I will not dwell on this,
except to say, that his heavenly guide also seems to believe in
the spirit being separate from the body.
When his guide tells him to go and declare what he has seen,
Foye readily accepts the commission.
TIis is relevant, as will be

112
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

seen later on, in light of the fact that it is commonly reported by

various SDA sources that Foye rejected his calling and that the
visions or prophetic calling were then passed to Foss and finally,
after Foss’ rejection, to Ellen White.
At the end of the vision Foye’s spirit is brought gently to the
earth and he finds himself in his body once again.
One other point that I would like to spend a bit of time
reflecting on is the manner in which angels or other heavenly
beings, more often than not, speak when speaking to the one
receiving the vision/prophet.
In most cases the Angel or heavenly being is quoted verbatim,
thus it must be assumed that the words the prophet is relating,
is exactly as it was said by the angel or other heavenly being.
Below are a few samples from William Foye. See if you notice
something curious about these quotes.

William Foye:
Th y spirit must return to yonder world, and thou must reveal these
things which thou hast seen, and also warn thy fellow creatures to
flee from the wrath to come.’
I will go with thee, and support and help thee to declare these
things unto the world. 20

When Foye is relating the general content of the visions, he

writes in the style of English commonly spoken at the time. It is
curious though that in most cases, as soon as he directly quotes
an angel or heavenly being (these appear to be verbatim quotes),
he then switches to the Old King James style of English (he is
not even quoting texts from the King James Bible). Why? Do
heavenly beings speak Old King James English? Does God not
speak to people in the vernacular they themselves communicate
in? Does God want to make it sound more “holy” or
“authoritative” by having his heavenly messenger resort to Old
English?

113
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

TIese are not superfluous observations or questions. When one

investigates a matter, even in how people speak and communicate,
all aspects are vitally important to consider.
When someone is trying to create a certain “impression” they
may very well project themselves in a certain way, without realizing
that what they are doing may well be betraying their credibility.
It might sound impressive and more “holy” to someone who is
not being critically observant, to have heavenly beings make
statements in Old King James English, but it simply does not
ring true when one considers how God usually communicates—
in the language and style that is relevant to the prophet in vision.
What makes it even more suspect is the fact that when Ellen
White (the one who took over the “prophetic mantle,” as it were,
from Foye) presents verbatim quotes of heavenly beings, she
does it in the contemporary vernacular, not old English, unless
she was quoting an angel or Christ citing Scripture. In that case,
they would normally quote an Old English translation. This may
even seem peculiar to some but I would not go so far as to deem
it suspect.
Did God change His mind after Foye and decide that with
Ellen White He would have heavenly speech communicated in
the common English of the day? Did Ellen White, on the whole
(on occasion she also quoted heavenly beings in old English),
simply choose to write it in contemporary English but still leave
scriptural quotes in the old style? Or, is there really no satisfactory
explanation for any of it?
In my opinion, this type of consideration is prime evidence
when evaluating someone’s testimony.

Cross Examination and Vital Considerations:

It is not necessary to spend a lot of time making further
comparisons between Ellen White and the extra-biblical prophets
we have already examined. Having said that though, there are a

114
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

few extra things I would like to mention and a few I would like
to reiterate.
Throughout the history of this world, all kinds of people,
from various walks of life, have either been labeled as prophets by
others or laid claim to prophetic status, themselves. Some have
been outright charlatans, while others have been self-deceived.
Then, there are those who have genuinely been in possession of
the “prophetic gift”—either called and empowered by God or
called and empowered by Satan.
I put it this way because someone who is a prophet of Satan
does not change the fact that they are a prophet non-the-less—a
genuine prophet, within that context. Of course, from the Judeo-
Christian perspective, they would be false prophets, carrying
deceptive or subversive messages, designed to lead souls away
from God to ultimate destruction.
Mohammed, for example, could be a prophet who may well,
for all intents and purposes, have exhibited some of the physical
signs of a biblical prophet when in vision (not that these signs are
any evidence for credibility). His messages may have contained
aspects that resemble Old and New Testament teachings.
Testimony regarding his character might, in many respects, have
been good. According to followers of Islamic faith, he may well
have edified the religion he founded. Even from the perspective
of growth (the results or fruits of his labour), one might say that
God/Allah richly blessed his work. Yet, when weighed against
all the criteria found in the Bible, Mohammed would fail the
test—in some of the most vital points of consideration. The most
significant of these points being the fact that he did not accept
Christ as the Messiah. Other points could be mentioned, but this
one alone, puts him squarely in the category of a false prophet of
no minor status.
When we consider the various popes who claimed to have
visions and who speak infallibly when speaking ex-cathedra, we
might also consider ALL the biblical criteria that would either

115
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

validate or invalidate their claims. Certainly, when one considers

the fruits of the Catholic Faith, insofar as growth, duration,
wealth, and global influence is concerned, there is probably no
other Christian faith that could compare. The SDA faith does not
compare even remotely, when it comes to membership, wealth or
global influence. Indeed, SDA membership figures are closer to
that of the Mormon faith.
The Catholic Faith recognizes Christ as the true Messiah, and,
indeed, for most non-Christians, it is the prime representation
of what Christianity is all about. Even for many non-Catholic
Christians today, the Pope is regarded as the spiritual head of the
Christian Faith as a whole.
We could list a string of evidences that would apparently
indicate that the popes, as God’s representatives on Earth, are
prophets, according to “Eivine” calling. But when
apply the
Biblical standard given by God, all factors considered, X P V M E

SDA Christians call the prophetic claims of the popes USVF
PS

GBMTF
Even though some of the descriptions of physical signs when
a prophet is going into or in vision were exhibited by some
popes, would not, according to the SDA position, make
them true prophets. No matter how accurately they might
have manifest, even all the claimed physical symptoms (even if
they were tested and proved by doctors or other witnesses), if they
did not conform to ALL the other PRIMARY biblical tests,
XPVME
UIFZ
OPU
CF
GBMTF
4IPVME
OPU
UIF
TBNF
TUBOEBSE
TIPVME

BQQMZ
UP
&MMFO
(
8IJUF
On the question of influence though, within the context of
the faith’s they represent, there are some comparisons that can
be made between the authority of the popes (although filled by
a succession of individuals, this office is seen as a singular
office of authority within the Catholic Church) and the
authority that Ellen White’s writings exercise within the context
of SDA Faith.

116
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Although I will expand on this issue later on, let me just

make one or two observations at this point. When one considers
the opinion of some SDA pioneers, regarding the authority of
the gifts (in particular the gift of prophecy, as manifest in the
ministry of Ellen White), an opinion held by many today, then
there is little doubt, at least as far as I am prepared to venture at
this point that, next to the authority of Scripture, there is
nothing that comes even close to the authority of Ellen White’s
voice—not in audible or visual presence.
TIis is not a criticism of the authority one would associate
with the genuine gift of prophecy—when a true prophet speaks
it is with the authority of God behind him/her. Rather, it is
an observation, which I will build on later, that in the case of
the SDA denomination, there is one singular voice of prophetic
proportion and authority that wields, as it were, over nearly every
aspect of belief—the voice of Ellen White.
Although some might view this positively, there are others
who would observe that this has been the one primary factor
that has vested the SDA Faith with cult status and placed it in
the same danger as all other faiths that have allowed a singular
individual to define their beliefs and practice—a number of them
we have already examined together with their founding prophets.
It is true that most of the fundamental SDA beliefs can
be sustained from by the Bible. I personally have no question
regarding this. Yet, it is in the sense that these beliefs were
confirmed or, in a sense, established through God’s revelations
to Ellen White (the gift) that, for many, keeps pulling attention
back to the messenger—if Ellen White confirmed it then it must
be right. As if the line upon line and precept upon precept (the
Bible as a whole as relied upon by all the great reformers) was not
sufficient to sustain the truth, based on the evidence contained
within itself.
For some this may not be an issue as they see the Word of
God as an ample compass and do not even need an external voice

117
Brian Neumann

of confirmation. Yet for others there is a tendency to rely on the

authoritative “say-so” of the prophet and not study for themselves.
If they would study and test the prophet according to the Bible,
as the Bereans did, even though taught by the great apostle Paul,
they might discover that the Bible has all the truth they need.
It is a sad fact that in many SDA lesson study classes people
often support their opinions by offering proofs from the writings
of Ellen White rather than a plain “thus saith the Lord,” from the
Bible. In some cases they are often at a loss to find the scriptural
confirmation that would support the statements from Ellen
White that they so emphatically offer as proof. Often, many
preachers are found doing the same thing.
This is not to say that prophetic confirmation is a bad thing.
No, the danger is the tendency that results when ONE figure,
with the claim of Divine backing and prophetic status, does not
simply confirm scriptural belief but progressively introduces so
much more that risks elevating their already singular position to an
even higher status.
Surely, this is what Paul was saying when he wrote to the
people in Corinth and warned them about claiming: “I am of
Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ …” (1
Corinthians 1:12). It would have been better if all had said “I am
of Christ.” This would have shown where the authority behind
their faith came from. Apollos, Cephas or even Paul (a prophet
in his own right), were to be tested by the teachings of Christ.
For present-day Christians this would be the Bible. Ellen
White is NOT above Paul and certainly not above the scriptures.
To place an emphasis on her teachings and to use them as primary
authority contradicts what the Bible plainly teaches. Indeed,
Ellen White herself never openly encouraged people to place her
writings above Scripture although the emphasis of some of her
other statements, which we will consider later on, tend to lead
people to considering her as the authority.
The area in which this type of emphasis becomes, not just
problematic but dangerous, is when extra-biblical teachings are

118
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

made a rule or test of faith—where the express authority for a

teaching can only be found in the message of the prophet. The only
“proof ” of authority sourced from the fact that the writer claimed
that God said it was so—even though it cannot be verified in any
absolute sense by Scripture. In this regard, in the SDA context, a
single person (Ellen White), like those when occupying the rank
of Pope in the Catholic Faith, become the “ex-cathedra,” the final
word of authority, even if what is said cannot be found expressly
and by ample witness in the Bible. In some cases, as we will see, no
scriptural confirmation at all can be found.
If any prophet makes a prediction and that prediction does
not come to pass then he/she is a false prophet. We have already
seen that the Bible makes this a categorical criteria—the basis for
exception has already been considered. If, according to the other
specifically outlined biblical tests the prophet does not conform
(e.g. Isaiah 8:20), then he/she is, likewise, false. No matter how
much they seem to edify their church or even, apparently, bear
good fruits of character, etc., if they do not confirm ALL the
scriptural criteria, they are NOT prophets called by God.
When one considers all the facts regarding the visions of
William Foye, the connection between him and the prophetic
calling of Ellen White and the other recorded history, what do
we find? Much of it can be attributed to hearsay or “legend,”
due to lack of corroborating evidence. What conclusions can be
drawn? Let me summarize the anomalies again in point form:

1. The evidence of Foye’s own accounts indicates that he had

a view of life after death that, according to SDA teaching
would be unscriptural. He also seemed to witness things
during his views of heaven that, according to common
Bible-based Christian teaching, are of a fantastical nature,
leaving one with no way to confirm them via the Bible. In
other words, there is more than reasonable cause to ques-
tion whether his visions are in accordance with Scripture
(Isaiah 8:20) and thus prove, according to the biblical blue-

119
Brian Neumann

print, the primary means for testing error, whether they

were really genuine visions sent from God. Indeed, there
is so much that Foye witnesses in heaven that is not to be
found in Scripture. Indeed, there is more to be found in
common with Ellen White’s visions than those recorded
in the Bible. More than this, so many of those things he
describes are not of primary or intrinsic significance or
substance (e.g., miniature angels sitting in a tree). Rather,
they are more like passing pictures or glimpses spotted
by a tourist driving by in a bus—an attempt to create an
authentic picture of heaven by using aesthetics that can-
not even be substantiated by the Biblical record of heaven.
Why would God create room for so many more ques-
tions when, in reality, the essential message behind Foye’s
visions were simple and can be found in plain and far less
cluttered form in the Bible itself. In essence, NOTHING
new or vital is revealed by Foye’s visions.
2. There is no concrete evidence at all that Foye dropped
out of ministry or lost his desire to share his visions and
testimony. He published his brochure in 1845 after the
disappointment and continued in ministry until he died.
Indeed, the epitaph on his gravestone read, “I have fought
a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,
which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that
day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love
his appearing.”
3. The evidence is indisputable that no one in the SDA
Church really knew what happened to Foye after 1845
and thus should really not have published anything (espe-
cially in the context of an historical record) about his
life after that time. That which was published in refer-
ence to those subsequent years, was based on hearsay and
legend. All this did was create the impression that he had

120
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

refused the call, given up on his mission, fallen silent and

thus transferred his calling to Ellen Harmon/White. It is
rather surprising that Ellen White just went along with
this. Surely she must have known that this information
regarding Foye’s later life was not based on solid fact. She,
herself, made comments that were not based on accurate,
substantiated/verified records.
4. There are only singular SDA records regarding the num-
ber of visions Foye had (some say three, some say four).
In every case there is no corroboration to substantiate
these accounts. Only Foye’s own, first-hand, account can
be considered accurate. For reasons already mentioned,
all accounts other than Foye’s, do not supply answers
but raise more questions. The unsubstantiated record
of a third vision, received before the disappointment in
1844, as evidence that God had given the visions to Ellen
Harmon because of Foye’s rejection of the calling, makes
no sense as he published two visions after this time. This
indicates, as far as the best evidence available is concerned,
that Foye was not giving up and did not even have a third
vision. The third vision account, based on an unreliable
source (Loughborough) who also published that Foye was
actually dead, seems to be an attempt to bolster the pass-
ing of the baton legend. There are absolutely no reliable
historical records for any of this.
5. Foye’s visions are endorsed by Ellen White and
Loughborough and the authors I have quoted here (Arthur
L. White for one), in spite of reasonable doubt (based on
intrinsic written evidence in Foye’s pamphlet), that his
visions were not, in a number of respects, as already men-
tioned, according to the Bible.
6. Thus, the whole idea of three genuine prophetic call-
ings by God (Foss, Foye and Ellen Harmon), cannot be

121
Brian Neumann

substantiated by real, concrete and absolute historical fact.

Hardly good enough for a full-proof account on the ori-
gins of Ellen White’s prophetic calling. The implications,
in view of unsubstantiated historical records and conflict-
ing accounts, are serious indeed and do not favourably
reflect on that which is said to have followed after Ellen
White’s initial calling.

Difficult questions need to be asked. Primary evidence that

might call her prophetic status into question needs to be submitted
and analyzed. If she is a prophet, according to the biblical
criteria, then there need be no fear of such investigation. Th is
is exactly what I will continue doing throughout the rest of this
book.

122
 SOURCES
1. CHAPTER 16: REVELATION AND THE LIVING
PROPHET / Teachings: Joseph Smith. https://www.lds.org/
manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16?lang=eng.
2. E. G. White Letter 37, 1890. ‘A Prophet Among You,’ by T. Housel
Jemison, pp. 487- 489, Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1955
(emphasis supplied).
3. Introduction of Heritage Treasures Number 1, Christian Experience,
by William E. Foy (Andrews University press).
4. DF 231.”THE CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE OF WILLIAM
E. FOY, TOGETHER WITH THE TWO VISIONS HE
RECEIVED IN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND
FEBRUARY, 1842.” PORTLAND: J. AND C. H. PEARSON,
1845. ELLEN G. WHITE MANUSCRIPT 131, 1906.
LOUGHBOROUGH, J. N. THE GREAT SECOND ADVENT
MOVEMENT. WASHINGTON, D.C.: REVIEW AND
HERALD, 1909. PAGES 145-147 (Emphasis Supplied).
5. The Great Second Advent Movement, J. N. Loughborough, 1905,
pg. 145-147 (emphasis supplied).
6. From an interview with Ellen White, )conducted by D. E.
Robinson on August 13, 1906, apparently regarding material that
was to be included in a book) Ms 131, 1906, pg. 1, 4-6 (ital-
ics supplied).
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. William Foy, ‘Christian Experience.’ Published with help from
Millerite publishers, John and Charles H. Pearson, on January 3,
1845, containing 2 visions in a 24 page tract (Italics & empha-
sis supplied).
10. SDA Bible Commentary Vol. 7, pg. 767.
11. Early Writings, pg. 66 (italics supplied).
12. © Copyright 2002-2013 Got Questions Ministries–All Rights
Reserved. www.gotquestions.org–Bible Questions Answered (ital-
ics supplied).
13. Ibid.
14. William Foy, ‘Christian Experience.’ Published with help from
Millerite publishers, John and Charles H. Pearson, on January 3,
1845, containing 2 visions in a 24 page tract (Italics & empha-
sis supplied).
15. Review and Herald, Dec. 18, 1888. The Great Controversy, p. 552,
553, 559, 1888 publication.
16. William Foy, ‘Christian Experience.’ Published with help from
Millerite publishers, John and Charles H. Pearson, on January 3,
1845, containing 2 visions in a 24 page tract (Italics & empha-
sis supplied).
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
 Chapter IV

The Anvil Strikes

Considering the Case

A true witness delivereth souls:

but a deceitful [witness] speaketh lies.

—Proverbs 14:25

L
et everything be done “decently and in order,” is Paul’s
statement in 1 Corinthians 14:40. This aspect of Christian
conduct, along with the question of honesty, is one of the
issues that will be addressed in this chapter. Do the beginnings of
Ellen White’s prophetic ministry ring true with biblical teaching?
Or does the documented, historical record of her beginnings as a
“messenger” for God prove the opposite—the promotion of false
theology and involvement in fanatical expressions of worship
that could only be described as just plain “weird.”
Yet, in spite of the early fanatical expressions of worship,
perhaps the most disturbing element of all is the fact that Ellen
White told blatant lies about events that transpired in the early
years of her ministry. Lies that were not only intended to hide
what was obviously an embarrassing situation, but purposeful
misrepresentation designed to further the legend of her prophetic

127
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

calling. Misrepresentations that continued to be perpetuated for

the rest of her life and that are still believed as fact in the present.
After reading
what will be revealed in this expose you, the
reader, decide for yourself whether the facts in any significant way
support Ellen White’s version of events.
I will be examining an event that took place in Piscataquis
County, Maine, on February 17th, 1845. It started off as a house
meeting, presided over by a Millerite elder, Israel Dammon that
finally ended up in court. Among those present were, Ellen
Harmon/White (of Portland), James White and Dorinda Baker (of
Orrington), another claimed “visionary.”
What makes this event so significant is the fact that we are
able to get a glimpse of those early times in Ellen Harmon’s
prophetic ministry via an official record, outside of usual/internal
SDA sources.
This significant piece of evidence, a newspaper account of the
arrest and trial of Israel Dammon, was published in the, March
7th, 1845, Piscataquis Farmer weekly newspaper, in Dover Maine,
under the heading Trial of Elder I. Dammon. It was discovered in
March 1986 by an Andrews University Seminary graduate, Bruce
Weaver. His article was published in, Adventist Currents, Vol. 3,
Number 1, 1988. Frederick Hoyt, a history and political science
teacher at Loma Linda University was also reported to have
found a copy of this newspaper article while searching through
Maine papers, for the period, 1827-1846.
Interestingly enough, the SDA Church did not grab at the
opportunity to publish this find. Why not? This newspaper
article would, potentially, at least from an SDA perspective,
serve as independent, public proof that Ellen White was indeed
recognized as a prophet/visionary. It not only proves this but, in
a number of ways, supports accounts of people, places and events
(in connection with those early years of ministry), given by Ellen
White and other early Adventists. Indeed, Ellen White gives an
account of this very event herself. So why not grab at the chance?

128
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Yet, the only substantial response, in relation to this find,

coming from the SDA Church, has been defensive. Th
e
reason for this is simple and will be revealed as we continue.
Court-room statements, given under oath, strongly
contradict Ellen White’s account on a number of very primary
points.
I will examine various aspects of this episode. In the process
I will discuss the relevance of the court-room testimonies (for
and against) and what bearing this has on the record of Ellen
White’s prophetic ministry—as published by the SDA Church,
particularly the Ellen White Estate. We will also examine Ellen
White’s version of this experience. In addition, we will consider
a number of questionable teachings

that she promoted during
those early years.
It needs to be remembered, outside of comparatively few
independent accounts, the Ellen G. White Estate, for the
most part, has total monopoly over all original documentation
connected to Ellen White. TIis has left them with practically
sole power of discretion in what they choose to release from their
archives for public perusal. TIus giving them ability to dictate
how Ellen White should be interpreted. For many, this detail
alone would be cause for concern. Notwithstanding the fact that
the Ellen White Estate has released CD-Rom’s containing Ellen
White’s work (various other records as well) and opens their
doors to people doing research, they still have, under lock and
key, materials they have first a nd primaryaccessto—toreview ,
and if need be, edit before releasing.
It is for this reason, as already stated at the start of this
chapter, that findings such as the public record of the Israel
Dammon case, are prime evidence that none need suspect has
(because of some or other bias) been tampered with.
As we look at the record of this incident and consider
subsequent commentary, by various people, for or against Ellen
White, an interesting and often disturbing picture starts to
unfold. I have chosen to let the reader first consider Ellen White’s

129
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

account of events leading up to and including this incident and

then, the newspaper account of the trial, without any interjection
from me. TIe reader will thus have a fair overview by the time I
get to a more detailed evaluation. I
ask the reader to take special
note of the emphasized and underlined parts as these will be the
aspects I will focus on in my subsequent analysis.

The Event—as Recounted by Ellen White

"U
(BSMBOE
B
MBSHF
OVNCFS
DPMMFDUFE
GSPN
EJGGFSFOU
QMBDFT
UP
IFBS

NZ
NFTTBHF
#VU
*
XBT
JO
HSFBU
IFBWJOFTT
*
IBE
SFDFJWFE
B
MFUUFS

GSPN
NZ
NPUIFS
CFHHJOH
NF
UP
SFUVSO
IPNF
GPS
GBMTF
SFQPSUT

XFSF
CFJOH
DJSDVMBUFE
DPODFSOJOH
NF
5I
JT
*
IBE
OPU
FYQFDUFE
.Z

OBNF
IBE
OFWFS
CFFO
SFQSPBDIFE
.Z
DVQ
PG
TPSSPX
XBT
GVMM
*
GFMU

HSJFWFE
UIBU
NZ
NPUIFS
TIPVME
TVGGFS
PO
NZ
BDDPVOU
4IF
XBT
WFSZ

TFOTJUJWF
JO
SFHBSE
UP
UIF
SFQVUBUJPO
PG
IFS
DIJMESFO
*G
UIFSF
IBE
CFFO

BOZ
PQQPSUVOJUZ
*
TIPVME
IBWF
SFUVSOFE
JNNFEJBUFMZ
IPNF
BOE
CZ

NZ
QSFTFODF
DPOUSBEJDUFE
UIFTF
MZJOH
SFQPSUT
*
UIPVHIU
JU
XPVME
CF

JNQPTTJCMF
GPS
NF
UP
TQFBL
UIBU
OJHIU
*
XBT
VSHFE
UP
USVTU
JO
UIF

-PSE
CVU
DPVME
OPU
CF
DPNGPSUFE
"U
MFOHUI
UIF
CSFUISFO
FOHBHFE
JO

QSBZFS
GPS
NF
BOE
UIF
CMFTTJOH
PG
UIF
-PSE
SFTUFE
VQPO
NF
BOE
*

IBE
HSFBU
GSFFEPN
JO
CFBSJOH
NZ
UFTUJNPOZ
*
GFMU
UIBU
BO
BOHFM
PG

(PE
XBT
TUBOEJOH
CZ
NZ
TJEF
UP
TUSFOHUIFO
NF
4XFFU
IFBSUGFMU

TIPVUT
PG
HMPSZ
BOE
WJDUPSZ
XFOU
VQ
GSPN
UIBU
IPVTF
+FTVT
XBT
JO

PVS
NJETU
BOE
PVS
IFBSUT
CVSOFE
XJUI
IJT
MPWF
"U
&YFUFS
B
IFBWZ
CVSEFO
SFTUFE
VQPO
NF
XIJDI
*
DPVME
OPU
CF

GSFF
GSPN
VOUJM
*
SFMBUFE
XIBU
*
IBE
CFFO
TIPXO
DPODFSOJOH
TPNF

GBOBUJDBM
QFSTPOT
QSFTFOU
XIP
XFSF
FYBMUFE
CZ
UIF
TQJSJU
PG
4BUBO
*

NFOUJPOFE
UIBU
*
NVTU
TPPO
SFUVSO
IPNF
BOE
UIBU
*
IBE
TFFO
UIBU

UIFTF
GBOBUJDBM
QFSTPOT
XFSF
BOYJPVT
UP
WJTJU
1PSUMBOE
CVU
UIFZ
IBE

OP
XPSL
UP
EP
UIFSF
UIBU
UIFZ
XPVME
JOKVSF
UIF
DBVTF
JG
UIFZ
XFOU

CZ
DBSSZJOH
UIJOHT
UP
FYUSFNFT
UIBU
UIFZ
XFSF
EFDFJWFE
JO
SFHBSE
UP

UIF
4QJSJU
UIFZ
QPTTFTTFE
5IJT
TFFNFE
UP
DBVTF
TPNF
HSFBU
USJBM

.Z

UFTUJNPOZ


DVU

EJSFDUMZ

BDSPTT
UIFJS
BOUJDJQBUFE
DPVSTF

BOE
UIFZ

130
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

CFDBNF
jealous of me, and secretly held bitter feelings against me.

From Exeter we went to Atkinson. One night I was
shown something that I did not understand. It was to this effect,
that we were to have a trial of our faith. Th
e next day, which
was the first day of the week, while I was speaking, two men
looked into the window. We were satisfied of their object. Th ey
entered and rushed past me to Eld. Damman (Dammon). 5IF
4QJSJU
PG
UIF
-PSE
SFTUFE
VQPO
IJN
BOE
IJT
TUSFOHUI
XBT
UBLFO


BXBZ

BOE

IF

GFMM

UP

UIF

GMPPS

IFMQMFTT

5IF

PGGJDFS

DSJFE

PVU


i*O

UIF

OBNF

PG

UIF

4UBUF

PG

.BJOF

MBZ

IPME

PG

UIJT

NBOw


5XP
TFJ[FE
IJT
BSNT
BOE
UXP
IJT
GFFU
BOE
BUUFNQUFE
UP
ESBH


IJN
GSPN
UIF
SPPN
5IFZ
XPVME
NPWF
IJN
B
GFX
JODIFT
POMZ


BOE
UIFO
SVTI
PVU
PG
UIF
IPVTF
5IF
QPXFS
PG
(PE
XBT
JO
UIBU


SPPN

BOE

UIF

TFSWBOUT

PG

(PE

XJUI

UIFJS

DPVOUFOBODFT


MJHIUFE

VQ

XJUI

IJT

HMPSZ

NBEF

OP

SFTJTUBODF

5IF

FGGPSUT

UP


UBLF
&ME
%
XFSF
PGUFO
SFQFBUFE
XJUI
UIF
TBNF
FGGFDU
5IF
NFO


DPVME
OPU
FOEVSF
UIF
QPXFS
PG
(PE
BOE
JU
XBT
B
SFMJFG
UP
UIFN


UP

SVTI

PVU

PG

UIF

IPVTF

5IFJS

OVNCFS

JODSFBTFE

UP

UXFMWF


TUJMM
&ME
%
XBT
IFME
CZ
UIF
QPXFS
PG
(PE
BCPVU
GPSUZ
NJOVUFT


BOE
OPU
BMM
UIF
TUSFOHUI
PG
UIPTF
NFO
DPVME
NPWF
IJN
GSPN
UIF


GMPPS

XIFSF

IF

MBZ

IFMQMFTT

"U

UIF

TBNF

NPNFOU

XF

BMM

GFMU


UIBU
&ME
%
NVTU
HP
UIBU
(PE
IBE
NBOJGFTUFE
IJT
QPXFS
GPS


IJT

HMPSZ

BOE

UIBU

UIF

OBNF

PG

UIF

-PSE

XPVME

CF

GVSUIFS


HMPSJGJFE

JO

TVGGFSJOH

IJN

UP

CF

UBLFO

GSPN

PVS

NJETU

"OE


UIPTF
NFO
UPPL
IJN
VQ
BT
FBTJMZ
BT
UIFZ
XPVME
UBLF
VQ
B
DIJME


BOE
DBSSJFE
IJN
PVU
"GUFS
&ME
%
XBT
UBLFO
GSPN
PVS
NJETU
IF
XBT
LFQU
JO
B


IPUFM

BOE

HVBSEFE

CZ

B

NBO

XIP

EJE

OPU

MJLF

IJT

PGGJDF

)F


TBJE
UIBU
&ME
%
XBT
TJOHJOH
BOE
QSBZJOH
BOE
QSBJTJOH
UIF


-PSE

BMM

OJHIU

TP

UIBU

IF

DPVME

OPU

TMFFQ

BOE

IF

XPVME

OPU


XBUDI
PWFS
TVDI
B
NBO
/P
POF
XJTIFE
UIF
PGGJDF
PG
HVBSEJOH


IJN

BOE

IF

XBT

MFGU

UP

HP

BCPVU

UIF

WJMMBHF

BT

IF

QMFBTFE


BGUFS

QSPNJTJOH

UIBU

IF

XPVME

BQQFBS

GPS

USJBM

,JOE

GSJFOET


JOWJUFE
IJN
UP
TIBSF
UIFJS
IPTQJUBMJUJFT

131
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

"U
UIF
IPVS
PG
USJBM
&ME
%
XBT
QSFTFOU
"
MBXZFS
PGGFSFE
IJT
TFSWJDFT


5IF
DIBSHF
CSPVHIU
BHBJOTU
&ME
%
XBT
UIBU
IF
XBT
B
EJTUVSCFS
PG
UIF


QFBDF

.BOZ

XJUOFTTFT

XFSF

CSPVHIU

UP

TVTUBJO

UIF

DIBSHF

CVU

UIFZ


XFSF
BU
PODF
CSPLFO
EPXO
CZ
UIF
UFTUJNPOZ
PG
&ME
%T
BDRVBJOUBODFT


QSFTFOU

XIP

XFSF

DBMMFE

UP

UIF

TUBOE

5IFSF

XBT

NVDI

DVSJPTJUZ

UP


LOPX
XIBU
&ME
%
BOE
IJT
GSJFOET
CFMJFWFE
BOE
IF
XBT
BTLFE
UP
HJWF


UIFN
B
TZOPQTJT
PG
IJT
GBJUI
)F
UIFO
UPME
UIFN
JO
B
DMFBS
NBOOFS
IJT


CFMJFG
GSPN
UIF
4DSJQUVSFT
*U
XBT
BMTP
TVHHFTUFE
UIBU
UIFZ
TVOH
DVSJPVT


IZNOT

BOE

IF

XBT

BTLFE

UP

TJOH

POF

5IFSF

XFSF

RVJUF

B

OVNCFS

PG


TUSPOH

CSFUISFO

QSFTFOU

XIP

IBE

TUPPE

CZ

IJN

JO

UIF

USJBM

BOE

UIFZ


KPJOFE
XJUI
IJN
JO
TJOHJOH
i8IFO
*
XBT
EPXO
JO
&HZQUT
MBOE
*
IFBSE


NZ
4BWJPVS
XBT
BU
IBOE w
D







&ME
%
XBT
BTLFE
JG
IF
IBE
B
TQJSJUVBM
XJGF
)F
UPME
UIFN
IF
IBE
B


MBXGVM
XJGF
BOE
IF
DPVME
UIBOL
(PE
UIBU
TIF
IBE
CFFO
B
WFSZ
TQJSJUVBM


XPNBO
FWFS
TJODF
IJT
BDRVBJOUBODF
XJUI
IFS
5IF
DPTU
PG
DPVSU
*
UIJOL

XBT
UISPXO
VQPO
IJN
BOE
IF
XBT
SFMFBTFE


TIe event—as reported by Piscataquis Farmer

Devoted to politics, agriculture, literature, morals, temperance, news.
Vol. 3 Dover Maine, Friday Morning, March 7, 1845 No. 31

Trial of Elder I. Dammon

In offering the public the following report I feel it due
аФСЩ
as well as

myself, to make a few remarks. When I vol-unteered to do it, I
had no doubt but that the examination would have been gone
through with in the course of a few hours. Judge then, what must be
my surprise on finding the Court House filled to over flowing, and
having it occupy such a length of time. To the witnesses I will say, I have
abridged your testimony as much as possible, and have omitted much of
the most unimportant part, in order to shorten the work, but have
endeavoured in no case to misrepresent you, and if you find an error,
I beg you to impute it to my head, instead of heart. —To the reader I
will
remark,
that
much
of
the testimony
was
РЮНгЪ
Ыба

Ое

ЭбСЯаХЫЪΑ

132
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

НЪР
I have omitted the questions in all cases where it could

be dispensed with and shorten the work. To all, I offer it as
an imperfect and impartial report. In consequence of my total
inexperience, being but a labouring man, I should shrink from
publishing it, but from the urgent solicitation of others. Th
anking
the Court for the favour of a seat, by them, and the Court and
Counsel for the use of their minutes, I sign myself this once, THE
REPORTER.
N.B. I have preserved the language of the witnesses as much
as possible.

Monday, Feb. 17, 1845

STATE OF MAINE, vs. ISRAEL DAMMON
Prisoner arraigned before Moses Swett, Esq. of
Foxcroft, associated by Seth Lee, Esq. of Atkinson, on the
following complaint, to wit. To Charles P. Chandler, Esq. one
of the Justices of the Peace within and for the County of
Piscataquis.
“HARTFORD J. ROWE, of Dover, in the Co. of
Piscataquis, Yeoman, upon his oath complains, the Israel
Dammon, Commorant of Atkinson, in said County, Idler, is,
and for several days last past, has been a vagabond and idle
person, going about in the town of Atkinson, aforesaid, in
the county aforesaid, from place to place, begging: —that he
the said Israel Dammon is a common railer or brawler,
neglecting his calling, or employment, misspending his earn-
ings, and does not provide for the support of himself family, &
against the peace of the State of Maine, and contrary to form
of Statute in such cases made and provided. He there-fore
prays that the said I. Dammon, may be apprehended and held
to answer to said complaint and dealt with relative to the same
as law and justice may require.”

Plead Not Guiltyβ





Court adjourned to one o’clock, p.m.
Opened

agreeably to adjournment.

C.P. Chandler, H.G.O. Morison, for
State.
J.S. Holmes, for Respondent.

133
Brian Neumann

Opened by Chandler. Cited chap. 178, sec. 9, Revised Statutes.

Adjourned to Court House.
EBENEZER BLETHEN, [witness] sworn. Have been in the
house three times, saw nothing out of the way in Elder Dammon.
Have seen others.
Ϣмфпнюпо
ющ
мѓ
ϛщцчпэβ
ϖщшрушп
ѓщяь
ьпчльхэ
ющ
ъьуэщшпьί
тп

нлш
уш
шщ
ёлѓэ
мп
лннщяшюлмцп
рщь
ютп
нщшояню
щр
щютпьэί
лшо
Ϝ
щмфпню

ющ
лшѓ
юпэюучщшѓ
пђнпъю
ётлю
сщпэ
ющ
этщё
ётлю
ьпэъщшопшю

φϗлччщшχ
тлэ
элуо
щь
ощшпί
лэ
ётщццѓ
уььпцпѐлшюβ
Ϥяпэюущш
мѓ
ϖтлшоцпьβ
Ϫтщ
ёлэ
ютп
ъьпэуоушс
пцопь
лю
ютп

чппюушсζ
ϔшэβ
Ϙцопь
ϗлччщш
ъьпэуопо
лшо
ющщх
ютп
цпло
щр
ютп
чппюушсэ

ютлю
Ϝ
лююпшопоβ
ϖϛϔϡϗϟϘϥ
ϔϡϗ
ϠϢϥϜϦϢϡβ
ϧтп
чппюушсэ
лъъпль
ющ
мп
Ϙцопь

ϗлччщшιэ
чппюушсэόтп
ющщх
ютп
цпло
лшо
сяуопо
ютпчί
лшо
уэ

лннщяшюлмцп
рщь
лшѓ
ъямцун
чуэнщшоянюί
лшо
щястю
ющ
нтпнх
уюα
ёп

ъьщъщэп
ющ
этщё
ютп
нтльлнюпь
щр
туэ
чппюушсэί
ющ
этщё
ютп
нтльлнюпь

щр
ютп
члшβ
ϕѓ
ютп
ϖщяьюβ
Ϭщя
члѓ
ьпцлюп
лшѓютушс
ютлю
ющщх
ъцлнп
лю
ютп

чппюушсэί
ётпьп
ютп
ьпэъщшопшю
ёлэ
ъьпэуоушс
пцопьβ
ϘϕϘϡϘϭϘϥ
ϕϟϘϧϛϘϡβ
ϧтп
руьэю
чппюушс
Ϝ
лююпшопо
ёлэ
юёщ

ёппхэ
лсщ
ѓпэюпьолѓ
φӲ
ϙпмьяльѓ
ӱӸӴӵχ
όэлё
ъпщъцп
эпююушс
щш
ютп

рцщщьί
лшо
цлѓушс
щш
ютп
рцщщьΰ
ϗлччщш
эпююушс
щш
рцщщьΰ
ютпѓ
ёпьп

цплшушс
щш
плнт
щютпьβ
Ϝю
оуо
шщю
тлѐп
ютп
лъъпльлшнп
щр
л
ьпцусущяэ

чппюушсβ
ϖьщээϊпђлчушлюущшβ
Ϧлё
шщютушс
цухп
цунпшюущяэшпээόютпьп
ёлэ

пђтщьюлюущш
лшо
ъьлѓпь
плнт
пѐпшушсβ
Ϫлэ
ютпьп
цлэю
юучп
лрюпь
φрщь

ютп
ъяьъщэп
щр
ьпюьупѐушсχ
ълью
щр
чѓ
рлчуцѓβ
ϝβϪβϘβ
ϛϔϥϩϘϬί
эёщьшβ
ϛлѐп
лююпшопо
ютпуь
чппюушсэ
юёщ
олѓэ

лшо
рщяь
пѐпшушсэβ
ϙуьэю
чппюушс
цлэюпо
пустю
олѓэόтлѐп
хшщёш

ϗлччщш
эуђ
ёппхэόϗлччщшί
Ϫтуюп
лшо
ϛлцц
ёпьп
цплопьэβ

ϗлччщш
элуо
ютп
эушшпьэ
ёпьп
сщушс
ющ
тпцц
уш
юёщ
олѓэβ
ϧтпѓ
ёпьп

тяссушс
лшо
хуээушс
плнт
щютпьϊϗлччщш
ёщяцо
цлѓ
щш
ютп
рцщщьί

ютпш
фячъ
яъϊютпѓ
ёщяцо
рьпыяпшюцѓ
сщ
ушющ
лшщютпь
ьщщчβ

134
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Dammon has no means to support himself that

I know of

ϧтп
meeting appeared very irreligious—have
seen him sit on the floor with a woman
between his legs and his arms around her.
Cross-examined. The room they went into was a back
room; don’t know what was in it—I was in two rooms where there
was a fire. In the back room they said the world’s people must
not go. Dammon said the meeting was to be a private meeting
and they wanted no one to come unless they believed as he did in
the Advent doctrine. I did go considerably—If the meetings were
religious ones I thought I had a right to go to them—I went to
satisfy myself what was done. I had no hostile feeling against
them. I think they held the first meeting a fortnight [two weeks
before]. Dammon said he wanted no one to attend their meetings
unless they believed in the advent doctrine.
8.
$
$304#:
&TR
TXPSO
*
XBT
BU
UIF
NFFUJOH
MBTU

4BUVSEBZ
OJHIU
GSPN
BCPVU

PDMPDL
UP

5IFSF
XBT
B

XPNBO
PO
UIF
GMPPS
XIP
MBZ
PO
IFS
CBDL
XJUI
B
QJMMPX
VOEFS

IFS
IFBE
TIF
XPVME
PDDBTJPOBMMZ
BSPVTF
VQ
BOE
UFMM
B
WJTJPO

XIJDI
TIF
TBJE
XBT
SFWFBMFE
UP
IFS
5IFZ
XPVME
BU
UJNFT
BMM

CF
UBMLJOH
BU
PODF
IBMMPJOH
BU
UIF
UPQ
PG
UIFJS
WPJDFT
TPNF
PG

UIFN
TBJE
UIFSF
XBT
UPP
NVDI
TJO
UIFSF
"GUFS
UIF

DFTTBUJPO
PG
UIF
OPJTF
%BNNPO
HPU
VQ
BOE
XBT
NPSF

DPIFSFOU‰IF
DPNQMBJOFE
PG
UIPTF
UIBU
DPNF
UIFSF
XIP

EJE
OPU
CFMJFWF
JO
UIF
BEWFOU
EPDUSJOF
"U
POF
UJNF

%BNNPO
TBJE
UIFSF
XBT
IPHT
UIFSF
OPU
CFMPOHJOH
UP
UIF

CBOE
BOE
QPJOUFE
BU
NF
BOE
TBJE
*
NFBO
ZPV
4JS

4VCTFRVFOUMZ
IF
BEESFTTFE
NF
BHBJO‰TBJE
ZPV
DBOU
ESJWF
VT

PVU
PG
UPXO
IF
TUBSFE
NF
JO
UIF
GBDF
BOE
TBJE
*
BN
BO
IPOFTU

NBO
PS
*
DPVME
OPU
MPPL
ZPV
JO
UIF
GBDF
BOE
ZPV
IBWF
IFMMT

CSBTT
PS
ZPV
DPVME
OPU
MPPL
NF
JO
UIF
GBDF
%BNNPO
TBJE
JG
IF

XBT
PXOFS
PG
UIF
IPVTF
IF
XPVME
DPNQFM
BMM
VOCFMJFWFST
UP
MFBWF

JU‰UIFZ
XFSF
TFUUJOH
BOE
MBZJOH
PO
UIF
GMPPS

QSPNJTDVPVTMZ
BOE
XFSF
FYDFFEJOHMZ
OPJTZ

135
Brian Neumann

$SPTTFYBNJOFE
%JE
IF
OPU
TBZ
JG
UIFSF
XBT
BOZ
UIFSF
XIP

EJE
OPU
DPNF
GPS
JOTUSVDUJPO
IF
EJE
OPU
XBOU
UIFN
UIFSF
"OTXFS
5IBU
JT
OPU
XIBU
IF
TBJE‰IF
QPJOUFE
UP

NF
BOE
TBJE
IF
NFBOU
ZPV‰*
OFWFS
XBT
NPSF
QPJOUFEMZ

BEESFTTFE
JO
NZ
MJGF‰XF
TUPPE
GJWF
PS
TJY
GFFU
BQBSU
NPTU
PG
UIF

NFO
XFSF
PO
UIF
GMPPS‰NPTU
PG
UIF
XPNFO
JO
DIBJST
‰%P
OPU
LOPX
IPX
MPOH
%BNNPO
IBT
CFFO
JO
UPXO
5)0."4
130$503
TXPSO
4BX
UIF
QSJTPOFS

MBTU
4BUVSEBZ‰XBT
QSFTFOU
XIFO
IF
XBT
UBLFO
LOPX
OPUIJOH
PG

UIF
NFFUJOHT
NZTFMG
.04&4
(&33*4)
TXPSO
*
IBWF
OFWFS
BUUFOEFE
BOZ

PG
UIFJS
NFFUJOHT
XIFO
UIF
QSJTPOFS
XBT
QSFTFOU
LOTON LAMBERT, sworn. They were singing when I
arrived—after singing they sat down on the floor—Dammon said
a sister had a vision to relate—a woman on the floor then related
her vision. Dammon said all other denominations were wicked—
they were liars, whoremasters, murderers,—he also run upon all
such as were not believers with him. He ordered us off—we did not
go. The woman that lay on the floor relating visions, was called
by Elder Dammon and others, Imitation of Christ. Dammon called
us hogs and devils, and said if he was the owner of the house he
would drive us off—the one that they called Imitation of Christ,
told Mrs. Woodbury and others, that they must forsake all their
friends or go to hell. Imitation of Christ, as they called her, would
lay on the floor a while, then rise up and call upon some one and say
she had a vision to relate to them, which she would relate; there was
one girl that they said must be baptized that night or she must go to
hell; she wept bitterly and wanted to see her mother first; they told
her she must leave her mother or go to hell—one voice said, let her
go to hell. She finally concluded to be baptized. Imitation of Christ
told her vision to a cousin of mine, that she must be baptized that
night or go to hell—she objected, because she had once been
baptized.
Imitation of Christ was said to be a
woman
from
Portland.
A
woman
that

they
called
Miss
Baker

<WJTJPOBSZ>

136
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

э л у о the devil was here, and she wanted to see him—she

selected me and said, you are the devil, and will go to
hell. I told her she want [was not] my
judge. Mr. [
J
ames] Ayer [
J
r., owner of the
house] then clinched me and tried to put me out door.
I told him we had not come to disturb the meeting.
ϧтп

vision woman called [to] Joel Doore, said he had
doubted, and would not be baptized again—she said
Br. Doore don’t go to hell. Doore kneeled to
her feet and prayed. Miss Baker and a man went
into the bedroom—subsequently heard a voice in the
room hallo Oh! 5Ie door was opened—I saw into
the room-she was on the bed-he was hold of her; they
came out of the bedroom hug-ging each other, she jumping
up and would throw her legs between his. Miss
Baker went to Mr. Doore and said, you have
refused me before, he said he had—they then kissed
each other—she said “that feels good”—just before they went
to the water to baptize, Miss Baker went into the
bedroom with a man they called Elder White—saw him
help her on to the bed—the light was brought out and
door closed. I did not see either of them afterwards.
Once I was in the other room talking with my cousin.
Dammon and others came into the room and stopped
our discourse, and called her sister and me the devil.
Imitation of Christ lay on the floor during the time
they went down to the water to baptize, and she
continued on the floor until I left, which was between the hours
of 12 and 1 o’clock at night.

Cross-examined
Answer. The visionist [Ellen Harmon] lay down on the floor I
should think about 7 o’clock—she lay there from that time until I
left. Dammon and others called her Imitation of Christ. Part
of the time Dammon was down on the floor on his back—
can’t say certainly who first said she was Imitation of
Christ, but can say Dammon repeatedly said so—Dammon
said Christ revealed to her and she to others. I am not
acquainted with Elder White. They called him

137
Brian Neumann

5IFZ
TBJE
JG
UIF
"MNJHIUZ
IBE
BOZUIJOH
UP
TBZ
IF
SFWFBMFE

JU
UP
IFS
BOE
TIF
BDUFE
BT
NFEJBUPS
WM. RICKER, sworn. Know Elder Dammon—I
went to attend their meeting once: they told me there would be
none—I asked them where it would be on the next Sabbath?
Th ey told me they know not where; but they did not admit
any but the advent band. I asked Dammon if that was
Christ’s religion? He said it is ours.
LEONARD DOWNES, sworn.—Went to meeting
with Loten Lambert, and kept with him; heard him testify,
and know what he has related to be true. He omitted one
thing. I saw Dammon kiss other people’s wives.
[reporter]:
(Witness
underwent a
severe
cross
examination, in which his testimony was so near a repetition
of Mr. Lambert’s,
that it is by me, considered useless to copy)
WM. C. CROSBY, re-examined. I saw no kissing, but
heard about it. I did not stay late, went about 7, left about 9
o’clock. After the visionist called them up she told them they
doubted. Her object seemed to be to convince them they must
not doubt. Dammon called the churches whoremasters,
liars, thieves, scoundrels, wolves in sheep’s clothing,
murders. He said read the STAR. By spells it was the most
noisy assembly I ever attended-there was no order or
regularity, nor any-thing that resembled any other
meeting I ever attended—Dammon seemed to have the lead
and the most art. I don’t say Dammon shouted the loudest; I
think some others stronger in the lungs than he.
DEACON JAMES R08&, sworn. I was at Ayer’s
a short time last Saturday evening—Elder Dammon
found fault with us for coming to his meeting-he spoke of
other denominations as Esq. $SPTCZ
IBT
KVTU
UFTUJGJFE‰
TBJE
UIF
DIVSDI
NFNCFST
XFSF
UIF
XPSTU
QFPQMF
JO
UIF

XPSME
*
IBWF
CFFO
ZPVOH
BOE
OPX
BN
PME
BOE
PG
BMM
UIF

QMBDFT
*
FWFS
XBT
JO
*
OFWFS
TBX
TVDI
B
DPOGVTJPO
OPU
FWFO

JO
B
ESVOLFO
GSPMJD
%BNNPO
TUPPE
VQ
PO
UIF
GMPPS
BOE

TBJE

*
BN

HPJOH
UP

TUBOE

IFSF‰BOE

XIJMF

*

TUBOE

IFSF

138
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

UIFZ
DBOU
IVSU
ZPV
OFJUIFS
NFO
OPS
EFWJMT
DBOU
IVSU
ZPV
$SPTTFYBNJOFE
)F
TBJE
BMM
DIVSDIFT
NBEF
OP

EJTUJODUJPO
*
QVU
OP
NFBOJOH
UP
XIBU
IF
TBJE
*
POMZ
TUBUF

XIBU
IF
EJE
TBZ
*
IBWF
CFFO
BDRVBJOUFE
XJUI
UIF
QSJTPOFS

UXFOUZ
PS
UIJSUZ
ZFBST
IJT
DIBSBDUFS
XBT
HPPE
VOUJM

SFDFOUMZ
+&3&.*")
#
(3&&/
TXPSO
*
BUUFOEFE
BO
BGUFS
OPPO
NFFUJOH
B
GPSUOJHIU
BHP
ZFTUFSEBZ‰UIFZ
IBE
BO

FYIPSUBUJPO
BOE
QSBZFS
JO
UIF
FWFOJOH‰*
TBX
NFO
XBTI

NFOT
GFFU
BOE
XPNFO
XBTI
XPNFOT
GFFU‰UIFZ
IBE

EJTIFT
PG
XBUFS&MEFS
%BNNPO
XBT
UIF
QSFTJEJOH
FMEFS‰*

TBX
%BNNPO
LJTT
.ST
0TCPSO
&#&/&;&3
536/%:
TXPSO
*
XBT
BU
NFFUJOH
XFFL

CFGPSF
MBTU
‰*
IFBSE
%BNNPO
TBZ
i(PET
B
DPNJOH
(PET

B
DPNJOHw
.S
#PPCBS
XBT
UFMMJOH
PG
HPJOH
JOUP
UIF
XPPET

UP
MBCPS‰%BNNPO
TBJE
IF
PVHIU
OPU
UP
HP
#PPCBS
TBJE
IF

IBE
B
GBNJMZ
UP
TVQQPSU
BOE
XBT
QPPS
%BNNPO
UPME
IJN

IF
NVTU
MJWF
PO
UIFN
UIBU
IBE
QSPQFSUZ
BOE
JG
(PE
EJE
OPU

DPNF
UIFO
XF
NVTU
BMM
HP
UP
XPSL
UPHFUIFS
+04&1)
.06-50/
<PGGJDFS
PG
UIF
MBX
XIP
XFOU
UP

BSSFTU
%BNNPO>
TXPSO
8IFO
*
XFOU
UP
BSSFTU

QSJTPOFS
UIFZ
TIVU
UIF
EPPS
BHBJOTU
NF
'JOEJOH
*

DPVME
OPU
HBJO
BDDFTT
UP
IJN
XJUIPVU
*
CVSTU
PQFO
UIF

EPPS
*
XFOU
UP
UIF
QSJTPOFS
BOE
UPPL
IJN
CZ
UIF
IBOE

BOE
UPME
IJN
NZ
CVTJOFTT
"
OVNCFS
PG
XPNFO

KVNQFE
PO
UP
IJN‰IF
DMVOH
UP
UIFN
BOE
UIFZ
UP
IJN

4P
HSFBU
XBT
UIF
SFTJTUBODF
UIBU
*
XJUI
UISFF

BTTJTUBOUT
DPVME
OPU
HFU
IJN
PVU
*
SFNBJOFE
JO
UIF

IPVTF
BOE
TFOU
GPS
NPSF
IFMQ
BGUFS
UIFZ
BSSJWFE
XF

NBEF
B
TFDPOE
BUUFNQU
XJUI
UIF
TBNF
SFTVMU‰*
BHBJO

TFOU
GPS
NPSF
IFMQ‰BGUFS
UIFZ
BSSJWFE
XF

PWFSQPXFSFE
UIFN
BOE
HPU
IJN
PVU
EPPS
JO
DVTUPEZ

8F
XFSF
SFTJTUFE
CZ
CPUI
NFO
BOE
XPNFO
$BOU

EFTDSJCF
UIF
QMBDFJU
XBT
POF
DPOUJOVFE
TIPVU
WM. C. CROSBY, Esq., called again. Prisoner has
been reported to have been there about a fortnight, with no
visible means of support.

139
Brian Neumann

J.W.E. HARVEY, re-examined. Prisoner has been there

considerable. I know of no means he has of support, other
than to live on his followers.
T. PROCTOR, re-examined. Prisoner has been
reported
as a man who has no means of support—I do not
know of his having any.
JACOB MARTIN, Esq., Selectman of Atkinson,
sworn. It is the common report that the prisoner is living
upon his followers. I have attended no meetings of their’s.
Have seen a number of sleighs there, and fifteen or twenty
strangers.
BENJAMIN SMITH, Esq., Selectman of Atkinson,
sworn. I have been called upon by the citizens of Atkinson
to interfere and put a stop to these meetings—they gave as
a reason, that the defendant and others were living upon
certain citizens of said town—and that they were liable to
become town charge. I started today to go there, but learned
that the prisoner had been arrested and that the others had
dispersed.
Here the government stopped. Court adjourned to half
past 6 o’clock.
Evening—Respondent’s
[defense]
witnesses.




+".&4
":&3
+3
<PXOFS
PG
IPVTF
XIFSF
NFFUJOHT
XFSF

IFME>
BGGJSNFE
5IF
NPTU
PG
UIF
NFFUJOHT
XFSF
BU
NZ
IPVTF

*
IBWF
HFOFSBMMZ
BUUFOEFE
UIFN‰TPNFUJNFT
*
XBT
PVU
*

IBWF
IFBSE
UIF
UFTUJNPOZ
PO
UIF
QBSU
PG
UIF
4UBUF
4PNF

UIJOHT
TUBUFE
*
EP
OPU
SFDPMMFDU
*
XBT
UIFSF
MBTU
4BUVSEBZ

FWFOJOH‰TBX
OP
LJTTJOH
*
BHSFF
XJUI
$SPTCZ
BOE
-BNCFSU

TVCTUBOUJBMMZ
*
VOEFSTUPPE
QSJTPOFS
UP
TBZ
UIFSF
XFSF
NFN
CFST
PG
UIF
DIVSDIFT
XIP
IF
SFGFSSFE
UP
JOTUFBE
PG
UIF
XIPMF

4BX
UIF
XPNBO
XJUI
B
QJMMPX
VOEFS
IFSF
IFBE‰IFS
OBNF

JT
.JTT
&MMFO
)BSNPO
PG
1PSUMBOE
<JNJUBUJPO
PG
$ISJTU>
*

IFBSE
OPUIJOH
TBJE
CZ
IFS
PS
PUIFST
BCPVU
*NJUBUJPO
PG

$ISJTU
*
TBX
.JTT
#BLFS
MBZJOH
PO
UIF
GMPPS
*
TBX
IFS
GBMM

4BX
.JTT
#BLFS
BOE
4JTUFS
0TCPSO
HP
JOUP
UIF
CFESPPN‰
4JTUFS
0TCPSO
IFMQFE
IFS

PO
UP
UIF
CFE
DBNF
PVU

BOE

TIVU

140
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

UIF
EPPS
5IFSF
XBT
OP
NBO
JO
UIF
CFESPPN
UIBU
FWFOJOH
*

IFBSE
UIF
OPJTF
JO
UIF
CFESPPN‰#SPUIFS
8PPE
PG

0SSJOHUPO
BOE
*
XFOU
JO
BTLFE
IFS
XIBU
XBT
UIF
NBUUFS

TIF
NBEF
OP
SFQMZ
BOE
*
XFOU
PVU
#SPUIFS
8PPE
BTTJTUFE

IFS
PGG
PG
UIF
CFE
BOE
IFMQFE
IFS
PVU‰TIF
BQQFBSFE
JO

EJTUSFTT
4IF
UPME
CSPUIFS
%PPSF
TIF
XBT
EJTUSFTTFE
PO
IJT

BDDPVOU‰XBT
BGSBJE
IF
XPVME
MPTF
IJT
TPVM
BOE
BEWJTFE

IJN
UP
CF
CBQUJ[FE
%JE
OPU
TFF
UIFN
LJTT
FBDI
PUIFS
*U
JT
B

QBSU
PG
PVS
GBJUI
UP
LJTT
FBDI
PUIFS‰CSPUIFST
LJTT
TJTUFST

BOE
TJTUFST
LJTT
CSPUIFST
*
UIJOL
XF
IBWF
#JCMF
BVUIPSJUZ

GPS
UIBU
*
VOEFSTUPPE
UIF
QSJTPOFS
UP
TBZ
UIFSF
XBT
BO

BDDPVOU
JO
UIF
45"3
PG
B
EFBDPO
XIP
IBE
LJMMFE
TFWFO

NFO
UIF
SFBTPO
PG
PVS
LOFFMJOH
*
DPOTJEFS
BO
PCKFDU
PG

IVNJMJBUJPO
Cross-examined. —I know nothing about Miss Harmon’s
character. I did not say there was no kissing—I saw none. I
did not hear her called Imitation of Christ. Elder Dammon
has had no other business, but to attend meetings. He and
another man from Exeter, came with a young girl. Dammon
said he had a spiritual wife and he was glad of it. I went to
Mr. Lambert and said if he disturbed the meeting, he must
go out door. We went to the water after 11 o’clock—Brother
Dammon baptized two. I know nothing about Sister
Baker’s character—seen her at meeting in Orrington. I
understood Sister Harmon had a vision at Portland, and
was traveling through the country relating it.
JOB MOODY, affirmed. I was at meeting Saturday
evening. Brother Dammon said in relation to other churches
they were bad enough; said they were corrupt; he spoke of
the STAR—he did not say they were thieves, &c. I am not
certain, but think he said that evening there was exceptions.
Sister Harmon would lay on the floor in a trance, and the
Lord would reveal their cases to her, and she to them.
By the Court [a question of Moody].
Answer. Mr. Dammon repeatedly urged upon us the
necessity of quitting all labor. Kissing is a salutation of love;
I greet them so—we have got positive scripture for it

141
Brian Neumann

)FSF
UIF
XJUOFTT
XBT
UPME
IF
NJHIU
UBLF
IJT
TFBU
)F
TBJE
*
IBWF
TPNF

UFTUJNPOZ
JO
SFMBUJPO
UP
#SPUIFS
%BNNPOT
DIBSBDUFS
JG
*
BN
OPU
B

HPJOH
UP
CF
DBMMFE
BHBJO
)F
UIFO
TUBUFE
UIBU
IF
IBE
CFFO

BDRVBJOUFE
XJUI
#SPUIFS
%BNNPO
GJWF
PS
TJD
ZFBST
BOE
IJT

DIBSBDUFS
XBT
HPPE
)F
XPSLT
QBSU
PG
UIF
UJNF
BOE
QSFBDIFT
B
QBSU

PG
UIF
UJNF
*
IBWF
CFFO
TFSWJOH
UIF
-PSE
BOE
IBNNFSJOH
BHBJOTU
UIF

EFWJM
PG
MBUF
*4-&:
04#03/
BGGJSNFE
*
LOPX
OPUIJOH
CBE
JO
#SPUIFS

%BNNPOT
DIBSBDUFS
)F
CFMJFWFT
UIFSF
JT
HPPE
CBE
BOE

JOEJGGFSFOU
JO
BMM
DIVSDIFTIF
UIJOLT
JU
CFTU
UP
DPNF
PVU
GSPN

UIFN
CFDBVTF
UIFSF
JT
TP
NBOZ
UIBU
IBT
GBMMFO
GSPN
UIFJS
IPMZ

QPTJUJPO
%P
OPU
SFDPMMFDU
IFBSJOH
IJN
VTF
UIF
FYQSFTTJPOT
BCPVU

DIVSDIFT
UIFZ
IBWF
TXPSO
UP
CVU
IBWF
IFBSE
IJN
VTF
BT

TUSPOH
MBOHVBHF
BHBJOTU
UIFN
%P
OPU
DBMM
4JTUFS
)BSNPO

*NJUBUJPO
PG
$ISJTU
5IFZ
MPTF
UIFJS
TUSFOHUI
BOE
GBMM
PO
UIF

GMPPS
5I
F
-PSE
DPNNVOJDBUFT
UP
UIFN
UISPVHI
B
WJTJPO
TP

XF
DBMM
JU
UIF
-PSE
#SPUIFS
8IJUF
EJE
OPU
HP
JOUP
UIF
CFE
SPPN
OPS
BOZ
PUIFS
NBO
$SPTTFYBNJOFE
4IF
UPME
UIFN
UIFJS
DBTFT
IBE

CFFO
NBEF
LOPXO
UP
IFS
CZ
UIF
-PSE
BOE
JG
UIFZ
XFSF

OPU
CBQUJ[FE
UIBU
FWFOJOH
UIFZ
XPVME
HP
UP
IFMM
8F

CFMJFWFE
IFS
BOE
#SPUIFS
%BNNPO
BOE
*
BEWJTFE
UIFN

UP
CF
CBQUJ[FE
#SPUIFS
%BNNPO
UIPVHIU
JU
CFTU
UP

LFFQ
UIF
NFFUJOHT
TFDSFU
TP
UIFZ
XPVME
OPU
DSPXE
JO

)PME
UP
LJTTJOH‰IBWF
TDSJQUVSF
FYIPSUBUJPO
GPS
UIBU

4JTUFS
#BLFS
IBT
B
HPPE
DIBSBDUFS‰UIF
XJDLFEFTU
NBO

JO
0SSJOHUPO
TBZT
TIF
IBT
B
HPPE
DIBSBDUFS
BOE
UIBUT

FOPVHI
UP
FTUBCMJTI
BOZ
DIBSBDUFS
XIFO
UIF
XPSTU
NBO

BENJUT
JU
SPBS
PG
MBVHIUFS

8F
XJTI
UP
HP
UISPVHI
UIF

PSEJOBODF
PG
XBTIJOH
GFFU
JO
TFDSFU
%JE
OPU
TFF
BOZ
LJTTJOH

CVU
QSFTVNF
UIFJS
XBT
BT
JU
JT
B
QBSU
PG
PVS
GBJUI
5I
JOL

&TR
$SPTCZT
UFTUJNPOZ
DPSSFDU
#Z
$PVSU
<B
RVFTUJPO>
‰
"OTXFS
&MEFS
%BNNPO
EPFT

BEWJTF
VT
UP
RVJU
BMM
XPSL
"#3")".
1&"4&
BGGJSNFE
3FTJEF
JO
&YFUFS

QSJTPOFST
DIBSBDUFS
JT
BT
HPPE
BT
BOZ
NBO
JO
&YFUFS
)F

IBT
B
TNBMM GBSN
BOE
TNBMM
GBNJMZ

142
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

)F
JT
B
SFGPSNBUJPO
QSFBDIFS‰SFGPSNBUJPO
IBT
GPMMPXFE
IJT

QSFBDIJOH
("3%/&3
'"3.&3
BGGJSNFE
3FTJEF
JO
&YFUFS‰
QSJTPOFS
QSPWJEFT
XFMM
GPS
IJT
GBNJMZ
)F
IBT
CFFO
UP
NZ

IPVTF
BOE
*
UP
IJT‰IF
BMXBZT
CFIBWFT
XFMM
*
TBX
IJN
JO

"ULJOTPO
B
GPSUOJHIU
BHP
MBTU
5VFTEBZ
$PVSU
BEKPVSOFE
UP
5VFTEBZ
NPSOJOH

PDMPDL
5VFTEBZ
<'FC>

+"$0#
."40/
BGGJSNFE
3FTJEF
JO
(BSMBOE
#SPUIFS

%BNNPO
TBJE
UIF
DIVSDIFT
XFSF
PG
UIBU
EFTDSJQUJPO‰TBJE

UIFZ
XFSF
MJBST
SPHVFT
D
*
EJE
OPU
VOEFSTUBOE
IJN
UP

JODMVEF
BMM
CVU
JOEJWJEVBMT
4JTUFS
#BLFST
DIBSBDUFS
JT
HPPE
%P

OPU
SFDPMMFDU
PG
#SPUIFS
(BMMJTPO
VTJOH
BOZ
DPNQVMTJPO
UP

NBLF
IJT
EBVHIUFS
HP
GPSXBSE
JO
CBQUJTN
*
TBX
&MEFS

8IJUF
BGUFS
4JTUFS
#BLFS
XFOU
JOUP
UIF
CFESPPN
OFBS
4JTUFS

)BSNPO
JO
B
USBODF‰TPNF
PG
UIF
UJNF
IF
IFME
IFS
IFBE

4IF
XBT
JO
B
WJTJPO
QBSU
PG
UIF
UJNF
JOTFOTJCMF
4BX

OPUIJOH
JNQSPQFS
JO
#SPUIFS
%BNNPO
UIBU
FWFOJOH
*

OFWFS
LOFX
IJN
<UP
CF>
B
CFHHBS
PS
XBTUJOH
IJT
UJNF
$SPTTFYBNJOFE
%P
OPU
LOPX
XIP
JU
XBT
UIBU
XFOU

JOUP
UIF
CFESPPN
XJUI
4JTUFS
#BLFS‰IF
XBT
B
TUSBOHFS
UP
NF

IF
TPPO
DBNF
PVU
$BOU
TBZ
IPX
TPPO
IF
XFOU
JO
BHBJO
*

IBWF
IFBSE
$SPTCZ
UFTUJGZ
BOE
UIJOL
IJN
DPSSFDU
*
UIPVHIU
IFS

WJTJPOT
XFSF
GSPN
(PE‰TIF
XPVME
EFTDSJCF
PVU
UIFJS
DBTFT

DPSSFDU
4IF
EFTDSJCFE
NJOF
DPSSFDU
*
TBX
LJTTJOH
PVU
EPPS
CVU

OPU
JO
UIF
IPVTF
"
QBSU
PG
UIF
UJNF
XF
TBU
PO
UIF
GMPPS‰CPUI

NFO
BOE
XPNFO
QSPNJTDVPVTMZ
*
TBX
OP
NBO
HP
JOUP
UIF

CFESPPN
5IFZ
XBTI
GFFU
JO
UIF
FWFOJOH
*U
JT
B
QSBDUJDF
JO
PVS

PSEFS
UP
LJTT
PO
PVS
NFFUJOH
FBDI
PUIFS
4JTUFS
)BSNPO
XBT

OPU
DBMMFE
*NJUBUJPO
PG
$ISJTU
UP
NZ
LOPXMFEHF
*
UIJOL
*

TIPVME
IBWF
IFBSE
JU
JG
TIF
XBT
*
CFMJFWF
JO
WJTJPOT

4JTUFS
)BSNPO
JT
FJHIUFFO
PS
OJOFUFFO
ZFBST
PG
BHF
TIF

JT
GSPN
1PSUMBOE
+0&-
%003
BGGJSNFE
3FTJEF
JO
"ULJOTPO‰&MEFS

%BNNPO
TBJE
UIFSF
XBT
CBE
DIBSBDUFST
JO
UIF
DIVSDIFT
*
EJE

OP
VOEFSTUBOE
IJN
UP
TBZ
BMM
)F

QSFBDIFT
MPVEFS

UIBO

143
Brian Neumann

NPTU
QFPQMF
OP
NPSF
OPJTZ
UIBO
DPNNPO
QSFBDIFST
PG

UIJT
GBJUI
5IF
WJTJPO
XPNBO
XPVME
MBZ
MPPLJOH
VQ

XIFO
TIF
DBNF
PVU
PG
IFS
USBODF
TIF
XPVME
QPJOU
UP

TPNFPOF
BOE
UFMM
UIFN
UIFJS
DBTFT
XIJDI
TIF
TBJE
XBT

GSPN
UIF
-PSE
4IF
UPME
B
OVNCFS
PG
WJTJPOT
UIBU

FWFOJOH
#SPUIFS
(BMMJTPOT
EBVHIUFS
XBOUFE
UP
TFF
IFS

NPUIFS
CFGPSF
TIF
XBT
CBQUJ[FE
CVU
GJOBMMZ
DPODMVEFE
UP
CF

CBQUJ[FE
XJUIPVU
TFFJOH
IFS
4JTUFS
#BLFS
HPU
VQ
PGG
UIF

GMPPS
BOE
XFOU
UP
-BNCFSU
UP
UBML
XJUI
IJN
*
TBX
OP
NPSF
PG

IFS
VOUJM
*
IFBSE
B
OPJTF
JO
UIF
CFESPPN‰UIFZ
XFOU
BOE

HPU
IFS
PVU
BT
UIF
PUIFS
XJUOFTTFT
IBWF
TUBUFE
"GUFS
TIF

DBNF
PVU
TIF
TBJE
TIF
IBE
B
NFTTBHF
UP
NF
4IF
TBJE
*
IBE

UIPVHIU
IBSE
PG
IFS
*
BDLOPXMFEHFE
*
IBE

CVU
*
CFDBNF

TBUJTGJFE
PG
NZ
FSSPS
BOE
GFMMPXTIJQQFE
IFS
8F
LJTTFE

FBDI
PUIFS
XJUI
UIF
IPMZ
LJTT‰*
UIJOL
&MEFS
8IJUF
XBT
OPU

JO
UIF
CFESPPN
UIBU
FWFOJOH
CVU
*
EPOU
LOPX
IPX
NBOZ

OPS
XIP
XFSF
UIFSF
5IF
HJSMT
UIBU
XBT
CBQUJ[FE
XFSF

TFWFOUFFO
ZFBST
PME
POF
PG
UIFN
IBE
CFFO
CBQUJ[FE
CFGPSF
8F

IBWF
4DSJQUVSF
FOPVHI
GPS
FWFSZ
UIJOH
UIBU
XBT
EPOF
5IFSF
XBT

OPU
POF
UFOUI
QBSU
PG
UIF
OPJTF
4BUVSEBZ
FWFOJOH
UIBU
UIFSF

HFOFSBMMZ
JT
BU
UIF
NFFUJOHT
*
BUUFOE
"T
GBS
BT
*
BN

BDRVBJOUFE
XJUI
&MEFS
%BNNPO
*
DPOTJEFS
IJN
B
NPSBM
HPPE

NBO
$SPTTFYBNJOFE
8IFO
TIF
LJTTFE
NF
TIF
TBJE
UIFSF

XBT
MJHIU
BIFBE
8F
CFMJFWF
IFS
.JTT
#BLFST

WJTJPOT

HFOVJOF
8F
CFMJFWF
.JTT
)BSNPOT
HFOVJOF‰UXBT

PVS
VOEFSTUBOEJOH
UIBU
UIFJS
WJTJPOT
XFSF
GSPN
(PE

.JTT
)BNNPOE
<)BSNPO>
UPME
GJWF
WJTJPOT
4BUVSEBZ
OJHIU

*
EJE
OPU
UFMM
BOZ
QFSTPO
ZFTUFSEBZ
UIBU
JU
XBT
OFDFTTBSZ
UP

IBWF
BOZPOF
JO
UIF
SPPN
XJUI
IFS
UP
CSJOH
PVU
IFS
USBODFT

*
EJE
FOHBHF
DPVOTFM
JO
UIJT
DBTF
UP
EFGFOE
UIF
QSJTPOFS
+0)/
)
%003&
TXPSO
*
XBT
OPU
BU
NFFUJOH

4BUVSEBZ
FWFOJOH
*
CFMPOH
UP
UIF
TPDJFUZ
BOE
IBWF
TFFO

OPUIJOH
PVU
PG
DIBSBDUFS
JO
BOZPOF
%POU
DPOTJEFS
&MEFS

%BNNPO
B
CBE
NBO‰IF
B
NBO
*
IJHIMZ
FTUFFN
.Z

EBVHIUFS
XBT
CBQUJ[FE
4BUVSEBZ
FWFOJOH‰TIF
IBT
CFFO

CBQUJ[FE
CFGPSF
*
IBWF
TFFO
CPUI
NFO
BOE
XPNFO
DSBXM

BDSPTT
UIF
GMPPS
PO
UIFJS
IBOET
BOE
LOFFT

144
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

(&03(&
4
800%#63:
TXPSO
*
BN
B
CFMJFWFS
JO
UIF

"EWFOU
EPDUSJOF*
IBWF
BUUFOEFE
FWFSZ
POF
PG
UIF
NFFUJOHT
JO

"ULJOTPO
5IJT
XJUOFTT
XBT
WFSZ
MFOHUIZ
JO
IJT
UFTUJNPOZ

CPUI
PO
FYBNJOBUJPO
BOE
DSPTT
FYBNJOBUJPO
*U
BNPVOUT
UP
UIF

TBNF
BT
UIF
QSFDFEJOH
XJUOFTTFT
GPS
UIF
EFGFOTF
XJUI
UIF

GPMMPXJOH
BEEJUJPOT

)F
UIJOLT
&MEFS
8IJUF
XBT
OPU
JO
UIF

CFESPPN
CVU
PUIFST
XFSF
JO
8F
EPOU
BDLOPXMFEHF
BOZ
MFBE
FST
CVU
TQFBL
BDDPSEJOH
UP
UIF
JNQVMTF
5I
F
FMEFST
CBQUJ[F
*

CFMJFWF
JO
.JTT
)BSNPOT
WJTJPOT
CFDBVTF
TIF
UPME
NZ
XJGFT

GFFMJOHT
DPSSFDUMZ
*U
JT
NZ
JNQSFTTJPO
UIBU
QSJTPOFS
LJTTFE
NZ

XJGF
*
CFMJFWF
UIF
XPSME
XJMM
DPNF
UP
BO
FOE
XJUIJO

UXP
NPOUITQSJTPOFS
QSFBDIFT
TP
*
CFMJFWF
UIJT
JT
UIF
GBJUI

PG
UIF
CBOE
*U
XBT
TBJE
BOE
*
CFMJFWF
UIBU
4JTUFST

)BSNPO
BOE
#BLFST
SFWFMBUJPOT
BT
NVDI
BT
UIPVHI
UIFZ

DBNF
GSPN
(PE
4JTUFS
)BSNPO
TBJE
UP
NZ
XJGF
BOE
UIF

HJSMT
JG
UIFZ
EJE
OPU
EP
BT
TIF
TBJE
UIFZ
XPVME
HP
UP
IFMM

.Z
XJGF
BOE
%BNNPO
QBTTFE
BDSPTT
UIF
GMPPS
PO
UIFJS

IBOET
BOE
LOFFT
4PNF
NBO
EJE
HP
JOUP
UIF
CFESPPN

)FBSE
#SPUIFS
%BNNPO
TBZ
UIF
HJGU
PG
IFBMJOH
UIF
TJDL
MBZ
JO

UIF
DIVSDI
#Z
UIF
$PVSU
<B
RVFTUJPO>
"OTXFS
&MEFS
%BNNPO
BEWJTFT
VT
OPU
UP
XPSL
CFDBVTF

UIFSF
JT
FOPVHI
UP
MJWF
PO
VOUJM
UIF
FOE
PG
UIF
XPSME
+0)/
("--*40/
BGGJSNFE
$IBOEMFS
PCTFSWFE
UIBU
IF

IBE
UIPVHIU
PG
PCKFDUJOH
UP
UIJT
XJUOFTT
PO
UIF
HSPVOE
PG

JOTBOJUZ
CVU
VQPO
SFGMFDUJPO
IF
XPVME
MFU
IJN
QSPDFFE
BT
IF

CFMJFWFE
JU
<IJT
JOTBOJUZ>
XPVME
TVGGJDJFOUMZ
BQQFBS
JO
UIF
DPVSTF

PG
UIF
FYBNJOBUJPO

*
IBWF
CFFO
BDRVBJOUFE
XJUI
&MEFS

%BNNPO
BT
B
'SFFXJMM
FMEFS
B
OVNCFS
PG
ZFBST
)F
BTLFE

%BNNPO
IPX
MPOH
JU
XBT
%
BOTXFSFE
TJY
ZFBST
*
IBWF
CFFO
BU

IJT
IPVTF
GSFRVFOUMZ‰FWFSZUIJOH
XBT
JO
PSEFS
BOE
JO
JUT
QSPQFS

QMBDF
*
IBWF
BUUFOEFE
FWFSZ
NFFUJOH
*
IBWF
TFFO
TPNF
MBZJOH

PO
UIF
GMPPS
UXP
PS
NPSF
BU
B
UJNF‰IBWF
TFFO
OPUIJOH
CBE

JO
UIF
NFFUJOHT
8JUOFTT
IFSF
EFTDSJCFE
UIF
QPTJUJPO
.JTT

)BSNPO
MBZ
JO
PO
UIF
GMPPS
XIFO
TIF
XBT
JO
B
USBODF
BOE

PGGFSFE
UP
MBZ
EPXO
BOE
TIPX
UIF
$PVSU
JG
UIFZ
XJTIFE

UP
TFF
$PVSU
XBJWFE
JU

145
Brian Neumann

8JUOFTT
SFMBUFE
UIF
WJTJPOT
TJNJMBS
UP
UIF
PUIFS
XJUOFTTFT
CVU

NPSF
VOJOUFMMJHJCMF
%JE
OPU
IFBS
IFS
DBMMFE
*NJUBUJPO
PG
$ISJTU

*
LOPX
TIF
XPOU
<XBT
OPU>
GPS
XF
EPOU
XPSTIJQ
JEPMT
$SPTTFYBNJOFE
*
CFMJFWF
JO
WJTJPOT
BOE
QFSGFDUMZ

VOEFSTUBOE
UIBU
CVU
TVQQPTF
XF
BSF
OPU
CFGPSF
BO
&DDMFTJBTUJDBM

$PVODJM
&MEFS
%BNNPO
EPFT
OPU
CFMJFWF
BT
IF
VTFE
UP

8JUOFTT
SFBE
GSPN
UIF
CJCMF

8F
EP
XBTI
FBDI
PUIFST
GFFU‰
EP
DSFFQ
PO
UIF
GMPPS
WFSZ
EFDFOUMZ
*
UIJOL
IF
IBT
CBQUJ[FE

BCPVU
FMFWFO
CVU
DBOU
TBZ
DFSUBJO
IPX
NBOZ‰*
IBWF
UIF

QSJWJMFHF
PG
LOPXJOH
IPX
UIFZ
CFIBWF
BT
XFMM
BT
BOZPOF

FMTF
*
IBWF
OP
EPVCU
4JTUFS
)BSNPOT
WJTJPOT
XFSF
GSPN

(PE‰TIF
UPME
NZ
EBVHIUFS
TP
*
XBT
JO
GBWPS
PG
NZ

EBVHIUFS
CFJOH
CBQUJ[FE‰*
DPVME
OPU
TFF
BIFBE
UP
TFF
UIF

EFWJMT
SBCCMF
DPNJOH
CVU
TJODF
UIFZ
IBWF
DPNF
*
BN
DFSUBJO

XF
EJE
KVTU
SJHIU
"#&-
4
#00#"3
BGGJSNFE
.PTU
PG
UIF
UFTUJNPOZ
PG
UIJT

XJUOFTT
XBT
B
SFQFUJUJPO
PG
XIBU
PUIFST
IBWF
UFTUJGJFE
UP
PG

XIJDI
UIF
SFBEFS
*
UIJOL
NVTU
CF
XFBSZ

*
EJE
OPU
TFF
8IJUF
HP

JOUP
UIF
CFESPPN
XJUI
.JTT
#BLFS‰IFBSE
UIF
OPJTF
JO
UIF

CFESPPN
0UIFST
EJE
HP
JO
&MEFS
<%BNNNPO>
TBJE

UIF
DIVSDIFT
XFSF
JO
B
GBMMFO
TUBUF
BOE
IF
IBE
SBUIFS
SJTL

IJNTFMG
JO
UIF
IBOET
PG
UIF
BMNJHIUZ
BT
B
OPOQSPGFTTPS

UIBO
UP
CF
JO
UIF
QMBDF
PG
TPNF
PG
UIF
DIVSDIFT
*
CFMJFWF

GVMMZ
JO
UIF
GBJUI
8JUOFTT
BGGJSNFE
UIF
TUPSZ
PG
LJTTJOH

SPMMJOH
PO
UIF
GMPPS
BOE
XBTIJOH
PG
GFFU

+04)6"
#63/)".
TXPSO
*
IBWF
LOPX
.JTT
%PSJOEB

#BLFS
GSPN
GJWF
ZFBST
PG
BHF‰IFS
DIBSBDUFS
JT
HPPE‰TIF
JT
OPX

UXFOUZUISFF
PS
UXFOUZGPVS
ZFBST
PG
BHF
4IF
JT
B
TJDLMZ
HJSM
IFS

GBUIFS
IBT
FYQFOEFE
 
JO
EPDUPSJOH
IFS
*
XBT
BU
UIF

NFFUJOH
4BUVSEBZ
OJHIU‰JU
XBT
BQQPJOUFE
GPS
UIF
MBEZ
UP
UFMM

IFS
WJTJPOT
"EKPVSOFE
UP
IBMG
QBTU
POF
PDMPDL
-&7*
.
%003&
TXPSO
*
IBWF
BUUFOEFE
NPSF
UIBO
IBMG

PG
UIF
NFFUJOHTNZ
CSPUIFST
UFTUJNPOZ
JT
DPSSFDU‰BHSFF
BMTP

XJUI
.S
#PPCBS
2VFTUJPO
CZ
3FTQPOEFOU
"OTXFS

&MEFS
%BNNPOT
NPEF
PG

XPSTIJQ

OPX
JT
TJNJMBS


UP
XIBU
JU
VTFE
UP
CF

146
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

$SPTTFYBNJOFE
CZ
.PSJTPO
%JE
UIFZ
VTF
UP
TJU
PO
UIF
GMPPS

"OT
/P
%JE
UIFZ
VTF
UP
LJTT
FBDI
PUIFS
"OT
/P
EJE
UIFZ
VTF

UP
HP
JOUP
UIF
CFESPPN
"OT
/P
EJE
UIFZ
VTF
UP
UFMM
WJTJPOT

"OT
/P
#Z
.PSJTPO
8IZ
EP
ZPV
TBZ
UIBU
IJT
NPEF
PG
XPSTIJQ
JT

TJNJMBS
UP
XIBU
JU
VTFE
UP
CF
#FDBVTF
IF
QSFBDIFT
TJNJMBS
%JE

IF
VTF
UP
QSFBDI
UIBU
UIF
FOE
PG
UIF
XPSME
XBT
BU
IBOE
BOE

CBQUJ[F
JO
UIF
EFBE
IPVST
PG
OJHIU
"OT
/P
5IF
SFBTPO
XF
TJU
PO
UIF
GMPPS
JT
UP
DPOWFOF
NPSF

QFPQMF‰TPNFUJNFT
XF
UBLF
TPNF
JO
PVS
MBQT
CVU
OPU
NBMF
BOE

GFNBMF
%POU
LOPX
PG
#SPUIFS
<%BNNPO>
TQFOEJOH
NPOFZ

VTFMFTTMZ
*
BN
B
CFMJFWFS
4PNFUJNFT
XF
TJU
PO
UIF
GMPPS
GPS

GPSNBMJUZ
0VS
GBJUI
EPOU
IPME
JU
UP
CF
FTTFOUJBM
8JUOFTT

SFQFBUFE
UIF
NPEF
PG
LJTTJOH
WJTJPOT
D
TJNJMBS
UP
UIF
PUIFST


*
OFWFS
IFBSE
#SPUIFS
%BNNPO
TBZ
IF
XJTIFE
UP
EFTUSPZ
UIF

NBSSJBHF
DPWFOBOU
3FTQPOEFOU
IFSF
SFFYBNJOFE
B
OVNCFS

PG
XJUOFTTFT
BMM
PG
XIP
UFTUJGJFE
UIBU
IF
VTFE
IJT
XJGF
XFMM
BOE

BQQFBSFE
UP
MPWF
IFS

45&1)&/
'*4)
&YFUFS
TXPSO
*
BUUFOEFE
UIF
NFFUJOHT

BU
"ULJOTPO
MBTU
TVNNFS‰IBWF
BUUFOEFE
NPTU
BMM
PG
UIF

2VBSUFSMZ
.FFUJOHT
GPS
TFWFO
ZFBST‰IBWF
CFFO
UP
&MEFS

%BNNPOT
IPVTF
BOE
IF
UP
NJOF‰IF
QSPWJEFT
XFMM
JO
IJT

IPVTF‰IF
IBT
BMXBZT
PQQPTFE
UIF
NPEF
PG
QBZJOH
UIF
NJOJTUSZ

CZ
SFHVMBS
TBMBSZ
)FSF
UIF
EFGFOTF
DMPTFE

8*5/&44&4
'03
45"5&

&#&/&;&3
-".#&35
&TR
TXPSO
-BTU
4VOEBZ
FWFOJOH

-PUPO
-BNCFSU
UPME
NF
UIF
TUPSZ
PG
UIF
NFFUJOH
UIF
FWFOJOH

CFGPSF‰IF
SFMBUFE
BT
IF
UFTUJGJFE
ZFTUFSEBZ
BMNPTU
WFSCBUJN
+0)/
#"35-&55
PG
(BSMBOE
TXPSO
*
IBWF
IFBSE
UIF

SFTQPOEFOU
TBZ
UIBU
POF
PG
UIFJS
CBOE
XBT
B
OFBS
UP
IJN
BT

BOPUIFS‰IF
DPOTJEFSFE
UIFN
BMM
BMJLF
*U
JT
UIF
HFOFSBM
PQJOJPO

PG
PVS
UPXO
UIBU
UIF
QSJTPOFS
JT
B
EJTUVSCFS
PG
UIF
QFBDF
BOE

PVHIU
UP
CF
UBLFO
DBSF
PG

147
Brian Neumann

*
IBWF
CFFO
BDRVBJOUFE
XJUI
&MEFS
%BNNPO
TFWFO
ZFBST‰IJT

DIBSBDUFS
XBT
BMXBZT
HPPE
VOUJM
XJUIJO
BCPVU
TJY
XFFLT
-050/
-".#&35
SFFYBNJOFE
)F
BGGJSNFE
BMM
IJT

GPSNFS
UFTUJNPOZEPFT
OPU
LOPX
&MEFS
8IJUF
CVU
+PFM
%PPSF

UPME
NF
JU
XBT
8IJUF
UIBU
XBT
JO
UIF
CFESPPN
XJUI
.JTT
#BLFS
$SPTTFYBNJOFE
5IFSF
XBT
OPUIJOH
UP
PCTUSVDU
NZ
WJFXT
‰UIF
NBO
IBE
PO
B
EBSL
DPMPSFE
TIPSU
KBDLFU
BOE
*
UIJOL

MJHIU
QBOUBMPPOT
-&0/"3%
%08/&4
SFFYBNJOFE
%JE
TFF
.JTT
#BLFS

DPNF
PVU
PG
UIF
CFESPPN
XJUI
B
NBO
IF
IBE
IJT
BSN
BSPVOE

IFS‰TFF
IFS
HP
JO
XJUI
B
NBO
BOE
TIVU
UIF
EPPS
)F
IBE
PO
B

TIPSU
KBDLFU
EBSL
DPMPSFE
BOE
MJHIU
DPMPSFE
QBOUBMPPOTTBX
IFS

LJTT
.S
%PPSF‰TIF
TBJE
iUIBU
GFFMT
HPPEw
5)0."4
130$503
SFFYBNJOFE
1SJTPOFS
TUBUFE
UP

NF
UIBU
.JTT
#BLFS
IBE
BO
FYFSDJTF
JO
UIF
CFESPPN
BOE
IF

XFOU
JO
BOE
IFMQFE
IFS
PVU
$SPTTFYBNJOFE
*
IBWF
TBJE
*
XJTIFE
UIFZ
XFSF
CSPLFO

VQ
BOE
XJTIFE
TPNFCPEZ
XPVME
HP
BOE
EP
JU
*
IBWF
TBJE

&MEFS
)BMM
PVHIU
UP
CF
UBSSFE
BOE
GFBUIFSFE
JG
IF
XBT
TVDI
B

DIBSBDUFS
BT
*
IFBSE
IF
XBT
*
XBT
BU
POF
NFFUJOH
CVU
BT
UP

EJWJOF
XPSTIJQ
UIFSF
XBT
OPOF
5IFZ
UPME
VT
UIFZ
BMMPXFE

OPOF
UIFSF
CVU
CFMJFWFST
"
4
#"35-&55
&TR
TXPSO
:FTUFSEBZ
*
TBX
.S
+PFM

%PPSF
BOE
-PUPO
-BNCFSU
DPOWFSTJOH
UPHFUIFS
*
XFOU
UP
UIFN
‰*
IFBSE
%PPSF
TBZ
UP
IJN
JU
XBT
&MEFS
8IJUF
UIBU
XBT
JO
UIF

CFESPPN
XJUI
.JTT
#BLFS‰-BNCFSU
TBJE
UIBU
XBT
XIBU

*
XBOUFE
UP
LOPX
*
TP
VOEFSTUPPE
BOE
UIJOL
*
BN
OPU

NJTUBLFO
*
BMTP
IFBSE
%PPSF
TBZ
UIFSF
XBT
B
OPJTF
JO
UIF

CFESPPN
&-%&3
'-"7&-
#"35-&55
TXPSO
*
UIJOL
1SJTPOFS

EPFT
OPU
CFMPOH
UP
UIF
'SFF
8JMM
#BQUJTU
$IVSDI
)F
JT
OPU

GFMMPXTIJQ
XJUI
UIFN
+04&1)
,/*()54
PG
(BSMBOE
TXPSO
*
BUUFOEFE
POF

PG
%BNNPOT
NFFUJOHT
JO
(BSMBOE
IF
CFIBWFE
XFMM
VOUJM

NFFUJOH
XBT
PWFS
"GUFS
NFFUJOH
XBT
PWFS
*
TBX
IJN
IVHHJOH

BOE
LJTTJOH
B
HJSM
*U
JT
UIF
DPNNPO
SFQPSU
JO
(BSMBOE
UIBU
IF
JT

B
EJTUVSCFS
PG
UIF
QFBDF

148
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

1-:/
$-"3,
TXPSO
*
BUUFOEFE
UIFJS
NFFUJOH
B
XFFL

BHP
MBTU
8FEOFTEBZ
PS
5IVSTEBZ
OJHIU
5IJT
XJUOFTT
HBWF
B

HFOFSBM
DIBSBDUFS
PG
UIF
NFFUJOH
BT
EFTDSJCFE
CZ
PUIFST

*
IFBSE

POF
IBMMP
PVU
i*
GFFM
CFUUFSw‰PUIFST
TBJE
iHPPE
FOPVHIw

*
UIJOL
UIF
XIPMF
DIBSBDUFS
PG
UIF
NFFUJOH

XBT
EFNPSBMJ[JOH






+8&
)"37&:
DBMMFE
*
IBWF
BUUFOEFE
UIF
NFFUJOHT
B

OVNCFS
PG
UJNFT‰*
IBWF
TFFO
QSJTPOFS
PO
UIF
GMPPS
XJUI

B
XPNBO
CFUXFFO
IJT
MFHT‰*
IBWF
TFFO
UIFN
JO

HSPVQT
IVHHJOH
BOE
LJTTJOH
POF
BOPUIFS
*
XFOU
UIFSF

PODF
PO
BO
FSSBOE‰%BNNPO
IBMMPFE
PVU
i(PPE
(PE

"MNJHIUZ
ESJWF
UIF
%FWJM
BXBZw
*
PODF
TBX
&MEFS
)BMM

XJUI
IJT
CPPUT
PGG
BOE
UIF
XPNFO
XPVME
HP
BOE
LJTT
IJT

GFFU
0OF
HJSM
NBEF
B
TNBDL
CVU
EJE
OPU
IJU
IJT
GPPU

XJUI
IFS
MJQT
)BMM
TBJE
iIF
UIBU
JT
BTIBNFE
PG
NF

CFGPSF
NFO
IJN
XJMM
*
CF
BTIBNFE
PG
CFGPSF
NZ
'BUIFS
BOE

UIF
IPMZ
BOHFMTw
4IF
UIFO
HBWF
IJT
GFFU
B
OVNCFS
PG
LJTTFT
+0&-
%003&
+3
DBMMFE
GPS
UIF
EFGFOTF
*
IBWF

IFBSE
#SPUIFS
%BNNPO
QSFBDI
UIBU
UIF
EBZ
PG
HSBDF

XBT
PWFS
XJUI
TJOOFST
3FTQPOEFOU
TBJE
iUIBU
JT
NZ
CFMJFGw
-&7*
.
%003&
DBMMFE
#SPUIFS
8PPE
XBT
ESFTTFE
JO

MJHIU
QBOUT
BOE
EBSL
KBDLFU
+0&-
%003
+3
DBMMFE
#SPUIFS
8PPE
IBE
MJHIU

QBOUT
BOE
EBSL
KBDLFU
"#&-
":&3
DBMMFE
#SPUIFS
8PPE
XFOU
UP
UIF

CBQUJTN
BOE
XBT
BCPVU
BMM
UIF
FWFOJOH
+".&4
#00#"3
DBMMFE
4JTUFS
#BLFS
BOE
#SPUIFS

8PPE
XFSF
BCPVU
BMM
UIF
FWFOJOH
&MEFS
8IJUF
IBE
B
GSPDL

DPBU
BOE
EBSL
QBOUT
PRISONER opened his defense and cited Luke 7 chap-ter
36 verse—John 13 chapter—Last chapter in Romans—
Phillipians 4th chapter—1st Th
essalonians 5th chapter.
Holmes followed with the defense. Court adjourned one hour.
)PMNFT
DMPTFE
UIF
EFGFOTF
XJUI
TJHOBM
BCJMJUZ
$IBOEMFS

DPNNFODFE

JO

CFIBMG

PG

UIF

4UBUF


$JUFE

UI

DIBQUFS

UI

149
Brian Neumann

and 10th sections Revised Statutes; he dwelt upon the law;

after which MORISON summoned up the testimony and
closed with a few brief and appropriate remarks.





&-%&3
%"..0/
BHBJO
SPTF
GPS
GVSUIFS
EFGFOTF
$PVSU

JOEVMHFE
IJN
UP
TQFBL
)F
SFBE
UI
1TBMN
BOE
UIF
UI

1TBMN
)F
BSHVFE
UIBU
UIF
EBZ
PG
HSBDF
IBE
HPOF
CZ
UIBU

UIF
CFMJFWFST
XFSF
SFEVDFE
CVU
UIBU
UIFSF
XBT
UPP
NBOZ

ZFU
BOE
UIBU
UIF
FOE
PG
UIF
XPSME
XPVME
DPNF
XJUIJO
B
XFFL

5IF
$PVSU
BGUFS
DPOTVMUBUJPO
TFOUFODFE
UIF
QSJTPOFS
UP

UIF
)PVTF
PG
$PSSFDUJPO
GPS
UIF
TQBDF
PG
5FO
%BZT
From this judgment Respondent appealed. Tuesday
morning the pris-oner having taken his seat, rose just as the Court
came in, and shouted Glory to the strength of his lungs. Tuesday
afternoon, after the Court had came in and were waiting for the
counsel, the prisoner and his witnesses asked permission,
and sung as follows. 2

What I have shared above should be enough for the reader to

establish the main points addressed in the hearings. In making
my analysis I will use materials that have already been published
(due reference supplied) as it is hardly necessary to “reinvent
the wheel,” so to speak, when ample commentary is already
readily available. Having said this though, I will also bring in
additional observations of my own that might not have been
considered before.
By way of introducing this section I would like to bring your
attention to some important points regarding general aspects of
this trial—as reported in the Piscataquis Farmer newspaper.

Considering Trial Integrity

Indented and italicised portions quoted from Adventist Currents,
Vol. 3, Number 1, 1988, by Bruce Weaver. Emphasis supplied.
The Piscataquis Farmer coverage of the Israel Dammon trial
has overwhelming face-value credibility:

150
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Th e number of witnesses (20 for the prosecution, 18 for the

defence). 3

Regarding the number of witnesses, it can be said that there

was a fairly even distribution on both sides. Notwithstanding
that people observing events usually perceive aspects slightly
differently (based on what they observe or hear or are specifically
concentrating on at any given point in time), the testimony,
for prosecution or defence, was generally consistent. As will be
extrapolated on later, it might have been noticed by the reader
that, at times, the defence even confirmed some of the testimony
for the prosecution.

The integrity of the witnesses, most of whom were God-fearing

people who would not take an oath lightly.

The quality of the witnesses (several of the prosecution wit-

nesses were attorneys and justices of the peace who had a vested
interest in the integrity of their legal system).

The nearness of their testimony to the event (2 days later)

The obvious authenticity of the dialogue

The exceptionally long and verbatim reporting

The reporter’s use of court and counsel minutes

The reporter’s expressed concern for the faithfulness of his report

to the witness’ testimony: “I...have endeavoured in no case to
misrepresent you, and if you find an error, I beg you to impute
it to my head, instead of heart...I offer it as an imperfect and
impartial report.” 4

At this point Bruce Weaver makes reference to the observations of

the then White Estate undersecretary, Paul Gordon, in connection to
the reporters own references regarding his account of the trial.

151
Brian Neumann

όФХаС
κЯаНаС
бЪРСЮЯСПЮСаНЮе
υНбШ
μЫЮРЫЪ
УЮНЯЬСР
На
аФС

ЮСЬЫЮаСЮΛЯ
ПНЪРЫбЮ
НЪР
ЩЫРСЯае
аЫ
РСЪХУЮНаС
ФХЯ
ЮСЬЫЮаΓ
Μξ

аФХЪЧ
гС
ЩбЯа
ЮСЩСЩОСЮ
аФНа
аФС
ЮСЬЫЮаСЮ
ΔΔΔ
НЬЫШЫУХжСЯ

ТЫЮ
Ха
ЪЫа
ОСХЪУ
ЬСЮФНЬЯ
НЯ
НППбЮНаС
НЯ
Ха
ПЫбШР
ОС
ΔΔΔΔ
ζа
НЪе
ЮНаСΑ
Ха

НЬЬСНЮЯ
аЫ
ОС
ЫЪС
ЮСЬЫЮаСЮΛЯ
НППЫбЪа
ЫТ
аФС
аЮХНШ
аФНа
ХЯ
ХЩЬСЮάТСПаΑ
аЫ

ЯНе
аФС
ШСНЯаΔΝ
ζПабНШШе
аФС
ЮСЬЫЮаСЮ
гНЯ
аСШШХЪУ
аФС
гХаЪСЯЯСЯ
НЪР
аФС

ΜλНЮЩСЮΛЯΝ
ЮСНРСЮЯ
ЦбЯа
гФНа
ЬНХЪЯ
ФС
ФНР
аНЧСЪ
аЫ
ОС
НППбЮНаСΔ
κϜ

тлѐп
лмьуоспо
ѓщяь
юпэюучщшѓ
лэ
чянт
лэ
ъщээумцпλ
ТЮЫЩ
аФС

ЩХЪбаСЯ
ЫТ
κютп
ϖщяью
лшо
ютп
ϖщяшэпцίλ
ЫЩХааХЪУ
ЫЪШе
κютп
чщэю

яшучъщьюлшю
ъльюβλ
5

Certainly, if one considers the fact that the reporter used

the court and counsel minutes (which means it was ЪЫа just
one person’s/reporter’s account) and that he was present at the
trial, it can hardly be thought that his references to
“НОЮХРУЩСЪаЯ,” and “omissions,” or his “apology” regarding
“accuracy,” was a tacit admission that he might be in error
concerning the facts conveyed by the testimony of the witnesses.
As stated, he used the court and counsel minutes as a constant
reference. Th e individual language (style of speaking—
expressions and various other quirks) of the witnesses, clearly
shows that an almost verbatim account was published in the
paper. Th e so called “apology” and reference to НОЮХРУЩСЪаЯ
and omissions had nothing to do with the general facts
communicated. It needs to be remembered that the reporter
wrote the newspaper article on request. He was not a reporter
by profession and clearly stated that if it had been left up
to him, he would not have done it at all. His comments
about accuracy, etc., are really just an indication of his own
humility in regard to having been chosen for the task—a task
which was not his by trade.
Gordon [of the White Estate] has another argument: “
You
can quickly see that their (defence and prosecution witnesses)
testimony contradicted each other in almost every case... It

152
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

would appear that those against Dammon were telling one

story, and those that were for him told another.”
Apparently Gordon had not taken the opportunity to read
the reporter’s abridgment of the trial minutes very carefully.
The witnesses all agreed on all points of any substance except
whether or not Ellen Harmon was referred to as Imitation of
Christ, and who was in the bedroom with Dorinda Baker
and why.
Three defence witnesses, each represented at length in the
“Farmer” report, expressly affirmed the testimony of prosecution
William Crosby, Esq. James Ayer, Jr., host for the Saturday
evening meeting testified: “I agree with Crosby and Lambert
substantially.” Isley Osborn said, “Think Esq. Crosby’s tes-
timony correct.” And Jacob Mason added: “I have heard
Crosby testify, and think him correct.” 6

Maybe Gordon was trying to support Ellen White’s account of

what happened and thus could not, even if he had read the
НОЮХРУЩСЪа of the trial records carefully, ЮСЪРСЮ a fair
evaluation. In Spiritual Gifts Volume 2, quoted earlier, she
said: “Many witnesses were brought to sustain the charge, but
they were at once broken down by the testimony of Eld. D.’s
acquaintances present, who were called to the stand.” Her
account certainly does give the impression that the defence
and prosecution witnesses were in contradiction to each other,
contrary to the evidence of official trial records.
Not only did Isley Osborn, James Ayer, Jr. and Jacob
Mason (for the defence) affirm the testimony of prosecution
witnesses, Crosby and Lambert, but contrary to Paul Gordon’s
assumption, there is also contradiction to be found in the
testimony of certain defence witnesses. In some cases the
defence and prosecution witnesses actually agreed. For example,
the host for the Saturday night meeting, James Ayer, Jr.,
“substantially” agreed with Crosby and Lambert’s testimonies.
Let’s
consider
some
of the
key aspects ЫТ
ρНЩОСЮаΛЯ
НЪР
θЮЫЯОеΛЯ

153
B
r i a n N
e u m a
n n

testimony and primary areas of agreement between РСТСЪЯС

and prosecution witnesses.
Lambert and Crosby agreed that the meetings were certainly
loud and chaotic. People were, “talking at once, halloing at the top
of their voices.” Crosby testified that the meeting “was the most
noisy assembly I ever attended-there was no order or regularity,
nor anything that resembled any other meeting I ever attended.”
Both Crosby and Lambert testified that those who did not
believe in the “Advent Doctrine” were not welcome. Both Lambert
and Crosby were “ordered off.” Lambert claimed that Dammon
preached that all other “denominations” were wicked and
disparaged all who did not “believe with him.” Ayer did say that
it was his “understanding” Dammon was referring to individuals
and not entire denominations. Osborn seemed to suggest that
he understood Dammon to mean that the churches had “fallen”
from their “holy position.” He did not recall Dammon using the
harsher “expressions” in reference to the churches but he did say
that he had “heard him use as strong language against them.”
Ayer said that he “saw no kissing.” Upon re-examination
though he said that he did not say there was none but that he did
not “see” any. According
to the Adventists own general practice,
kissing (holy kiss) was indeed something they regularly did—at
the very least, upon greeting.
Ayer said there was “no man in the bedroom that evening,” yet
Mason said that the man who went into the bedroom with Miss.
Baker was a “stranger” to him—indicating that a man DID go
into the bedroom (if it was James White then he would certainly
have been a stranger to Mason). Later in his testimony he seems
to contradict himself by saying that, “I saw no man go into the
bedroom” (a bit more on this issue shortly).
Miss Baker, the other visionary, after saying that the devil
was there, selected Lambert and said to him: “you are the devil,
and will go to hell.” Ellen Harmon told РСТСЪЯС witness, Doore,
he had “doubted,” would not be “baptized again” and seemed to

154
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

plead with him to not “go to hell,” upon which, he “kneeled to

her feet and prayed.”
Again, I emphasize, the РСТСЪЯС witnesses agreed with
the testimony of these two men (Lambert and Crosby), one of
them, even “substantially.” The few vital questions they seemed
to differ on (the status of the churches, the Imitation of Christ
question and whether a man went into the bedroom) was not
in the sense of outright contradiction. Rather, it seemed to be
more about perception—what they “understood” or “saw,” as
opposed to something they thought was simply NOT the case
at all. This evidence begs the question: If there were more aspects
of their testimony they did NOT entirely see or hear the same
way, what were these aspects, and why
did they not clearly and
unambiguously specify the points they were in disagreement with?
Then there is the disturbing contradiction that seems to
emerge in the testimony given by Joel Doore, regarding the issue
of whether James White (Elder. White) was the one who went
into the bedroom with Miss. Baker.
Joel Doore (РСТСЪЯС witness) had “thought hard” about Miss.
Baker (one can only wonder at what his thoughts might have
been), had confessed his “error” to her and then “fellowshipped”
with her. In his testimony, he refers to this incident and the
question of what “man” had gone into the room with Miss. Baker:

We kissed each other with the holy kiss [in reference to his
“fellowship” with Miss. Baker]—I think Elder White was
not in the bedroom that evening; but I don’t know how many,
nor who were there.

Prosecution witnesses, Lambert, whom I have already pointed

out as being one of the men whose testimony three defenЯe
witnesses confirmed, had this to say regarding the question of
which man was in the room:

155
Brian Neumann

Joel Doore told me it was White that was in the bedroom with
Miss Baker.

Was Lambert lying? He testified, under oath,
that

Doore actually told him that White was in the bedroom, yet,
Doore, in his testimony, said he did not “think Elder White
was in the bedroom that evening.” In the very next sentence
though, he says that he did not “know how many, nor who
were there.” Surely, he either knew or did not know. How
could he “think” that Elder White was not in the room and
then, right after that say that he did not know how many
were in there or who they might have been? TФe testimony of
A. S. Bartlett Esq., (for the prosecution) seems to suggest that
Doore may well have been lying or had (in the space of one
day) suffered severe memory loss. Bartlett testified under oath:
Yesterday I saw Mr. Joel Doore and Loton Lambert conversing
together. I went to them—I heard Doore say to him, it was
Elder White that was in the bedroom with Miss Baker—
Lambert said that was what I wanted to know. I so under-
stood, and think I am not mistaken. I also heard Doore say
there was a noise in the bedroom.

Surely, anyone can see the inconsistency in this. Not only did
Lambert testify that Doore had personally told him that it was
White who had been in the bedroom, Bartlett confirmed it too—
the day before he overheard the very conversation that took place
between Lambert and Doore regarding this question.
Paul Gordon, of the Ellen White Estate, had said that in almost
“every case” the testimony of the defenЯe and prosecution
“contradicted” each other (Ellen White seemed to think
so too), in spite of the fact that the above mentioned defenЯe
witnesses were in agreement with statements made by certain
prosecution witnesses.

156
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Over and above this, it would seem that if there were any
contradictions, even lies, it came from one of the witnesses for
defenЯe. Clearly, Paul Gordon did not read the transcript of
the trial carefully enough. If he had he’d have given an accurate
evaluation. Or was it perhaps, as alluded to previously, he dared
not contradict Ellen White’s account? Bruce Weaver continues:

ξа
РЫСЯ
НЬЬСНЮΑ
НЯ
μЫЮРЫЪ
ΨЫТ
аФС
όФХаС
κЯаНаСΩ
ЯбЮЩХЯСЯΑ
аФНа

ιНЩЩЫЪ
РХР
ЪЫа
ЯСЮвС
ФХЯ
ЯСЪаСЪПСΔ
ηба
Ха
гНЯ
ЪЫаΑ
НЯ
μЫЮРЫЪ

ТбЮаФСЮ
ЯЬСПбШНаСЯΑ
ΜОСПНбЯС
аФСЮС
гНЯ
ЯбПФ
ПЫЪТШХПаХЪУ
аСЯаХЩЫЪеΔΝ

νНР
аФС
аСЯаХЩЫЪе
ОССЪ
НЯ
ПЫЪТШХПаХЪУ
НЯ
μЫЮРЫЪ
ПШНХЩЯΑ
аФС
ιЫвСЮ

θЫбЮа
гЫбШР
ЪЫа
ФНвС
ΜЯСЪаСЪПСР
аФС
ЬЮХЯάЫЪСЮ
аЫ
аФС
νЫбЯС
ЫТ

θЫЮЮСПаХЫЪ
ТЫЮ
аФС
ЯЬНПС
ЫТ
ωСЪ
ιНеЯΔΝ
ζЬЬНЮСЪаШеΑ
РСТСЪПС
ПЫбЪЯСШ
νЫШЩСЯ
НЬЬСНШСРΔ
ηСПНбЯС

ιНЩЩЫЪ
ФХЩЯСШТ
гЮЫаС
аФНа
НТаСЮ
ФХЯ
ЯСЪаСЪПХЪУ
ФС
ΜгНЯ
Ьба
ЫвСЮ

бЪаХШ
ςНе
аСЮЩ
ΨРХЯаЮХПа
ПЫбЮа
ЯСЯЯХЫЪΩΑ
аФСЪ
аФС
гНЮЮНЪа
гНЯ

ЭбНЯФСРΒ
НЪР
ξ
гНЯ
НПЭбХааСР
гХаФЫба
РНаСΔΝ
Calling it “one of the grandest defences of religious tolera-tion
and freedom, that it has ever been my pleasure to listen to,” one of
Holmes’ contemporaries, Joseph D. Brown, remem-bered
Holmes’ representation of Dammon as an “eloquent argument
for religious freedom and toleration and the right of every
person to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience, under his own vine and fig tree.”
Dammon did not get off, as Gordon suggests, “because
there was such conflicting testimony”; or, as Mrs. White
remembered, because the testimony of the prosecution’s “many
witnesses
...
were at once broken down by the testimony of Elder
D’s.[Dammon’s] acquaintances present, who were called to the
stand.” It was argument from law, not testimony, that rescued
Dammon from ten days in jail. 7

I need not make any further comment on these points as

Bruce Weaver presents his case very effectively. Th ere is one
more thing that I would like to draw the reader’s attention to
though.

157
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

This is the glaring contradiction in Ellen White’s account of how

the power of God prevented the officers of the law from arresting
Dammon, compared to the testimony of Joseph Moulten, officer in
charge of the arrest. Moulten clearly described, under oath, that it
was because of the screaming women clinging to Dammon, and
him in turn clinging to them that complicated the arrest.
Ellen White’s testimony concerning this event is often quoted
as one of the highlights of her early ministry, demonstrating how
the power of God was mightily manifest on behalf of those pioneer
believers. However, the evidence produced by the discovery of
this official article of Dammon’s arrest and trial reveal the truth—
truth that Ellen White consciously lied about and hid from the
public for the duration of her life.
There are a few more things that were alluded to in the issues
surrounding Dammon’s trial that I will address in the next
chapter. The first has to do with date setting for the Lord’s return.
The second has to do with statements made by a number of
witnesses at the Dammon trial who testified that Dammon had
preached, “that the day of grace was over with sinners” (suggesting
that “probation” had closed for the world and the end was very
near). As will be shown, this teaching of Dammon is much the
same as Ellen White’s open and shut door doctrine.
A final
consideration is that, whether all testimony delivered
at Dammon’s trial was consistent or in agreement in every respect
(which it certainly was not) does not negate the fact that this
was anything but a normal religious meeting, conducted decently
and in order. The testimony of the police officers, regarding the
debacle at his arrest, is even stronger evidence that this meeting
was not of the “usual” sort. Plus, the fact that there was a trial
being held at all is evidence that the complaint about disturbing
the peace was a legitimate one.

158
 SOURCES
1. Spiritual Gifts, Volume 2 (1860) p.39-42, Ellen G. White empha-
sis supplied.
2. Devoted to politics, agriculture, literature, morals, temperance, news.
Vol. 3 Dover Maine, Friday Morning, March 7, 1845 No. 31.
3. Adventist Currents, Vol. 3, Number 1, 1988, by Bruce Weaver.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
 Chapter V

The Shut Door

No More Salvation for Sinners

… And while they went to buy,

the bridegroom came; and they that were ready
went in with him to the marriage: and the door
was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins,
saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered
and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

—Matthew 25:10-12

T
hat Israel Dammon was preaching the imminent end of
the world and believed, at the very least, that the organized
Christian world were in apostasy, barring faithful
Adventist believers (remnants of the Millerite movement), is
evident from a number of testimonials given at his trial. Below
are the most pertinent comments in regard to these and related
teachings (exclusivity & end of the world, etc.), from witnesses
at the trial:

163
Brian Neumann

Prosecution Witnesses:
J.W.E. HARVEY: Dammon said the sinners were going to hell
in two days… In the back room they said the world’s people
must not go…they wanted no one to come unless they believed
as he did in the Advent doctrine…Dammon said he wanted no
one to attend their meetings unless they believed in the advent
doctrine.

WM. C. CROSBY, Esq: …Dammon…complained of those

that come there who did not believe in the advent doctrine. At
one time Dammon said there was hogs there not belonging to
the band, and pointed at me, and said, I mean you, Sir.

LOTON LAMBERT:…Dammon said all other denomina-

tions were wicked—they were liars, whoremasters, murder-
ers,—he also run upon all such as were not believers with
him. He ordered us off—we did not go. Th e woman
[Ellen Harmon] that lay on the floor relating visions, was
called by Elder Dammon and others, Imitation of Christ.
Dammon called us hogs and devils, and said if he was the
owner of the house he would drive us off—the one that they
called Imitation of Christ, told Mrs. Woodbury and others,
that they must for-sake all their friends or go to hell. Imitation
of Christ, as they called her, would lay on the floor a while,
then rise up and call upon some one and say she had a vision
to relate to them, which she would relate; there was one girl
that they said must be baptized that night or she must go to
hell; she wept bitterly and wanted to see her mother first; they
told her she must leave her mother or go to hell—one voice
said, let her go to hell…Imitation of Christ told her vision to
a cousin of mine, that she must be baptized that night or go to
hell—she objected, because she had once been baptized.
Imitation of Christ was said to be a woman from Portland.
A woman that they called Miss Baker [the other visionary],
said

the
devil
was
here,

and
she
wanted


аЫ

ЯСС

ФХЩ
ή

164
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

she selected me and said, you are the devil, and will go to
hell…Th e vision woman called [to] Joel Doore, said he had
doubted, and would not be baptized again—she said Br.
Doore don’t go to hell. Doore kneeled to her feet and prayed.

WM. RICKER:…I went to attend their meeting once: they

told me there would be none—I asked them where it would be
on the next Sabbath? They told me they know not where; but
they did not admit any but the advent band. I asked Dammon
if that was Christ’s religion? He said it is ours.

WM. C. CROSBY:…the visionist [Ellen Harmon] called

them up she told them they doubted. Her object seemed to be
to convince them they must not doubt. Dammon called the
churches whoremasters, liars, thieves, scoundrels, wolves in
sheep’s clothing, murders. 1

Defence Witnesses:
JOB MOODY:…Brother Dammon said in relation to other
churches they were bad enough; said they were corrupt; he spoke
of the STAR—he did not say they were thieves, &c. I am not
certain, but think he said that evening there was exceptions…
Mr. Dammon repeatedly urged upon us the necessity of quit-
ting all labor. 2

NOTE: Interestingly, as previously noted, certain РСТСЪЯС

witnesses agreed with testimony of prosecution witnesses
(refer back). In the case of Moody (above), his testimony
comes across as unsure. Comments such as: “think he said,”
suggest that he was not entirely certain.

ISLEY OSBORN:…he thinks it best to come out from them,

because there is so many that has fallen from their holy
position.

Do
not
recollect

hearing him
use
the

expressions

165
Brian Neumann

about churches they have sworn to, but have heard him use
as strong language against them…She [Ellen Harmon] told
them their cases had been made known to her by the Lord, and
if they were not baptized that evening, they would go to hell.
We believed her, and Brother Dammon and I advised them to
be baptized…Elder Dammon does advise us to quit all work.

JACOB MASON…Brother Dammon said the churches

were of that description—said they were lХНrs, rogues, &c. I
did not understand him to include all, but individuals.

GEORGE S. WOODBURY:…I am a believer in the

Advent doctrine-I have attended every one of the meetings in
Atkinson…I believe in Miss Harmon’s visions, because she told
my wife’s feelings correctly…I believe the world will come to
an end within two months-prisoner preaches so. I believe this
is the faith of the band. It was said, and I believe, that Sisters
Harmon and Baker’s revelations as much as though they came
from God…Elder Dammon advises us not to work, because
there is enough to live on until the end of the world.

ABEL S. BOOBAR:…Elder ΨDammmon] said the churches

were in a fallen state, and he had rather risk himself in the
hands of the almighty as a non-professor, than to be in the place
of some of the churches. 3

Witnesses for State:

JOEL DOORE, JR.:…I have heard Brother Dammon
preach that the day of grace was over with sinners. Respondent
said “that is my belief.”

ELDER DAMMON: …[according to the trial report],

argued that the day of grace had gone by, that the believers
were reduced; but that there was too many yet, and that the
end of the world would come within a week. 4

166
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

What emerges via witnesses for prosecution, РСТСЪЯС and the

state, is that Elder Dammon DID, indeed, preach that the
organised churches were corrupt and that the world was about
to end (in most cases they testified, within a few weeks). If
there had been any doubt as to whether Dammon believed and
preached this, it was dispelled by Dammon’s own testimony, as
recorded above.
Another fact that surfaces is the exclusive attitude of the
Advent group towards those on the outside—even though the
“outsiders” were also Christians.
As far as Ellen Harmon/White and James White are concerned
it would appear, by their very presence, and active participation,
that they fully agreed with and supported Dammon’s message.
Ellen White’s own glowing report of this event (including the
trial) depicts Dammon as a man who was filled with the spirit of
God and preaching the truth (we will consider her entire report
later on). This fact alone raises some troubling questions, not
only about Ellen White’s belief that the world was about to end
and the concept of the shut door, but also regarding her “timely”
insight into individual people’s lives and beliefs, etc.
She was well able to tell various people at the meeting in
Atkinson where they were wrong and that they should be baptized
or go to hell (according to adequate testimony). Yet, though
Dammon was in error, regarding his message concerning other
churches, the immanent end of the world and his call for people
to stop working, etc. she, at least at this point, offered no rebuke—
she had NO revelation concerning his precariously misleading
teachings. If any of the people attending the meetings were
hopelessly in error, needing ЯСЮХЫбЯ correction, then it seems
that Dammon himself would have been at the top of the list!
For anyone to argue that Ellen White was not in agreement
with Dammon and that she was not actively supporting his
ministry at the time would be a аЫаНШ and flagrant denial of
overwhelming evidence.

167
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Arthur L. White writes about this period of Ellen Harmon’s

ministry. He quotes a statement by Otis Nichols who was an
enthusiastic supporter of Ellen Harmon’s ministry. She, her
older sister and James White, stayed at the Nichols’ home while
аЮНвСШХЪУ in Massachusetts (a period of about eight months).
According to his own testimony about the ministry of Ellen
Harmon, Nichols says:
What I have written I have knowledge of and think I can
judge correctly. 5

Nichols also writes:

Her message was always attended with the Holy Ghost, and
wherever it was received as from the Lord it broke down and
melted their hearts like little children, fed, comforted, strength-
ened the weak, and encouraged them to hold on to the faith, and
the seventh month movement; and that our work was done
for the nominal church and the world, and what remained
to be done was for the household of faith.
Those that rejected her message very soon fell into the
world and a nominal faith, and those that did receive her tes-
timony as from the Lord and afterward denied it, calling it
mesmerism or an unholy thing, are many of them like those that
are given over to strong delusion and the working of Satan. 6

It would appear, based on the testimony of a man that was

unquestionably familiar with and supportive of Ellen Harmon’s
ministry, in whose home she resided for many months, that
Ellen did support views, not unlike Dammon’s, in regard to the
“nominal” churches and the imminent end of the world.
Arthur White quotes Nichols as someone who “casts”
important light onto the early ministry of Ellen White. In the
same book, regarding Nichols testimony, he writes:

168
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

These statements not only provide a perspective to the records

of Ellen Harmon’s activities in those crucial weeks following
the disappointment but also give glimpses of how some of the
believers in those early days related to her unique experience. 7

Yet, when it comes to Nichols’ statements about Ellen

Harmon’s view concerning the nominal churches, the world,
the imminent return of Christ and warrants that were issues for
her arrest he finds it necessary to clarify Nichols. In his opinion
Nichols did not understand Ellen Harmon correctly. I will quote
Nichols concerning the “warrants” and “arrest” situations and
will then make some comments:

… God has hitherto protected her in a remarkable manner

from all harm; raised up benefactors for her wherever she
goes, notwithstanding the malice of wicked spirits and fallen
Adventists.
Through their influence there have been a number of war-
rants for her arrest, but God has signally protected her. At one
time a sheriff and a number of men with him had no power
over her person for an hour and an half, although they exerted
all their bodily strength to move her, while she or no one else
made any resistance.8

One can understand that Nichols might have misunderstood

Ellen Harmon’s account of the Sherriff and a number of men
having no power over her—Arthur White suggests that Nichols
probably confused her experiences with that of Israel Dammon,
which he certainly would have heard about. When it comes to
her doctrine and belief and what she taught, it would have been
an entirely different story. Nichols heard about the Dammon
case second hand (he was not present) and could have gotten his
“wires crossed” on that score. When it came to his knowledge of
what Ellen Harmon believed and taught, it would not have been
so as he, no doubt, attended many meetings, saw her in vision

169
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

and heard her talk. Further, over a period of eight months, often
residing at his house, Ellen Harmon and James White would
have had many, one-on-one discussions with Nichols. For him to
have gotten her beliefs and doctrine, on such vital issues, messed
up, is a stretch of the imagination. He was confident enough to
say, as quoted earlier: “What I have written I have knowledge of
and think I can judge correctly.”
He said this, not necessarily in connection with the warrants
for arrest and the episode with the sheriff (he could not be as
certain about that anyway as he was not present), but about all
that he wrote concerning Ellen White and her early ministry.
The fact that Nichols’ time frame of the arrest differed with Ellen
White’s is evidence that he was giving a second-hand description.
She said that the attempted arrest lasted forty minutes while
Nichols said that it took an hour and a half.
Bruce Weaver,
quoted considerably earlier on, gives his
perspective on Nichols’ description and provides further evidence
that is certainly worth considering (the reader will notice that he
also comments on the time-frame discrepancy):
Whether or not Nichols was confused, Arthur White proceeds
on his next Early Years page to confuse the “hour and a half
”
that Nichols says the sheriff and his men spent trying to arrest
Miss Harmon with his own account of the Dammon arrest–
even though Arthur’s only source for the Atkinson incident is
his grandmother who was there and says Dammon’s arrest took
forty minutes.
The most tantalizing piece of this puzzle is found in an
April 1845 issue of the Daily Eastern Argus, a newspaper
from Miss Harmon’s home town of Portland:
“Millerism. The proceedings of the professors of this belief,
have been such, that the officers of Norway and some other
towns in the vicinity have felt it their duty to take means to
put a stop to them....On Wednesday [April 23], one of the lead-
ers, well known as Joe Turner, another named Harmon, with

170
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

one or two others were arrested at the house of Mr. Megquier,

in Poland, by the Selectmen of that town, as was reported....”
Mrs. White remembered that she initially related her
first vision away from home in Poland, in (Otis Nichols says)
January 1845. And John Megquier, at whose house Turner
and Harmon were arrested, remembered that “about the first
visions that she had were at my house in Poland.”
By her own account she was in Poland on two occasions
during the winter/spring of 1845. And her second visit to that
town came after her initial, three-month journey east, which
began sometime in January. The records, the date, the geog-
raphy, and the relationships, suggest that it would have been
convenient for Miss Harmon to be at John Megquier’s house on
April 23, 1845, in Poland, Maine.
Added to all of this, Miss Harmon was a friend and
admirer of the arrested Joseph Turner. In 1847 she described to
Joseph Bates her great relief upon learning that the shut-door
position that she received from her first vision was compat-
ible with what Turner was teaching from Scripture. And so
it would not be surprising to find them together in late April
1845, at a popular Millerite gathering spot–the home of John
Megquier.
Thirty years later Mrs. White remembered being shown
in advance “that we would be in danger of imprisonment and
abuse. ...the emissaries [sic] of Satan were on our track, and
we would fare no better than those who had been fanatical
and wrong, and suffered the consequences of their inconsistent,
unreasonable course by abuse and imprisonment.”
Three paragraphs after seeming to predict her own impris-
onment, she writes of
.”..brethren believing the truth...[who] were imprisoned
and beaten. But we rode through these very places in broad
daylight, visited from house to house, held meetings, and bore
our testimony....” 9

171
Brian Neumann

NOTE: There is no incontrovertible evidence that the

“Harmon” arrested along with Joseph Turner on April
23rd, 1845 was Ellen. Yet, when one considers all the facts,
evidence of association, etc., then it would seem that she
must have been the “Harmon” referred to.

Returning to the question of “teachings,” it would be essential

not to forget that evidence of Ellen White’s association with
these types of beliefs does not only come from Nichols’ pen
(writing of her ministry in a complimentary manner), it is borne
out by the testimony of witnesses (РСТСЪЯС and prosecution) at
the Dammon trial, who clearly associated Ellen Harmon with
Dammon’s teachings. It is borne out by her personal testimony
of Dammon at that time. She described him as a man filled with
the Holy Spirit. Would she really have said this if he had been
teaching false doctrine? Would she not, rather, have rebuked
him and borne her testimony against him as she apparently РХР
at a later date because of his “fanaticism?”
Another disquieting piece of evidence, clearly showing Ellen
Harmon’s support of Dammon’s belief, is her description of his
testimony at the trial. She said (as quoted earlier):
… he was asked to give them a synopsis of his faith. He then
told them in a clear manner his belief from the Scriptures. 10

Yet, in the trial report Dammon was quoted as saying:

… the day of grace had gone by, that the believers were reduced;
but that there was too many yet, and that the end of the world
would come within a week. 11

Among many others, Joel Doore testified:

… I have heard Brother Dammon preach that the day of grace

was over with sinners. Respondent said “that is my belief. 12

172
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

TIere can be absolutely NO doubt that Dammon’s

“belief from the scriptures,” as noted by Ellen White, was that
he taught the end of the world would come and that the “day of
grace was over with sinners.”
If Ellen Harmon was not party to these kinds of beliefs (not
to mention James White), and saw his teachings as unscriptural,
then why did she give such a glowing report of Dammon during
this whole episode? Surely, in light of the evidence from various
perspectives, anyone can see what the facts are.
Providing an insight into James White’s views, a year after
the Dammon incident and four days before he married Ellen
Harmon, he wrote to Brother Collins regarding “a congregation
of Congregationalists and Methodists,” whom he performed a
funeral service for. He wanted Brother Collins to be certain that
he was not “going to try to convert people to the Advent faith.
No; it’s too late. But it’s our duty on some occasions to give a
reason for our hope, I think, even to swine.” 13 If this was the
attitude of James White, then we have a clear window into what
Ellen Harmon’s attitude was too.
One other issue that I would like to bring out at this point
has to do with the actual arrest “episode.” This might not have
a direct bearing on Dammon’s teaching, per-se, yet it does have
a connection to whether he was “Spirit-filled” or not when
the men came to take him away. Here too, we will see some
incredible contradiction between the official account and that of
Ellen White. In her account of the arrest (quoted earlier) Ellen
White writes:
… They entered and rushed past me to Eld. Damman
[Dammon]. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon him, and his
strength was taken away, and he fell to the floor helpless.
The officer cried out, “In the name of the State of Maine, lay
hold of this man.” Two seized his arms, and two his feet, and
attempted to drag him from the room. They would move him
a few inches only, and then rush out of the house. The power

173
Brian Neumann

of God was in that room, and the servants of God with their
countenances lighted up with his glory, made no resistance.
The efforts to take Eld. D. were often repeated with the same
effect. The men could not endure the power of God, and it
was a relief to them to rush out of the house. Their number
increased to twelve, still Eld. D. was held by the power of
God about forty minutes, and not all the strength of those men
could move him from the floor where he lay helpless. At the
same moment we all felt that Eld. D. must go; that God had
manifested his power for his glory, and that the name of the
Lord would be further glorified in suffering him to be taken
from our midst. And those men took him up as easily as they
would take up a child, and carried him out. 14

Th e official account, a direct transcript given by the “officer of

the law,” stated:

… When I went to arrest prisoner, they shut the door against

me. Finding I could not gain access to him without, I burst
open the door. I went to the prisoner and took him by the hand
and told him my business. A number of women jumped on
to him—he clung to them, and they to him. So great was the
resistance, that I with three assistants, could not get him out.
I remained in the house and sent for more help; after they
arrived we made a second attempt with the same result—I
again sent for more help—after they arrived we overpow-
ered them and got him out door in custody. We were resisted
by both men and women. Can’t describe the place-it was one
continued shout. 15

TIe blatant contradictions between these two accounts are so

obvious that they hardly need an explanation. Ellen White
says that Elder Dammon was “held by the power of God for
forty minutes.” Th
e Officer of the law says that “he clung”
to

the “women” and the “women”

clung to “him” and

that

174
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

аФСеΑ
the arresting officers of the law, “were resisted by both

men and women.”
Who was telling the truth? In the case of the arrest, was Ellen
White’s description the honest to goodness truth? In the case of the
teachings on the day of grace being closed for sinners, the end of the
world, the fanatical atmosphere of the meeting, etc., was ONLY
Ellen White’s account truthful, in spite of the overwhelming
testimony of both prosecution and РСТСЪЯС witnesses?
What would any of them have gained at that time by bearing
false witness on all these counts? Firstly, they would have had
nothing to gain in misrepresenting Ellen Harmon. She was, at
that stage, an unknown entity. No one could have imagined what
she was to accomplish in the future. No one really had anything
to gain by misrepresenting Dammon regarding his doctrine.
Th e fact that the РСТСЪЯС and prosecution were generally in
agreement regarding basic aspects of his teaching, supported by
his own testimony at the trial, shows that there was no concerted
effort by people (for or against) to misrepresent the facts. If the
Spirit of God had truly been manifest in such a powerful manner,
then a lot more testimony to that effect would have been borne
at the trial. Surely, it would even have had a powerful effect on
the arresting officers, instilling in them the fear of the Lord. Bruce
Weaver makes some of the same observations in his Adventist
Currents article. He puts it like this:

Not only does Mrs. White contradict the arresting officer’s

account of what he and his men experienced, but her version
describes an event that clearly is beyond ordinary human expe-
rience. True or false, her version is fantastic. If Mrs. White was
accurately describing a supernatural event, then the response of
the people who witnessed or experienced it seems very unnat-
ural. Such a remarkable event certainly would have become
the focus of much attention. Yet not one of the many witnesses
for either the defence or the prosecution contradicts Sheriff
Moulton’s terse description of the arrest. 16

175
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Th e fact is, no one, including the officers (testifying under

oath) had anything to gain by bearing false witness. For Ellen
White to have been the only one telling the truth, on different
counts, and everyone else to have been false, a conspired and
concerted attempt between all witnesses would have had to have
taken place. Th e very fact that their testimony differed in certain
details is evidence that they were simply giving an account of
events as seen from individual perspective (the common factors
between РСТСЪЯС and prosecution witnesses bear this out). It
was not worth anyone’s reputation to go out on a limb for some
itinerant preacher and “visionist,” passing through town, people
whom they might never even see again.
Of course, there will be those who will vehemently disagree
with the conclusions drawn here. I would respond to this by saying
that it is interesting and an obvious indication of the serious
prejudice and blindness that exists in some quarters that anyone
who bears a testimony that contradicts Ellen White’s, regardless
of the evidence, is summarily and automatically considered to be
in the wrong—period.

The Shut Door

The teaching of Ellen White, regarding the shut door, and Israel
Dammon’s preaching that “the day of grace was over with
sinners,” are inextricably linked. Thus, it makes sense to include
an investigation into Ellen White’s teaching on this next.
I will initiate this by quoting the Preface from the book
Early Writings, first published in 1851 under the title: Christian
Experience and Views of Mrs. E. G. White. Portions from the
James White pamphlet, A Word to the Little Flock (May 1847), are
featured in both these publications. After quoting the Preface to
Early Writings I will proceed to make comparisons between that
which was published in the original (A Word to the Little Flock)
and the later publications.

176
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Footnotes giving dates and explanations, and an appendix

giving two very interesting dreams, which were mentioned
but not related in the original work, will add to the value of
this edition. Aside from these, no changes from the original
work have been made in the present edition, except the occa-
sional employment, of a new word, or a change in the construc-
tion of a sentence, to better express the idea, and no portion
of the work has been omitted. No shadow of change has been
made in any idea or sentiment of the original work, and the
verbal changes have been made under the author’s own eye,
and with her full approval. 17

From what I have highlighted in the text above it is obvious

that I want to bring the reader’s attention to how emphatic the
publishers are about how, under Ellen White, the author’s eye, they
have been faithful to the ORIGINAL text. To ascertain whether
this statement is indeed true or not, I will exhibit portions of the
“original” publication (A Word to the Little Flock) and Early
Writings (also published in Christian Experience and Views, 1851)
and make comparisons to see if any changes or deletions have
taken place. ξЪ
аФС
ЬХПабЮС
ЯСПаХЫЪ
ЫТ
аФХЯ
ОЫЫЧ
аФС
ЮСНРСЮ
гХШШ
ТХЪР

ЫЮХУХЪНШ
ПЫЬХСЯ
ЫТ
ζ
όЫЮР
аЫ
аФС
ρХааШС
λШЫПЧΔ Any sections that are
in question will be highlighted there. Added to this, for the
purpose of providing additional/secondary evidence, I will
exhibit excerpts from various other publications of those early
years such as Present Truth (1849-1850) and the James
White and H. S. Gurney’s, single sheet Broadside publication
(1846), among others.
In the May 1847 issue of A Word to the Little Flock,
James White published an article by his wife, Ellen White,
titled, “To the Remnant Scattered Abroad.” In this vision she saw
the “Advent” people аЮНвСШХЪУ on a long straight path, high
above the world, towards the “City” that was at the far end of
the path.

Behind
them
was a bright light which the angel told

177
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

κШШСЪ
όФХаС
гНЯ
аФС
“midnight cry.” TФis light, from the rear, shone

“along the path” so they would “not stumble.” “Jesus” was ahead,
leading them and as long as they kept their eyes focused on Him,
they were “safe.” Th ere were some, however, that got weary and
complained about the time it was taking to get to the City.
Others “denied” the light behind them and said it “was not God
that had led them.” Th e light behind them went out and they
“stumbled” and “fell off the path.”
A few things, relating to terminology and concepts, contained
in this text, need to be explained. This will enable the reader
to appreciate the context and thus give perspective as to the
significance this article would, specifically, have had for Adventists
of that era.
The title, To the Remnant Scattered Abroad, tells us that the
article was directly published for the benefit of those who had
been part of the Advent movement (Adventists during this time
were not Seventh-day Adventists but Millerites who had suffered
the great disappointment of October 22nd, 1844 and who, in
spite of the disappointment, had remained faithful, still looking
forward to the soon return of Christ).
Indeed, even the title of the pamphlet, A Word to the Little
Flock, clearly suggests a very specific/exclusive/remnant group of
readers. The term “midnight cry” was a specific reference to the
warning message given by the Millerites, leading up to October
22nd, 1844. The parable of the ten virgins and the bridegroom is what
inspired this title.
This portion of Scripture and how it related to the teachings
of the Adventists will also be considered in the process of our
evaluation. It is vital to understand these concepts so that one
can know (contextually) what mind-set the readers of that time
had. Later, when I refer back to aspects of the Dammon trial and
quote further material from Ellen White, the picture will become
even clearer.

178
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

TIe relevant portions of Ellen White’s article, in the

May 1847 edition of A Word to the Little Flock will be posted
below. Th
e highlighted sections are the parts that were
expunged when this article was printed later in Early
Writings and, earlier, in the 1851 publication, Christian
Experience and Views. TФese are the portions that clearly show
that Ellen White believed and taught that the door of mercy
had shut for the rest of the world after 1844.

… by raising His glorious right arm, and from His arm came
a light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted,
“Alleluia!” Others rashly denied the light behind them and said
that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind
them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they
stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the
path down into the dark and wicked world below. It was just
as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the
City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They
fell all the way along the path one after another, until…[the
word ‘Soon’ is added here to start the next sentence] we
heard the voice of God, like many waters…18

λХЮЯаШеΑ
Ха
ОСПЫЩСЯ
ХЩЩСРХНаСШе
НЬЬНЮСЪа
аФНа
аФС
υЮСТНПС
аЫ
κНЮШе

όЮХаХЪУЯ
гНЯ
ЪЫа
аЫаНШШе
ПНЪРХР
ХЪ
ЯНеХЪУΓ
“no changes from the
original work have been made in the present edition, except the
occasional employment, of a new word, or a change in the
construction of a sentence, to better express the idea, and no
portion of the work has been omitted. No shadow of change
has been made in any idea or sentiment of the original work …”
Of course, the Preface of Early Writings was referring to
Christian Experience and Views as being the “original” work from
which the vision was taken. So, it would then appear that the
publishers were not told by Ellen White (she certainly knew) or
those aware of the history, that Christian Experience and Views
was NOT the true ORIGINAL publication of these early visions.

179
Brian Neumann

Christian Experience and Views was an altered work, taken FROM

the ORIGINAL publication of her early visions, A Word to the
Little Flock. In 1 Selected Messages you can read Ellen White’s
1883 explanation of early statements (deletions, etc.). She says:
This we reprinted, as stated in the preface to Early Writings,
with only verbal changes from the original work. 19

She goes on to say that what they used as their reference for
Early Writings was actually Christian Experience and Views, “in
doing this,” she said, “we supposed that we had obtained
an exact copy of the earliest visions as first published.” 20
Th e earliest visions as first published could only have been
A Word to the Little Flock, or previously published materials,
such as James White and H. S. Gurney’s 1846, single sheet
Broadside publication of Ellen Harmon’s first vision and
Present Truth (11 numbers of this publication were printed).
She must have been aware of this. If not, then she was very
confused or was experiencing a serious bout of amnesia
concerning the earliest publications. TФus, instead of clarifying
the issue, she makes it even harder to comprehend. It would
certainly appear that she was not willing to be entirely
forthright about something. A bit later, on page 61 of 1 Selected
Messages, we read this comment:
“Th e articles given in Early
Writings did pass under my eye; and as the edition of Experience
and Views published in 1851 was the earliest which we possessed,
and as we had no knowledge of anything additional in papers
or pamphlets of earlier date, I am not responsible for the
omissions which are said to exist.” 21
How could she say that “we [herself included] had no
knowledge of anything additional in papers or pamphlets of
earlier date?” If she meant that they did not tangibly possess any
earlier publications then why give the impression they had “no
knowledge of anything” that had been published previously? Th e
point is, she DID know. She was aware of the 1847 publication
of Word to the Little Flock (even
if she did not
have a copy on
180
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

hand at the time) and thus, contrary to her avowal, would have,
PERSONALLY, been responsible for omissions as the articles
given in Early Writings DID pass under her eye.
Going back to page 60 of 1 Selected Messages, we re-read:
“This we reprinted, as stated in the preface to Early Writings,
with only verbal changes from the original work” (Word to the
Little Flock). No doubt, because there had been considerable
question about the deletions/changes, compared to the original,
Word to the Little Flock, she goes on to encourage all brethren,
who might have copies of her earliest views, to send them to her
without delay.
In the next paragraph, still on page 60 of 1 Selected Messages,
she goes on to say that she would not want to “withhold anything”
she has published and would “feel great satisfaction in giving to
the public every line of my writings that has ever been printed.”
The irony of it is that those early “lines,” deleted from what
was in the Word to the Little Flock, were never again republished
by Ellen White or the church (at least not outside of quoting
them in the context defensive statements). Was it because no
one ever sent her the copies she requested? Had she forgotten
the extra/deleted bits that God had shown her? Or was there,
perhaps, another more suspicious reason?
In the Advent Review of December 26, 1882, Elder G. I. Butler
published an article about the new book, Early Writings, under
the caption, A Book Long Desired:
These were the very first of the published writings of Sister
White. Many have greatly desired to have in their possession
all she has written for publication…So strong was the inter-
est to have these early writings reproduced that several years
ago the General Conference recommended by vote that they be
published. The volume under consideration is the result of this
interest. It meets a long-felt want…There is another interest-
ing feature connected with this matter. The enemies of this
cause, who have spared no pains to break down the faith of our

181
Brian Neumann

people in the testimonies of God’s Spirit and the interest felt in

the writings of Sister White, have made all the capital pos-
sible from the fact that her early writings were not attain-
able. They have said many things about our ‘suppressing’ these
writings, as if we were ashamed of them. Some have striven
to make it appear that there were something objectionable
about them, that we feared would come to the light of day,
and that we carefully kept them in the background. These
lying insinuations have answered their purpose in deceiv-
ing some unwary souls. They now appear in their real char-
acter, by the publication of several thousand copies of this
“suppressed” book, which our enemies pretend we were very
anxious to conceal. They have claimed to be very anxious to
obtain these writings to show their supposed error. They now
have the opportunity. 22

It is quite plain, Butler’s article (although published in the

Advent Review at the end of 1882), indicates that the brethren
were well aware that accusations regarding deletions were being
made. Th e issue must have been controversial and
important enough for them to not only make the statements
printed in the preface to Early Writings but important enough
to publish Butler’s article and have Ellen White offer her
explanations too.
One would think that every attempt would have been made
to obtain copies of earlier publications, such as A Word to the
Little Flock, so as to make sure that what they were using as
reference material was indeed the earliest copy. Ellen White,
as already mentioned, well knew that Christian Experience and
Views was not the earliest publication containing those early
visions. In light of all the controversy, why did she not say
something? Instead she allowed the brethren to publish all kinds
of denials and challenges that, should the facts become known,
as they now are, would arouse more than tentative suspicion
and make the situation even worse.

In the
end,

it
put
Ellen

182
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

όФХаС
ХЪ
аФС
ЬЫЯХаХЫЪ
гФСЮС
ЯФС
had to provide explanations, as

published in 1 Selected Messages that, all facts considered, really
made no sense at all.
Right on the heels of the Early Writings publication, Elder
A.
C. Long released a sixteen page tract entitled Comparison of

the Early Writings of Mrs. White with Later Publications. Here he

challenged the accusers with a tone of bravado and assurance

that, in light of the facts, is actually downright embarrassing.

He wrote:
From the above quotations we gather the following points:
First, these “Early Writings” of Mrs. White were published
under her eye, and with her full approval. Second, they con-
tain all her early visions. Third, those who have claimed that
certain portions of her early visions were “suppressed” are
liars, since they are now all republished. 23

TIe evidence being what it is it seems sheer madness to accuse

people of lying. Long’s comparisons and bold challenge did not
provide absolute verification of the facts. Instead, it puts Ellen
White right in the line of fire as she was the one who
approved everything, thus making it possible for them to say that
nothing had been suppressed. Added to this, it makes Long
look like a fool for not properly doing his homework.
One could forgive Long and the other brethren for perhaps
making a mistake in doing this because some of them might
genuinely have thought that the reference material they were
using was original. But this could not be so with Ellen White.
Was she unaware of the accusations being made? Obviously not.
In her explanation of things, published in 1 Selected Messages,
instead of just coming out and admitting that there had been
a genuine mistake (if indeed there had been) and offering an
apology, she attempts to give the impression of total innocence/
ignorance on her part. As shown earlier, after saying that they
were not aware of any previous pamphlets or papers she went on to

183
Brian Neumann

say, in reference to herself: “I am not responsible for the omissions

which are said to exist.”
The real question though is not about why there were deletions
in Early Writings. The primary question that people should
be asking is, why, in the first instance, were there deletions in
Christian Experience and Views? This was the earlier publication
copied directly from the actual original Word to the Little Flock.
Why were the deletions made at that earlier time (1851)?
Only a few years had gone by since the 1847 publication of
Word to the Little Flock. They must have had copies of this earlier
publication as they clearly used it as a reference for Christian
Experience and Views. The very fact they knew what to delete and
that it was, excluding deletions and a few adjustments, almost a
word for word copy of the visions published in A Word to the Little
Flock, is proof enough.
Additionally, it makes no sense that someone who was as
familiar with their own work as was Ellen White, who went
through the whole process of reprinting and editing her work for
the publication of Christian Experience and Views, would not, when
it came to the publication of Early Writings, recall anything about
the deletions made previously, saying, “we supposed that we had
obtained an exact copy of the earliest visions as first published.”
She was the author of those very visions and according to
her own statements about her published work, she ALWAYS
checked over EVERYTHING before it was sent to print.24
She would have known about deletions (very specific ones) in
Christian Experience and Views and would certainly, if total
transparency was her aim, have remembered and admitted to it
when answering questions in regard to these same “absentees” in
Early Writings. In any realistic, sensible situation, her comments
in defense of deletions give rise to cause for reasonable doubt.
More than that, they appear downright suspicious.
Why were deletions made? It could not have been an oversight
as anyone who knows anything about printing (especially in those

184
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

days), knows that letters were manually selected for each and
every word. A deletion of this nature could not have happened by
mistake. There is far more, besides, that was deleted from those
early visions, and so, as we continue dealing with the question of
“transparency,” the possible motives behind this, in light of the
shut door teaching, will become progressively clearer.
A few pages later, in 1 Selected Messages, p. 63, under the heading,
The Shut Door Defined, Ellen White gives further explanation.
However, in lieu of the substantial external evidence, which will
be shown, her attempts still leave a string of unanswered questions
in their wake. Indeed, they raise even more disturbing questions.
It is apparent, by the very title of her explanations, The Shut
Door Defined, that she was well aware that the changes/deletions
from the original work were raising questions regarding the
consistency of her teachings on the shut door (an apparent
departure from her early position). Even her reference to the
deleted portion, just before her explanation of the shut door issue,
tells one that as a result of leaving out certain key sections, people
were becoming suspicious, or at the very least, were concerned
that they perhaps had the wrong idea about what position Ellen
White really held in connection with this teaching.
The way in which Ellen White words her comment about the
deletions in Early Writings and Christian Experience and Views
(just before the section titled The Shut Door Defined), does not
help to allay the feeling of unease. She writes:

Now follows the passage said to be in the original work, but

not found in Experience and Views nor in Early Writings:
“It was just as impossible for them {those that gave up
their faith in the ‘44 movement} to get on the path again.”25

You will notice that she was specifically referring to the

expunged portion we have already looked at and connects it to
the post 1844 believers—she knew exactly what issues people
were
dealing

with.

What
is
interesting
is
that
she

uses

the

185
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

ЬФЮНЯСΑ
“said to be,” in reference to the deletion. Why, if she

was the author, herself, did she need to say said to be? Ellen
White, of all people, knew very well that it WAS in the original
work.
Why did she not simply say: Now follows the passage found in
the original work…? Said to be, leaves one with the impression that
it was said to be, yet might not be or that she did not remember if
it was. On its own, this wording might not seem too significant.
But, when one considers everything else motivating questions
on this subject, then inflictions, potential insinuations and other
word-choices, become important items on the evidence.
When someone starts to leave whole portions out of something
that was so vitally important (in its entire, original construction),
information given directly by God in vision, and then as a result of
leaving things out, resorts to lengthy clarification, it would
appear that SOMETHING is NOT on the level. If the
WHOLE vision was relevant (one would think that anything
revealed by God in all its ramifications would be), then why
leave ANYTHING out at all, especially when it can alter the
understanding of an entire belief
?
Why was an explanation, regarding deletions/changes, not
given in the 1851 publication of Christian Experience and Views,
where practically all of her contribution to A Word to the Little
Flock (May 1847) were repeated? Was it because it was hoped
that no one would notice? Why were these select/particular
portions expunged? Was it simply coincidence that all the deleted
parts related to a more drastic teaching on the shut door? Could
it be because the portions in question would, as already alluded
to, inspire ХЪЭбХЮе regarding the teachings of Ellen White that
now, since the passing of time and “development of views,”
would appear to be contradictory and in support of a previously
more “far-reaching” shut door theory?
With these questions ringing in our ears, let’s consider some
other portions of her visions, not found in later publications.

186
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

One of the most important publications of that early period

(1849-1850), was the Present Truth paper, issued from
various locations in the East. An extensive vision of Ellen
White’s was published in the August 1849 issue and was
reproduced in Early Writings, page 34-37, with the exception of
the portion exhibited below, relating to reformations in other
churches since 1844:
But from bad to worse; for those who professed a change of
heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb which
covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to
have been really converted, so as to deceive God’s people; but if
their hearts could be seen, they would appear as black as ever. 26

And in case the above quotation is not clear enough, the

following exhibit, taken from page 64 of the same Present
Truth edition, not appearing in Early Writings, will make it
plain as day (note the shut door reference):
The excitements and false reformations of this day do not
move us, for we know that the Master of the house rose up in
1844, and shut the door of the first apartment of the heav-
enly tabernacle; and now we certainly expect that they will go
with their flocks to seek the Lord; but they shall not find him;
he hath withdrawn himself [within the second veil] from
them. The Lord has shown me that the power that is with
them is a mere human influence and not the power of God. 27

ξЪ
the account of this vision, to bolster her position with

apparent biblical evidence, Ellen White quotes Hosea the prophet:
They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the
Lord; but they shall not find [him]; he hath withdrawn himself
from them. They have dealt treacherously against the Lord: for
they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour
them with their portions. Hosea 5:6, 7

187
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Elder J. N. Loughborough, in his book Th e Great Second Advent

Movement, page 263, 1905 edition (quoted in an earlier chapter
of this book), desired to give Elder Joseph Bates’ testimony
concerning Mrs. White. He quoted page 21 of A Word to the
Little Flock, printed in 1847:

I believe the work [of Mrs. White] is of God, and is given to

comfort and strengthen his scattered, torn and peeled people,
since the closing up of our work…in October, 1844. 28

It will be noticed that he inserted three dots, indicating that

something had been left out. Something was indeed left out,
only three words that, when included; make a difference as to
how one would interpret the statement. Below is the quote, as
published in A Word to the Little Flock, with the expunged words
emphasized:
I believe the work [of Mrs. White] is of God, and is given to com-
fort and strengthen his scattered, torn and peeled people, since the
closing up of our work for the world in October, 1844. 29

Bates and Elder White, including Ellen White, who published

the tract in 1847, believed that the work for the world closed up
in October 1844. Loughborough tried to hide this fact by
leaving it out of his book.
Clearly, as one looks at later publications of those early visions,
it becomes obvious that a deliberate attempt was made to delete
portions that risked leading people back to Ellen’s earlier shut
door teaching. One deletion, Perhaps, from some early account,
could be viewed as insignificant. But, when, time and time again,
deleted segments relate to the same topic, it becomes a totally
different story.
It appears to be quite clear that after the passing of the great
disappointment on October 22nd, 1844, Ellen Harmon did believe
that probation had closed for “all the wicked world.” Indeed, in

188
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

1874, she admitted in a letter to J.N. Loughborough, that “after

the time passed in ‘44, I did believe no more sinners would be
converted” 30 (according to her this period of time only lasted
till her first vision was given). Yet, while making the foregoing
admission, Mrs. White attempts this categorical denial:

I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted,

and I am clear and free to state no one has ever heard me say
or has read from my pen statements which will justify them
in the charges they have made against me upon this point. 31

In view of what has been shown over and over again in this
chapter, concerning what the Lord had revealed to Ellen Harmon
in vision, published as Divine revelation and then selectively
deleted in later printings, would make it seem that there is ample
justification for the charges made. Th e ones who had made
the charges, referred to in her statement above, were friends
and acquaintances from those early years. Th at which is
revealed in their testimony (whether friend or foe) only serve to
consolidate the evidence inherent in her very own work—in that
which was printed and later expunged. Th eir recollections seem
to be very lucid on EXACTLY what Ellen Harmon believed
and taught regarding the Shut Door. Israel Dammon said:

It has been some twenty years since we were associated with

Mrs. W., but we remember very perfectly that her first
visions, or vision, was told both by herself and others (especially
by Mrs. W.) in connection with the preaching of the shut door,
and went to substantiate the same. 32

John Megquier remembered the first time Ellen Harmon

related her first vision, away from her home in Portland. He
recalled this event happening in January 1845 at Megquier Hill:

189
Brian Neumann

ϔмщяю
ютп
руьэю
ѐуэущшэ
ютлю
этп
тло
ёпьп
лю
чѓ
тщяэп
уш

ϣщцлшоβ
Ϧтп
элуо
Ϛщо
тло
ющцо
тпь
уш
ѐуэущш
ютлю
ютп
ощщь
щр

чпьнѓ
had closed, and there was no more chance for the
world, and she would tell who had got spots on their
garments; and those spots were got on by questioning her
visions, whether they were of the Lord or not.33
In his Adventist Currents, Vol. 3, article, Bruce Weaver writes:

Mrs. Lucinda S. Burdick met Ellen Harmon several times in

1845 at her uncle’s house in South Windham, Maine. Mrs.
Burdick recalled that during one of Miss Harmon’s visions
“her position upon the ground seemed so uncomfortable that I
placed her head in my lap and supported her thus throughout
the event.” Wrote Mrs. Burdick:
“Ellen...said God had shown her in vision that Jesus
Christ arose on the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844,
and shut the door of mercy; had left forever the mediato-
rial throne; the whole world was doomed and lost, and there
never could be another sinner saved....I have been told that
they deny on this [west] coast that she ever saw the door of
mercy closed; but there are thousands of living witnesses who
know that a blacker lie could not be invented, and I am one of
the number.” 34
Pastor I.C. Wellcome, who was rebaptized by James White,
remembered that he “several times caught her [Miss Harmon],
while she was falling to the floor, at times when she swooned
away for a vision.” 35
“I have heard her relate her visions... Several were pub-
lished on sheets [he probably refers to the early broadside,
To the Little Remnant Scattered Abroad] 36 to the effect
that all were lost who did not endorse the ‘44 move, that
Christ had left the throne of mercy, and all were sealed that
ever would be, and no others could repent. She and James
taught this one or two years.” 37
Although these four witnesses contradict Mrs. White’s
1874 statement in which she says “I never had a vision that
no more sinners would be converted, and...no one has heard me

190
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

say or has read from my pen such statements,” it is not a case

of their word versus hers. It is Mrs. White versus Mrs. White.
Twenty-seven years earlier–on July 13, 1847–while she still
believed in an irrevocably shut door, Ellen White had written
to Joseph Bates about a vision she had received in February
1845 on her first missionary journey:
“While in Exeter, Maine, in meeting with Israel Dammon,
James, and many others, many of them did not believe in a
shut door...It was then I had a view of Jesus rising from His
mediatorial throne and going to the holiest as Bridegroom to
receive His kingdom...Most of them received the vision, and
were settled upon the shut door.” 38

Ellen White writes to Bates that she did have “a view of Jesus
rising from His mediatorial throne and going to the holiest as
the Bridegroom to receive His kingdom.” She does not, however,
make the more categorical statements, recalled by witnesses, that
no more sinners would be converted. Based on Bates testimony of
Ellen White, 39 it is clear that he knew her full position on this
question. Clearly, all these witnesses agree that she DID connect
the idea that “Christ had left the throne of mercy, and all were
sealed that ever would be, and no others could repent,” with the
shut door teaching.40
Incredulously, defenders of Ellen White will deny any and all
accounts of this class of witnesses, branding them as enemies of
the truth, regardless of overwhelming evidence and consistency
of their testimony, concluding that ONLY Ellen White’s account
and that of the “faithful,” can be trusted.
It should be understood, however, that witnesses who were
present in those early years were not consulting with one another in
some sort of conspiracy, aimed at undermining Ellen White. They
were simply individuals, sharing their recollection of what Ellen
Harmon believed and taught—based on her direct revelations
from God. Some might have been confused, disappointed or
angry, especially when it seemed that she was, now in later years,

191
Brian Neumann

retracting what she originally taught—denying that she ever

believed or said it at all. But, does this automatically mean they
(all these individual witnesses) are lying? The defenders of Ellen
White seem to think so, in spite of blatant contradictions in her
own statements. Bruce Weaver continues:

By 1883 Mrs. White not only denied having had a vision that
“no more sinners would be converted,” but she now added the
contradiction that her visions had disabused the little band of
their shut-door error.
“For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold,
in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was
then forever closed to the world. This position was taken
before my first vision was given me. It was the light given
me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the
true position.” 41

NOTE: The time-frame aspect of this above statement

cannot either be true as evidence shows that for years
after 1844 and her first vision, the testimony of various
non-collaborating witnesses and the specific deletions in
later works, that Ellen White believed and taught that the
door of mercy had been shut for the world. Bruce Weaver
continues:

Five times witnesses (two friendly, one unfriendly) at the

Dammon trial attributed to Ellen Harmon the specific words
“go to hell” as the option afforded individuals at the James
Ayer, Jr. home who either would not “be baptized,” “be bap-
tized again,” or “forsake all their friends.” It is clear from
her vision at Oswego, New York (29 July 1850) that Ellen
White believed those who would not be rebaptized were lost.
But some Adventists–who won’t mind the unbiblical theology
involved–ironically, might be troubled to learn that she would
use the expression “go to hell.”

192
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

In July of 1874 Mrs. Burdick recalled that Miss Harmon had

used the expressions “doomed and damned” to describe the
whole world after 1844, and to describe individuals “as soon
as they took a stand against” her visions.42
Th e next month, in a private letter to J.N.
Loughborough, Mrs. White denied Burdick’s statement:
“I never have under any circumstances used this language
to anyone, however sinful. I have ever had messages of reproof
for those who used these harsh expressions... I have never stated
that this one or that one was doomed or damned. I never had
a testimony of this kind for anyone. I have ever been shown
that God’s people should shun these strong expressions which
are peculiar to the first-day Adventists.”43
In the third issue of The Present Truth, Ellen White
appears to have slipped while recounting a vision and to
have used one of these “strong expressions” so “peculiar to the
first-day Adventists”:
“I saw that Satan was working through agents, in a
number of ways. He was at work through ministers, who have
rejected the truth [that 22 October 1844 was an eschatologi-
cally crucial date], and are given over to strong delusions to
believe a lie that they might be damned.” 44
Usually, however, Mrs. White got across the same mes-
sage through euphemisms such as “spots on their garments,” or
“hearts...as black as ever,” or “forever lost.” 45
It does seem clear that Mrs. White was denying only the
use of certain expressions; she did not deny having told indi-
viduals (or a class of people) that they were, or would be, lost.
She was very clear that William Miller’s associates, who did
not maintain their faith in the shut door and adopt the sev-
enth-day Sabbath, were all lost. 46
In fact, the day following a vision given in late 1850 at
Paris, Maine, she wrote of “Laodiceans” who had “said the
shut door was of the devil,....They shall die the death.” Why?

193
Brian Neumann

Because, she explained, “the sin against the Holy Ghost was to
ascribe to Satan...what the Holy Ghost had done.” 47

Rebaptism—Further Evidence on the Shut Door

Question
Defense and prosecution witnesses at the Dammon trial (refer
to entire account earlier in chapter) testified that Ellen Harmon
presented some individuals with agonizing alternatives: they
could undergo immediate baptism, in freezing cold water, or “go
to hell.” Loton Lambert told the court that: “she [his cousin] must
be baptized that night or go to hell–she objected, because she had
once been baptized.” 48
Lambert also recounted Ellen Harmon, directing a rebuke to
Joel Doore, as saying: “he had doubted, and would not be baptized
again–she said Bro. Doore don’t go to hell. Doore kneeled to her
feet and prayed.” 49
Isley Osborn testified that Harmon: “told them their cases
had been made known to her by the Lord, and if they were not
baptized that evening, they would go to hell.” 50
Ellen Harmon, herself, was first baptized at the age of fourteen
on June 26th, 1842, in Casco Bay. Later on, early in her ministry,
she was rebaptized by James White. 51 She obviously believed and
preached this right into the 1850’s because on July 19th, 1850, in
Oswego, New York, she was shown by God that those who, since
1844 had not kept the 7th Day Sabbath, would:

...have to go into the water and be baptized in the faith of the

shut door and keeping the commandments of God and in the
faith of Jesus coming to sit on the throne of his Father David
and to redeem Israel.
I also saw those who have been baptized as a door into the
professed churches [she also referred to them as the “fallen
denominational churches”] will have to be baptized out of
that door again, into the faith mentioned above [the shut

194
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

door], and all who have not been baptized since ‘44 will have
to be baptized again before Jesus comes and some will not
gain progress now until that duty is done. 52

It would appear that by this time, Ellen White was starting to

back away from the more radical opinion that all those who were
not part of the “Advent” message were lost—the rest of the
world. Th e opportunity, via rebaptism, was now becoming an
option—for individual people coming out of the other churches
into the “faith.” Indeed, she finally ended up teaching that the
door was shut on the institutions but not the individual
members.
In later years she backed so far away from her original teaching
on this that she entirely contradicted her earlier position, given
her while in vision, (“I was shown” was one of her ТНвЫЮХаС
indicants that God had given her direct light). Apparently the
“new” positions were also direct revelations from the Lord:
Several...of our ministers I was shown were making a mis-
take... [by] making a test question of rebaptism. This is not
the way that the subject should be treated...These good brethren
were not bringing those newly come to the faith along step by
step, cautiously and guardedly, and ...some were turned from
the truth, when a little time and tender, careful dealing with
them would have prevented all such sad results. 53

TIis, in and of itself, based on her own contradictory testimony,

is evidence that Ellen White DID originally hold a more
radical teaching on the shut door which she gradually moved
further and further away from with the passing of time. In
fact, it was the passing of time that made it impossible for people
to continue holding to a teaching that was potentially
excluding all new generations of children being born from
salvation—the whole idea simply made no sense.
TIe majority of people who had any idea of 1844 and its
significance, lived in North America (barring a few other
places

195
Brian Neumann

in the Western World). Even in North America, their numbers

were, relative to the population, very few. The entire planet was
in total ignorance concerning anything relating to this message.
The “gospel of the kingdom” had certainly NOT been preached
in ALL the world YET.
Because of this reality and other considerations, it was
impossible for an elect little group in the USA to continue
holding on to the teaching that all the world was lost—that the
door of probation had closed on them and the time for salvation
had passed.
There is little doubt that supporters of Ellen White would
view even the suggestions made in this chapter, as something
close to blasphemy. But, let’s not forget, the Bible commands
seekers for truth to test the prophets.
The SDA Church, since its rise, perhaps more so than any
other Christian denomination, makes a point of studying and
testing the beliefs of other faiths. Whole studies are dedicated
to revealing the false teachings of the papal system, comparing
statements of popes with Bible teaching and historical data,
etc., so as to prove that the Church of Rome is the first beast
in Revelation thirteen or the little horn of Daniel seven—the
antichrist power. The lies and deceptions of other religions are
boldly offered as proof that they are counterfeit. Those who do
studies into founders and prophets of other churches, revealing
them as false, such as Joseph Smith of the Mormons or Mary Baker
Eddy of Christian Science, etc., are applauded for their work. Yet,
when this same methodology is applied to the work of Ellen
White it is not, for the most part, tolerated (especially from
within the church) and is seen as totally irresponsible, as if it
were an attack on God Himself.
There is little doubt that conscious and blatant suppression
of the facts, regarding Ellen White and her shut door teaching
have occurred, not to mention a host of contradictions that have
come from the pen and voice of leadership in the church over the

196
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

years. The more the brethren have attempted to hide the facts,
the larger the monster they have created has become, until it has
finally returned to bite them.
Ironically, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the SDA
Sabbath School Quarterly, entitled Gift from Jesus, could state that,
“The inspired counsels were not altered as they passed from the
handwritten drafts to the printed page.” 54
In some cases, perhaps not, but they were certainly altered
from publication to publication in a very deliberate and calculated
manner. This is an irrefutable fact. More evidence regarding these
types of practices will be presented in the following chapters.

SOURCES
1. Devoted to politics, agriculture, literature, morals, temperance, news.
Vol. 3 Dover Maine, Friday Morning, March 7, 1845 No. 31.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Otis Nichols to William Miller, April 20, 1846. Quoted in, 1Bio–
Ellen G. White: The Early Years, 1827-1862, Volume 1, by Arthur
L. White, p. 76.
6. Ibid, p.75- 76 (Italics & Emphasis supplied).
7. Ibid, p. 73.
8. Ibid, p. 76.
9. Adventist Currents, Vol. 3, Number 1, 1988, by Bruce Weaver.
Emphasis supplied.
10. Spiritual Gifts, Volume 2 (1860) p.39-42, Ellen G. White empha-
sis supplied.
11. Devoted to politics, agriculture, literature, morals, temperance, news.
Vol. 3 Dover Maine, Friday Morning, March 7, 1845 No. 31.
12. Ibid. Emphasis supplied.
13. James White to “My Dear Brother Collins,” 26 August, 1846.
www.nonegw.org/israel_article.shtml.
14. Spiritual Gifts, Volume 2 (1860) p.39-42, Ellen G. White empha-
sis supplied.
15. Devoted to politics, agriculture, literature, morals, temperance, news.
Vol. 3 Dover Maine, Friday Morning, March 7, 1845 No. 31.
16. Adventist Currents, Vol. 3, Number 1, 1988, by Bruce Weaver.
Emphasis supplied.
17. Preface, Early Writings, Ellen G. White (Emphasis supplied)
18. ‘A Word to the Little Flock,’ p. 14, May 1847. Also in ‘Early
Writings,’ p. 15 & ‘Christian Experience and Views of Mrs. E. G.
White.’ p. 57 1851 , by Ellen G. White (emphasis supplied).
19. 1 Selected Messages, page 60
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid, p. 61.
22. Advent Review, December 26 1882, Elder G. I. Butler article
about Early Writings, under the caption, A Book Long Desired.
Emphasis supplied.
23. Elder A. C. Long, sixteen page tract entitled: ‘Comparison of
the Early Writings of Mrs. White with Later Publications.’
Emphasis supplied.
24. 3 Selected Messages, p. 90-91.
25. 1 Selected Messages, p. 62 (emphasis supplied).
26. Present Truth, August 1849, p. 21-24 (italics supplied).
27. Ibid (emphasis supplied).
28. The Great Second Advent Movement, page 263, 1905 edition,
Elder J. N. Loughborough.
29. Word to the Little Flock, p.21.
30. White to Loughborough, 24 August 1874.
31. 1 Selected Messages, p. 74 (emphasis supplied).
32. Israel Dammon, The World’s Crisis, 1 July 1874. Emphasis supplied.
33. John Megquier, The World’s Crisis, 1 July 1874. Emphasis supplied.
34. Lucinda S. Burdick, The World’s Crisis, 1 July 1874.
Emphasis supplied.
35. Isaac C. Wellcome, History of the Second Advent Message, p. 403.
36. James White, publisher, 6 April 1846.
37. Isaac C. Wellcome, The World’s Crisis, 1 July 1874.
Emphasis supplied.
38. This letter is reproduced in Ellen White’s handwriting in
Adventist Currents 1 ( July 1984), pp. 13-15. Adventist Currents,
Vol. 3, Number 1, 1988, by Bruce Weaver (emphasis supplied).
39. Elder J. N. Loughborough, The Great Second Advent Movement,
page 263, 1905 edition.
40. Isaac C. Wellcome, The World’s Crisis, 1 July 1874.
41. 1 Biographical Books—Ellen White: The Early Years Vol. 1 (1827-
1862), By Arthur L. White, 1985, p. 259, 260. Emphasis supplied.
42. Burdick, Crisis, 1 July 1874. Emphasis supplied.
43. White to Loughborough, 24 August 1874.
44. Ellen White, The Present Truth 1 (August 1849), p. 21-22.
Emphasis supplied.
45. Megquier, Crisis, 1 July 1874; White, The Present Truth, (August
1849), p. 22; White to Eli Curtis, A Word to the Little Flock (30
May 1847), p. 12. Emphasis supplied.
46. White, Early Writings, pp. 257-258. Emphasis supplied.
47. Ellen White vision given 24 December 1850, written 25
December 1850, published in Adventist Currents 1 June 1985,
p. 9. Adventist Currents, Vol. 3, Number 1, 1988, by Bruce Weaver.
Emphasis supplied.
48. Devoted to politics, agriculture, literature, morals, temperance, news.
Vol. 3 Dover Maine, Friday Morning, March 7, 1845 No. 31.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. S.D.A. Encyclopedia, p. 1585; James White, Life Incidents, p. 273.
52. Ellen White, Oswego vision, 29 July 1850 (Advent Source
Collection). Emphasis supplied.
53. Evangelism, p. 375 / Letter 56, 1886. Emphasis supplied.
54. SDA Sabbath School Quarterly, ‘Gift from Jesus,’ p. 59.
Emphasis supplied.
 Chapter VI

Here a Little, There a Little

From where…to White …?

But the word of the Lord was unto them

precept upon precept, precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line; here a little,
[and] there a little; that they might go,
and fall backward, and be broken,
and snared, and taken.

—Isaiah 28:13

I
n 1953 Pacific Press Publishing Association released a book
written by Gladys King-Taylor titled, “Literary Beauty of Ellen
G. White’s Writings.” The first paragraph to the introduction
of this book states:

Literature is remembered and appreciated according to the

extent to which it may be lived or experienced. The Conflict
of the Ages series by Ellen G. White deals with a subject that
touches the life of every human being. No individual can
rightly claim to have escaped contact with the struggle between
good and evil, both within himself and between himself and
his surroundings. 1

203
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

After writing about the general use to which the Conflict of the
Ages series is dedicated and comparing their purpose to classic
literary landmarks such as Bunyen’s Pilgrims Progress and Milton’s
Paradise Lost, King-Taylor tells us that the function of her book is
to analyze the “style” and “appropriateness to the purpose” that
Ellen White’s Conflict of the Ages were “designed to serve.” 2
In the final paragraph of the introduction she writes: “… the
writer seeks in this study to verify the validity of Mrs. White’s
rhetorical style and to establish for it certain values as to the
qualities of clearness, force, and beauty.” 3
Gladys King-Taylor’s book was designed to show how, Ellen
Harmon, an uneducated girl, through Divine aid and diligent
reading and study, was ultimately able to generate a triumph
of literature in the production of her definitive Conflict of the
Ages series.
King-Taylor’s book, no doubt, helped endorse the idea that
the “inspired writings” were made possible, in literary genius and
factual/historical content, through Divine involvement, helping
to elevate Ellen White’s literary achievements to legendary status.
Decades ago, generational SDA’s heard much about this
legend, until about three decades ago, when the Adventist
world was rocked by the release of another literary offering that
called Ellen White’s published accomplishments into serious
question—Th e White Lie, by Walter Rea
A court-case ensued, intended to refute the claim that Ellen
White plagiarized much of her work from other authors without
giving credit. The SDA Church’s “victory” in this court-case was
publicized as a major coup d’état, apparently exonerating Ellen
White of literary-fraud charges brought against her. It seemed, at
least to the general SDA membership, that everything had been
sorted out—case closed. But was this in fact so? Had the court
drama, in the ethical and not purely “legal” sense, laid the charges
to rest? Was it a triumph in the proper sense or simply a triumph
obtained on the basis of legal technicalities rather than bona-fide,

204
ethical exoneration? After all, for the Christian, is this not where
it should matter the most? Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t
The truth is, on the level where it really counted, the issue
had not been laid to rest—far from it. The effects still reverberate
through the SDA Church today. Many, leadership and laity alike,
who decided to study and prove things for themselves, rather
than rely on the official/unofficial channels of SDA publicity,
came to conclusions that were, for many, life-changing in
their repercussions.
This chapter of The White Elephant takes us on an updated and
reevaluated investigation into the issue of Ellen White’s “literary
borrowing.” What unfolds may well resurrect the question as to
whether Ellen White was a literary prodigy or a literary fraud.
Was the here a little, there a little the result of revelation from
God, biblical precept upon precept, line upon line, or was the here a
little, there a little the result of much scrounging from other more
accomplished writers?
In this segment of the book we will give ear to Walter Rea’s
claims (taken mostly from his book The White Lie) along with
evidence that has come to light more recently, connected to and
independent to what was revealed in his work.
Considering that we are dealing with the issue of plagiarism, it
might be wise to examine a definition of this act as found in one
edition of Webster’s dictionary:

τЪС
аФНа
ЬбЮШЫХЪЯ
аФС
гЮХаХЪУЯ
ЫТ
НЪЫаФСЮ
НЪР
ЬбаЯ
аФСЩ
ЫТТ
НЯ

ФХЯ
ЫгЪΔΕωФС
НЬЬЮЫЬЮХНаХЫЪ
ЫЮ
ХЩХаНаХЫЪ
ЫТ
аФС
ШНЪάУбНУСΑ

ХРСНЯΑ
НЪР
аФЫбУФаЯ
ЫТ
НЪЫаФСЮ
НбаФЫЮΑ
НЪР
ЮСЬЮСЯСЪаНаХЫЪ
ЫТ

аФСЩ
НЯ
ЫЪСΛЯ
ЫгЪ
ЫЮХУХЪНШ
гЫЮЧΔΕ
ωФС
НПа
ЫТ
ЬбЮloining
another man’s literary works or introducing passages from
another man’s writings and putting them off as one’s
own; literary thief. 4

Having a proper definition already provides a standard by

which something can be classified—does it fit the classification
or not?

205
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

Fitting the definition does not automatically, in a legal

sense, pronounce someone guilty of the crime. In a trial many
other factors, such as legal loopholes, weak arguments by the
prosecution, etc., might influence the jury’s final verdict. However,
the definition in this case provides a standard to which the ethics
of the act can be compared. It is on the level of ethics where the
acts of a prophet of God should primarily be brought to trial.
Accountability, in the sense of being beyond reproach, where the
work of the gospel is not risked or tainted by something that
could be construed as dishonesty, is where the real test comes in.
TIe argument presented by some that Ellen White was not
guilty of plagiarism, because neglecting to give credit was not
against the law in her day, holds no water on an ethical level.
When seen this way, plenty of room is left for people to discredit
her prophetic calling and in so doing discredit the work of God.
In light of the claim that God had revealed such incredible
insight via dreams, visions and impressions of the Holy Spirit,
it should be even MORE imperative that the prophet clearly
designate that which was an act of divine revelation as opposed
to that which was simply taken from another mortal. Even if, as
she claimed, God showed her what to borrow, it should have been
identified (right from the first instance of “borrowing”) so as not
to risk the possibility of bringing future disrepute to God’s work.
In view of the fact that the best authors, even prior to and in
Ellen White’s day, referenced works that they borrowed from (to
be ethically correct), she should have done so too. Ellen White
and her publishers were not ignorant of this practice, as will be
shown later in this chapter.
The problem that arises, especially under the claim of divine
revelation, is that when one blends the work of other authors
with that which was supposedly revealed by God (appropriating
or imitating the language, ideas, and thoughts of another author,
according to dictionary definition), without providing distinction,
it creates the impression for the reader that he/she is reading a

206
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

pure revelation from God, when in fact this is not so. Once this is
discovered, as it has been in the case of Ellen White, it immediately
raises the question of honesty and transparency—ethics.
In the introduction to his book, The White Lie, WalterRea poses
five important questions that are worth considering. He asks:

ӓΔ Why did Ellen change most, if not all, of the copied

author’s speculations and suppositions into absolutes, so
that
the copy work made it appear that she was always on
the scene
of action in some “visionary” form, when obvi-ously she
wasn’t?
ӔΔ How do the footnotes and Bible texts she copied as fillers
from others meet the criteria established for inspiration?
ӕΔ How do the abuse and misuse of others’ material on an
extensive scale fit into the ethics of either her time or ours?
ӖΔ Inasmuch as the extent of the copy work makes it cer-
tain that for Ellen to have done it all herself was humanly
impossible, who among her helpers gets the credit for her
“inspiration”?

ӗΔ Whose authority are we now dealing with? 5

ωФСЯС
НЮС
ЭбСЮХСЯ
аФНа
РХЮСПаШе
ЮСШНаС
аЫ
аФС
ХЯЯбС
ЫТ
СаФХПЯΔ
ζЯ
we
consider the evidence, in the form of exhibits and evaluation,
these basic questions will, in one way or another arise again
and again.

207
Brian Neumann

THE HIGH SHELF

In Chapter 5 of Walter Rea’s White Lie he gives an account of
how John Milton’s 1667 poem, Paradise Lost was given to Ellen
White by J. N. Andrews after he heard her account of the Great
Controversy vision. Rea writes:

J. N. Andrews had taken a copy of Paradise Lost to Ellen White

when he recognized that her account of the “Great controversy”
was similar to that of John Milton in his epic poem of 1667.
According to Arthur L. White, she had put it up on a “high
shelf” and not read it.…6

Rea goes on to tell how, ultimately, Paradise Lost became the

central theme in the Spirit of Prophecy volumes:

The years of 1860 through the 1880 s were busy years for Ellen
and her staff. Perhaps remembering the book given to her by
J.N. Andrews, she got Paradise Lost down from that “high
shelf” and went to work on her vision of the great controversy-
which was to become the theme of not only one book but the
entire four volumes of The Spirit of Prophecy (predecessor of
the Conflict of the Ages Series).
John Milton’s Paradise Lost was a great help to her. His
ideas of the fight for justice in the courts above, as well as some
of his very words, were woven into a fabric so vivid that even
today some people have nightmares reading it. Ellen’s story
expands the Milton poem and takes in not only the war in
heaven but the war on earth, from beginning to end. Satan
is mostly in charge, dashing here and there in human events,
wherever God might allow, and causing a general mess, until
he gets his comeuppance in the seven last plagues, the destruc-
tion of the earth, and the final curtain call, the lake of fire.
Now this may all sound familiar to some-and it was.
Others, including the Canon, had used this theme to a greater

208
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

or lesser degree But Ellen’s readers were to come to think that

her portrayals were brighter and clearer and more authentic
than all that went before. The Review and other Adventist
advertising journals were to herald her writings and “visions”
as the greatest thing going. Thus, lo and behold people began to
buy. The early first volume of The Spirit of Prophecy (1870)
was to follow the general outline of her previous printing of the
small Spiritual Gifts—but with much “expansion.” 7

However, the reaching for that proverbial “high shelf
” was

not only restricted to the material that went into her theological
works. Ellen White’s ability to extrapolate materials from other
authors became more and more adept with the passing of time
and covered a widening array of topics. While she admitted
reading these other authors it was, supposedly, always done after
“being shown” and written out by her. According to Rea:

It was not only in theology that Ellen saw things others may or
may not have seen before. She began to get into health matters
at this time. In this subject, again as with Milton’s Paradise
Lost, that “high shelf ” was a help. Some of her contemporaries
at this time were writers on the subject of health, like Jackson,
Trall, Coles, Shew, Graham, Alcott, and others She had more
than a casual acquaintance with some, and there was talk of
not returning what she had taken-which according to a dic-
tionary would be stealing. To this criticism she replied:
It was at the house of Brother A. Hillard, at Otsego,
Michigan, June 6, 1863, that the great subject of Health
Reform was opened before me in a vision. I did not visit
Dansville till August, 1864, fourteen months after I had the
view. I did not read any works upon health until I had writ-
ten “Spiritual Gifts,” vol. iii and iv, “Appeal to Mothers,”
and had sketched out most of my six articles in the six num-
bers of “How to Live,” and I did not know that such a paper
existed as the Laws of Life, published at Dansville, New
York. I had not heard of the several works upon health writ-

209
Brian Neumann

ten by Dr. J. C. Jackson, and other publications at Dansville,

at the time I had the view named above.
As I introduced the subject of health to friends where
I labored in Michigan, New England, and in the State of
New York, and spoke against druas 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 Doctors Trall,
Jackson, and others. Have you read that paper and those
works?” My reply was that I had not, neither should I read
them till I had fully written out my view, lest it should be
said that I had received my light upon the subject of health
from physicians and not from the Lord.
Others, as before in the case of Paradise Lost, were to
suggest:
The information that came to Mrs. White from the
Author of Truth, was bound to be in agreement with such
truths as had been discovered by others.
Ellen was to say, as Grandson Arthur would imply nearly
a hundred years later, that she got the “truths” first—even
though subsequent studies might show that the ideas were
the same and that the language expressing them was much
the same as others had used first. It might have been the old
argument of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Ellen said:
And after I had written my six articles for “How to
Live,” I then searched the various works on hygiene and
was surprised to find them so nearly in harmony with what
the Lord had revealed to me. And to show this harmony, and
to set before my brethren and sisters the subject as brought
out by able writers, I determined to publish “How to Live,”
in which I largely extracted from the works referred to [ital-
ics added].
Ronald L. Numbers, in Prophetess of Health, does a com-
mendable job of showing that Ellen’s “extracted” parts made
up much of the whole, and that in some cases the whole was

210
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

more than the sum of the parts—an equation that is just as

hard to believe in religion as it is in mathematics?
It was not just in health matters that conflict arose. Those
“testimonies” were coming in for a lot of criticism. In the early
days there were those who felt that James White might be
influencing his wife in her writings or might express an idea
or two himself under her name. There is nothing as magic as a
seal to give things weight and authority, and she was the seal.
James, on the other hand, felt that others were doing the same
with Ellen and might be gaining an edge over him:
She is humble, and must be treated tenderly, or she can
do nothing. Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influ-
ence over her that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined
her. These men must not be suffered by our people to do as
they have done until all our ministers are fully discouraged.
Young men are kept out of the ministry by their narrow
blind counsel.
John Harvey Kellogg, a protégée of the Whites, had some
of these same complaints for years. Too many, he thought, were
doing too much under the name of inspiration through Ellen
and her writings. Years later when he was interviewed by
some of the men of the church he would say:
I want to tell you another thing you do not know about,
a testimony I have from Sister White which she has not pub-
lished and that none of them have published, that these men
have frequently cut out large chunks of things that Sister
White had written that put things in a light that was not
the most favorable… or did not suit their campaigns that
way, that they felt at liberty to cut them out and so change
the effect and tenor of the whole thing, sending it out over
Sister White’s name.
What in essence he seems to be saying is that some of the
boys had obtained a stamp with Ellen’s name on it and were
stamping some of anything and everything with it. Later in
the interview Kellogg was to point to William C. White, son
of Ellen, as the culprit in some cases:

211
Brian Neumann

Will White got those letters and took a paragraph here, and
a paragraph there and a paragraph from the other one
and put them together and made up a thing and sent
them out with his own name signed to it. It is a “testimony”
from Willie. If you look that document over, you will see her
name IS not signed to that at all, but Willie has made it up
from letters that Sister White had written to those personal
friends…
Now Willie’s name is signed to it and not hers; yet that
thing is being carried all over Europe and all over the world
and read in public as a testimony from the Lord. And that
is what I told you is the gigantic fraud that IS being perpe-
trated, and the ministry of the denomination and the whole
machinery of the denomination have set themselves to work
to perpetrate impositions and frauds upon people. If the
truth were known it would bring the whole denomination
into ignominy and contempt.
Years afterward it would be argued that the good doctor’s
statements were made after he had broken with the Whites and
the church, and that therefore these were not reliable comments.
It would be suggested that he had ulterior motives and should
not be considered a qualified witness, although it is acknowl-
edged that he had held honors along with those still in power,
that he had been privileged to sit in high councils, and that he
had personally been very close to Ellen. Criticism of Kellogg
might be valid if he alone had seen and said what he did. But
he was not alone. 8

TIe argument regarding Kellogg, referred to in the

last paragraph above, is one that SDA’s have often heard.
Mention the name of Canright, for example, and you will
immediately be told that his attack on Ellen White was
purely out of vindictiveness.
TIe same with Jones,
Waggoner, Ballenger and a string of others from the early
years, already quoted in previous chapters of this book. In
some cases these
people
were
not
trying
to
attack
Ellen

212
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

White but were simply recounting some or other event connected

to her ministry. If for some reason their account was in conflict
with hers, they are immediately written off as misrepresenting
the facts or called outright liars—enemies of Mrs. White and the
church—motivated by anger because, at some point they might
have been rebuked by her. Of course, in all fairness, there were
those who did say things in anger, but this does not automatically
infer they were lying about all those things they claimed were fact.
In just about every respect, besides taking Ellen White’s
word for everything, regardless of testimony and even hard-core
evidence presented in black and white, for those who believe in
the prophetess, her integrity is without question—blameless.
And so, it goes without saying, in the case of the plagiarism
charge, the response is no different. It is hard to find any other
spiritual leader, including the popes of the Roman Church, who
have been given such a free license to “virtual” infallibility as has
been conferred on Ellen White by her supporters. Walter Rea
expresses this same thought by saying:
No claimant in religion has ever asked the people for such a
blank check with an uncertified signature. But this claimant
did. And to this day most Adventists have never questioned
her endorsement nor her ability to fulfill her claim. Not only
are the “testimonies” considered inspired (including that
which was copied, even portions up to a hundred percent)
but any writings that she was known to have approved, or
touched, or been even near while she was alive are consid-
ered to have some special significance or “inspiration.” Even
that which she didn’t include when she copied is deemed sig-
nificant. It has been suggested that-like Gutzon Borglum
(the sculptor of the Mount Rushmore faces) who from the
valley below supervised all the rock throwing—Ellen was
considered to be directing by some heavenly radar all the
material that came out under her name, whether she ever
saw it or would recognize it as hers.

213
Brian Neumann

With such an endorsement as had never been given to

any mortal before, Ellen was now ready to reshape the
events of the past and, by her visionary interpretations of
the Bible, likewise the events of the future. Already she
had started on this idea of the great controversy in her first
pocket-size edition in 1858 of Spiritual gifts. But that small
work was crudely composed. And it had some competition—
for the same year Hastings had published a volume with the
identical title. Ellen’s 219 page volume did not show much
promise and, unlike the later book Th e Great Controversy,
was never heralded as widely in the way of truth and light,
form and content, prose and style. But it was a beginning
and therefore was to be used. 9

TIere was another physician, William S. Sadler, someone who,

like Kellogg, was closely connected to Ellen White and her
family. Th e difference, in his case, was that at the
time of communicating some serious concerns, he was
still a true believer in, and avid supporter, of Ellen White.
In recounting this episode Walter Rea said: “He [Sadler], too,
as others, had heard the voice of Ellen. But like Isaac
before him, he had found that the hands were the hands of
another—Will White’s. Sadler’s statements make it clear that a
good deal of license had been taken for twenty years or
more.” Sadler wrote to Ellen White:
Another matter: that is, Willie’s influence over the Testimonies.
I came into the truth about 20 years ago, and just before I was
baptized by Elder W in Covert, (about 18 years ago) I thor-
oughly made up my mind concerning the Testimonies. In short,
I accepted them; but from that day to this, especially the last
ten years, and more especially since your return to this coun-
try from Australia, I have been hearing it constantly, from
leaders, ministers, from those sometimes high in Conference
authority, that Willie influenced you in the production of your

214
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Testimonies; or, as they would often designate it, the “letters”

you send out.
This talk made little or no impression on me. I resolutely
refused to believe it, year after year. I have been given a copy
of the communication written by you under date of July 19th,
1905, addressed to Brethren I. H. Evans and J. S. Washburn,
and I have since then not known what to do or say concerning
this matter. I refer to the following quotation:
After seeing the representation, I awoke, and I fully
expected that the matter would take place as it had been
presented to me. When Elder Haskell was telling me of the
perplexity that they were in to carry forward the Southern
work, I said, “Have faith in God; you will carry from this
meeting the five thousand dollars needed for the purchase of
the church!”
I wrote a few lines to Elder Daniel’s suggesting this be
done, but Willie did not see that the matter could be carried
through thus, because Elder Daniel’s and others were at that
time very much discouraged in regard to the condition of
things in Battle Creek. So I told him that he need not deliver
the note…10

It is not difficult to see why Sadler was having a problem with

this situation. Ellen White is given a “representation by God,”
writes a letter of assurance to the brethren and then, Willie
White, even though the message was given directly by God, is
allowed to decide if the matter warrants delivering the letter to
the brethren concerned. Even though this did not indicate direct
tampering with her actual writing it does, however, indicate
manipulation of a sort.
TIere were others that expressed similar concerns, but
their ХЪЭбХЮХСЯ were met with outright denials that Willie had
anything at all to do with influencing his mother’s work. Ellen
White wrote, with a hint of sarcasm:

215
Brian Neumann

I learn reports are circulated that W. C. White manipulates his

mother’s writings.
All have known how much W. C. White manipulates his
mother’s writings, when he has been separated from me very
much of the time for the years before this year 1905, and we
have, when we could get together, planned much and done so
little in issuing books. But I utterly deny the charges. 11

Ellen White’s statements, in regard to any sort of outside

influence over her writing (not to mention the extent to which
God had direct control) were so categorical that it would become
more and more difficult to explain the obvious similarities
between what she wrote as opposed to that which she took from
other writers and included without giving credit. During the
saga with Fannie Bolton, who accused her of plagiarizing, Ellen
White boldly defended herself regarding this and other charges.
Her letter to Fannie (
June 25th, 1897) makes it very plain that
ЮбЩЫЮЯ being circulated to his effect were utterly false. Yet, the
evidence presently available, overwhelmingly establishes that she
was copiously including portions of other books in her works.
Following is her letter to Fannie Bolton:

Your words regarding me and my writings are false, and I

must say that you know them to be false. Nevertheless, those
unacquainted with you take your words as being the words of
one who knows. Because you have been acquainted with me,
and connected with me, you can state what you please, and you
think that your tracks are so covered that they will never be
discovered. But my writings have not stopped. They go out as
I have written them. No words of my copyists are put in the
place of my own words. This is a testimony that cannot be
controverted. My articles speak for themselves.
When I heard that A had apostatized, I said, “I am glad
that all my connection with him has been of the tenderest char-
acter.” I thought that there was nothing they could have to say

216
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

against me. But both he and his wife bore the same report that
Sister B bore to me. A stated in a large congregation that it
was reported by one who knew that I picked up things writ-
ten in books, and sent them out as something the Lord had
shown me. At the Bible Institute in Cooranbong, A told me
that you had made a statement to him and his wife simi-
lar to the statement made to Sr. B. Your sowing is produc-
ing its harvest. Many in Melbourne have been repeating the
same things, things which you have told them, and which they
thought must be true. 12

TIe very thing she was defending in her letter to Fannie Bolten
was, indeed, exactly what was happening. She WAS using material
from other authors. No matter what conclusions might have
been drawn legally, exonerating her from the act of plagiarism
because it was not against the law in her day to “borrow” without
giving credit, does not change the question of ethics. Neither,
in light of her own denials, does it reflect positivelyon her
desire to be transparent and honest.
To claim your insights are a revelation from God while
including significant portions of other peoples works in-between
your own writing (altering their words and phrases so as not to
make it an obvious/blatant or verbatim reproduction), without
giving reference or credit, as stated earlier, automatically leads the
reader to assume that all they are reading is your own creation—
given under inspiration.
Consider this article, by Uriah Smith (quoted in Walter Rea’s
book, The White Lie—Chapter 2), published in the Review (1864),
concerning the issue of giving due credit when using other author’s
works. The article, published under the title, “Plagiarism,” was a
request (on the basis of proper ethics) for writers to give due
credit when using works published by the Review. Smith writes:

217
Brian Neumann

This is a word [plagiarism] that is used to signify “literary

theft,” tor taking the productions of another and passing
them off as one s own…
… scarcely any class of people at the present day, except
Seventh-day Adventists, have anything to say about All the
commandments of God, &c. We are perfectly willing that
pieces from the Review, or any of our books should be pub-
lished to any extent, and all we ask is, that simple justice be
done us, by due credit being given!13

Today people believe, based on misinformation and the

internal SDA propaganda machine (a “grapevine” for corporate
and personal gossip, source of “facts” unknown), that Ellen
White was simply ignorant about borrowing other author’s
works without giving credit. Clearly though, Uriah Smith, of the
Review knew and so did the rest of the SDA world, who read
the publications—even in 1864. Not to mention the fact that
Ellen White, James White and Uriah Smith were directly
involved in producing her works in the Review—works which
themselves contained “borrowed” material. To argue that Ellen
White (as the primary writer for the SDA Church) did not
know, is a denial in the fullest and most feeble sense. Was Ellen
White perhaps, at least in her own eyes and those close to her,
the one individual who was beyond rules that applied to other
mortals?
It would seem that this imperative applied to all and sundry,
but when it came to the designated prophet of the Remnant
Church, no such rule applied—to be “beyond reproach” was only
for the “non-elite” membership (in spite of the fact that the Bible
very specifically states that the prophet must obey God’s law,
Isaiah 8:20).
Walter Rea reveals that, in 1922, seven years after Ellen
White’s death, then editor of the Review, Francis M.
Wilcox published some articles related to “stealing.” One of the
issues published a brief, unsigned item on the editorial
page that was, ironically, titled, Are You a plagiarist?

218
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ξТ
ψЫΑ
υШСНЯС
ιЫ
σЫа
Write for the Review. TIe other, by J. B. Gallion,

titled, “Spiritual Plagiarism,” was more explicit in its description.
He wrote:
Plagiarism is the act by one author or writer of using the
productions of another without giving him credit. For exam-
ple, if you were to write an article in which you inserted, “The
Psalm of Life” or any part of it, and permit it to pass under
your name, as your own production, not giving credit to the
poet Longfellow, you would be guilty of the crime of plagia-
rism. “Well,” you say, “everybody knows that Longfellow wrote
‘The Psalm of Life.’ “A great many do, it is true, but many
do not. Those who are ignorant of the fact might easily be
deceived; but whether they know or not, does not lessen your
guilt. You have taken what is not yours, and therefore are
guilty of literary theft. There are but a few, perhaps, who fall
under the ban of plagiarism in the literary world! 14

In spite of Ellen White’s emphatic denials that she copied

from other writers, many of the brethren who were close to her
knew that she was copying other author’s works without giving
credit and made statements regarding this. Th e very fact that she
denied doing this clearly shows that she was painfully aware that
it would be viewed бЪТНвЫЮНОШе if it were revealed that someone,
especially of her high and “holy office,” was lacing her “inspired”
offerings with the works of uninspired authors, and to
boot, without making it known.
No minor criticism regarding Mrs. White’s plagiarism comes
from the controversial Fannie Bolton, her personal editorial
assistant. Ellen White’s letter of rebuke and denial, written
to her after she was fired from service for spreading “false”
ЮбЩЫЮЯ, was quoted earlier. Many concerned brethren were
aware of Willie White’s interference in his mother’s writing, and
referred to Fannie and her situation with Ellen White in their
statements, thus, further investigation into Fannie’s story is of
vital importance.

219
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

As alluded to earlier in this book, most supporters of Ellen

White would discredit Fannie Bolton because, in their opinion,
her case against Ellen White was based on revenge. However,
when people are exposed to the facts they realize that Fannie’s
statements were not just inspired by feelings of malice or revenge
but were a revelation of truths that she, as editorial assistant, had
first-hand knowledge of.
No doubt, her decision to “speak out” was to a larger or lesser
degree motivated by anger. But, anyone who is familiar with
human behaviour will know that it is often when people feel
they have been unfairly treated or ignored that they strike back.
Just because someone retaliates does not automatically mean they
are lying. It may well be the truth, simply stated in anger. To
invalidate someone’s testimony purely because they might have
“sinned” or provided evidence in antagonism is not either just.
In the case of Fannie Bolton, there is substantial evidence from
secondary sources to support her claims.
A rough draft of a letter written by Fannie in 1901, contains
what is viewed as her official statement of confession regarding
her motives and feelings about that which happened between her
and Ellen White. This letter has been used as key evidence by
supporters of Mrs. White to show that, by Fannie’s own admission,
she had indeed, as accused by Ellen White, been lying about the
accusations she made. Quoted below is a portion of Fannie’s
letter that explains her motivation for why she decided to speak
out against Ellen White’s literary borrowing and negligence at
giving credit where credit was due:

I tried for years to harmonize what seemed to me inconsist-

ency in the work with a worldly literary maxim that requires
an author to acknowledge his editors and give credit to all
works from which he quotes. In contending that Sr. White
was not open about this matter, I supposed myself standing
for a principle of ordinary justice and literary honesty, and
looked upon myself as a martyr for truth’s sake. 15

220
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Reading the above quote on its own makes it sound like Fannie
Bolton was not confessing any wrong in her essential allegation,
but rather, was clarifying the motivation for it. If one reads her
entire confession it becomes clear that she was not admitting
that she had lied about Ellen White’s plagiarism or about Ellen
White not crediting her editors in the proper fashion. In actual
fact, the bottom line of her confession boils down to her having
come to the conclusion, after seeking advice from some of the
brethren and subsequent reevaluation of her own line of
thinking, that Mrs. White’s work as an inspired writer was not
subject to the same literary maxims as uninspired authors
—“ORDINARY justice and literary honesty.” In the same letter,
referring to her inferior wisdom in regard to how Sister White’s
God-given work should have been handled, she said:

I rejoice in the Testimony of Jesus. I thank God that he has kept

Sr. White from following my suppressed superior wisdom
and righteousness and has kept her from acknowledging edi-
tors or authors; but has given to the people the unadulterated
expression of God’s mind. Had she done as I wished her to do,
the gift would have been degraded to a common authorship,
its importance lost, its authority undermined and its blessing
lost to the world. 16

Even the average reader can tell that Fannie was not confessing she
had lied about Ellen White using the writings of other
authors or wrong about the usual practice of author’s crediting
their editors. Her “confession” was that she/Fannie had come to
the realization that she was wrong in expecting Ellen White to
follow the usual practice of “acknowledging editors or authors.”
Th is would have “degraded” Ellen White’s inspired work to the
level of “common authorship.” Of course, Fannie was dead
wrong in her new line of thinking because, even “inspired”
writers were, if they were ethically in tune, bound by even
higher standards than average writers.

221
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Elder George B. Starr, who accompanied Ellen White to

Australia, a great defender of her writings, knew that Mrs.
White was in trouble when the situation with Fannie Bolton
erupted. His comments indicate that Sister White was extremely
worried about her “writings” and “Fannie Bolton”:
On leaving my room I passed Sister White’s doorway, and the
door being ajar, she saw me and called me into her room, say-
ing, “I am in trouble, Brother Starr, and would like to talk
with you.” I asked her what was the nature of her trouble, and
she replied, “My writings, Fannie Bolton.” 17

An interesting observation here is that Ellen White does not say

that Fannie Bolton is in trouble, but that SHE is in trouble. Th
e
reader is free to construe this as they wish. In the same
statement, Elder Starr recounts Ellen White telling him about a
vision she had received regarding Mary Clough and Fannie Bolton:

σХСПС
ΨςНЮе
θШЫбУФΩΒ
РНбУФаСЮ
ЫТ
κШШСЪ
όФХаСΛЯ
ЯХЯаСЮΑ

θНЮЫШХЪСΔ
ζШаФЫбУФ
ЪЫа
ФСЮЯСШТ
НЪ
ζРвСЪаХЯаΑ
ТЫЮ
Н
аХЩС
ШХаά
СЮНЮе
НЯЯХЯаНЪаΑ
ЬбОШХПХае
НУСЪаΑ
НЪР
ФСШЬСЮ
гХаФ
аФС
όФХаС

гЮХаХЪУЯΔ
ιХЯПФНЮУСР
Ое
κШШСЪΔ
ΨμСЫЮУС
ηΔ
ψаНЮЮ
ЭбЫаХЪУ
κШШСЪ

όФХаСΩΓ
κϜ
ёлшю
ющ
юпцц
ѓщя
щр
л
ѐуэущш
Ϝ
тло
лмщяю

2:00
o’clock this morning
.ΔΔ

Tтere
appeared
a
chariot of
gold
and horses of silver above me, and Jesus, in royal majesty’
was seated in the chariot. I was greatly impressed with the
glory of this vision…Then there came the words rolling
down over the clouds from the chariot from the lips of Jesus,
“Fannie Bolton is your adversary! …” I had this same vision
about seven years ago, when my niece, Mary Clough, was
on my writings. 18

Besides giving the impression that no one close to Ellen White

was safe from having any action of theirs exposed via dreams
and/or visions from God, especially if it reflected negatively on
Ellen White and her work, it also becomes clear that she was

222
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

slowly but surely being pushed into a corner regarding the literary
borrowing problem. Time would bring this more and more boldly
to light as various people came “out of the woodwork,” giving
their testimony of what they knew to be true.
One can only imagine how hard it must have been for people
to step out and say something as they knew that often those who
dared speak faced the possibility of having their “sins” revealed
to Ellen White in a vision. Indeed, fro
the very beginnings of
her prophetic ministry Ellen White’s work was characterized by
the reception of “personal” revelations, informing her of the sins
of those around her (in the earlier days she often received these
messages in public gatherings and openly rebuked individuals in
that setting—refer to the chapter on the Israel Dammon affair).
The quantity of this class of revelation received by her, and
the manner in which she exposed individuals almost begs the
question: “was Ellen White practicing the type of ministry seen
in the work of Christ who, though He had knowledge of people’s
sins and rebuked them on various occasions, seemed to be far
more circumspect in delivering, especially individual rebukes,
that would place someone in an embarrassing situation?”
Individuals of sterner and braver disposition spoke out
regardless, in spite of risking Ellen White’s revelations that more
often than not placed the “fear of God” (or was it a fear of her?)
in people’s hearts.
One of those individuals who had suffered public rebuke at the
hand of Ellen White and who had seen through the contradictions,
was John Harvey Kellogg. He knew Ellen White about as well as
anyone could. Since his youth he had been closely associated with
the White family and no doubt had first-hand knowledge of how
Ellen White operated. Although his criticisms of Ellen White
were often tentative, especially and understandably, at the start,
he eventually became more outspoken. Finally, he felt at liberty
to reveal what he knew regarding the manner in which Ellen
White often received personal information about people:

223
Brian Neumann

I do not believe in her infallibility and never did. I told her

eight years ago to her face that some of the things she has
sent to me as testimonies were not the truth, that they were
not in harmony with the facts, and she herself found it out
[other people came to her with gossip as opposed to it being
revealed by God]. I have a letter from her in which she explains
how she came to send me some things.…I know people go to
Sister White with some plan or scheme they want to carry
through under her endorsement of it and stand up and say,
“The Lord has spoken,” and I know that is fraud, that that
is taking unfair advantage of people’s minds and of people’s
consciences…and I have no sympathy with that thing, and I
told W. C. White so long ago. 19

It might be claimed that Kellogg was simply telling liesΒ an

attempt at taking revenge on Mrs. White for exposing him
for, among other things, his alleged pantheistic teachings. But
was this really the case? Could it be that Kellogg, a
respected, educated man with an entrepreneurial spirit, had
finally risen to the point where he escaped the fear of being in
clutches of a so-called prophetess (as opposed to the fear of
God), had come to see through her manipulative and deceptive
façade and now felt at liberty to speak out about that which he
knew to be true? Th is certainly seems to have been the case.
George W. Amadon, who served for fifty years in various
positions at the Review and Herald Publishing Association, was
another individual who had been a close friend of the White
family. Walter Rea shares a stenographically recorded interview
with Amadon in which he commented on his knowledge of Mrs.
White’s literary borrowing:

I knew a large share of it [“How to Live”] was borrowed.…

[With reference to “Sketches from the Life of Paul”] I said that
Sister White never writes the prefaces to her books; I happen
to know that others write them; and I said it had been stated

224
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

formally in the preface of the book that such things had been
taken from other works, that what had been copied verba-
tim ought to have been in quotation marks, or set in finer
type, or in footnotes or something of the sort the way print-
ers generally do.…She never reads the proof.…Sister White
never in the Office sat down and read proofs properly.…You
know in the days of the Elder James White how her writings
were handled just as well as I do. 20

Indeed, the list of well-known, respected individuals, many of

whom were either personally connected to Ellen White or closely
associated with her work, who knew about what was going on, is
notable indeed. I share some their statements, recorded in
Walter Rea’s book, Th e White Lie:
Arthur G. Daniells
Minister, administrator; noted as one of the strong-
est leaders of the Adventist Church; president of the General
Conference 1901-22. Close personal friend of the Whites; in
Australia:
Now you know something about that little book, “The
Life of Paul.” You know the difficulty we got into about that.
We could never claim inspiration in the whole thought
and makeup of the book, because it has been thrown aside
because it was badly put together. Credits were not given to
the p roper authorities, and some of that crept into “The Great
Controversy “–the lack of credits.…Personally that has never
shaken my faith, but there are men who have been greatly
hurt by it, and I think it is because they claimed too much for
these writings.21

Benjamin L. House
College professor of religion; present at the 19 Bible
Conference:
But such books as “Sketches [from] the Life of Paul,”
“Desire of Ages,” and “Great Controversy,” were composed

225
Brian Neumann

differently, it seems to me, even by her secretaries than the nine

volumes of the Testimonies. 22

W. W. Prescott
One of Adventism’s great educators; biblical scholar; Review
editor; founder of two colleges, president of three. Helped in
amending and contributing to Ellen White’s book material:
It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those
of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorize
books and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people
and our average ministers trust us to furnish them with reli-
able statements, and they use our books as sufficient authority
in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year assert-
ing things which we know to be untrue…It seems to me
that what amounts to deception, though probably not inten-
tional, has been practiced in making some of her books, and
that no serious effort has been made to disabuse the minds of
the people. 23

Willard A. Colcord
Minister, editor, religious liberty secretary of the General
Conference:
This making use of so much matter written by others, in
Sister White’s writings, without quotes or credits, has gotten
her and her writings into quite a lot of trouble. One of the
chief objects in the late revision of “Great Controversy” was
to fix up matters of this kind; and one of the chief reasons
why “Sketches from the Life of Paul” was never republished
was because of serious defects in it on this ground. 24
H. Camden Lacey
Professor of Bible and biblical languages at five Adventist
colleges; minister. Personal friend of the Whites:
Sr. Marian Davis was entrusted with the preparation of
“Desire of Ages” and…she gathered her material from every
available source.…She was greatly worried about finding
material suitable for the first chapter (and other chapters too

226
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

for that matter) and I did what I could to help her; and I have
good reason to believe that she also appealed to Professor
Prescott frequently for similar aid, and got it too in far richer
and more abundant measure than I could render. 25

Healdsburg Ministerial Association

A report in the local town paper of their comparison study
of five books from which they determined Ellen White had cop-
ied; March 20,1889:
Elder Heale would have the Committee believe that she
[Ellen White] is not a reading woman. And also ask them
to believe that the historical facts and even the quotations
are given to her in vision without depending on the ordi-
nary sources of information.…Would not any literary critic,
Judging from the quotations advanced and a comparison of the
passages indicated, conclude that Mrs. White in writing her
“Great Controversy,” vol. iv, had before her the open books
and from them took both ideas and words? 26

As the result of a conversation with Ellen White, regarding the

Fannie Bolton situation, Merritt G. Kellogg, half brother of J. H.
Kellogg and friend of the White family, had his eyes opened.
He
recounted:
In 1894 [in Australia] Mrs. White told me that in writing
the Great Controversy, and preparing it for the press, Marian
Davis and Fanny Bolton had charge of it. She further told me
that these girls were responsible for certain things which
went into that book in the shape which they did…. Mrs.
White did not tell me just what wrong was committed by the
girls. I suppose the reason why she spoke to me on the subject
was because of the fact that Fanny Bolton had come to me….
I told her just what Fanny had told me.… “Now,” said Sister
White with some warmth, “Fanny Bolton shall never write
another line for me… .” From that day to this my eyes have
been open. 27

227
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Not only did Ellen White use people’s writings (we will
not even get into the artwork she plagiarized in the same way)
without giving due credit, but actively hid this fact to the point
of outright denial—blatant lies—and seemed to be quite content
with blackening the reputation of or ostracizing people in the
process. It can truly be said, Ellen White was, ethically, way
out of line—the evidence provides ample cause for more than
reasonable doubt.
When her son, James Edson White, communicated his
knowledge of his bother Willie’s manipulation of his mother’s
writings, she wrote him a strong letter of rebuke, essentially calling
him a liar. What is striking and equally disturbing is how Ellen
White dealt with those (on this occasion her son) who accused
her of plagiarism, or in this case, Willie White’s manipulation of
her writings.
In spite of evidence from various reputable sources, in this
case even her son, she shamelessly called these people liars. In
the biography series, written by Arthur White, a biased, selective
and sanitized, pro Ellen White perspective of the manipulation
debacle is given. Here, James Edson is represented as the villain/
prodigal son, spreading blatant lies about his “saintly” mother and
“faithful” brother. Of course, retrospectively, in light of increasingly
overwhelming evidence, Like Merrit Kellogg, our “eyes have been”
opened. This is how Arthur White describes the situation:
The questions raised concerning the manipulation of her writ-
ings, and the influence of W. C. White on the testimonies, dis-
tressed Ellen White, particularly such charges as were traced
to careless statements made by James Edson White.…The
younger, William C., was steady, calm, loyal to the testimonies,
dependable, and endued with leadership qualifications.
The older, James Edson, while talented, creative, and a
good author, was unsteady, a poor manager of finances, and,
because his brother and church leaders could not and did not
endorse all his ventures, very critical. The testimonies of his

228
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

mother addressed to him from early years carried at times

little weight [these were often harsh and displayed a spirit
of favouritism]; yet when fully consecrated to God he did a
remarkable work, particularly among the neglected blacks in
the South… .
Because he was the son of James and Ellen White, James
Edson was able to borrow, mainly from Adventists, to support
his various enterprises, many of which failed. Again and again
his mother and his brother came to his personal financial aid
as various enterprises he had been warned against collapsed.
As Ellen White found she could not endlessly support him
in these ventures, his brother attempted to counsel him. He in
turn took the position that W. C. was influencing his mother.
Among his personal friends in and around Battle Creek were
a number who were voicing Dr. Kellogg’s insinuations that
Ellen White was being influenced by her son William and
others. It was easy for James Edson to join in. He said some
most unfortunate things that were quickly picked up and, com-
ing from Ellen White’s son, were capitalized on.
Finally, painful as it was, Ellen White had to step in and
set the record straight. To James Edson she wrote:
What kind of a move was it that you made in rushing to
Battle Creek and saying to those there that W. C. White, your
own brother, for whom you should have respect, manipu-
lated my writings? This is just what they needed to use in
their councils to confirm them in their position that the testi-
monies the Lord gives your mother are no longer reliable… .
Must I have such an impression go out? It is false, and I
am sorry that you stand as you do.…You have regarded your
brother in a strange, false light, and persist in doing this.
This has been the grief of my life. Your stubborn persistence
forces me to speak now. I will not keep silent.…Your senti-
ments are the prevailing sentiments of a deceived mind.
As she brought the six-page, cutting reproof and censure to
a close, she declared:

229
Brian Neumann

Your position is a grievous
thing to your
mother and

wears upon the life of your brother.…I shall have to speak. I
cannot and will not suffer reproach to come upon the cause of
God, and my work that God has given me to do, by your say-
ing he manipulates my writings. It is falsehood—but what
a charge is this! Not one soul manipulates my writings.—
Letter 391, 1906.
In another letter to Edson, written May 21, 1906, cover-
ing somewhat the same ground, she stated:
The position you have taken, the words you have said,
are not a secret. Everywhere they are handled by those who
would uproot confidence in the testimonies, and they have
influence because you are WCW’s brother and the son of
Ellen G. White.…W. C. White is true as steel to the cause
of God, and no lie which is in circulation is of the truth.—
Letter 143, 1906.
Earlier in the year she had written:
There are those who say, “Someone manipulates her
writings.” I acknowledge the charge. It is One who is
mighty in counsel, One who presents before me the condi-
tion of things in Battle Creek.—Letter 52, 1906. 28

Mrs. White makes it clear that if there was any manipulation of

her writing, it was only done by God, as He was the sole revealer of
“the condition of things.” In the case of accusations that Willie
White manipulated his mother’s writings, it is evident that
where there was smoke there was fire indeed. Regarding
accusations that she used other people’s works without giving
credit, the evidence comes from many quarters and is
overwhelming indeed—the arguments of her defense hold no
water.
Ellen White’s own statements regarding honesty and
transparency come back to accuse her, revealing that she did not
carry out that which she demanded of others—the practice of
ethics that applied to other authors did not apply to her. Her
statements concerning these important points of God’s law
230
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

are so powerful and all-encompassing that there is simply no

way that her own plagiaristic practices are exempt from such
description, especially in light of her categorical denials that she
ever plagiarized from other writers. The exhibits below speak
for themselves:

In the Christian world today fraud is practiced to a fearful

extent. God’s commandment-keeping people should show
that they are above all these things. The dishonest practices
which mar the dealing of man with his fellowman should
never be practiced by one who professes to be a believer in pre-
sent truth. God’s people do great harm to the truth by the
least departure from integrity. 29

Consider these strong statements published in Sons and

Daughters of God:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Ex.
20:16.
The ninth commandment requires of us an inviolable
regard for exact truth in every declaration by which the
character of our fellow men may be affected. The tongue,
which is kept so little under the control of the human agent, is
to be bridled by strong conscientious principles, by the law of
love toward God and man.
False-speaking in any matter, every attempt or pur-
pose to deceive our neighbor, is here included. An intention
to deceive is what constitutes falsehood. By a glance of the
eye, a motion of the hand, an expression of the countenance,
as falsehood may be told as effectually as by words. All inten-
tional overstatement, every hint or insinuation calculated
to convey an erroneous or exaggerated impression, even the
statement of facts in such a manner as to mislead, is false-
hood. This precept forbids every effort to injure our neighbor’s
reputation by misrepresentation or evil surmising, by slander

231
Brian Neumann

or tale-bearing. Even the intentional suppression of truth,

by which injury may result to others, is a violation of the
ninth commandment.
… They teach that no one who tries to appear what he is
not, or whose words do not convey the real sentiment of his
heart, can be called truthful.…
Everything that Christians do should be as transparent
as the sunlight. Truth is of God; deception, in every one of
its myriad forms, is of Satan.…We can not speak the truth
unless our minds are continually guided by Him who is
truth. 30

Since the time when Ellen White was still alive the issue of
literary borrowing has been an issue. As shown, people close to
her knew that she was using the words of other writers without
giving credit. Yet, the denials, especially on her part, kept
flooding in. When it became impossible to hide or ignore the
evidence, finally, around 1909, they began including credits
in later printings of her works. Th e very fact that such credits
were now, of necessity, forthcoming, is in and of itself evidence
that she had been copying without giving credit.
What was not immediately known was the extent to which
she had practiced this, especially the portions of other works she
adapted just enough to make her plagiarism difficult to spot—the
Conflict of the Ages Series being the most significant works where
this type of thing occurred.
Ellen White’s explanation that she only read other author’s on
certain topics, after she received her visions from God and was
then led by God to choose what to include in her own work (if this
was indeed true), does not exonerate her of unethical practices.
She intentionally used, even adapted and disguised the writings
of other authors without giving credit. It would have been a
simple matter, especially in light of her own views concerning
honesty and integrity, to have let readers know that she was
including the works of other writers in her own (after receiving

232
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

light from God) and then to give due credit. However, the fact
that she had used such copious amounts from other writers and
avoided crediting them is a powerful indication that she knew,
had she done this, the reader would have had serious questions
about how much was inspired as opposed to simply being direct
or adapted extracts from other uninspired publications.
Although, as far as the general SDA public is concerned, Ellen
White has been exonerated of literary fraud charges, those who
have actually taken time to investigate further have been stunned
to see how much more “borrowing” she did, over and above what
they were already aware of.
In August, 1992 (renewed October, 2004), a decade after the
release of the book, The White Lie, Walter Rea published a letter to
his friends, officially notarized by the State of California, entitled,
Who lied Them or Me? In this letter he reveals that the church had
conceded almost all the major points, addressed in the book The
White Lie (see copies of the original in the picture segment). The
primary portion of his letter is posted below:

In the December issue of SPECTRUM, 1991, which calls

itself THE JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
ADVENTIST FORUMS, there appeared an article by Jerry
A. Gladson entitled “Convert to Scholar: An Odyssey in
Humility.” Jerry Gladson is Vice President and Dean of
Academic Affairs of the Psychological Studies Institute, an
interdenominational graduate school of psychology and reli-
gion in Atlanta, Georgia. Previous to this he was Professor
of Religion at Southern College, from which he received his
B.A. He holds an M.A and a PH.D in Old Testament from
Vanderbilt University.
In the article he says, “neither have we dealt adequately
with the questions raised by Walter Rea regarding Ellen
White. Although his claims tended to be overstated, the church
has gradually come to concede all his major points. In 1990
Fred Veltman reported to the church at large his findings in

233
Brian Neumann

two articles appearing in Ministry Magazine, ‘The Desire

of Ages Project, The Data’ (October 1990), (December 1990).
Careful to point out that he had examined only a small sec-
tion of the Desire of Ages, thus making it difficult to gen-
eralize, Veltman concluded that Ellen White did use sources
without giving credit, and that she, at times, even denied
doing so. The Desire of Ages, was dependant on secondary
materials. On the whole, an average of about 31 percent of
the 15 chapters was in some way indebted to other material.
Worse, her history, chronology, and theological interpreta-
tion, often cited confidently by Adventists, were not always
reliable.” 31
While it is true that the church has tried to conceal infor-
mation from its members as to what issues have been resolved
by the studies of both Fred Veltman and myself [Walter Rea],
some of those issues have been admitted and/or resolved. Some
of these are:

a. There was massive borrowing on all

levels of Mrs. White’s writings. The church had
never before either known or admitted such bor-
rowings to the membership or the public, no mat-
ter what we continue to read from the “Review” or
other writers (Glendale Tapes, 1990).
b. What was written was not always
accurate, that is, she made mistakes. It cannot be
said therefore that she was always speaking for
God (Robert Olson, Ron Graybill, Glendale and
Longbeach Tapes).
c. Others helped her to do this gathering
of material and also to do the writings (Graybill
Paper, 1919 Bible Conference).

234
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

d. All of what she said she saw did not

come from visions Don Mc Adams, Ron Graybill,
Robert Olsen Papers, White Estates, etc.).
e. All that came to the church in these
writings were not inspired (1919 Bible Conference,
Robert Olsen, White Estates, etc.).
f. She was influenced by others in what
she wrote and those that influenced her never
claimed to influenced by God or inspired them-
selves (1919 Bible Conference, Robert Olsen, White
Estates, etc.).
g. Mrs. White ate meat most of her life
and did not take much of the advice she claimed
came from God (White Estate Papers, Ron
Graybill study).
h. She was not as uneducated [was well
educated in an informal sense] and unread as we
have always been told. 32

TIe question of Ellen White and eating meat (the Health

Reform Message) will be examined in a later chapter. For now
however, in relation to the issue of plagiarism, it is most evident,
based on more extensive research, that Ellen White is guilty
as charged.
In his letter, Walter Rea refers back to a 1980 meeting that
was convened at Glendale Adventist Hospital. He writes:

No one can change history no matter how or why they try,

and that history is that the then President of the General
Conference, Neal Wilson, at my urging, asked eighteen schol-
ars of the Church to meet with me and review my material on
January 28, 29, 1980, at the Glendale Adventist Hospital.
Those scholars were:

235
Brian Neumann

G. Ralph Thompson, G.C. Chairman

R. W. Olson, White Estate
H. L. Calkins, Conference President
H. E. Douglas, Pacific Press
F. E. J. Harden, G.C. Education
W. G. Johnson, Andrews University
Harold Lance, Attorney at Law
W. R. Lesher, General Conference
Walter D. Blehm, President Pacific Union
D. R. McAdams, College President
Jack Provonsha, Loma Linda Minister
W. L. Richards, Bible Dept. P.U.C.
Mrs. Ottilie Stafford, English Dept.
M. C. Torkelson, Administration
L. D. Venden, Loma Linda Minister
J. O. Waller, English, Andrews University
Mervyn A. Warren, Oakwood College
J. J. Wiley, Attorney at Law, U.S.C. Dev

At the end of the meeting they made the following

recommendations.

1. That we recognize that Ellen White, in her writings, used

various sources more extensively than we had previ-
ously believed.
2. That, as soon as possible, a plan be developed for thoroughly
informing our church administrators concerning the nature
and extent of Ellen White’s use of sources.
3. That immediate study be given to a plan for educating the
church in easily grasped steps on the subject of inspiration
and Ellen White’s use of sources.
4. That an in-depth study on the writing of the Desire of Ages
be implemented.

236
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

5. That a person trained in scholarly methodology be asked to

work with Elder Rea.
6. To express our appreciation to Elder Rea for the enormous
amount of work he has done.
7. I rest my case. With that kind of endorsement, would any of
you have done any differently? It was only when the Church
backed out of the agreement that I then wrote THE WHITE
LIE, so that all who wanted to know could know what the
committee had promised they should know. Who lied, them or
me? 33

Rea’s letter provides compelling evidence that the brethren at the

helm of the SDA organization have been talking out of both
sides of their mouths. Not only are they untrue to their word,
but based on the evidence of what transpired at and since those
Glendale meetings, they seem, on the one hand, to be fighting
tooth and nail to salvage the “image” of Ellen White while, on
the other, admit (sometimes candidly, sometimes tacitly) that
her writings were not the pure, unadulterated, unborrowed,
God-inspired product that everyone had originally imagined.
Continual re-evaluation, clarification, rationalization and hocus-
pocus apologetics have been the result. Frankly, it appears that
the “brethren” know there are issues with the whole question of
Ellen White and realize that something needs to be done about
it. However, instead of “educating” the church by coming clean
and telling ALL the truth, there is a systematic attempt to get
rid of her and adapt the “legend” to the point where Ellen White
and what she said will not matter much anymore—a plan based
on deceit.
Th e double-talk and “double-practice” revealed in
Rea’s experience with the brethren is quite apparent in
how the collective body of SDA’s (from top leadership to laity
around the world) relate to Ellen White and her instruction—
this
is
perhaps
the
most
revealing
evidence of all.

I have

237
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

ЬСЮЯЫЪНШ
СдЬСЮХСЪПС
with this having done pro-White lectures

world-wide during 16 years of active ministry.
If you asked people at some of the Church’s more conservative
institutions about how dedicated the mainstream leadership
and laity are to the instruction of Ellen White, as I have on
many occasions, they would point out that many of her clear,
unambiguous teachings are being completely ignored. People
do not follow her instruction on dress, coffee, tea, meat, alcohol
(general health reform), outward adornment, entertainment…
the list goes on and is a pretty substantial one indeed. On the
other hand, when one raises these questions with the other more
liberal factions in the church, they label the more fundamental
or conservative members as narrow-minded, extreme and out of
touch, construing Ellen White’s instruction as a cultural reflection
of her times or a rumination of her own opinion rather than
direct inspiration from God—they believe in her yet offer a range
of excuses for not doing as she instructs. Others simply outright
reject her and are not in the least interested in what she has to say.
More and more leaders and laity reject her because they suspect,
based on their own research, that she was not a true messenger/
prophet of God. The most disturbing sector of all are those, often
in positions of influence (pastors, educators, etc.), who give lip
service to Ellen White and even quote her writings while they
surreptitiously ШНОЫЮ to eliminate her influence completely.
One only has to compare the attitude of mainstream SDA’s,
towards the writings of Ellen White, in Germany, Holland,
Switzerland and other European countries, to that of mainstream
SDA’s in North America or South Africa, for example, to see how
marked the difference of opinion is, not to mention the radical
differences that exist in the SDA Education System. Talk to
scholars at La Sierra University in California, Southern College in
Tennessee or Andrews University in Michigan and the differences
of opinion regarding the Spirit of Prophecy will be quite different.

238
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

In Europe, you could compare notes with scholars at

Th
eologisches Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, in Austria(a more
conservative institution) as opposed to those at Th
eologische
Hochschule Friedensau in Germany, with interesting yet
disturbing results. Even though they represent the same
denomination they will not agree on Ellen White—sometimes
the disagreement is quite radical. I ought to know as I have
personally dialogued with people from these and many other
SDA institutions while presenting lectures.
TIere is no absolute unity of stance on how the brethren
(educators, Bible scholars, pastors and leaders in various
positions) relate to the calling and ШНОЫЮ of Ellen White. While
the majority might view her as a prophet/messenger of God,
how they understand and apply the concept of “inspiration”
and the degree of authority and status they attribute to her
work varies rather drastically.
Some brethren, such as Adventist historian/author, George
Knight and Graeme Bradford (there are certainly others), attempt
to teach people how to “understand” and “apply” Ellen White
(promoting what they believe to be a “balanced” approach).
However, the conclusions one draws after reading these
“authorities,” are substantially different—one writer appeals to
one set, the other to another. Little wonder then that there is
no consistency of practice when it comes to SDA’s carrying out
White’s inspired instruction.
From educators to pastors, right down to laity, there is a
constant contradiction (sometimes marked, sometimes subtle) in
their relationship to the Spirit of Prophecy. Ironically, the Conflict
of the Ages Series, the very books that have been most filled with
literary borrowing (the Desire of Ages being a prime example)
are the books that these people commend the most. Yet, when it
comes to the Testimonies, where there is specific instruction that
deals with personal habits of life, issues related to worship and
the Church’s position in connection to the “world” and the other

239
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

“fallen” churches (Babylon, as Ellen White sometimes referred

to them34), the average leadership and laity are apparently in
total denial.
The Church is living a lie when it comes to the Spirit of
Prophecy/Ellen White and no one is really willing to say why
this is so or even admit to it—double-talk and hypocrisy (albeit
ignorantly, in most cases) are the consequence.
While the Bible teaches that the gift of prophecy is for
edification of the Church and the promotion of unity, there
could not be a Church, who at every level, is more divided on
how they put into practice what their prophet instructs than
the SDA Church—even the Mormons seem to be more united
on the teachings of their prophet, Joseph Smith. Every single
ФЫЪСЯа SDA (conservative or liberal) who has any knowledge of
the REAL situation in the church regarding the belief and
actual practice of Ellen White’s teachings knows that this is
absolutely true. Even in cases where her instruction is followed,
there is still an attitude of “selective conformity” as opposed to
complete adherence.
An interesting and greatly disturbing symptom of the whole
Ellen White issue is this: While the SDA Church proclaims its
mission as an extension/continuation of the Reformation and
teaches that the Bible and the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) is the
standard for faith, the average members of the church (more so in
the conservative sector) are more efficient at quoting Ellen White
than Scripture. Indeed, in most cases you will find people literally
being confused as to whether a position they hold was something
they read in the Bible or the writings of Ellen White.
To be sure, even when Scripture is known to be the source, the
interpretation of the said piece is usually based on Ellen White’s
extrapolation. It is a simple fact that at ground level, among
conservative SDA’s, their entire understanding of the Scripture
is subject to the “inspired” writings of Ellen White. If there is a
controversy in Bible discussion and agreement cannot be found,

240
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

invariably, someone will present a quote by Ellen White on the

verse and chapter in question. Once she is quoted, then for the
most part, the debate is over. Whether the Church “officially”
states that they believe Ellen White should be used to interpret
the Bible or not makes no difference when it comes to what is
happening at ground level.
When a Church has a prophet that has become light and
authority on practically every topic and nuance of teaching
(simply as the result of the all-encompassing revelation received
by that “inspired” individual) then, by obvious default, the Church
is BOUND to compare anything and everything to what that
ONE individual had to say—after all, theirs is the prophetic
voice, to the exclusion of everyone else in the Church.
As stated elsewhere in this book, even the SDA Bible
Commentary Series, is clearly influenced by that which Ellen
White has to say on any given topic/teaching.
The end result of all this, when it gets down to the bottom
line, the Sola Scriptura of SDA’s is really Ellen G. White. The
culmination of the work of the Reformation (Protestants), for
SDA’s, starts and ends with Ellen G. White—the SDA Papal
ex-cathedra. Again, I know this all too well as I found myself
doing exactly the same thing.
Oddly enough though, there is an ever growing faction,
especially in the educational system of the Church which is
becoming bolder and more audacious in its criticism of her works.
On every level, contradictions abound.
While Ellen White claims that the function of her work was
to call people back to the Bible, in reality, even when studying
the Bible, people end up being ПНШШСР
ОНПЧ to Ellen White. How
can they be sure that what they have understood while reading
the Bible is correct unless they compare it with the ТХЪНШ word of
authority? As stated before, practically nothing, in teaching/
doctrine and practice, is left untouched—Ellen White seems
to cover it all. In the end it must be asked, are SDA’s, on the

241
Brian Neumann

whole, followers of Christ (the living WORD) and the Bible (the
written WORD) or are they, by simple default, really disciples
of Ellen White—“Paul”/“Apollos”? Let’s not forget, even Paul
was a prophet (had the prophetic gift) in his own right yet he
commended people, such as the believers in Berea, for making
the Scriptures the standard by which even he was tested.
A later chapter of this book will be dedicated to dealing with
these issues in greater detail. In the next chapter I continue the
question of plagiarism and the Fannie Bolton story.

SOURCES

1. Introduction to “Literary Beauty of Ellen G. White’s Writings,”

Gladys King-Taylor, 1953, Pacific Press Publishing Association.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Webster’s dictionary (emphasis Supplied).
5. Introduction to, “The White Lie,” Walter Rea (emphasis supplied).
6. “The White Lie,” 1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 5, opening para-
graph (Emphasis supplied).
7. “The White Lie,” 1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 5. Reference to
Review and Herald editorial notice of Nov 1876 in regard to
forthcoming Vol. 2 of Spirit of Prophecy series which said: “We
are prepared to speak of this volume, now just issued, as the most
remarkable volume that has ever issued from this office” (empha-
sis supplied).
8. “The White Lie,” 1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 5. References to:
Ellen G. White, Forward, Health or How to Live (Photographic
reproduction, Mokelumne Hill, Calif., 1957); Review 30 (8
October 1867), p. 260; Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health:
A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,
 1976); Ingemar Linden, The Last Trump, p. 202. James White to
Dudley M. Canright, 24 May 1881; [Iohn Harvey Kellogg],
“An authentic Interview between Elder G. W. Amadon, Elder
A. C. Bourdeau, and Dr.John Harvey Kellogg in Battle Creek,
Michigan, on October 7th, 1907.” A notarized stenographic
report (emphasis supplied).
9. “The White Lie,” 1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 5. References to:
Jack W. Provonsha, Sabbath School Study Tape, 2 February 19.80.
Glendale Committee Review, 28/29January 1980; H[orace]
L[orenzo] Hastings, The Great Controversy between God and
Man (Boston: Private printing by the author, [1858]. (empha-
sis supplied).
10. William S. Sadler to Egw, 26 April 1906, p. 3, 4, quoted in: “The
White Lie,” 1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 5. (emphasis supplied).
11. Letter 322, 1905, 6BIO, Arthur L. White, p. 62 (empha-
sis supplied).
12. Letter 24, 1897, p. 4. (To Fannie Bolton, June 25, 1897.),
Manuscript Release, Volume 11, 330.1 (emphasis supplied).
13. [Uriah Smith, ed], “Plagiarism,” Review 24 (6 September 1864):
120 (emphasis supplied).
14. J. B. Gallion, “Spiritual Plagiarism,” Review J 99 (23 March
1922): 21 (emphasis supplied).
15. Fannie Bolton to “Dear Brethren in the truth.” (1901), Egw Estate
Document File 445 (emphasis supplied).
16. Ibid. (emphasis supplied).
17. Ellen G. White Estate, “A Statement Regarding the Experiences of
Fannie Bolton in Relation to Her Work for Mrs. Ellen G. White,”
Document file 445, p. 8 (emphasis supplied).
18. Ibid. (emphasis supplied).
19. Interview at Dr. John Harvey Kellogg’s House. October 7,
1907, between Geo. W. Amadon, Eld. A. C. Bordeau and Dr. John
 Harvey Kellogg. J. T. Case present and taking notes from 8:20 to
9:00 A.M., with Mr. Ashley continuing afterwards, till 4:30 p.m.
(emphasis supplied).
20. “An Authentic Interview,” p. 3336. George Amadon’s statements,
stenographically recorded. See: Walter Rea’s, “The White lie,”
Chapter 11 (emphasis supplied).
21. “The Bible Conference of 1919,” Spectrum 10, no. 1 (May 1979): 34.
/ Walter Rea’s, “The White lie,” Chapter 11 (emphasis supplied).
22. Ibid / Walter Rea’s, “The White lie,” Chapter 11 (empha-
sis supplied).
23. W[illiam] W[arren] Prescott to W. C. White, 6 April 1915 / Walter
Rea’s, “The White lie,” Chapter 11 (emphasis supplied).
24. W[illard] A[llen] Colcord letter, 23 February 1912 / Walter Rea’s,
“The White lie,” Chapter 11 (emphasis supplied).
25. H. Camden Lacey to Leroy E. Froom, 11 August 1945. H. Camden
Lacey to Arthur White. Spalding, 5 June 1947 / Walter Rea’s,
“The White lie,” Chapter 11 (emphasis supplied).
26. [Healdsburg, California] Pastors’ Union, “Is Mrs. White a
Plagiarist?” Healdsburg Enterpnse (20 March 1889) / Walter
Rea’s, “The White lie,” Chapter 11 (emphasis supplied).
27. Statement by Merrit G. Kellogg in 1908, page numbers as origi-
nal document. p. 31/32 (emphasis supplied).
28. 6BIO—Ellen G. White Volume 6, The Later Elmshaven Years,
1905-1915, By Arthur L.White, 1982, p. 99-101 (empha-
sis supplied).
29. Lt 3, 1878/Vol 2 Mind Character and Personality, By Ellen G.
White, p. 437 (emphasis supplied).
30. “Sons and Daughters of God,” By Ellen G. White, p. 64 (empha-
sis supplied).
31. SPECTRUM, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 5, DECEMBER 1991
(emphasis supplied).
32. “Who Lied—Them or Me,” Walter T. Rea, to “Dear Friends.”
August 1992, Renewed October 2004.
33. Ibid (emphasis supplied).
34. “Evangelism,” p. 364, 365. Review and Herald, Sept. 12, 1893.
 Chapter VII

The Fannie Bolton Story

An Editor’s Conscientious Dilemma

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
… why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
… Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote
out of thy brother’s eye.

—Matthew 7:1-5

T
he story of Fannie (Frances Eugenia Bolton) is a complex
one indeed. Much of her story remained under lock and
key in the Ellen G. White Estate and was finally released in
1982. Alice Elizabeth Gregg wrote a comprehensive article about
Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis in the October, 1983 publication
of Adventist Currents. The article is well documented, tastefully
written and Gregg does a good job of covering all the major
points of Fannie Bolton’s history, particularly in connection with
her relationship to Ellen White. Instead of rewriting this entire
continuum myself, I felt it expedient to include portions of the
article, interspersed with additions and comments of my own that

247
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

might help lend another perhaps more thoughtful perspective

to what might have provoked Fannie Bolton’s apparently
contradictory actions.
The span of Ellen White’s prophetic work is littered with
people who were, in some way or other, connected to her ministry
or connected to her more personally. Many of these individuals,
who were initially lauded by Ellen White, in the end turned out
to be a “fly” in the “ointment” of “the cause.” People like
Bolton, Kellogg, Canright, Jones, Waggoner, Ballenger, etc., became
objects of reproof because they dared criticize her, the mouth-
piece of God. In the case of all these people, as with Fannie
Bolton, Ellen White, so aptly put by Gregg, “would never have
employed” or connected herself to them in ministry, had she
known “the end from the beginning.”1
The fact is that Fannie Bolton, a talented capable woman,
was hired because it was clear that someone of her intellect and
natural ability would do much to enhance Ellen White’s writing.
What God did not reveal to Ellen White was that her relationship
with Fannie would come back to haunt her, not only during her
lifetime, but long after. Indeed, nearly a hundred years later the
life of Fannie Bolton still returns to cross paths and clash with
that of Ellen White.
Perhaps one of the big differences between what is said about
Ellen White as opposed to Fannie Bolton, or any of the other
White detractors who were closely connected to her in her day,
is that Mrs. White has practically a whole institution (Ellen G.
White Estate) that is dedicated to protecting her legacy. While
making it seem they are being perfectly candid, they communicate
perspectives on Ellen White that always, even when portraying her
more “human” side, shroud her in garments of saintly construct.
On the other hand, Fannie Bolton, whose “official” life-story was
held in safe-keeping by that same institution (the Ellen G. White
Estate) is, at the primary level of analysis and commentary, subject
to their interpretations (just like so many other detractors). Under

248
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

these circumstances (natural bias being what it surely is), she does
not stand a chance of being fairly judged.
Yet, in connection with allegations of Ellen White’s literary
borrowing the voice of Fannie Bolton (someone intimately
involved in the very editing of White’s publications) still remains
a prime eye-witness account. As with every other detractor,
however, regardless of how reliable their testimony might have
been in a normal court of law, their word, even in the face of
powerful corroborating evidence, comes up against the “word”
of Ellen White, a prophet of God, and the interpretation and
commentary emanating those institutions dedicated to protecting
her image.
For the faithful (more conservative) brethren in the SDA
Church, it was and still is a “no-brainer”—Ellen White would
NEVER
lie. Th us, everyone else is either deluded or involved
in some satanically inspired conspiracy to destroy the prophet’s
image and blemish the cause of God. After all, did not the
prophet of God paint all and sundry who dared cross her path
with that same brush? Therefore, even if Ellen White could
not be exonerated by producing indisputable, hard-core, factual
evidence, her defenders (including herself
) would, in fact still
do, resort to various degrees of character assassination in an
attempt to prove that someone who is obviously so great a sinner/
spiritually deficient and so mentally unstable, could never be a
reliable witness (the story of John Harvey Kellogg is just one prime
example of this). But, this red-herring approach that attempts to
divert attention from the cardinal question has, in light of all
the evidence and information available today, become virtually
redundant and inadmissible.
Interestingly enough, spiritual implications aside, many of
the people who became enemies of the Ellen White cause, were
intelligent, educated individuals with no less human deficiencies
than any other normal mortal, including Ellen White who, based
on the history of her own personal life, was more fallible than

249
Brian Neumann

might be expected. As the title of Graeme Bradford’s book so aptly

puts it, Prophets are Human. In Ellen White’s case, very much so.
Alice Elizabeth Gregg takes us back to the very early years of
Fannie Bolton’s life, her time as a correspondent with the Daily
Inter-Ocean, her conversion and subsequent connection with
Ellen White:

… The Story, a quasi biography of Frances Eugenia Bolton,

cites her birthday as August 1, 1859. Her death certificate
indicates that her birthplace was Chicago, Illinois. Her father
was a Methodist minister, and she had at least two brothers.
Her picture on the title page of The Story shows an attractive
brunette with the small, chiseled features that might please a
cosmetologist.
Fannie was a June 18, 1883, graduate of the Preparatory
School (high school) of Northwestern University in Evanston,
Illinois; and she delivered one of the commencement orations,
“The Flight of the Gods.” 2 The Story indicates that she attended
“Lady’s Seminary” and/or “Evanston College.” Whether she
went beyond the preparatory school at that time has not yet
been substantiated. What is known is that after her schooling
she found work as a correspondent with the [Chicago] Daily
Inter-Ocean, one of the predecessors of the Chicago Tribune.
She was converted to Seventh-day Adventism in 1885 by
George B. Starr, a minister at the Chicago Mission. Fannie
first met Ellen Gould White, Seventh-day Adventism’s mes-
senger, at the Springfield, Illinois, campmeeting in 1887 when
she was reporting for the paper. She was then twenty-eight
years old. Because of her background it was natural that she be
asked to edit Ellen’s sermons. According to Fannie’s account to
a friend, Ellen was pleased with the way she made the sermons
over for the press, and she wished to employ her.3
Ellen had recently returned from Europe filled with ideas
for writing books and articles. The Great Controversy was
finished. The Desire of Ages was a dream, and the Adventist

250
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

periodicals were constantly clamoring for articles. Marian

Davis had been working for Ellen since 1879 and editing for
her since the death of James White, her husband, in 1881. But
with the numbers of requests for articles, tracts, books, and let-
ters, Marian was staggering under the load. Ellen had to have
more help, and Fannie was a likely candidate.
William C. White, Ellen’s son, and Dores E. Robinson, her
grandson-in-law, recalled many years later that Fannie “was
recommended to her as a young woman of rare talents, of
good education, and an earnest Christian.” The arrangement
for employment was beneficial for both Ellen and Fannie, they
wrote, and Fannie “proved to be brilliant and entertaining,
and, although somewhat erratic at times, was loved by the
other members of the family.” 4
When Ellen left the campmeeting circuit to return to her
home in California, she arranged for Fannie to meet her and
her party at the Chicago depot so that they could travel together.
Ellen was “not with her party, so Elder Starr hunted around
till he found her behind a screen in the restaurant very grat-
ified in eating big white raw oysters with vinegar, pepper
and salt,” Fannie wrote; and on the same trip Willie White
brought into the car a “thick piece of bloody beefsteak” for Sara
McEnterfer, one of Ellen’s valued employees, to cook on a small
oil stove. These incidents were shocking to Fannie, who had
“lived up to the testimonies with all faithfulness discarding
meat, butter, fish, fowl and the supper meal, believing that
as the ‘Testimonies’ say, ‘no meat-eater will be translated.’”5

No doubt, witnessing such incidents, while in the employment of

the “messenger of the Lord,” must have left an indelible
impression on Fannie Bolton. Not that Ellen White’s defenders
believe Fannie, in spite of the fact that Kellogg’s testimony
regarding Mrs. White and meat-eating corroborates Fannie’s
account (this issue will be examined in greater depth in a
later chapter).

251
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

It is more than just vaguely possible that early contradictions,

such as described by Gregg, began to plant fledgling seeds of
confusion (about right and wrong) in Fannie’s mind. Yet, the
conviction that she was involved in a very important work for the
cause of God kept Fannie at her editor’s post, at least for the
time being. However, there were certain aspects of this
occupation that would become more and more difficult for her
to deal with. Gregg continues:
When the party arrived in California, Fannie was given spe-
cific instructions regarding her assignment. She was told at the
outset that she was to work under the direction of Marian in
preparing letters, or “testimonies,” as they were usually referred
to, and in editing articles for publication. She was told also,
according to White and Robinson, that the “matters revealed
to Mrs. White in vision, were not a word for word narra-
tion of events with their lessons, but that they were gener-
ally flash-light or panoramic views of various scenes in the
experiences of men, sometimes in the past, and sometimes
in the future, together with the lessons connected with these
experiences.”
Likewise she was told about Ellen’s tendency to make
errors of mechanic (spelling, capitalization, punctuation) and
of syntax, to be repetitious, and to fall short of organizing her
material well–all of which the editors should correct, modify, or
rearrange for clarity and effectiveness. 6
Fannie enjoyed working on articles for publication,
according to White and Robinson, but “she found the copying
of letters of reproof to be distasteful and revolting to her. She
was heard to say that she wished there were no such word as
‘don’t’ in the English language.” 7

Could it be that while copying Mrs. White’s letters of reproof,

often dealing with various aspects of lifestyle (diet), Fannie
was having to rationalize and justify strong rebukes to other

252
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

individuals she knew were being delivered by someone who was

not practicing what she preached?
As long as Fannie did what she was told and did not speak
her mind all would be well. Sooner or later however, when push
came to shove, as it always does when someone has ambition and
labours for too long under conditions that are a source of inner
conflict, they start to voice their opinion. Especially, as it was in
Fannie’s case, when it came to things that related directly to her
education in the ethics of writing, the inner mental conflict that
was already brewing as the result of inconsistencies she witnessed
would finally come to boiling point. For Fannie, who seemed to
get no confirmation from others working in Ellen White’s “inner
circle,” regarding concerns she had raised, it finally led to her
taking the next step of speaking outside of those confines. In this
arena, she would discover that there were a number of people who
were more than willing to listen. Gregg continues her account:

The first year of working with Fannie seemed a happy expe-

rience for Ellen. She wrote on February 13, 1888: “Fannie
Bolton is a treasure to me. We are all harmonious, all work-
ing unitedly and in love.” 8
Fannie, however, was finding some aspects of her work
appalling. Early during her employment she showed Marian
some material she was working on, and to her surprise Marian
asked if she had compared the chronology with Eidersheim or
another standard religious writer. When Fannie told her that
the Lord was a correct historian, Marian replied that Ellen
was not. In recounting the story for his paper, The Gathering
Call, Edward S. Ballenger later wrote that Fannie, on com-
paring, was “shocked and astonished to face a paragraph
exactly like the one in the articles she was copying, although
there was no sign in the articles of its being a quotation, and
on turning a page found a whole page which in the articles
was only changed enough to prevent its being an exact quo-
tation.” Ballenger went on to explain that Marian tried to

253
Brian Neumann

reassure Fannie by saying that “the earth is the Lord’s and the
fullness thereof.” But Fannie was not satisfied. 9
In the days that followed, Fannie found that many
authors’ works were used without credit. Nor was credit
given to Fannie or to Marian for their original work incor-
porated in articles going out over Ellen’s name and, more-
over, represented as inspired of God. Thus Fannie found
herself involved in something she believed to be dishonest.
Conscience-stricken and disillusioned, she brought the matter
up with Ellen, in the conviction that she ought to uphold the
“principle of ordinary justice and literary honesty [and be] a
martyr for truth’s sake.” 10 There were golden rules for writ-
ing that were not being followed, she told Ellen. What Ellen
said at that time is not known or included in The Story, but
evidently she was intractable, inasmuch as Fannie retired to
the typewriter and to doing the work assigned to her.
After the 1888 General Conference meeting in
Minneapolis, Ellen went to live in Battle Creek; and in
December Fannie and Marian were called from California.
White and Robinson recollected that “on the way to Battle
Creek, Miss Bolton spent a week in Chicago. There she met
many of her former acquaintances, and found many things
to remind her of old time experiences and ambitions. Soon
after this she made it known to her fellow-workers that she
was not satisfied to spend all her life in handling the thoughts
and writings of another person. She had thoughts and ideas
of her own, and longed to give expression to them.” 11
Although Fannie went on working for Ellen, the situa-
tion continued to deteriorate. At last, not yet two years after
Fannie began working, White wrote to Charles H. Jones of the
Pacific Health Journal on June 23, 1889, suggesting that it
would be profitable for him to employ Fannie. “I believe that
Sister Bolton is much better qualified for work on a journal
like the Pacific Health Journal,” she wrote, “for in this she
would have more occasion for original work, and it would

254
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

not demand the accuracy which our work on the Signs must
have.” 12
Since Jones obviously, for whatever reason, did not employ
her, Fannie continued working for Ellen, trying to “har-
monize what seemed to [her] an inconsistency in the work
with a worldly literary maxim that requires an author to
acknowledge his editors and give credit to all works from
which he quotes” and holding to “the position in [her] mind
that Sister White should acknowledge her editors and every
source from which she obtained suggestion or expression.” 13
Fannie must have kept the subject of crediting authors
and editors fresh before Ellen during those months, for by the
autumn of 1890 she was fired. Having found some courses
that she wanted to take at the University of Michigan at Ann
Arbor, Fannie eased herself out of her job, with the exception
of a few of Ellen’s manuscripts that she took with her to edit.
About this, Ellen wrote that Fannie “asked for some articles
of mine to take with her to Ann Arbor, saying she loved the
work. But I now think that she wished to use the pretext that
she was employed by me in order to gain the confidence of
others because I trusted her as my agent to prepare copy for
my books. I see my folly now.” 14
Writing an apology to Ellen, Fannie said “I can not help
writing to you because God has helped me so much since I
last saw you. I did feel so sad about being severed from your
work when I had just become so reconciled, so anxious to do
it; but I cast all my perplexity on God.” 15

TIe general picture, regarding Fannie Bolton’s personal

predicament, becomes clearer. She was being torn between a
desire to put into practice what she had been educated and
trained for in the literary field—the pursuit of a career that
would enable her to express herself creatively while staying true to
the maxims and ethics of writers—and a desire to remain
employed (notwithstanding the inconsistencies) in ШНОЫЮ she
believed was of eternal consequence.

255
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

Another price Fannie was having to pay was that she was
not receiving personal recognition for what she was doing.
Unfortunately, this desire for recognition and practice of proper
literary standards, once expressed, would finally be turned
against her and be interpreted as “pride” and a desire for “self-
exaltation.”
Ellen White was particularly adept at executing this kind of
criticism. After all she, as God’s messenger, had been delivering
rebukes since her late teens—many had already fallen under the
sword of Ellen White’s “stern” rebuke. She had no reluctance in
“lifting up her voice like a trumpet” and making “the house of
Israel” aware of their sins—especially when someone dared say
something about the contradictions in her own life. Fortunately,
for Ellen White, she would always have the “one-up” on all her
critics as no one else could claim the “I was shown” comeback that
Ellen White had the privilege of resorting to—with someone
like her it was always a win/lose situation.
TIere is little doubt, in spite of her issues with Ellen White
(in personal and literary aspects), that Fannie respected her
and believed in her calling. However, this conflict resulting in a
constant balancing act between what was NOT acceptable in the
“world” as opposed to what WAS acceptable for a prophet of God,
may well have become the catalyst that triggered Fannie’s own
compromise further down the line.
Surely, the knowledge that someone of the calling and status of
Ellen White was not, herself, following instruction given by God on
the question of diet, together with her knowledge of Ellen White’s
total disregard for common literary ethics, would give Fannie
unspoken license to act inconsistently too. Indeed, Ellen White herself
had counseled that the Church would rise no higher than the standard
set by its leaders—what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
What kind of example was Ellen White, the messenger of
God, setting for the young, newly converted, impressionable,
ambitious Fannie Bolton? Gregg recounts:

256
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

A year later, in the autumn of 1891, the General Conference

asked Ellen White to go to Australia. When Sara McEnterfer
unfortunately became ill with malaria, Ellen, to the surprise
of others in the inner circle, invited Fannie to go with her as a
replacement for Sara. Ellen acknowledged later that “Fannie
pleaded hard and with tears to come with me [to Australia]
to engage with me in the work of preparing articles for
the papers. She declared she had met with a great change,
and was not at all the person she was when she told me she
desired to write herself and could not consent that her talent
would be buried up in the work of preparing my articles for
the papers and books. She felt she was full of the matter and
had talent she must put to use in writing which she could not
do connected with me.” 16

While Fanny might have, confessed a change of heart,

pleading a return to employment and to accompanying Ellen
White on her Australian journey, it will become clear, when
examining statements from her “confession” and other evidence
that her opinion on certain issues, particularly relating to the
standard of accepted literary ethics, had not changed. She would
only, under duress of what one might call spiritual
considerations, make concession for the “messenger” of God.
It will be seen, however, that even then she vacillated
between what was an acceptable standard for mere mortals as
opposed to that which was permissible for those employed in
high and holy office as spokespersons for the Almighty. Gregg
describes what happened in Australia:

Once in Australia, Fannie settled into the work with her

usual speed and efficiency. In a letter of October 7, 1892, she
wrote that she had copied forty-two pages of the mail, had
sent off seven articles for the Review and six for the Signs,
and had prepared four articles more since the mail had gone.
17
On May 4, 1893, she wrote that she had rushed down town

257
Brian Neumann

the day before and mailed eleven articles to Ellen–seven or

eight for the Youth’s Instructor, one for the Signs, and one for
the Review. 18
When campmeeting time came in 1894 ( January 5-28),
Fannie was ready for a vacation. Campmeetings were times
for refreshing and exchanging experiences and views; and
Fannie, a workaholic by nature, looked forward to them. While
she was there, it is likely that friends told Fannie how wonder-
ful it must be to work for such an inspired and brilliant writer
as Ellen; and Fannie would have thought it was important
to put the record straight. “She talked much to friends and
acquaintances in Melbourne about the difficulties attending
her work, and the faulty way in which some of the manu-
scripts were written,” recalled White and Robinson of the
occasion. “Her estimate of the great improvements made by
the editors was dwelt upon, and the work of Mrs. White was
belittled. Again she expressed her decided conviction that the
talents of the copyists and their work should receive public
recognition.” 19
At the same time she told Merritt G. Kellogg, half-brother
of John Harvey Kellogg and William K. Kellogg, that she was
“writing all the time for Sister White.” Furthermore, she said
that most of what she wrote was “published in the Review
and Herald …as having been written by Sister White under
inspiration of God…I am greatly distressed over this mat-
ter, for I feel that I am acting a deceptive part. The people
are being deceived about the inspiration of what I write.
I feel that it is a great wrong that anything which I write
should go out under Sister White’s name as an article spe-
cially inspired of God. What I write should go out over my
own signature[;] then credit would be given where credit
belongs.” 20
The essence of her complaints, as Fannie would express
it to Ellen later when she looked back, was: “I thought as I
have always thought before, that you did not see my per-
plexity, or comprehend my trouble, that IT WAS YOUR

258
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

WITHHOLDING OF THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR

WRITINGS in not acknowledging your editorial help, that
was at the bottom of all the perplexity, and that your work
was not as you say the work of God ought to be, ‘AS OPEN
AS SUNLIGHT’” [emphasis added]. 21

TIis very statement regarding honesty and “sunlight” in

connection with God’s work was quoted earlier. Anyone, who
has read Ellen White’s all-encompassing statements about total
transparency for those connected to the cause of God, as Fannie no
doubt had while editing White’s work, would have been just as
perplexed and may well have spoken out even sooner than Fannie.
Of course, from the time that Fannie began to speak openly to
those outside the inner circle, Ellen White immediately defended
herself in the form of declarations from God (received in vision).
As a result and over time, Fannie’s “sin” of daring to cross the
prophet of God, resulted in her being compared to numerous
rebels and betrayers found in Scripture. Not only would this
method of “red-herring” retaliation have a rallying effect on
the pro-Ellen White fraternity, but it would also wear away at
Fannie Bolton herself. Even though she never said that she had
lied about the actuality of Ellen White’s literary borrowing and
not giving credit to her editors (from a common, worldly, literary
perspective), she would still, as mentioned previously, be in doubt
as to whether the “mores” and “ethics” of these worldly literary
standards should be applied to Ellen White. Th
is, and her belief
that Ellen White was inspired of God, would be the catalysts that
would lead to her qualification/confession of her position. Gregg
continues to elucidate on Ellen White’s attack and defense
strategy:
όФСЪ
κШШСЪ
ТЫбЪР
Ыба
аФНа
λНЪЪХС
гНЯ
ЮСвСНШХЪУ
ФСЮ
гЫЮЧХЪУ

ЩСаФЫРЯΑ
ЯФС
ФНР
Н
вХЯХЫЪΑ
НППЫЮРХЪУ
аЫ
гФНа
ЯФС
аЫШР
μСЫЮУС
ηΔ

ψаНЮЮΓ





ΜωФСЮС
НЬЬСНЮСР
Н
ПФНЮХЫа
ЫТ
УЫШР
НЪР
ФЫЮЯСЯ
ЫТ
ЯХШвСЮ
НОЫвС

ЩСΑ

НЪР


οСЯбЯΑ
ХЪ


ЮЫеНШ
ЩНЦСЯаеΑ


гНЯ

ЯСНаСР

ХЪ

аФС


ПФНЮХЫа
ΔΔΔ

259
Brian Neumann

…


Th en
there
came
the
words
rolling
down
over

the clouds from the chariot from the lips of Jesus, ‘Fannie
Bolton is your adversary! Fanny Bolton is your adversary!’
repeated three times.” 22 Ellen wrote Marian also that she
was “warned” that Fannie was her adversary. 23
On February 6, 1894, Ellen wrote Fannie: “Now, my
sister, I do not want you to be any longer connected with
me in my work. I mean now, for your good, that you should
never have another opportunity to do as you have done in
the past.” 24
The only reference Ellen made in that letter to the mat-
ter of her “copying” from other authors was: “SHOULD
I ATTEMPT TO VINDICATE MY COURSE
TO THOSE WHO DO NOT APPRECIATE THE
SPIRITUAL CHARACTER OF THE WORK WHICH
IS LAID UPON ME, IT WOULD ONLY EXPOSE
MYSELF AND THE WORK TO MISCONCEPTION
AND MISREPRESENTATION. To present the matter
before other minds would be useless, for there are but few
who are really so connected with God [who] see beneath the
surface appearance as to understand it. This work is one that
I cannot explain.” 25

Ellen White certainly feared the prospect of being

“misrepresented” by the truth being told. Th is comes through even
more clearly when one becomes familiar with the facts available
today—reading between the lines of Ellen White’s diatribes is
more like looking through an open door into clear sunlit sky.
Fannie knew that Mrs. White was copying other authors
without giving credit, and today, based on in-depth research and
extensive comparison, this fact is beyond debate. Fanny Bolton
was NOT lying about this issue—period. The question that
remains to be answered though is not whether White plagiarized,
but rather, whether a different set of literary rules or ethics (or no
rules at all) applied to her as opposed to uninspired writers.

260
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

All Ellen White could resort to was to attack the person and
character of Fannie Bolton. In these attempts, as will be seen,
Ellen White spared nothing, or to quote a modern expression,
“took no prisoners.” Fannie was a fallible human with weaknesses,
as all humans have. Finding something to “hang on her,” so as to
put her character in question would not be too difficult,
especially for someone claiming divine prophetic insight. As one
continues delving into Ellen White’s attack on Fannie it
becomes clear that no aspect of Fannie’s character was spared, to
the point that Ellen White compared her to Miraim and
Aaron rebelling against Moses and even Satan himself. Gregg
writes:
Since she could not explain the copying–because to do so would
disclose it–Ellen wrote ad hominem on Fannie’s character,
about which she could say much: “ You are not a safe and
capable worker. Your mind is subject to changes; first it is
elated, then depressed. The impression made by this frequent
change is startling. Self-control is not brought into your life.
You choose a life of change, crowded with different inter-
ests and occupations, therefore you cannot possibly put your
life, as you suppose you have done, into this work; you are
most wonderfully deceived in thinking you do this.…All you
engage in tastes so strongly of the dish that it is not accept-
able to God.” 26
On the same day Ellen wrote to her son Willie: “Her
love of ambition, her love of praise, and her idea of her own
ability and talent was the open door Satan had entered to
not only ruin her soul, but to imperil the work given me of
God.…I am in a very grave perplexity and when I see how
Satan works to take the very ones who ought to be intelli-
gent and sharp as steel to understand their position before
God, and their privileges and honor to have a part in the
work, become disloyal, surmising, and whispering evil and
putting the same into other minds, it is time decisive meas-
ures are taken that will correct the disaffection before it shall
spread farther.” 27

261
Brian Neumann

Ellen spared no rhetoric in her invective during this

period. She wrote to O.A. Olsen, the General Conference presi-
dent: “Her ardent love for praise and ambition was very
similar to that presented to me in regard to the workings of
Satan in the heavenly courts to bring disaffection among the
angels.” 28
To Marian, she wrote: “She becomes at times as ver-
ily possessed by demons as were human beings in the days
of Christ. And when these paroxysms are upon her, many
think she is inspired of God. She is fluent, her words come
thick and fast, and she is under the control of demons.” 29
“If she were converted,” she wrote to George A. Irwin,
soon to become the General Conference president, “she would
have a clear understanding of the influence of her past mis-
representations of the work she has done for me, and would
confess some of her misstatements regarding it, which have
been used by the enemy to unsettle and undermine the faith
of many, in the testimonies of the Spirit of God.” 30
To Willie, Ellen likened Fannie to Aaron and Miriam:
“Aaron had been mouth-piece for Moses, and Miriam was a
teacher of the women. But now come whisperings between
the brother and sister in murmurings and jealousies against
Moses, and they were guilty of disloyalty, not only to their
Leader appointed of God but God Himself.…Those who
give place to Satan’s suggestions in their desperate efforts
in panting for recognition of talents they flatter themselves
that they possess, will be so blinded by the enemy that they
will not discern sacred things in distinction from the com-
mon.” In the same letter to Willie, she said that Fannie was
like Eve: “Again the warning came, ‘Fannie is your adver-
sary, and is misleading minds by entertaining the sugges-
tions of Satan as did Eve in Eden.’”31
To Fannie on the same day she wrote, in the third per-
son singular, about Fannie’s likeness to Saul: “My prayer is
that God will convert the poor child [Fannie], that she may
understand the leadings of His Holy Spirit. The character

262
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

of Saul is a marked one. There was strength and weakness

combined. Gifts of talent were bestowed upon him, and had
he consecrated these gifts wholly to God, he would not have
dishonored himself by his own transgression.” 32
Impaling Fannie thus on her sharp pen, Ellen was able to
divert attention from the copying problem to Fannie’s charac-
ter. Nowhere in the record does Ellen say to Fannie, “Let’s give
credit where credit is due. Let’s do the right thing.” The red
herring assault on Fannie’s personality was the perfect tactic.
Fannie was remorseful, to say the least, having just lost
her job, and she wrote to Ellen: “I can see just how Satan has
come and has always found something in me whereby he
could work to harass and distress those with whom I was
associated. Self has never died fully and therefore a door was
left for the entrance of the enemy. The bottom of all my trou-
ble has been self, and that is Satanic.…In doing the work,
I have looked at what was perplexing, and handling it day
after day, have lost the real sense of its sacredness, and began
to look upon it from a literary standpoint alone. I don’t know
that it is quite just to put it in that way either; for I have
had a sense of what it was to me, and to all, above that of
a mere literary matter.…My faith in the testimonies is
stronger today than ever, and I feel that I want to put my
whole influence on the side of upbuilding the faith of God’s
people in this great and sacred work.” 33
Ellen wrote back to Fannie the next day, on February
10, 1894: “I received and read your letter, and assure you
that my heart is deeply touched by its contents. I accept your
confession. As far as yourself and your connection with me
personally is concerned, I have and do freely forgive you.” 34
Fannie was rehired on the spot.

It would appear, Ellen White was under the impression that

her rebukes and chastening had done their work on Fannie
Bolton and elicited a satisfactory confession. Little did she know
that
Fannie had
not
yet,

in her
own
mind,

settled the debate

263
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

ЫвСЮ
that which was acceptable for a prophet as opposed to what

was unethical and totally dishonest for those who were not
“divinely” inspired. Another fact that becomes clear is that
Ellen White needed Fannie. She had talents, abilities and
education that greatly contributed to Ellen White’s writing.
Once she perceived that Fannie had been brought back into
line, so to speak, she rehired her, “on the spot.” Th ere seem to
be other reasons for her needing Fannie in closer proximity
though that will be addressed shortly. Gregg continues:
Whether this was startling to Ellen’s cadre [rehiring Fannie] is
not known. They knew that Fannie was good help, and Ellen
needed her help. Willie’s letter to Edson, his brother, on October
25, 1895, confirmed that: “She [Fannie] has remarkable tal-
ent and handles mother’s matters very intelligently and rap-
idly, turning off more than twice as much work in a given
time as any other editor mother has ever employed.” 35
But not all was well with Fannie. She was in the process of
forming a near-adulterous relationship with a married man.
Ellen had hired a youngish man by the name of W.F. Caldwell
in 1893 to help Fannie with the typing. He had been separated
from his wife and two children for three years. Caldwell took
to the cloistered life and showed “a fondness for the society
of young girls and [was] full of gaiety, conducting himself
like a boy,” as Ellen later wrote pejoratively to I.N. Williams,
president of Caldwell’s home conference. 36 Although Caldwell’s
wife later divorced him, this had not been done before Fannie
and he had formed “the attachment and love and had been
pledged to one another, Fannie to Caldwell, and Caldwell to
Fannie.” Ellen reported to John Harvey Kellogg. 37
As meliorist, Ellen pointed out to Fannie the less-than-
heroic character of Caldwell: “The Lord has a controversy
with Brother Caldwell. His love of self, his love of self-grat-
ification, and his determination to have his own way, have
made him unreasonable, overbearing, dictatorial. His prac-

264
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

tice of over-eating has taxed his digestive organs, distended

his stomach, and taxed his nature to endure a burden that
has reacted upon the brain, and his memory is weakened.” 38
Fannie denied at first that there was any affection between
them. “She stood before me in my tent,” Ellen wrote to her
friends the Tenneys, “and declared that there was nothing to
the reports. For one year after this, she was good for nothing
to me, only a dead, heavy load.” Fannie finally admitted that
she loved Caldwell with all her heart and the “three times
has this cup of bliss [engagement] been presented to me, and
then been snatched away.” 39
Although Ellen was able to nip the romance in the bud,
she continued over a period of two years to write to various
people about the unseemly liaison: “It is not the work con-
nected with me that has prostrated her [Fannie’s] nervous
system,” Ellen wrote to Willard A. Colcord. “It is practic-
ing a course of secrecy and deception and wrong-doing. It is
not the requirements made upon her, but it is kindling a fire
and walking in the sparks of her own kindling in connection
with her wonderful desire for another woman’s husband;
lovesick sentimentalism.” 40

It cannot be emphatically stated, as mentioned earlier, but it

can certainly be questioned whether the contradictory example
set by the prophet of God, were contributing to Fannie’s own
compromise? As noted before, Ellen White herself observed that
the church will never rise above the standard set by its leaders.
Th e very finger that pointed out Fannie’s “practicing a course
of secrecy and deception and wrong-doing,” was pointing right
back at Ellen White. Th e nature of her deception seems more
diabolical than anything she was accusing Fannie of.
A flavor of arrogance seems to permeate Ellen White’s
attitude to criticism directed towards her, particularly in regard
to the issue of literary ethics. This is very unusual for someone
of her apparent spiritual status. Is it not true to human nature

265
Brian Neumann

that the very things that people will most loudly accuse others of
doing they are guilty of themselves? The red-herring defense was
effectively doing its dishonorable work. Gregg describes how, in
letters to various individuals, Ellen White continued her tirade
against Fannie:

Rummaging in the past, Ellen brought out Fannie’s dead sec-

ond romance to couple with this third incident. In Ann Arbor
Fannie had met a Californian named Blakley (first name not
given) and had fallen in love with him. 41 When she went
to Australia, Ellen told Colcord, “she expected he [Blakley]
would write her, renewing his attentions to her, but no letter
was received, and she almost blasphemed God because of His
providence.” 42 Ellen wrote to John Harvey Kellogg also about
the Blakley matter, saying that Fannie “acted at times as if
possessed of an evil spirit, and she set in to make us all miser-
able…[and] was sometimes impudent and accusing.” 43
When campmeeting time rolled around in 1895 (October
17 to November 11), Fannie was there to meet her Waterloo.
Again she told her secret. Ellen wrote that she stood “like a
sheep bleating about the fold.” 44 The bleating and the roman-
tic entanglement were too much for Ellen. Kellogg wrote
Ballenger of Fannie’s report that she and Marian Davis had
to go over the material copied from the books of other writers
“and transpose sentences and change paragraphs and other-
wise endeavor to hide the piracy,” and as a result of Fannie’s
objections, Ellen not only dismissed her but slapped her face. 45
Finally, on November 12, 1895, Ellen wrote to Marian:
“I have given nothing into Fannie’s hands, and never expect
to give her another chance to seek to betray me and turn
traitor. I have had enough of ‘talent’ and ‘ability’ to last me
a lifetime.” Again on November 29 she wrote to Marian, “I
have served my time with Fannie Bolton.” 46
This was to have been the end of Fannie’s term of service.
Off and on, for a period of seven and a half years, Fannie had
worked for Ellen. Now, the once “Christlike,” “brilliant,”

266
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

“entertaining,” “talented,” “educated,” and “productive”

Fannie had degenerated, according to Ellen’s recriminations,
into a “poor, shallow soul,” a “flashing meteor,” a “practicer
of deception,” a “lovesick sentimentalist,” a “pretentious
actor,” a “poor, deluded, misshapen character,” and a “farce,”
and said she had become “trying,” “provoking,” “one-sided,”
“impulsive,” “fickle,” “unbalanced,” depressed,” “vacillat-
ing,” and “unself-controlled.” 47
Incredible as it may seem, Fannie was invited to work for
Ellen a fourth time. As Fannie quoted Ellen’s words back to her
later, Ellen said that she had been told by an “unseen presence
on March 20, 1895,’ that Fannie was to be taken back into
the work: “If she [Fannie] separates now from you,’ said the
spirit, ‘Satan’s net is prepared for her feet. She is not in a con-
dition to be left to herself now to be consumed of herself. She
feels regret and remorse. I am her Redeemer, I will restore
her if she will not exalt and honor and glorify herself. If she
goes from you now, there is a chain of circumstances which
will bring her into difficulties which will be her ruin.’”48
In 1900 Ellen wrote to Irwin giving the reason for asking
Fannie back a fourth time: “I now see why I was directed to
give Fannie another trial. There are those who misunder-
stood me because of Fannie’s misrepresentations. These were
watching to see what course I would take in regard to her.
They would have represented that I had abused poor Fannie
Bolton. In following the directions to take her back, I took
away all occasion for criticism from those who were ready to
condemn me.” 49

All occasion for criticism had not been removed—far from it.
When one puts the pieces of the puzzle together, especially in
view of the fact that ALL the available evidence clearly
vindicates the primary accusation made by Fannie—Ellen White
was plagiarizing the writings of other authors. And in light of the
certainty that Ellen White was dealing from the bottom of the

267
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

deck, it becomes more than probable that the motivation for

Fannie’s fourth opportunity was for totally different reasons than
stated by Ellen White.
TIe probable reason for

this fourth opportunity was that
Ellen White was bargaining that if she rehired Fannie, she would
placate her, keep her close and influence her to see things her
way (for fear of what damage Fannie might do outside of the fold).
Th is was not to be as Fannie had, for personal reasons of her own,
decided not to continue working for Ellen White.
After she left and returned to America she would continue to
speak out, and as a result even more brethren would develop
doubts regarding the writings of Ellen White. Gregg continues:

… Fannie was broken in body and in spirit. The years of over-

work and stress had taken their toll of her less than robust
physical and emotional health, leaving Fannie in no condition
to work, and she decided to return to America. Her ship sailed
on May 10, 1896.
The conflict might have died there, but Fannie talked again
and again, wavering between loyalty to her literary maxims
and to Ellen and her work. In 1897 Ellen was still smarting
from the reports when she wrote to Fannie in April: “I will cut
off the influence of your tongue in every way I can,” 50and
to the Tenneys in July: “Her imagination is very strong, and
she makes such exaggerated statements that her words are
not trustworthy.” 51
Fannie had given the reason for her conflict in 1894. “I
felt that you were the servant of God,” she wrote to Ellen,
“and that I should be with you, there would be more hope
of my salvation, than if I remained in any other branch of
work. I thought that were I editing your writings, I should
be found in the time of judgment giving meat in due sea-
son.” 52

268
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

One can literally taste the indignation and desire to punish

Fannie in Ellen White’s statement. Also, in her comments about
Fannie’s “imagination” and “exaggerated statements,” (no doubt
Fannie’s accusations regarding plagiarism were incentive for this
remark), it is clear that Ellen White’s words, not Fannie’s, are
not trustworthy. Th is is especially so in light of the
overwhelming facts available today
Something very evident jumps out at one when reading
Fannie’s 1894 statement, describing the reason for her conflict.
Indeed, this was to be Fannie’s predicament all the way, a
predicament that may well have contributed to her final mental
and physical ruin. She was caught between a rock and a hard
place, when it came to her connection to the “prophet of God”
and her fear of losing her eternal salvation.
In spite of the fact that she knew about the inconsistencies in
Ellen White’s personal life and her unethical literary practices,
she continually vacillated between what was wrong for uninspired
authors and what might be acceptable for an instrument chosen
of God. Even in her later so called confession, while still plainly
stating her understanding of regular literary norms and Ellen
White’s disregard for them, this predicament is plainly apparent.
In the next segment we consider this evidence. Gregg writes:

Finally, in 1901, to the great relief of Ellen’s supporters,

Fannie wrote what they considered to be her true confession: “I
thank God that He has kept Sister White from following my
supposed superior wisdom and righteousness, and has kept
her from acknowledging editors or authors; but has given
to the people the unadulterated expression of God’s mind.
Had she done as I wished her to do, the gift would have been
degraded to a common authorship, its importance lost, its
authority undermined, and its blessing lost to the world.”53

It becomes clear, not only in this comment, but in the rest of

what Fannie wrote in her “confession,” while she did not state
that she had lied about Ellen White using materials from other

269
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

authors, she did come to the point where she had made up her
mind about her stand regarding acceptable literary ethics for a
prophet as opposed to the rest of the world—her fear of losing
her salvation because of speaking against and exposing God’s
messenger finally won the day. The irony of all this is that while
Fannie finally decided it was acceptable for Ellen White, as
the possessor of the “gift” and communicator of God’s message
of “authority,” to not have followed her (Fannie’s) “superior
wisdom,” in regard to “acknowledging editors or authors,” at long
last, particularly by 1909 and on into the future, the publishers of
Ellen White’s books have been giving more and more credit to
sources used by Ellen White. Surely, this in and of itself is a tacit
admission that she should have been doing this in the first place.
It becomes painfully obvious that Fannie had really been right
all along. Ellen White should’ve practiced acceptable literary
ethics. Was it God’s plan that HIS work and HIS messenger (if
indeed she was, on the level of a genuine prophet) should run
the risk of shame and ultimate disrepute, more and more so, as
with time, the extent of Ellen White’s plagiarism would become
glaringly apparent?
In all the direct
one-on-one, detailed warnings and instruction
that God communicated to Ellen White, did He ever warn her
that in the future, because of HER “unorthodox” literary practices
she would become known as one of the most prolific plagiarists
in modern times? No. In spite of giving her notice that her
books, specifically The Great Controversy, would become especially
controversial (because of the supposed truth it contained) as the
end drew nearer, God never told her that it would compromise
the “cause” and become controversial because she had been
stealing the words of other writers.
Not even Fannie could know that utilizing the tools available
today, through research, comparison and revelation it would,
in the end, result in raising the ultimate most perplexing and
indeed legitimate question of all: “How much of what Ellen White

270
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

wrote was really directly inspired/revealed by God and not simply

plagiarized from other uninspired writers?” This particular question
will be extrapolated on in the following chapter. For now we will
return to the last portion of Gregg’s article:

The last letter Ellen wrote to or about Fannie, according to The

Story, was the one to Irwin in 1900. She was nearing age
seventy-three, and Fannie was in her forty-first year. Perhaps
Willie took over the controversy at that time. He wrote to
Stephen N. Haskell: “It is no doubt a relief to you to write
a few lines in each letter about Sister Bolton [to Ellen], but
unless there is some obvious good to be accomplished, some-
thing definite to be done in response to what you write, it
would be much pleasanter for Mother and greatly for the
advancement of her work if such unpleasant things were not
mentioned. The loss of two or three night’s sleep over such
a matter may deprive Mother of the strength which might
have been used in bringing out some very important general
matter for the instruction of the churches.” 54
In 1911, when Fannie was fifty-two years of age,
her emotional health broke, and she was admitted to the
Kalamazoo State Hospital. She was released after thirteen
months (February 20, 1911, to March 18, 1912). Less than
two years before she died, she was admitted again for three
months (October 9, 1924, to January 21, 1925). To Fannie’s
detractors, this was an indication that divine retribution was
being meted out in the here and now, and positive proof that
she had been unbalanced all along.
Fannie was heard from off and on during the years fol-
lowing her employment with Ellen. As late as 1914 she wrote:
“I was with Mrs. White for seven and a half years like a soul
on a rock, because of all kinds of inconsistencies, injustices
and chicaneries.” 55
… Fannie died in 1926 at Battle Creek, according to the
Review, on June 28. She was not yet sixty-seven years of age.
Her friend Hattie wrote the obituary for the Review: “The

271
Brian Neumann

peaceful expression on her face told us she felt ready to meet

her Master.” One of Fannie’s own compositions was sung–
“Not I but Christ.” She was buried at Eureka, Michigan.56
Ironically, her death certificate gives her occupation as
“letter writer,” the part of her work for Ellen that she disliked
the very most.

A number of times I have referred to the fact that in this

day and age, communication being what it is, especially via the
internet, a range of sophisticated research tools exist that were
not available in the past. Th e ability to research Ellen White’s
writings or anyone else’s for that matter, for the purpose of making
comparisons with materials of other authors, is a simple matter.
When Walter Rea, for example, wrote his book, Th e White
Lie, over thirty years ago, he did not have these modern tools
freely at his disposal. Th e brethren, in Ellen White’s day, had even
less time-saving devices available to them. Yet, even with what
was then available, combined with the testimony of people such
as Fannie Bolton who were intimately involved with White’s
work, it was already possible to show that Ellen White had,
unquestionably, copied copious amounts from other writers.
However, the total extent of this literary borrowing was really
only going to become totally substantiated in our time.
Today it is possible, not only to prove that Ellen White copied
whole sentences and complete segments from other writers, it
is actually possible to show the significant degree to which she
changed just enough so as to make it appear that the thoughts
of others were her own. She rearranged sentences, paraphrased,
captured, re-configured and re-submitted whole themes and
ideas of other writers to an almost inconceivable extent. We are
not only able to research the writings of the authors we have long
known Ellen White plagiarized, but thanks to the sophisticated
means at our disposal, are now able to discover literary borrowing

272
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

from other author’s we
were not even previously aware she
copied from.
At the start of this chapter I quoted from the book by Gladys
King-Taylor that lauded the literary style and beauty of Ellen
White’s writing. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that a
book such as the Literary Beauty of Ellen G. Whites Writings is
not worth the paper it was written on if one cannot be sure what
actually came from Ellen White’s pen or was simply the restyling
of other writer’s material’s (not to mention the role played by
White’s very competent editing team).
The next chapter will be dedicated to examining various
examples of how Ellen White “borrowed” and adapted the
writings of other authors.

SOURCES
1. “Fannie’s Folly,” Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton
and Marian Davis, By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents,
October 1983.
2. Fannie’s attendance years, graduation date, and the commence-
ment oration title were provided 12 May 1983 by Northwestern
University Library archivist, Patrick M. Quinn, who noted in
passing that June 1983 was the hundredth anniversary of her
graduation. The registrar’s office at the University of Michigan
certified in a letter of 26 May 1983 that Fannie was a full-
time student in the liberal arts school there at Ann Arbor for the
term September 1890 to June 1891, eight years after leav-
ing Northwestern.
3. Ellen G. White Estate, comp., The Fannie Bolton Story: A Collection
of Source Documents (Washington, D.C.: General Conference of
SDA, 1982), Fannie Bolton to Mrs. E.C. Slawson, 30 December
1914; p. 108. (This compilation is hereafter referred to as The
Story. Mrs. White is referred to as Egw. Unless another source
is stated, the quotations in this Part 1 article are from The Story.
 The numbers shown for letters written by Egw refer to the file
numbers at the White Estate. The page numbers are those in
The Story collection).
4. William C. White and Dores E. Robinson, The Work of Mrs. E.G.
White’s Editors (St. Helena, CA: Elmshaven Office, 30 August
1933), p. 3. (Hereafter referred to as The Work; Mr. White
hereafter referred to as White or Willie).
5. Bolton to Slawson, 30 December 1914; p. 108-9 / “Fannie’s Folly,”
Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis,
By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents, October 1983.
6. White and Robinson, The Work, p. 3.
7. Ibid., p. 4 / “Fannie’s Folly,” Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of
Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis, By Alice Elizabeth Gregg,
Adventist Currents, October 1983.
8. Egw to Stephen N. Haskell and Mr. And Mrs. William Ings,
13 February 1888 (Letter 25); p. 1.
9. Edward S. Ballenger, ed., The Gathering Call, February 1932,
pp. 16-22. Quoted in The Story, pp. 113-16.
10. Fannie Bolton, “A Confession Concerning the Testimony of
Jesus,” ca. April 1901; p. 102.
11. White and Robinson, The Work, p. 5.
12. White to Charles H. Jones, 23 June 1889; p. 2.
13. Bolton, “A Confession,” ca. April 1901; p. 102.
14. Egw to Marian Davis, 29 October 1895 (Letter 102); p. 44.
15. Bolton to Egw, 30 April 1891; pp. 2-3 / “Fannie’s Folly,” Part
1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis,
By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents, October 1983
(emphasis supplied).
16. Egw to White, 6 February 1894 (Letter 88); pp. 28-29 /
“Fannie’s Folly,” Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton
 and Marian Davis, By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents,
October 1983.
17. Bolton to Egw, May Lacey, and Emily Campbell, 7 October
1892; p. 8.
18. Bolton to Egw, 4 May 1893; p. 12.
19. White and Robinson, The Work, p. 12.
20. Merritt G. Kellogg statement [March 1908], The Story, p. 107.
21. Bolton to Egw, 5 July 1897; p. 81 / “Fannie’s Folly,” Part 1 of the
Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis, By Alice
Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents, October 1983.
22. George B. Starr, “The Watchcare of Jesus over the Writings
Connected with the Testimony of Jesus,” 2 June 1915, The Story,
p. 110.
23. Egw to Marian Davis, 29 October 1895 (Letter 102); p. 42.
24. Egw to Bolton, 6 February 1894 (Letter 7); pp. 20-21.
25. Ibid. (p.27) / “Fannie’s Folly,” Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of
Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis, By Alice Elizabeth Gregg,
Adventist Currents, October 1983.
26. Ibid. (p. 21).
27. Egw to White, 6 February 1894 (Letter 88); pp. 29, 32.
28. Egw to Ole A. Olsen, 5 February 1894 (Letter 59); pp. 19-20.
29. Egw to Davis, 29 October 1895 (Letter 102); p. 44.
30. Egw to George A. Irwin, 23 April 1900 (Letter 61; revision of
61-a; pp. 92-4); p. 95.
31. Egw to White, 6 February 1894 (Letter 88); pp. 31, 29.
32. Egw to Bolton, 6 February 1894 (Letter 7); pp. 20, 27-28.
33. Bolton to Egw, 9 February 1894; pp. 32-33.
34. Egw to Bolton, 10 February 1894 (Letter 6); p. 34 / “Fannie’s
Folly,” Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton and
 Marian Davis, By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents,
October 1983.
35. William C. White to J. Edson White, 25 October 1895; p. 41.
36. Egw to I.N. Williams, 12 April 1896 (Letter 104); p. 70.
37. Egw to John Harvey Kellogg, 20 December 1895 (Letter 106);
p. 60.
38. Egw to Bolton, 26 November 1895 (Letter 115); pp. 52-53.
39. Egw to Mr. And Mrs. George C. Tenney, 1 July 1897 (Letter
114); pp. 79-80.
40. Egw to Willard A. Colcord, 7 January 1896 (Letter 21); p. 62
/ “Fannie’s Folly,” Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton
and Marian Davis, By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents,
October 1983.
41. Egw to Kellogg, 20 December 1895 (Letter 106); p. 60.
42. Egw to Colcord, 7 January 1896 (Letter 21); p. 62.
43. Egw to Kellogg, 20 December 1895 (Letter 106); p. 60.
44. Egw Manuscript 12-d 19[20?] March 1896; p. 64.
45. John Harvey Kellogg to Edward S. Ballenger, 9 January 1936.
Quoted in The Story, p. 120.
46. Egw to Davis, 12 November 1895 (Letter 103); 29 November
1895 (Letter 22-a); p. 49 and pp. 53-54.
47. The Story, passim.
48. Bolton to Egw, 5 July 1897, quoting from Egw Manuscript
12-c (1 April 1896; 20 March dateline [see p. 65]); p. 85.
49. to Irwin, 23 April 1900 (Letter 61; revision of 61-a, pp. 92-94);
pp. 95-96 / “Fannie’s Folly,” Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of
Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis, By Alice Elizabeth Gregg,
Adventist Currents, October 1983.
50. Egw to Bolton, 11 April 1897 (Letter 25); p. 74.
51. Egw to Tenney, 5 July 1897 (Letter 115); p. 80.
52. Bolton to Egw, 9 February 1894; pp. 32-33 / “Fannie’s Folly,”
Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis,
By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents, October 1983.
53. Bolton, “A Confession,” ca. April 1901; p. 106 / “Fannie’s Folly,”
Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis,
By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist Currents, October 1983.
54. White to Stephen N. Haskell, 13 July 1900; p. 101.
55. Bolton to Slawson, 30 December 1914; pp. 108-9.
Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 103:41 (5 August 1926),
p. 22 / “Fannie’s Folly,” Part 1 of the Unfinished Story of Fannie
Bolton and Marian Davis, By Alice Elizabeth Gregg, Adventist
Currents, October 1983 (emphasis supplied).
 Chapter VIII

Black & White

The Truth in Shades of Grey …

… The Lord hath not sent thee;

but thou makest this people to trust in a lie.

—Jeremiah 28:15

T
hinking about what I should include in this chapter,
especially after perusing the considerable amount of
material available to me, I came to one very definite
conclusion: I would have to stick to the essentials to avoid risking
the strong possibility of writing another entire book on this one
topic. There is no doubt, Walter Rea’s White Lie being a prime
example, that a substantial book could be written on the subject
of Ellen White’s literary borrowing—even more substantial now
than when Rea wrote Th e White Lie over three decades ago.
In light of these considerations I decided to exhibit
a series
of examples that would tangibly/visually reveal what has been
written about by numerous authors, besides Rea, and has
already become plain in the previous chapter. So much
material is available out there, in the form of books and over
the internet, that it should be no problem for the reader to do
their own in-depth research. I would caution though that much
of the literature on Ellen White’s literary borrowing is often
very confrontational and one-sided.
279
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Most Ellen White detractors out there are also strongly anti-SDA.
People tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater and are on
a mission to shoot down nearly every teaching that the SDA Faith
embraces. A large segment of these people are ex-SDA’s, who in a
number of cases had bad experiences while members of the SDA
Faith. Be aware of this when doing your research and wise (on the
basis of checking and re-checking your data) as to what is valid and
what is not—avoid any knee-jerk reaction and stick to that which
can be CLEARLY proved on the basis of REAL evidence.
One of the books that can be singled out as a prime example
of Ellen White’s literary borrowing is The Great Controversy.
Throughout this book one finds various degrees of plagiarism—
from direct quotes to portions that have been adapted and
arranged just enough so as to effectively disguise the original
author’s words. Yet, in spite of the editing/doctoring work that
was done on Ellen White’s copying, one can, when in possession
of the right forensic tools and a knowledge of what fingerprints and
DNA to look for, expose that which is not so glaringly obvious.
This is what we will do at different levels from here on—putting
together the pieces of the puzzle.
Th e reader will be
able to compare portions from both
sources (White or the respective authors she copied from).
Th eir work will be placed side by side to more effectively
facilitate the process. I will also include substantial comment
from various other people who have done research into this
topic. At the end of each selection I will add my own comments.
Take note that it is not only direct word for word copying
that will be examined (no doubt these portions are primary
indicators) but also the portions that have been ingeminated
or modified by adding and deleting words, etc. Another aspect
that will become unmistakable, as the reader makes comparisons,
is the general flow and thought process (sequence of ideas) of
entire sections, which in combination with the other clues, show
that intentional copying, editing and alteration had to have taken

280
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

place—intentional attempts at hiding the fact that such copious

amounts of “borrowing” were occurring.
One writer that Ellen White copied from was J. A. Wylie, LL.D.,
author of the book, The History of Protestantism. His book was
published in 1876, ten years before the first publication of The Great
Controversy. My first comparison will be between him and White:

E.G. WHITE: J.A. WYLIE:

… The Waldenses felt that God
required more of them than
merely to maintain the truth
in their own mountains; that
a solemn responsibility rested
upon them to let their light
shine forth to those who were
in darkness; that by the mighty
power of God’s word, they
were to break the bondage which
Rome had imposed. It was a
law among them that all who
entered the ministry should,
before taking charge of a church
at home, serve three years in the
missionary field. As the hands of
the men of God were laid upon
their heads, the youth saw before
them, not the prospect of earthly
wealth or glory, but possibly a
martyr’s fate. The missionaries
began their labors in the plains
and valleys at the foot of their
own mountains, going forth two
and two, as Jesus sent out his
disciples. These colaborers were
not always together, but often
met for prayer and counsel, thus
strengthening each other in
the faith. To make known the
… Whom they traded, and
the landlords in whose houses
they lodge. The priests seldom
carried to meet in argument
the Waldensian missionary. To
maintain the truth in their own
mountains was not the only
object of this people. They felt
their relations to the rest of
the Christendom. They sought
to drive back the darkness, and
re-conquer the kingdoms which
Rome had overwhelmed. They
were an evangelistic as well as
an evangelical Church. It was
an old law among them that all
who took orders in their church
should, before being eligible to a
home charge, serve three years
in the mission field. The youth on
whose head the assembled barbes
laid their hands, saw in prospect
not a rich benefice, but a possible
martyrdom. The ocean they did
not cross. Their mission field was
the realms that lay outspread at
the foot of their own mountains.
They went forth two and two,
concealed their real character
under the guise of a secular,

281
Brian Neumann

nature of their mission would profession, most commonly that

have insured its defeat; therefore
they concealed their real character
under the guise of some secular
profession, most commonly that
of merchants or peddlers. They
offered for sale silks, Jewelry,
and other valuable articles, and
were received as merchants where
they would have been repulsed as
missionaries. All the while their
hearts were uplifted to God for
wisdom to present a treasure more
precious than gold or gems. They
carried about with them portions
of the Holy Scriptures concealed
in their clothing or merchandise,
and whenever they could do
so with safety, they called the
attention of the inmates of the
dwelling to these manuscripts.
When they saw that an interest
was awakened, they left some
portion with them as a gift. (The
Great Controversy, 1886)
of merchants or pedlars. They
carried silks, jewellery, and
other articles, at that time not
easily purchasable save at distant
marts and they were welcomed as
merchants where they would have
been spurned as missionaries.
The door of the cottage and the
portal of the baron’s castle stood
equally open to them. But their
address was mainly shown in
vending, without money and
without price, rarer and more
valuable merchandise than the
gems and silks which had…(The
History of Protestantism, 1876)

As alluded to before, with regard to various levels of literary

borrowing, one can see at least three primary degrees of copying/
plagiarizing in the above comparisons:

1. There is the general flow of thought (one might say the

“plot”), throughout the whole selection of Ellen White’s
composition that parallels Wylie’s—this is the level that is
less axiomatic or apparent.
2. Then there are the parts where passages from Wylie’s writ-
ing have been interspersed or broken up with expressions
or phrases (we could call them insertions) by Ellen White
and/or her editors and where, at times, certain sections of

282
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the original have been expunged—this type of copying is

a bit more apparent.
3. Finally, there are the portions that are simply a direct or
practically direct copy from Wylie—the blatantly unmis-
takable level of plagiarism.

Th ese various levels of “borrowing,” separately or mixed

together, will be noticeable in the rest of the comparisons that
will follow.
Walks and Homes of Jesus, written by Rev. Daniel March, DD,
dated 1866, is another book Ellen White copied from. Following
are a number of comparisons:

E.G. WHITE: DANIEL MARCH:

He, the spotless Lamb of God,
was about to present Himself as
a sin offering, that He would
thus bring to an end the system
of types and ceremonies that for
four thousand years had pointed
to His death. As He ate the
Passover with His disciples, He
instituted in its place the service
that was to be the memorial of
His great sacrifice. The national
festival of the Jews was to pass
away forever. The service which
Christ established was to be
observed by His followers in all
lands and through all ages. (The
Desire of Ages, p. 652, 1898)
Just about to offer himself , the
pure and spotless Lamb of God,
in the great and only efficacious
sacrifice for sin, he finishes the
sacrifices of four thousand years
by eating the Passover with his
disciples. In place of the national
festival which the Jewish people
had observed since the days of
Moses, he institutes a memorial
service, to be kept by his followers
of every nation to the end of time.
(Walks and Homes of Jesus, p. 307,
1866)

In the above exhibit we see, primarily, the first two levels/types of

copying. Th e flow of thought or storyline is the same and the
factual components are also identical. Th e wording is adapted
just enough so as to make the copying, at least on a superficial
level, less obvious.

283
Brian Neumann

If this comparison were the only one that one could find then
it could well be argued that the similarity between the writing
of White and March was purely coincidental. This, however, is
not the case. Ellen White used much material from March. As I
present more evidence you will see all three levels of borrowing
recurring time and time again.
One interesting example (in the form of factual and
components and creative expression) is found in Walks and Homes
of Jesus, (p. 293): “Thirty years of retirement, and three years of
public ministry are all that the world will endure of its Messiah.”
In Desire of Ages (p. 541), Ellen White writes that: “Jesus had now
given three years of public labor to the world. His example of
self-denial and disinterested benevolence was before them. His
life of purity, of suffering and devotion, was known to all. Yet this
short period of three years was as long as the world could endure the
presence of its Redeemer” (Italics supplied).
The following, more substantial example, is of a similar nature:

E.G. WHITE: DANIEL MARCH:

It was on the first day of the week
that Christ made His triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. Multitudes
who had flocked to see Him at
Bethany now accompanied
Him, eager to witness His
reception. Many people were on
their way to the city to keep the
Passover, and these joined the
multitude attending Jesus. (The
Desire of Ages, p.569, 1898)
It was the week of the Passover,
and multitudes of pilgrims were
on their way from Galilee, to
keep the great festival in the
Holy city.…On the afternoon of
Sunday, the first day of the Jewish
week, Jesus renewed his journey,
accompanied by a great multitude
from Bethany, who were eager to
witness his reception in the city.
(Walks and Homes of Jesus, p. 294-
295, 1866)

In the sample above, while observing a duplicate of factual

information, one can see a subtle adaptation of the order or
“storyline.” Th is might not be considered direct copying but

284
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

simply evidence (in combination with the rest she obtained from
March) that White used his work as a primary source of factual/
historical information. This type of indicant, while not proving an
overt form of plagiarism, is vital as secondary proof—establishing
further links in the full chain of evidence. We continue exhibiting
this and other more direct forms of borrowing:

E.G. WHITE: DANIEL MARCH:

Joy to the poor; for Christ had
come to make them heirs of His
kingdom. Joy to the rich; for
He would teach them how to
secure eternal riches. Joy to the
ignorant; He would make them
wise unto salvation. Joy to the
learned; He would open to them
deeper mysteries than they had
ever fathomed; truths that had
been hidden from the foundation
of the world would be opened to
men by the Saviour’s mission.
(The Desire of Ages, p. 227, 1898)
It is joy to the poor; for Christ
comes to make them heirs of the
kingdom of God. It is joy to the
rich; for Christ comes to teach
them how to use all their earthly
possessions, so as to lay up for
themselves imperishable riches in
heaven. It is joy to the ignorant;
for Christ comes to make then
wise unto eternal salvation. It
is joy to the learned; for Christ
comes to unfold mysteries that
have been kept secret from the
foundation of the world. It is
joy to the mourning and the
comfortless; for Christ comes to
heal all sorrow, and to bind up
every broken heart… (Walks and
Homes of Jesus, p. 38-39, 1866)

Once again, we see the sequence/storyline being followed

exactly. Certain words have been altered or substituted in Ellen
White’s version while keeping the same essential message as
March. Probably as a result of her editor’s work, her version
has been made more compact (not as fleshy/wordy as March’s
original). We continue:

285
Brian Neumann

E.G. WHITE: DANIEL MARCH:

The mystery of the cross explains This great mystery of the cross
all other mysteries. In the light explains all other mysteries, and is
that streams from Calvary the itself dark to our vision only from
attributes of God which had the excess of light.…If, then, we
filled us with fear and awe would see the character of God
appear beautiful and attractive. in its most complete and gracious
Mercy, tenderness, and parental manifestation; if we would
love are seen to blend with find out that meaning of that
holiness, justice, and power. great and precious name, OUR
While we behold the majesty FATHER…(Walks and Homes of
of His throne, high and lifted Jesus, p. 326-328, 1866)
up, we see His character in
its gracious manifestations,
and comprehend, as never
before, the significance of that
endearing title, “Our Father.”
(Spirit of Prophecy, vol 4, p 469,
E.G. White, 1884, The Great
Controversy, 1888 edition and
also 1911 edition, p. 652)

Ellen White elaborates on details of subjects that most SDA’s

have consistently believed were given under Divine inspiration.
Another one of these is that well known phrase used by Ellen
White in the Desire of Ages, p. 19, where she speaks of
Christ’s sacrificial offering (“the cross”) as being, for the
redeemed and unfallen beings, throughout eternity (“the
endless ages”), their science and their song. What her readers
don’t know is that this phrase, appearing in the context of
other broader themes found in March’s writings, is from Walks
and Homes of Jesus, p. 326-328.

Here March writes:

“…
we

286
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ЩбЯа
ШЫЫЧ
ХЪ
ТНХаФ
бЬЫЪ
аФС
cross and so begin the study which
shall be “the science and song of all eternity”…that his sacrificial
death is the great revelation which God makes of himself to
the understanding and the heart” (Italics supplied).
This phrase, so well known to SDA’s familiar with White’s
writings, is found in March’s book in quotes. The reason for this
is that originally this phrase does not come from March, let alone
Ellen White. In fact, March was quoting R. Pollok’s book, “Course
of Time,” p. 55, published in 1829, where he writes: “redemption is
the science and song of all eternity.”
Certainly, using concepts from other writers is not, in the
main, a problem, especially when they communicate themes of
redemption in such a beautiful manner. However, it should still be
put in quotes and referenced, like March did with Pollok’s words.
The problem with Ellen White is that she flagrantly used
substantial portions and themes (often specific details), so often
considered by SDA’s as revelations from God, without letting
anyone know that they were literally copies of other writer’s
thoughts and ideas.
Ellen White was not simply copying historical fact and detail,
but was extensively borrowing themes that she republished in
such a way, knowing most surely, because of the very nature of
her prophetic status, that her readers would think of them as
revelations given by God while under Divine inspiration. In the
introduction to The Great Controversy we read:

Through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the scenes of

the long-continued conflict between good and evil have been
opened to the writer of these pages. From time to time I have
been permitted to behold the working, in different ages, of the
great controversy between Christ, the Prince of life, the Author
of our salvation, and Satan, the prince of evil, the author of
sin, the first transgressor of God’s holy law.

287
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

In light of the overwhelming evidence though this should

really read:
Through the extensive reading of various Christian authors,
the scenes of the long-continued conflict between good and evil
have been opened to the writer of these pages. From time to
time I have been privileged to study the writings of other
gifted authors (whom I will not give credit to) on the work-
ing, in different ages, of the great controversy between Christ,
the Prince of life, the Author of our salvation, and Satan, the
prince of evil, the author of sin, the first transgressor of God’s
holy law (inserted parts in bold italics).

TIF Desire of Ages, a book considered by many to be

the cornerstone of SDA Christological thinking, while scattered
with considerable amounts of undisclosed literary borrowing,
made these incredible claims in the introduction of its
forerunner, Th
e Spirit of Prophecy (published in 1877):
When the Publishers issued the first volume of this work, they
felt that it supplied a want long realized by the Christian
world, in illuminating a subject which is of great interest to
the Christian mind, the relation of the son of God to the Father,
and his position in Heaven, together with the fall of man and
the Mediatorship of Christ between him and his Creator.
In this second volume the author continues with renewed
interest the subject of the mission of Christ, as manifested by his
Miracles and Teachings. The reader will find that this book fur-
nishes invaluable aid in studying the lessons of Christ set forth
in the Gospels. The author, as a religious writer and speaker,
has labored for the public during more than twenty Years.
Being aided in the study of the Scriptures, and her work as a
religious teacher, by the special enlightenment of the Spirit of
God, she is peculiarly qualified to present the facts of the Life
and Ministry of Christ, in connection with the divine plan of

288
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

human redemption, and to practically apply the lessons of Jesus

to the simple duties of life.
One of the most pleasing features of this book is the plain
and simple language with which the author clothes thoughts
that glow with truth and beauty (Emphasis supplied).

To make sure that there is no misunderstanding concerning

emphatic statements regarding the divine origin of the Conflict
of the Ages series we read the following comments from Ellen
White concerning them:

How many have read carefully Patriarchs and Prophets, The

Great Controversy, and The Desire of Ages? I wish all to
understand that my confidence in the light that God has given
stands firm, because I know that the Holy Spirit’s power
magnified the truth, and made it honorable, saying: “This is
the way; walk ye in it.” In my books, the truth is stated, bar-
ricaded by a “Thus saith the Lord.” 1
Sister White is not the originator of these books [The
Conflict of the Ages series]. They contain the instruction
that during her lifework God has been giving her. They con-
tain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously
given His servant to be given to the world. 2
Men may get up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will
seek to seduce souls from the truth, but all who believe that the
Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a
message, will be safe from the many delusions that will come
in these last days. 3

Ellen White was dead on target in saying that she was “not the
originator of these books.” Such a large part of “these books”
came from other books, streamlined and chiseled by expert
editors (writers that were more talented than the author herself
)
such as Fannie Bolton, that it becomes very difficult to actually
determine how much of the “inspired” insights and creative

289
Brian Neumann

writing came from the said author and how much truth was of
divine origin. At the end of the day it might be easier figuring
out what did NOT come directly from God (if anything at all),
because, by all accounts, the “uninspired” portion seems to be by
far the most significant.
Thus the question begs, can Ellen White really be believed
when she says “although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the
Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words
I employ in describing what I have seen are my own.”? 4 Clearly, the
Spirit of the Lord and the words were the two ingredients that
were lacking, more so than any disciples of White were willing
to admit.
In The White Lie, Walter Rea addresses the issue of the
introduction to The Desire of Ages, including a number of other
points, in this way:

A lot of trouble and embarrassment would have been avoided

in years to come if a few others than the “Spirit of God” had
gotten some credit. Although the Scriptures do make it plain
that every good and perfect gift comes from God, some of Ellen’s
gifts of writing were found to have come through quite a few
human sources. In the late 1970s Robert W. Olson, for the
White Estate (which is always pushed to keep its readers and
the church members up to date on such things), issued a rather
late concession that Ellen had indeed been peeking at the work
of other authors when she wrote The Desire of Ages:
Ellen White’s indebtedness to other authors has long
been acknowledged by Seventh-day Adventists… .
The exact extent of Ellen White’s borrowings in The
Great Controversy is not known… .
Studies by Raymond Cottrell and Walter Specht have
shown that Ellen White borrowed about 2.6 percent of her
words in The Desire of Ages from William Hanna’s Life of
Christ…. However, W. C. White and Marian Davis both
mention other books on Christ’s life which Ellen White used.

290
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It is also evident that she borrowed from some works not

named by W. C. White or Miss Davis, such as John Harris’s
The Great Teacher.…5

Of course, the figures that were forthcoming from Raymond

Cottrell’s study are not presently what they were back then.
Based on recent investigation and the accessibility of more
advanced tools, it has been discovered that the percentage of
borrowing is considerably higher. Walter Rea continues:
Ellen White’s literary borrowing was not limited to the three
books discussed above… .
Ellen White can hardly be called a “copyist” since she
almost invariably rewrites, rephrases, and improves on the
original author when she does use another’s material… .
Concerning the writing of The Desire of Ages in particu-
lar, W. C. White states:
“Previous to her work of writing on the Life of Christ
and during the time of her writing to some extent, she read
from the works of Hanna, Fleetwood, Farrar, and Geikie.
I never knew of her reading Edersheim. She occasion-
ally referred to Andrews.” (W. C. White to L. E. Froom,
January)
Comparison of The Desire of Ages with the various lives
of Christ available in her day show that she drew, more or less
not only from the authors mentioned above by W. C. White, but
from March, Harris, and others as well. 6
Olson’s article, which may be one of the most revealing
concessions to date by the White Estate, deserves detailed study.
Had it been circulated, or even leaked, to the general public and
the church at large (which it hasn’t as I write), this book might
not have been written [in reference to “The White Lie”]. Often
only the “insider” gleaning so-called “top secret” information
knows where to send for what-if he is privileged to know that
such information exists at all.

291
Brian Neumann

To write or say that “Ellen White’s indebtedness to

other authors has long been acknowledged by Seventh-day
Adventists” is only an extension of the white lie. Although it
is technically true that, as far back as the 1880s, the church has
been righting a rear guard action concerning the use of others’
material in the name of God and Ellen, the declarations have
always been made with defensiveness and quick justification.
William S. Peterson’s article in a Spectrum issue of 1971,
for example, was to bring down upon him a chorus of spiritual
invectives that, in the language of the truck driver or steve-
dore, would curl the paint on any container at thirty paces.
That Ellen had borrowed just was not so, it was said From
that autumn issue until the 1980s the journal has carried
continuing charges and counter charges, denials and counter
denials that try to refute any suggestion that she would have
incorporated anyone’s vocabulary or been influenced in any of
her writing. 7
Not until Neal C. Wilson, president of the General
Conference, wrote the eighteen members of the special Glendale
Committee set up to review the amount of certain findings
about Ellen’s “borrowing” were the readers of the Adventist
Review to learn that she had used the works of others for
“descriptive, biographical, historical, spiritual, and scientific
information.” 8 As one member of the committee was to point
out to Wilson, “That hardly seems to leave much except direct
revelation. Is that the issue the panel is to decide?” 9 Surely
the personnel of the White Estate must have known all along
that most of the church has been uniformed about the amount
and extent of her “borrowing.”
At least a great many church scholars who have tried to pry
loose White Estate historical material that would help in mak-
ing comparisons with others’ writings know they have received
very little help and encouragement from those guarding the
sacrosanct vault of the Estate. The policy of “selective revela-
tion” (that is, the Estate selects what may be revealed) has

292
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

had such a hold that only when members of the Clan pass
from the scene may the church expect access to information
that may reveal the truth. Time and again the men from
that office, while riding the national circuit—which they
do rather often to help quiet the restless natives—have had
to meet the question of why the vault cannot be open to all
researchers and information made available to friend and
foe alike, and why picking and choosing is always left to the
Clan Plan… .
…Even those who might have had their own key to the
vault (so to speak) found it fascinating that the shut door
might have a possibility of being opened even a little. Donald
R. McAdams, himself a competent researcher on Ellen and her
writings, sounded a hopeful note over just such prospects in an
article in Spectrum in 1980:
In the March 20 1980, Adventist Review in an article
entitled “This I Believe About Ellen G. White” Neal Wilson
informed the church about the Rea [Glendale] Committee.
The initial report indicates that “in her writing Ellen White
used sources more extensively than we have heretofore been
aware of or recognized… .”
The statement is a most significant article to appear in
the Review in this century. The president of the General
Conference is openly and honestly acknowledging the facts
about Ellen White’s use of sources and pointing the church
toward a definition of inspiration that will be new to most
Adventists and threatening to some. A full response to
Walter Rea must wait until he has presented his evidence to
the church in definitive written form. 10
Inevitably McAdams would react as he did, because he is
an honest historian who himself spent much time in 1972-73
examining a chapter of The Great Controversy, comparing a
chapter of it with half a chapter of historian James A. Wylie,
and finding irrefutable evidence of dependence. The interest-
ing and significant part of this story, as he tells it, is that
the White Estate would not allow this church historian to
release his work or conclusions to the church or the world. 11
293
Brian Neumann

McAdams had another reason to be concerned about what

was taking place. He was one of the members of the special
Glendale Committee to whom Wilson wrote. He had seen some
of the evidence, had heard the January 28-29, 1980, presen-
tation, and had himself stated to his colleagues that the evi-
dence was indeed ‘’startling.’’ He had even suggested that “if
every paragraph in The Great Controversy were footnoted
in accordance with proper procedure, almost every para-
graph would be footnoted.” It is of interest that those commit-
tee members present from the White Estate did not challenge
him. 12
How could they? They were sitting there with privileged
information. Ronald D. Graybill, assistant secretary of the
White Estate was present at the meeting. He too had been
working in the files and had completed in May 1977 a com-
parison of Ellen White and her close paraphrasing of another
historian, Merle d’Aubigne. As he continued his study, what
should appear to his wondering eyes—not d’Aubigne at all,
but a popularized version of d’Aubigne prepared by the
Reverend Charles Adams for young readers, and this mate-
rial had been published first, not in The Great Controversy,
but in the October 11, 1883, Signs of the Times article enti-
tled “Luther in the Wartburg.’’ The conclusions of this rather
simple cloak-and-dagger story were, as McAdams quotes
Graybill:
There does not appear to be any objective historical fact
in Mrs. White’s account that she could not have gained from
the literary sources on which she was drawing, except in one
detail:…The over all impression gained from this study by
this researcher is that it sustains McAdams’ main point-
that the objective and mundane historical narrative was
based on the work of historians, not on visions. 13
So why didn’t we say so in the first place? The nearest that
we had ever come to that type of acknowledgment was from
son Willie White (letter of 4 November 1912):

294
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

When writing out the chapters for Great Controversy,

she sometimes gave a partial description of an important
historical event, and when her copyist who was prepar-
ing the manuscripts for the printer, made inquiry regard-
ing time and place, Mother would say that those things are
recorded by conscientious historians. Let the dates used by
those historians be inserted. At other times in writing out
what had been presented to her, Mother found such perfect
descriptions of events and presentations of facts and doc-
trines written out in our denominational books, that she
copied the words of these authorities. 14
Willie’s statements would be modified in a 1969 statement
by his son Arthur: “Mrs. White ever sought to avoid being
influenced by others.” 15
There was another member of the White Estate group who
likewise sat quietly through that January 1980 meeting with-
out tipping his hand. He was Robert W. Olson, appointed to
head the White Estate on the retirement of Arthur L. White
in 1978. Olson, more than perhaps anyone else in the room
except W. Richard Lesher (the head of the Adventist Biblical
Research Institute) knew where some of the bodies were buried,
because some of those bodies were being resurrected faster than
the burying services could be performed. 16

Perhaps, because of anti-Rea sentiment, the court case that

exonerated Ellen White of plagiarism (at least in the legal sense)
and the ongoing shift in how the authority of Ellen White’s
writings should be understood (such as George R. Knight’s books
educating SDA’s on how to read Ellen White, etc.), none of this
evidence was ever really noticed by the “lower-echelon” leadership,
let alone the ever-growing laity worldwide. Such a “loud-cry”
was made over Ellen White’s “emancipation” from charges of
plagiarism that the responsive, collective sigh of relief from the
majority of SDA’s caused them to willingly forbid themselves any
further investigation—case closed.

295
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

TIis dodging and diving routine by the “men at the top”

was effectively a distractioncampaign that shifted everyone’s
attention from the central, unavoidable conclusion that all who
REALLY knew had come to: “Ellen White HAD plagiarized” (in
spite of the “legal” verdict). At that time, thirty years ago, the
end of it and the half of it had not yet even come to the full light
of day. Indeed, the expose still continues at present and will go
on into the future.
Sometimes, attempts to explain away Ellen White’s literary
borrowing went from the sublime to the ridiculous. In spite of
the fact that there was ABSOLUTE evidence that she used the
writings of other authors, via testimonies of her contemporaries,
her editors, her own qualified admissions, etc., Robert Olsen, who
himself admitted that she used the words of others, still felt the
urge to grab at straws. Rea Writes:

… the new line is that she had a photographic memory. 17 “We

are not denying Rev. Rea’s evidence,” said Robert Olson, sec-
retary of the Ellen G. White Estate in Washington, D.C. “I’m
satisfied she had some works before her as she wrote. However,”
Olson added, “the church believes that White possessed a pho-
tographic memory and unconsciously used the words of other
writers.” 18 Olson does not specify who is “the church” that may
believe as he seems to believe. 19

TIat final point is very significant in light of the fact that “the
church” could not even choose to believe as he believed because
“the church” hardly knew and is still, over thirty years down the
line, blissfully unaware of the extent of the White Elephant/
White Lie problem.
NOTE: The reader might recall Ellen White’s words to
her sister, quoted in chapter three, in connection to Hazen
Foss’ confession made during a meeting they were attend-
ing. Ellen White (photographic memory notwithstand-
ing), could not recall some simple facts and asked her sis-

296
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ter, whom she said had a better memory than her to help
her recollect: “Now, Mary, you were at the meeting, were you
not? Your memory is so good. Do you have any remembrance of
this?” Ellen White wrote this letter to her sister in 1890 (E.
G. White Letter 37, 1890), long before it could be claimed
that Ellen White might have become senile.

Raymond F. Cottrell, who was book editor for the Adventist

Review for over thirty years clearly understood the implications
of what Walter Rea, Desmond Ford and others were revealing. Rea
writes about Cottrell’s and Heppenstall’s concerns, as addressed
by Fred Veltman (Fred Veltman, “Report to PREXAD” on the E.
G. White Research Project; photocopied, Angwin, CA Life of Christ
Research Project, n.d. [April 1981], p. 21, 22:

Walter Rea’s evidence and his conclusions will be and are most
damaging to the faith of our membership in Egw.
To say that “I saw” and similar expressions refer to cogni-
zance and not to heavenly origins of the content of the visions
is asking people to disbelieve what they have been taught all
their lives. The obvious reading of the expression in its context
would have you understand a heavenly source for the vision.
This explanation forces the people to conclude that Egw’s integ-
rity cannot be assumed. 20

Edward Heppenstall, a long-time Adventist theologian, is

likewise quoted by Veltman:
Walter’s material will have a shattering effect upon the church
membership Many of the answers now being offered are not
really satifying to those who have looked at the data.21

Even Desmond Ford, the Australian theologian, gives a

devastating summary as reported in Veltman’s words:

297
Brian Neumann

Des does not believe that Egw intended to deceive. At the same
time he cannot agree to the positions being taken or already
held in the church that Egw writings are an extension of the
canon, are authoritative for church doctrine, and are inerrant.
Des views Walter Rea as being reluctant to publish and
desiring to go with the brethren if they will only take the issue
and the evidence seriously. 22

Ellen White’s “special insight” into the life of Christ, borrowed

from other writers, is scattered throughout her writings. Another
one of these themes, associated with Christ’s life, death and the
plan of redemption was, once again, copied from March and can
be found in, Testimonies for the Church, Vol 4. Again we make
a comparison:

E.G. WHITE: DANIEL MARCH:

It will do you good, and our
ministers generally, to frequently
review the closing scenes in
the life of our Redeemer. Here,
beset with tempt- ations as He
was, we may all learn lessons
of the utmost importance to
us. It would be well to spend
a thoughtful hour each day
reviewing the life of Christ
from the manger to Calvary. We
should take it point by point and
let the imagination vividly grasp
each scene, especially the closing
ones of His earthly life. By thus
contemplating His teachings
and sufferings, and the infinite
sacrifice made by Him for the
redemption of the race, we may
strengthen our faith, quicken our
Nevertheless it will do us all
good, frequently and solemnly to
review the closing scenes in the
Saviour’s earthly life. Amid the
material and worldly passions, by
which we are beset and tempted,
we shall learn many salutary
lessons, by going back in memory,
and spending a thoughtful hour,
in the endeavor to strengthen our
faith and quicken our love at the
foot of the cross. (Walks and Homes
of Jesus, p. 313, 1866)

298
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

love, and become more deeply

imbued with the spirit which
sustained our Saviour. If we
would be saved at last we must
all learn the lesson of penitence
and faith at the foot of the cross.
(Testimonies for the Church, vol 4,
p. 374, 1876-1881, E.G. White)

NOTE: One can find a briefer version of this on p. 83 of

The Desire of Ages, published after the Testimonies version
exhibit above.

Again, the three characteristic degrees of literary borrowing,

mentioned earlier, are seen in the above sample. In this exhibit
we see that Ellen White and/or her editors cunningly inserted
additional thoughts so as to space the portions from March’s
composition just enough for the copying not to be readily evident.
However, when carefully evaluated (in combination with the
other evidence of her borrowing from March’s work), it becomes
very plain.
To sum-up, there are three essential themes associated with
the life and death of Christ, the plan of redemption and the
devotional practices of the believer, plagiarized by White, but
understood by most SDA’s to be divinely revealed. They are, in
point form:

ӓΔ Th e mystery of the cross explaining all other mysteries.

ӔΔ Redemption being the science and song of all eternity.
ӕΔ Spending a thoughtful hour reviewing the closing scenes
of Christ’s lifeΔ

The question that begs to be answered, one that many who

are reading this are no doubt asking right now, is: “if these

299
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

comparisons exhibited thus far are an indication of common

practice by Ellen White, then how much more of what SDA’s
have considered as special, privileged, divinely revealed, “insider”
insight, not even found in the scriptures themselves, are
nothing more than thoughts and ideas that emanated from
the imaginations of writers who never claimed the prophetic
gift? Beautiful and perhaps even true though they may be, it
is misleading, some may say even downright fraudulent and
opprobrious, to regurgitate them in writings that were clearly
reputed to be “inspired,” thus giving the impression that these
and other spiritual themes, not mentioned here yet, were direct
revelations from God.
Yet, these are not the only concepts that were taken, in some
cases lock-stock-and-barrel, from other writers. There is certainly
more, so much more in fact that at times, while uncovering
evidence after evidence, one’s mind “boggles” in total disbelief.
Overwhelming though the evidence that will still be revealed in
this chapter may be though, it is really only the tip of the iceberg.
Another
book by Daniel March, Night Scenes in the Bible, was
also sourced by Ellen White. This first example exhibited below
is one of many where Ellen White blends quotes from other
authors in her testimonies, apparently given directly from God.
No one reading these letters of rebuke and warning were any the
wiser that the words directed to them were not solely messages
from God, delivered via His mouthpiece. They were blended
with thoughts and ideas from other writers whose words would
be construed, by those reading the testimony, as “the Word” of
the Almighty.
In Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 27,the following testimony appears:

When I went to Colorado I was so burdened for you that, in my

weakness, I wrote many pages to be read at your camp meeting.
Weak and trembling, I arose at three o’clock in the morning

300
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

to write you. God was speaking through clay. You might say
that this communication was only a letter. Yes, It was a let-
ter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your
minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which
I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that
which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one arti-
cle in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are
what God has opened before me in vision-the precious rays
of light shining from the throne.

Then on the same page, still communicating this message that

she emphatically stated came from God she slightly adapts
and quotes a whole portion from Daniel March without any
indication that she was incorporating the thoughts of
someone else to prick the conscience of the receiver and make
the message more imperative. Take note that in the above
portion she used some key statements that immediately create
the definite impression that the message was direct from
God: “God was speaking through clay,”…prompted by the
Spirit of God,…in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to
you that which the Lord has presented to me,”…I do not write
one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas,
…God has opened before me in vision-the precious rays of light
shining from the throne” (Italics supplied). She was clearly
attempting to give the receiver the impression that the words
were not merely her own but that which came straight from
the throne. One thing is definitely true, the words were NOT
merely her own. What is disturbing though is that the words she
claimed were from God were really those of an uninspired
writer, Daniel March:

E.G. WHITE: DANIEL MARCH:

301
Brian Neumann

What voice will you acknowledge
as the voice of God? What
power has the Lord in reserve
to correct your errors and show
you your course as it is?…If
you refuse to believe until every
shadow of uncertainty and every
possibility of doubt is removed,
you will never believe. The doubt
that demands perfect knowledge
will never yield to faith.
Faith rests upon evidence, not
demonstration. The Lord requires
us to obey the voice of duty, when
there are other voices all around
us urging us to pursue an opposite
course. It requires earnest
attention from us to distinguish
the voice which speaks from God.
(Selected Messages, book. 1, p. 27,
E.G. White)
We must not defer our obedience
till every shadow of uncertainty
and every possibility of mistake is
removed. The doubt that demands
perfect knowledge will never
yield to faith, for faith rests upon
probability, not demonstration.…
We must obey the voice of duty
when there are many other voices
crying against it, and it requires
earnest heed to distinguish the
one which speaks for God. (Daniel
March, Night Scenes in the Bible;
Philadelphia: Zeigler, McCurdy &
Co., 1823; p. 88)

Ellen White modified March’s words but not effectively enough so as to

disguise the flow of his original thought process—the ideas are
obviously March’s. For such an accurate communication of
those ideas to have taken place she would have had to have
directly referenced March, with the intention of hiding, by way of
alteration, that she had sourced his writings—knowing that she was
not planning to credit him as the source. She did not insert
notifications that might alert the reader to the fact that she had
decided to include a portion from another writer because, for
example, she found that the thoughts they had communicated
could not have been said better herself, or that it very effectively
expressed what God was trying to say. To preface a testimony you
know the receiver will, WITHOUT DOUBT, understand to be a
message from God, with statements such as, “God has opened
before me in vision-the precious rays of light shining from the
throne, etc.,”
would

immediately be construed
by the receiver that

302
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

what follows is exclusively from God—a message from the very

throne of God framed specifically for them.
Is it acceptable to blend direct testimony from God with
comments that are those of the prophet and run the risk of
inferring more or less than what God was communicating
Himself
? And in addition to that, augment the testimony with
the words of some other person and not make it plain that this
had been done?
How does the receiver of the testimony know where the line
between Divine comment or command and mere human opinion
has been crossed? Are they reading God’s thoughts (expressed by
His messenger) or are they now reading, not only the thoughts
and ideas of the prophet, but something secondary, from an
uninspired writer whose words they are not even aware are being
quoted. There is something very disturbing about such a scenario.
When the Bible prophets wrote: “The Almighty has said,” one
was made clearly aware of what was the Word of God as opposed
to human comment. It seems that when the Bible prophets
delivered a message from God they were very careful to make the
words of God clearly distinguishable from those of man. There
is a strange blending that one finds in the messages of Ellen
White where her words, the words of others and the so called,
Word from God are presented in such a manner as to give the
impression that it is ALL a testimony from God when clearly it
is not.
It is questionable enough to include “borrowed”
portions,
without giving credit, in books such as the Conflict of the Ages
Series, not intended to be direct testimonies to individuals.
However, doing this in special testimonies, where God is directly
and personally addressing an individual or an institution, is not
just questionable but audaciously dishonest.
Let’s not forget Ellen White’s statements about total
transparency or what was shown in the previous chapter about
ethics of writing and that she or the Review were NOT unaware

303
Brian Neumann

of the literary norms of the day. Fannie Bolton had directly

addressed this issue with, Ellen White. Surely, no excuse can
be offered to exonerate a practice that continued, in the face of
ample warning and advice.
As I have already said, there is so much in all of Ellen White’s
writings that reveals the various levels of literary borrowing I
have referred to that it would take a very substantial volume to
expose it all. In this chapter I have only exhibited samples. A final
exhibit in this category deals with an Ellen White statement that
is famous among SDA’s. After this I will move on to the issue of
“light” given to Ellen White in regard to health reform issues.
“In Him is life that is original,–unborrowed, underived life.”
Certainly, this statement communicates a truth that is found in
Scripture. However, it is not the truth of this concept that Ellen
White copied. Christians in the main have always known and
believed this. It is the very unique manner in which this thought
is communicated that was not Ellen White’s in the original,
unborrowed, underived sense (pun intended). In fact, it is really
part of a larger portion that she plagiarized from “Sabbath Evening
Readings on the New Testament, St. John” by Rev. John Cumming,
without, as in so many other cases, revealing to the reader that it
was copied. Here are both versions, compared below:

E.G. WHITE: REV. JOHN CUMMING:

In Him is life that is original,–
unborrowed, underived life.
In us there is a streamlet from
thefountain of life. In Him is
the fountain of life. Our life
is something that we receive,
something that the Giver takes
back again to Himself. (Special
Testimonies, Series B, No.
19,” p. 23, E.G. White, 1905)
… John the Baptist, according to
the prophecy in the last chapter
of the book of Malachi,–that
God should send his messenger
before him, to prepare the way
of the Lord. He at once begins
by asserting the Deity of Christ
as God and Lord of all; and he
states, “In him was life,”–that is,
original, unborrowed, underived.

304
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

NOTE: an abbreviated version In us there is a streamlet from

of this also appears in The Desire
of Ages on page 530 where she
writes: “Still seeking to give a
true direction to her faith, Jesus
declared, ‘I am the resurrection, and
the life.’ In Christ is life, original,
unborrowed, underived.”
the Fountain of Life; in him was
the Fountain of Life. Our life is
something we receive, something
that the Giver takes back again
to himself,–over which we have
no control, and for which we
must give God the account and
the praise. But in Jesus was life
underived, unborrowed; he was
the Life; and that Life, it is said,”
was the light of men. (Sabbath
Evening Readings on the New
Testament, St. John, p. 5, 1856,
Rev. John Cumming)

TIe comparison speaks for itself. Th
ere is nothing

coincidental about that fact that Ellen White’s words are so
almost those of Cumming’s. No further comment is necessary.
Our next topic has to do with Ellen White’s writings on health
reform. There is, once again, so much that can be said regarding
this issue, not only in connection with the problem of literary
borrowing but also in regard to the very teachings themselves and
the emphasis Ellen White placed on them in connection to the
Christian life and ultimate salvation. But, because this chapter
is dedicated to the issue of plagiarism we will, for the moment,
stick to the topic at hand. In a later chapter we will consider other
aspects of the health reform question.

Health Reform
Many of the ideas published in Ellen White’s ‘Divinely revealed’
teachings on health reform were taken from other sources, at least
as far as any evidence that would normally be considered primary
is concerned. Once people started to notice this Ellen White
brushed accusations of copying aside by saying that she did not
read anything on the topic till God had revealed it to her. Once

305
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

she had been shown by God, she would then read other materials.
In this way it would, hopefully, be construed that even though
she included ideas from other writers on the health reform topic
(including some of their verе words without giving credit), her
teachings had, first and foremost, come straight from God and
thus everything else she might have included really came after
the fact. Already, in her day, people noticed that she was teaching
what others had previously taught. Some questioned whether
she had gotten her ideas from Dr. Jackson, a well known health
reformer of her day, whose institute she had visited. However,
Ellen White, always ready with what some thought was an
acceptable come-back, made sure that people understood that
what she wrote came right from God, even though she liberally
used the findings and words of well known medical men:

It was at the house of Brother A. Hillard, at Otsego, Michigan,

June 6, 1863, that the great subject of Health Reform was
opened before me in a vision. I did not visit Dansville till
August, 1864, fourteen months after I had the view. I did not
read any works upon health until I had written “Spiritual
Gifts,” vol. iii and iv, “Appeal to Mothers,” and had sketched
out most of my six articles in the six numbers of “How to
Live,” and I did not know that such a paper existed as the
Laws of Life, published at Dansville, New York. I had not
heard of the several works upon health written by Dr. J. C.
Jackson, and other publications at Dansville, at the time I had
the view named above.
As I introduced the subject of health to friends where I
labored in Michigan, New England, and in the State of 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 Doctors Trall, Jackson, and others.
Have you read that paper and those works?” My reply was that
I had not, neither should I read them till I had fully written

306
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

out my view, lest it should be said that I had received my

light upon the subject of health from physicians and not from
the Lord. 23

Another line of reasoning, used by some was that: “Th e

information that came to Mrs. White from the Author of Truth,
was bound to be in agreement with such truths as had been
discovered by others.” 24 Walter Rea, in his book Th e White
Lie, writes:

Ellen was to say, as Grandson Arthur would imply nearly a

hundred years later, that she got the “truths” first-even though
subsequent studies might show that the ideas were the same
and that the language expressing them was much the same as
others had used first. It might have been the old argument of
which came first, the chicken or the egg. Ellen said:
And after I had written my six articles for “How to Live,”
I then searched the various works on hygiene and was sur-
prised to find them so nearly in harmony with what the
Lord had revealed to me. And to show this harmony, and to
set before my brethren and sisters the subject as brought out by
able writers, I determined to publish “How to Live,” in which
I largely extracted from the works referred to. 25

In any normal situation, where someone was caught with their

hand in the proverbial cookie-jar, such an explanation would
be considered pathetically diaphanous. But, when the person
wielding this type of defense came with the title of “prophet,”
mere evidence and superior investigative logic seems to become
entirely irrelevant, even, amazingly, to usually intelligent, rational
human beings.
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg was aware of the fact that Ellen White
referenced L.B. Coles’ book, The Philosophy of Health or Health
Without Medicine, first published in 1848. The exhibits I will
display are by no means exhaustive. They will, however, provide

307
Brian Neumann

sufficient evidence to the fact. The reader will be able to do his/her

own further research. Examples of various degrees of borrowing
are displayed. There are long, short and varied levels of adaptation
such as almost word for word duplication (slight adaptations
are always made though), insertions of padding to separate the
borrowed portions or simply the use of facts and conclusions.

E.G. WHITE: L.B.COLES:

The sympathy which exists
between the mind and the body is
very great. When one is affected,
the other responds. (Testimonies
for the Church, Volume 4, p. 60,
1876-1881, E.G. White)
The sympathy existing between
the mind and the body is so great,
that when one is affected, both are
affected. (The Philosophy of Health,
p. 88, 1848, L.B. Coles, M.D.)

E.G. WHITE: L.B.COLES:

It is as truly a sin to violate the
laws of our being as it is to break
the ten commandments. To do
either is to break God’s laws.
Those who transgress the law of
God in their physical organism,
will be inclined to violate the
law of God spoken from Sinai.
(Christian Temperance and Bible
Hygiene, p. 53, 1890, E.G. White)
To do that which will injure our
constitution or health, is sinful in
the sight of Heaven. To transgress
physical law is transgressing
God’s law; for he is as truly the
Author of physical law, as he
is the Author of the moral law.
Whoever, therefore, violates the
laws of life and health, sins against
God as truly as though he break the
ten commandments. Every man is
therefore under moral obligation
to obey those laws; and whoever
dares violate them will find “The
way of transgressors is hard.” (The
Philosophy of Health, p. 95, 1848,
L.B. Coles, M.D.)

TIe exhibit below is an example showing where certain

observations or facts are borrowed but not complete phrases or

308
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

“flow of thought duplication.” It is important to show these types

of examples, along with the more obvious or extensive ones. All
the evidence, major or minor, when pooled together, draws one
to a final conclusion.
The obvious copying shows with certainty that plagiarism
took place. However, the use of facts and observations, spread
throughout the work, is evidence that even the essential teachings
on the topic in question were taken from the original source (in
this case, Coles). In other words, if there are obvious examples
of copying (larger portions), taken from a primary source, then
it is reasonable to conclude that the more general facts and
conclusions were taken from the same place as well—a simple
process of deduction.

E.G. WHITE: L.B.COLES:

When these tea and coffee
users meet together for social
entertainment, the effects
of their pernicious habit are
manifest. All partake freely
of the favorite beverages, and
as the stimulating influence is
felt, their tongues are loosened,
and they begin the wicked
work of talking against others.
Their words are not few or well
chosen. The tidbits of gossip are
passed around, too often the
poison of scandal as well. These
thoughtless gossipers forget
that they have a witness. An
unseen Watcher is writing their
words in the books of heaven.
See a party of ladies met to
spend an afternoon, in a sewing-
circle, it may be; toward the
close of the afternoon, their
fund of conversationals becomes
somewhat exhausted; but soon
come the tea and eatables; and
notwithstanding the opposing
influences of a full stomach, the
drooping mind becomes greatly
animated, the tongue is let loose,
and the words come flowing forth
like the falling drops of a great
shower in summer-time. What
does all this mean? Whence the
cause of such a change? It is the
inspiration of the strong cups of
tea. Then is the time for small

309
Brian Neumann

All these unkind criticisms, thoughts and many words; or

these exaggerated reports, these
envious feelings, expressed
under the excitement of the cup
of tea, Jesus registers as against
himself. “Inasmuch as ye have
done it unto one of the least
of these my brethren, ye have
done it unto me.” (Christian
Temperance and Bible Hygiene, p.
36, 1890, E.G. White)
it may be the sending forth of
firebrands of gossip and slander;
or if, perchance, religion be the
topic, the inspiring power of tea
will create an excited feeling very
closely resembling that produced
when alcohol runs over in the
form of penitential tears. (The
Philosophy of Health, p. 53-54,
1848, L.B. Coles, M.D.)

It is often claimed that Ellen White’s teachings on health

were far in advance of the medical knowledge of her day. Yet, we
see that people such as Coles and others we will consider, based
on their own professional medical research and observation, were
teaching “Ellen White’s principles of health reform” years in
advance of her. Th e standard argument against this fact is: “how
did Ellen White know what to use or leave out among the array of
medical opinions available in her day?”
Simply because certain recent discoveries in science have
confirmed some of what Ellen White or Dr. Coles taught (Dr.
Coles teachings being of prior date to Ellen White’s), does not
make Ellen White a prophet any more than it does Dr. Coles
or any of the other people she borrowed from. Many of the
conclusions drawn by the medical men of her day were based on
simple observation and common sense. Some of these men, such
as Coles, were also Christians (Coles was a Millerite preacher)
and used certain biblical principles as a foundation for their
research, conclusions, teachings and practice.
What some people do not realize is that some of the things
Ellen White taught regarding diet and health are not confirmed
by the best and latest scientific research of our modern age. In
some cases they are proved wrong. We will consider these issues
in a later chapter.

310
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Th e fact that people even view Ellen White’s statements on

health as divinely inspired is because she was already viewed as
a visionary (prophetess). Dr. Coles, Jackson, or any of the other
people she borrowed from, although their views on health were
years ahead of Ellen White, are hardly mentioned, at least not in
SDA circles.
One peculiar example that illustrates the point that “light” is
only light because Ellen White said it are the Haskell’s who, in
1858, were rebuked by Ellen White for teaching people not to eat
pork. 26 They were years ahead of Ellen White on this question but
she rebuked them because she felt that the church would become
divided as a result of such a teaching. Yet, when she happened
to have her “health reform vision” (
June 6th, 1863) revealing this
exact thing, it became timely divine insight.
It would seem, because she was the one to initiate the teaching,
everyone happily embraced the new light and the church did not
become divided, even though the Bible had taught the difference
between clean and unclean meat for thousands of years. It did
not matter that Coles, Jackson or the Haskell’s had taught certain
health principles first—it only counted and became relevant once
Ellen White said it.27 If Ellen White did not say it first then,
apparently, it could not be trusted as a sound principle of health
reform and would only result in the church being split. But,
when she said it, suddenly it became an important health reform
principle, years ahead of its time. Anyone with even the slightest
bit of common sense can see how absurd and non-sensical such
reasoning is.
When one combines this with the fact that even her published
statements on so many of these health issues were taken directly
from other writers who had said it all before her (often using
their very words), then, for any thinking person, it places a huge
question mark over her prophetic calling. Add to this the reality
that all her other writings, unrelated to health, are also laden with

311
Brian Neumann

words of others who said it first, then it is absolutely reasonable

to wonder how one can find ANY prophetic insight in that at all.
Below is a list of only some of the many, besides Coles, who
were teaching health reform years ahead of Ellen White:

• John Wesley, founder of the Methodists, had promoted

health reforms. As Methodists, the Harmons, were no
doubt familiar with certain concepts of health reform
• Joseph Bates, who was already a vegan in 1843.
• Sylvester Graham (1795-1851) Presbyterian minister and
advocate of a vegetarian diet, abstinence from coffee and
tea, and the use of the whole wheat flour and crackers
which bear his name today.
• Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet who advocated health
principles in his writings in 1833, including the absti-
nence of stimulants and unclean meats, and sparse use of
meat in general.
• Dio Lewis, whose health articles were quoted in the
“Review and Herald.”
• M.L. Shew, whose 1844 book promoted many reforms
later used by E.G. White.
• Dr. James Caleb Jackson, health reformer, especially in the
field of hydrotherpy, and his assistant Dr. Harriet Austin,
promoter of the “reform dress.”

I could continue presenting exhibit after exhibit as proof of

Ellen White’s literary borrowing in the area of Health and
more—I have evidence upon evidence right here at my very
fingertips. However, this work is not just about the issue of
plagiarism. Th ere are more names of books and authors
she borrowed from, plenty of research done by
investigators of various calling and motive. Th e reader is urged
to do his/her own discerning, additional research.

312
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It would be fitting to end this section on E.G. White’s literary

borrowing in the same way we began, by quoting from Gladys
King-Taylor’s book, Literary Beauty of Ellen G. White’s Writings.
Th e question that I posed in the first instance, concerning
the originality of Ellen White’s writings, becomes pertinent
once again, perhaps even more so in light of what has been
revealed in the course of these two chapters. On the very last
page of her book King-Taylor quotes a section from “Th e
Enjoyment of Literature,” by J.B. Hubbell, p. 111. Speaking about
the beauty and appropriateness of a fine literary style:

… We recognize its presence when we find a fresh or profound

thought expressed in a manner that seems the inevitable phras-
ing of the idea in language perfectly appropriate to both the
thought and the writer. 28

Yet, when it comes to the reading of Ellen White, in the

Conflict of the Ages series and much of her other literary work,
how does one really know when you are reading the “phrasing of
the idea in language perfectly appropriate to both the thought and the
writer” that are, indeed, those of Ellen White—as stated in the
phrase she borrowed from Rev. John Cumming—in the
“original, unborrowed, underived” sense? Th e truth is, one does
not really know for sure. Not only because of what she
borrowed but also because of the amount of adapting that was
done by her team of competent editors, such as Marian Davis
and Fannie Bolton. What were really the thoughts and words of
Ellen White, in the pure бЪНРбШаСЮНаСР, unadapted sense?
Th e irony becomes even more palpable when you turn to p. 51
and 52 of King-Taylor’s book and read:

The infinite number of ways Mrs. White finds for saying the
same thing is astonishing. Each repetition views the idea from
a different angle and adds new details, making stronger the
lights and shadows. The effect of such repetition is Kaleidoscopic.

313
Brian Neumann

There is often a snatch of beauty in the parallel or identical

rhythm of idea and its repetition…29

As wonderful and complimentary as all this sounds, should

the compliment apply to Ellen White or someone else instead?
Incredibly, right after this extolment of Ellen White’s “astonishing”
ability for finding an “infinite number of ways” for saying
“the same thing,” King-Taylor goes on to quote an example of
Ellen White’s use of rhythm and repetition: “In Christ is life,
original, unborrowed, underived,” words that were really those of
Rev. John Cumming. She certainly said “the same thing”—the
same thing someone else had said years before her. And, in this
case, did not even find a different way of saying it.
When all is said and done, one is left shaking one’s head in
dumbfounded amazement. How was it possible for one person
to take so much from other writers, get away with it during
her lifetime and a hundred years after and still be regarded by
millions around the world as THE end-time messenger of God
and one of the most prolific writers in American history—as if it
was ALL Ellen White, from start to finish?
If the truth be told, it was not only her doing that kept the
fabrication aloft. Men, in positions of leadership who, decade
after decade, were entrusted as the “keepers of the flame,” made
sure that the secret stayed hidden under lock and key, only to
be leaked, drip by drip into the collective SDA pond, when the
“bothersome” seekers for truth became a little too restless to pacify.
Of course, “the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
me God,” was never forthcoming—the clean, final, unadulterated
revelation of all the facts—only enough to temporarily still the
voices and quiet the fears of the Adventist throng worldwide who
could feel the ripples but never quite knew from whence they
came or quite what the implications of it all meant.
The captains at the helm of the ship, H.M.S. SDA were kept
busy doing all they could to still keep the legend of Her Majesty

314
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

(the “Queen” and ultimate authority of Adventism) afloat. Books,

presenting explanations and arguments, were being published
as fast as they could get them off the press. And while the way
in which SDA’s understood Ellen White and her writings were
being adapted, to make them “fit” what was being discovered
and could not be ignored (sufficiently enough to avoid complete
exposure and embarrassment), the “chest,” containing the rest
of the “booty” still remained under guardianship of the captains
aboard H.M.S. SDA, at Ellen G. White Estate in Washington DC.
No matter how much Ellen White’s figures of speech—her
use of trope, metaphor, simile, personification, metonymy and
synecdoche—are lauded and praised, one is still left with that
nagging, uneasy feeling that what you’re reading are not really her
words—original, unborrowed, underived.
There is no doubt, as Ellen White herself prophesied, the ship,
H.M.S. SDA, is heading towards an “iceberg.” The “watchman” has
sounded the alarm: “iceberg ahead!” Will the captains at the helm
give the command to meet it “head-on” or will they, like those
who were steering the Titanic through the cold North Atlantic,
give the command to pass it by, triggering an unimaginable
catastrophe? No doubt, soon and perhaps sooner than we think,
the answer to that question will be known.

SOURCES
1. A Word to the Little Flock., p. 13. 3 Selected Messages p. 122.
2. Colporteur Ministry, p. 125, 3 Selected Messages p. 50.
3. Letter 50, 1906, 3 Selected Messages p. 83-84.
4. 3 Selected Messages p. 37 (italics supplied).
5. (Robert W. Olson, “Egw’s Use of Uninspired Sources,” photo-
copied (Washington: Egw Estate, 9 November 1979), pp. 1n4,
7, 8 / “The White Lie,” 1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 6 (empha-
sis supplied).
6. Ibid.
7. William S. Peterson, “Ellen White’s Literary Indebtedness,”
Spectrum 3, no. 4 (Autumn 1971): 73n84. Since Peterson’s arti-
cle, others have appeared in Spectrum each year since 1971.
8. Neal C. Wilson to Glendale Committee on Egw Sources, 8
January 1980.
9. Jerry Wiley to Neal C. Wilson, 14 January 1980.
10. Donald R. McAdams, “Shifting views of Inspiration” Spectrum
10, no. 4 (March 1980): 38 (emphasis supplied).
11. Ibid., pp. 34n35 (emphasis supplied).
12. Glendale Committee, “Ellen G. White and Her Sources,” tapes
(28n29 January 1980), McAdams remarks (emphasis supplied).
13. McAdams, “Shifting Views, “Spectrum 10, no. 4 (March, 1980):
35 (emphasis supplied).
14. Egw, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, supplement quoting W. C.
White’s letter to W. W. Eastman, 12 May 1969, pp. 545n46
(emphasis supplied).
15. Ibid (emphasis supplied).
16. (“The White Lie,” 1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 6 (empha-
sis supplied).
17. Chicago Tribune, 23rd, November 1980 (Emphasis supplied).
18. Ibid (Emphasis supplied).
19. “The White Lie,” 1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 12 (empha-
sis supplied).
20. Fred Veltman, “Report to PREXAD on the E. G. White
Research Project; photocopied (Angwin, CA Life of Christ
Research Project, n.d. [April 1981]), p. 21 / “The White Lie,”
1982, Walter T. Rea, Chapter 6.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid. p. 22.
23. Ellen G. White, Forward, Health or How to Live (Photographic
reproduction, Mokelumne Hill, Calif., 1957); Review 30 (8 October
1867), p. 260 (italics & emphasis supplied).
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid (italics supplied).
26. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 206, 207.
27. Spiritual Gifts, p. 124.
28. King-Taylor, “Literary Beauty of Ellen G. White’s Writings.”p.
124.
29. Ibid, p. 51, 52.
 Chapter IX

The Word or White

A question of authority

Now this I say, that every one of you saith,

I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;
and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?
was Paul crucified for you?
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

—1 Corinthians 1:12, 13

A
vital question to consider is the position of authority
that the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen G. White) wields
in the SDA Church. The reason for this is to establish
how much of a binding effect the teachings/testimonies of Ellen
White have on members of the SDA Church. Must her teachings
be obeyed across the board, or is it really up to the individual to
decide if they choose to do so or not? Does acceptance of Ellen
White/Spirit of Prophecy have anything to do with becoming an
SDA and remaining, at least officially, an SDA of good standing?
Is what she says, in all the many teachings published over the
years, according to the Bible (in clear unambiguous terms) or
not? If not, what voice of authority should take precedence—
Ellen White or Scripture?

321
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

It is no use reading an official SDA Church statement here

and there, to establish the true position of Ellen White’s authority
within the church, historically and presently—numerous so-called
official statements that have been presented over the years. Many
of these statements seem to have depended on what the “climate”
was at the time—replies to questions seem to be based on who
was asking and what appeared to be motivating their ХЪЭбХЮе.
Some statements made by individuals in positions of leadership
at one time vary substantially from statements made by leaders at
a different time. Within respective geographical areas—divisions,
conferences, congregations, individual pastors, other church
leaders, filtering down to laity—relationship to the authority of
Ellen White’s writings vary drastically. There appears to be no
absolute continuity of perception or practice when it comes to her
writings. Confusion, in some cases, in others, an uncomfortable
status-quo, is the result. The proof or fruits of this, when it comes
to putting into practice what she taught, can be seen from head
to tail (leadership to laity) in the SDA Church today.

HISTORICAL POSITIONS
The question is not whether the pioneers of the SDA Church
largely understood the biblical teaching concerning the gifts of
prophecy and how the believer should relate to someone God
had called to be His messenger/prophet. Except in the issue of
applying the so-called physical tests of a prophet while in vision,
the founders of the SDA Church fully understood the scriptural
teachings concerning the prophetic gift—both the afore-
mentioned topics were examined in an earlier chapter. Rather, the
question is whether Ellen G. White was a prophetess, according
to ALL the criteria found in Scripture? The SDA Church has
claimed to have proved, over and over again, that she passed ALL
the biblical tests for a true prophet of God. However, is this really
the case? Indeed, it is the purpose of this entire book to come to
grips with this question.

322
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Th e question of “authority” really hinges on these

considerations. If she does, after all the facts are considered, pass
the test, then the way the WHOLE church should unanimously
relate to her messages should be in accordance with how God, in
Scripture, prescribes obedience to His messengers.
If one looks at genuine prophets of Scripture and the level of
authority their messages contained then, clearly, what they were
communicating either had the full authority of the Almighty
behind it or did not. There could be no halfway position on this.
Simply because the prophet John the Baptist, for example, might
have come on the scene centuries after Elijah, whose calling
was already recorded in the scriptures (Old Testament), did that
make the authority behind his message any less relevant because
his words did not happen to be recorded in the Canon (Old
Testament)? The obvious answer is, no. When he appeared on the
scene there was no way of knowing whether he was the genuine
article or not, other than testing him according to Scripture. One
of those tests would have been whether his predictions regarding
the coming Messiah came to pass. Were his words in accordance
with the “law and the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20)? In other words,
was he preaching something that contradicted the Word of God?
Was his own life contrary to the message he was preaching?
Having said this, it needs to be understood that prophets were
human and prone to weakness and failings as all people are. The
Bible often recorded these short-comings so that later generations
could know and understand that being a prophet chosen by God
was not a blanket indicant of “ne plus ultra.” Nevertheless, this
and the other afore-mentioned factors would be some of the
considerations when evaluating the prophet.
John, when compared to these standards, conformed to the
scriptural standard of a true prophet. Indeed, would he even be
presented as a true prophet in the scriptures if he had not.
Thus, once it was established that a prophet was genuine,
according to the Scripture, the question of who has more

323
Brian Neumann

authority, Elijah or John, becomes mute. The authority is really

the authority of God and thus, Elijah and John are equal in
this regard.
It might be argued that the Old Testament had already
predicted John’s coming and so, in this sense, his calling is
substantiated, in advance, in the Scripture. This is true, but it is
also true that anyone could have come along claiming to be “that
prophet.” The only way of knowing if he was “the one” would be
to apply the biblical test and look at various other indicators/
predictions that Scripture foretold would accompany his ministry.
Of course, in the case of John the Baptist, his authenticity and
prophetic status was confirmed by Christ Himself.
Interestingly, a number of SDA Bible scholars find Ellen
White’s prophetic calling quite specifically predicted in Scripture.
Although, not mentioned by name, her role, it is claimed, is clearly
defined in the same way as John’s. Not only in more general
terms, as prophesied by Joel, that “your sons and daughters” will
prophesy. The claim is that, based on genuine, verifiable biblical
evidence, one can specifically pin-point Ellen White’s prophetic
ministry, thus elevating her position as a messenger of God to
the level of prophets such as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah
and John the Baptist. In other words, her prophetic calling is a
fulfillment of a very particular type of prophetic role that has
been filled by individuals at critical times during the history of
this world. This, it is understood, places Ellen White in a position
of no “average” standing.
To speak of Ellen White as simply a fulfillment of Joel’s
prophecy, someone who had the prophetic “gift,” as many have
had, who’s names are mentioned in Scripture but who’s messages
are not, is not, according to her most ardent followers, elevating
her prophetic calling to its proper level. She is, according to SDA
and indeed her own belief, which we will examine here, God’s
“end-time messenger,” called as “no one else” was called in her day.
1
She filled a prophetic position that very few, even those recorded

324
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

in Scripture, occupied. She appeared on the stage at a time when

God needed someone to prepare/call a special, peculiar people—
during a “landmark” period in world history and the history of
His chosen.
When one reads the general description given of Ellen White,
as a fulfillment of the “Spirit of Prophecy” (Revelation 19:10),
as given in many SDA denominational books dealing with this
subject, this fuller picture is not always properly disclosed. When
the role of Ellen White was defined in the book, Seventh-day
Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, for example, written in
response to questions raised by Evangelical Christian leaders,
Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse of Eternity Magazine
(1955-1956), it did not, in more than just one or two respects,
paint the FULL picture of SDA’s understanding and belief in
Ellen G. White’s calling and the authority her writings hold
in the church. Thus, the question of how SDA’s have regarded
Ellen White’s prophetic status or authority and the implications
connected to their view of her prophetic ministry, could not be fully
understood by the non-Adventist world.
To be sure, especially
in this “latter-day” of SDA history, many SDA members
themselves do not fully understand it either.
Because of this fact, the best way to come to terms with the
question of authority, so as to alleviate some of the existing
confusion, is to hear what Ellen White herself had to say on the
topic and then, progressively, wade through the history, from
the time of the pioneers till the present. Once this has been
accomplished members should be able to understand their duty
more clearly.
Firstly, I would like to draw your attention to the book Seventh-
day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine and the “official”
picture SDA leadership tried to paint for those Evangelical
Christians, Martin and Barnhouse, who were demanding an
explanation that would decide whether they would label the
SDA Church a “cult” or not. Following is the portion of that

325
Brian Neumann

book that specifically addresses the question authority of Ellen

White’s writings:

It is significant that in her counsels, or “testimonies,” the atten-

tion of the reader is constantly directed to the authority of
the Word of God as the sole foundation of faith and doctrine.
In the Introduction to one of her larger books she sets forth
important principles:
In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge
necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted
as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are
the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the
test of experience. “Every scripture inspired of God is also
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruc-
tion which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be
complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” 2 Tim.
3:16, 17, Revised Version.
Yet the fact that God has revealed His will to men through
His Word, has not rendered needless the continued presence and
guiding of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the Spirit was
promised by our Saviour, to open the Word to His servants,
to illuminate and apply its teachings. And since it was the
Spirit of God that inspired the Bible, it is impossible that the
teaching of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the
Word. The Great Controversy, Introduction, p. vii.

NOTE: I must interject at this point. Based on their

own words, the Spirit was promised to open the Word to
God’s servants. However, SDA Bible scholars, such as J. N.
Andrews, as already shown in previous chapters, believed
that the “gift,” as was manifest in Ellen White, became
the channel through which the Spirit would help people
“understand” or “interpret” the scriptures. This is Medieval
Catholic in its implications, where the general population
would rely on the insight of the church or priest to explain
the meaning of Scripture. Paul told believers to “study to

326
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

show YOURSELF approved …” The Spirit communicates

the essence of the word to the individual Bible student
who “rightly” divides the Word of truth. The reformers did
not rely on some prophetic voice (a human claiming illu-
mination by the Holy Spirit), to tell them how to interpret
the Scriptures. They removed themselves as far as possi-
ble from idea that some human entity, claiming Divine
insight, could help them better understand the scrip-
tures and studied for themselves, comparing Scripture to
Scripture.

While Adventists hold the writings of Ellen G. White in

highest esteem, yet these are not the source of our expositions.
We base our teachings on the Scriptures, the only founda-
tion of all true Christian doctrine. However, it is our belief
that the Holy Spirit opened to her mind important events and
called her to give certain instructions for these last days. And
inasmuch as these instructions, in our understanding, are in
harmony with the Word of God, which Word alone is able to
make us wise unto salvation, we as a denomination accept
them as inspired counsels from the Lord. But we have never
equated them with Scripture as some falsely charge. Mrs.
White herself stated explicitly the relation of her writings to
the Bible:
Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given
a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. The
Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903.
“The Lord designs to warn you, to reprove, to counsel,
through the testimonies given, and to impress your minds with
the importance of the truth of His word.” Testimonies for the
Church, vol. 5, p. 665.
While Seventh-day Adventists recognize that the
Scripture canon closed nearly two thousand years ago and
that there have been no additions to this compilation of sacred
books, yet we believe that the Spirit of God, who inspired the

327
Brian Neumann

Divine Word known to us as the Bible, has pledged to reveal

Himself to the church through the different gifts of the Spirit.
The apostle Peter in giving his explanation of the hap-
penings of Pentecost quoted from the prophecy of Joel and
applied that prophecy to the evident outworking of the Holy
Spirit on that memorable day. And the apostle
Paul speaking of the different gifts that God had placed in
the church, said: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, proph-
ets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors, and teachers; for
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11, 12).
And how long were these gifts to continue in the church?
“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowl-
edge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be
no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (verses 13,
14).
So long as God’s children would be beset by the cunning
craftiness of the spirit of evil, just so long would the church
need these special gifts. Moreover, the same apostle declared
that the church that would be waiting for the coming of the
Lord Jesus would “come behind in no gift,” that they “may be
blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:7, 8).
It is not our understanding that these gifts of the Spirit
take the place of the Word of God, nor does their acceptance
make unnecessary the Scripture of truth. On the contrary, the
acceptance of God’s Word will lead God’s people to a recogni-
tion and acceptance of the manifestations of the Spirit. Such
manifestations will, of course, be in harmony with the
Word of God. We know that some earnest Christians have the
impression that these gifts ceased with the apostolic church. But
Adventists believe that the closing of the Scripture canon did
not terminate Heaven’s communication with men through the

328
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

gifts of the Spirit, but rather that Christ by the ministry of His
Spirit guides His people, edifying and strengthening them, and
especially so in these last challenging days of human history.
And it is the Holy Spirit who divides “to every man severally
as he will” (1 Cor. 12:11). It is God who bestows the gifts,
and it is God Himself who takes the responsibility for these
manifestations of the Spirit among the believers. He calls one
here and one there and makes them the depositories of specific
spiritual gifts. He calls one to be an apostle, one an evangelist,
another a pastor or a teacher, and to another He gives the gift
of prophecy. It is our understanding that all these gifts will
be in evidence in the church which will be “waiting for the
coming of our Lord’ (I Cor. 1:7) [See A. G. Daniells, Abiding
Gift of Prophecy]. Our interpretation of Bible prophecy leads
us to believe that those who make up the remnant people of God
in the last days of the history of the church will meet the full
fury of the dragon’s power as he goes forth to make war on those
who “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony
of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 12:17). That expression “testimony of
Jesus” Is clearly defined, we believe, by the angel In Revelation
19:10. He says to John: “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy.” 2

Th ere are a number of aspects that are strongly emphasized in

regard to the question of the authority of Ellen White’s writings.
Firstly: “the attention of the reader [when reading her writings]
is constantly directed to the authority of the Word of God as the sole
foundation of faith and doctrine.” This is a false representation.
It is one thing for SDA leadership to claim Scripture as the
foundation or authority for all teaching, quite another, as will be
shown, when you see what happens in reality.
Secondly: “since it was the Spirit of God that inspired the
Bible, it is impossible that the teaching of the Spirit [because this
Spirit also inspired Ellen White] should ever be contrary to that of

329
Brian Neumann

the Word.” When it comes to many of Ellen White’s expositions

of Scripture, this is false. As the reader has already seen and will
continue to see throughout this book, much of what Ellen White
taught cannot be substantiated by what is taught in the Bible.
Thirdly: “While Adventists hold the writings of Ellen
G. White in highest esteem, yet these are not the source of our
expositions. We base our teachings on the Scriptures, the only foundation
of all true Christian doctrine.…But we have never equated them
with Scripture as some falsely charge.” As previously noted, what
was ЬбОШХПШе published for the benefit of the uninitiated in
Questions on Doctrine, using selective quotes by Ellen White, does
not match-up with what happens in reality. Ellen White, as will
be proven over and over again in this book, is most certainly the
source for some of the prime teachings in SDA faith.
The point is reiterated: “It is not our understanding that these gifts
of the Spirit take the place of the Word of God…Such manifestations
[such as Ellen White’s prophetic gift/calling] will, of course, be in
harmony with the Word of God.” Yet, as has already been shown in
previous chapters and will continue to be shown as we move on,
the teachings of Ellen White, even though many of them cannot
be unambiguously substantiated by Scripture, are often elevated
to the same level as Scripture. Indeed, Scripture is often twisted
and slanted in such a way so as to
make it seem as if they are in
agreement with her words.
Some SDA’s reading this might be tempted to accuse me
of being out on a limb regarding my evaluation and that I am
simply coming from the perspective of someone who is anti-
White and anti-SDA. This is absolutely not the case. Even when
I was in ministry in the SDA Church, defending Ellen White,
I would still have criticized the oblique manner in which the
church portrayed its fundamental beliefs in Questions on Doctrine,
specifically the section dedicated to Ellen White.
I am not alone in taking this position either. M. L. Andreasen, a
retired and well respected SDA theologian, vehemently protested

330
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the publication of Questions on Doctirne and not only accused

SDA leadership of compromising the pillars of SDA faith, but
outright dishonesty. He denounced the book as “the most subtle
and dangerous error.” 3
One of the “questions” he took issue with was how, among
other things, the book described the church’s position on Ellen
White, and interestingly enough, two other pillars of SDA
theology, the mark of the beast (a subject dealing with the USA,
other Protestant churches and the Papacy), the SDA doctrine
on the sanctuary and the investigative judgment (all issues I am
addressing in this book). 4
Of course, Andreasen’s motive for criticism was in defense of
the pillars of SDA faith. He did not care if telling the “truth”
would result in the church being labeled a cult. My motivation,
on the other hand, is the unscriptural basis of these doctrines, and
as with Andreasen, the dishonesty of those brethren who were
apparently being transparent regarding SDA
theology.
In spite of the accusation that came from Andreasen, the
Introduction to Questions on Doctrine boldly proclaimed: “The
writers, counselors, and editors who produced the answers to these
questions have labored conscientiously to state accurately the beliefs of
Seventh-day Adventists.”5
To make the point regarding the question of Ellen White and
her authority absolutely clear, especially for readers that do not
know much about the SDA belief system, let me share a sequence
of quotes from SDA leadership. These are statements by leaders
of various calling and official church publications that inform one
of what is REALLY believed at the very heart and soul of the
SDA Church—where the rubber hits the road.

Ϙβ
Ϙβ
ϖцпѐпцлшоΑ
На
ЫЪС
аХЩС
ζЯЯЫПΔ
ψСПΔΑ
ςХЪХЯаСЮХНШ
ζЯЯЫПΔΑ
μСЪΔ
θЫЪТΔ

ψιζΛЯ
ЯаНаСРΓ
ξ
ОСШХСвС
ХЪ
аФС
ωСЯаХЩЫЪХСЯΔ
ςЮЯΔ
όФХаСΛЯ
гЮХаХЪУЯ
НЮС
аФС
гЫЮШРΛЯ
ЫЪШе

ХЪЯЬХЮСР
ηХОШС
ПЫЩЩСЪаНЮеΔ
ωФСе

ПЫЪЯаХабаС
аФС

ЩЫЯа
ЯСЮХЫбЯ
ПФНШШСЪУС

331
Brian Neumann

to Christian living that has come to the church since John’s

Patmos Revelation …6

ωФС
Ϧϗϔ
Ϧлммлют
ϦнтщщцϊϤяльюпьцѓ
РСПШНЮСРΓ

ωФС
ηХОШС
НЪР
аФС
гЮХаХЪУЯ
ЫТ
κШШСЪ
όФХаС
НЮС
ХЪСЮЮНЪаΕ
Δә

ϔцопш
ϧтщчэщшΑ
ЫЪС
аХЩС
ψιζ
ЬНЯаЫЮ
НЪР
ЬЮЫТСЯЯЫЮ
На
όНШШН
όНШШН
ψιζ

θЫШШСУС
СдЬСЮХСЪПСР
аФХЯ
СЬХЬФНЪеΓ

ξ
ОСУНЪ
аЫ
ЮСНШХжС
ФЫг
ПЮСНаХвС
κρρκσ
όνξωκ
νζι
ηκκσ

ξσ
ξσωκχυχκωξσμ
ωνκ
τρι
ωκψωζςκσωΔ
ζψ
ξ

θτςυζχκι
νκχ
ξσωκχυχκωζωξτσψ
ХЪ
υНаЮХНЮПФЯ
НЪР

υЮЫЬФСаЯ
гХаФ
ψПЮХЬабЮСΑ
ξ
λτϊσι
ωνκς
ςϊθν
ςτχκ

ϊσικχψωζσιζηρκ
ωνζσ
ωνκ
ηζχκ
τρι
ωκψωζςκσω

σζχχζωξϋκψΕ
ξ
ШХЧСР
гФНа
κШШСЪ
όФХаС
РХРΑ
Оба
бЬЫЪ

ЮСТШСПаХЫЪ
ξ
РСПХРСР
аФНа
ξ
ФНР
ЬЮЫОНОШе
ОССЪ
ЯШХУФаХЪУ
аФС
ηХОШС

ХЪ
ТНвЫЮ
ЫТ
υНаЮХНЮПФЯ
НЪР
υЮЫЬФСаЯ
Ε
Ӛ

όСШШ
ЧЪЫгЪ
ψιζ
аФЫбУФа
ШСНРСЮΑ
Ϡщььуэ
ϩпшопш
ЯНХРΓ
ξΛР
ШХЧС
аЫ
аНЧС
аФХЯ
ЬЫЯХаХЫЪΑ
аФНа
ХТ
еЫб
РЫ
ЪЫа
ОСШХСвС
ХЪ
аФС

УХТа
ЫТ
ЬЮЫЬФСПе
ΨκШШСЪ
όФХаСΛЯ
ЬЮЫЬФСаХП
ЩХЪХЯаЮеΩΑ
ОНЯСР
ЫЪ

гФНа
аФС
ηХОШС
ФНЯ
аЫ
ЯНе
ЫЪ
ХаΑ
аФНа
еЫб
РЫЪΛа
ОСШХСвС
ХЪ
аФС

ηХОШСΕωФС
ЬЮХЩНЮе
ЬбЮЬЫЯС
ЫТ
аФС
УХТа
ЫТ
ЬЮЫЬФСПе
ХЪ
ЮСШНά
аХЫЪЯФХЬ
аЫ
ЯПЮХЬабЮС
ХЯ
аЫ
ПЫЪТХЮЩ
ψПЮХЬабЮС
аЮбаФΔ
гС
ωττπ

ωνκ
υτψξωξτσ
ρζψω
ωξςκ
ωνζω
ωνκ
μξλω
τλ

υχτυνκθώ
νζψ
κφϊζρ
ζϊωντχξωώ
όξων
ωνκ
ηξηρκ

ζσι
κφϊζρ
ξσψυξχζωξτσ
όξων
ωνκ
ηξηρκΔ
ӛ

ϥлѓчщшо
ϙβ
ϖщююьпццΑ
гЮЫаС
НОЫба
гФНа
κШШСЪ
όФХаС
ЩСНЪа
аЫ
ФХЩΓ

ωФС
ηХОШС
ЯЬСНЧЯ
аЫ
НШШ
аФС
гЫЮШРΒ
аФС
гЮХаХЪУЯ
ЫТ
κШШСЪ
όФХаС

гСЮС
НРРЮСЯЯСР
ЬЮХЩНЮХШе
аЫ
аФС
ЮСЩЪНЪа
ПФбЮПФΔ
νСЮСХЪ
ШХСЯ

аФС
ЫЪШе
ЯХУЪХТХПНЪа
РХТТСЮСЪПС
ОСагССЪ
аФСЩΔ
ωνκ
υκχψτσ

όντ
ρξψωκσψ
ωτ
ητων
гХаФ
НЪ
ЫЬСЪ
ЩХЪР
όξρρ
νκζχ

ωνκ
ψζςκ
ϋτξθκ
ψυκζπξσμ
ωνχτϊμν
ητωνΑ
όξων

κφϊζρ
ζϊωντχξωώΔӓӒ

332
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ϥщмпью
ϣупьэщшΑ
ЫЪС
аХЩС
υЮСЯХРСЪа
ЫТ
аФС
μСЪСЮНШ
θЫЪТСЮСЪПС
ЫТ
аФС
ψιζ

θФбЮПФΓ

σЫ
СдПбЯСЯ
НЮС
ЩНРС
ТЫЮ
ФСЮ
ПЫЪаЮХОбаХЫЪЯΕξ
ЯЬСНЧ
аФСЯС

гЫЮРЯ
НТаСЮ
ЪСНЮШе
ТЫЮае
еСНЮЯ
ЫТ
РСЪЫЩХЪНаХЫЪНШ
ЯСЮвХПСΕ
νκχ
όχξωξσμψ
νκρυ
ϊψ
ϊσικχψωζσι
ωνκ
ηξηρκΔ
ӓӓ
ωФС
ПФбЮПФΛЯ
ШСНРХЪУ
ЬбОШХПНаХЫЪΑ
аФС
ϥпѐупё
лшо
ϛпьлцоΑ
ЯаНаСРΓ
ζЯ
ψНЩбСШ
гНЯ
Н
ЬЮЫЬФСа
аЫ
ξЯЮНСШ
ХЪ
ФХЯ
РНеΑ
НЯ
οСЮСЩХНФ

гНЯ
Н
ЬЮЫЬФСа
аЫ
ξЯЮНСШ
ХЪ
аФС
РНеЯ
ЫТ
ПНЬаХвХаеΑ
НЯ
οЫФЪ

аФС
ηНЬаХЯа
ПНЩС
НЯ
Н
ЯЬСПХНШ
ЩСЯЯСЪУСЮ
ЫТ
аФС
ρЫЮР
аЫ

ЬЮСЬНЮС
аФС
гНе
ТЫЮ
θФЮХЯаΛЯ
НЬЬСНЮХЪУΑ
ЯЫ
гС
ОСШХСвС

аФНа
ςЮЯΔ
όФХаС
гНЯ
Н
ЬЮЫЬФСа
аЫ
аФС
ПФбЮПФ
ЫТ
θФЮХЯа

аЫРНеΔ
ζЪР
аФС
ЯНЩС
НЯ
аФС
ЩСЯЯНУСЯ
ЫТ
аФС
ЬЮЫЬФСаЯ
гСЮС

ЮСПСХвСР
ХЪ
ЫШР
РНеЯΑ
ЯЫ
ФСЮ
ЩСЯЯНУС
ЯФЫбШР
ОС
ЮСПСХвСР
На

ЬЮСЯСЪа
аХЩСЯΔӓӔ

ζУНХЪ
ξ
ЭбЫаС
ТЮЫЩ
аФС
ϥпѐупё
лшо
ϛпьлцоΓ

τбЮ
ЬЫЯХάаХЫЪ
ЫЪ
аФС
ωСЯаХЩЫЪХСЯ
ΨκШШСЪ
όФХаСΛЯ
гЮХаХЪУЯΩ

ХЯ
ШХЧС
аФС
ЧСеЯаЫЪС
аЫ
аФС
НЮПФΔ
ωНЧС
аФНа
ЫбаΑ
НЪР
аФСЮС
ХЯ

ЪЫ
ШЫУХПНШ
ЯаЫЬЬХЪУ
ЬШНПС
аХШШ
НШШ
аФС
ЯЬСПХНШ
аЮбаФЯ
ЫТ
аФС

ЩСЯЯНУС
НЮС
УЫЪСΔ
σЫаФХЪУ
ХЯ
ЯбЮСЮ
аФНЪ
аФХЯΑ
аФНа
аФС

ЩСЯЯНУС
НЪР
аФС
вХЯХЫЪЯ
ΨЫТ
ςЮЯΔ
όФХаСΩ
ОСШЫЪУ
аЫУСаФСЮΑ

НЪР
ЯаНЪР
ЫЮ
ТНШШ
аЫУСаФСЮΔӓӕ

Ϛβ
ϔβ
ϜьёушΑ
ТЫЮЩСЮ
ЬЮСЯХРСЪа
ЫТ
аФС
ψιζ
μСЪСЮНШ
θЫЪТСЮСЪПС
Γ
ξа
ХЯ
ТЮЫЩ
аФС
ЯаНЪРЬЫХЪа
ЫТ
аФС
ШХУФа
аФНа
ФНЯ
ПЫЩС
аФЮЫбУФ

аФС
ψЬХЮХа
ЫТ
υЮЫЬФСПе
ΨςЮЯΔ
όФХаСΛЯ
гЮХаХЪУЯΩ
аФНа
аФС

ЭбСЯаХЫЪ
гХШШ
ОС
ПЫЪЯХРСЮСРΑ
ОСШХСвХЪУ
НЯ
гС
РЫ
аФНа
аФС

ψЬХЮХа
ЫТ
υЮЫЬФСПе
ХЯ
аФС
ЫЪШе
ХЪТНШШХОШС
ХЪаСЮЬЮСаСЮ
ЫТ
ηХОШС

ЬЮХЪПХЬШСЯΑ
ЯХЪПС
Ха
ХЯ
аФНа
θФЮХЯаΑ
аФЮЫбУФ
аФХЯ
НУСЪПеΑ

УХвХЪУ
ЮСНШ
ЩСНЪХЪУ
ЫТ
ФХЯ
ЫгЪ
гЫЮРЯΔӓӖ

For the reader it should be plainer than day. Th
e SDA

statement, in Questions on Doctrine, published for the
purpose of alleviating the suspicions of leading Evangelical
scholars, was NOT an honest portrayal of what is actually
believed—the statements above testify for themselves.

333
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

And, to really get to the root of traditional SDA belief one

needs simply to read the words of the SDA pioneers and Ellen
White herself:
J. N. Andrews, Editor of the Review and Herald and pio-
neering Bible scholar of the SDA Church: “Now it is plain that
those who reject the work of the Spirit of God under the plea
that the scriptures are sufficient, do deny and reject all that
part of the Bible which reveals the office and work of the Holy
Spirit…In short, their work [the spirit of prophecy/writings
of Ellen White] is to unite the people of God in the same mind
and the same judgement upon the meaning of the scriptures.
Mere human judgement, with no direct instruction from
heaven, can never search out hidden iniquity, nor adjust dark
and complicated church difficulties nor prevent different and
conflicting interpretations of the scriptures.” 15
In regard to the prophetic ministry of Ellen White, the
Review and Herald published: “Think you that he would
choose an inferior mouthpiece through whom to instruct the
remnant church? On the other hand, as it is the greatest crisis
of all ages, we should naturally expect that the mouthpiece
God would use for this period would be inferior to none in
the past ages.” 16
Of her own words Ellen White says: “It is God, and not
an erring mortal, that has spoken.” (Testimonies, Volume
3, p.257. Emphasis & italics supplied) She states that those
who doubt or oppose her are fighting against God, sinning
against the Holy Ghost, thus “fighting the Spirit of God.
Those… who would break down our testimony, I saw, are
not fighting against us, but against God” 17
Regarding that which she writes in testimonies to the
church she says: “In these letters which I write, in the testimo-
nies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has pre-
sented to me. I do not write one article in the paper express-
ing merely my own views. They are what God had opened
to me in vision-the precious ray of light shining from the

334
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

throne” (Testimonies Vol.5, p. 67. Emphasis & italics sup-

plied) “If you lessen the confidence of God’s people in the tes-
timonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God”18
Regarding the significance of her prophetic calling, Ellen
White wrote: “… My commission embraces the work of a
prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more
than the minds of those who have been sowing seeds of unbe-
lief can comprehend.” 19
Indicating the infallible authority behind her ministry,
Ellen White declares: “I gave myself, my whole being, to God,
to obey His call in everything, and since that time my life has
been spent in giving the message, with my pen and in speak-
ing before large congregations. It is not I who controls my
words and actions at such times.” 20

A number of extremely perplexing conundrums, needing

urgent reply, arise from what has been considered in the
preceding statements. It becomes apparent, when tracing the full
consequence and impact of Ellen White’s prophetic ministry
from cause to effect, that the whole question of “authority”
becomes highly problematic.
Th
is is especially so in light of the incredible amount of
“territory” (issues she addressed) covered in her writings, things
that are not addressed in Scripture in definitive terms. Indeed,
the question that almost leaps out at one, even placing Joel’s
prophecy regarding the resurgence of the prophetic gift at the
end of time in question is: after Ellen White, can anyone else
ever, especially in the Adventist mind, be accepted or recognized
as a genuine prophet of God? By what standard would such an
individual be tested? Would it be by the Bible and the Bible alone
or would the authenticity of their calling to prophetic office be
evaluated (over and above biblical considerations) on the basis of
Ellen G. White’s words as well?
After all, Ellen White did not believe God would give greater
light (e.g. another prophet) if people were still despising and

335
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

rejecting the light already given—with reference to her work

as the messenger of God. Of course, this begs another
question: If the Church does not accept and put into practice
what Ellen White claimed was light from God, an absolutely
incredible amount of “light,” will the prophetic gift cease to be
manifest in the church?
Th
e SDA Church claims that one of the characteristics of
God’s Юemnant is that the prophetic gift would be found in
her midst. Did that mean that this manifestation was only to
be in the form of ONE singular FINAL prophet with an all-
encompassing ministry—period? What essential issues might
still be covered by another prophet that have not already been
covered by that ONE individual, barring perhaps re-presenting
things in the context of our modern 21st Century setting? Ellen
White has, in a certain sense, set up her prophetic ministry as
being, in effect, ALL the light God had given to His people to
see them through till the endΔ
Thus, in reference to Joel’s prophecy that implies the prophetic
gift being manifest in a pluralistic sense (sons, daughters, old
men, etc.), as it was at Pentecost, how and when will this
be fulfilled, post Ellen White? To be sure, Joel’s prediction
could not have been fulfilled in Ellen White, at least not in its
fullest sense. In some way it might be said that it was fulfilled
during her earlier ministry as she was one, among others that
had received this gift. She аЮНвСШСР with and ministered with
another woman, Dorinda Baker, for example, who, as far as the
historical evidence is concerned, possessed the genuine gift—
for a while at least, according to SDA opinion. TФere were of
course “chosen ones,” to mention a few, such as Hazen Foss
(who did not answer the call) and William Foye who, for a time,
ministered in this capacity. Since then, as Ellen White’s own
ministry flourished, all others, at least as far as SDA’s were
concerned, seemed to either fall by the “prophetic wayside” or
ended
up being branded
as false,

bringing
НЬЬНЮСЪа
РХЯЮСЬбаС

336
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

to the title prophet, one of the reasons why Ellen White, at

least officially, avoided using that title for herself.
This, in any significant sense, from the SDA perspective,
leaves them with Ellen White, till and if ever Joel’s prophecy or
even Revelation 19:10 (Spirit of Prophecy), is fulfilled in more
than just her ministry—perhaps when the Holy Spirit is poured
out to facilitate the giving of what SDA’s call the “loud-cry” prior
to the “close of probation” (concepts peculiar to the SDA faith).
In Ellen White’s life at least, it could be argued, the church
did not come behind in the “gifts,” that is to say, not the gift of
prophecy. However, while the church did not come behind in
this gift, it was only blessed by it being manifest in the person
of ONE individual. And arguably, since then, till the present, it
has not come behind in the “gift” of
prophecy ONLY because
it now continues to possess this gift in the format of that ONE
individual’s writings. It needs to be taken note of that coming
behind in the gifts (the prophetic gift in this case) really means
that the church has no living/current prophet in her midst. This
gift, if it were to be considered that it is “alive and well” in the
church simply because it possesses it in written format, already
exists in the form of the Bible—the supreme standard by which
ALL the gifts are to be tested. But anyone who knows anything
about this at all knows that the Bible (such as Joel’s prophecy
and Paul’s statements regarding the gifts) clearly teaches that
the church is not lacking in the gifts BECAUSE they are being
ACTIVELY manifest (by living, spirit-filled individuals) in her
midst—not simply in document form. Thus, other than having
the writings of a dead prophetess, the SDA Church, quite literally,
DOES come behind in the gifts. It might even be argued that the
SDA Church comes behind in other gifts as well, perhaps even
the most important gift of all…Love.
Some might say that there have been and are many people
in the SDA Church who have had dreams or revelations from
God when it has been expedient for Him to have this happen.

337
Brian Neumann

This they say is evidence that the prophetic gift is still presently
alive and well in the Church. To cite these types of revelations
as a proper fulfillment of the prophetic gift, as prophesied by
Joel concerning the end-times, is a straw-grabbing attempt at
the very least. Throughout the history of the Christian Church,
indeed, throughout biblical history, individuals who have not in
the full sense been possessors of the prophetic gift have received
dreams or impressions from God. Some of them have been pagan
kings, wives of political leaders (Pontius Pilot’s wife), simple
believers who were seeking direction or individuals who God
chose to give specific warnings to (the wise men, for instance).
However, such examples are NOT proper or full fulfillments of
the “gift of prophecy.” There is no indication in Scripture that
God would raise up an all-encompassing single prophetic voice
at the end of time to be the authority on everything from lifestyle
to scriptural understanding.
With these things in mind, we get back to the original question
of Joel’s prophecy, the when and how possibility of another
significant prophet, with specific/vital testimony, arising in the
SDA Church, so that she can once again NOT come behind in
all the gifts. Does the potential (arguably) perhaps exist that God
might raise up another prophet or series of prophets in the midst
of the SDA Church (to fulfill Joel’s prediction), once it is purified
and ready to deliver the final message of warning (loud cry) to
the world—when the remnant of the remnant, so to speak, have
been purged of sin and compromise to the point of being ready to
hear another messenger again—when they are finally following
ALL the light given by their dead prophet, Ellen White? Will
the SDA Church ever reach the point where it finally (for it has
never yet) follows ALL the instruction of Ellen White? Will the
church ever reach the standard that clearly sets it apart, spoken of
by Ellen White when she said: “When we reach the standard that
the Lord would have us reach, worldlings will regard Seventh-
day Adventists as odd, singular, strait-laced extremists.” 21

338
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

If the present is anything to go by, the SDA Church, in

particular its leadership, is moving further away from the
peculiar, “odd/singular” teachings of Ellen White, instead of
closer. Today, much of what was once considered essential truth
from the “lesser light,” Ellen WhiteΒ ardently adhered to at
one timeΒ is being analyzed, marginalized, categorized and
finally broken down into that which was inspired of God as
opposed to that which were simply the words of a human being.
Interestingly enough, in reference to this type of trend, Ellen
White wrote: “Many times in my experience I have been called
upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged
that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that
this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and
judgment. TФis suits those who do not love reproof and
correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to
explain the difference between the human and the divine.” 22
In light of these primary considerations, the climate for
another prophet arising in the SDA Church remains, “windy,
with icy conditions …” Besides, has anyone, as already pointed
out, ever considered the blue-print by which any other prophet
in the SDA Church is destined to be tested? Originally, Ellen
White’s visions were, reportedly, tested by the Bible. In those early
years, one of the strongest “proofs” of her genuineness were the
physical manifestations while in trance. James White went out of
his way to make sure people tested her in this, based on what he
believed to be the scriptural blueprint. According to testimonies,
she apparently passed all these tests. Ironically, a growing number
of SDA Bible scholars are more inclined to question the strength
of these physical signs while in vision.
According to testimony, she was proved to be a genuine
prophet on the basis of the other biblical tests as well. Yet, when
it comes down to evaluating СвСЮеаФХЪУ she ever taught, can it truly
be said that in the fullest most unambiguous sense (without
having to infer a whole lot) ALL she said was in accordance with

339
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

the Word of God? After all, she saw so much (more than any
other prophet recorded in the Canon) that cannot be verified by
Scripture in any categorical sense. Many argue that these insights
she largely borrowed from other writers anywayΔ
Then there are her teachings on a range of other principles
connected to Christian living (worship, sports and competition,
dress, jewelry, meat, drink, the relationship of God’s remnant to
the other “fallen churches,” etc.), that cannot, in many cases, be
emphatically substantiated by a clear, BIBLICAL, “thus saith the
Lord.” In the aftermath of all this, what standard for testing any
potential future prophet is the SDA church left with—what are
the implications?
Will the next prophet (if ever there be such) have to be a
vegan (especially near the end of time where meat and eggs, etc.
will, according to Ellen White, become “unfit for consumption”),
conform to the standards of dress reform, wear no jewelry,
condemn competitive sports (which most SDA institutions now
participate in) and confirm everything that has already been
revealed in the writings of Ellen White? Indeed, based on a
number of statements from Ellen White, addressed to individuals
and the collective body, it is highly questionable whether another
prophet would ever be forthcoming in the SDA Church while
the church neglects to follow ALL the light ALREADY revealed
through HER writings. A number of pertinent statements, in
Testimonies Volume 5, are made in this regard:
As the word of God is walled in with these books and pam-
phlets, so has God walled you in with reproofs, counsel, warn-
ings, and encouragements. Here you are crying before God,
in the anguish of your souls, for more light. I am authorized
from God to tell you that not another ray of light through the
Testimonies will shine upon your pathway until you make a
practical use of the light already given. The Lord has walled
you about with light; but you have not appreciated the light;
you have trampled upon it. 23

340
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

When you gather up the rays of light which God has given in
the past, then will He give an increase of light. 24

To be sure, SDA’s are not ready to receive a prophet (more

light). Th ey do not, as a united body, even know what light to
obey or reject from the ONE dead prophet they already have—
there is no absolute agreement on what must be explicitly
adhered to and what is merely a matter of personal choice.
But, assuming the prophetic voice was once more manifest in
the church, this person would immediately be tested by ALL
the criteria Ellen White was tested by and more. Th e testing
standard for a new prophet would include, at least by profession
the Bible, PLUS by simple default and the nature of things when
it comes to the SDA mindset and its built in skepticism of
anything prophetic outside of Ellen White, her writings as
well—for those who seriously follow her teaching. Everything
another prophet would teach would have to confirm the light
given in the “Spirit of Prophecy.” If it did not, it would
automatically either bring into question Ellen White’s teachings
and predictions, etc., or alternatively, the teachings and
predictions of a “new” prophet.
Would SDA’s take into account that the ONLY divinely
appointed test for a true prophet is Scripture alone—“the law
and the testimony”—the test applied by James White when
challenging those who were skeptical of Ellen’s prophetic calling
and when testing others claiming the gift? Or will it be argued
that the “testimony of Jesus Christ” naturally includes the writings
of Ellen White (the lesser light) and thus her word should be
part and parcel of the testing standard as well (new light does
not contradict previous light), forgetting that so much of what
she said cannot even be found in Scripture in distinct, clear-cut
terms? SDA’s are skeptical of the Mormon’s and their prophet
Joseph Smith, but they regard the authority of Ellen White no
differently. Maybe, when and if ever such a situation arises where
SDA’s are forced to consider another prophet from within their

341
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

ranks, one will REALLY be able to compare the level of authority

wielded by Ellen White in the SDA Church as opposed to the
authority wielded by Scripture, the supreme, primary standardΔ

SOURCES
1. 2 Testimonies, p.607, 608.
2. ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE BIBLE P. 92-96. Seventh-day
Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald,
1957.
3. Juhyeok Nam, “Reaction to Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical
Conferences and Questions on Doctrine, 1955-1971.” Ph.D dis-
sertation, Andrews University, 2005.
4. L. M. Andreasen, “Review, I,” 15 May 1958, Collection 152,
box 28, folder 8, Roy Allen Anderson Collection, Andrews
University Library; idem, “Memorial,” 4 June 1958, Document.
5. Introduction, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on
Doctrine, Review and Herald, 1957.
6. E. E. Cleveland, at one time Assoc. Sec., Ministerial Assoc.,
Gen. Conf. SDA’s. As quoted in ‘Facts And Comments About
The Spirit Of Prophecy’, p. 14. Emphasis & italics supplied.
7. Feb. 11, 1978, Sabbath School-Quarterly; teacher’s Edition, p.
112. Emphasis & italics supplied.
8. Alden Thomson, SDA pastor and professor at Walla Walla
College, as quoted in ‘Adventist Review’ 12/17/81, article enti-
tled ‘The story of a pilgrimage’, p. 7. Emphasis & italics supplied.
9. Morris L. Venden, Cassette tape #MY-312 “Church Body
Building.” Emphasis & italics supplied.
10. Raymond F. Cottrell, as quoted in “What Ellen White Has
Meant to Me,” p. 60. Emphasis & italics supplied.
11. Robert Pierson, former President, General Conference of
SDA’s, as quoted in “What Sister White Has Meant To Me”
and quoted in “Christianity Today” 8/29/75. Emphasis & ital-
ics supplied.
12. Review and Herald, Oct 4, 1928. Emphasis & italics supplied.
13. Review and Herald Supplement, August 14, 1883.
14. Excerpt from the tract “The Mark of the Beast,” page 1; G. A.
Irwin, former president of the General Conference of Seventh-
day Adventists. Emphasis & italics supplied.
15. J. N. Andrews, Editor, Review and Herald, February 15, 1870.
Emphasis & italics supplied.
16. Review and Herald, August 26, 1915. Emphasis & ital-
ics supplied.
17. Ibid, p.260. Emphasis & italics supplied.
18. Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 66. Emphasis & italics supplied.
19. 1 Selected Messages, p. 36. Emphasis & italics supplied.
20. 1 Selected Messages, p. 38, 39. Emphasis & italics supplied.
21. Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 289.
22. 3 Selected Messages, p. 68. See also, 1 Selected Messages, p. 49, 50
& 5 Testimonies p. 691.
23. 5 Testimonies, p. 666, italics and emphasis supplied.
24. Ibid, italics and emphasis supplied.
 Chapter X

A Case in Point
Church of God (Seventh day)

Here is the patience of the saints:

here [are] they that keep the commandments
of God, and the faith of Jesus.

—Revelation 14:12

S
eventh-day Adventists (SDA’s) are not the only ones
who, like the Protestant Reformers, claim the Bible as
the sole standard for all their teachings. One of the best
contemporary examples is the Church of God (Seventh Day).
Not only do they СЪРСНвЫЮ to base their teachings upon the
authority of Scripture alone but they also share common roots
with the SDA Church, going back to the Millerite movement, the
post Great Disappointment era (after 1844) and the establishing
years of the SDA denomination, led by James and Ellen White.
Comparing them to the SDA Church is not simply for the
purpose of establishing differences and commonalities between
two churches that claim the Bible as their blueprint, but very
significantly, to give us additional perspective into the early
ministry of Ellen White and how her work was perceived by
other sincere Bible-based contemporariesΔ

345
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

One problem that always arises, when one evaluates Ellen

White on the basis of testimonies outside of the SDA framework,
is that White supporters automatically treat uncomplimentary
statements about her prophetic ministry with suspicion.
Regardless of whether these people were once closely associated
with her, knew her personally, or only crossed paths with her
at some point during their lives, all accounts presenting Ellen
White in a less than ТНвЫЮНОШС light are considered untruthful,
or at the very least, biased. It is ironic and rather illogical that
positive non-SDA commentary about Ellen White is readily
accepted, believed and used as a means to vindicate and defend
her integrity. A popular and often quoted example is the epitaph,
published in “Th e New York Independent” of August 23rd,
1925: “She showed no spiritual pride and she sought no filthy lucre.
She lived the life and did the work of a worthy prophetess, the most
admirable of the American succession.”
How can it be that everyone, no matter what their relation to
Ellen White, who ever had/has anything negative to say about
her, especially in relation to her prophetic calling, are considered
untruthful, biased, vindictive or ignorant? In many of these cases,
Fannie Bolton and Dr. John Harvey Kellogg being significant
examples, Ellen White herself practically relegated them to
eternal damnation for “calling her out on the carpet”—for daring
to question her integrity on any level.
Surely there are honest, open-minded SDA’s, especially in
positions of leadership, who are seeking a logical, balanced
position, based on proper common-sense investigation, who will
admit that it is not possible, barely even plausible, that everyone
with a negative testimony about Ellen White are all liars and
that she and her supporters are the only ones who have been
impartial and ФЫЪЫЮНОШС. Yet, when all the evidence is weighed
then one is constrained to consider another perhaps not too
ТНвЫЮНОШС verdict. At the very least,
cause for
reasonable
doubt

346
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

as to an untarnished view of Ellen White and her work, begs

re-consideration.
Simple logic dictates that when one is trying to find ALL
the answers, so as to draw faithful, unbiased conclusions, one
should investigate every angle and consult every testimony, for
and against whom or whatever one is investigating. It is not just
what James, Ellen, the faithful supporters and SDA Church
Historians had to say about how the ministry of Ellen White was
perceived by her contemporaries that should be given ear to. For
it is practically unavoidable and indeed very human that people
writing about something or someone they hold in great esteem
will focus on and emphasize the positive—even when they are
purportedly giving an unbiased account. This would be especially
so if the person were in the employment of the institution they
happen to representΔ
The way in which other people outside of the faithful SDA
circle related to and perceived the prophetic calling of Ellen
White should be of import because it tells one how people, who
were there at the time and who heard her speak, understood her
words. Regarding her expositions on the shut door for example,
one discovers a general consensus of understanding among the
various non-Adventist people who read her published visions or
heard her speak? Why were some people provoked by what she
said? Why did they reject her claim to prophetic calling? Were
they really motivated by a jealous, vindictive spirit or were there
other reasons, based on substantial evidence that were the cause
for them “switching off
?”
ALL the evidence counts and ALL the evidence needs to
be considered so as to come to a full, rounded conclusion. The
history of the Church of God (Seventh Day) and the connection
of its founders to James and Ellen White and other SDA pioneers
in those early years provide this type of evidence and call the
integrity of Ellen White’s prophetic claims into serious question.

347
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

THE CHURCH OF GOD (SEVENTH DAY )

Recently, I had the privilege of befriending Robert Coulter, author
of the recently published, The Journey, A History of the Church of
God (Seventh Day). His earlier publication, The Church of God
(Seventh Day), released in 1983, led to him being recognized
as the Church’s preeminent historian. Additional research, in
subsequent years, inspired this most recent work.
In 1959, Coulter was elected to the Church of God (Seventh
Day) General Conference board of directors. He held this position
for forty-two years. For twenty-four of those years he served
as chairman of the board and General Conference President.1
Robert Coulter’s work is comprehensive and revealing and was
especially pertinent to my research as it covers the connection
that existed between the pioneers of this denomination, James
and Ellen White and the early SDA Church. This chapter of The
White Elephant sources Coulter’s work and historical material
published by the SDA ChurchΔ
Joseph Bates visited Battle Creek, in 1852, to promote the
keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath. On arrival, he visited the
post office and asked the employees “for the name of the most
honest citizen in the city.” He was “directed to the home of
David Hewitt,” where he met Gilbert Cranmer, a houseάguest in
Hewitt’s home. After Bates gave them a Bible study on the
observance of the Sabbath, both “Cranmer and Hewitt”
decided “to become Sabbath-keepers, starting that week.”
According to Coulter’s account, “Bates directed his Sabbath
converts to fellowship with the unorganized Sabbathάkeeping
Adventist movement of James and Ellen White. Cranmer and
Hewitt began fellowshipping with White’s movement.” 2
Cranmer was delighted about his new found connection to
the Adventist movement. He wrote: “I felt to rejoice, supposing I
had found the people I had been so long looking for.” 3
He got involved in ministry and established several small bands
of believers. However, as he became more deeply acquainted with

348
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the movement he grew more and more apprehensive, especially in

regard to certain teachings of Ellen White. He wrote, concerning
her visions and the “shut door” teaching:
Some thought that they were from the Lord; others doubted…
The ‘shut door’ doctrine formed a part of the doctrine of the
church; that is, Mrs. White had seen a vision that the day
of salvation for sinners was passed [October 22, 1844], and
those who fully believed in her visions as coming from God
also accepted that doctrine. I did not believe the doctrine nor
teach it. 4

One Sabbath, while preaching at Otsego, Cranmer told

the congregation that he could not find any biblical evidence
regarding the door of the heavenly sanctuary being shut for
sinners. A discussion ensued and resulted in the congregation
being divided between those who agreed with Cranmer and
those who were in support of Ellen White’s shut door teaching.
Robert Coulter writes:

White loyalists were upset because his statement challenged

their belief in the inspiration of her [White’s] visions and the
doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary, the cornerstone upon which
the Seventh-day Adventist Church was built. 5

Th e repercussions that followed Cranmer speaking his mind so

openly in Otsego had an immediate and permanent effect—on
how the ‘brethren’ related to him and how he began relating to
the SDA Church. He wrote:

I became suspicious that I had gotten on board the wrong ship.

I then commenced to giving her [White’s] visions a thorough
investigation. I found they contradicted themselves, and that
they contradicted the Bible. My doubts concerning the visions

349
Brian Neumann

I made known to the brethren. At once they gave me the cold

shoulder, and I was held at bay. 6

TIe testimony of other witnesses establish that the shut door

issue was indeed a divisive factor among SDA’s in the church at
this time and that the position held by those who believed and
taught the shut door was directly influenced by Ellen White’s
visions. Joseph Perkins and his wife Louise were witnesses to
the Otsego debacle. Th
is is their account:
We…distinctly remember his preaching that he had no evi-
dence whatever that the door of the sanctuary was closed in
1844…He came to our house, and while there Mr. Lester
Russell came in and asked him if he really meant to say that
the outer door of the sanctuary was open. In answer, Brother
Cranmer told him that he had said just what he meant, and
that he had no proof to the contrary. Mr. Russell said that he
had proof that the outer door of the sanctuary was closed in
1844. Brother Cranmer asked him the nature of his proof, and
he drew from his pocket Ellen White’s book of visions and said
there was his proof. Brother Cranmer answered, “perhaps Mrs.
White’s visions are proof to you, but they are not to me.” 7

As a result of Cranmer’s preaching on the shut door teaching,

Mr. George Leighton took a trip to Battle Creek to discuss the
issue with James White. He was told by James White not to let
Elder Cranmer preach in the Otsego Church again. Th e
Perkins’ testified:

… Mr. Leighton said in our presence that the visions [Ellen

White] were inspired, that they were better than the Bible
because they were warm and fresh from the throne of God,
and that anyone who did not accept them as inspiration abso-
lutely would be damned. These statements we solemnly aver to
be true.8

350
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Four weeks later Cranmer returned to the Otsego church for

his regular speaking appointment, intending to continue
discoursing on the shut door. However, it was not to be. He was
denied access to the pulpit by members who were loyal to Ellen
White. In response to this experience Cranmer wrote to the
Whites in an attempt to clarify his position and ask if he might
be allowed to preach in SDA congregations in the future. He was
refused the privilege because he did not believe in the visions of
Ellen White.
-BUFS
UIBU
ZFBS
%FDFNCFS


$SBONFS
BUUFOEFE
B
NFFUJOH
UIBU
UIF
8IJUFT
XFSF
DPOEVDUJOH
BU
UIF
0UTFHP

DIVSDI
Robert Coulter writes: ‘Mrs. White said she did
not know Cranmer. And after having a supposed vision, she
admonished him, “The Lord has shown me that you have the
ability to teach the truth, there are two points [tobacco and
family devotions] on which you have victories to gain, it will
be evidence to you that the Lord will go forth with you in
teaching the truth.”9

Cranmer obviously was not one that gave up easily. Once

again he decided to approach the Whites. Regarding this
encounter, Coulter continues: “Cranmer visited Battle Creek in
January 1858 and saw James White again. He asked White for
a letter of recommendation as one of his ministers. James asked
Cranmer, ‘have you gained those victories you were to
gain?’ Cranmer answered “No.’” 10 James responded that when
he had gained those victories, it would be no problem issuing
him a card to preach.11
Contrary to Ellen White’s claim, it seems highly improbable
that she did not know who Cranmer was, when James and her
visited the Otsego Church, December 19-20, 1857. Cranmer had
been preaching and planting bands of believers since 1852 when
he and Hewitt became Sabbath keepers. Hewitt and Cranmer
were friends and it is almost certain that Hewitt would have
spoken of Cranmer to the White’s. Indeed, Hewitt must have

351
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

become part of the “inner circle” as he, three years later, in 1860,
became the man who “coined” the name “Seventh-day Adventist.”
George Leighton had taken a special trip to Battle Creek to
discuss Cranmer with James White. Then, Cranmer, after being
denied the pulpit in Otsego because of his disagreement with
Ellen White’s shut door teaching, had written to the White’s
asking if he could clarify his position and if he might be able to
preach in the futureΔ
How could the White’s not have known of him? When
Leighton had visited James White to discuss Cranmer’s
preaching, it is quite conceivable that he would also have shared
some insight into his perspective on Cranmer’s devotional life
and his tobacco chewing habit. As previously quoted, Leighton
said that the visions of Ellen White were “better than the Bible
because they were warm and fresh from the throne of God, and
that anyone who did not accept them as inspiration absolutely
would be damned.” 12
This statement of Leighton is a clear indication that he had a
serious imbalance of perspective, tending towards fanaticism and
would certainly have slanted his description of Cranmer when
talking to James White. Of course, this is simply an educated
guess. However, as already pointed out, what can be certain, based
on the evidence, is that James and Ellen White must have known
who Cranmer was. In light of this line of reasoning it has been
speculated by some that Ellen White’s so called vision concerning
Cranmer, was no vision at all. Her reference to his devotional life
and tobacco chewing were openly apparent and simply used as an
excuse to get him away from the pulpit, disguising the primary
motive—his skepticism of her visions and disagreement with her
teaching on the shut door. According to Coulter:
It was common knowledge that Cranmer Chewed tobacco.
He made no effort to conceal his habit from his ministe-
rial colleagues or the members of his churches…there was no
reason for Ellen White to feign a vision that she had been

352
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

shown that Cranmer chewed tobacco, or of his falsely try-

ing to conceal this from members of the church. His nephew
remembered that at the White Cloud church Cranmer spit his
tobacco juice through the knothole in the floor of the church’s
rostrum while preaching. 13

In Loughborough’s account, concerning Cranmer’s use of

tobacco, he quoted Ellen White as saying: “You speak against its
use and talk as though you discarded it, but at the same time you
are secretly using the weed.” 14
Th e SDA narrative, based on second-hand reports,
suggests that Cranmer’s use of chewing-tobacco became
even more frequent after his rebellion and departure from
the “faith.” Even if this were factual, the testimony of his
longevity would suggest a long and active life—as opposed to
some well known SDA contemporaries who apparently lived
according to health-reform principles. Cranmer lived to eighty-
nine years of age. Ellen White died at eighty-seven and James
White barely made sixty. It might rightfully be assumed that
had Cranmer’s tobacco habit really exacerbated he would never
have lived to such a ripe old age. It could well be deducted,
besides chewing tobacco, that he probably drank coffee and ate
meat too—at least meats described as “clean” in Scripture.
Regarding Cranmer’s devotional life, Coulter records:
Cranmer was known to be a man of frequent, fervent prayer
and Bible reading. There is no explanation for him to have
not held devotions with his current wife, Harriet, and their
children. Betsy [his first wife] never shared his Adventist faith
and passed away in 1852. This was years before Cranmer’s
encounter with the White’s, but Harriet shared her husband’s
faith and assisted him in his ministry for the twenty-two years
they were married. 15

353
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

A substantial amount has been written about Cranmer from

both the SDA and Church of God perspective. Upon reading
all the material available (the SDA, Church of God narrative
and Cranmer’s own testimony), one thing becomes abundantly
clear: Th e SDA narrative is desperately bent on making
Cranmer, not to mention the rest of the Church of God
(Seventh Day) pioneers, appear to be a vindictive group of
individuals, motivated by Satan, who left the “Little
Remnant” (one of the names used by the early SDA pioneers),
dedicating themselves to a ministry of attack against Ellen
White and their former brethren.
What appear trenchant are the differences between
SDA historian’s accounts as opposed to Cranmer’s and those
who knew and supported him, concerning his use of tobacco and
his devotional life. TФere is no way of categorically proving
who’s testimony slants most accurately towards the truth—
more than one hundred years down the line the task would
be daunting indeed. Nonetheless, during the course of my
extensive research and reading, a few things have become quite
evident, the SDA narrative unanimously assumes everyone else
(particularly critics of Ellen White who left the SDA
Church) to be dishonest, deluded or malicious. As mentioned
previously, if there is any testimony from any of these people
that either recants or in some way adjusts their contra-White
position, then SDA narrators eagerly grab at this and publish
it as fact—all those who make pro-White or pro-SDA
statements are naturally assumed honest, candid and transparent,
at least at the time of such action.
Th ere is also the experience of Carver who, as in the case
of Cranmer, eventually “crossed and parted paths” with James
and Ellen White.
Henry Edward Carver was born in Baltimore, Maryland on
February 15, 1820 and grew up in a Christian home—his parent’s
were members of the Methodist Church. As a result of reading a
book on Bible prophecy during his youth he became
fascinated

354
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

гХаФ
аФС
ХРСН
аФНа
θФЮХЯа
ЩХУФа
ЮСабЮЪ
РбЮХЪУ
ФХЯ
ШХТСаХЩСΔ
ρНаСЮΑ
in
1843-1844, he was exposed to William Miller’s teachings and
became convinced that the second coming was imminent. He
immediately joined the Adventist movement which led to him
leaving the Methodist Church as the members of this faith largely
scorned the idea that Jesus was going to return. Robert Coulter
quotes Carver concerning his early experience, in particular
the Sabbath:
My attention was not called to [Sabbathkeeping] until I
became an Adventist, and the [Sabbath] was first presented
to our Advent band in Cincinnati…by Elder Joseph Bates,
John N. Andrews, and others…Their teachings and associa-
tion [convinced] some of our number to become Sabbathkeepers,
while others…adopted the antinomian ground that the law
was abolished. I was one of the latter class and maintained this
position for many years…
I moved my family to Iowa City, in 1855, away, I sup-
posed from all association with Sabbathkeepers…
When the first visit of the Seventh-day Adventist tent and
ministers to Iowa City was announced to me, I was preparing
to move onto my farm [near Marion]. I made every possible
[effort] to get away from town before they came…my wife
was as strongly opposed to the Sabbath as I was, and tried
to strengthen me against the influence of those tent meetings.
What was my surprise and pleasure then when without any
intimation to me…she arose in the tent and announced to the
congregation her conversion to the Sabbath, and that too before
I did. Thus the Lord prepared the way for us to move out to our
farm a united, happy Sabbathkeeping family…16

When Carver accepted the Sabbath he readily joined the

Seventh-day Adventist Church. After all, it seemed the logical
thing to do as they too came out of the Advent movement and
presented Bible doctrines that he was already predisposed to
believing. He was also open to Ellen White’s prophetic ministry,

355
Brian Neumann

as belief in her calling did not appear to be a test for fellowship.

Carver describes his early experience with the church:

When I first became fully convinced of the binding obligation of

the Sabbath of the fourth commandment upwards of ten years
ago and attached myself to the people now called Seventh-day
Adventist, I did so with a full knowledge of Mrs. White’s claim
to divine inspiration.…My previous Advent experience of
many years predisposed me to receive their theories of the Third
Angel’s Message of Rev. 14, as well as that of the Two Horned
Beast of Rev. 13…Being thus in perfect union with the breth-
ren on these main points, and as faith in the visions was not
made a test of fellowship among us then, I felt favourably dis-
posed towards [the visions], from the fact that Eld. And Mrs.
White were so intimately connected with what I then believed
to be the correct Advent theory…17

Th e Sabbath and the other beliefs that he shared in common

with the SDA Church, and the fact that they were confirmed
and supported by revelations received by Ellen White, motivated
Carver to actively strengthen the faith of others, including
himself, in the visions. Th is did not mean that Carver considered
his initial confidence a closed case. He was constantly observing.
He said that the work of the visions “should be fully vindicated
by adequate results and to this end I waited and watched and
hoped, but as the sequel proved, in vain.” 18 Robert Coulter
writes about this at length:

Carver’s relationship with the Seventh-day Adventist Church

in Iowa continued until 1865. He and his wife had become
personal friends with James and Ellen White, whom they
hosted as guests in their home in Marion. From that visit and
a previous incident, all faith Carver might have had in the
inspiration of the visions was shattered. The White’s behaviour
while in his home also raised doubts about their veracity.

356
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Carver cited two specific cases in which Ellen White had

prior knowledge of situations she later claimed were revealed
to her in visions of fresh revelation.
One, the White’s visited the home of one of his neighbours,
who had an unusual problem with his demeanour. Upon
returning to Battle Creek, Ellen White wrote that she had been
made aware of his behavioural problem by a vision. Carver
reported that no one could be around this man for even a short
time and not notice his unusual behavioral affliction. It was
obvious to everyone who observed him for the slightest period
of time.
The second instance involved the dismissal of a man from
the Pilot Grove congregation, which had caused a “great com-
motion and trial in the church, which was not quieted until
a vision was received from Mrs. White,” Her alleged vision
revealed the man should resume his place in the Pilot Grove
Church. But Carver reported that he had been told in the pres-
ence of his family that Mrs. White knew the details of the case
because a letter had been written to her giving the entire cir-
cumstances of it. She did not need to pretend she learned them
via vision.
One of the most revealing examples of duplicity on the part
of the Whites was the manner in which they handled what they
called “Rebellion in Iowa.”
In the spring of 1865, Elder B. F. Snook, president of the
Iowa Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, became
discontented with the regime of the church. And he had seri-
ous doubts about the inspiration of Ellen’s visions. Prompted
by these two concerns, he wrote a letter to Elder Ingraham,
who he considered to be a friend but who was a White loyalist
working in Wisconsin. In the letter he proposed that the two
of them withdraw from the Adventist Church and work inde-
pendently of the Whites.

357
Brian Neumann

James and Ellen White were visiting in Wisconsin about the

time Ingraham received Snook’s letter, and he gave it to
James. White wrote on the envelope, “Rebellion in Iowa” and
immediately wrote to Snook, informing him that he knew about
his letter to Ingraham and telling him his rebellion would be
addressed at a conference meeting scheduled for the Pilot Grove
Church. He also wrote to William Brinkerhoff, secretary of
the Iowa Conference, that he had evidence of Snook’s rebellion
and wished him to be present at the conference.
Carver continued his account:
In view of the anticipated trial, these two ministers pre-
pared themselves for their defense by collecting evidence against
the visions; and thus armed they attended the conference.…
Suffice it to say that although Elder White utterly refused to
enter into a discussion on the merits of the visions until the
other elders had [reconciled], he solemnly pledged himself not
to leave Iowa till every point of difficulty was made plain, and
objection to the visions removed.
Carver reported:
In pursuant of his pledge, Elder and Mrs. White visited
the church here in Marion, but entered into no public vindi-
cation of the visions; and I have reason to think the greatest
efforts that were privately made were for my own benefit; for
nearly all the time spent here was at my house; and during
their stay, I devoted my time and attention exclusively to the
object of the visit.
Carver reported that instead of addressing the question of
Ellen’s visions as James had promised, they left Iowa, which
bewildered the Marion church.
Elder and Mrs. White having failed to fulfill their pledge
given at the Conference, the minds of the brethren and sisters
were left in an unsettled and dissatisfied state after their depar-
ture from the state, and a very unkind, contemptuous thrust of
Elder White’s against Elder Snook just on the eve of depar-

358
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ture.…The circumstance was this: The evening before they left,

being at the house of brother Hare, Elder White, in the midst of
a room full of brethren and sisters, in a contemptuous manner
stigmatized Elder Snook as nothing but a “church pauper.” This
remark, unkind and unjust as all the church knew it to be, was
by someone reported to Elder Snook, and convinced him that
Elder White’s pretended reconciliation and friendship was not
real, but assumed; and of course this did not tend to calm the
still troubled mind of the church.…19

Ellen White’s account of this is markedly different from

Carver’s. Her claim was that James and herself had no
knowledge of what was happening at Pilot Grove. In fact, she
said that only a few hours before meeting the leaders:

We felt it our duty to visit Iowa before returning to Michigan.

We had no knowledge of the rebellion of Elders Snook and
Brinkerhoff, but we felt that there was a work for us to do in
that State. On our way to Pilot Grove, Iowa, we first heard
of the rebellion, which was only a few hours before we met
its leaders face to face in the meeting-house. 20

TIis account of affairs was most certainly not accurate because at

least two weeks previously James had written on the back of
the letter sent to Ingraham from Snook, “Rebellion in Iowa.’
Coulter writes that ‘James had personally related to him [Carver]
when and how the letter written by Snook had fallen into his
possession, and he had written “Rebellion in Iowa” on the back
of the envelope.” 21
As a result of this state of affairs, Snook, Brinkerhoff and Carver
left the SDA Church, and shortly after, in 1865, joined the
Church of Jesus Christ in Marion. Coulter records that this SDA
congregation were discouraged to “the degree they disbanded
and sold their meeting hall to the Church of Jesus Christ in the
summer of 1866.” 22

359
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Coulter continues to write that “Carver shared his observation of

the destructive effects of making Ellen’s visions a test of
fellowship.” 23 Th is following statement by Carver, quoted
in Coulter’s book, is certainly revealing:

όФСЪ
аФС
ψСвСЪаФάРНе
ζРвСЪаХЯа
ПНбЯС
гНЯ
ТХЮЯа
ХЪаЮЫРбПСР

ХЪаЫ
ξЫгНΑ
НЪР
аФС
вХЯХЫЪЯ
гСЮС
ЧСЬа
ХЪ
аФС
ОНПЧУЮЫбЪРΑ
Ха

flourished much more than could have been expected.…Large
and flourishing churches were organized in various parts
of the State, and there is every reason to believe that if the
visions had never been introduced among us, Sabbath Keeping
churches might now be numbered by scores instead of units, and
Sabbath keeping Adventists by thousands instead of scores.…It
was a source of deep pain when we came into the vicinity of a
once flourishing church that had been divided and broken into
fragments by the introduction of the visions, and we saw the
desolation thus produced. 24

No doubt, Ellen White apologists will refute Carver’s testimony by

quoting Mrs. White’s statements recorded in, among other
places, the compilation Evangelism, where she admonishes the
church not to make her writings a test of fellowship, especially
when new converts are initially introduced into the faith. 25 Th ey
will also produce statements she made, warning people not to
use her as an authority…“Don’t you never quote my words
again as long as you live until you can obey the Bible …” 26
NOTE: The issue of Ellen White’s authority was addressed
in the previous chapter.

What most do not know though is that these types of

comments by Ellen White are not seen as a blanket instruction
on whether or not she should be used as an authority or test.
People who have been in the SDA Faith for a while soon realize
that Ellen White becomes commentary and authority on just
about every facet of belief and practice. Th e fact that the Bible is

360
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

boldly declared to be the supreme authority by which ALL needs

to be tested does not prevent leaders and members from using
Ellen White as the means by which they understand and apply
the words of Scripture, the so-called supreme authority (it is not
difficult to see the contradiction in this).
The very fact that men such as Cranmer and Carver and a
string of others left the SDA Faith was paramountly because of
the emphasis placed on Ellen White’s prophetic ministry. As a
result of observation, latent unease that led to outright skepticism
and ultimate rejection of Ellen White, based on their first hand
experience, criticism of her authority became for them a matter
of divine calling.
How could they shut their mouths when their convictions
regarding her work compelled them to bear witness to what they
deemed the truth? According to their evaluation, Ellen White was
a false prophet leading souls to accept her personal testimonies
as revelations from God and her extrapolations of the sanctuary
doctrine and other teachings as based soundly upon Scripture.
TФey knew, because they were victims to the fact,
as
declared by Elder J. N. Andrews concerning the role of the Spirit
of Prophecy (Ellen White) that “Mere human judgment, with
no direct instruction from heaven, can never search out hidden
iniquity, nor adjust dark and complicated church difficulties,
nor
prevent different and conflicting interpretations of the scriptures.” 27
Clearly, anyone whose scriptural interpretations contradicted
Ellen White’s would ALWAYS have to deal with an “authority”
that would ALWAYS be “superior” to “mere human judgment.”
Another thing that concerned Cranmer was the fact that
the prophetic gift seemed to be confined to one woman. As
mentioned in an earlier chapter, this would appear to be a
VERY limited fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy regarding end-
time manifestation of the prophetic gift. It also appears to be
a very limited manifestation of spiritual gifts, in this case, the
prophetic gift, written about by Paul. Not to mention the fact

361
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

that, presently, this gift does not exist in living manifestation,

in the SDA Church outside of the writings of Ellen White, a
dead prophet.
In the same way Ellen White’s original visions regarding
the shut door were expunged from later publications or became
sanitized, streamlined and re-explained, while conveniently
hiding or ignoring evidence that would contradict the “new”
narrative, so too, a gradual reinvention of the position that made
the embracing of her ministry a test for remaining in fellowship
also materializedΔ
It seems evident that the brethren at the helm and the prophetess
they heralded as the messenger to God’s remnant, chosen people,
prudently and timeously came to the realization that there was
no way their church could remain intact and continue to expand
unless a less emphatic or at least less fanatical “official” stance on
Ellen White was forthcoming. A change in rhetoric emerged, at
least on the panoptical level—guilefully stated so as to make it
ambiguous enough to still allow for necessary “action” when the
need arose.
Official rhetoric and actual practice did not need to be in
total agreement. How she is interpreted to fit the need of each
situation requiring disciplinary action seems to be open to the
manner in which those implementing the action want to frame
her words. Because of this more clandestine yet deadly approach
to wielding the authority of the “Spirit of Prophecy,” there are
literally hundreds, if not thousands, of pastors and other leaders
who, although they do not fully believe in the ministry of Ellen
White (some reject her completely), dare not make their position
publicly known (at least not to the conference they minister in)
because they know that it would simply be a matter of time before
they would have to face disciplinary action of some type.
It might be worthwhile noting, as I noted in an earlier
chapter, that in the self-supporting SDA ministries, who are far
more fanatically attached to White, no one stands a chance of

362
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

surviving/remaining in their fellowship unless you completely

embrace her in the most comprehensive sense.
On the other hand, in countries where Ellen White is not
as stringently regarded, leadership might even favour people
who do not hold to her too rigidly. In other places, where she
is more comprehensively accepted, even though being baptized
into the SDA faith may not be on condition of accepting Ellen
White, she might still, if she is later on rejected, become a test for
REMAINING in fellowship. The standard seems to vary from
place to place, based on the general tendency of leadership in
that geographical areaΔ
NOTE: An authentic, recent example of how leadership
hide their true feelings regarding Ellen White, can be read
at the start of this book.

It is true, getting back to the early years, that men, such as

Snook and Brinkerhoff who criticized Ellen White, left the
church, wrote confessions, rejoined, fell away again and then,
years later, recanted their position once more. SDA critics of
the Church of God (Seventh Day) deliver strong commentary
regarding Snook and Brinkerhoff in particular, in respect to
the part they played during those pioneer years of the Church
of God (Seventh Day), the “spirit” that motivated their efforts
and the already mentioned issue of their fluctuating between
criticism of and support of Ellen White and the SDA
Faith. Condemnation of Snook and Brinkerhoff, by their SDA
critics was vehement indeed as they held positions of high
leadership in the SDA Faith and thus their “rebellion” had to be
denounced in no uncertain terms.
In reference to the question of vacillation it needs to be said,
the fact that people fall away and then decide that they were
in error, regardless of how many times they fluctuate between
convictions, is not always an indication that that which they once
accepted and are now fighting against is the truth. It might, rather,
be a reflection of their own inner struggle. It does not either,

363
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

by default, make the party they are questioning or criticizing

right—that which is right or truth might fall outside of both
opposing factions. In all walks of life, whether in the religious
or secular realm, people vacillate—rethink and then reevaluate
and rethink again—sometimes multiple times. This could, as
already suggested, be a clue that someone is searching but has
not yet found. They might, at times, even wonder, especially in an
environment where truth and error seem to be blended together
(where the Bible is the doctrinal standard but primary leaders
seem to be dealing dishonestly), whether they are in the truth
or being deceived. In fact, people may end up in this situation
simply because they are dealing with questions and doubts that
they simply will not resolve till they are led by God to a point of
full realization. In these cases, God knows the heart and only He
can judge the motive. In some cases, depending on the disposition
of the person, they may never resolve their inner struggleΔ
Then there is the vital accusation by SDA critics regarding the
character that actuated the origins of the Church of God (Seventh
Day). SDA critics make a point of suggesting that because the
early years, under leadership of Snook and Brinkerhoff were
characterized by “deception,” they do not bear the “mark” of
“Divine origin” and so, naturally, bore “corrupt fruit.” G. I. Butler
presents this kind of perspective in his, The Early History of the
Marion Movement:

Bro. and Sr. White went to Marion, and spent some time
with them, and apparent union was restored. Elds. Snook and
Brinkerhoff both wrote out confessions which were published
in the Review, copies of which can be seen in the book writ-
ten by Eld. Smith in answer to the objections to the visions.
In these confessions they admitted that they were in a “state
of darkness,” had been “led by the wicked one,” had acted a
dishonorable and wicked part, had abused the kindness and
confidence of the friends of the cause, and begged for mercy

364
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

and forgiveness. We should be glad to have all read these con-

fessions for themselves.
In a very few months they turned back to the same course
again, and returned to the service of the “one” [the devil]
they previously confessed they had been following. They came
to Michigan to the remnants of the old “Messenger party,” who
had years before been engaged in the same warfare against the
visions and our people, procured what printing material they
could, which had been left after the collapse of the old Hope of
Israel, and started their paper in Marion, Ia. They went from
church to church in that State, and did their utmost to destroy
the confidence of our people in the work and in the visions.
They had great advantages at the time, as they had been the
only ministers of our people in the State, and the principal
officers in the Conference; but they were met here and there,
and soon their influence was broken. Several churches, how-
ever, were broken up, and perhaps one-third of the member-
ship went with them for a time.
After a comparatively brief period, when these men found
they were not going to accomplish all they had hoped to, their
zeal waned, and they both went off into Universalism. The
Iowa Conference, after passing through this crisis, and hav-
ing the doubting, discordant elements removed from it, soon
recovered from its effects, and made a most rapid growth. In
a very few years it more than doubled its strength, and has
become one of our strongest Conferences. Some of those who
had been deceived by these movements returned to us, and have
been valuable members. In several places where churches had
gone down under these influences, better churches have been
built up. Those who were left after Snook and Brinkerhoff
left them, have been dragging out a lingering existence
ever since. They have most of the time kept up their paper. We
believe it did stop a few months after their interesting experi-
ence with the notorious Fuller, referred to in another column;
but it is still published.

365
Brian Neumann

It may be said, Why refer to Elds. Snook and Brinkerhoff,

since they have closed their connection with them? We
answer: The inception and birth of every religious move-
ment goes far to show its nature. If the beginning bears the
mark of a divine origin, it stamps the movement itself as of
the right character, and vice versa. The history of the past
verifies this. All Bible believers look back to the time when God
moved upon Noah, Moses, John the Baptist, and the apostles,
and discern the divine hand in every one of these cases. Their
work was of God. So of Luther, Wesley, William Miller, and
many others. These were moved out by the Spirit of God, and
good fruits mark the progress of their work. We claim the same
origin and results in this movement that we are engaged in.
But this was not so with Mahomet and Joseph Smith,
neither is it true of spiritualism. While they make loud pro-
fessions, we easily see the deceptive character of their origin.
Here is an important principle by which to test every work:
“The tree is known by its fruits. Either make the tree good,
and its fruit good, or the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt.
Every tree is known by its fruit.” The tree is the origin, the
fruit the results.
It seems almost cruel to apply these well-established
principles to the movement of which we are speaking, and
we pity those who are so blind in it that they cannot dis-
cern these things. Here is a movement which, according
to the confession of both those who led out in it, started in
deception, was led by the devil, was a violation of conf i-
dence and trust reposed in them by the friends of the cause,
and was marked by treachery and ingratitude. From
our own personal knowledge, we believe these confessions
told the truth, though much more of the same sort might
be added to them. This movement, then, in its inception,
stands condemned by its own leaders, who were by far the
ablest men who have ever been engaged in it. It started in
deception, and it has never yet extricated itself from that
atmosphere. It would be a wearisome and unprofitable task

366
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

to follow it through all its various meanderings and experi-

ences. We shall not undertake it…28

Th ere is so much that can be said about the portion quoted

above. To be sure, a substantial book could be dedicated to
extrapolating the implications of following this type of
reasoning. However, in light of the fact that the issues
surrounding the Church of God (Seventh Day) can be
dedicated to only one chapter of this present work, I will
address the most important aspects of the submission above,
round off the chapter with my closing remarks and then move
on to other vital questions.
I have already addressed the issue of Snook and Brinkerhoff
’s
confessions and state of vacillation. What I want to deal with
more specifically in this next portion has to do with the original
motivation for their departure. In this, I believe, lies the secret
to understanding why, in a contributory sense, they vacillated as
they did.
Th ere were two main issues, noted earlier, that originally
inspired Snook and Brinkerhoff
’s so called rebellion—Ellen
White’s visions and the regime of the church. Undoubtedly, both
these concerns were connected to James and Ellen White.
Snook wrote to someone he considered a friend, Elder
Ingraham, and suggested that they leave the SDA movement
and work independently of the White’s (clearly, James and
Ellen White were the primary leaders that Brinkerhoff had an
issue with). Ingraham betrayed his confidence (he was a White
loyalist) and gave Brinkerhoff
’s letter to James White who wrote
“Rebellion in Iowa” on the envelope.
A few pertinent observations come to light when considering
these points. Firstly, as the historical record and the essential
doctrinal beliefs of the Church of God (Seventh Day) will attest
to (even till the present), the core beliefs of the SDA Church
(barring perhaps the sanctuary/shut-door teaching for which
many could find no categorical scriptural support) were not what

367
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Brinkerhoff and Snook were dissatisfied with. In other words,

they were, in the spirit of the reformers, as far as Christian
belief was concerned, dedicated to the Word of God alone as
the primary standard for establishing faith—Sola Scriptura. The
problem they had with the SDA Faith was of a more personal
nature, directly connected to an individual (Mrs. White) they
could not accept as a prophet of God, and the type of leadership
that was a natural outflow of her and her husband’s dominance in
the church—particularly the question of her prophetic authority
for which divine sanction was claimed.
The reader is reminded that these two men were not the
only men of prominence in the SDA Faith who had serious
disagreement with issues of this nature, not to mention the other
members of lesser status who were also dealing with similar
doubts—Cranmer and Carver are two cases in point already
considered. Indeed, these two men, along with Snook and
Brinkerhoff, were key figures in the fledgling Marion movement—
they did not leave the movement as Snook and Brinkerhoff did
but continued to minister in its cause claiming Scripture as the
sole arbiter of truthΔ
Butler, in his critique, makes a prima point of the fact that the
origins of the Church of God (Seventh Day), under leadership
of Snook and Brinkerhoff, because of their vacillation and
confessions regarding the motivation behind their rebellion,
proves that it is a “deceptive” movement. Even at the time of
publishing the document (Some History and Some Information,
Regarding the Church of God, Adventist and Seventh-day), in 1944,
SDA critics of the Church of God (Seventh Day) still clearly
regarded it as a dishonorable cause. As Butler said: “It started
in deception, and it has never yet extricated itself from that
atmosphere.” 29
Is it fair to say, because certain pioneer leaders of a movement
were unstable in certain aspects of their belief, which caused
them to ultimately depart from the cause they established, that
the cause itself, with those who remained to further its mission,

368
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

were/are dishonest or deluded and have no just ground for the

position they take? If an unbiased observer, outside of the sphere
of those concerned (SDA or Church of God), were to look at the
situation and evaluate the facts, would they come to the same
conclusion as someone who is directly involved in either of the
causes, considering that they are NOT God and CANNOT judge
motive or extenuating circumstance without risk of evaluating
unfairly? Probably notΔ
Butler makes a big deal of Snook and Brinkerhoff
’s
vacillation but neglects to mention that the period
encapsulating their vacillation with the SDA Faith and their
final departure from the Marion Movement into Universalism
spanned only a few months.
Th e facts are, not everyone who left the SDA Faith and
joined the Marion Movement (forerunner to the Church of
God), vacillated and confessed that they were wrong in their
opposition to Ellen White’s visions and leadership role within
the SDA Church. Th ere were pertinent reasons for why these
people chose to leave the SDA Faith. Unanimously, the reasons
were directly related to Ellen White’s visions. Th e reasons were
NOT because they had decided to reject Christianity, or that
they had doubts about God or that they chose to reject the Bible
as the standard for faith. Th e simple fact is
аФНа the primary
reason for their dissatisfaction was because of someone they
regarded as a false prophet, who, according to what they had
observed, used dishonest means in the process of her ministryΑ
and
was teaching something that could not be ПШСНЮШе
substantiated by аФС
ηХОШС.
Even if it could be established, or at least argued, that Ellen
White was a true prophet of God, it still does not mean that
those who disagreed with her and left the SDA community of
faith were dishonest or led by Satan. From their perspective,
based on the evidence they saw, they could no longer stay in an
organization that supported White’s ministry. Th ey had to speak
out against what they believed to be error and stay true to the
clear doctrine of Scripture. Th ey did not spend the rest of their
369
B
r i a n N e
u m a n n

denominational history discussing and “bashing” Ellen White

and the SDA Church. Their experience was progressive and goal
oriented—to reach the point where they would be true to all that
Scripture required and not teachings of a prophet that they felt
they could not validate.
Without doubt, it was an embarrassment to the cause of the
Marion group (early name for what finally became the Church
of God) to have two of their leading early members, Snook and
Brinkerhoff, make confessions that contradicted their initial
action and then, finally leave and go into Universalism. However,
this does not, when considered from an unbiased perspective,
discredit the whole movement or even prove that those who
remained committed were wrong in the position they had taken
against Ellen White and the SDA leadershipΔ
Indeed, the fact that Snook and Brinkerhoff had held such
high position in the SDA Faith could well have made them even
more susceptible to regretting their decision later on. It is never
easy to hold an esteemed office in an organization and then leave
and find yourself having to start, as it were from scratch, especially
when you still agree with so much of what that organization
stands for—in this case the belief that the Bible alone should be
the standard for establishing doctrine.
Under such circumstances, the temptation to rethink and
regret the choices you have made might be a strong one indeed.
Arguably, the very fact that Brinkerhoff and Snook, confessed
and returned to the SDA Faith briefly and then left again is, in
itself evidence that their return was based on a knee-jerk reaction
to their initial departure and that they, in order to return, were
willing to concede that they had been led by the devil in their
rebellion. However, on returning and being faced with the reality
of what it might mean to remain in the SDA Faith and accept a
prophet they did not believe in, they realized would be too high a
price to pay. Th is resulted in their decision to leave and seek a
“new path,” away from any group or individuals where they
might feel embarrassed or judged. Th us
in their continued
pursuit of “truth” they joined an unconnected cause—Universalism.
370
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

To be sure, not a good track-record and one, that at face-

value, reflects very negativelyon them. Yet, not one thatneed
reflect negatively on the people and cause they had been a part of
establishing—the “Marion Movement.”
It seems easy and not too magnanimous for an SDA critic,
who considers himself to be a part of the ONE, true, end-
time Remnant Church, to judge anyone outside of his cause as
deluded and dishonest, especially one who was once a “brother.”
But, those who have read what has been recorded in this book,
The White Elephant, concerning the early years of the SDA Faith
and even what continues in its ranks today, might rightly suggest
that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
The pioneer days of the post Advent movement and the
establishing of the SDA Faith, especially in regard to certain
activities and various contradictions in the experience of James and
Ellen White, paint it as a suspect and deceptive movement itself.
In regard to fruits, fruits that reflect the present state of the
SDA denomination, fruits that clearly speak of a departure from
so many aspects/teachings of the early years (a departure from
the teachings of their prophet Ellen White), it can be said that
the Church, from top to bottom, is contrary to its roots and bears
the fruits of a movement that is dishonest, yet in total denial of
these facts.
SDA leadership at present, who have departed from the original
plan and who either neglect or totally disregard Ellen White and
actively, within the faith, seek to destroy her influence, when
compared to Snook and Brinkerhoff, would make them look like
Boy Scouts with a minor grievance. Had the state of leadership
in the time of the pioneer days of the SDA Denomination been
what it is today, then James and Ellen White and other loyal
followers of the cause, would long since have stripped them of
their credentials and disfellowshipped them.




They would NEVER have waited for them to reach such a
point of dissatisfaction
that would finally
lead
them to
rebel

371
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

and take the decision to leave themselves, as did Snook and

Brinkerhoff. If the fruits of a cause are anything to go by then,
from start to present, in dishonesty, double-dealing, hypocrisy
and blatant rebellion, at the very highest levels of SDA hierarchy,
the conclusion would have to be drawn that the fruit is, from
outside to inside, rotten to the core.
Carver and Cranmer, for example, were directly opposed to
Ellen White’s shut door teaching—the Sanctuary doctrine. They
left because they could not agree with it and based on their own
studyΑ could not, in any clear terms, find it confirmed in the
Bible. Today, there are pastors and educators in the SDA
Faith who just as strongly stand against the pure,
uncompromised sanctuary teaching of Ellen White and the
conservatives in the Church. A few decades ago, theologian
Desmond Ford, was stripped of his credentials for taking his
stand in regard to this teaching. Presently, variations of his
position are not only believed by many in the church but actively
preached from pulpits and taught in SDA institutions of higher-
educationΔ
Yet, if any Christian denomination has been guilty of “boldly”
speaking out against and exposing the errors in other Christian
faiths, then the SDA Church might well appear near the top of
the list. On top of this, adding insult to injury, is the fact that
the SDA Church, in similar fashion to the Catholic Church,
an institution she regards as the ζЪаХПФЮХЯа power or beast of
Revelation 13, views herself as the ONE true
Church of God—
all and sundry, without exception, are essentially, lost sheep
who need to be brought into the fold.
Certainly, this does not mean that the SDA Church teaches
that no one else can be saved, but she does however, although not
publicly broadcast, believe, according to the words of her own
prophetess, that other Christian institutions, because of
their false teachings, constitute Babylon, as referred to in the
book
of
Revelation.
Ellen White
refers to
them
as “the

372
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

fallen denominational churches.” In this 1893 Review and Herald

article she says:

We are not to think that the chosen ones of God [the SDA
Church] who are trying to walk in the light compose Babylon.
The fallen denominational churches are Babylon. Babylon
has been fostering poisonous doctrines, the wine of error. This
wine of error is made up of false doctrines, such as the natural
immortality of the soul, the eternal torment of the wicked,
the denial of the pre-existence of Christ prior to His birth
in Bethlehem, and advocating and exalting the first day of
the week above God’s holy and sanctified day. These and kin-
dred errors are presented to the world by the various churches,
and thus the Scriptures are fulfilled that say, ‘For all nations
have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.’ It is a
wrath which is created by false doctrines, and when kings and
presidents drink this wine of the wrath of her fornication,
they are stirred with anger against those who will not come
into harmony with the false and satanic heresies which exalt
the false sabbath, and lead men to trample underfoot God’s
memorial. 30

TIe SDA Church and its prophetess, even though some of

their core teachings might be scriptural, are as exclusive as
the Roman Church, whom they criticize for ОСХЪУ

НЮЮЫУНЪа
towards other faiths. One should not gloss over Ellen White’s
statement in the above quote that those who make up the SDA
Faith are “the chosen ones of God.”
Th
e core motivation that justifies the SDA Church in taking
this position is that she has been designated her primary status
via the “divine” revelations of her prophet, Ellen White. Take
Ellen White out of the picture and it would be a tenuous albeit
provocative proposition, to say the least, for the SDA Church
to elevate herself in the way she does—as if there is NO “wine

373
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

of error” or questionable “doctrine” to be found in the SDA

belief system.
Indeed, in so many respects, if Ellen White and her peculiar
revelations were to be removed, the SDA Church and the Church
of God (Seventh Day) would almost be like peas in a pod in
regard to a fair number of their respective doctrinesΔ
The core, dividing factor between these two faiths really boils
down to the person and teaching of Ellen White. Indeed, if it had
not been for her and the authority she wielded then, arguably,
Carver, Cranmer, Snook, Brinkerhoff and many others might
never have found it necessary to leave the SDA Faith.
These evidences alone lead one to the unavoidable conclusion
that the early founders of the Church of God (Seventh Day), in
spite of the issues they have had to deal with themselves, wanted to
found a Church that grounded its teaching in Scripture, without
added extra-biblical “insight.” They came out of a movement
that claimed this goal, yet, a movement that was being led by a
“visionary” who decreed, as it were, teachings that couldn’t, and
still cannot, be categorically substantiated by a clear scriptural
“thus sayeth the Lord.” Little wonder, the founders and leaders of
what was to become the Church of God (Seventh Day) made it
their mission or duty to warn the world of Ellen White.
The SDA founders themselves have been no less active in
their criticism of others. Indeed, they went out of their way to
critique many others, individuals and institutions, they regarded
as false—the glass-house analogy holds true.
The SDA Church, according to the belief of Ellen White, is
an extension and natural outgrowth of the Reformation whose
creed was the Bible and the Bible alone.
The Church of God (Seventh Day), as already stated, shares
the same creed. Both agree on the 7th day Sabbath, the state of
the dead and a number of other biblical teachings. However, for
SDA’s, the external voice of Ellen White remains the primary
prevention to fully following the Sola-Scriptura standard.

374
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It is interesting to note that Ellen White, as already alluded to,

claims the two major deceptions of the end time will be Sunday
sacredness and a false teaching on the state of the dead that lead to
spiritualism. Ironically, the Church of God (Seventh Day) an
institution SDA critics label as one that “started in deception”
and that “never yet extricated itself from that atmosphere,” has,
by virtue of the core tenants of her own faith, avoided being
deceived by these two primary delusions.
Truly, while the SDA Church is struggling within her own
ranks, fighting to remain true to the Bible AND the teachings
of her prophet Ellen White, dealing with contradiction and
rebellion, left and right, all she needed to do from the very
beginning, without deviation, external influence or compromise,
was to simply follow, as the Church of God (Seventh Day) has
attempted to do, the Bible and the Bible alone—period.
I have attended the Church of God (Seventh Day) on many
occasions, have conducted praise services and preached in their
congregation and can say, based on first-hand experience, that I
have never heard anyone criticizing the SDA Church or Ellen
White. Whether it has been in their study classes or from the
pulpit, no attacks have been made on the SDA Faith, Ellen White,
or for that matter, any other denomination, notwithstanding the
fact that a number of her members are ex-SDA’s.
The fact is, the leaders of this denomination, even though they
may not be right about all they teach, are dedicated to spreading
the Gospel, using the Bible as the standard by which this is done.
Many admit that they might not have all the answers. However,
in regard to the essential points of the Gospel, they firmly and
securely cling to Scripture.
In publications that deal with their denominational history,
such as Robert Coulter’s book, which I have quoted from in
this chapter, they certainly speak of James and Ellen White, the
SDA Church and the connection their pioneers had with this
institution. It goes without saying that such would be the case.

375
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Yet, when it comes to their ministry and mission, there is no

arrogant attack or position taken against the SDA Church or
James and Ellen WhiteΔ
These facts are overwhelming evidence that the Church of
God (Seventh Day), contrary to Butler’s assessment, HAVE
developed along biblical lines and do bear good fruit. Even if one
does not entirely agree with all their theology, it is nonetheless
commendable that they are committed to establishing truth on
the basis of the blue-print for Christian belief, the Bible alone.
It will be conclusively shown in an upcoming chapter that the
SDA Church, in spite of their assertion that they are a “people
of the Book,” do not base ALL their teachings ON “The Book.”
They cannot claim to be the only denomination that keep
the commandments of God and that follow the scriptures as
the blue-print for their faith. They cannot either claim that the
gifts are manifest among them, in particular the prophetic gift,
in fulfillment of Revelation 19:10 and Joel’s prophecy regarding
prophets at the end-time as there is NO living prophet in the SDA
Church. The writings of a dead prophet are NOT a manifestation
of the gifts as described by Paul.
In closing this chapter I want to underscore the point made
in the previous paragraphs. Elder J. N. Andrews, quoted earlier,
regarding the role of the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White),
wrote: “Mere human judgment, with no direct instruction from
heaven, can never search out hidden iniquity, nor adjust dark
and complicated church difficulties, nor prevent different and
conflicting interpretations of the scriptures” 31
As much as Ellen White or the SDA Church might argue that
what she blanketed in her life, via her testimonies to the church,
covers EVERYTHING that God’s end time people might have
to deal with, corporately or individually, at least in broad terms,
there still is no DIRECT instruction from God in the present.
When it comes to searching out “hidden iniquity,” adjusting “dark
and complicated church difficulties” or preventing “different and

376
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

conflicting interpretations of the scriptures,” the SDA Church is,

quite literally, in light of the present condition of things in its own
ranks, left with no “direct,” LIVING “instruction from heaven.”
In the 21st Century, where changes, in comparison to any
previous period in history, have been unprecedented in every
sphere of life, it would be accurate to say that much of what
Ellen White “testified” about, over a hundred years ago, is wholly
inadequate to search out and address what is happening in the
world and church today.
If a LIVING prophet was needed, in fulfillment of the
gifts, spoken of by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12/13 (prophecy and
discernment) and prophesied about in Joel 2:28-32 (prophets in
the last days) and Revelation 19:10 (spirit of prophecy), then such
a person is most certainly required now.
If God’s true people should not come behind in any of the gifts
then, surely and arguably, the most critical gifts of all should be
actively found manifest in its ranks. Ellen White’s disputable
ministry does NOT lend itself to clarifying serious issues the
SDA Church faces today on so many levels but rather muddies
the water and makes the question of salvation and Christian
living, at the end of the age, even more difficult to comprehend.
Her testimonies regarding anything from eating cheese,
eating meat, drinking coffee, to dress and outward adornment,
not to mention theological issues, has not helped to simplify
Christian living but placed a burden on believers that in the end
has splintered the church into factionsΔ
There are simply too many things, whether doctrinal or
simply informatory, that she and the SDA Church have
promoted as critical biblical belief, that be shown to be erroneous,
inconsequential and even downright absurd.
It was on grounds of this type of reasoning that certain
early leaders of the SDA Faith rejected Ellen White and left
that movement.

377
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

On the basis of what they could prove from Scripture alone,

they started a new movement that was to become the Church of
God (Seventh Day). No doubt, the Church of God (Seventh Day)
has had to deal with many of its own problems and may well not
have all the answers (not that ANYONE can legitimately claim
to have it ALL right), however, just as it was for their founders,
their desire, in this day and age, to stay true to the Bible without
an external prophetic voice/authority that cannot be clearly
substantiated by the Bible, remains. After all, there is NO higher
standard upon which to establish one’s faith.

SOURCES
1. “The Journey, A History of the Church of God (Seventh Day).” By
Robert Coulter, p. 13. Published 2014.
2. Ibid. p. 53.
3. Ibid. p. 54.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid. p. 55.
6. Ibid. p. 54.
7. Ibid. p. 55.
8. Ibid. p. 55, 56.
9. Ibid. p. 56.
10. Ibid. p. 57.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid. p. 55, 56.
13. Ibid. p. 57.
14. Some History and some information, Regarding the Church of God
Adventist and Seventh-day, Chapter IV, p. 13, Published by Ellen
 G. White Publications, General Conference, Takoma Park,
Washington, DC, 1944.
15. “The Journey, A History of the Church of God (Seventh Day).” By
Robert Coulter, p. 57. Published 2014.
16. Ibid. p. 90.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid. p. 90-93.
20. Ellen G. White, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Feb. 20,
1866, para. 7 (emphasis supplied).
21. “The Journey, A History of the Church of God (Seventh Day).” By
Robert Coulter, p. 93. Published 2014.
22. Ibid. p. 94.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Evangelism, p. 256-260.
26. Spalding Magan Collection, 167-174.
27. J. N. Andrews, Editor, Review and Herald, February 15, 1870.
28. Some History and Some Information, Regarding The Church of
God, Adventist and Seventh-day, Part II, ‘The Early History of the
‘Marion’ Movement’ by G. I. Butler, p. 8-9 (emphasis supplied).
29. Ibid (emphasis supplied).
30. Review and Herald, September 12, 1893, p. 61, 62, par. 20,
(emphasis supplied).
31. J. N. Andrews, Editor, Review and Herald, February 15, 1870.
“No one ever thought we’d actually have to acknowledge
The elephant in the room…” (artwork: Brian Neumann)
 Chapter XI

Where in Scripture is it?

The Pillar of SDA Faith

These were more noble than those in

Thessalonica, in that they received the
Word with all readiness of mind, and
searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.

—Acts 17:11

I
t is vital that an entire section of this book be dedicated to
testing a selection of Ellen White’s teachings, to see if they
are truly supported, unambiguously—without reading into
what is not clearly stated—by a “line upon line, precept upon
precept” of Scripture. I will focus on a number of teachings and
ideas that have, for me personally, become very problematic
and that, after years of research into Ellen White’s writings,
explanations by her defenders and the lines of SDA historical
record, cannot be supported by the clear biblical Word. In many
instances her teachings stand in striking contrast to what the Bible
emphatically states. One of the main points for consideration,
already spoken about to some extent in previous chapters, is
her teaching regarding the sanctuary. I will begin my series of
comparisons by going straight to this issue and concepts directly
connected to or impacted by itΔ
381
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE

TIe origins of the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine have been
discussed, to some extent, in earlier chapters. But, for the
purpose of sequential, historical continuity and clarity, I will
outline its origins and precepts more definitively at this time.
Th
e SDA teaching on the sanctuary did not discover its
fledgling inspiration, that later gave birth to the comprehensive
teaching that was fleshed out by Ellen White and the pioneers,
until after 1844 (Th
e Great Disappointment). Th
e initial
inspiration for what was to become this peculiar doctrine,
believed only by SDA’s, an exception among all other Christian
Churches, was not introduced by Ellen White either. Th
e
“light” was first given to one, Hiram Edson, in a ӂвХСгӂ he

received while passing through a field, shortly after October 22nd,
1844. However, even Hiram Edson’s revelation was not where
it all first began. TIe crucial scriptural evidence, in support of
this doctrine, the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14, was
almost entirely, at least in the American context, developed
and preached by William Miller prior to 1844. TФe only real
exception, according to Ellen White, was that Miller had
misinterpreted the actual event that was supposedly to have
taken place at the time appointed.

WILLIAM MILLER
William

Miller was

born

in


Pittsfield

(originally
Ponthoosoc), New England, February 15th, 1782, the eldest of
sixteen children. Captain William Miller, his father, was in the
army during the Revolution. He married Paulina Phelps, the
daughter of a Baptist minister, in 1781 when he returned home
after an illness.
It is recorded in the Memoirs of William Miller that the character
of his father, Captain William Miller, “was irreproachable. He
never made a public profession of religion; but his house was
often the place to which the ЪСХУФОЫЮЯ gathered to hear the
preaching of the gospel. He was taken away suddenly, with one

382
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

of his daughters, by the pestilence which broke out in the army at

Burlington, Vermont…He died December 30th, 1812, three days
after his daughter.” 1
William (junior) possessed a strong intellect and was gifted
in many ways. “…the natural genius and attainments of young
William Miller had distinguished him among his associates.
To the young folks, he became a sort of scribbler-general. If
anyone wanted ‘verses made,’ a letter to send, some ornamental
and symbolic design to be interpreted by ‘the tender passion,’ or
anything which required extra taste and fancy in the use of the
pen, it was pretty sure to be planned, if not executed by him.” 2
Even though his talents clearly leaned in the direction of the
intellectual and creative, his early instruction was in farming.
William continued in this trade for a number of years after
moving with his wife Lucy from Low Hampton to Poultney,
Vermont. As time went by he began pursuing a calling in public
life. He became a constable and in 1809 was appointed to the
office of sheriffΔ
He loved reading, particularly books on history, and spent much
time in the local library doing research. His wife encouraged him
in this pursuit, going out of her way to facilitate it. Subsequent
to this, he followed in his father’s footsteps, pursuing a career
in the military, and like his father, eventually rose to the rank
of Captain.
“It was here [in Poultney],” as recorded in Memoirs of William
Miller, “that Mr. Miller became a member of the Masonic fraternity,
in which his perseverance, if nothing else, was manifested; for he
advanced to the highest degree which the lodges then in the country,
or in that region, could confer.” 3 Indeed, William progressed to
the point where he finally became “Master” of his lodge (Morning
Star Lodge, No. 27). 4
Miller was actively involved in freemasonry until 1831. This
was about fourteen years after he had been converted from
deistic beliefs to Christianity and been involved in local church
ministry. However, it is recorded that he “resigned his Masonic

383
Brian Neumann

membership in 1831, stating that he did so to ‘avoid fellowship

with any practice that may be incompatible with the Word of
God among Masons.’” 5 Two years later, he makes an even more
categorical statement regarding the practice of Freemasonry. In
1833, “he wrote a letter to his friends to treat Freemasonry ‘as
they would any other evil.’” 6
It is important to include the record of Miller’s Masonic
connection as there have been some critics who have condemned
him on the grounds of his membership and may well question me
on this aspect of Miller’s history if I chose to ignore it. Although
he very emphatically renounced his connection to this fraternity,
the question might also be asked why this happened so many
years after he converted to Christ and was engaged in active local
church ministry.
Whole organizations have been dedicated to the cause of
revealing the origins and evil of Freemasonry, to exposing and
reproving those (especially in the higher degrees), political and
other leaders alike, who are or have been members. Ellen White,
herself, was very vocal in her condemnation of this institution and
made it clear that it was wholly incompatible with Christianity.
She gave particular warning to a Brother Faulkhead in Australia
about being a Mason and his desire to attain to higher degrees and
cautioned that it would place him in “bondage to the world.” She
seemed especially concerned with the fact that he was addressed as
“Worshipful Master,” a title which is given to a Mason of the third
degree. He, like William Miller had become a Master Mason. 7
In fact, it is claimed that those who graduate to the higher
degrees in Masonry have to renounce Christ and are clearly aware
that they are Lucifarian worshipers. According to the testimony
of some, when the name of God is used during the initiation
ceremony it is really cryptically referring to Satan/Lucifer. If
this is indeed true then, surely, William Miller must have gone
through this level of higher initiation.

384
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Th e problem that seems to arise, if this was well the case, is

that Miller, almost certainly, would have graduated to the level
of Master Mason AFTER his conversion experience which is
said to have happened in 1816—his membership to the order
would have been too recent at this time for him to have already
passed to such a high level (his membership would have been
about 6-7 years at that point). Th is not being the case, if he had
ALREADY passed this high level of initiation by then, he
would, if this were at all conceivable, been a follower of Christ
and Lucifer at the same time—a very contradictory situation
indeed. In fact, the master of the lodge would be responsible
for initiating other members through their degrees and would,
quite obviously, have an in-depth knowledge of Masonic
symbolism.
Th e evidence, regarding the “official” date of
William’s conversion is recorded in his Memoirs where it states
that on the “September 11th, 1816,” he attended a celebration of
the “Battle of Plattsburg” and there heard a sermon preached
on Zechariah 2:4, entitled “Run! Speak to this Young Man.” As a
result of this experience he came to the realization of what a
“lovely” person Jesus must be. He lost all taste for reading
other things and began to only study the Bible. He “erected
the family alter” and “ЬбОШХПШе professed his faith.” 8
Th e words describing Miller’s conversion and the path he
subsequently followed are glowing indeed and seem to fly in
the face of any notion that he might have been willing to climb
to higher Masonic rank while at the same time practicing his
Christian faith. Memoirs continues:
…connecting himself with the little church that he had despised;
opened his house for meetings of prayer; and became an orna-
ment and pillar in the church, and an aid to both pastor and
people. The die was cast, and he had taken his stand for life as
a soldier of the cross, as all who knew him felt assured; and
henceforth the badge of discipleship, in the church or world,

385
Brian Neumann

in his family or closet, indicated whose he was and whom he

served. 9

An even more comprehensive description of Miller’s life, once he

became established in his faith is given on page eighty of the
same book:
From the time that Mr. Miller became established in his reli-
gious faith, till he commenced his public labors,—a period of
twelve or fourteen years,—there were few prominent inci-
dents in his life to distinguish him from other men. He was
a good citizen, a kind neighbor, an affectionate husband and
parent, and a devoted Christian; good to the poor, and benevo-
lent, as objects of charity were presented; in the Sunday-school
was teacher and superintendent; in the church he performed
important service as a reader and exhorter, and, in the sup-
port of religious worship, no other member, perhaps, did as
much as he. He was very exemplary in his life and conver-
sation, endeavored at all times to perform the duties, whether
public or private, which devolved on him, and whatever he did
was done cheerfully, as for the glory of God. His leisure hours
were devoted to reading and meditation; he kept himself well
informed respecting the current events of the time; occasionally
communicated his thoughts through the press… but his princi-
pal enjoyment was derived from the study of the Bible. 10

Th e man who had once taunted his friends for believing in the
Bible now turned to reading that vey book. His stated aim was
to harmonize any apparent inconsistencies. He said that if he
could not accomplish this he would return to being a deist. 11
Between 1818-1823 he plunged himself into a deep study of
Bible prophecy. On the basis of what he discovered during those
studies he became convicted that Christ would soon return and
that he should share his faith with others. With reference to his
manner of Bible study, Miller wrote:

386
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Various difficulties and objections would arise in my mind,

from time to time; certain texts would occur to me, which
seemed to weigh against my conclusions; and I would not pre-
sent a view to others, while any difficulty appeared to militate
against it. I therefore continued the study of the Bible, to see if I
could sustain any of these objections. My object was not merely
to remove them, but I wished to see if they were valid. 12

How is it possible, with testimonies regarding Miller’s

conversion in 1816, stating that, “henceforth the badge of
discipleship, in the church or world, in his family or
closet, indicated whose he was and whom he served,”13 he could
practice as a Master Mason and still be so absorbed and
dedicated to the study of Scripture—ostensibly for fourteen or
more years?
Certain Masonic researchers are quite emphatic that it is
VERY possible for a Mason to play a double game between his
“secret Masonic life” and the “religious faith” he practices in public
life. Regarding the whole issue of initiations in Freemasonry and
the real meaning behind the esoteric, Masonic use of “God,” for
the benefit of the “uninitiated,” well known SDA researcher,
author and international speaker (evangelist), Professor Walter
Veith (affiliated with Amazing Discoveries—an organization
I belonged to at one time), says:
When a Mason reads the Bible as he says it should be
read… when he reads Jehovah, who does he read? When he
sees the word Lord in our Bible, who does he say it is? Satan,
Satan… when he sees the name Jesus, who does he say it
is? Satan. So he can preach the most beautiful sermon out
there and you are thinking that he is preaching about the
Jesus of the Bible but esoterically he is preaching to Lucifer
and to you, the “goyim” [cattle or uninitiated], you don’t
understand… 14
Could this type of practice ever, at any time, have been the
practice of William Miller? Assuming it might be possible and
that the above facts about Masonry and the God of Scripture,

387
Brian Neumann

presented by Professor Veith are true, then why has no SDA, who is
working to expose “error,” such as Veith and Amazing Discoveries,
not painted William Miller with exactly the same brush?
Would William Miller, Grand Master, have been ignorant of
the fact that, as stated by Scottish Rite Freemason, Albert Pike and
quoted by Professor Walter Veith:
Masonry, like all religions, all the Mysteries…conceals its
secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the elect, and
uses false explanations and misrepresentations of its symbols
to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the
Truth, which it calls light, from them and to draw them away
from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to
receive it, or would pervert it. So masonry jealously conceals
its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters
astray. 15

When William Miller was initiated into the TIird Degree

and became a Master Mason/Worshipful Master, he would have
gone through the ceremonial death, burial and resurrection of
“Hiram Abiff,” referred to as “the widow’s son.” Although no
Оiblical record exists regarding him and he is not mentioned in the
writings of Josephus, it is claimed that he was an arbiter between king
Solomon and the king of Tyre, who helped in the building of
Solomon’s temple, in Jerusalem.
Th e Master who is initiating the practitioner into the
TIird Degree, during the course of the procedure, will
communicate the following to the Junior Deacon, regarding
initiate, who is outside the door: “Since he comes endued with all
these necessary qualifications, let him enter this worshipful
lodge, in the name of the Lord, and take heed on what he
enters.” Th e Junior Deacon then communicates to the initiate:
“Let him enter this worshipful lodge, in the name of the Lord,
and take heed on what he enters.”
Although, the name of the Lord is used and there is a
definite connection to biblical themes, especially all the
symbolism
attached to
Solomon’s
Temple, it is not the God
of
388
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ψПЮХЬабЮС
аФСе
worship, according to experts such as Walter Veith.

In fact, based on the testimony of their own ςasters such as
Albert Pike, this most certainly seems to be the case.
As the ceremony continues, it reaches the point where the
Master says to the initiate: “You first discover, as before, three
great lights in Masonry, by the assistance of three lesser, with
this difference: both points of the compass are elevated above the
square, which denotes to you that you are about to receive all the
light that can be conferred on you in a Master’s lodge.”
A little later the Master steps back from the initiate and declares,
“Brother, you now discover me, as Master of this lodge, approaching
you from the east, under the sign and due-guard of a Master
Mason.” A sign is then given by raising the hands and arms to the
elbows, perpendicularly; on each side of the head (the elbows form
a square). The words accompanying this sign, in case of distress, are,
“O Lord, my God! Is there no help for the widow’s son?”
As the last words leave his lips, the Master lets his hands fall, in
a manner calculated to indicate solemnity. King Solomon is said
to have made this exclamation on the receipt of the information
of the death of Hiram Abiff. Masons are all charged never to say
these words except when in darkness, so that the sign cannot
be seen. Some lodges differ on the exact context of when and
where Solomon gave this sign. Some say he did it when informed
of Hiram’s death. Others contend that he made the sign and
exclaimed, “O Lord, my God! Is there no help for the widow’s
son?” when he went to raise Hiram from the dead. In regard to
Hiram Abiff, the historical record and his identity in Masonry,
Veith quotes Masonic author, A. T. C. Pierson:

The Masonic legend stands by itself, unsupported by history

or other than its own traditions; yet we readily recognize in
Hiram Abiff ‘the Osiris of the Egyptians, the Mithras of the
Persians, the Bacchus of the Greeks, the Dionysius of the fra-
ternity of Artificers, and the Atys of the Phrygians, whose

389
Brian Neumann

passion, death and resurrection were celebrated by these people

respectively (sic).16

TIere is much more to this initiation ceremony but what is

shared here is enough to make the point. Veith goes to great
lengths in order to expose the alleged Masonic connections of
Evangelist Billy Graham (33rd degree). To be consistent though,
if it was possible for Billy Graham and other Evangelists, such
as is claimed, Benny Hinn, to be Freemasons while apparently
dedicated to preaching the gospel, then why could it not have
been possible for William Miller—for whatever length of time
he might have done so? Is one to assume that he is the ONLY
exception to the general rule?
NOTE: It is true that many U.S. Presidents have been
Freemasons of the Scottish Rite, 33rd degree. These facts
have provided ammunition for conspiracy theorists who
contend that it is impossible for anyone who is of such
high degree to not be directly involved in Lucifarian wor-
ship and the larger global Masonic conspiracy. However,
this is not an entirely transparent or accurate reflection
of how the degree system in Scottish Rite Freemasonry
operates.

TIe 3rd degree (Master Mason) is the most important degree in

Freemasonry (this degree was held by William Miller). Other
degrees are considered simply as extensions of being a Master
Mason. Th
us, higher numbers such as 33rd degree, should not
be considered as higher rank. Th
e Scottish Rite regularly
confers degrees 4-32 on candidates (these are earned). Th
e
33rd degree is bestowed, not earned. It is an ФЫЪЫЮНЮе degree,
one that is awarded (often in recognition of special service), not
because one has been initiated into some secret realm of
deeper Lucifarian knowledge. A Mason that has a degree
between the 3rd or 32nd can be awarded the 33rd degree.

390
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

5 IF
SFBEFS
TIPVME
UIVT
DPOTJEFS
UIBU
CFDBVTF
B
64

1SFTJEFOU
IBT
B

SE
EFHSFF
JU
TIPVME
OPU
CF
BVUPNBUJDBMMZ
JOGFSSFE
UIBU
IF
NJHIU
CF
B

-VDJGBSJBO
XPSTIJQFS
PG
TPNF
IJHIFS
JOJUJBUJPO
*U
XPVME
TJNQMZ
IBWF

CFFO
B
FOEPXNFOU
GPS
TQFDJBM
TFSWJDF
UP
IJT
DPVOUSZ
8JMMJBN
.JMMFS
XBT
B
.BTUFS
.BTPO
)F
XBT
B
.BTPO
PG
UIF
NPTU

TJHOJGJDBOU
BDDPNQMJTINFOU
5IF
SE
EFHSFF
XPVME
BDDPSEJOH
UP

DPOTQJSBDZ
UIFPSZ
IBWF
NBEF
IJN
OP
NPSF
PS
MFTT
B

-VJDJGBSJBO
UIBO
BOZ
PUIFS
.BTPO
PG
FWFO
SE
EFHSFF
TUBUVT
0OF
UIJOH
JT
BCTPMVUFMZ
DFSUBJO
5I
FSF
DBO
CF
OP
HFUUJOH
BSPVOE

UIFTF
GBDUT
8JMMJBN
.JMMFS
XBT
B
.BTUFS
.BTPO
"DDPSEJOH
UP
IJT

.FNPJST
IF
iBEWBODFE
UP
UIF
IJHIFTU
EFHSFF
XIJDI
UIF
MPEHFT
UIFO

JO
UIF
DPVOUSZ
PS
JO
UIBU
SFHJPO
DPVME
DPOGFSw
5IF
SFDPSE
PG
UIF
MPEHF
IF
CFMPOHFE
UP
MJTUT
IJN
BT
CFJOH
POF
PG

JUT
FBSMZ
.BTUFST
5I
VT
XJUIPVU
EPVCU
FWFO
UIPVHI
IF
IBE

DPOWFSUFE
UP
$ISJTU
GSPN
EFJTN
IF
DPOUJOVFE
BT
BO
BDUJWF

'SFFNBTPO
BOE
GPS
BU
MFBTU
TPNF
PG
UIJT
UJNF
.BTUFS
PG
IJT

-PEHF‰.BTPO
PG
UIF
SE
%FHSFF
"MM
UIJT
DPWFSFE
B
QFSJPE
PG

BQQSPYJNBUFMZ
GPVSUFFO
ZFBST
PS
NPSF
VOUJM
BDDPSEJOH
UP

UFTUJNPOZ
BMSFBEZ
RVPUFE
IF
SFTJHOFE
JO

"
XIPMF
TFSJFT
PG

JOUFSFTUJOH
BMCFJU
EJTUVSCJOH
QPTTJCJMJUJFT
BSJTF
UIBU
DBOOPU
TJNQMZ
CF

CSVTIFE
BTJEF
PS
JHOPSFE
XIFO
QVUUJOH
UIJT
BMM
UPHFUIFS
"
GVMMQSPPG
BEFRVBUF
FYQMBOBUJPO
UIBU
JT
OPU
TJNQMZ
BOPUIFS

BMUFSOBUJWF
XBZ
PG
JOUFSQSFUJOH
UIJOHT
TIPVME
CF
GPSUIDPNJOH
JG

JOEFFE
JU
JT
FWFO
QPTTJCMF
UP
EP
TP
&WFO
UIPVHI
*
XJMM
QSFTFOU
B

TDFOBSJP
CBTFE
PO
UIF
NBOOFS
PG
FWBMVBUJPO
BQQMJFE
CZ
UIFPSJTUT

TVDI
BT
8BMUFS
7FJUI
*
XJMM
OPU
BUUFNQU
UP
PGGFS
TPNF
iFEVDBUFEw

QFSTPOBM
PQJOJPO
UIBU
XPVME
BDDVTF
.JMMFS
PG
EVQMJDJUZ
BOE
UIFO

EFDMBSF
JU
BT
GBDU
*
QSFTFOU
UIF
PCWJPVT
JOEJWJEVBM
GBDUT
QJFDFT
PG

UIF
QV[[MF

BOE
BTL
RVFTUJPOT
RVFTUJPOT
UIBU
BSF
OPU
FBTZ
UP

BOTXFS
UIBU
UIF
SFBEFS
DBO
SFGMFDU
PO
EP
IJT
PS
IFS
PXO
SFTFBSDI
BOE

UIFO
ESBX
MPHJDBM
DPODMVTJPOT
"T
GBS
BT
UIF
TDFOBSJP
*
XJMM
QSFTFOU

JT
DPODFSOFE
JU
JT
QVSFMZ
GPS
UIF
QVSQPTF
PG
TIPXJOH
iUIF

DPOTQJSBDZ
UIFPSJTU w
XIP
QBJOUT
BMM
BOE
TVOESZ
+FTVJUT

.BTPOT

3PTJDSVDJBOT
BOE
PUIFS
TFDSFU
TPDJFUJFT

XJUI
UIF

CSVTI

391
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

of conspiracy and secret agendas, that it is only consistent and

fair to use that same “brush of hypothesis” on William Miller.

Hypothesis
ςмлэпо
щш
нпьюлуш
Ϧϗϔ
нщшэъуьлнѓ
ютпщьупэσ
William Miller, from the time he joined the Masonic fraternity,
was hand-picked, singled out, because of his specific talents,
to help carry out the secret agenda in the “real world.” He was
trained and carefully prepared. It was preordained that when
he finally embarked on his “official” mission, stepping out into
public ministry, he would at that point, because of the nature
of his mission and to avoid criticism and allay the fears of those
he sought to influence, resign from Freemasonry, at least on the
visible/official level. In effect, he would now become a secret
operative for the cause.
According to the evidence extracted from historical record
and the documents of Masonry and other connected secret
organizations, and so taught by organizations such as Amazing
Discoveries, via their speakers, such as Professor Walter Veith,
the Knight’s-Templar were the forerunner of the Catholic Jesuit
Order (Society of Jesus). They, in turn, spawned other secret
organizations which, in different ways, were furthering the
ultimate agenda of the Papacy. Unofficially, this was no problem
for the Catholic institution, because, even though they outwardly
condemn Freemasonry, they clandestinely support and indeed
control it via the Jesuit order.
Of major concern to the Catholic Church was the Protestant
Reformation and the ultimate rise of the United States of
America, established on Judeo-Christian/Protestant principles.
A “homeland” for people who sought religious liberty and who,
especially in those early years, because of the religio-political
system in Europe (controlled by the Papacy), were inherently
suspicious of the Roman Church.
Added to this, at about the same time America became
an independent Republic, framed its Constitution (1789) and

392
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

published its Bill of Rights, Napolean’s General, Berthier, Marched

into Rome, took the Pope Pious captive and declared the
Vatican State, annulled (1798)Δ
More than anything else, in order to once again regain her
religious and political power, Rome had to find a way of stopping
the surge and ever growing influence of what was then commonly
known as Protestant America. In a land where Rome had little or
no real authority, religious or political, the best and most effective
way to breach the wall, so to speak, would be to Trojan-Horse her
via Rome’s web of secret societies. She hated the idea of religious
freedom as introduced into this fledgling nation, established
on Judeo-Christian, Protestant principles. Her intolerance is
expressed in this Catholic publication of the 19th Century:
Th e Church [Rome] is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she
endures when and where she must, but she hates it and directs all
her energies to destroy it. If Catholics ever gain a sufficient
numerical majority in this country [U.S.A.], religious freedom is
at an end. So our enemies say. So we believe. 18

Rome is an expert at utilizing the tactic of “divide and

conquer.” A nation that saw itself as being “united under God,”
with a predominantly Protestant Bible-based community, could
ONLY be infiltrated if one could efТectively “scatter the flock.”
Accomplishing this became number one on Rome’s tactical
agenda. Somehow, by dividing the fundamental “Bible-based-
glue” that bound them together as one nation, Protestantism
(which really stands for protestation against Rome), had to be
fragmented and neutralized. It is Rome’s belief, or at least was
certainly so at the timeΑ that “Protestantism has not, and never
can have, any right where Catholicity has triumphed.” 19 Rome
needed to realize that authority in North America.
One of the very best ways to divide Protestantism and over
time melt the glue that bound the nation, would be to fracture
them at the level of their greatest spiritual hope, while at the same

393
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

time negatively impacting the collective national consciousness

to where a conflict between spiritual destiny and the future of
their fledgling nation and national pride, were at subconscious
odds with one another—build them up and break them down.
How could Rome bring such a plan to fruition? By going
underground. Underground, in the sense that the secret fraternities
would be infiltrated and the right individuals/individual with
appropriate talents would be found to implement and execute
the plan. Then, when the chaos and “disappointment,” hit the
proverbial fan, to let the chips fall where they may and observe
how things could be directed from that point on.
William Miller was the perfect man for the job. He was a
talented oratory. His poetry had been published and he had
gained a reputation for his deistic beliefs. However, he also had
a good understanding of the Protestant/Christian mind, having
grown up in a strongly Baptist family and with friendship ties to
dedicated Christian men. He possessed a strong patriotic spirit
and political sentiments that were, according to his Memoirs,
“decidedly” democratic. 20 His service and rank in the military,
his integrity, desire for deep spiritual realization and also his wit
(often trifling with “humble messengers of the gospel”),21 were all
traits that made him the perfect man for the job. The fact that
he was a patriot would be of no concern to his controllers in
the fraternity. In fact, his patriotism and integrity, along with
his other talents, when educated and channeled by his deistic/
Masonic education, would mold him into exactly the right agent
for the taskΔ
By 1816, Miller had been primed to commence his mission.
Thus, on “September 11th, 1816,” while attending the celebration
of the “Battle of Plattsburg,” on hearing the sermon, “Run! Speak
to this Young Man,” came to the realization of what a “lovely”
person Jesus was, lost all taste for reading other things and began
to only study the Bible. He “erected the family alter” and “publically
professed his faith,” 22 yet still remaining, for at least 14 more years,

394
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

fully committed to his Masonic lodge to the point of becoming,

or as it may be, remaining a Master Mason and attaining, as
stated in his Memoirs, “to the highest degree which the lodges
then in the country, or in that region, could confer.”
From this point on Miller immersed himself into, particularly,
the study of Bible Prophecy. His focus, which was ultimately to
become the core scriptural support for his message, when his
public ministry commenced in 1831, was Daniel 8:14—“Unto
two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be
cleansed.” He believed that the sanctuary was earth and that it
was to be cleansed by fire at the second coming of Christ.
The symbolism and parallel to Masonic fascination with
Solomon’s Temple should not be missed. From the perspective of
Solomon’s Temple and in light of the legend concerning Hiram
Abiff, Masonic lore records that when he was killed by “three
ruffians,” he was first buried in the “Northwest” corner of the
temple, in the “rubbish heap,” where there was “no light.” Later
his body was taken to a hill and buried in a shallow grave—his
alleged resurrection took place at this site. Parallels’ are thought to
exist between the resurrection of Hiram and Christ’s resurrection
of Lazarus (4 days in the grave, after decomposing and starting
to smell, then resurrected by Christ). There is also the parallel of
Christ being in the grave for three days and three nights and then
rising on the first day of the week—Christ being the first-fruits
of the resurrection. All these are symbols of the resurrection and
renewal of the Saints at the second coming of Christ, when the
Earth is cleansed with fireΔ
After his years of study into the prophecies of Scripture, during
all this time remaining a Freemason, Miller formulates his prophetic
hypothesis and makes the decision to present his message publically
to the people of America. It is at this critical juncture, 1831, when
he was set to become a well-known public figure that Miller decides
to cut ties with the Masonic fraternity and commence preaching
his message of Christ’s return at the close of the 2300 days.

395
B
r i a n N
e u m a
n n

Was the reason perhaps that from that time on he could not
afford to have those who
would become his enemies capitalize
on his membership to this secret organization and thus bring
him into disrepute? Why did he resign only at this point? How
did he justify remaining in the fellowship of an organization he
knew was occult, continue as Worshipful Master of his lodge,
while searching for light on interpreting some of the scriptures
most difficult prophecies? Did he just wake up one morning in
1831, after all these years, and suddenly realize that: “Hey, I just
didn’t figure this out before, Masonry is not really such a good thing
and should be treated as any other evil I think I should resign, right
now?”
Believing that he only came to this realization, after fourteen
years as a disciple of Christ, during which time he was
committed to a deep study of the scriptures, involved in
regular ministry with his congregation and in the local district
is a difficult “pill” to swallowΔ
Miller had to have known, for many years prior, that the
practice of Freemasonry was inconsistent with Christian belief.
Just in time, on the eve of commencing his public ministry, he
severs his Masonic ties—ready to tell the world that Jesus was
about to return—the term “convenient” comes to mind.
Th e basis for and content of Miller’s end-time message was,
in outline:
Daniel 8:14 which declared “Unto two thousand and three
hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” was,
according to Miller’s exegesis, a cryptic prophecy that foretold
the exact, or at least close to exact, time of Christ’s second
coming. He calculated, based on his study of history and the
Bible (Daniel Chapter 9:24-27 being an important part of the
mystery that elucidated Chapter 8), the historicist method of
prophetic interpretation and the application of the prophetic day/
year principle, that this period began in the fall of 457 B.C., when
Artexerses gave the decree to rebuild/restore Jerusalem. 2300 years,
from 457 B.C., would end in the fall of 1844 (October 22).
396
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

1844, according to Miller’s аХЩСάШХЪС, was the final date that

was set, however, prior to this he had set a time somewhere in
1843 (More detail, regarding this will be given later on).
Included in this prophetic period was a 7 weeks x 7yrs (49 years), a 62
weeks x 7yrs (434 years) and a 1 week (7yrs), divided into two
3 ½ year periods. Th ese periods, when added together,
made
up the 490 years period which ended in the fall of 34 A.D., when
Stephen was stoned (the middle point of the 7 years was Christ’s
crucifixion in 31 A.D.). An additional period of 1810 years (a
time-frame not specifically alluded to in Scripture, was added
to the 457 year period, bringing Miller to the fall of 1844
A.D. It might be mentioned that a prophetic period
(specified in Daniel and Revelation), fits in the 1810 year
period, commencing in 538 A.D. and ending in 1898 A.D., when
Napolean’s General, Berthier, took the Pope captive.
More will be said regarding the details of the
fulfillment/non-fulfillment of these prophecies and the effect
they had on the people who were exposed to Miller’s teaching—at
that time and later on—in particular its effect on Ellen
White and the SDA Church’s perspective regarding it. Right
now, I just want to continue giving a basic outline for the
purpose of my hypothesisΔ
In 1831, as soon as Miller resigned from his Masonic Lodge
and after receiving what he claimed to be a strong impression
from God, he ЬбОШХПШе commenced preaching and publishing
article’s (the first article was published on May 15th, 1832) about
his findings and that Christ’s return was imminent (1843 was
the first date he came to, based on his calculation—‘Memoirs of
William Miller,’ Sylvester Bliss, Joshua V. Himes, 1853,
p.98-100).
A significant article, published by the Brandon,
Vermont, Telegraph Office in 1833, encapsulated the thrust of
Miller’s message in the title: “Evidences from Scripture and
History of the Second Coming of Christ, about the year 1843; and of
His Personal Reign of One Th ousand Years. By William Miller.”

397
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

A few years after commencing his preaching, Miller wrote a

letter to a Brother Hendryx in which he compared the apathy of
the churches to the response of the people when John the Baptist
preached about the 1st coming of Christ. He went on, using
the parable of the Bridegroom and the 10 virgins—behold the
bridegroom cometh—to emphasize his point and declared, “yet
you cry, a little more sleep, a little more slumber…” He included
this declaration: “Th e evidence is so clear, the testimony so
strong, that we live on the eve of the present dispensation,
towards the dawn of the glorious day, that I wonder why
ministers and people do not wake up and trim their lamps.” 23
From 1831, for twelve years, Miller preached an emphatic,
uncompromising message that Christ would return and that the
world WOULD come to an end, in final destruction, in 1843.
In spite of the apparent indifference, thousands did respond to
his message. Indeed, as time passed, other preachers joined in
spreading the message across the land. One of these was another
speaker who rose to prominence, Joshua V. Himes, one of the men
who later became author of his Memoirs.
Miller was hard pressed to give an EXACT date, something
he claimed he was reticent to do. However, under pressure to
do so and on the basis of his calculations, he came up with the
following dates: “I believe the time can be known by all who
desire to understand and to be ready for His coming. And I am
fully convinced that sometime between March 21st, 1843 and
March 21st, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation
of time, Christ will come…” 24
In the year 1843 he wrote a letter to “Believers,” that stated:
“Dear Brethren, This year, according to our faith, is the last year
that Satan will reign in our earth. Jesus Christ will come and
bruise his head. The kingdom of the earth will be dashed to
pieces, which is the same thing. And he, whose right it is to reign,
will take the kingdom and possess it forever and ever.” 25

398
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Many Bible scholar’s of the period wrote articles repudiating

Miller’s conclusions. Debate was rampant and some were accusing
Miller of contradicting established Protestant views of prophecy.
One side challenged him on his sources for historical dates. Th
e
other side, even though they did not agree with Miller, did not
either agree with his critics on the opposing side. A definite
controversy, building to a shaking and rupture in the Churches
of North America in particular, was on the horizon. 26
However, the year 1843 came and went and Christ did not
return. The disappointment was great for those who believed. The
skeptics of course had a field-day—that which they doubted, for
whatever reason or motivation they had, was proven correct.
In responseΑ new dates were set (there was still the summer
of 1844 that Miller’s original calculations extended to), but the
pressure was on to be even more specific. Fanaticism of various
kinds began erupting everywhere. Seers and prophets, receiving
dreams and visions, fanatical, ecstatic worship experiences,
accompanied by all kinds of strange doctrine found its way into
the Millerite “Advent Movement.” The Summer of 1843 passed
and another disappointment engulfed the Millerite followers—
Christ did not come. Another date began to gain popularity, based
on a reassessment of the prophecies and historical evidence. It
commenced in the fall of 457 B.C. and extended for the 2300 year
period to the fall of 1844 A.D., ultimately pinpointed, to October
22nd, of that yearΔ
The cry went out again. “Christ is returning, the bridegroom
cometh! The world will end, be ready!” With an exact date on the
cards and a new seemingly fool-proof reassessment of Daniel’s
2300 day/year prophecy, people responded in their thousands.
Many either removed their membership from existing churches
or were disfellowshipped for causing РХЯЯСЪЯХЫЪ and spreading
false doctrine. As the time grew nearer, believers sold their
property, resigned their jobs and, when the day finally arrived,
some even dressed themselves in white ascension robes. Miller

399
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

condemned many of these fanatical approaches but nonetheless

stuck to his belief that Christ was about to return.
October 22nd, 1844 arrived. Nothing happened—Christ did
not come. Not even the slightest manifestation, somewhere on
planet earth, to indicate that at least SOME major event, to mark
the end of scriptures longest time prophecy, had taken place—
nothing! TIe day came and went like any other day before it,
insignificant in any observable historical, prophetic senseΔ
Ironically, unlike just about every major event on the prophetic
calendar that would have a profound effect on humanity, Miller’s
event did not reveal itself in any visible, tangible way on earth.
Incredibly, this event, vital though it was claimed to be, right
near the close of human history, gave NO indication that it had
actually occurred.
Protestant America would NEVER be the same again (during
the time of Miller’s message and after). Movements, religious sub-
cultures, new church denominations, some of whom completely
rejected the old Protestant churches, calling them Babylon, began
rising up everywhere. Prophets and spiritual leaders, such as
Joseph Smith, Ellen White and many others, became the “gurus” of
the movements they represented. Some of these new movements,
once they had been around for a while, splintered into other
ЪСгСЮ
movements, and the glueΑ that at least to some degree had
bound the collective, spiritual identity of this Judeo-Christian,
Protestant nation, rapidly melted into the mystified, perplexed,
bewildered communal, religious pond that was to become the
new religious awakening of 19th Century AmericaΔ
During the loud-cry of Miller’s message, which began in 1831,
fanaticism began to replace the old religious order—especially
in the North where Miller’s message was received most readily.
“Miller Mania,” as some called it gripped the religious community.
Men and woman began receiving visions and making predictions
(besides people such as Foss and Foye). Many of those, not caught
up in the movement, considered the Millerites to be insane

400
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

because of some of the strange ОСФНвХЫЮ accompanying their

meetings. Indeed, many newspapers, such as the Signal of Liberty,
which published an article on the Millerites on Friday, October
25th, 1844, described some alarming events that took place at
certain meetings. One person described the scene on entering a
gathering: “I entered and found about thirty people present, and a
man of about 30 years, seated in the middle of the room, a perfect
lunatic. He was making violent contortions with his body, and
swelling himself up, as he pretended, to inhale the divine spirit of
the Lord…” (see the newspaper article in the picture section at
the end of this chapter)Δ
As if these manifestations of lunatic behavior were not
enough, there were, post the disappointment of October 22nd, a
number of “insanity” cases and suicides reported. The Daily Argus,
of Portland Maine reported on October 24th, 1844 (pg. 2) that in
Boston: “a warrant was granted on application by the Municipal
Court, to covey Mrs. Abigail Shepherd, a young married
woman, to the Worcester Insane Hospital. It appeared that she
had been listening to the Miller doctrines, and had become
perfectly demented.”
On the 25th (p. 3) the same paper reported a “respectable
citizen” had “cut his throat.” He “became insane by means of the
Miller delusion…” The article reported that a “young man by the
name of Kelp… committed suicide.” Like the others, he had been
“infatuated with the Millerite delusion.” He had become “insane”
and was confined to his house till he escaped and threw himself
into the “Niagara River.”
According to the same article, another man, by the name of
“Moses Clark… fell into the miserable delusion of Millerism…
he was highly respected in his town.” However, after the
disappointment, he “committed suicide by drowning himself.”
On November 5th, 1844 (pg. 5), the same paper stated that
two Millerite preachers “Brother Himes and Storrs” (Himes was a
co-author miller’s Memiors) had given up the Millerite “delusion.”

401
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Apparently, “on Tuesday evening in the Millerite Church on the

corner of Christie and Delaney Streets, Mr. Storrs publicly
recanted his egregious folly and madness in the matter of the
second advent. He said he had been led astray by excitement and
deceived by mesmerism and now most penitently acknowledged
his manifold sins and wickedness…”
Throughout the later years of the 18th Century, the early
19th Century, the time of the Millerite movement, the Great
Disappointment of 1844 and beyond, a spiritual awakening was
taking place in America, in two phases. What is known as the
First Great Awakening which was manifest in the Old World/
Europe as well, took place in 18th Century America, particularly
post the American RevolutionΔ
In America, the Church of England lost popularity, due to
a natural suspicion of Britain after the war and because of the
desire to escape a church institution that was controlled by the
state. Likewise, because of its Religio-political nature, Catholicism,
continued to be held in suspicion by a religious awakening
whose core beliefs were still deeply rooted in Protestantism—a
faith system whose birth was based on anti-Catholic sentiment,
a system that had found freedom of religious expression in the
New World. During this time, from around the start of the 19th
Century, the Second Great Awakening began. Christianity started
taking root in new areas, and especially during the 1830’s to
40’s and beyond, a “New Protestantism” began to develop—an
extension of the Second Great AwakeningΔ
A number of these new Protestant movements were initiated
by charismatic personalities claiming the prophetic gift whose
teachings, although divergent from old-school Protestantism,
still retained some of its fundamental elementsΔ
Two of the most notable movements were Mormonism
(springing up prior to 1844), with Joseph Smith as prophet and
spiritual guide and the Advent Movement, an outgrowth of the
Millerite movement (Adventists), thus named because their belief

402
 T HE W HI TE E LEPH AN T

JO
$ISJTUT
JNNJOFOU
SFUVSO
6OEFS
UIF
QSPQIFUJD
MFBEFSTIJQ
PG

&MMFO
(PVME
8IJUF)BSNPO
BMPOH
XJUI
+BNFT
8IJUF
)JSBN

&ETPO
+PTFQI
#BUFT

BOE
PUIFS
JOEJWJEVBMT
MFGU
PWFS
GSPN
UIF

.JMMFSJUF
.PWFNFOU
UIJT
HSPVQ
HSFX
JOUP
XIBU
XBT
VMUJNBUFMZ
UP

CFDPNF
UIF
4FWFOUIEBZ
"EWFOUJTU
EFOPNJOBUJPO
-BUFS
PO
XIBU
XBT

UP
CFDPNF
UIF
$IVSDI
PG
(PE
4FWFOUI
%BZ

BOE
+FIPWBIT

8JUOFTT
CSPLF
BXBZ
BOE
GPSNFE
UIFJS
PXO
CSBOE
PG
/FP
1SPUFTUBOU
GBJUI





$MFBSMZ
XIFUIFS
JU
XBT
BO
JOUFOUJPOBM
QMBO
PS
TJNQMZ
UIF
OBUVSBM

DPVSTF
PG
UIJOHT
1SPUFTUBOUJTN
JO
B
WFSZ
TJHOJGJDBOU

XBZ
CFDBNF
TQMJOUFSFE
BOE
GBDUJPOBMJ[FE
JO
/PSUI
"NFSJDB

5IF
"NFSJDBO
$JWJM
8BS
DBNF
BMPOH
BU
B
WFSZ
DSJUJDBM
UJNF
BOE

BMTP
DPOUSJCVUFE
UP
UIFTF
GMFEHMJOH
HSPVQT
IBWJOH
UP
NBLF

DIPJDFT
TPNFUJNFT
CBEMZ
UIPVHIU
PVU
BOE
JMMBEWJTFE
BCPVU

XIBU
UIFZ
XPVME
EFDJEF
SFHBSEJOH
NJMJUBSZ
TFSWJDF
GPS
UIFJS

DPVOUSZ
BOE
XIBU
LJOE
PG
JOWPMWFNFOU
UIFZ
XPVME
IBWF
JO

QPMJUJDBM
BGGBJST
5IJT
QFSJPE
XBT
B
UJNF
PG
DPOUSPWFSTZ

BOE
FYUSFNF
SFBDUJPOT
*OEFFE
FYUSFNF
TJUVBUJPOT
QPMJUJDBMMZ

BOE
TQJSJUVBMMZ
XFSF
UIF
PSEFS
PG
UIF
EBZ

"T
JG
UIF
QBSUJUJPOJOH
PG
1SPUFTUBOUJTN
XBT
OPU

FOPVHI
4QJSJUVBMJTN
CFHBO
UP
HBJO
QPQVMBSJUZ
QSPNPUFE
CZ
TVDI

QSPNJOFOU
GJHVSFT
BT
3VTTJBO
QTZDIJD
.BEBNF
)FMFOB
1FUSPWOB

#MBWBETLZ
BOE
UIF
TUSBOHF
SBQQJOH
FYQFSJFODFE
CZ
UIF
'PY
4JTUFST

0O
UPQ
PG
UIJT
KVTU
UP
BEE
FYUSB
GVFM
UP
UIF
EJMFNNB
GBDJOH

#JCMFCBTFE
1SPUFTUBOUJTN
%BSXJO
QVCMJTIFE
IJT
CPPL
0SJHJO
PG

4QFDJFT
JO
‰JOTQJSJOH
TFSJPVT
EFCBUF
PO
UIF
(FOFTJT

BDDPVOU
PG
B
MJUFSBM
TJYEBZ
DSFBUJPO
XFFL‰FYUSFNFT
BCPVOEFE

*U
XPVME
CF
IBSE
OPU
UP
JNBHJOF
UIBU
3PNF
XIP
CBTFE
PO
IFS

PXO
UFTUJNPOZ
XBT
TFFLJOH
UP
HBJO
QSPNJOFODF
JO
"NFSJDB

XPVME
OPU
UISPVHI
IFS
XFC
PG
TFDSFU
TPDJFUJFT
UBLF
BEWBOUBHF
PG

UIJT
TUBUF
PG
BGGBJST
*U
XBT
B
QFSGFDU
FOWJSPONFOU
UP
QVU
UIF

)FHFMJBO
%JBMFDUJD
JOUP
QSBDUJDF‰UIFTJT
BOUJUIFTJT
TZOUIFTJT
*O

TJNQMF
UFSNT
UIJT
NFBOU
UBLJOH
FYUSFNF
DPOEJUJPOT
UIBU
XFSF

FJUIFS
DSFBUFE
PS
UIF
OBUVSBM
SFTVMU
PG
DJSDVNTUBODFT
BOE
UIFO

GVTJOH
VOJGZJOH

UIFN
UP
DSFBUF
UIF
TJUVBUJPO
CFTU
TVJUFE
UP

GVSUIFSJOH
IFS
VMUJNBUF
BHFOEB‰UIF
TZOUIFTJT

403
B
r i a n N
e u m a
n n

To be sure, according to evidence, said to be from Abraham

Lincoln’s own pen, the American Civil War, “would never have
been possible without the sinister influence of t he
Jesuits. We
owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the
blood of our noblest sons.” 27
Regarding the agenda of Rome, Lincoln went on to say: “so
long as they tell me through all their councils, theologians and
cannon laws, that their conscience orders them to burn my wife,
strangle my children, and cut my throat when they find their
opportunity,” that he could not trust them. His hope was that,
“sooner or later, the light of common sense will make it clear to
everyone that no liberty of conscience can be granted to men who
are sworn to obey a Pope, who pretends to have the right to put
to death those who differ from him in religion.”28
Whether it was deliberate or not, whether he was an “insider-
mason,” used by Jesuit controllers, the end-result of Miller’s
end-time prediction helped to create a breeding ground for
radical responses. In light of the foregoing speculation, it is not
insignificant that Miller actually taught that the U.S.A. was the
666 beast of Revelation 13:18, as recorded by Le Roy Edwin Froom
in Vol. 4, p. 1061 of Th e Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (1950).
Again, I would like to remind the reader that what I postulated in
my hypothesis concerning Miller is not entirely based on
fiction. Although I cannot judge Miller’s motives or know for
certain that he was involved in a larger conspiracy to destroy
υЮЫаСЯаНЪа
ζЩСЮХПНΑ
ξ
ПНЪ
ЯНе
аФНа
Ще
ФеЬЫаФСЯХЯ
ХЯ
ОНЯСР
ЫЪ
аФС
ЮСПЫЮР

ЫТ
НПабНШ
ФХЯаЫЮе

НЪР
ψιζ
ПЫЪЯЬХЮНПе
аФСЫЮеΔ

TIe Prophet Explains
βββ

Ellen White, in the book Early Writings (p.236-239), based on
special insights she claims God gave her, describes what happened
during the period of Miller’s end-time message being delivered and
the multiple disappointments that culminated with the final one of
October 22, 1844.
She
even describes the
very motives
and
intents

404
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

of the hearts of the peopleΒ believers and unbelievers who

reacted to the events, or as the case may be, non-events that
transpired or did not transpire. Besides applying the parable of
the ten virgins, particularly the cry, “behold the Bridegroom cometh,”
she uses other scriptures, such as the first and second angel’s
messages of Revelation 14, as supporting evidence, that when
properly evaluated, are not applicable at all. She also applied the
declaration, “Babylon is fallen,” to the churches/world that had
refused to join or who mocked the faithful believers. We will
evaluate Ellen White’s description shortly, however, one aspect of
her account is accurate and validates what I have already said—
fracture, suspicion, controversy, uncertainty, unbelief and
disappointment were all fruits of these events. Elements
needed for division were certainly manifest in abundance.
Some simple, glaringly obvious facts, that cannot be escaped,
no matter how one “slices the pie,” remain. Even if Miller was
correct in his evaluation of the 2300 years, the start and end date,
which most Bible scholars, other than SDA’s do not agree with (a
number of SDA scholars do not even agree), he was emphatically
wrong in the most critical aspect of his message—the actual
event that was to occurΔ
It was this aspect of Miller’s message that for the average
person was most significant. Indeed, it was the declaration, “behold
the Bridegroom cometh,” announcing the return of Christ, along
with the fact that an actual time had been calculated, that really hit
home and caused people to sit up and take notice. One major reason
was that people were amazed that the time-frame for this event
ПЫбШР even be known. When this message was first declared,
prior to the first disappointment, not to mention the two that would
follow, it was not even a consideration that perhaps something
else invisible, unseen and unknown by humanity, might happen
instead. Th e most momentous thing, not that the interpretation of
the time prophecy itself was insignificant, was the ЩСЯЯНУС: “THE
END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND!”

405
B
r i a n N
e u m a
n n

Regardless of what their motive might have been, people

reacted to this—it was a compelling message. Th ose who were
more critical and who knew what Christ Himself had said
regarding this event, countered with: “No man knoweth the day nor the
hour” (Matthew 24:36). Ellen White ascribes the motive of
mockery and scoffing to these detractors.29 However, based on the
evidence of Scripture they were most certainly correct. Th ose
who mocked and scoffed Noah, for example, who preached the
end of the world, were wrong on two counts: they were wrong
because of the hardness of their hearts towards God and they
were wrong for not believing the prediction. A prophecy was
made and they chose not to believe the prophet, even after the
evidence of the animals filing into the ark. Th e result, they were all
lost.
Miller preached the end of the world and gave a time-frame,
based on what he interpreted the scriptures to mean and it did
NOT happen. In fact, clear scriptural evidence did exist that
said no one could know the time. Could people, regardless of
their personal motivation (which only Ellen White seemed
capable of judging accurately), be blamed for not believing
Miller? He was wrong, not only once, not merely twice, but
three times! Talk about a real-life “Cry Wolf
” scenario…
It might not be a commendable thing to mock and scoff,
this is true. Yet, the history of events that surrounded these
disappointments, even based on Ellen White’s account, testifies
to the fact that, little wonder, with each disappointment the
skepticism and antagonism grew.
TIis cannot be compared to the antediluvian situation, which
Christ, in Matthew 24, compared to his second coming—Noah
preached and it DID happen! Miller preached and it did NOT
happen! What other kind of reaction could any logical human
being expect!? It is true, when the end of the world DOES
come, there will be mockers and scoffers then too.
Scripture
predicts this. Peter (1 Peter 3:3-7) uses the analogy of the
flood to make this point—rightfully so.

However,
when
the
end

406
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ιτκψ
ПЫЩСΑ
like a “thief in the night” (1 Th essalonians 5:2), it

WILL come! Understandably, it might be said that Paul says,
“ye brethren, are not in darkness that that day should overtake
you as a thief.” Of course, Paul would not contradict Christ,
so plainly when one considers the context of Paul’s statement
in 1 Th essalonians 5:4, then it becomes quite obvious what point
he is trying to make.
He says to believers, in verse 2, that they know that that “day”
will come as a “thief in the night.” In verse 3 he makes it clear
that the unbelievers will be surprised by that “day” because they
think that things will be peaceful and safe. However, Paul was
not implying that the believers would know the time/day or
hour of Christ’s return. Th e day would still come as a thief
or surprise but they, the believers, will be prepared because they
are not deceived by the message that the world declares and are
thus ready, whether they know the time of Christ’s return or not.
At this point, it might be worthwhile quoting and evaluating
some of Ellen White’s insights. She claimed that God Himself
covered a mistake in the “reckoning periods.” It was His plan,
according to her, to “prove” the people. 30 She said:
God designed that His people should meet with a disappointment.
The time passed, and those who had looked with joyful expectation
for their Saviour were sad and disheartened, while those who
had not loved the appearing of Jesus, but embraced the message
through fear, were pleased that He did not come at the time of
expectation. Their profession had not affected the heart and puri-
fied the life. The passing of the time was well calculated to reveal
such hearts. 32

So, it would appear that God intentionally created a situation

where disinformation would be promulgatedΒ information that
literally contradicted Scripture. TФen, when people did not
believe it or reacted negatively to it, when things did not occur as
“HIS” messenger predictedΑ they were, in effect, judged
unworthy. In fact, ultimately, they were adjudged to be “fallen
Babylon,”

placing
themselves

in
a
position where they
would not

407
B
r i a n N
e u m a
n n

ОС
НОШС
аЫ
see the light of the “second angel’s message” when it

came. Th
e “righteous,” however, clung to the hope and left the
churches.32
Something very interesting is the fact that the
watchword message was, “behold the Bridegroom cometh!” It needs
to be borne in mind that the very reason for using this message
was because Miller and others that proclaimed it knew,
according to the scriptural evidence, that this parable of Christ
was an analogy for the second coming. Indeed, the additional
message they added, also part of the parable, was: “go ye out to
meet Him!”
5Iis is how Ellen White describes it:

Ε
ξ
ФСНЮР
аФС
вЫХПСЯ
ЫТ
НЪУСШЯ
ПЮеХЪУΑ
ΜηСФЫШРΑ
аФС
ηЮХРСУЮЫЫЩ

ПЫЩСаФΒ
УЫ
еС
Ыба
аЫ
ЩССа
νХЩΔΝ

Th is was the midnight cry,
which was to give power to the second angel’s
message. Angels were sent from heaven to arouse the
discouraged saints and prepare them for the great work
before them. TФe most talented men were not the first to
receive this message [Miller, however, was among
those who were educated and talented]. Angels
were sent to the humble, devoted ones, and constrained
them to raise the cry, “Behold, the Bridegroom
cometh; go ye out to meet Him!” Th ose entrusted with
the cry made haste, and in the power of the Holy
Spirit sounded the message, and aroused their discouraged
brethren. Th
is work did not stand in the wis-dom
and learning of men, but in the power of God, and His
saints who heard the cry could not resist it. Th
e most
spiritual received this message first, and those who
had formerly led in the work were the last to receive
and help swell the cry, “Behold, the Bridegroom
cometh; go ye out to meet Him!” 33

Th e parable of the ten virgins is found in the book of Matthew

(Matthew 25:1-13).
Th e context clearly reveals that this parable
was a parallel for the second coming of Christ—a specific lesson vis-
à-vis this event. Christ describes scoffers as saying, “My lord
delayeth his coming,” in reference to the second coming in
Chapter 24:48, a few verses before the parable of the virgins.

TIis
attitude


was

the

same
attitude

Peter

used

with


reference

to

408
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

end-time scoffers. As already stated, Miller used this parable and

its message correctly because he believed, albeit wrongfully, that
Christ WAS going to come—for sure!
Incredibly, Ellen White ignores the scriptural context, and
applies the message to Christ passing from the Holy to the Most
Holy in the heavenly sanctuary, to commence the start of the
investigative judgment. I will discuss the question of Christ’s
movement in the sanctuary shortlyΔ
Equally incredible is the fact that Ellen white actually claims
that angels were part of the disinformation strategy. They were
crying: “Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him.” Of
course, no other human ears other than Ellen White’s, were privy
to the angels crying out, and, if in fact they were making this
declaration, they did not apply it as Christ did in the original
context of the parable but were rather announcing that Jesus was
moving from one room to the next in the heavenly sanctuary.
However, it would seem that even though no human ears
heard the angels, these heavenly beings were sent to arouse the
saints (inspire them and strengthen them) for the “great work
before them,” oblivious of what was really going to happen. Still,
they were going to be aroused to the task of echoing the same
declaration: “Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him!”
And so, under the power/arousal, given of God, these people
went out to call multitudes to meet the bridegroom, in the full
belief, based on the clear biblical context of that call, that the
message they were giving was a call to prepare for the actual
second coming of Christ and the end of the world. The picture that
unfolds is this: God and the heavenly host are declaring a message, the
meaning of which THEY are fully aware. The people, God’s servants,
are being inspired and strengthened, by God and the heavenly hosts/
angels, to give the identical message, with no idea, in spite of THEIR
correct application of this biblical refrain that THEY do not even know
what their declaration really refers to. One expression describing
the scene immediately springs to mind: BIZARRE!

409
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Mrs. White claims that those with “wisdom” and “learning”

did not get the message and that it was those who had “formerly
led in the work” that ended up being the last to receive and help
spread the message. Th e “humble, devoted” and “most
spiritual,” were the ones who received and first proclaimed it.
Could it be perhaps, that the people who once “led out in the
work” (obviously the work of the gospel) were applying the Scripture
contextually and were rightly, fully aware that it was wrong to call
people to meet Christ at His second coming while declaring a very
specific time-frame in which this would happen? If so, were they
wrong or deceived in coming to this conclusion? Were the “humble
devoted” ones perhaps so caught up in the emotion of the message
that they simply could not see the forest for the trees—the clear
scriptural evidence that contradicted what they SO badly wanted
to believe was true? Which class was really deceived?
The Bible declares that the way to test if a message is from
God or not is by the “law and the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20), all
of the scriptures. It also says: “When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that
[is] the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, [but] the prophet
hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him”
(Deuteronomy 18:22).
Miller might not have been a prophet, however he DID
“prophesy” and predict. His message, notwithstanding the fact that
he might at least partially have correctly interpreted Scripture, was
tested by other Bible scholars (students of the Word), according
to the scriptural standard and found to be inconsistent with what
it revealed. Even though they might not have been able to come
up with another “better” way of interpreting the 2300 day/year
prophecy (at least the time aspect of it), they could not apply it
to the second coming of Christ. The simple reason being that
Scripture DID clearly indicate that no human being COULD
know the time. Bear in mind, by the time 1844 came along, a
definite day, month and year had been set. Of course, as usual,

410
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

at least so it would seem, Ellen White knew what motivated the

hearts of the people who did not accept Miller’s message:
…the great mass manifested the spirit of Satan in their opposi-
tion to the message. They mocked and scoffed, repeating every-
where, “No man knoweth the day nor the hour.” Evil angels
urged them on to harden their hearts and to reject every ray
of light from heaven, that they might be fastened in the snare
of Satan. Many who professed to be looking for Christ had
no part in the work of the message. The glory of God which
they had witnessed, the humility and deep devotion of the
waiting ones, and the overwhelming weight of evidence,
caused them to profess to receive the truth; but they had not
been converted; they were not ready for the coming of their
Lord. 34

A few things become painfully clear when reading this.

Indeed, when one chooses not to judge the hearts and motives of
the people, the FACTS become obvious.
FACT 1: The Bible DOES say: “No man knoweth the day
nor the hour.” This is a simple fact. Even if a devil made
this statement, it still remains a biblical fact. Like when
the demons declared Christ to be who he was—they were
demons, true, but what they said was FACT.

FACT 2: Regardless of what might have motivated some

people who were simply “professing” to follow the “truth,”
the FACT remains: firstly, it was NOT the truth. The mes-
sage to go and meet Christ because He was coming and
the world was going to end on October 22nd, 1844, was
a lie—not even supported by Scripture. They were NOT
ready to meet “their Lord” because the simple FACT is,
CHRIST WAS NOT COMINGήperiod.

Some might be tempted to deal in semantics and argue that it

was later revealed by Ellen White that Christ DID come (in an
invisible coming), into the most holy and that they were NOT

411
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

ready to meet Him when He arrived there. Anybody with a

modicum of logic should be able to see how senseless this line of
reasoning is. SDA’s, who try to point out the unbiblical, senseless
teaching of the secret rapture, should consider how equally senseless
and scripturally baseless Christ’s “invisible” 1844 coming is. The
simple FACT is that Ellen White’s sanctuary message (holy to
most holy) is NOT the message they were given and asked to
believe at the time before October 22nd, 1844. The URGENT
message given at the time was that the bridegroom was coming
on the clouds of heaven and that the world was going to end—
there was NO second option on what to believe! Indeed, not even
the so-called devoted and waiting ones (the wise virgins) were
any the “wiser” to what they were actually “waiting” for. They,
like the “foolish” ones were also waiting for the second coming
of Christ and the end of the world. Indeed, the “foolish” ones
seemed to have had it more right than the “wise”—nothing was
going to happenΖ
Only AFTER October 22nd, 1844, AFTER the Bridegroom,
as claimed by Hiram Edson and endorsed by Ellen White,
allegedly entered the most holy, AFTER HE HAD purportedly
come, did anyone know what supposedly had happened! The cry:
“Go ye out to meet him!” was redundant—they were meeting Him
for totally the wrong reason! How could anyone, wise or foolish,
go out to meet the Bridegroom when, by the time they even had
an inkling of what had happened, He had ALREADY arrived?
The distinction, in the parable that Christ told, was that
both the foolish and wise virgins knew EXACTLY what event
they were expecting. The only difference was that five of them
missed out on it. On the other hand, in the case of the great
disappointment, it would appear that NO ONE had ANY idea at
all what was really going to happen and thus missed it, regardless
of whether they were wise OR foolish! Bizarre indeed!
The question begs to be asked: is it in the character of a merciful,
fair, honest God to purposefully allow people to be deceived into

412
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

believing a lie (God and His angels being actively involved in

covering up the truth)? Then, when on the basis of SCRIPTURAL
evidence, people reject the message, to accuse them of allowing
“evil angels to harden their hearts,” not to the truth but to a
lie?! By any standard, in view of all the facts surrounding this
whole debacle, if it was as Ellen White said, then should this
not be branded as entrapment—a snare of the highest degree,
commissioned by Highest Decree—an edict of deceit that was
framed by God Himself
? Absolute drivel could not reach a more
sublime level of absurdity than is propagated via Ellen White’s
account of what was “really” going on in the build-up to October
22nd, 1844. Yet, her description of what Christ “really” was doing
in heaven and the implications of that event for those here on
earth, believers and unbelievers alike, in light of clear, down-to-
earth scriptural proof, elevates the ridiculous to the altitude of
absolutely preposterous—undeniably, a GREAT disappointment
of enormous consequence.

Hiram Edson
To get a proper understanding of how the Great Disappointment
morphed into the Sanctuary doctrine of the SDA Church, one
needs to learn about the experience of one, Hiram Edson.
Hiram was one of the brethren who had been part of the
Millerite, Advent message. He believed that he had been given
power to heal the sick and had brought many to Christ through his
preaching prior to October 22nd, 1844. On the morning following
the disappointment (October 23rd), after a night of weeping and
feelings of great loss, Edson and his friends walked through the
cornfield on his farm to meet with and encourage other believers.
Th
ey chose this route because they wanted to avoid the mocking
jeers of the ЪСХУФОЫЮЯ who had not accepted the Advent message.
While walking through the field, Hiram apparently received
a ЮСвСШНаХЫЪ from God. TIis is how he described the experienceΓ

413
Brian Neumann

We started, and while passing through a large field I was

stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed opened to
my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our
High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly
sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the sev-
enth month, at the end of the 2300 days, He for the first time
entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary;
and that He had a work to perform in the Most Holy Place
before coming to the earth. 35

He shared this вХСг with the other believers. Upon hearing this they
were encouraged because it gave them a desperately needed
explanation for why Christ had not returned to earth. Edson, on
the inspiration of this vision, started studying the Bible with O.R.L.
Crosier and Franklin B. Hahn, two other believers, and started
formulating their ideas regarding all that had taken place. TIey
studied the parable of the ten virgins, which had been the
rallying cry for Miller’s message—especially the part that dealt
with the Bridegroom’s “delay.” TФey also studied the Jewish Day
of Atonement celebration/feast-day and came up with their
chronology of events. ηНЯСР
ЫЪ
аФСЯС
ЯабРХСЯΑ
аФСе explained the
sanctuary in heaven and how that Christ had moved from the
holy to the most holy to commence His work of cleansing the
sanctuary. TIis, according to them, was what Daniel was
referring to in Daniel 8:14, when he said that unto “2300 days”
the sanctuary would be cleansed. Crosier published the account
of Edson’s vision and this came into the possession of James
White and Joseph Bates. After reading the paper, Bates visited Edson
in New York and converted him to the seventh-day Sabbath.
According to Ellen White’s grandson, Arthur L. White, Ellen,
still Ellen Harmon at the time, received a vision somewhere
between the winter and spring of 1845 regarding the sanctuary.
Somewhere during this time she also met James White (who had
read a copy of Edson’s vision), in Orrington. He joined her and
her woman аЮНвСШХЪУ companion as they continued their ministry.

414
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It was also during this time that the events in Atkinson, with
Israel Dammon and the ensuing court-case transpired (discussed
in an earlier chapter). Arthur claims that “she knew nothing about”
Hiram’s vision at the time she received her revelation on the
sanctuary. This cannot be substantiated either way except for
the fact that she received this vision at the time she met James
White, during the time she very specifically spoke of salvation
being passed for sinners (the shut door concepts) during the
Israel Dammon meetings in Atkinson (February 1845)Δ
It seems almost certain though, based on the dates, that either
she read the article of Hiram’s vision (in which he speaks of a
“shut door”) or that she received her own sanctuary vision, prior
to February (very early in her travels through Main). During the
Dammon experience in Atkinson, which was early February, she
is quoted by witnesses in the Dammon trial as having referred to
the shut door a number of times. The exact time-frames are not
easy to determine. What can be certain however, discussed in an
earlier chapter in fair detail, is what Ellen White’s teaching on
the sanctuary was all about. Based upon the record of her visions,
her view of what happened at the close of the 2300 years/days and
how it relates to the sanctuary in heaven, can be easily outlined.
In the book “The Great Controversy,” she starts off the chapter,
“In the Holy of Holies,” by saying that: “The subject of the sanctuary
was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of
1844.” 36 She wrote on p. 426 of the later edition of this book that:
The coming of Christ as our high priest to the most holy place,
for the cleansing of the sanctuary, brought to view in Dan.
8:14; the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of days, as
presented in Dan. 7:13; and the coming of the Lord to his
temple, foretold by Malachi, are descriptions of the same
event; and this is also represented by the coming of the bride-
groom to the marriage, described by Christ in the parable of
the ten virgins, of Matthew 25.37

415
B
r i a n N
e u m a
n n

It has already been shown earlier in this chapter that the

parable of the virgins, according to Christ’s own account, is an
analogy for the second coming. Th
e coming of the Lord to His
temple, as foretold in Malachi 3:1-3, 5 and the continuation of
that which was foretold culminate in verse 18 in God discerning
between the righteous and the wicked and the final annihilation of
the wicked in chapter 4:1. What Malachi says does not
necessarily compliment Ellen White’s description.
She often assigns scripture to events or ideas that are not
related. Such as the judgment scene of Daniel 7:9-14 as a
description of Christ moving into the most holy in 1844, for the
start of the investigative judgment. However, when one reads the
interpretation of this scene from verse 15-18 and also verse 26, 27,
it gives no indication that this is a description of heavenly events
in 1844. In fact, the language regarding the destruction of the
beast and the possession of the kingdom by the saints seem to
parallel the stone kingdom that destroys the feet of iron and clay
in Daniel 2, the destruction of the Babylonian whore in Revelation
18 and Christ’s final judgment and conquest in Revelation 19.
Whichever way one looks at it, the scriptures that Ellen White
claims were fulfilled in 1844, seem to more accurately fit the time
of Christ’s second coming. There is simply no unquestionable
way of concretely proving that these things have anything to do
with 1844. Of course, these comments by Ellen White are not
the summation of her revelations regarding the “real” events of
1844. She offers a more comprehensive application of the parable
of the virgins as further evidence:
In the summer and autumn of 1844, the proclamation,
“Behold, the Bridegroom cometh,” was given. The two classes
represented by the wise and foolish virgins were then devel-
oped,—one class who looked with joy to the Lord’s appearing,
and who had been diligently preparing to meet him; another
class that, influenced by fear, and acting from impulse, had
been satisfied with a theory of the truth, but were destitute of

416
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

аФС
УЮНПС
ЫТ
μЫРΔ
ξЪ
аФС
ЬНЮНОШСΑ
гФСЪ
аФС
ОЮХРСУЮЫЫЩ
ПНЩСΑ

ΜаФСе
аФНа
гСЮС
ЮСНРе
гСЪа
ХЪ
гХаФ
ФХЩ
аЫ
аФС
ЩНЮЮХНУСΔΝ
ӕӛ
As already commented on, this parable is a metaphor for
the second coming of Christ (this is exactly the application
Miller used). Th us, to get around the statement of
Matthew 25:10 where Christ says, “they that were ready went in
with him to the marriage,” Ellen White resorts to some fancy
exegetical footwork. Th is is because nobody, not even in their
imaginations, really WENT anywhere at all. Indeed,
NOTHING happened to offer ANY tangible/visible evidence
that a GREAT prophetic event, the longest prophetic time-
frame, had occurred. Th is is Ellen White’s explanation:

At the appointed time the Bridegroom came, not to the earth,

as the people expected, but to the Ancient of days in Heaven
[she is here referring to Daniel 7:13], to the marriage, the
reception of his kingdom. “They that were ready went in with
him to the marriage, and the door was shut.” They were not
to be present in person at the marriage; for it takes place
in Heaven, while they are upon the earth. The followers of
Christ are to “wait for their Lord, when he will return from
the wedding.” [LUKE 12:36.] But they are to understand
his work, and to follow him by faith as he goes in before God.
It is in this sense that they are said to go in to the marriage.
In the parable it was those that had oil in their vessels
with their lamps that went in to the marriage. Those who,
with a knowledge of the truth from the Scriptures, had also
the Spirit and grace of God, and who, in the night of their
bitter trial, had patiently waited, searching the Bible for
clearer light,—these saw the truth concerning the sanctuary
in Heaven and the Saviour’s change of ministration, and by
faith they followed him in his work in the sanctuary above. 39

An incredibly troubling, multi-faceted dilemma evolves out of

what Ellen White states as simple matter of fact—fact that
cannot be scripturally substantiated. What other explanation

417
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

could be offered, without contradicting the essential message

given by William Miller?
The scriptures that inspired thousands of people to believe in
Christ’s second coming that moved their hearts to surrender all
for the gospel of Christ, an experience that Ellen White was a
part of herself, could not simply be wiped away as absolute drivel.
How could the core message that went along with the prophetic
2300 years be salvaged and turned around? Could a feasible
alternative, yet parallel elucidation be found? Was it possible to
turn a demonstrably embarrassing non-event into something so
historically and prophetically momentous that it would ultimately
become an immovable pillar of faith for an entire denomination?
The answer is yes, by doing exactly what Ellen White did.
Something that started as a small spark of inspiration, in a vision
received by Hiram Edson, the day after the disappointment,
flamed into a burning fire of ӂrevelationӂ received by Ellen
White, and as time went by and the pieces of the doctrinal puzzle
came together (the sanctuary doctrine), roared into a raging
fire of “incontrovertible” truth. Th is “truth,” of all the “fiery”
pillars of SDA Faith could not be quenched or put out at the
risk of compromising all the restΔ
The painful reality is that over a hundred and seventy years
after 1844, God has still not vindicated His people that were
mocked and scorned for a prophetic event that never happened.
The only people who believed that they were vindicated were
those who accepted Hiram Edson’s, and in a more specific sense,
Ellen White’s visionary revelations of what supposedly took place.
The message, as it was originally extrapolated and taught,
incorporating the shut door teaching and salvation for sinners
having passed after 1844, has been adapted and chiseled out over
time (this was discussed in previous chapters in regard to deletions
and adaptations). Yet, it has never been renounced because, the
implication is, that all the SDA pillars would tumble one by one
should this ever happen—or at least this is the belief (see: Pastoral

418
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Ministry, p. 29, 1995; Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 4, p.258; The Upward

Look, p. 152; Letter 126, 1897, p. 4; Counsels to Writers and Editors,
p. 53; Letter 395, 1906, p. 4; Letter 208, 1906 / Evangelism, p. 224;

Manuscript 760 4.4).
It is simply amazing that people could have swallowed Ellen
White’s account of what ӂreallyӂ happened on October 22nd,
1844. Perhaps, because the desire for some sort of vindication
was so powerful, people just readily accepted the first vaguely
feasible alternative. Who knows? One thing is so clear and has
become even clearer with the passing of time and that is that
no truly biblical precedent can be found to support it.
There may very well be readers who are thinking that all I
want to do is find a way to discredit Ellen White so that I can
call her a false prophet—maybe they assume I am doing this in a
spirit of vindictiveness. This could not be further from the truth.
My desire, as stated in the introduction to this book, is to present
truth, based on the evidence and proof of Scripture.
If it can be shown that Ellen White is beyond being tested
by the Bible then I would re-evaluate my position. However,
if portions of Scripture could be uncontextualized, twisted and
adapted so as to fit whatever conclusion Ellen White wanted
to extricate from it and expect it to be accepted, because she
happens to be a prophet, then how can ANYONE EVER test
the prophets according to the “law and the testimony?” To be sure,
a proper evaluation of Ellen White’s conclusions, in the light
of Scripture, lead to an irreversible conclusion that each person
needs to come to themselvesΔ
One of the most remarkable yet disquieting characteristics of
the 2300 year prophecy is the fact that, for all intents and purposes,
it was a total non-event. It will no doubt be said that millions of
people believe that something happened in heaven on October 22nd,
1844—members of the SDA faith in the 21st Century. Post 1844
there were just a handful. Interestingly though, if a worldwide survey
were done among SDA’s, it would be seen that the understanding of

419
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

1844 and what actually took place and what they believe regarding
the sanctuary message, will be startlingly inconsistent.
The fact of the matter, and all honest SDA Bible scholars and
critics of 1844 know this to be so, is that only two people (Hiram
Edson & Ellen White), on the face of the whole planet, were
“witnesses” to what actually occurred in the form of one of the
MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENTS ON GOD’S PROPHETIC
TIME-TABLE that for the rest of humanity, or at least those who
were expecting something, ended up being one of the MOST
SIGNIFICANT NON-EVENTS of all time.
Even on the Mount of Transfiguration where a REAL event
happened on earth, there were three witnesses present that could
bear testimony—not to a vision—but a real tangible event.
Surely, God wanted to make sure that the minimum two to three
witnesses, for establishing or verifying something were present. In
the case of Christ’s transition in the sanctuary, in 1844, however,
there were two individual witnesses (not collective—they were
not together) that saw an event years apart from one another,
after the fact—not a tangible event that could easily be verified
but a vision that any critic could say was simply a fabrication or a
figment of their overtaxed, over-active imaginationsΔ
If one looks at an SDA prophetic time-chart, often used in
their evangelistic presentations (a copy can be seen in the picture
section at the end of Chapter 12), you will notice that it starts with
the date 457 b.c. (the beginning of the 2300 years) and extends to
the fall of 1844, the end of the 2300 years. In between these two
dates you can find other prophetic time-periods. They are divided
into 7 weeks x 7 (49 years), 62 weeks x 7 (434 years), and 1 week
x 7 (7 years), totaling 70 weeks x 7 (490 years). The seven year
period is divided into two three and a half year periods (Christ’s
crucifixion occurred in the middle of the prophetic week). These
periods are found in Daniel 9. There is also the 1260 days/years,
often included in SDA charts, mentioned in Daniel 7:25 as ‘a
time, times and the dividing of times.’ This is the period of rule for

420
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the little horn power of Daniel 7. It is also recorded in Revelation

12:14, and in some places as 42 weeks or simply 1260 years/days.
Every single one of these periods can be marked by very
specific/verifiable historical and/or biblically recorded events that
occurred—real proof exists (refer to the chart). However, the only
verifiable historical evidence (there is no clear biblical statement
on this) that ANYTHING occurred on October 22nd, 1844 is
the fact that thousands of people DID experience a GREAT
DISAPPOINTMENT. Why? Because of a VERY obvious
NON-EVENT that DID happen.
There is literally NO evidence that anything at all occurred
on October 22nd, 1844, nothing to mark the day, no proof to
vindicate God’s people or to clearly show a skeptical world that
another one of scripture’s “major” predictions DID come to pass.
The culminating date for the longest time prophecy in the Bible
is uneventful and mute. Th e world simply has to take the word
of two individuals who say they saw it take place in visionΔ
For almost 14 years William Miller, based on his interpretation,
preached the second coming of Christ at the close of the 2300
years—a real verifiable event would have occurred if he was right.
Indeed, if it had it would have been the one event most easy
to mark and prove, throughout humanity’s entire history—the
culmination of history itself. From that potential status, it ended
up flickering and dying into the most unprovable, embarrassing
non-event of all time.
Ellen White, in a statement recorded earlier, said that those
who were the faithful/ready Advent believers, “went in with him
[Christ] to the marriage, and the door was shut. They were not to
be present in person at the marriage; for it takes place in Heaven,
while they are upon the earth… these saw the truth concerning the
sanctuary in Heaven and the Saviour’s change of ministration, and
by faith they followed him in his work in the sanctuary above.” 41
NO, this was not so, those who were “ready” did NOT go “in
with Him to the marriage,” not even in “faith.” The reason is simple.

421
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

When He supposedly went in, which was on October 22nd, 1844

(the 10th day of the 7th month, according to Hiram Edison’s
understanding of the Jewish calendar—a definite date), “the faithful
Advent believers” were looking up to heaven in expectation of the
second coming and the end of the world—this was what they had
“faith” in. To be sure, when that did not happen, at the stroke of
midnight, their “faith” suffered an almost unimaginable blow.
Jesus had apparently passed into the most holy—the
“bridegroom” was at the “marriage” and had “shut a door” that NO
ONE could open—and NO ONE, not even in FAITH, entered
in when HE went in. They had NO idea at all what had happened.
How could they enter any way shape or form?
Only the next day, once the door was shut (unless Christ left it
open a crack until their faith and knowledge could catch up with
events) did anyone (Hiram Edson) have any idea what supposedly
occurred. The rest of the world has been catching up ever since.
When, for example, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day
of Pentecost, a heavenly event had also occurred. In fact, because
of the comments by those who were questioning what was taking
place, Peter gives a Bible-based response to convict his hearers—
recorded in Acts 2Δ
When the disciples went into the streets on Pentecost, after
receiving the Comforter and people heard them speaking in
tongues, some of the hearers scoffed and said they were drunk (full
of new wine). Others “were amazed and were in doubt, saying to one
another, What meaneth this?” (Acts 2:12, 13). Peter then responds
to both classes of people, he presents evidence that confirms that
both a heavenly (unseen by human eyes and unheard by human
ears) and earthly event (witnessed by human eyes and heard by
human ears) had taken place.
The earthly evidence was that they had received the Holy Spirit.
People witnessed it and it is recoded in Scripture for posterity and
promise. Peter quotes the prophet Joel (verse 28-32), who predicted
this event and then Quotes David (Psalms 16:8-11; 110:1), to

422
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

provide prophetic evidence that a significant heavenly component

of these events had also taken place. A heavenly event took place
but God made sure that it was marked in a very obvious way on
earth—to prove to those present and for generations to come that
a momentous event on God’s calendar had TRULY taken place.
Ironically, I will let Ellen White herself tell you why and how God let
things unfold as they did at Pentecost—in this case, she is correct in
stating things as she did. In the book Acts of the Apostles, she writes:
As soon as this ceremony was completed [Christ’s enthroned
into His mediatoral work—sitting on the right hand of
God, Acts 2:25, 34-36], the Holy Spirit descended upon the
disciples in rich currents. 41

Or, as it is stated in Signs of the Times:

Jesus was now enthroned amidst the songs of millions. As soon
as this ceremony was completed the Holy Spirit descended.42

In the following quote she makes an extremely important

point, regarding the significance of what happened in heaven
and why a corresponding event occurred on earth:
After Christ’s ascension, enthronement in His mediatoral king-
dom was signalized by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 43

Another example of a verifiable, fulfilled prediction by God

can be found in Genesis. God predicted a flood (the end of the
world) and Noah preached it. In fact, encapsulated in the name
of Methuselah was the time that it would occur. His name meant:
“When he dies it [the flood] will come.” And on schedule,
easily confirmed by Scripture, it came.
Th e lesson one takes away from this, consistent with the
rest of the important events on God’s prophetic calendar, is
that God does not fool His people, not to mention anyone
else, by trickery and disinformation into expecting something
will take place, knowing
that they will suffer
greatly
when it

423
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

РЫСЯ
ЪЫа
НЪР
that possibly millions, because of deception and

trickery, will lose their faith altogether and be lost for all
eternity. Is God trying to save as many souls as He can or is
He doing all He can to lose as many as possible? Th e
implications of accepting the whole scenario, from Miller to the
Sanctuary doctrine as Ellen White presented it, is diabolical in
the most extreme sense and does not make God look like He is
gracious, longsuffering, fair or honest. Significant events on
God’s calendar can be confirmed, either through the testimony
of history (which is more often the case—retrospectively), or in
the same way, via Scripture. Something happens to make it
abundantly clear that God has acted.
Although the following example was addressed in an earlier
chapter, it is almost certain that someone is going to come up
with the “Jonah” case-in-point. So let me reiterate it here again,
briefly.
Jonah was sent to tell the people of Nineveh that the city
would be destroyed in forty days because of its great wickedness
(
Jonah 3:4). On hearing the message, the people repented in
ashes and sackcloth, hoping that God would change His mind.
God did (
Jonah 3:8-10). Did God trick them into believing that
He was going to do something that was never going to happen
or was this prophecy an opportunity for God to manifest the
gracious, longsuffering nature of His character? Quite obviously,
it was the latter. Jonah certainly knew the reason. Regarding
His disappointment at God’s act of mercy towards that city, the
scriptures record:
But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord,
[was] not this my saying, when I was yet in my country?
Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou
[art] a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of
great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil ( Jonah 4:1, 2.
Emphasis supplied).

424
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Th is is why Jonah ran away from God—he already knew that it

was not in the Character of God to destroy people if they had
truly repented. Jonah was fearful that they would repent, that
God would forgive them and that he, Jonah, would then look
like a fool for prophesying their destruction. He knew that
prophets were deemed true or false by the accuracy of their
predictions. But, he also knew that God’s destruction of people
was on condition that they remained rebellious.
Th ere is no comparison between Jonah’s prediction and
Miller’s message. Miller’s message culminated in a non-event,
not because of some conditional option, based on God’s mercy
or justice, but because Miller was plainly and simply dead wrong.
And then, to add injury to insult, Ellen White comes along and
tries to make it look like God purposefully allowed people to be
tricked and lost (according to her many were).
In the case of Jonah a conditional prophecy reveals God’s
merciful, gracious, longsuffering nature. Ellen White’s explanation
of Miller’s non-event, reveals a God who, at the midnight hour
(October 22nd, 1844) seemed to be looking for a way to condemn
as many people as He could.
The truth is, people do not need a test, based on a faulty
interpretation of Bible prophecy, to prove whether they will
follow God or not. The Bible already reveals that before Christ
REALLY comes, there will be people who will be ready and
those who will not (the ten virgins is one prime analogy of this).
People, according to Peter, will say the Lord is delaying His
coming, before Christ REALLY comes. God did not need to
cover a gross error and allow the people to believe a lie so that
he could flush out the bad ones and show them up for what they
really were.
Over a hundred and seventy years down the line, in 2016, the
“tested” people of 1844 are all dead and gone. Two World Wars
have passed and planet earth is a completely different place to
what it was back then. Many since that time have shown where

425
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

they stand in their relationship to God, without the need of a

failed prophecy to reveal their true colours. The trials people will
still have to endure to test them, in light of the world’s current
state of affairs and what the Bible predicts will exist right before
Jesus REALLY returns, are sure to ‘separate the wheat from the
tares’ (a natural sifting) far more effectively than some prophetic
non-event.
In light of all this, a huge question still remains. If nothing
happened on October 22nd, 1844, then what about the 2300 day/
year prophecy? Miller was clearly wrong concerning the event that
was to take place. Was he also wrong concerning his placement of
the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 on the prophetic time-line?

SOURCES

1. ‘Memoirs of William Miller,’ Sylvester Bliss, Joshua V. Himes,

1853, p.4.
2. Ibid. p.16.
3. Ibid. p. 21-22 (emphasis supplied).
4. ‘God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World,’ by
David L. Rowe, Eerdmans: 2008, p.27, p.94).
5. William Miller letter, dated September 10, 1831. Quoted in
“God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World,” by
David L. Rowe, Eerdmans: 2008, p.27, p.94.
6. Ibid. p.94 (emphasis supplied).
7. Manuscript Release Volume 20 [Nos. 1420-1500], MR No.
1458—N. D. Faulkhead’s Conversion and Business Ability. See,
4BIO—Ellen G. White Volume 4, The Australian Years 1891-
1900, By Arthur L. White, 1983, Chapter 5.
8. ‘Memoirs of William Miller,’ Sylvester Bliss, Joshua V. Himes,
1853, p.66, 67.
9. Ibid. p. 67 (emphasis supplied ).
10. Ibid. p. 80 (emphasis supplied ).
11. Ibid. p. 68.
12. Ibid. p. 82.
13. Ibid. p. 67.
14. 7753The Secret Behind Secret Societies /Total Onslaught–Walter
Veith, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX0GtdVQ26E
(emphasis supplied).
15. Morals and Dogma, by Albert Pike, p.104-105. Emphasis
supplied. Quoted by Walter Veith in Total Onslaught
series, lecture, HiddenAgendas, https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=7NbSqcd2Dtw (emphasis supplied).
16. A.T.C. Pierson, The Traditions, Origin and Early History of
Freemasonry, P.240. Emphasis supplied. Quoted by Walter Veith
in Total Onslaught series, lecture, Hidden Agendas,https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NbSqcd2Dtw.
17. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/freemasons-and-
the-scottish-rite-system.html.
18. The Shepherd of the Valley, official journal of the Bishop of St.
Louis, Nov.23, 1851.
19. Catholic Review, July 1870.
20. ‘Memoirs of William Miller,’ Sylvester Bliss, Joshua V. Himes,
1853, p.16-24.
21. Ibid. p. 29.
22. Ibid. p.66, 67.
23. Ibid. p.116.
24. Ibid. p.172.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid. p.172-205.
27. ‘50 Years in the Church of Rome,’ by Charles, Chiniquy—quoted
by J.T. Chick in, ‘Smokescreens,’ Chick Publications, Chino,
California, U.S.A., p.85.
28. Ibid. p.86.
29. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 238.
30. Ibid. p.235.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid. p.237.
33. Ibid. p. 238. (emphasis supplied).
34. Ibid.
35. The Midnight Cry. By F.D. Nichol, p. 458 (emphasis supplied).
36. The Great Controversy, p.423.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid. p. 246 (emphasis supplied).
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Acts of the Apostles, p.38, 39 (emphasis supplied).
42. Signs of the Times, May 17, 1899.
43. Christ Object Lessons, p. 120 (emphasis supplied).
 C
h a p t e r X I I

2300 Days
Th e beginning, not the endζ

At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth,

and I am come to show [thee]; for thou [art] greatly beloved:
therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

—Daniel 9:23

T
he purpose for this aspect of my investigation is not to
go into every detail regarding the sanctuary doctrine, as
extrapolated and believed by SDA’s. In fact, they have a
number of variations on the sanctuary doctrine, as was shown in
the Adventist Spectrum article by Dennis Hokama. The ideas that
were taught and believed prior to 1910 (going back to Miller and
some of his findings before 1844) as opposed to what developed
after and is now taught, are significant indeed. Very importantly,
what Ellen White said or did not say regarding the developments
in this teaching, reveal a lot more about her prophetic role than
many might be comfortable bringing into the light of day. The
core aspects of these differences and how it was and is still
juggled by the “brethren” is the essence of what this portion of
our examination encompasses. In the process, it will answer the
question as to what REALLY did happen or did not on October

433
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

22nd, 1844 and what the correct understanding of the sanctuary

and Christ’s Priestly ministry is all about.
An extremely significant and informative article was published in
Adventist Currents, March 1987 edition, entitled, “Does 1844 Have
a Pagan Foundation,” by Dennis Hokama (p.20-29). I will use
significant amounts of this publication as Hokama presents itΑ НЯ I
feel would be hard to improve on, except
ЬСЮФНЬЯΑ for adding some
commentary where necessary. One of the key motivations for
Miller coming to the conclusion he did regarding Daniel 8:14 (2300
days till the cleansing of the sanctuary) had to do with how he
ended up interpreting what the “daily” of Daniel 8:11-13 and
11:31, actually meant. Hokama begins his article by saying:
When William Miller came to the novel conclusion that the
“daily” of Daniel 8:11,12 and 11:31 was “paganism” rather
than sacrifices connected with Jewish temple services, he
opened up new possibilities for the treatment of the 2300 days
in Daniel 8:14. A seemingly viable justification and defense
of 1843 or 1844 as the terminus of the 2300 days was now
possible.
Since it was Miller’s “paganism” interpretation of the
“daily” that permitted the 457 B.C. to 1843/1844 application
of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, the Seventh-day Adventist
sanctuary doctrine, in a sense, has a “pagan” foundation. This,
in and of itself, would amount to nothing more than a mis-
chievous play on words. But it is the fact that Adventism has
long since abandoned Miller’s “paganism” interpretation while
continuing to claim eschatological significance for 1844 that
gives the title of this paper legitimacy.
It is the thesis of this paper that Miller’s identifica-
tion of the “daily” as “paganism” was crucial to his defense of
1843/1844 as the terminus of the 2300 days. If this thesis is
correct, then Adventism unwittingly annulled the significance
of 1844 when it abandoned the “pagan” interpretation of the
“daily” around 1910. This paper is not concerned with deter-
mining the true meaning of the “daily,” but it is concerned with

434
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the history of Adventist treatments of it, and the implications

that its history has for Adventist theology today. 1

To know the history of what the word “daily” meant to

translators of the King James Version and most Bible commentators
before Miller is essential. Hokama’s research reveals:
The Hebrew word tamid, translated in Daniel 8:14 as “daily,”
is used 103 times in the Old Testament. Six times it is trans-
lated as “daily” (Numbers 4:16, 28:24; Daniel 8:11,12,13;
11:31, and 12:11); but elsewhere it is translated as “alway,”
“always,” “continual,” “continually,” “perpetual,” “ever,” “ever-
more,” and “never.”
The meaning of the word “daily,” as used in Daniel 8:11,
is somewhat enigmatic since it (tamid) is there used without
a verb or noun to modify; whereas it is normally used as an
adverb or adjective. The “daily” controversy arose over the ques-
tion of what verb or noun the “daily” was intended to modify.
The “daily” was “taken away” by the little horn; but “daily”
what?
In spite of the apparent ambiguity presented by ha tamid,
the King James Version translators, all subsequent translations,
and virtually all commentators previous to William Miller
had concluded that ha tamid, or “the daily,” referred to the
daily or continual sacrifices associated with the Jewish temple
services. They differed only in their view of whether the Jewish
sacrifices there mentioned should be taken literally or whether
they should be “spiritualized” and applied symbolically. The
kjv translators (and most translators after them) felt confident
enough about this interpretation that they inserted the word
“sacrifice” in italics after “the daily.”2

Even SDA Bible scholars recognize that there were essentially

two schools of thought on the interpretation of the “daily” of
the texts in question—the literal and symbolic schools of
interpretation. On p. 320 of the SDA Encyclopedia they are listed
as follows:

435
Brian Neumann

Literal interpretations of the “daily”:

1. The “daily” taken away was the interruption of Jewish sac-
rifices by Antiochus Epiphanes around 168 b.c.
2. The “daily” taken away was the interruption of Jewish sac-
rifices by the Roman armies around 70 a.d.
3. The “daily” that will be taken away will be the interruption
of Jewish sacrifices in the temple by some future antichrist.

Symbolic interpretations of the “daily”:

1. The “daily” taken away was a symbol of true worship or
sound doctrine in the Church, taken away by either the
Papacy or the Moslem conquest.
2. The “daily” taken away was the Catholic mass that
was abolished and denied by the Protestants (Roman
Catholic interpretation).
3. The “daily” taken away will be the interruption and abo-
lition of the Catholic mass by some future antichrist
(another Roman Catholic interpretation).

Hokama makes three main points in his evaluation of these

schools of thought:
An analysis of these various views reveals a surprising number
of common denominators that are often ignored or deempha-
sized in SDA treatments of the subject:

(1) All of the preceding schools of interpretation accept the idea

that the “daily” refers to the Jewish temple sacrifices. They differ
regarding whether or not to give it a “spiritualized” meaning…

2) All commentators were unanimous in seeking to find a

fulfillment on EARTH. Perhaps they all felt the weight of
Gabriel’s interpretation (Daniel 8:19-25), which appears to
disallow an extraterrestrial application. The king of Grecia

436
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

(verse 21) presumably was an earthling ruling an earthly

kingdom, and so were his successors (verses 22-25).

(3) Both schools (literal and symbolic) allowed for interpreta-

tions that would find a fulfillment in the Christian era. (See
number 3 of the “literal” interpretation.) SDA commentators
usually deprecate “literal” interpretations as having no modern
application.

In spite of the fact that Bible scholars from across the centuries,
unanimously interpreted the ‘daily’ in reference to the Jewish
temple sacrifices (even the King James translators—the Bible
used by Miller), Miller was not satisfied and so set about, using
a Cruden’s Concordance and his King James Bible to look for
other occurrences where the word daily and the phrase ‘taken
away’ was used—in Daniel and later elsewhere in the scrip-
tures. Miller explains how he came to his conclusion and what
his reaction to his discovery was:
I read on and could find no other case in which it was
found, but in Daniel. I then took those words which stood in
connection with it, “take away”. He shall “take away” the daily,
“from the time the daily shall be ‘taken away’, etc. I read on,
and thought I should find no light on the text; finally I came
to 2 Thess. 2:7,8. “For the mystery of iniquity doth already
work, only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken
out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed,” etc.
And when 1 had come to that text, O, how clear and glorious
the truth appeared. There it is! That is “the daily”! Well, now
what does Paul mean by “he who now letteth,: or hindereth?
By “the man of sin”, and “the wicked”. Popery is meant. Well,
what is it which hinders Popery from being revealed? Why,
it is Paganism; well, then, “the daily” must mean Paganism.
(William Miller quoted by Apollos Hale, Second Advent
Manual, p. 66; in the SDA Encyclopedia, p. 320. Italics sup-
plied). 3

Th us, quite literally, on the basis of the fact that Paul happened to
use an expression
that came close
enough
to Daniel’s “taken

437
Brian Neumann

away,” Miller felt he had discovered a “glorious” truth, a “truth”

that finally became the “bridge” to discovering the meaning of the
2300 day prophecy. Even though Paul’s expression, “until he be
taken out of the way” did not match Daniel’s “taken away,” it did
not seem to matter to Miller. He felt that it was close enough and
so, contrary to just about everyone before him (Bible scholars of
note and learning) he changed the “daily” from being a part of the
Jewish sacrificial system to “paganism.” Hokama rightfully suggests
that: “It is perhaps indicative of the spirit of the times that even
the vague and ambiguous way that both Daniel and Paul referred,
supposedly, to paganism was considered to be further evidence
that they must be talking about the same thing.” Hokama then
goes on to give an example of the “spirit of the times” by quoting a
portion of an 1842 article, penned by Miller’s protégés, Himes and
Litch, who seem quite convinced that Miller actually got it right:

It is also remarkable that Paul is just about as ambiguous in

speaking of paganism, as Daniel is supposed to be. Paul calls it
“he who now letteth: or hindereth”. Daniel calls it “the daily”.
All the arguments from analogy will be seen, we think, to
be in favor of Mr. Miller’s supposition that this “daily”, or
continual, denotes paganism. 4

It is my opinion that Hokama does not express it strongly

enough when he says, “the significance of Miller’s redefinition of
the ‘daily,’ when reinterpreting verse 14 (the 2300 days) should
not be missed.”5 Indeed, I would suggest that the horrendous
implications should not be missed because that which came in the
wake of Miller’s misapplication, the effects of which still continue
to this day, have been far-reaching and destructive. Th is is not
a suggestion that Hokama was downplaying the significance of
what Miller had done. He simply chose to express it as he did.
His evaluation continues:
ΜυНУНЪХЯЩΝ
аЫаНШШе
РСТШСПаСР
аФС
ЩСНЪХЪУ
ЫТ
аФС
ЯНХЪаΛЯ

ЭбСЯаХЫЪ
ХЪ
вСЮЯС
ӓӕ
ТЮЫЩ
ΜаФС
РНХШеΝ
ОСХЪУ
аНЧСЪ
НгНеΔ

438
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ωФСЮС
гНЯ
ЪЫ
longer any relationship between what was “taken

away” and what would be restored after 2300 days. Th e “daily”
was totally divorced from the concept of “sacrifice.” When his
interpreta-tion was challenged on exegetical grounds. Miller
replied that the word “sacrifice” was added by man and was not
in the orig-inal Hebrew manuscripts. (SDA Encyclopedia,
1966, p. 321)
Previous to this, all interpretations—whether literal or
symbolic—had assumed that the “daily” referred to the Jewish
sacrifice or something analogous to it in the Christian Church.
Th us it was thought to be something good that was defiled and
desecrated by something false and evil. Now, Miller, as a result of
his novel analysis, could “prove” that the “daily” was some-thing
evil that oppressed something that was good, only to be replaced
by a power that was even more evil. Th e “daily” was now the
oppressor rather than the object of oppression—a 180 degree
reversal from all interpretations, literal or symbolic, that had
been offered up to that time.
According to the Millerite interpretation, the “daily” was no
longer a landmark in Daniel from which one should begin the
2300- day countdown; it was merely one in a long line of
persecutors of God’s people. Th e 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 now
flapped in the breeze, devoid of any stay. William Miller now
had the justification he needed for his expedition into chapter 9
in search of a suitable mate for Daniel 8:14, and the rest, as
they say, is history. While the Millerite leaders differed on
many points, they remained united in their contention that the
“daily” was paganism and had nothing whatsoever to do with
Jewish sacrifices. 6

Hokama follows with a quote from the SDA Encyclopedia:

Yet in spite of differences of opinion on Miller’s detailed inter-
pretation, the Millerites stood united against the opponents who
contended for the literal rather than the symbolic interpreta-
tion. Time and again Millerite writers insisted that the word
“sacrifice” was not in the original Hebrew but was supplied
by the translators; that therefore the “daily” did not mean the
literal Jewish sacrifices taken away by Antiochus, and that the

439
Brian Neumann

2300 days were not literal days but years, to be dated from 457
B.C. Not until the period of confusion and division following
the 1844 disappointment did a group arise (the “Age to Come”
party) supporting the old literalist view, looking to literal sac-
rifices in the future at Jerusalem; and this view was repudiated
by the majority of those who remained with Miller and Himes,
and also by the small group that became the SDA’s. 7

For those who are critically evaluating what they are reading it
may well be noticed that the SDA commentators are ignoring
some important facts. Hokama’s evaluation expresses it well
when he says:
Several things should be noticed in the passage just quoted,
because it is typical of all SDA works on the subject of the
“daily” While its basic facts are correct, false and misleading
impressions are created. Here, as elsewhere, the Encyclopedia
strives to create the impression that Miller merely joined the
symbolic school of interpretation, and thus joined Christian
commentators in their battle against the “literalists.” It fails to
acknowledge that even the symbolic schools used the Jewish sac-
rifices as a springboard for their symbolic interpretations. Thus
the “daily” symbolized something godly and sacred.
The Millerites also had a symbolic interpretation, but they
insisted that the “daily” symbolized something satanic and evil.
Thus, in reality they had even less in common with the symbolic
school than did the so-called literalists. The Millerites were thus
a camp unto themselves, and it is misleading to portray them
as fighting on behalf of a symbolic interpretation. It is patently
unfair to the symbolic school to have the Millerites thrust into
their camp. The Millerites were not so much anti-literalist as
they were anti-context, or anti-Jewish sanctuary.
Also noticeable is their apparent lack of insight regard-
ing the identification of the “daily” as paganism and its rela-
tionship to their defense of 457 B.C. as the starting point of
the 2300 evenings-mornings, although they are almost forced
to acknowledge it. The SDA Encyclopedia (p. 321) makes it

440
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

clear that “paganism” was needed as a refutation of those who

wished to make the “taking away” by Antiochus the beginning
point of the 2300 days. In spite of his anachronistic approach
to the “daily” question, Miller still had one common bond
with the commentators preceding him; he continued to find an
earthly fulfillment both for the “daily” and for the sanctuary
to be cleansed after 2300 days, in accordance with Gabriel’s
commentary. 8

From the moment Ellen White and the early SDA pioneers
chose to turn the non-appearance of Christ (an earthly event)
in 1844 into Him moving from the Holy to the Most Holy in
the heavenly sanctuary (a heavenly event) they set themselves up
for major controversy in the years that would follow—
continuing till the present. Th ere would always be
contradictions that SDA Bible scholars would have to deal
with. Th e ducking and diving and “exegetical acrobatics” that
followed are, for those who have cared to do the research, a
matter of record. I have decided to let the greater portion of
Hokama’s article tell the tale. Th e article is extensive, but in my
opinion, warrants recitation:
Th e Pioneer SDA (Old View) Interpretation
Th e Millerite movement was crucified on October 22,
1844, by none other than Jesus Himself (by His nonappear-
ance). Most of the Millerites subsequently sought atonement
with the Christian world that they had denounced as Babylon
during the months just preceding the Great Disappointment.
A few Millerites, however, having invoked the blessing of the
Holy Spirit upon their interpretations, now felt obligated to
defend the Spirit’s honor by salvaging something from the
wreckage of the Millerite 1844 interpretation. Th e great
question that obsessed them was how to defend any kind of a
“cleansing of the sanctuary” on October 22, 1844, when noth-ing
whatsoever had been observed to happen on earth—unless it
was the merciless heckling of the non-believers.

441
Brian Neumann

According to Adventist tradition (recently corrected by J.B.

Goodner in Adventist Currents vol.1, no.5, pp. 4,5,6,& 56)
a possible solution came to Hiram Edson in a flash of
inspiration while he was taking a walk on the morning fol-
lowing the Great Disappointment. O.R.L. Crosier, a protege
of Edson’s, articulated this solution in the Day-Dawn, and
then expanded upon it in an article entitled “Th e Sanctuary”
in the Day Star Extra of February 7,1846.
Th e Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days
is also the Sanctuary of the new covenant, for the vision of the
treading down and cleansing, is after the crucifixion. We see
that the Sanctuary of the new covenant is not on earth, but
in heaven. The true tabernacle which forms a part of the new
covenant Sanctuary, was made and pitched by the Lord, in
contradistinction to that of the first covenant which was made
and pitched by man, in obedience to the commandment of God;
Exodus 25:8. (The Day-Star Extra, Feb. 7, 1846)
Ellen White endorsed Crosier’s translation of the sanctu-
ary into the heavens in a letter to Eli Curtis dated April 21,
1847. This, she said, was not merely her opinion, but some-
thing that “the Lord shew [sic] me in vision.”
An additional benefit of this solution was that it gave its
adherents an effective comeback to their merciless hecklers, who
were lost souls because Jesus had ceased to work for sinners after
October 22, 1844, when “the door was shut” to the heavenly
sanctuary. With regard to the “daily” question, the forerunners
of Adventism continued to endorse Miller’s “paganism” view.
This is not to say that they were all satisfied with it or that
none of them held views that were logically incompatible with
it; rather they all gave lip service to it and always stopped short
of openly opposing it, until the twentieth century.
When the Sabbatarian Adventists moved on, after 1844,
to develop their new doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary, they
left behind William Miller’s identification of the sanctuary of
Daniel 8:14, of the two beasts of Rev. 13, and of the num-
ber 666 as pertaining to the “daily”, but they retained, in the
main. Miller’s idea that the “daily” and the “transgression of

442
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

desolation” were two successive phases of the Roman power,

pagan and papal. (SDA Encyclopedia, p. 321) It is true that
Crosier—without actually saying it in so many words—logi-
cally repudiated the notion of a pagan sanctuary in the article
that Ellen White endorsed in God’s name. It was not the first
or the last time that the pioneers would show themselves quite
oblivious to theological “tensions.” In his article entitled “The
Sanctuary,” Crosier wrote:
Let it be remembered that the definition of Sanctuary is
“a holy or sacred place.” Is the earth, is Palestine such a place?
Their entire contents answer. No! Was Daniel so taught? Look
at his vision.
“And the place of his sanctuary was cast down;” Dan. 8:11.
This casting down was in the days and by the means of the
Roman power; therefore, the Sanctuary of this text was not
the Earth, nor Palestine, because the former was cast down at
the fall, more than 4,000 years, and the latter at the captivity,
more than 700 years previous to the event of this passage, and
neither by Roman agency.
The Sanctuary cast down is His against whom Rome mag-
nified himself, which was the Prince of the host, Jesus Christ;
and Paul teaches that his sanctuary is in heaven. (Day Star
Extra, February 7, 1846).
By redefining Miller’s pagan sanctuary as Christ’s heav-
enly sanctuary, in an article endorsed by the Lord, Crosier
almost aborted the foundation of the fledgling Adventist
movement. But the movement was spared by James White,
who republished the article in The Advent Review Special
of 1850 (p. 38) with the offending paragraphs—however
inspired—deleted.
For about fifty years Adventist leaders in good standing
felt obligated to endorse simultaneously Miller’s paganism
interpretation and Crosier’s heavenly sanctuary article—a
difficult but evidently not impossible feat.
Joseph Bates identified the “daily” as paganism in 1846
(The Opening Heavens, p. 31), so did J.N. Andrews in 1853
(Review and Herald, 3:145, Feb. 3, 1853; cf. p. 129, Jan. 6,

443
Brian Neumann

1853), and later Uriah Smith (ibid., 24:180, Nov. 1,1864)

and James White (“The Time,” in his Sermons on the Coming
and Kingdom of… Christ, 1870 ed., pp. 116,117; cf. pp. 108,
118,122-125). In an early article (Review and Herald, 1:28,
29, January, 1851) White had followed Crosier in arguing
at length that the sanctuary trodden down was the one in
heaven, but he did not define the “daily” in this article. When
he later did define it he emphatically described “the daily, and
the transgression of desolation” as “two desolating powers;
the first paganism, then. Papacy.” (Sermons, p. 116), (SDA
Encyclopedia, p. 322).
But the event that made “paganism” a shibboleth among
Adventists was Ellen White’s endorsement of it in Present
Truth, 1:87, November 1850. A vision that she received on
September 23, 1850, is now found on pages 74 and 75 of
Early Writings:
Then I saw in relation to the “daily”, Dan. 8:12, that the
word “sacrifice” was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not
belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it
to those who gave the judgement-hour cry. When union existed,
before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the
“daily”, but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been
embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has
not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.
Another document that wielded tremendous influ-
ence among Adventists was Uriah Smith’s highly regarded
The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, of which the
Daniel half was first published in 1873. It was regarded then,
and is now regarded, as virtually on a par with the “Spirit of
Prophecy” by those who take Ellen White’s endorsement seri-
ously. According to A.C. Bordeau, a respected SDA minister
and close associate of the White’s:
Many years ago, when the late Uriah Smith was writing
Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, while Elder James
White and Ellen G. White were at my house in Enosburg,
Vermont, they received by mail a roll of printed proof sheets on
Thoughts on Revelation that Brother Smith had sent to them.

444
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Brother White read portions of the same to the company, and

expressed much pleasure and satisfaction because they were so
concisely and clearly written. Then Sister White stated what
she had been shown as follows: “The Lord is inspiring Brother
Smith-leading his mind by His Spirit, and an angel is guid-
ing his hand in writing these ‘Thoughts on Daniel and the
Revelation.’” I was present when these words were spoken.

(signed) “A.C. Bordeau”

The quote was from J.S. Washburn’s letter to Elder
Meade MacGuire, February 18,1923, entitled “The Fruit
of the ‘New Daily” If Bordeau’s account is to be taken at face
value, one might even argue that the level of inspiration in
Daniel and Revelation is even higher than that in Ellen
White’s books; since an angel was guiding Smith’s hand, not
merely his mind, as was true in Ellen White’s writings. In any
case. Smith strongly favored the paganism interpretation of the
“daily,” as can be seen on pages 164 and 165 of his book:
What Is the Daily’! We have proof in verse 13 that “sac-
rifice” is the wrong word to be supplied in connection with the
word “daily”. If the taking away of the daily sacrifice of the
Jewish service is here meant, as some suppose (which sacrifice
was at a certain point of time taken away), there would be
no propriety in the question, “How long” shall be the vision
concerning it? This question evidently implies that those agents
or events to which the vision relates occupy a series of years.
Continuance of time is the central idea. The whole time of
the vision is filled by what is here called the “daily” and the
“transgression of desolation.” Hence the daily cannot be the
daily sacrifice of the Jews, for when the time came for it to be
taken away, that action occupied but an instant of time, when
the veil of the temple was rent in twain at the crucifixion of
Christ. It must denote something which extends over a period
of years.
… In the great majority of instances it is rendered “con-
tinual” or “continually”. The idea of sacrifice is not attached to
the word at all—But it appears to be more in accordance with

445
Brian Neumann

both the construction and the context to suppose that the word
“daily” refers to a desolating power, like the “transgression of
desolation,” with which it is connected…
Two Desolating Powers.—By the “continuance of desola-
tion,” or the perpetual desolation., we understand that pagan-
ism, through all its history, is meant. When we consider the
long ages through which paganism had been the chief agency of
Satan’s opposition to the work of God on earth, the propriety of
the term “continuance” or “perpetual”, as applied to it becomes
apparent.
The essence of Smith’s “proof ” here is that, historically, the
taking away of the Jewish sacrifice took but an instant; whereas
he believes the saint’s question in verse 13 “evidently implies” a
“taking away” over a long period of years. There are many curi-
ous assumptions in this “proof ” that will not be exposed here.
In spite of the problems associated with the “paganism”
interpretation, the fact that the pioneers were united on this
point is amply illustrated by the side that they took when the
“daily” battle broke out at the turn of the century. To a man, the
“old hands” fought under the “paganism” banner.
The pioneer’s (“pagan”) view of the “daily” remained essen-
tially the same as Miller’s. In assigning the sanctuary to be
cleansed to the heavens, however, it departed from all other
interpretations before it. Gabriel’s authority as a commentator
had been “taken away.”

The SDA “New View” of the “Daily”

The first denominational leader to openly publish a view
contrary to the Millerite “pagan daily” was L.R. Conradi in
his 1905 volume. Die Weissagung Daniel. His “New View”
was actually older than the Millerite “Old View.” Like the
reformers, he concluded that Daniel 8:14 pointed to the resto-
ration of the long lost gospel, and that the “taking away of the
daily” referred to the obscuration of that truth by the papacy.
(Others subsequently would attempt to give it an Adventist
flavor by describing it as the mediation of Christ in the heav-

446
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

enly sanctuary) From Conradi the view spread to A.T. Jones,

A.G. Daniells, W.C. White, and WW. Prescott.
Conradi, General Conference vice president for the
European Division, confronted the problem when it became
his task to translate the church’s prophetic works into German.
Much to his chagrin he found that German translations of the
Bible did not accommodate Miller’s interpretation at all:
When Elder Conradi was writing on the book of Daniel,
in German, and came to this passage of Scripture concerning
“the daily”, he found the German rendering so worded that it
was impossible for him to follow the commonly accepted exposi-
tion without very evidently wresting the plain meaning of the
words in the German version. The statement as found in the
German Bible, was so plainly in contradiction to the exposi-
tion given in “Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation,” that
he was nonplussed; but he feared to give an exposition that
seemed, on the face of it, not to be in harmony with the plain
reading of the Scripture. He compared the German rendering
with the original Hebrew and with the Septuagint Greek, and
also with the French, Danish and other versions. These were
similar to the German; and it became clear to him that the text
under consideration should not be interpreted in accordance
with the view taught in “Thoughts on Daniel”. (“A Review of
Experiences Leading to a Consideration of the Question of
‘The Daily’ of Daniel 8:9-14,” by A.G. Daniels)
At the turn of the century, Conradi wrote to Ellen White
in Australia informing her that unless she had counsel to the
contrary, he would feel compelled to publish his conclusions
(Arthur L. White, The Later Elmshaven Years, page 247).
Not receiving a reply within the specified time, he published
Die Weissagung Daniel—the first denominational book to
challenge the “daily” equals-”paganism” equation. His book was
circulated widely in Europe by 1905; and by 1910 he had also
succeeded in preventing Daniel and Revelation from being
published in England. (Conradi to Daniells, March 8, 1910,
cited in Bert Haloviak’s “In the Shadow of the Daily,” p. 38)
Conradi’s break with tradition was evidently a relief to many

447
Brian Neumann

leaders who for years had harbored private doubts about the
“pagan daily.”
In our council-meeting where the matter was brought
up for study, we learned many things that led us to question
whether there might not be a stronger position for us to take
than that allowed by an advocacy of the view taught in the
days of William Miller. We learned that William Miller him-
self was apparently the first to arrive at the conclusion that the
taking away of “the daily” should be interpreted as signifying
the taking away of Paganism in 508, and that he arrived at
this conclusion by a series of blunders in scriptural interpreta-
tion and in his understanding of history.
We learned also that many of our ministers, when present-
ing the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation before unbe-
lievers, have touched very lightly on the portion of Scripture
relating to “the daily”, and have for many years made no seri-
ous attempt to give a critical explanation of the meaning of the
text. Brother W.A. Spicer has spoken thus of his avoidance of
these texts while he was a public worker:
“When I used to give Bible readings in the earlier days in
London, and took the people through the eighth of Daniel, I
always skipped over those texts where we made the sanctuary
one minute in heaven and the next on earth, and the host one
time the saints and the next the pagans, and I slipped over the
statement that the taking away of ‘the daily’ meant the tak-
ing away of paganism by suggesting that the rendering in the
original was a bit obscure so that the translation was difficult.
That is what we used to be taught in the Bible School in Battle
Creek in the old days. And all that, you observe, was mak-
ing no particular use of that particular portion of scripture.
It was simply passing over it to get down to the cleansing of
the sanctuary.” (“A Review of the Experiences Leading to a
Consideration of the Question of ‘The Daily’ of Daniel 8:9-
14”, by A.G. Daniells, emphasis supplied)
The public questioning of the “pagan daily” by the church’s
highest and most respected leaders touched off a fierce contro-
versy that shook the denomination to its roots. The defenders

448
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

of the “new view” included the General Conference president

(A.G. Daniells), the future General Conference president
(W.A. Spicer), the editor of the Review (W.W. Prescott), and
Ellen White’s son and confidante, William C. White.
The opposition, however, was not the least bit impressed.
Appealing to a higher authority in the form of Early Writings
(pp. 74, 75,), they unleashed a vigorous counterattack that
scandalized the shocked “new view” advocates. Willie White,
in a letter (October 27,1910) to J.S. Washburn, a staunch “old
view” defender, cited a number of inflammatory actions taken by
the “old view” defenders. Such actions, White believed, showed
the “old view” defenders to be the aggressors in the escalating
conflict over the “daily.” The first public stone was cast by Elder
Stephen Haskell, who published a facsimile of what he thought
was the prophetic chart endorsed by Early Writings, with the
quote from Mrs. White in regard to the “daily” inscribed at
the bottom (W.C. White to J.S. Washburn, October 27, 1910,
p. 26). Even before that, at the 1905 General Conference,
the old guard had attempted to ban Conradi’s book in North
America (WCW to JSW, p. 28). Elder O.A. Johnson had pre-
vented Conradi’s book from being published in the Danish-
Norwegian; and then at the General Conference of 1909 he
had distributed a tract that was extremely critical of the “new
view” advocates (WCW to JSW, pp. 25,26). L.A. Smith (son
of Uriah) circulated a tract of his own in the summer of 1909
in which he accused the “new view” advocates of disloyalty to
the Spirit of Prophecy, right after a meeting in which it was
agreed that the antagonists would refrain from personal criti-
cism of each other (WCW to JSW, p. 27). Other ministers who
felt compelled to join the battle against the “new view” included
J.N. Loughborough, G.l. Butler, and EC. Gilbert.
Although Willie White tried to hold the “new view”
fort, the opposition scored some impressive political victories.
Stephen Haskell bombarded Ellen White with letters com-
plaining of Prescott’s dangerous new view of the “daily” ( June
20,1907; November 18, 1907; January 30, 1908; February
21, 1909). He even hosted her at his home for about a week

449
Brian Neumann

during this period. Haskell evidently made good use of that

time because Prescott was subsequently pressured into leaving
the Review in mid-1909 by Ellen White, who urged him to
engage in city evangelism instead. A.G. Daniells, as General
Conference president, met a similar fate, and was virtually
forced to relinquish his position to several associates in 1910
and engage in city evangelism. The tide would turn, but two
of the three most influential men in the denomination found
themselves for a time in an exile of sorts.
Was city evangelism suddenly so pressing that both the edi-
tor of the Review and the General Conference president had to
leave their offices to become evangelists? Or was city evange-
lism merely a pretext for removing these men from a position
of influence? Did they incur Ellen White’s wrath solely or at
least primarily because of their promotion of the “new view” of
the “daily”? Was Ellen White upset because she saw the “daily”
controversy “as a threat to the long overdue drive for city
evangelism,” as Arthur White claims (The Later Elmshaven
Years, p. 246)? Was Ellen White actually neutral on the issue,
as material published over her name during that period sug-
gests, or was she secretly resentful that Daniells, Prescott, and
her son Willie were seeing to it that her authority as a Bible
interpreter was being—like the “daily”—”taken away”?

Ellen White’s Position in the “Daily” Controversy

When the daily war heated up, Ellen White was in her
eighties, with an apparently diminished capacity to under-
stand complicated matters. This may be inferred from a 1918
letter by Haskell to W.C. White in response to the latter’s claim
regarding his mother’s enfeebled mental state during her later
years:
If I believed even what you have told me about having
to tell your mother the same thing over three or four times in
order that she might get a clear idea of things, so that she could
give a correct testimony on some points, it would weaken my
faith mightily; not in your mother, but in what comes from her
pen. (November 27,1918, WEDC).

450
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

If this is true (and there is considerable circumstantial

evidence to support this position), it puts an entirely different
light on her carefully worded, cautiously neutral, definitively
ambiguous “daily” statement of July 31, 1910. Th is was
the document that began to turn the tide in favor of Willie and
his exiled allies, Prescott and Daniells.
“I [Ellen White] have words to speak to my brethren east
and west, north and south. I request that my writings shall not
be used as the leading argument to settle questions over which
there is now so much controversy. I entreat of Elder Haskell,
Loughborough, Smith, and others of our leading brethren, that
they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views
of the “daily”.
It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital
importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a
mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the
views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings
shall be taken as settling this matter. The true meaning of the
“daily” is not to be made a test question.
I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make
use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question;
for I have no instruction on the point under discussion, and 1
see no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under
present conditions, silence is eloquence” (MS 11, 1910, also,
ISM, p. 164)
Bert Haloviak, assistant director of the General
Conference Office of Archives and Statistics, thinks he sees the
hand of Willie in the fact that this document was entitled “Our
Attitude Toward Doctrinal Controversy.” Ellen White ordi-
narily placed no titles on her testimonies (“In the Shadow of
the Daily: Background and Aftermath of the 1919 Bible and
History Teachers’ Conference,” p. 56). Haloviak only allows
that Willie might have added the title.
But in light of the Haskell letter previously quoted, we
might also ask ourselves how many times it was necessary for
Willie to explain to his mother that she must forbid her fanati-
cal followers from using her writings to settle the issue before

451
Brian Neumann

she was able to send out “a correct testimony.” The document

that is supposed to preclude this possibility is a statement by
A.G. Daniells regarding an interview he had with Mrs. White
sometime around the latter half of 1910. In it Daniells says
that he placed the 1843 chart and her Early Writings state-
ment before her and asked what she had been shown regarding
the “daily.”
She replied that these features were not placed before her in
vision as the time part was. She would not be led out to make
an explanation of those points of the prophecy (AGD state-
ment of September 25,1931, WDF 201 b)
There are many curious things about this document, the
first of which is that it was not produced in 1910. Daniells
gives no date for this interview, and Arthur White couldn’t
produce one when he used it in The Later Elmshaven Years
(p. 256). Arthur White is usually meticulous about dating
documents, but this time he cannot even provide an approxi-
mate date. It was a “little later” than June 1, 1910, he writes.
But this is hard to understand because it is a known fact that
Daniells was refused an interview with Ellen White in late
May of that year, and by June 1, he was headed back East,
resigned to the idea that he might have to give up the presi-
dency. Arthur White claims that W.C. White and C.C. Crisler
were also present at the interview but provides no documenta-
tion. Contemporary references or allusions to this interview
prior to 1931 may exist but were not encountered by this
writer. Even if the interview did take place (when?), there are
indications that Ellen White’s apparent neutrality on the issue
was due either to intimidation by Willie White and Daniells
or to their misrepresentation of her true position on the topic.
The most troubling evidence of this is a contemporary
document written by F.C. Gilbert, evidently the lone “old
view” advocate who was able to interview Ellen White per-
sonally and privately concerning her views on the “daily.”
Elder Gilbert took notes as she was speaking and wrote up the
interview immediately afterward. Since he evidently did not
get permission from her to disclose these private thoughts, he

452
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

felt obligated to keep them confidential for many years. Elder

Washburn persuaded Gilbert to release the document to him
in 1946 while Gilbert was on his death bed. (A. White letter,
November 17, 1948, WDF 242) Washburn’s limited release of
this document put the reputations of WilUe White, Daniells,
Prescott, and the “new view” in an extremely embarrassing
light. Some excerpts:
They (Prescott and Daniells) had to be getting up some-
thing new, and of course by doing so they would not give the
older brethren in the cause any chance to say anything that
these older brethren knew about the early days of the message…
…When they did not accept my message of reproof 1 knew
what they would do and I knew what Daniells would do in
getting the people all stirred up. I have not written to Prescott
because his wife is so very sick… Daniels was here to see me,
and I would not see him. I told them that I would not see
him on any point, and I would not have anything to say to
him about anything. About this “daily” that they are trying to
work up, there is nothing in it, and it is not a testing point of
character…
If this message of the “daily” were a testing message the
Lord would have shown me. These do not see the end from
the beginning in this thing. This work they are doing is to
divide the people of God, and to take their minds off the test-
ing truths for these last times. I utterly refuse to see any of
them who are engaged in this work.
…I would not see Daniells about the matter, and I would
not have one word with him. They pled with me that I would
give them an interview, but J would not give him any at all.
They have stirred up the minds of the people against this testing
time, and I am going to let the people know about these things.
God is testing these men, and they are showing how they
are standing the test, and how they stand with regard to the
Testimonies. They have shown by their actions how much con-
fidence they have in the Testimonies. I was told to warn our
people. They are to give no attention to it all, as there is nothing
in it that amounts to a single thing they must have something

453
Brian Neumann

that no one else has You see there is nothing to it, and the light
that was given me was that 1 was forbidden of the Lord to
listen to it.
I have expressed myself as not having a particle of confi-
dence in it. I saw how that they had a paper in their hands,
and they wanted to get a hearing on this question at Loma
Linda; but I saw I had nothing to do with it, and there was
nothing to be done about it.
I saw why it was that Daniells was rushing this thing
through from place to place; for he knew that I would work
against it. That is why I know they did not stand the testing. I
knew they would not receive it This whole thing they are doing
is a scheme of the devil. He [Daniells] has been president too
long, and should not be there any longer.
There is irreconcilable tension between the positions taken
by Ellen White in the two purported interviews conducted
with her by “daily” antagonists. Was this tension real? or was
it an illusion created by the biased filters through which Ellen
White’s words were received? Did either Daniells or Gilbert,
or both, concoct or deliberately distort interviews with her to
obtain the advantage? Or did Ellen White put on a different
face for two real interviews?
The simple, rigid morality of men like Gilbert and
Washburn precludes the possibility of a manufactured or con-
sciously distorted interview. Even Willie White or Daniells,
who were much more sophisticated and flexible in their fight-
ing of church political battles, are unlikely to have gone that
far.
While it is reasonable to argue that both Daniells and
Gilbert were extremely biased on the “daily” question, it must
be understood that Gilbert and his friends took Ellen White’s
words much more at face value than did Daniells and his asso-
ciates. And it would seem to follow, therefore, that Gilbert and
Washburn would be more concerned with preserving her words
just as they were spoken than with trying to correct what
Daniells called, her “imperfect statements.” It is also interest-
ing to note how some of Mrs. White’s statements (italicized) in

454
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the Gilbert interview appear to preclude the interview that

Daniells claims to have had with her regarding the “daily.”
But in defense of Daniells and Willie White, it is possible,
perhaps even likely, that Ellen White said what she is alleged
to have said in both interviews. The tension between her state-
ments may well have been an accurate reflection of her confu-
sion and/or the degree to which she could be persuaded by the
“new view” advocates.
By the time that Gilbert’s interview document was circu-
lated by Washburn (mid 1940s), the “new view” had long since
triumphed. Nevertheless, Arthur White, by that time secretary
of the Ellen G. White Estate, felt the need to respond. His con-
cern, however, was to vindicate Daniells, not the “new view”
of the “daily.” In his monograph of November 17,1948, Arthur
White attempted to soften the impact of Gilbert’s June 8, 1910
interview with Ellen White. White said that there was no copy
of the interview among the Ellen G. White writings, nor was
there any reference to such an interview.
This is not surprising, since Ellen White did not write it,
and Willie evidently was not there when the interview was
conducted. It is noteworthy that Arthur does not attempt to
deny that the interview took place. His defense consists in
maintaining that Daniell’s standing in Ellen White’s eyes
improved markedly after June 8,1910 (as a result of his sub-
sequent humble obedience), and that Washburn had exploited
a dying man and had acted dishonorably in giving the inter-
view a limited circulation.
Another indication that Mrs. White favored the “old view”
can be seen in her quickness to criticize Prescott and Daniells
while being reluctant and slow to censure the “old view” advo-
cates. The “old view” advocates were much more sensitive to
her pleasure than were the “new view” advocates, who did not
wish to let the prophetess or her writings settle the question.
The “old view” advocates took their cues from Ellen White, and
one unequivocal word from her would have shut their mouths.
Stephen Haskell obviously did not get any discouragement

455
Brian Neumann

from her during her one week stay at his house. In his letter to
C.C. Crisler of March 30, 1908, he made his conditions clear:
If Sister White says that she does not mean what she said
when she said what she did on the “daily”, then I will say no
more.
Her July 31, 1910, declaration that ended the controversy
was no bipartisan appeal for a ceasefire from both sides. Ellen
White was finally addressing the “old view” advocates, her shock
troops who had with her help hounded Prescott and Daniells
into exile. After all, it was not the “new view” advocates who
had to be restrained from using Early Writings as their lead-
ing argument. It was a signal to Prescott and Daniells that
they could come down from their respective trees now that their
opposition had been forbidden to use her writings in fighting
against their interpretation.
Ellen White’s insistence on calling the “daily” issue an
unimportant, trivial distraction indicates that she sided with
the “old view.” “New view” advocates could hardly be consist-
ent in calling the issue trivial, since on their interpretation
the “daily” became Christ’s righteousness, the heavenly sanc-
tuary, or the gospel. Could any Christian call that trivial
or unimportant? It was the “old view” advocates who were
embarrassed that they were forced into defending “pagan-
ism.” Stephen Haskell, for instance, admitted to Willie White
(Haskell to White, 6 December 1909) that the “daily” itself
did not “amount to a hill of beans”; but he felt compelled to
defend it because the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy was
at stake. When Washburn was interviewed on June 4, 1950,
by R.I Weiland and D.K. Short, he was still complaining
that the “new view” of the “daily” made it a “main spoke of the
wheel—the ministry of Christ”; whereas in the “old view,” it
was a “non- essential point.”
Ellen White seemed to share the “old view” advocates’
embarrassment over having to debate the subject. In the same
interview, Washburn recalled that F.C. Gilbert had told him
of Ellen White’s comment to him: “I could have stopped this
daily controversy, but they got hold of Willie, and that made

456
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

it more difficult.” By contrast, Ellen White showed no reluc-

tance or embarrassment when she defended the sanctuary
doctrine in 1905 against A.F. Ballenger. True, she thought
it an essential point, but there is good reason to believe that
she would have elevated the importance of the “daily” if she
had been converted to the “new view.” She also said that Jones
and Waggoner were agitating a trivial issue until she became a
convert to their view in 1888 (EGW to Jones and Waggoner,
18 February 1887). Then she decided it was a vital issue and
helped them to agitate it.

The Pretext of Context: The Attempt to Reconcile the “New

View” with Early Writings

When the “new view” triumphed. Seventh-day Adventist

historians were left with the task of vindicating the “new
view” advocates without discrediting the Spirit of Prophecy in
general and Early Writings (pp. 74, 75) in particular. Their
general solution has been to classify the “old view” advocates
as “generalizers” Of the Spirit of Prophecy and the “new view”
advocates as “contextualizers.”
Church spokesmen such as Daniells, Prescott, Willie White,
and now Arthur White, continually stress that the statement
in Early Writings pertaining to the “daily” was given in the
context of time setting. Since time setting was the burden of
her message from the Lord, they argue, the identification of the
“daily” is irrelevant and should be ignored or discarded. Few
have attempted to dispute the meaning of the reference to the
“daily”; they just insist that it should not be taken seriously,
since the Lord was more concerned about time setting. By keep-
ing the subject of the “daily” separate from the subject of time
setting, historians have been able to accuse “old view” advocates
of ignoring context. The implication that Ellen White wrote
inspired irrelevancies has evidently bothered only “old view”
advocates.
Despite what historians such as Haloviak assert, how-
ever, men like Daniells were less interested in the context of
the Early Writings statement than they were in a pretext for

457
Brian Neumann

reinterpreting it in a manner that might seem plausible to the

objective scholar:
I want to tell you plainly that it is my deep conviction
that those who hold the new view and who interpret the writ-
ings of the Spirit of Prophecy in harmony with that view, as
Brother Prescott has done in his tract, are the truest friends
of the gift of prophecy in our ranks. I believe that those who
interpret that passage in Early Writings as supporting the “old
view” are doing your mother a great wrong. They are -array-
ing her against the plain text of the Scripture, and all reliable
history of the world.
As I look at it, your mother and her writings need to be
protected from such short-sighted expositors. Every time I
review this study I am profoundly thankful that the passage
in Early Writings is so susceptible of interpretation which is
in harmony with both Scripture and history (A.G. Daniells to
W.C. White, February 22,1910)
Daniells openly rejoiced that Early Writings was so “sus-
ceptible of interpretation” that he could manipulate it to fit the
known facts. This attitude aptly describes those who in defend-
ing Ellen G. White are generally given credit for being sensi-
tive to “context.” J.S. Washburn’s undying enmity toward the
“new view” is often explained away as his inability to appreci-
ate context. Yet in 1910 Willie White, another great contextu-
alizer, tried unsuccessfully to talk Washburn into accepting a
generalized application for a testimony:
Near the bottom of page 3, you express the opinion that the
quotations which have been selected from Mother’s writings
in regard to our studying the Bible and receiving advanced
light…were written in reference to the doctrine of righteous-
ness by faith and have no bearing whatever on the subject of
the “Daily”.
It is a great surprise to me. Brother Washburn, that you
find it possible to hold an opinion [such] as that. I can not
agree with you at all,…that… what Mother has written on
this subject of Bible study and the study of Daniel and the
Revelation.. .can be narrowed down in their application to

458
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

this one doctrine of righteousness by faith and to this one con-

troversy regarding freedom to study the scriptures that was
being conducted by our brethren in 1887 to 1890.
With this I will send you another copy of a collection of
extracts made upon these subjects, and will beg of you to read
the MS. again, and see for yourself that it has no such narrow,
restricted application as you have mentioned. (W.C. White to
JS. Washburn, 27 October 1910 DF SOD.4)
Just five years earlier A.F. Ballenger had discovered that
these same testimonies did not apply to a study of the heavenly
sanctuary. Ellen White had told him in no uncertain terms that
he had no right to restudy the issue because he was not a pio-
neer; and Willie White, Daniells, and Prescott had applauded:
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a
message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They
gather a mass of scripture and pile it as proof around their
asserted theories… And while the scriptures are God’s word,
if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that
God has sustained these fifty years, [it] is a great mistake. (let-
ter 329, 1905)
The irony is that for the most part, the “old view” advo-
cates were more concerned about context than were the “new
view” advocates. The old school was willing to take the Spirit
of Prophecy just as it had originally been intended, without
any concern for the possibility that this might be embarrassing
for Ellen White in the long run. The new school was leery of
such a historical grammatical method lest it lead to logically
indefensible positions.
The real difference between the two schools then, was that
the former let the Spirit of Prophecy define reality for them.
They took the testimonies in the way in which they were origi-
nally intended, and simply molded reality around them. The
latter let reality define the meaning of the Spirit of Prophecy.
They took an externally defined reality and molded their inter-
pretation of a testimony around it. Others such as A.T. Jones
and J.H. Kellogg noticed the tension between the testimo-
nies and reality, and rejected the former as the only intellec-

459
Brian Neumann

tually honest solution. Of the three solutions, the “new view”

advocates were the least committed to a historical, grammati-
cal interpretation. To them, “context” meant simply the least
embarrassing interpretation.

Time Setting and the “Daily”

Despite what the “new view” devotees claimed, the theme

of time setting and the identification of the “daily” were actu-
ally the same topic. This is inadvertently proven by Arthur
White in his discussion of the circumstances surrounding Ellen
White’s original vision on the subject in 1850. First, he quotes
from Daniells’ undated interview with her:
As I recall her answer, she began by telling how some of
the leaders who had been in the 1844 movement endeavored
to find new dates for the termination of the 2300-year period.
This endeavor was to fix new dates for the coming of the Lord.
This was causing confusion among those who had been in the
Advent movement. (The Later Elmshaven Years, p. 256).
Arthur White then proceeds on the following page to pro-
duce objective evidence to prove that his grandmother’s con-
cerns were well founded:
Since charts figure in this matter, Ellen White’s attitude in
this interview is given strong support as the reckoning of the
Cummings 1854 “prophetic chart” is studied. In this the Jewish
altar of “daily sacrifice” in 446 B.C. is used as the starting point
for a new 2300-year time span set to end in 1854. This chart,
published at Concord, New Hampshire, in 1853, was typical
of charts that commenced the 2300 days with what was said to
be the taking away of the “daily sacrifice.”
It can be seen clearly here that a non-Millerite interpre-
tation of the “daily” inevitably led to new date setting. This is
because an admission that the “daily” is somehow related to the
Jewish services inevitably leads one to conclude that Daniel
8:14 speaks of the restoration of those same Jewish services. If
this is so, then 457 B.C. is ruled out as a starting point; because
nothing antithetical to Daniel 8:14 occurred on that date. It

460
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

is only Miller’s “paganism” that frees Daniel 8:11 from the

clutches of Daniel 8:14.
In order to deny the validity of the 1850 speculation con-
cerning new terminal dates for the 2300 years, it was entirely
logical then, for Ellen White to attack their non-Millerite defi-
nition of the “daily.” This was identical to an attack on their
new starting date for the 2300 day prophecy. If “sacrifice” did
not belong to the real meaning of Daniel 8:11, then obviously,
using the Jewish altar of “daily sacrifice” as a starting point for
the prophecy was inappropriate. Ellen White’s statement on the
“daily” went to the very heart of the time setting issue.
“Time setting,” in the context of 1850, meant rejecting
1844 as the terminus of the 2300-day prophecy. The “new
view” trivialized the significance of Ellen White’s statement
on the “daily” by interpreting the issue of “time setting” exis-
tentially rather than contextually. Thus, its champions were
guilty of the very charge they long sought to bring against their
opponents, the Adventist pioneers.
The implications of this appear to be quite devastating to
the “new view” supporters, at least in terms of their professed
respect for the context of Ellen White’s “daily” statement in
Early Writings. Since virtually all church leaders support the
“new view,” the implications are quite far reaching. If the “new
view” advocates were sincere in their claim to support Ellen
White’s time setting concerns in Early Writings, they must
accept her identification of the “daily” as the very fulcrum of
that message. A failure to do this would demonstrate that their
concern for her time-setting theme is a pretext.

The “Daily” and the “Omega of Apostasy”

Despite Ellen White’s appeal to cease debate on the sub-
ject in 1910, the potentially deadly wound was not healed
but continued to fester. What had changed was that now the
“old view” advocates found themselves in exile, while the “new
view” advocates returned to power Denied permission to use
Early Writings, the “old view” supporters were helpless against
the “new view” which “practiced and prospered.”

461
Brian Neumann

Th e “new view” of the “daily” began to take on an even

more ominous significance to the old guard in the years fol-
lowing 1910. To them, the 1919 Bible Conference, in which
problems with the
“Spirit of Prophecy” were openly acknowledged, was a
logical outcome of Daniells,’ Prescott’s, and Willie White’s new
stance on the “daily” For the old guard, the “daily” represented
the institutional church’s first open defiance of Ellen White and
the first questioning of the Adventist landmarks. It had to be
the dreaded “omega of apostasy” that was spoken of by Ellen
White:
… the Spirit of Prophecy speaks of the Kellogg contro-
versy as the Alpha and states that there was to be an Omega.
On the same page she says: “But we must firmly refuse to be
drawn away from the platform of eternal truth, which since
1844 has stood the test.” This “deadly heresy” will change the
original truth and it is a startling fact that the new Daily
doctrine moves nearly all our prophetic dates, and opens the
way for other theories that draw men forever away from all
the message of 1844.
… We are face to face with the most subtle apostasy of
the ages. The cruel serpent coils with strangling folds about
our greatest training school and sinks his deadly fangs into
the very souls of our children. If this is not the beginning of
the “startling Omega”, and we are not thrilled, aroused and
startled, we must indeed be dead, in doubt, in darkness and
infidelity. (
J.S. Washburn to Claude Holmes; an open letter
entitled “The Startling Omega and Its True Geneology,” pp.
15,16,18 April 1920).
For the circulation of this tract, Daniells, who was
still General Conference president in 1921, tried to remove
Washburn’s ministerial credentials. In 1922 Washburn struck
back by circulating an open letter at the General Conference
session in which he recounted Daniells’ responsibility for the
“new view,” the 1919 Bible Conference, as well as his attempts
to remove Washburn’s credentials. Washburn demanded a
hearing before the General Conference Committee. (An Open

462
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Letter to Elder A.G. Daniells, and an Appeal to the General

Conference).
Daniells subsequently was voted out of office (after two
decades at that post); but his replacement, W.A. Spicer, was also
a “new view” advocate. By 1923 Washburn was considering
the possibility that the “new view” advocates had committed
the unpardonable sin:
“The daily sacrifice by reason of transgression,” Daniel
8:12, is literally in the Hebrew, “the daily in transgression,”
see any Hebrew lexicon. This could be no other than Satan,
devil worship, paganism, etc. This was the position of the pio-
neers of this message, the founders of this denomination, and
the Spirit of Prophecy affirms that they had the “correct view
of the daily.”…But according to the new view of the “daily”,
this “daily in transgression”, devil worship, has become the
“continual mediation of Jesus Christ.” In other words Satan
is Christ!! Surely the most astonishing transformation of all
the ages. If I ascribe the work of Satan to Christ or the work of
Christ to Satan is there no danger that I may thus sin against
the Holy Ghost? ( J.S. Washburn to Meade MacGuire, M.V.
Department associate secretary, p. 12, 18 February 1923)
Although the last point may have been somewhat tongue-
in-cheek (being an “old view” advocate, he believed it to be a
nonessential point), it does serve to illustrate how irreconcil-
able and inherently antagonistic were the two parties in the
“daily” struggle.

The Resurrection of Antiochus Epiphanes in the Eighties

The church’s abandonment of its alliance with pagan-

ism paved the way for the triumphant return of Antiochus
Epiphanes (or his analogue) in the 1980s. When William
Miller denied that the “daily” made any reference to the Jewish
services, he drove the stake of paganism through the heart of
Antiochus Epiphanes’ claim to prophetic relevancy. If the
“daily” did not refer to Jewish sacrifices or anything analogous
to it, then any desecrater of such was not referred to either.

463
Brian Neumann

When the “new view” advocates convinced the church to

abandon Miller’s paganism in favor of Christ’s righteous-ness,
the gospel, or the sanctuary doctrine, they inadvertently reverted
back to pre-Millerite interpretations. Th
e “daily” was “cleansed”
or restored to its original condition as representing
something good rather than something evil. But this “daily”
was then desecrated and trampled upon. Who was this pro-
phetic villain? Lo and behold verse 14 now spoke of a restora-tion
of a sanctuary! Could it be the one that was just desecrated a few
verses ago?! Was it possible that verse 14 had a context rather
than being an existential misnomer, as William Miller seemed
to believe? Th
e pagan stake that had driven verse 14 from its
context had been “taken away.”
Th
e joy of the church over the restoration of context to its
interpretation of Daniel 8 was relatively short-lived. As church
scholars pondered the meaning of those verses in the light of the “new
view,” not a few found themselves horrified to discover that the
landmarks of their faith were no longer defensible.
If the gospel, or Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary,
was a valid interpretation of the “daily,” what was the original
or first application of it? Did not the same principles that Willie
White used to interpret his mother’s writings apply to the Bible? Th

at is, should not the context of the 2300-day prophecy be studied
also? Was it then valid to maintain that the 2300-day prophecy
had no original context, but was spoken directly to Seventh-
day Adventists twenty-three centuries into the future? If
not, how could Antiochus Epiphanes be ruled out as a
candidate for an earlier fulfillment? Antiochus Epiphanes,
however, was only the tip of the iceberg. Th e real problem for
Seventh-day Adventist theology was that it was now forced to fight
the battle for Daniel 8 on a pre-Millerite battlefield. By rejecting
Miller’s “daily,” the church had accepted the frame-work within
which all pre-Millerite debates on the “daily” had been
conducted. Th
is framework included the assumption that the
“daily” refers to the Jewish temple sacrifices. Th is framework sees
Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 8:14 in a thesis-antithesis
relationship. In such a framewo57 B.C. is a
total
non sequi-


 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

tur because it does not stand in a thesis-antithesis relationship

with 1844. How can a command to rebuild Jerusalem be the
antithesis of the “cleansing” or restoration of God’s sanctuary?
This monstrous absurdity in the very pillar of Adventist
theology eventually led to serious hemorrhaging in the 1980s.
Theologians could no longer keep their cognitive dissonance
secret from their employers. Desmond Ford and Ray Cottrell
went public with their discontent but were careful to blunt the
impact of the problem by offering solutions such as the “apote-
lesmatic” principle and context by divine fiat, respectively.
Others were more relentless in their logic. Robert Brinsmead
rejected 1844 as having any prophetic significance whatsoever.
By the time that 1844 was openly questioned and rejected
by many Adventists in the 1980s, however, it appears that
they were only carrying the “new view” of 1910 to its logi-
cal end. Robert Wieland, one of the few surviving “old view”
advocates, sees a clear relationship between the two events:
Many have not pursued Conradi’s view to its logical end.
But some of our astute scholars have, and it has proved a short
circuit that makes Antiochus Epiphanes of 168 B.C. To be the
necessary “primary” fulfillment of the Dan. 8 prophecy. In
their scheme, there is no room for an 1844 application except
by a contrived “secondary” or “apotelesmatic” fulfillment. This
is seen as a “face-saving” accommodation openly ridiculed by
non-Adventist theologians and now by some of our own, built
on Ellen White. (Have We Followed ‘Cunningly Devised
Fables’?, an undated outline of a proposed thought paper).
The history of the “daily” in the Seventh-day Adventist
church seems to verify Washburn’s and Wieland’s conviction
that the “taking away” of Adventism’s pagan platform seriously
compromised, if it did not destroy, the entire 1844 founda-
tion. A logical analysis of the implications of Miller’s “pagan-
ism” would certainly seem to lead one to endorse the verdict
of history. It would appear that when the church abandoned
“paganism” in 1910, it also unwittingly abandoned 1844,
without which Adventism may have no reason to exist. Have
not our Adventists progenitors, by their forced mating of the

465
Brian Neumann

“new view” of “the daily” with 1844, set up the abomination of

amalgamation in the sanctuary? 9

After reading Hokama’s article one can only shake one’s

head in total disbelief. It is manifestly unavoidable to conclude
that Adventism and their prophet Ellen White have ended up
shooting themselves in the proverbial foot. Truly, when Miller
came to his novel conclusion that the “daily” was paganism, he,
as Hokama put it: “opened up new possibilities for the treatment
of the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14.”10 Little did he know that a
group of Advent survivalists and their prophetess, who were
desperately trying to salvage the remnants of his botched
prediction, would end up creating a labyrinth of contradictions
from which their posterity has not yet escaped.
In an attempt to be true to what they felt were the most
essential aspects of Miller’s teachings (with inspired confirmation
from their prophetic icon) they inadvertently, by ignoring
what for centuries spiritual men of learning had so studiously
and carefully concluded, set themselves up for the inevitable
confrontation they would have to face when Bible scholars from
their own ranks would start realizing that the position they had
originally held, in spite of Ellen White’s inspired insight, was
scripturally untenable. Of course, when it came to the crunch
and Ellen White was forced into a position where she would
have to take sides on the issue, she conveniently testified that
“God had shown her” that she was to say nothing either way.
However, she also resorted to one of her other tactics, the same
one she used regarding the disappointment of 1844—that God
was “testing” the brethren. Yet, the evidence of her statements
regarding this issue, even in her absence, come back to haunt her
and will continue to do so as more and more pieces of the puzzle
are found and put together.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that in order to make sense
of Ellen White’s words, regarding not only the sanctuary but a
host of other things, one can never just take what she says as it

466
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

stands. It is never as simple as reading a plain straight forward

statement and then drawing the right conclusion.
Sometimes for example, when conducting a study of Scripture,
one would read the original Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic and a
selection of ancient manuscripts, to more accurately interpret
what the text might be saying. Yet, in spite of this, it is amazing
how inherently coherent, consistent, complimentary and simple
the Bible actually is—notwithstanding that it was written by
numerous authors over a period of 1600 years.
By contrast, you have a collection of writings by one author,
Ellen White, written over the period of a few decades in one
language, requiring more exegetical expertise than the entire
canon of Scripture (in a comparative sense), to harmonize
what appear to be simple teachings or statements written in
plain English.
The amount of paper that has been used to publish explanations
and defenses of Ellen White’s writings, by various apologists
since her day, consist of more positioning and posturing than the
amount of pages it takes to contain the whole of Scripture.
One is often left wondering if you can ever read anything by
Ellen White and take it as a simple statement of fact—as it
reads—without someone coming out of the proverbial
Adventist woodwork to tell you that what you have extrapolated
is not really what she meant or that there are other statements
you need to read to find balance and context. As if, by doing this,
you will suddenly find symmetry and harmony that fits exactly
with what the simple words of Scripture teach.
While Ellen White was still alive the brethren relied on her to
clarify the contradictory statements that would surface from time
to time—what did she really mean when she said this or wrote
that? When she died, the responsibility for maintaining textual
integrity fell on the shoulders of Willie White, then Arthur
White, and finally SDA Bible scholars and church historians—
the so called experts.

467
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Everybody who was anybody, within the inner-body, with any

real comprehension of the implications for the whole body,
understood that if it were ever proven that Ellen White was
making it up as she went along, so to speak, it would be a
“done-deal” for the “one true remnant body of Christ.” If THAT
genie were ever to escape the bottle, the house of cards, the
little straw-men, holding up the domino-pillars of SDA beliefs,
confirmed and substantiated by the prophetic voice of Ellen G.
White, would come crashing to the ground. And the one primary
pillar, holding it all together, providing existential meaning to
the church’s mission and purpose, was/is the pillar of the SDA
sanctuary doctrine (see: Pastoral Ministry, p. 29, 1995; Spirit of
Prophecy Vol. 4, p.258; Th e Upward Look, p. 152; Letter 126, 1897,
p. 4; Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 53; Letter 395, 1906, p. 4;
Letter 208, 1906 / Evangelism, p. 224; Manuscript 760 4.4).
In order to get around the complex semantics and continual
posturing required to explain every instance where Ellen White
is either contradicting herself or Scripture, defenders and
advocates of her cause have come up with what they view as a
simple approach to understanding her writings—a kind of “make
it fit” plan that, till now, has in some way shape or form done the
trick. For example, in regard to Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly
Sanctuary and His work “within the veil,” as spoken of by Paul in
Hebrews, SDA writer, Erwin R. Gane, offers this solution:
Ellen White does not claim that every time she quotes a Bible
verse, or a part thereof, she intends to provide a strict con-
textual application of the passage. But she does claim that the
teaching of her writings is thoroughly consistent with that of
Scripture. What attitude do we adopt, then, if we discover that
OUR interpretation of a Scripture passage contradicts Ellen
White’s?
One option is to realize that even though our interpre-
tation of a passage may be correct, Ellen White’s different
interpretation may also be correct. Some passages of Scripture
are subject to more than a single application. A classic exam-

468
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ple is Hebrews 6:19, 20: “This hope we have as an anchor of

the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters
within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us,
having become a high priest forever according to the order of
Melchizedek” (N. A. S. B.).
The phrase “within the veil” is the key element. Does it
refer to the veil that separated the court from the holy place, or
the “second veil” (Heb 9:3), which hung between the holy place
and Most Holy Place of the sanctuary? The question, as usu-
ally asked, seeks to determine whether Christ began His holy
place, or His Most Holy Place, ministry after His ascension in
A.D. 31. Some have felt this passage destroys the understand-
ing Seventh-day Adventists have had regarding the ministry
of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary and the concept of a special
work of judgment beginning in 1844… 11

In the complete article Gane tries to show how apparently

contradictory statements (where Ellen White might appear
to disagree with Scripture or even herself
) are reconciled by
approaching it in the way suggested in the above quote. Gane goes
on to point out, correctly, that: “Th ere is no passage of Scripture
that locates a throne in the holy place. TФerefore, Christ surely
went into the Most Holy Apartment of the heavenly sanctuary
at His ascension in a.d. 31 and was still occupying that position
years later when the book of Hebrews was written.” 12
In order to draw this conclusion Gane has to employ
considerable interpretive acrobatics that even contradict
interpretations by other SDA scholars, statements by Ellen
White and the Historical record of how the sanctuary teaching
evolved and was understood post 1844. Not to mention how
Bible scholars throughout time, on the basis of an accumulation
of scriptural evidence, have understood Paul’s words in the book
of Hebrews. One example (quoted earlier in this chapter) that is
ignored by Gane and flies in the face of his representation,
comes from the very words of Hiram Edson, the one who first

469
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

ЯНгΑ
ХЪ
Н
вХСг
УХвСЪ
Ое
μЫРΑ
гФНа
χκζρρώ
ФНЬЬСЪСР
ЫЪ
τПаЫОСЮ

ӔӔЪРΑ
ӓӚӖӖΓ
I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest
coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come
to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end
of the 2300 days, He for the first time entered on that day the
second apartment of that sanctuary [the most holy]; and
that He had a work to perform in the Most Holy Place before
coming to the earth. 13

Now, either Hiram’s “divine revelation,” stated in emphatic

terms and in simple English, was not accurate or requires the type
of interpretive approach described by Gane, or was incorrectly
seen or stated by Hiram himself, the prime witness. Th
at
being the case, one cannot be sure that what he saw was
what he “distinctly” and “clearly” claimed he saw and that only
later was seen more clearly and distinctly by Ellen White and
then, as time went by, was even MORE clearly and distinctly
extrapolated and explained by interpreters, such as Gane and a
host of others.
In the same article Gane interprets another scene (quoted and
discussed in an earlier chapter of this book) that Ellen White saw
while in vision. Th
e significance of Gane’s evaluation is not so
much in his observations regarding the symbolism of the vision
but rather the whole premise upon which the vision itself is
based. Certain assumptions regarding the status of the Christian
church and its relationship to Christ’s ministry in the sanctuary,
in the general sense, have to be made and conditions postulated
that have absolutely no basis in fact or reality—whether it was
revealed in a symbolic sense or not—for Ellen White to even
have come up with the ideas she did.
In the vision, Ellen White apparently sees Christ move, in
1844, from the holy to the most holy apartment of the heavenly
sanctuary. TIere are two groups, those who remain focused
on Christ
as
he transitions
to the
most holy and those who do

470
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

ЪЫа
follow Him and still remain focused on the holy place. Regarding
this second group, Ellen White has the following to say:
I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before
the throne [in the holy]; they did not know that Jesus had
left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry
on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and
pray, “Father, give us Thy Spirit.” Satan would then breathe
upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and
much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satan’s object
was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God’s
children. 14

This is how Gane explains the vision:

Satan, of course, is not physically in heaven, even though
in the vision he was depicted as being there, Ellen White
later explained (ibid., pp. 92, 93). In this same place Ellen
White identifies the kind of vision given her with the highly
symbolic, apocalyptic visions given to John the revelator.
Obviously, she did not intend us to conclude (1) that the
Father and the Son occupied the holy place, but not the Most
Holy Place, until 1844, (2) that there is a throne in the
heavenly holy place, (3) that a veil separates the two heav-
enly apartments, (4) that Satan is in the heavenly holy place
receiving the homage of his earthly subjects.
On the other hand, we are apparently to conclude (1)
that before 1844 some people accepted and others rejected the
truth that God sent them, and that after the change of min-
istry in 1844 those who had rejected the light were left in
darkness; (2) that both Father and Son were involved in the
change of heavenly ministry in 1844 (cf. Daniel 7:9-14); (3)
that Christ is receiving His kingdom in the Most Holy Place
ministry after 1844; (4) that believers who by faith appeal to
Jesus in the Most Holy Place are given the Holy Spirit with
much light, power, sweet love, joy, and peace; (5) that those
who reject the truth of the change of ministry in 1844 and

471
Brian Neumann

do not believe that Jesus is now ministering for them in the

Most Holy Place are deceived by Satan. 15

Certain aspects of this vision were discussed in earlier chapters

that addressed the shut door teaching. In this case however I want
to address something that gets to the very core of the problem,
not only in Gane’s explanations but by the fictitious proposition
of the vision itself that has no basis in fact, whether earthly or
heavenly. I will first deal with Gane’s intellection.
Even though, as Gane suggests, Ellen White may well
identify her symbolic apparitions with those of John the revelator
does not automatically authenticate her as a true prophet. Gane,
reading into the intention of Ellen White, also concludes that it
is obvious “the Father and the Son occupied the holy place, but
not the Most Holy Place, until 1844.” The symbolic nature of
this aspect of the vision is assumed by Gane. It has to be assumed,
because there is no scriptural evidence to support it and because
Ellen White does not, anywhere, emphatically state this as her
own opinion.
According to Gane, the existence of a throne in the first
apartment of the heavenly sanctuary (the holy place) and a
literal veil that separates these two heavenly apartments are also
symbolic. Of course Gane, in reality, is assuming that Ellen White,
the prime witness, did not believe in a literal throne or veil in the
heavenly sanctuary—he is interpreting her interpretation.
Even if her visions are to be identified with the visions of
John in the book of Revelation, it needs to be remembered that
in Revelation not every portrayal seen by John was symbolic in
every sense. There were certain of the views he received that were
a depiction of real heavenly things.
The Bible DOES teach that there is a throne in the most holy
place of the heavenly sanctuary—this is not debatable. It does not
teach such regarding the first apartment (the holy). Thus, because
Ellen White places a throne in both apartments, Gane, in order to
be as true as possible to what Scripture reveals, has to ASSUME

472
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

that in her vision the throne in the first apartment is symbolic

and the throne in the second (most holy) is not. Gane, in a sense,
puts the Bible and Ellen White’s visions side by side, compares
both, and then the parts of Ellen White’s visions that cannot
be clearly substantiated by Scripture are symbolized, while the
other aspects are seen in a more literal sense. Two thrones are
depicted (holy/most holy), one throne is symbolic while the other
is literal—two identical articles, seen in the same vision, one
symbolic the other literal. Whether White’s vision was genuine
or not, there are still certain glaring contradictions and a lack of
consistency that comes to light in Gane’s explanation.
If one is going to approach the symbols of prophetic vision in
such a manner, why not interpret the days in time prophecy as
sometimes meaning literal days and at other times years? Why
not approach beasts, crowns or horns, etc., in the same way?
One of the first points that Gane makes, in respect to what
we SHOULD conclude regarding Ellen White’s vision is “that
before 1844 some people accepted and others rejected the truth
that God sent them, and that after the change of ministry in
1844 those who had rejected the light were left in darkness.”
It is glaringly obvious and was somewhat addressed earlier in
this chapter that prior to October 22nd, 1844, those who rejected
the truth, were not rejecting Christ’s transition to the most holy.
This was NOT presented as a belief-option prior to 1844. How
could ANYONE know (providing the teaching itself is even
true) that they were rejecting something—they never even heard
of till after the fact. The only so-called “light” rejected was either
Miller’s interpretation of the 2300 day time-frame, the teaching
that Christ was to come in 1844, or both. Ellen White’s statement
and thus Ganes interpretation of it, are based on a blatant, factless
accusation that people rejected something they had absolutely
NO knowledge of and were thus, after the supposed event took
place, left in darkness.

473
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

TIe real evidence though, that will clearly expose the problem
in Ellen White’s account of her vision and Gane’s interpretation of
it, is the fictitious proposition of the vision itself, that has no
basis in reality, whether earthly or heavenly. Once this is
established Gane’s interpretation, by simple default, becomes
redundant—a fictitious account based on a figment of Hiram
Edson and Ellen White’s imaginations that have no substance
in the evidence of Scripture or historical record.
A series of questions that never seem to be asked, that actually
hold the key to either confirming or totally nullifying the whole
sanctuary doctrine as expounded by Ellen White are: “what did
Christians prior to 1844 believe regarding Christ’s work and location in
the heavenly sanctuary? Where did people believe Christ was
ministering after His ascension? Where does most of the Christian
world believe He is ministering at present—the holy or the most holy?”
Ellen White implies that Christians were focused on the
holy place (first apartment) prior to 1844. Th
en, when Christ
transitioned on October 22nd, they (at least the majority) did not in
faith follow Him to the most holy but kept their focus on the first
apartment. Her description, whether symbolic or literal, was quite
graphic and cannot be misunderstood:
I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the
throne [in the holy]; they did not know that Jesus had left it.
Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work
of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, “Father,
give us Thy Spirit.” Satan would then breathe upon them an
unholy influence…16

On the same subject, in the book Th e Great Controversy, Ellen

White writes about the Millerites (the ones who in faith followed
Christ) after October 22nd, 1844. She expounded, in regard to
their understanding of a door that was shut in the heavenly
sanctuary (between the holy and the most holy), as Christ
transitioned:

474
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

But clearer light came with the investigation of the sanctu-

ary question. They now saw that they were correct in believing
that the end of the 2300 days in 1844 marked an important
crisis. But while it was true that the door of hope and mercy
by which men had for eighteen hundred years [the time from
Christ’s ascension to 1844] found access to God, was closed,
another door was opened, and forgiveness of sins was offered to
men through the intercession of Christ in the most holy…
It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of
the atonement, who receive the benefits of His mediation in
their behalf; while those who reject the light which brings to
view this work of ministration, are not benefitted thereby. 17

She then draws a parallel between the Jews who rejected

Christ at His first advent and the ЮСЦСПаЫЮЯ of the sanctuary
message after 1844:
The Jews who rejected the light given at Christ’s first advent,
and refused to believe on Him as the Saviour of the world,
could not receive pardon through Him. When Jesus at His
ascension entered by His own blood into the heavenly sanctu-
ary to shed upon His disciples the blessings of His mediation,
the Jews were left in total darkness, to continue their use-
less sacrifices and offerings…The door by which men had for-
merly found access to God, was no longer open. The Jews had
refused to seek Him in the only way whereby He could be
found, through the ministration in the sanctuary in heaven.
Therefore they found no communion with God. To them the
door was shut…hence they could not receive the benefits of His
mediation.
The condition of the unbelieving Jews illustrates the
condition of the careless and unbelieving among professed
Christians, who are willingly ignorant of the work of our
merciful High Priest. 18

TIe implications of these statements are as clear as day. Not

only were the ЮСЦСПаЫЮЯ of the post Millerite Advent sanctuary
teaching left in darkness and lost but those who hear it and reject

475
Brian Neumann

it, like the Jews of old, cannot “receive pardon through Him
[Christ].” They are left in “total darkness.” In the case of the Jews,
they were left to continue “their useless sacrifices and offerings.”
In the case of Christians who do not follow Christ into the most
holy as He continues His work of mediation there, the results are
the same. For them the door is also “shut” and they continue to
practice their religion, a religion that by all implication is useless
and empty.
Everything about what Ellen White is saying is built on a
“straw-man” teaching that has absolutely NO basis in reality
AT ALL. It is hard to actually find words that express the
point strongly enough. Not only is what she is teaching based
on a fictitious construction of past and present “facts” but it is
also judgmental and insulting—not only to Christians who are
sincerely worshipping Christ but to Christ Himself.
At least, when it came to the Jews, they were dealing with
real events that were unfolding around them. The Messiah was
in their midst, He performed miracles. They had evidence of
fulfilled prophecies that were contained in their own scriptures—
even the time prophecy of Daniel 9. The manifestations at the
time of Christ’s trial, His resurrection and the miraculous events
witnessed at Pentecost, all were a testimony to Christ being the
Messiah. A rejection, on the basis of such overwhelming, tangible
evidence, could be seen as hardly justifiable. To place the rejecters
of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine in the same boat as the Jews
in Christ’s day and expect them, in humble acceptance to take
Ellen White’s word for it, is not simply ludicrous but practically
insane. They had absolutely NO evidence that ANYTHING was
happening. The only thing that added any significance to Miller’s
event (after the fact) was that it was a non-event.
The fact is, based on a simple reading of Scripture, and in
a primary sense the book of Hebrews, Bible scholars since the
earliest Christian era, understood that Christ had gone into the
second apartment (the most holy) after his ascension to mediate

476
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

on man’s behalf. Recent publications such as the book: Hebrews

(Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), released in 2005
and edited by Eric M. Heen and Philip D. W. Krey, cast ample
light on early Christology, in particular regard to what is revealed
in the book of Hebrews and Christ’s work as our High Priest.
I would not necessarily consider all the scholars quoted in this
work to be doctrinally sound on all points, however, what is
significant is what is revealed regarding the early church’s general
understanding of Christ’s priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary.
Excerpts that are included in the volume range in geography
and time from scholars such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome
in the late first to early second century. It quotes people from the
eighth and ninth century such as, Isaac of Nineveh, Photius and
John of Damascus. The Alexandrian tradition is also represented
in Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Didymus, Origen and Cyril
of Alexandria. The Antiochene tradition is represented in Ephrem
the Syrian, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Severian of Gabala, etc. Italy
and North Africa are represented by Ambrose, Cassiodorus and
Augustine, and Constantinople and more.
From the early Christian era, throughout the years of the
Reformation and Protestant era, Bible scholars, primarily on
the basis of Paul’s writings in the book of Hebrews, understood
that when Christ went “within the veil” (Hebrews 6:19; 10:20),
the “holy places” (10:24), sat down “on the right hand of God”
(10:12), or “entered into the holiest” (10:19), etc., He was, in the
antitypical sense, ministering as the earthly high priest did in the
typical sense on the day of atonement in the “second” apartment/
most holy of the heavenly sanctuary (9:7). This was taught and
believed by prominent Protestant Bible scholars, within one or
two centuries prior to 1844 and was still taught and believed post
1844. What separated them from the post-Millerite Adventist
sanctuary teaching was the question of WHEN Christ entered the
most holy and a number of other Ellen White/SDA teachings/
revelations that came as a consequence of adapting Miller’s

477
Brian Neumann

message to fit the “new” sanctuary doctrine. Bible commentators

and well known preachers of the gospel such as Matthew Henry,
John Gill and later on, Charles Spurgeon, taught that Christ was
ministering as our mediator and high priest in the most holy of the
heavenly sanctuary after his ascension. Matthew Henry (1662-
1714) wrote in his well-known six-volume Exposition of the Old
and New Testaments (1708–1710) and Complete Commentary in
connection with Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.
Regarding Hebrews 10:18-20 he writes:

(Hebrews 10:18-20): For there shall be no more remembrance

of sin against true believers, either to shame them now or to
condemn them hereafter. This was much more than the Levitical
priesthood and sacrifices could effect… The apostle now proceeds
to apply this great doctrine, so as to influence their affections,
and direct their practice, setting before them the dignities and
duties of the gospel state.
…It is fit that believers should know the honours and
privileges that Christ has procured for them, that, while
they take the comfort, they may give him the glory of all. The
privileges are, 1. Boldness to enter into the holiest… They
may enter into the gracious presence of God in his holy ora-
cles, ordinances, providences, and covenant, and so into com-
munion with God, where they receive communications from
him, till they are prepared to enter into his glorious presence in
heaven. 2. A high priest over the house of God, even this blessed
Jesus, who presides over the church militant, and every member
thereof on earth, and over the church triumphant in heaven.
God is willing to dwell with men on earth, and to have them
dwell with him in heaven; but fallen man cannot dwell with
God without a high priest, who is the Mediator of reconcili-
ation here and of fruition hereafter. II. The apostle tells us
the way and means by which Christians enjoy such privi-
leges, and, in general, declares it to be by the blood of Jesus,
by the merit of that blood which he offered up to God as an
atoning sacrifice: he has purchased for all who believe in him
free access to God in the ordinances of his grace here and in

478
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the kingdom of his glory. This blood, being sprinkled on the

conscience, chases away slavish fear, and gives the believer
assurance both of his safety and his welcome into the divine
presence. Now the apostle, having given this general account
of the way by which we have access to God, enters further into
the particulars of it, (verse 20): As, 1. It is the only way; there
is no way left but this. The first way to the tree of life is, and
has been, long shut up. 2. It is a new way, both in opposition
to the covenant of works and to the antiquated dispensation
of the Old Testament; it is via novissima—the last way that
will ever be opened to men. Those who will not enter in this
way exclude themselves for ever. It is a way that will always
be effectual. 3. It is a living way… It is by a living Saviour,
who, though he was dead, is alive; and it is a way that gives
life and lively hope to those who enter into it. 4. It is a way
that Christ has consecrated for us through the veil, that is,
his flesh. The veil in the tabernacle and temple signified the
body of Christ; when he died, the veil of the temple was rent
in sunder, and this was at the time of the evening sacrifice,
and gave the people a surprising view into the holy of holies,
which they never had before. Our way to heaven is by a cru-
cified Saviour; his death is to us the way of life. To those who
believe this he will be precious. 19

Not only does Henry see Christ as being in the most holy, he
also speaks of the “privilege” Christians can enjoy by focusing on
Christ’s ministry in that apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.
John Gill, another Bible scholar, an English Baptist pastor
(1697-1771), wrote in his magnum opus, Exposition of the Old and
New Testaments:
(Hebrews 10: 19): Having therefore…bold-
ness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus:
the place saints have boldness to enter into is heaven, called
“the holiest”, in reference to the holy of holies, in the taber-
nacle; which was a type of it, for the sacredness and invisibility
of it, and for what was in it, went into it, or was brought

479
Brian Neumann

thither; as the Shechinah, or divine Majesty, which resided

there; the high priest who went into it once a year; the blood
of sacrifices which was carried into it; the sweet incense; the
ark of the testimony, in which was the law; and the mercy
seat; all which were typical of Christ, his person, blood, sac-
rifice, righteousness, intercession, and the grace and mercy
which come through him…Christ has in person entered into
it by his blood, and opened the way for his people; and believ-
ers in him may “enter” now, and they do, when they exercise
grace on him, who is there, and when they come and present
their prayers and praises to God by him; and they have now
an actual right to enter into the place itself, and will hereafter
enter in person… 20

Th e very things Ellen White accused Christians of NOT

doing, “by faith,” Gill says, a century before 1844, Christians
were ALREADY doing, or at the very least were encouraged to
do, in reference to Christ and his work in the second apartment of
the heavenly sanctuary. One might say, in a very real sense,
Christians were focused on Christ and His mediatorial work in
the most holy long before Ellen White was accusing
Christians of missing the boat, post 1844. Th
e whole picture of
the sanctuary truth, painted in Th
e Great Controversy and other
of her writings, is a straw-man-construct with no basis in biblical
truth or actual fact.
Indeed, even after 1844 Christians have been encouraged to
focus on Christ in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary.
Famous preacher, Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), preached a
sermon, Th
e Rent Veil, on March 25th, 1888 at the
Metropolitan Tabernacle in Newington. He said:
No human hands could have torn that sacred covering
[the curtain of the earthly sanctuary]; and it could not
have been divided in the midst by any accidental cause; yet,
strange to say, on the instant when the holy person of Jesus
was rent by death, the great veil which concealed the holiest of
all was “rent in twain from the top to the bottom.” What did
it mean? It meant much more than I can tell you now.

480
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It is not fanciful to regard it as a solemn act of mourning

on the part of the house of the Lord… Did not the miracle
also mean that from that hour the whole system of types,
and shadows, and ceremonies had come to an end? The ordi-
nances of an earthly priesthood were rent with that veil…
we will consider how we exercise this grace: we “enter by
the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”
… think of WHAT HAS BEEN DONE… The veil is rent:
access is free. Come boldly to the throne of grace. Jesus has
made thee nigh, as nigh to God as even He Himself is.
Though we speak of the holiest of all, even the secret place
of the Most High, yet it is of this place of awe, even of
this sanctuary of Jehovah, that the veil is rent; therefore,
let nothing hinder thine entrance. Assuredly no law for-
bids thee; but infinite love invites thee to draw nigh to God.
This rending of the veil signified, also, the removal of the sep-
arating sin.21

It would appear that Ellen White’s aspersions regarding the

rest of the Christian world were more than likely a reaction,
based on her own narrow, localized personal experience and
hardly a reflection of what the rest of Christianity, outside of
New England and other places across the rest of the United
States actually believed and taught. No wonder, as she and the
rest of the left-over Millerites, who became the SDA Church,
gained knowledge of the reality of the situation, many of the
stronger and more radical positions taken by Ellen White had
to be reassessed. Th is resulted in deletions, adaptations, and
in the end, necessitated blatant denials that flew in the face
of testimonies given by many first-hand witnesses to Ellen
White’s original position—all of these people of course
were either branded betrayers or outright liars.
Certainly, it has to be remembered that not all denominations
took great pains at extrapolating the sanctuary belief in detail.
Most Christians generally understood what Paul taught in

481
Brian Neumann

Hebrews as it read. One of the reasons for a “sanctuary doctrine”

not being emphasized in such an essential or dramatic sense was
because the knowledge of what Christ had COMPLETED at the
cross did not necessitate a specific sanctuary teaching becoming
a prime issue of salvation as so emphatically stated by Ellen
White. One might rightfully say that if Paul’s clear statements in
Hebrews were on the whole understood as they read, without the
post 1844 exegetical acrobatics employed by the SDA movement,
Christians would still be largely on the same page in regard to
Christ’s location and work in the heavenly sanctuary.
Other issues inherent in the SDA sanctuary teaching such
as the “investigative judgment,” commencing with the “house
of God” (SDA’s), only contributed to the fear factor that was
already instilled by the kinds of Ellen White statements quoted
earlier on. At any time, your case could come into review in the
heavenly investigation and if you were not right with God when
that happened then, in a personal sense, your probation would
be closed. One can only imagine how such a teaching, coupled
with the rest of the unadapted, unchanged, undeleted sanctuary
doctrine could, without even having to make some sort of overt
point about it, plunge members into a works based religion—“get
it right before your case comes up for review”
The simplicity of the sanctuary teaching, in light of what
was accomplished on the cross, would be radically altered and
changed in view of the semantical complexities presented by
Ellen White’s teaching. For SDA’s, the book of Hebrews would
no longer be understood in pure simple terms, so eloquently
described by men such as Matthew Henry, John Gill or Charles
Spurgeon. And the dreadful reality of all this is that SDA’s, the
masses of lay-members and ministers and church leaders who
have simply not had the means or opportunity to see the FULL
picture, are non-the-wiser. They have no idea that 1844 and the
great disappointment that inspired/required (at least for some) a

482
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

new sanctuary teaching, was one of the monumental non-events

of all time.
It is true that many lay people and leaders have heard bits
and pieces, have read disturbing criticisms in books or on the
internet, but someone always seems to come up with some
“reasonable”/”viable” explanation—usually not a “case is closed”
comeback but simply an alternative way of seeing things. And so,
even though lingering suspicion or troubling questions still hang
somewhere in the subconscious, the enquiry is given up for now and
stored somewhere on a high shelf—out of sight and out of mind…
On the whole, for the purpose of “public consumption,” a
more superficial version of the teaching is presented in lectures
and any prying, uncomfortable questions are side-stepped with
exclamations of how wonderful this peculiar fundamental belief
is—filled with so much good news and hope, etc… However,
when ALL the ramifications of this teaching are understood and
cause and effect are considered, the picture is not such a positive
one at all.
More right-wing, conservative, fundamentalist SDA’s, who
have taken the time to study Ellen White and are strong defenders
of her prophetic ministry (especially some of the self-supporting
ministries), practice a legalistic type of faith and see themselves
as being the “remnant within the remnant,” so to speak, even
within the SDA Faith. They alone, some of them believe, are the
ones who remain true to the light (Spirit of Prophecy) that God
has given.
The sanctuary doctrine, as expounded by Ellen White, in the
setting of her original teachings on the subject, lie at the very root
of their exclusive religious experience—the pillar upon which
the rest is built—the Christian churches are Babylon, “we are
God’s chosen and we have the TRUTH as no one else has had
it before…”
Yet the simplicity of Hebrews, if it remained uncluttered
by the Ellen White/SDA version of the sanctuary doctrine, in

483
Brian Neumann

recognition that types and shadows were nailed to the cross

two thousand years ago, should leave Christians with a simple,
realistic faith that takes nothing away from the plan of salvation
and God’s call that His people live righteously in Jesus Christ.
There was a good reason why people, prior to 1844, who were
dedicated to God and the study of His Word did not read strange
interpretations into Paul’s teaching on Christ’s ministry as our
High Priest, Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins, etc. The same can be
said for those people, such as Spurgeon and others who continued
in that same vein after 1844, ignoring the complications and
diversions that were brought into the subject once Ellen White
and other survivors of the great disappointment decided to find
what they thought was a plausible/biblical alternative to Miller’s
failed prediction.
So much fulfillment and deep assurance embraces the mind of
the believer when he reads Hebrews 4:15, 16:
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like
as [we are, yet] without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto
the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace
to help in time of need.

TIe realization that the THRONE of grace is the throne of

the almighty God in the holiest of holy places in the heavenly
sanctuary—Hebrews 6:19:
Which [hope] we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and
stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil.

TIat which could not find completion in types and shadows

became complete in Christ, a High Priest after the order of
Melchisedec—Hebrews 7:19-22:
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a
better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And
inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]: (For

484
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath
by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent,
Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By
so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Salvation was not partially accomplished for those who embraced the
Saviour and what He did on the cross—it was complete—He did
it ONCE and it was DONE—Hebrews 7:25, 27:
Wherefore he is [as soon as He became High Priest—not
in 1844] able also to save them to the uttermost that come
unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for
them. For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harm-
less, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the
heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer
up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for
this he did once, when he offered up himself.

And, because it was DONE He could, as declared by Peter on

the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, sit at the right hand of God
on His throne—in the holy of holies—Hebrews 8:1:
Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We
have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the
throne of the Majesty in the heavens.

It is not coincidental that Paul describes the earthly sanctuary

and its services, in particular the Day of Atonement. He wanted
all Christians to realize that it was ALL now fulfilled in Christ,
that Christ WAS (in Paul’s day) already in the holiest place of the
heavenly sanctuary, applying the merits of His own blood, within
the veil, as the priests of the Old Testament did once a year—
Hebrews 9:7,11,12:
But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every
year [on the day of atonement], not without blood, which
he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people… But
Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a

485
Brian Neumann

greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that
is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and
calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy
place, [context of verse 10:19 and the fact that Paul is mak-
ing the comparison to the day of atonement makes it clear
that it is the most holy place Paul is referring to] having
obtained eternal redemption [for us].

Nothing was still left to be accomplished somewhere in the

distant future. Paul was making the point that the ceremonies
connected with the Day of Atonement were, in the antitypical
sense, fulfilled by Christ in His death and then His appearance
before the throne of God in the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary
as the “lamb that was slain” (Revelation 5:6). Christ HAD, when
he went into the holiest of the heavenly, OBTAINED eternal
redemption for us—assurance was complete. He was in heaven,
in the very presence of God the Father—it was done—Hebrews
9:24:
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands,
[which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now
to appear in the presence of God for us.

Sin was, in the beautiful and simplistic expression of Paul:

“put away.” To the point, emphatic, complete, In the sacrifice
of Christ on the cross of Calvary it was FULLY accomplished
—Hebrews 9:26-28:
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation
of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as
it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judg-
ment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;
and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time
without sin unto salvation.

486
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

In the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement a remembrance of sin

was made every year (Hebrews 10:3,4). But in the sacrifice of
Christ and His application of the merits of that amazing act, in
the holy of holies in Heaven, He made it possible for our sins,
when confessed, to be purged and sunk to the bottom of the
ocean—Hebrews 10:1,2:
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not
the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices
which they offered year by year continually make the comers
thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be
offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have
had no more conscience of sins.

But in the sacrifice of Christ the possibility of complete

sanctification now became a reality because Paul said that the
“first” was TAKEN AWAY. “Taken away” is emphatic and
final. Th e completion of Christ’s antitypical act was not to be
fully realized in 1844 and beyond. It was final. Not only for some
who accepted Ellen White’s “truth” after 1844, but for all—once
and for all—Hebrews 10:9-22:
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away
the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we
are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once [for all]. And every priest standeth daily ministering and
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From hence-
forth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by
one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanc-
tified. [Whereof ] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for
after that he had said before, This [is] the covenant that I will
make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my
laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now
where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.

487
Brian Neumann

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holi-

est by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he
hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his
flesh; And [having] an high priest over the house of God; Let
us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our
bodies washed with pure water.

ωЮбШеΑ
ЯЫ
ЯХЩЬШе
НЪР
ЯЫ
НЩНжХЪУШеΑ
аФС
УСЪбХЪС
ЯНЪПабНЮе

аЮбаФΑ
аФЮЫбУФ
аФС
ЯХЩЬШС
ЮСНРХЪУ
ЫТ
аФС
όЫЮР
ЫТ
μЫР
ХЯ
ЮСвСНШСРΔ
ώСаΑ
ТЫЮ
ЩНЪеΑ
аФС
ЪНУУХЪУ
ЭбСЯаХЫЪ
ЮСЩНХЪЯΓ
ΜόФНа
НОЫба
аФС

ЬЮЫЬФСаХП
ӔӕӒӒ
РНеЯΘ
θНЪ
гС
ЧЪЫг
гФНа
аФСе
ЩСНЪΘ
θНЪ
Н
вХНОШС

СдЬШНЪНаХЫЪ
ОС
УХвСЪ
ТЫЮ
аФС
РХЯНЬЬЫХЪаЩСЪа
ЫТ
ӓӚӖӖΑ
ТЫЮ
ςХШШСЮΛЯ

СЮЮЫЮ
НЪР
гФНа
ТЫШШЫгСРήΜμЫРΛЯ
ЩСЯЯСЪУСЮΝ
κШШСЪ
όФХаС
НЪР
аФС

СЯаНОШХЯФЩСЪа
ЫТ
Н
θФбЮПФ
аФНа
ЬЮЫПШНХЩЯ
ХаЯСШТ
НЯ
аФС
ЫЪШе
аЮбС

ЮСЩЪНЪа
ОЫРе
ЫТ
θФЮХЯаΘΝ
σЫ
ЫЪС
ПНЪ
РЫУЩНаХПНШШе
ПШНХЩ
аЫ
ФНвС
аФС
НОЯЫШбаС
НЪР
ТХЪНШ

НЪЯгСЮ
аЫ
аФСЯС
ЭбСЯаХЫЪЯΔ
νЫгСвСЮ
аФСЮС
НЮС
НШаСЮЪНаХвС
ХЪаСЮЬЮСаНаХЫЪЯ

ЫТ

ιНЪХСШ
ӚΓӓӖΑ
ХЪ
ПЫЪЪСПаХЫЪ
гХаФ
ιНЪХСШ
ӛΑ
аФНа
НЮС
ЩЫЮС
ТХЮЩШе
ЮЫЫаСР

ХЪ
аФС
аЮбаФЯ
ЫТ
νСОЮСгЯ
НЪР
аФНа
ТХЪР
ПШЫЯбЮС
ХЪ
гФНа
гНЯ

НППЫЩЬШХЯФСР
Ое
θФЮХЯа
ЫЪ
аФС
ПЮЫЯЯ
ЫЪ
ОСФНШТ
ЫТ
ШЫЯа
ФбЩНЪХаеΔ

2300 DAY MODEL

T h ere is little doubt that a comprehensive presentation of an
alternative to the SDA model on the 2300 day prophecy, would
occupy one complete volume, at the very least. It is not my purpose, or
even the function of a book of this nature, to extrapolate and
explain an alternative hypothesis to such a degree. Added to
this, I have come to learn that when it comes to interpreting
Bible prophecy, especially when it comes to the prophetic time-
frames, it is almost impossible to pin-point an exact moment in
time (future) or history (past) that will be agreed upon by every
Bible scholar or historian.

TIe further one goes back in
time,

488
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

аФС
ЩЫЮС
daunting the task of nailing down any exact dates.
TФus, even the dates that are featured in the Miller/SDA model
are subject to discrepancy and every honest SDA historian or
Bible scholar will admit to this fact. Th is evidence alone tells
one that it was foolhardy for Miller to get to the point where
he felt he could, with such extreme exactness, come up with
the date October 22nd, 1844. And, just as inexplicable that the
SDA Church still acknowledges this exact event/date as if it was
indeed accurate—according to a 100% verifiable evaluation of
the calendar.
SDA’s, as already shown, believe that Christ began His
ministry in 27 A.D., Died in 31 A.D. and that Stephen was stoned
in 34 A.D. Th ese conclusions are based on Miller’s studies and are
confirmed by Ellen White and early SDA scholars. However,
the best scholars, throughout Christianity, freely admit that there
can be no conclusive pin-pointing of certain key historical dates
that SDA’s seem to imagine are practically written in stone.
Often discrepancies of six or more years exist in even some of the
most accurate estimates. For example, one of the most
authoritative individuals on the life of Christ is Paul L. Maier,
who wrote Th e Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus’
Life (in Chronos, karios Christos” Nativity and Chronological
Studies Presented to Jack Finegan [ed. J. Vardaman and E. M.
Yamauchi; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989], 113-130),
brings the date of Jesus’ birth to around 5 B.C. Th is is based on a
more accurate date recording Herod’s death, which occurred in
4 B.C., allowing at least a year for Christ’s birth and the escape
to Egypt and final return upon Herod’s death (Matthew 2).
Th e most common estimates for Jesus commencing his
ministry range from between 26-29 A.D. Th e dates for his trial
and crucifixion range from between 29-33 A.D. TФese variables
are based on historical data such as Herod’s death and the dates
for the building of the temple, which took 46 years, etc.
Simply, the point is that it is not possible to be exact, even to
the
year, let alone the very day, such as October 22nd, 1844, for

the

489
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

close of the 2300 day/year prophecy. I would encourage the reader

to do their own extended research into the question of dating so
they can validate for themselves that what I am presenting here
is indeed true.
It is possible however, to look at the key scriptures that
relate to this prophecy—in both Old and New Testaments—
choose the appropriate interpretive framework and present an
alternative option.
This is exactly what Kamy and I did when we decided to do
more extensive research into Daniel’s 2300 year prophecy. After
the conviction set in that the SDA interpretation was wrong,
based on the Millerite, Edson and Ellen White explanation, it
became obvious that the “cleansing of the sanctuary” had to find
its fulfillment in and around the time of Christ’s crucifixion.
One day, after spending some time in prayer and consideration,
Kamy asked me to find out if there was something significant
that might have taken place around 2300 years before the cross. I
did some research and came up with an event that was significant
indeed. Based on this we decided to do further study, using the
Bible alone, unrestrained by preconceived ideas. Our intention
was to come up with the most simple, clear understanding of the
subject that would also make historical sense. Th e results of that
study are what gave birth to аФС
НШаСЮЪНаХвС I will present here.
The first consideration, while looking at any other possibilities
when it comes to the 2300 years, is to consider the facts we can
be absolutely, or with the greatest amount of certainty, sure
of—that which the Bible DOES teach, which we CAN know
DID happen and what we CAN know did NOT happen—even
though we might not be able to pin-point EXACT dates. By
going through this brief elimination process we will be able to
narrow things down considerably. I say brief, because it is in
the broad sense that I will present this model. Each person is
encouraged to conduct their own examination into the subject. In
this modern information age, via the internet and other research

490
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

and study options available, it will not be difficult to find all

the data needed to examine and test every possible question or
solution this model might inspire.

Prophetic Time—Day for a Day or Day for a Year?

NOTE: For the purposes of presenting the model below,

I will use historical dates as shown on SDA time-charts,
as those dates do fall within the margin of error that most
historians allow for. The reader should not construe that
I am trying to give some “exact” chronology. I am sim-
ply presenting another hypothesis that is open to further
study.

Th ere are a number of reasons whyΑ
ХЪ
аФХЯ
ПНЯСΑ I
believe

that using the day for a year method for reckoning prophetic
time is the correct approach. In light of the fact that I intend
being brief in presenting my model I will give only a few of the
most significant reasons that relate specifically to the 2300 day
prophecy of Daniel 8:14.
SDA Bible scholars (those who subscribe to a consistent
use of the day/year methodology) are correct in their assertion
that Daniel chapter 9 is the key to understanding the 2300 day
prophecy of chapter 8. This is over and above the other evidences/
examples in Scripture where God specifically states that He has
assigned a day for a year in prophetic context (Numbers 14:34;
Ezekiel 4:6). The time prophecies found in Daniel 9 cannot be
accurately interpreted in literal time. Historical, biblical and
inherent evidence of chapter 9 itself, not to mention fulfillment
of the predicted events, in relation to the Jews, Jerusalem, the
sanctuary and the Messiah, compel a day/year application of its
prophetic time-frames.
One cannot understand the time prophecies of Daniel 9 by
only reading the verses that speak of the 70 weeks, etc. (Daniel
9:24-27). One has to read from the beginning of the chapter.

491
Brian Neumann

Daniel’s mention of his study of Jeremiah the prophet and his

prayer that prompts God to send the Angel Gabriel to come and
explain “the vision,” are vital components. The content of Daniel’s
prayer and “the vision,” referred to in verse 23 are critical links
to chapter 8, the 2300 day prophecy and the time prophecies of
chapter 9, outlined by Gabriel from verse 24 onwards.
When one realizes these facts then it makes absolute sense
to apply the day/year principle to chapter 8:14 and the time
prophecies of chapter 9.
In Daniel 9:2 Daniel says that he was studying Jeremiah the
prophet in connection with the predicted 70 years of Babylonian
captivity ( Jeremiah 29:10) and the “desolations of Jerusalem.”
Next, Daniel tells of his “prayer and supplications, with fasting, and
sackcloth, and ashes” (verse 3). The contents of his prayer are prime
clues to Daniel’s concerns—the reason for his prayer and fasting.
In brief:

a) Daniel confesses his sins and the wickedness and rebel-

lion of his people. He refers to the promised blessings and
curses that God told Moses to convey to His people (verse
4-11).
b). He prays about the “great evil” of the 70 years captivity. A
result of the curses brought on Israel because of their diso-
bedience (verse 12). Interestingly, it is this period of 70
years that Jeremiah refers to when he has the confrontation
with the false prophet Hananiah who claimed that the
captivity would end within 2 years and that the articles
taken from the temple would be returned ( Jeremiah 28).
c) He beseeches the Lord in regard to “Jerusalem” and the
desolation of the temple (God’s “holy mountain”), because
of the sins of Israel (verse 15-17). In verse 20 he reiterates
the fact that his concern is for the “holy mountain” of God
(this is in a special sense reference to the “sanctuary” that
is “desolate”).

492
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Th e issues that were of concern to Daniel were clearly:

God’s people, their sins, the time of their captivity, Jerusalem and
the sanctuary/mountain of the Lord/temple. Indeed, the evidence
clearly suggests that the desolation of the sanctuary is of foremost
concern in Daniels mind. Why? What was prompting Daniel to
study and pray concerning these things? Verse 21-23 provides the
answer and leadЯ us directly back to Daniel 8 and, specifically
to the 2300 days of verse 14:
Yea, whiles I [was] speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel,
whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused
to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening obla-
tion. And he informed [me], and talked with me, and said,
O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and under-
standing. At the beginning of thy supplications the command-
ment came forth, and I am come to show [thee]; for thou [art]
greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider
the vision (Daniel 9:21-23)

God knew what Daniel’s primary concerns were. He knew

that in Daniel’s heart there was a longing to understand, through
study of Jeremiah, prayer, fasting and supplication, those things
that he did not understand in the vision he received in chapter 8.
In verse 26 and 27 of chapter 8 Daniel records the final words
of the angel Gabriel and his reaction to the vision:
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told
is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for
many days. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days;
afterward I rose up and did the king’s business; and I was
astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

A cursory reading of Daniel 8 reveals that the first half of the

vision (verse 1-12), dealing with the ram and goat, was explained
to him (verse 19-25). However, in verse 26 Gabriel makes specific
reference to the part of the vision dealing with the evenings and
mornings (2300 days/evenings and mornings, Verse 14). Gabriel,

493
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

however, does not offer an in-depth interpretation of that aspect of

the vision, which deals directly with the sanctuary. Even though he
mentions the king with “fierce countenance” that arises, his
“destruction” of the “holy people/ones” and that he will stand up
against the “prince of princes,” he makes no overt reference to the
“daily” of verse 11, 12, 13. Rather, he simply says that the “vision
of the evenings and mornings” is true and that the vision should be
“shut up” because it will not be for “many days.” Simple deduction
suggests that by “many days” Gabriel is speaking of when the
vision/2300days will be fulfilled/complete.
Th e Hebrew word, ТЫЮ
вХЯХЫЪΑ
used in verse 26, is “mare.” TФis
word is very specific to the 2300 days and the sanctuary and is not
used in reference to the earlier part of the vision—the part which
was explained. Th is point becomes even more significant when one
reads chapter 9:23.
When Gabriel talks to Daniel while he is in prayer, he tells him to
“understand the matter” (that which was troubling Daniel) and to
“consider the vision.” Gabriel uses the identical word “mare,” for
vision, a clear indication that he is bringing him back to the aspects
of chapter Ӛ that deal with the “sanctuary,” the “daily,”
“destruction/desolation,” the “2300 days” and God’s people.
Th ese are all the key concerns Daniel was praying about in
chapter 9. In reality though, one does not even have to know the
Hebrew word used for vision because when Gabriel tells Daniel to
understand the vision/mare he is, without doubt, referring to very
specific aspects of chapter 8. Not to mention that Daniel himself
identifies Gabriel as the same angel that appeared to him in the
“vision.” TФe bridge or connection between chapter 8 and 9 is
unmistakable.
It is not hard to imagine why God’s people, their sins, the time
of their captivity, Jerusalem and the sanctuary/mountain of the
Lord/temple, were the issues Daniel was wrestling with. He was
living in Babylon (the captivity was a present reality), the temple
and Jerusalem were in ruins (desolate). And, in that current

494
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

state of affairs, Daniel receives a vision concerning “the daily,”

the “transgression of desolation,” the “sanctuary and the host to be
trodden underfoot.” These points are highlighted in the form of a
question by the one “saint” speaking (8:13). The angel addresses
Daniel (verse 14) with the answer: “unto 2300 days/evenings and
mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”
Then, to compound the problem, at the very close of the
vision, the angel tells Daniel that the vision will not be “for many
days.” Daniel’s head was spinning! Was it conceivable that there
was still THAT amount of time left before things would finally
be made right?!
No wonder Daniel is sick for days afterward and is seeking
answers regarding the vision. No one, however, “understood it.”
Quite some time passes before Daniel is in prayer, as recorded
in chapter 9, but he is still clearly concerned with finding answers
to those questionsΒ engendered by the vision of Daniel 8, by
studying Jeremiah’s prophecies concerning the captivity of Israel.
Daniel is distraught by the possibility that all these issues
relating to the people of Godήtheir sins, the sanctuary and
Jerusalemήwill last much longer than expectedΔ

νe was
confused and needed answers. ξЪ

ЮСЯЬЫЪЯС, he does the best
thing anyone could do under similar circumstances, he turns to
God in prayer. Th
ere is deep confession for sin, his sins and those
of Israel and an almost desperate plea for God’s forgiveness and
restoration. In fact in chapter 9:19 Daniel pleads with God:
“DEFER NOT, for thine own sake, O my God…” In gracious
response, God sends Gabriel to answer the specific questions
that lay so heavily on Daniel’s heart (9:23-27).
TIe time prophecies that unfold in Gabriel’s explanation of

the vision, especially the prophecies concerning the Messiah,
are consХdered by Christian Bible scholars to be some of the
most important in Scripture. In fact they are the only clear
time prophecies that essentially pin-point the time of Christ’s
first coming—his ministry and death.



It is argued that these
are


the very


time


prophecies

(in ПЫЪЪСПаХЫЪ

гХаФ


ЫаФСЮ

495
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

ХЩЬЫЮаНЪа
messianic prophecies) studied by the wise men from

the East, who were led by the star to the manger of baby Jesus.
It almost goes without saying that the only way to interpret
these time prophecies is by applying the day for a year principle.
Th ese facts raise a vital question that cannot be ignored in
regard to the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. If, as it has been shown,
Gabriel was explaining specific aspects of the vision of chapter 8
in chapter 9, would it then not make sense for the same
prophetic-time principle to be applied (day/year)?
When Gabriel delineates the overall time-frame of “70
weeks” for the time prophecy of chapter 9, he immediately
addresses the questions Daniel was struggling with:
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people [the Jews]
and upon the holy city, to finish the transgression and to
make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the
vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy (Daniel
9:24).

It is vitally important that the reader, when considering

Gabriel’s summary of 9:24, be reminded that Gabriel is
specifically addressing the aspects of the vision of Daniel 8 that
were perplexing Daniel—the 2300 days being a critical part of
this. Th e keen observer will immediately notice how absolutely
key 9:24 is to understanding, not only what follows in 9:25-27,
but also to unlocking the mystery of the 2300 days in chapter
8. Th is is clearly the case because the 70 week time-frame is a

portion that is “decreed” or “determined” upon God’s people and

the sanctuary (From the Hebrew: chathak—divide, determine,

decreed, settled, marked out, etc.), and is directly related to the

2300 days/years.
NOTE: Gabriel predicts in Daniel 9:25 that the 70 week
period begins at “the commandment to restore and build
Jerusalem.” Prominent Bible scholars and Christian his-

496
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

torians agree that this happened in the early fall of 457

#$ (or close to that time) when the decree was given by
Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 7:13).

What follows from 9:25-27 is a break-down of the overall 70 weeks

into segments of: 7 weeks (49yrs) + 62 (threescore and two weeks–
434yrs) + 1 week (7yrs), totaling 70 weeks (490 days/yrs). Th
e
1 week period is divided because Gabriel says that in the “midst”/
middle of that week the “Messiah,” will be “cut off
”/killed, “not for
himself
”—for the sins of the world. In this act he will “cause the
sacrif
i
ce and oblation to cease” (they cease to have meaning because
the real sacrifice, in the antitypical Christ, has come). 5 h e
“ost holy” (verse 24—from the Hebrew: Qodesh Qodashim—holy
place or Person), will then have been anointed, as it was in the
typical sense (sacrificial system) on the yearly Day of Atonement
(when the sanctuary, after the collective sins of the people have
gathered and been retained for a year, is cleansed or justified) when
the High Priest sprinkled the blood of the goat on the mercy seat
of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place of the sanctuary
for the sins of the people.
In the book of Hebrews this is exactly what Paul says was
accomplished in Christ as the antitypical lamb of God on the cross
of Calvary (shown earlier in this chapter).
According to the SDA/Millerite chart, TIree and a half years
are then left (after the crucifixion) for the Gospel of Christ to
be specifically preached to the Jewish nation so that they can
have a final opportunity, as stated in 9:24, to bring in “everlasting
righteousness,” before the period of their allotted 70 weeks
comes to a close. However, after 34 A.D. because of the stoning of
Stephen (the death of the first recorded Christian Martyr), the
gospel of Christ is taken to the nations of the Gentiles and the
“official” end of the 70 week period is reached.
NOTE: SDA’s believe that the first half of the 1 week
period begins at the Baptism of Christ into His earthly
Messianic ministry in 27 a.d. It reaches its halfway point

497
Brian Neumann

in 31 a.d at the crucifixion and completed in 34 a.d. at the

stoning of Stephen. This conclusion is based on the under-
standing that the 70 weeks, of which the final week that is
divided in two, is an exact portion of the 2300 years that
begin at its commencement in 457 b.c. and end EXACTLY
on October 22nd, 1844. However, the statement of Daniel
8:14 reads: “UNTO 2300 days…” The Word, “ad,” in the
Hebrew, for “until” can mean—until, up to, during or up to
the time. Thus it can be readily accepted that Gabriel was
not necessarily saying that “in exactly (at the VERY end)
2300 days…,” but may well have meant “within or during
the 2300…” Of course, Gabriel’s interpretation in Daniel
9, dealing with Daniel’s concerns, would indicate that the
final week would be fulfilled at the end “portion” of that
period. This makes a whole lot of difference as to how one
evaluates, particularly the last week of the 70 weeks given
to the Jewish nation. I will make particular reference to
this when presenting my alternative model.

Th
e most accurate conclusion, which still fits within the margin of
error for the dates, is that the period of 2300 years reaches its
final phase at the time of the cross, events that most critically
affected the Jewish nation, and ultimately the whole
of
humanity, and that compliment what Paul so
emphatically records in the book of Hebrews (near the end
of the 70 year period).
Another vital factor in understanding the events that
transpire at the close of the 2300 days/years, that coincides with
the Hebrew options for “unto” (during, etc.), is that the
Messiah’s crucifixion does not have to culminatethe 2300 time-
frame but takes place 3 ½ years before the climax at Stephen’s
stoning, the event that signals the fulfillment of the portion of
Daniel’s concern with his nation.
Because Daniel’s concern is not only for mankind in a general
sense but specifically for the Jews (from his perspective at the
time), the sanctuary and Jerusalem, Gabriel also forecasts the
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple that occurred

in 70 A.D.
498
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

by the Roman armiesΑ led by Titus, which although it occurred

after the specified 70 week period, was the culmination or final
result for not having accepted the Messiah (before or after his
death), thus not making “reconciliation” for iniquity and bringing
in “everlasting righteousness.” At the destruction of the temple, in
a literal sense too, the sacrifice and oblation cease. The temple is
not rebuilt, the Jews are scattered and the formal cycle of feasts
and ceremonies, connected to the sanctuary, came to an end.
When the connection between Daniel 8 and 9 is extrapolated
in this way then the words of Gabriel in chapter 9:24, concerning
the “vision and prophecy,” have a new and very definite meaning.
Not only this, but the fulfillment of types and shadows/the
system of feasts and ceremonies in Christ, as spoken of by Paul
in Hebrews, are truly final and complete—not to still be fully
accomplished at some later date (1844).
However, if the connection between Daniel 9 and the 2300
days/years is made in this way then the only viable option left
is that the 2300 years end in or around 29-33 A.D., when the 70
week/490 year period for the Nation of Israel was complete. This
creates a gigantic dilemma for SDA’s because it would then mean
that the 2300 years end with the 70 weeks allotted to the Jewish
nation and do not start with it.
Traditionally SDA’s have preferred the term “cut off
” for
the Hebrew Chathak because it seems to make the point more
strongly that the 70 weeks were to be “cut” from some period,
i.e. the 2300 days. Even though certain Bible scholars prefer the
term “determined,” it is not a major issue, at least not in context of
the model I am presenting.
William Miller was methodologically correct in a number of
respects and thus, one might say by default, SDA’s are as well.
However, the placing of the 70 weeks at the start of the 2300
days/years and not the end created a multitude of problems, as
has already been pointed out earlier in this chapter—salvational
teachings and teachings related to Christ’s High-priestly ministry

499
Brian Neumann

that contradict what Paul says in Hebrews, etc. The results have
been all kinds of interpretive acrobatics that started with the 1910
crisis between those who held to Miller’s view that the “daily”
was “paganism” and those who interpreted it to be “sacrifice.”
From then on the back and forth debate continued, climaxing
with the Desmond Ford crisis of the 80’s and his contradictory
“apotelesmatic” approach to solving the problem, resulting in an
uncomfortable opposition of views that persist till the present.
However, if one simply takes Daniel 9:24 as Gabriel stated it,
in conjunction with Daniel 8:14, then there is NO WAY that the
70 weeks can be placed at the start of the 2300 days/years. Thus,
the 2300 years could in NO WAY end in 1844.
In Daniel 9:24 Gabriel says that the allotted time was given
to “seal up the vision and the prophecy.” What vision and what
prophecy? Not the time-periods spoken of in Daniel 9, even
though they might fall at the end of the 2300 years. This cannot be.
It needs to be recalled that when Gabriel interrupted Daniel’s
prayer he told him emphatically that he had come to help him
“understand the matter and consider the vision”/prophecy of Daniel 8
and the 2300 days. This means that the vision/prophecy that is to
be “sealed up” is the 2300 years (that’s when it ends). It is only in
a synchronous sense that the 70 week prophecy also ends at this
point because it occupies the last 490 years (70 weeks) of the 2300
years vision/prophecy. It is during this end phase, in the middle
of the last week of the 70 weeks, that the most holy is anointed and
the 2300 year part of the vision is complete/done/sealed up.
Of course, this idea does not only upset the SDA model but
also contradicts a number of other interpretive models—preterist,
futurist or those who want to apply the literal days approach to
the 2300 days. Nevertheless, to be true to what seems to be clearly
stated in Daniel 8 and 9 and to avoid creating other contradictions
in Scripture, in regard to what was accomplished at the cross, etc.,
a placing of the 70 weeks at the end of 2300 years, seems to make
a lot of sense. In this case, the BIG question that comes into play

500
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

would be in regard to finding a suitable starting/historical point

for the 2300 years, without being dogmatic in regard to an exact
pin-point.
In chapter 8:14 Gabriel said, “unto 2300 days…” This simply
means that WHEN 2300 days/years are complete, “then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed.” Thus, in reverse to the SDA model, we need
to go backwards in time from Christ’s first coming.
When viewed in reverse, from 34 A.D., the 2300 years bring
us to the time of the flood—a new earth and a new covenant
with mankind—a brand new start for eight remaining members
of humanity—the ultimate plan of salvation in Christ, lying that
many years in the future.

Back to the Start—2300 Days

Many will, understandably, balk at the idea of going back 2300
years from the time of Christ. This is because such an option has
simply been ignored or overlooked—it just does not make sense.
Or does it?
It could be argued that surely, when Daniel was told, “unto
2300 days…” it meant the starting date was either future or
immediate, not that it had already begun, right?
It would be arrogant to say that seeing the start of the 2300
days as future to Daniel’s day is stupid. There are plenty of reasons
why SDA Bible scholars and other non-SDA scholars were led
to believe that this was the most sensible option. Firstly, it just
seems logical to say that when a time is given to a prophet, it
must mean that it has not yet begun. Secondly, until William
Miller came along, no one really seemed to have made too much
out of the 2300 days except for the fact that it was seen by some
to mean 2300 literal days and was placed in the historical past
during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
It was really William Miller who, rightfully and for reasons
already addressed, realized the obvious connection between
Daniel 8 and 9, at least as far as the 2300 day portion of Daniel

501
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

8 was concerned. If it had not been for William Miller and his
failed prediction, it might never, unfortunately, have led to the
2300 days being connected to the heavenly sanctuary and a whole
new doctrine that still cannot be, in any clear sense, substantiated
by Scripture.
The point is, in light of the schools of prophetic interpretation
that exist and the varied nuances of ideas within the different
schools, no one can really be narrow-minded enough to say they
have it ALL worked out. One does the best one can with the
light God has given in Scripture and the facts one has available,
historical and otherwise. What gave SDA’s the assurance that
how they had “unpacked” Bible prophecy was correct was that
they had an extra-biblical voice, Ellen White, who gave them
“Рivine assurance” regarding their prophetic teachings.
Here is the irony: From the time of Ellen White, SDA Bible
scholars continually disagreed on exactly how certain prophecies
should be understood. This was for good reason because from
time to time Bible scholars would come up against things that
simply did not gel with the clear, simple statements of Scripture.
In the issue surrounding the sanctuary doctrine, as already shown,
a major split developed among SDA Bible scholars. Substantial
cause existed for the disagreement, reasons that were based on
what biblical evidence revealed. It was not without reason that the
“daily” came to be seen by Conradie and other SDA Bible scholars
as referring to sacrifice and not paganism. The problem was that
some brethren refused to go that route because “the prophet,” in
their opinion, confirmed what Miller had interpreted and thus
it could NOT be something else. Yet, when push came to shove
and the prophet was placed in a position where a stand had to be
taken, she said that God had shown her that she should not take
sides one way or the other.
Perhaps Ellen White had some sort of inkling but did not fully
realize what the implications would be, for the whole sanctuary
doctrine and the very existence of the SDA Faith, if she did take

502
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

a clear stand on the issue. Yet, for any discerning student of Ellen
White, the words that she had already spoken and written really
make it clear why she handled things the way she did.
And so, between the Bible and Ellen White, SDA scholars
have been doing exegetical acrobatics for decades and decades—
interpreting Ellen White’s interpretation of Scripture and dealing
with Miller and his inaccuracies. Barely able to maintain an ongoing
balancing act that, as more and more evidence surfaces, is becoming
increasingly difficult to keep from toppling over. Indeed, the last
people who should claim any absolutes when it comes to prophetic
interpretation are SDA Bible scholars—especially when it comes to
their teaching on the 2300 days, 1844 and their sanctuary doctrine.
There is no definitive unity among them and they know this for a fact.
It is for these very reasons stated above that I have chosen
to present a model/interpretation without taking any inflexible
position regarding it—if it only stimulates discussion and
further research then something worthwhile would already have
been accomplished.
However, as it is with much of the dating, prior to Christ and for
that matter even after, there is room for discrepancy. Yet, based on
the evidence available, Bible scholars and church historians have
been able to place events within fairly confirmable parameters.
According to Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian and Irish
archbishop and chronologist James Ussher, Bible historians and
most conservative Christian scholars, the Flood of Noah’s time
occurred between 2500 B.C. and 2300 B.C. A 200 year margin for
error might seem large, but when you take into account the data
available, biblical and extra-biblical, then 200 years is really not
such a huge gap. In fact, a number of researchers’ estimates are
closer to 2300 rather than the other way around. Some even
estimate it to within a few years either side of the 2300 year
mark. There is not absolute certainty but, never-the-less, under
the circumstances, a surprisingly accurate estimate. Some works
recommend for those wanting to establish the time of Noah’s

503
Brian Neumann

flood, include: The Annals of the World, by James Ussher, Adam’s

Chart of History, Newton’s Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms,
and Chronology of the Old Testament by Floyd Nolen Jones.
Dr. John Osgood when writing about The Date of Noah’s Flood,
the title of his work, made the following observations:
The question as to exactly when Noah’s Flood occurred has
seen a variety of different answers from scholars through the
years. The only possible way such a date could be obtained is
if the documented evidence which exists provides enough clues
to pinpoint the event. Now, while there are many documents
and folk histories concerning Noah’s Flood, the most detailed
description occurs in the Biblical text. Does the Bible con-
tain sufficient chronological data to enable us to put a time
on Noah’s Flood? I believe it does and I believe it does this so
clearly that no doubt should remain either about the timing
or the nature of this judgment by God upon this earth. 22

After taking one through a breakdown of Bible chronology

and other available evidences to where a pin-point date (or as
close to one as possible) can be suggested, Dr. Osgood states:
Genesis 11:10 tells us that Shem was 100 years old, 2 years
after the Flood had finished. When was Noah’s Flood? 1,981
years to AD 1 plus 967 years to the founding of Solomon’s Temple
plus 480 years to the end of the Exodus plus 430 years to the
promise to Abraham plus 75 years to Abraham’s birth plus 350
years to Shem’s 100th birthday plus 2 years to the Flood. The
Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 B.C. ± 11 years [11
year margin of error]. 23

TIe reader is encouraged to do his or her own study into the

dating of the flood. But, there is certainly consensus among
many scholars that the date of 2300 b.c., or within that ball-
park, is fairly accurate.
Of course, just because we have good reason to place Noah
and the flood 2300 years before Christ is not, automatically a

504
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

good reason to bring it into association with the 2300 days of

Daniel 8:14. Any model is only as strong or weak as the rationale
behind it.
For example, the essential reasoning behind Miller’s
conclusions appeared to be based on a solid scriptural foundation,
and to a large extent, insofar as his connection between Daniel
8 and 9 and his basic methodology were concerned, he built a
strong case. However, the minute he turned the “daily” into
“paganism” and allowed that to become one of the pieces of
the puzzle that led to the cleansing of the sanctuary becoming
the second coming, he totally lost the plot. The end result was
the Great Disappointment that morphed into a doctrine that
was not merely the result of misplacing a scriptural time-
frame or event. The progenitors of this teaching not only built
their foundation on what was already a mistake (an inaccurate
interpretation of Scripture that resulted in a non-event with no
earthly means of proving anything took place anywhere), but on
the basis of two people’s testimony, formulated something that
was odiously unscriptural, insulting to Christ, and finally, divisive
and embarrassing in its ramifications.
Thus, as far as is possible, there are some things that need to be
taken care of in suggesting that the 2300 years began at the time
of the flood: a reasonable, scriptural, historical rationale that stays
true to well established Bible-based Christian beliefs that are not
twisted or negated on such vital points as what Christ established
and made final by His sacrifice on the cross.

1. Two clearly established scriptural/historical events that

can easily be verified (not like Miller’s non-event of 1844)
provide a solid start and end.
2. The start and end events are not without sound bible-
based doctrinal support that compliment the underlying
sanctuary references in Daniel in the typical and ultimate
antitypical fulfillment found in the New Testament, par-

505
Brian Neumann

ticularly Paul’s writings in the book of Hebrews. On both

these counts, the Miller and SDA model are left with gap-
ing holes that no one has yet effectively filled.
When Noah, his family and the animals left the ark, life on planet
earth would start all over again—it was a new beginning.
Noah offered a sacrifice to God and God then promised to never
again destroy all life on earth by a flood (Genesis 9:11). He puts a
rainbow in the sky as an everlasting “covenant between God and
every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth” (Genesis
9:12-17). Th
is “Noahic Covenant” was not simply a covenant
between God and Noah, it was between God and all mankind, all
life on earth. Life on earth as it were, was starting all over again.
It should not be forgotten though that earth had very recently
reached a point of unbearable “wickedness,” that “every imagination of
the thoughts of his [man’s] heart were only evil continually”
and because of this God’s “heart” became “grieved” to the point
where He said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth.” However, “Noah found grace in the eyes of the
Lord” (Genesis 6:5-8). Th
e reason why, of all the human race,
God preserved this one family (eight people), was because the
ultimate price for the sins of mankind had not yet been paid
—the fulfillment of this promise, the central theme, the
pivotal event that would ensure man’s continued existence, still
lay in the future. God extended His grace to Noah, and in
doing this, to all of mankind, saying in a very real sense, I am
starting things all over again and will not destroy the whole world
until my plan of mercy towards the human race is fulfilled—the
death of Jesus for the sins of the world on the cross of Calvary
2300 years from the time of the flood.
As a result of rampant sin the world was destroyed and it
would be for that reason that Christ would die on the cross of
Calvary, ensuring the possibility of eternal life for all who would
come to Him—the vision and the prophecy, spoken of in Daniel
9:24, in reference to the 2300 days of Chapter 8:14, would then

506
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

enter its final phase. Because of sin mankind was destroyed at

the flood so that another opportunity could be given. Because
of sin the Son of God was killed at the cross so the ultimate
opportunity for man could be realized—the plan was complete.
Even though the plan of God’s ultimate and greatest display
of mercy was accomplished, He still, as promised to Daniel,
intended to give His chosen people the Jews their final, collective
opportunity, to accept Christ and embrace what He had done for
all mankind through His death and resurrection.
Prior to the cross, history’s defining moment, God gave His
chosen people ample evidence that Christ was the Messiah. The
moment was marked in clear, definable terms on God’s cosmic
calendar. Christ’s death was not an option for the Father and son.
It had to be, it was pre-ordained, because without it not only the
Jews but the whole of humanity would be eternally lost. However,
the time of the 2300 days/years was not yet full. God did not
“shut the door” on the Jews at the cross. The reason was simple
and was rooted in God’s mercy towards fallen sinful humanity.
He was giving an opportunity, on the basis of a clear, confirmable
fulfillment of prophecy. After this, through the preaching of His
disciples, he provided an opportunity for the Jewish nation to
turn to God and “put an end to sin.”
Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, clearly addressed the
guilt his hearers shared in nailing the Messiah to the cross and
also revealed (in light of their own scriptures), that Christ was
victorious, now sitting on the right hand of God in the most holy,
the throne-room of the heavenly sanctuary. As a result of the
evidence they could confirm and the testimony of the disciples,
three thousand people accepted the Messiah in one day. There
would be many more that would accept Christ, yet as a nation
they did not make use of the door that was left ajar.
In 34 A.D., three and a half years later, at the stoning of
Stephen, their collective opportunity reached its close. Stephen
when delivering his final testimony to the council regarding the

507
Brian Neumann

Jewish nation, from the time of Abraham and their birth till
their rejection of Christ, made it known that as their father’s had
resisted the Holy Ghost, so they had done too (Acts 7:52).
The council “gnashed on him with their teeth” and took Stephen
out to stone him to death. Then, as a final testimony to the
completion of Christ’s mission to earth and the closure of time
for the Jewish nation, he declared: “Behold I see heaven opened, and
the son of man standing on the right hand of God.” The response of
the Jewish leaders was emphatic and final: “Then they cried out
with a loud voice and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with
one accord” (Acts 7:56, 57). The vision of the 2300 years and the
allotted time of 70 weeks given to the “seed of Abraham,” the Jews,
from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 457 B.C., was sealed up—
it was complete.
It needs to be pointed out that what Christ came to accomplish,
on behalf of mankind, where He was “cut off ”/crucified for our
sins, “not for Himself,” was fully accomplished at the cross. Jesus
emphasized this when He cried out with a loud voice “IT IS
FINISHED!” However, the acceptance of this accomplished fact,
by the Jewish nation, in accordance with the allotted time given
them by Daniel, extended to the time of Stephen’s stoning. At this
point their leaders clearly demonstrated that they, in the formal
sense, had rejected Christ. Bear in mind that Daniel’s concern
was not just for the sanctuary but for the Jewish people as well.
It is within the frame-work of the 2300 days/years and the final
“week” period (7 years) that all the issues that concerned Daniel
came to a close—were fulfilled.
What becomes problematic is that some, like SDA’s for
example, believe that the actions of the Jewish leaders signaled
that God had rejected the Jewish Nation (the natural branches
or heirs)—He had now cut them off from their chosen people
status. However, this is not what Daniel 9 was suggesting. True,
at Christ’s trial, the Jewish leaders boldly proclaimed that Jesus’
blood should be on them and their children (Matthew 27:25). But

508
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

did this event and others, such as the events at Stephen’s stoning
and the gospel going to the Gentiles signal God’s rejection of the
Jewish Nation—the natural seed of Abraham? The answer is no.
Although, on an “official” level, the Jews did not accept Jesus,
many, indeed thousands, did believe in Him—three thousand
at Pentecost alone. Those who were responsible for taking the
message of Christ to the world (the apostles) were Jews. Paul
clearly states that gentile converts were “grafted” in as members
of the “natural” Jewish Nation—they became spiritual Jews. Let’s
consider Romans 11:13-27:
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I [a Jew] am the
apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any
means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my
flesh [ Jews], and might save some of them. For if the cast-
ing away [ Jews who chose not to accept the Messiah] of them
[be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiv-
ing [of them be], but life from the dead [ Jews who accepted
Christ]? For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also
[holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches. And
if some of the branches be broken off [ Jews who rejected
Christ—not all Jews but those branches that rejected Him],
and thou [gentiles], being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in
among them, and with them [among the Jews that remained
connected to the tree—that had accepted Christ] partakest of
the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against
the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root,
but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were
broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of
unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.
Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the
natural branches [the Jews who rejected Christ out of unbe-
lief ], [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. Behold there-
fore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell,
severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in
[his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And
they also [ Jews who might still choose to believe], if they abide

509
Brian Neumann

not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in [they become part of

the tree once more]: for God is able to graft them in again.
For if thou [gentiles] wert cut out of the olive tree which is
wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive tree [God’s chosen nation]: how much more shall
these, which be the natural [branches], be grafted into their
own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should
be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your
own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel
shall be saved [all those NATURAL Jews who believe]: as
it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is]
my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins
(Italic inserts and emphasis provided).

TIe Old Testament prophesied that there would be a price to

pay for sin. TIere would be a scattering among the nations. Th
e
Jewish Nation would indeed have the blood of the Messiah
on their heads. However, this did NOT mean that God had
rejected them as His chosen people. TIey remained the
NATURAL branches. So much more so, as expressed by Paul, than
the wild olive branches that were grafted in, who also now, by
virtue of their adoption, became the seed of Abraham—members
of the spiritual house of Israel. TIus, the opportunity for the
Nation of Israel (Abraham’s seed), the natural branches, was not
terminated at the stoning of Stephen. TIere was, at this time, a
consequence for their collective action, but God still used the
branches that were not broken off to spread the gospel to the
gentiles so that they (the gentiles) could be grafted in. In spite of
the scattering of His nation among the gentiles, He still viewed
them as the natural heirs and would give them continued
opportunity to choose to be grafted back in. TIe Jews remained the
natural heirs, albeit heirs in exile.


Ellen White’s description of God’s action in 1844 is so
different to the picture of
God
that
is painted by Paul.
Instead

510
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

of giving extended opportunity on the basis of an undeniable,

verifiable fulfillment of prophecy, as God did with the Jews (at the
stoning of Stephen and on to the present) He, according to what
can be extrapolated from Ellen White, practically tricked people
into losing their opportunity. A cosmic event that the whole of
humanity would witness, had it occurred, never happened—no
evidence at all that anything took place. Th en, God sends a
messenger, Ellen White, who, in essence declares: “Sorry guys,
you missed the boat, your guilt is the same as the guilt of the Jews at the
time of Christ (even though the Jews had evidence and the people of 1844
had none). You heard the message Miller preached, nothing happened
but that’s just too bad, it’s a done deal. If you do not accept that I am
telling you a door in the heavenly sanctuary is shut, then you will remain
deceived by Satan who (albeit symbolically), is sitting on a throne in the
holy apartment which you are still focusing on, even though you had no
idea that you were actually doing that. True, you cannot confirm one iota
of what I am telling you, because as far as you know nothing happened,
but that is just how it is.”
I am using hyperbole, true, but in essence, this is the picture of
the “merciful” God, preached by Ellen White—so unlike the God
of mercy and opportunity preached by the disciples at the end of
the prophetic period of Daniel 8:14 (2300 years).
Without doubt, there will be those (especially those who hold to
a staunch, traditional SDA position) who without any further
thought or reflection, will outright reject the above proposition.
Th is is understandable because, as I well know, it is hard and
extremely painful to give up a position that has been cherished for
so long—harder still when you believe it was given through divine
revelation. But, those who would ПШХЪУ
аЫ
аФС
ψιζ ψНЪПабНЮе
РЫПаЮХЪС
would do well to go back to their Bibles and put the prophet and
her ЮСвСШНаХЫЪЯ to the test. Indeed, this chapter has done exactly
that.
ξЪРССРΑ
Тrom the early years Ellen White’s sanctuary teaching
has been
challenged on biblical grounds. Many, dedicated students of

511
Brian Neumann

Scripture, men and woman of learning and integrity, on the basis

of clear scriptural evidence, came to the conclusion that she was
wrong. Some left the SDA fold because leaders “stopped their
ears” and would not hear. Others were treated like apostates and
were disfellowshipped.
Men like Desmond Ford tried to present their case, and
even though their alternative methodology might not have
been entirely correct, their ultimate conclusion, based on what
seemed so scripturally clear, was absolutely right—the Sanctuary
doctrine as presented by Ellen White and taught by the SDA
faith, one of the central pillars of the church, was not sustainable
on biblical grounds.
Hypothetically speaking, if there had not been the prophetic
voice of Ellen White, if by natural consequence the SDA sanctuary
doctrine had evolved along the same lines, on the foundation
of Miller’s failed prediction (The Great Disappointment),
what would have become of it by now? There is little doubt, in
light of the many inherent weaknesses that were present in the
original model, it would either have been unrecognizably altered
or completely abandoned—more than likely the latter. In fact,
various versions have evolved, one might say to the point where
some versions might well be unrecognizable to the founding
fathers of the SDA Church.
The one primary reason why certain SDA brethren still cling
to the vestiges of this teaching is purely and simply because of
Ellen White and the fear that in rejecting her, the “prophet of
God,” they will awaken God’s disapproval, not to mention the
potential loss of scores of tithe paying members. Thus, the only
viable option is to continually interpret and re-explain her until
the new generation of SDA’s have no idea what the actual belief
was at the start. Of course, the watering down and adaptation,
as shown in an earlier chapter, already started way back in
Ellen White’s day, post 1844 with the original position, taking
another hard turn in 1910 with the daily question. Following

512
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

that continued adjustments took place till the Ford crisis in

the 80’s. From that point on SDA scholars have actively been
involved in “interpreting” Ellen White to the point where her
original positions on 1844 and the sanctuary would at least
become palatable.
Again I want to make it very clear, regarding the alternative
model I have presented, that it does not come with any dogmatic
claim or absoluteness. Indeed, questions, particularly regarding
the final week of the prophecy might well have a few other
interpretive options. The one thing that stands out though is the
fact that what was accomplished at the cross brought Daniel’s
2300 year prophecy to its principal fulfillment.
To be sure, no model is without its flaws. And, contrary to
what the SDA Church leaders might want its members to believe,
by not revealing ALL the facts, the defects in their model exist
because it does not rest on ONLY the authority of Scripture but
on the foundation of Miller’s paganism and failed prediction and
the authority of an extra-biblical source, Ellen G. White.
As Hokama so aptly stated:
A logical analysis of the implications of Miller’s “paganism”
would certainly seem to lead one to endorse the verdict of his-
tory. It would appear that when the church abandoned “pagan-
ism” in 1910, it also unwittingly abandoned 1844, without
which Adventism may have no reason to exist. 24

SOURCES
1. Adventist Currents, March 1987 edition, entitled, “Does 1844
Have a Pagan Foundation,” by Dennis Hokama, p. 20-29.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid (emphasis supplied).
4. Apollos Hale’s article in The Signs of the Times and Expositor of
Prophecy, edited by Himes, Litch, or Bliss, November 16,1842.

513
 Adventist Currents, March 1987 edition, entitled, “Does 1844
Have a Pagan Foundation,” by Dennis Hokama, p. 20-29
(emphasis supplied).
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. SDA Encyclopedia, 1966, p. 321. Adventist Currents, March 1987
edition, entitled, “Does 1844 Have a Pagan Foundation,” by
Dennis Hokama, p. 20-29.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Within the Veil: Where did Christ go?, by Irwin R. Gane,
Ministry Magazine (emphasis supplied).
12. Ibid.
13. F. D. Nichol. The Midnight Cry. p. 458 (emphasis supplied).
14. Early Writings, p. 56. Quoted in, Within the Veil: Where
did Christ go? by Irwin R. Gane, Ministry Magazine
(emphasis supplied).
15. Within the Veil: Where did Christ go? by Irwin R. Gane,
Ministry Magazine (emphasis supplied).
16. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 56.
17. The Great Controversy, p. 429, 430. (emphasis supplied).
18. Ibid. p. 430. (emphasis supplied).
19. http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-
henry-complete/hebrews/10.html.(emphasis supplied).
20. Ibid.
21. ‘The Rent Veil’, A Sermon Delivered on Lord’s-day Morning,
March 25th, 1888, by C. H. SPURGEON, At the Metropolitan
Tabernacle, Newington. (emphasis supplied).
22. Dr. John Osgood,”The Date of Noah’s Flood,” creation.com/
the-date-of-noahs-flood.
23. Ibid (emphasis supplied).
24. Adventist Currents, March 1987 edition, entitled, “Does 1844
Have a Pagan Foundation,” by Dennis Hokama, p. 20-29.
 Chapter XIII

The American Exception

One Nation under God

Blessed [is] the nation whose God [is] the Lord;

[and] the people [whom] he hath chosen
for his own inheritance.
—Psalms 33:12

W
hen well known and highly respected Physician, Dr.
Ben Carson, entered the 2016 presidential race, the
question of voting and political pursuit was destined
to become controversial and potentially divisive within the SDA
community. Historically, SDA’s rarely get actively involved in
politics. Thus, for one of its members to run for President of
the United States, was absolutely unprecedented. The reason
for this apparent neutrality is because of the traditional, more
conservative SDA position regarding such lines of employment.
A primary motivation for this stand is because of some pointed
counsel by the institution’s leading founder and prophetess, Ellen
G. White.
During the 2016 presidential race, SDA publications
released articles, especially in light of Dr. Carson’s presidential
bid, in an attempt to defend and clarify the church’s “official”
position. At the very heart of the controversy is Ellen G.

517
Brian Neumann

White. What did she mean by her strong statements in regard

to political issues? Even though, in the bulk of her statements,
she clearly discouraged involvement in politics, why did she, in
some cases, seem to give approval? Did she mean that in EVERY
instance alignment with a political party or casting one’s vote
for a candidate were against the teachings of Scripture and the
“light” God had given her? Did she mean that NO member of
the SDA Church should ever get involved? Is there evidence that
proves absolute consistency in her stand and thus the stand of
the church?
Some SDA members believe she was emphatically, under any
circumstances, against casting one’s vote for political candidates
and even more strongly opposed to any SDA running for
political office. Those members who hold to this opinion abstain
from any involvement in the political realm. On the other hand,
others interpret her advice as being only relevant to specific
circumstances of her time. While others attach no significance
to her statements at all and couldn’t care less about what Ellen
White did or did not say. Because of these varied positions it is
hard to pin down a consistent SDA position—if indeed there is
such a thing.
In light of all this, and in particular because of Dr. Ben Carson’s
bid for U.S. President, church leadership has been brought to the
place where it is compelled to provide absolute clarity of position,
for church members and the world at large. This clarification of
position, which the church has attempted to provide, requires
a finely tuned, semantical balancing act, one which SDA Bible
scholars and Church historians are particularly adept at doing,
especially when it comes to clarifying and defending Ellen White.
One can only speculate how much simpler things would be if
they only explained things on the basis of what the Bible and the
Bible alone has to say, without the added “help” of Ellen White’s
pontificating. The church needs to, if possible, ensure that the
explanation of their position tallies with what Scripture teaches,

518
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

make logical sense, and last but not least, should avoid rocking
the already precarious “Adventist boat”—a tall order indeed.
Th e job facing SDA Church leadership has been a
challenging one. Already, especially because of Carson’s ТЫЮНе
ХЪаЫ
ЬЫШХаХПЯ, members have been taking strong, opposing
positions on the issue. Clarifications of the church’s “official”
position that have been released have not helped calm the
waters. Long standing debates between the conservative right
and liberal left in the church have only become stormier.
It is hardly surprising that Ellen White has become the
primary component in all of this. As the “final word” on nearly all
matters her prophetic counsel on matters political date back to
just before the Civil War period and beyond. In the main, in tone
and position, her sentiment is anti-political.
The one or two statements that seem to take a more moderate
or even permissive stance are loudly proclaimed by leading
contemporary SDA scholars in an attempt to create “fair”
balance. These do not, however, rise to the task and fly in the face
of the bulk of Ellen White’s officially published testimonies on
the subject.
Indeed, it will be established in this chapter and the next that
a number of positions taken by Ellen White in relation to the
Civil War were ill-informed and that subsequent clarification of
her statements by her apologists are based on careful crafting and
painstaking selection of evidence to create the impression that her
divine revelations and commentary were an accurate assessment
of those times and in harmony with Scripture.
To understand the significance of civil duty and political
perspective within the SDA Church one has to go back to that
pre-Civil War period when they began to verbalize their position.
The origins of the church’s view regarding its spiritual calling
and status, in relation to the secular world and Christianity and
the influence of Ellen White in all of this, need to be critically

519
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

examined. Only then will one begin understand why opposing

positions, taken by lay-members and leaders, exist in the present.
A fair amount has been written in response to critics of Ellen
White who have questioned her counsel to the church during
the Civil War. Official SDA Church historians and apologists,
such as Francis. D. Nichol, have presented explanations that have
become the standard line of defense against the critics. In most
cases however, as pointed out earlier in this book, these defenses
are often an alternative way of interpreting Ellen White rather
than a categorical vindication of her statements. When it comes
to the issue of her counsel during the Civil War one sees this type
of defense combined with quotes from other sources that, on the
surface, seem to exonerate her of unpatriotic and anti-political
sentiments. It can be proven however that in many cases portions
of quotes from Ellen White and other sources have been carefully
selected and presented in such a way as to create the “impression”
of continuity and harmony that do not really exist.
The best way to start my probe would be to go right back to
the very foundation of the problem with Ellen White and her
ideas regarding the Civil War, politics, the Founding Fathers and
the Constitution. When one has an understanding of America’s
origins (the Founding Fathers and the Constitution) then Ellen
White’s statements and accusations regarding the Civil War
take on the tone of someone who was largely ignorant regarding
the Government and the function and role of its various
branches (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) and the system of
checks and balances that safeguard the Constitution.
Once the origins of the American Nation and the events
surrounding the Civil War have been examined, the door to deeper
scrutiny of Ellen White and the SDA Church will be opened. A
knowledge of the Founding Fathers approach to dealing with the
question of slavery, the build up to and final events of the Civil
WarΑ and why and how Abraham Lincoln, in consideration of
the Constitution, did what he did during this timeΑ are vital. In

520
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

light of this information, the proverbial “penny” will very quickly

drop regarding Ellen White and the institution that regard her
counsel as direct testimony from God. Neglecting to cover ALL
relevant bases leaves SDA/Ellen White apologists with just
enough ammunition to twist the evidence and muddy the waters
so that people who simply do not have sufficient knowledge won’t
realize when their blind-spot has been taken advantage of. Thus, I
ask the reader to be patient and stay the course as it is impossible
to expose Ellen White’s and the SDA Church’s contradictory
position unless one gets to the root of it all.

AMERICA—THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDANCE & THE CONSTITUTION
The Founding Fathers stated, at the Constitutional Convention,
that they would formulate the Federal Constitution on the basis
of what had already been done in the Constitutions of the various
States. It is interesting to note that one of the points, specifically
of the Constitution of Massachusetts and incorporated into the
Federal Constitution, states:

All power residing originally in the people and being derived

from them, the several magistrates and officers of govern-
ment, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or
judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times
accountable to them. 1

Historically, the definition, as given by Supreme Court Justices, is that

America is a Judeo-Christian Nation because “Christianity has so
largely shaped and molded it.” President after president have
stated that America was born as a Christian Nation.
Hundreds of acts of Congress, State and Federal, say that the
U.S. is a Christian Nation. Only in recent years has the idea been
promulgated that this is not so. President Obama,
for example,
shortly
after
his election
when
visiting
Turkey
said
that
America

521
B RIAN N EUMAN N

гНЯ
ЪЫа
Н
θФЮХЯаХНЪ
σНаХЫЪ
НЪР
аФСЪΑ
ЫЪШе
ЯХд
гССЧЯ
ШНаСЮΑ
гФХШС
ХЪ
κУеЬаΑ

РСПШНЮСР
аФНа
ζЩСЮХПН
ХЯ
ЫЪС
ЫТ
аФС
ШНЮУСЯа
ςбЯШХЩ
ЪНаХЫЪЯ
ХЪ
аФС
гЫЮШРΔ
ζ
ЪСг

РСТХЪХаХЫЪ
ЫТ
ζЩСЮХПНΛЯ
ФСЮХаНУС
ХЯ
СЩСЮУХЪУΑ
ОНЯСР
ЫЪ
ЯЫЩСаФХЪУ
аФНа
ЪСвСЮ

гНЯΔ

λЮЫЩ
аФС
ЯаНЮаΑ
аФЫЯС
гФЫ
ПНЩС
аЫ
аФС
ϊΔψΔ
ТЮЫЩ
аФС
τШР
όЫЮШР
ЩНРС

Ха
ПШСНЮ
аФНа
аФСе
гСЮС
ЪЫа
ХЪаСЮСЯаСР
ХЪ
ЫЬСЮНаХЪУ
НЯ
Н
аФСЫПЮНПеΑ

гФСЮС
ЫЪС
ЯбЬЮСЩС
ЮбШСЮ
гЫбШР
ФНвС
аФС
ЬЫгСЮ
аЫ
РХПаНаС
аФС
ШНгЯ
УЫвСЮЪХЪУ

аФС
ЬСЫЬШСΔ
ωФСе
гНЪаСР
Н
ЪНаХЫЪ
аФНа
гЫбШР
ОС
ЮбШСР
Ое
аФС
ЬСЫЬШСΑ
ОНЯСР

ЫЪ
ОХОШХПНШ
ХРСНЯΔ
ωФС
ЬХШУЮХЩЯ
гФЫ
НЮЮХвСР
ЫЪ
аФС
ςНеТШЫгСЮ
гЫбШР
ЪЫа

СвСЪ
УСа
ЫТТ
аФС
ЯФХЬ
бЪаХШ
аФСе
ТЫЮЩбШНаСР
Н
РЫПбЩСЪаΑ
ωФС
ςНеТШЫгСЮ

θЫЩЬНПаΑ
РСПШНЮХЪУ
аФСЯС
ЯСЪаХЩСЪаЯ
ΤӓӘӔӒΥΔ
ωФСе
РХР
ЪЫа
гНЪа
Н
ЧХЪУ
Оба

РСПХРСР
аФНа
аФСеΑ
аФС
ЬСЫЬШСΑ
гЫбШР
ПФЫЫЯС
аФСХЮ
ШСНРСЮЯ
СвСЮе
еСНЮΔ

χСвСЮСЪР
χЫУСЮ
όХШШХНЩЯ
ΤӓӘӒӕάӓӘӚӕΥΑ
ТЫбЪРСЮ
ЫТ
χФЫРС
ξЯШНЪРΑ
ХЪ

ӓӘӕӘΑ
гНЯ
ЫТ
аФС
ЯНЩС
ПЫЪвХПаХЫЪΔ
λЫбЮ
ЬЮСНПФСЮЯ
гФЫ
гЮЫаС
аФС
λХЮЯа

θЫЪЯаХабаХЫЪ
ЫТ
θЫЪЪСПаХПба
ХЪ
ӓӘӕӚ
ЯаНаСР
ХЪ
аФХЯ
РЫПбЩСЪа
аФНа
ЪЫа
ЫЪШе

гЫбШР
аФС
ЬСЫЬШС
СШСПа
аФСХЮ
ШСНРСЮЯ
Оба
аФСе
гЫбШР
НШЯЫ
РЮНТа
Н
ηХШШ
ЫТ
χХУФаЯ

аЫ
ШХЩХа
УЫвСЮЪЩСЪа
ЯЫ
аФНа
УЫвСЮЪЩСЪа
ПЫбШР
ЪЫа
ХЪвНРС
аФС
ХЪРХвХРбНШ

ЮХУФаЯ
ЫТ
ПХаХжСЪЯΔ
χСвСЮСЪР
όХШШХНЩ
υСЪЪ
ΤӓӘӖӖάӓәӓӚΥ
гФСЪ
ФС
гЮЫаС
аФС

θЫЪЯаХабаХЫЪ
ТЫЮ
υСЪЪЯеШвНЪХНΑ
РХР
СдНПаШе
аФС
ЯНЩС
аФХЪУΔ

όФСЪ
ШЫЫЧХЪУ
На
аФС
СНЮШе
ФХЯаЫЮе
ЫТ
аФС
ϊΔψΔ
ЫЪС
ХЩЩСРХНаСШе

ЪЫаХПСЯ
аФНа
Ха
гНЯ
θФЮХЯаХНЪ
ЩСЪΑ
ЩНЪе
ЫТ
аФСЩ
ЬЮСНПФСЮЯΑ
гФЫΑ
ЫЪ
аФС
ОНЯХЯ

ЫТ
гФНа
аФСе
ОСШХСвСР
аФС
ηХОШС
аНбУФаΑ
РСТХЪСР
аФС
ЮЫШС
аФНа
УЫвСЮЪЩСЪа
гЫбШР

ЬШНеΔ

ξЪ
ЩЫЮС
ЮСПСЪа
аХЩСЯΑ
ωФСЫРЫЮС
χЫЫЯСвСШа
ЩНРС
аФХЯ
СЩЬФНаХП

ЯаНаСЩСЪаΓ


The teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined
with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally—
I do not mean figuratively, I mean literally—impossible to
figure to ourselves what life would be if these teachings were
removed. 2

522
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Biblical morals and ethics, such as the Good Samaritan

teaching and the Golden Rule, found in the laws of the country,
are further evidence that Christian philosophy was the basis upon
which the nation was founded. Likewise, Scripture inspired the
Free-Market System of the U.S. Th ose who implemented this,
way back in the 1620’s, pointed to two portions of the Bible,
1 Timothy 5:8 and 2 Th essalonians 3:10. Later, as the
system developed, it was shown that Christ’s teaching in Luke
19:11-27, Matthew 20:1-16 and Matthew 25:14-30 were really
the basis of this. Even Benjamin Franklin, considered by some to
be the least religious of the Founding Father’s, stated:
…but to manufacture for themselves, or use colony manufac-
turers only, be the means, under God, of recovering and estab-
lishing the freedom of our country entire, and of handing it
down complete to our posterity. 3

Adam Smith (1723-1790) is the one that people often point to

for the Free-Market system. He wrote a book on Christian
morality, Th e Th eory of Moral Sentiments; an essay towards
the analysis of the principles by which men naturally judge
concerning the conduct and character, first of their ЪСХУФОЫЮ, and
afterwards of themselves. Ethical Christian ОСФНвХЫЮ, based on the
golden rule, was meant to be the guide for a free-Market
system. It is unfortunate, of course, that these biblical
principles are largely ignored today.
If one goes back and looks at the foundation of American
society one will discover what the strength and prosperity of the
nation is built upon. The Declaration of Independence (
July 4, 1776)
is the foundation document of the American Nation that outlines
five fundamental principles on which the American government
will operate (1. There is a God 2. That God gives certain rights 3.
Government exists to protect these rights 4. There is a moral law—
the laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God 5. Below the moral
law, the supreme standard, is consent of the government). Following

523
Brian Neumann

these, are twenty-seven grievances against Great Britain, showing

where she had violated the five fundamental principles.
For a hundred and fifty years the Declaration of Independence
was considered the founding document. Even though the
Constitution is what the Government swears to uphold, Article
Seven of the Constitution, the Attestation Clause, directly ties
the Constitution to the Declaration of Independence. Indeed,
every Presidential Act, signed by all presidents since George
Washington to the present, is not dated to the Constitution but
to the Declaration of Independence. 4
If one looks at page one of the U.S. Code Annotated, the
Federal Code under which America governs itself, you find what
are called Organic Laws. These Organic laws are the foundational
laws that no Federal Laws or State Laws are allowed to violate.
Right at the top of this list is the Declaration of Independence.
It is hardly debatable, regardless of current popular trends that
the Declaration of Independence is of paramount importance. The
Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all go hand in
hand. You cannot effectively interpret one without the other.
Right near the start of the Declaration of Independence document
is the famous sentence stating that “all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights…”
The document ends with these words: “And for the support of
this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our
Fortunes and Sacred Honour.” It would be wise to remember that
before all the points of the declaration were set forth, the signers
of the document made the point of confirming that what they
were setting forth were “truths” they believed were “self-evident.”
This means that the truth, as far as they were concerned
was that all men are “created.” They came from the hand of the
“Creator,” according to the biblical teaching—a Judeo-Christian
belief. And thus, are esteemed, “equal” by their “Creator.” They
understood that these rights are not Government-established

524
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

rights but God-given rights that Government should ensure

are upheld by those chosen to be leaders of the nation. The
Declaration states: “That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men.” This is why government has to ensure
that each person has the right to worship God according to the
dictates of conscience.
Intrinsic to this document was also the God-given right to
life. This would naturally mean that even an unborn child HAS
THE RIGHT TO LIFE, which begins in the womb. Back in
the 1700’s Thomas Jefferson was already passing anti-abortion
laws in the state of Virginia. Indeed, two-hundred years ago
there were already anti-abortion laws in all states of America.
These moral aspects of the Declaration were based on scriptural
guidelines—the code, as it were, upon which the rights of society
would be grounded.
Freedom and equality did not mean a free-for-all where
each individual could be a law unto themselves—an individual
autonomy that would ultimately, in the context of a sinful world,
lead to chaos. It is self-evident that the code for maintaining freedom,
liberty and justice, etc., would be the Judeo-Christian standard of
the founding fathers, the Bible. There can be no doubt that what
they used as their point of reference was God’s moral law.
Surely, this is what Samuel Adams was so eloquently
communicating when he delivered his speech as Governor to the
Legislature of Massachusetts, on January 17th, 1794. He said: “In the
supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of
nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.” 5
Edmund Burke, British Statesman, made the distinction between
true liberty and that which would certainly lead society down the
path to eventual anarchy, when he stated: “Society cannot exist
unless a controlling influence be placed somewhere. It is ordained
in the eternal constitution of things [God’s Constitution] that
men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge
their fetters.” 6

525
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Th e controlling influence, the guideline for the American

Nation, One Nation Under God, was the law of God. Th e
founding fathers believed that true liberty is found only as one
measures one’s freedoms by this standard. As the Apostle
James said, the law of God is “the perfect law, the law of
liberty” (
James 1:25), because it sets you free from the bondage
of sin.
Th e founding fathers understood that because the nature of
man was fallen/sinful it was not expedient nor scriptural that the
nation should be the type of democracy, where simple majority
vote, regardless of the moral implications of the outcome, should
dictate the rule of law. America was designed to be a Republic
for some very significant reasons. Section Four of the
Constitution, in essence, prohibits America from becoming a
democracy because the “United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican form of Government.”
John Adams stated: “Remember Democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. Th ere never was
a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” 7
Th is, together with the rest of the foregoing evidences strongly
debunks the common mantra that the Constitution is a “Godless
document.” Th is is partly baseР
ЫЪ
the idea or rumour that the vast
majority of signers of the Constitution were deists, freemasons,
agnostics or simply atheistic in their beliefs. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
A prime example of the “Godless” notion is the book by Isaac
Kramnick and R. Laurance Moore, Th e Godless Constitution—
Th e Case Against Religious Correctness, used in universities across
the U.S. Th e fact is, out of the fifty-six signers of the
Declaration, twenty-nine held seminary degrees. A number
of the men who wrote the Constitution were dedicated
theologians who wrote doctrinal creeds for their own
denominations. Looking at the Constitution itself provides the
evidence that it is not a Godless document.

526
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Political Scientists did a ten year study to establish what the

source materials for the Constitution were. Th ey found
three-thousand-one-hundred and fifty-four direct quotes that they
could trace back to the original sources. Th e number two most
quoted source was Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755), eight
percent. Next was Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), seven
point nine percent and John Locke (1632-1704) at two point
nine percent. In fact, the Founding Fathers themselves
made reference to these men. Th ey said they based the
Declaration on Locke’s work and the separation of powers on
Montesquieu. Th e phrasing in the Declaration about the laws
of God and nature came out of Blackstone’s work. However, the
document that was quoted thirty-four percent of the time was
found to be the Bible—four times more than any other source.
Specific clauses, such as article three (Bill of attainder) in the
Constitution, point to the Bible as the source (see Ezekiel 18:20).
There is a provision in Article Three regarding Constitutional
Witnesses which is practically a word for word quote of
Deuteronomy 17:6. Indeed, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton
and George Washington pointed to Jeremiah 17:9 as the basis
for separation of powers. The writers who formulated Article
Four, which guarantees full republicanism in every government,
pointed to Exodus 18:21 as a prime source.
This evidence begs the question as to where Isaac Kramnick
and R. Laurance Moore, got their information for their book, The
Godless Constitution—The Case Against Religious Correctness. The
conclusion must be that they were happy to select one-sided,
second-hand information. Indeed, if one turns to the Sources
section at the back of the book where these two Phd’s should have
provided indisputable original source-evidence for their claims,
you find no such thing. They bypass the need for such provision
by stating that because they “intended the book to reach a general
audience, and also because the material we have cited is for the

527
Brian Neumann

most part familiar to historians and political scientists, we have

dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes.”
They go on to thank the colleagues they have learned from
and suggest some books and documents for people to “peruse.” It
makes one wonder whether the reason for doing this is because
they fear that if people dig deeper and do REAL research,
sourcing original material, it will be discovered that the “books
and documents” used for their book were selectively chosen
and quoted so as to fit their narrative of history. Is it perhaps
that behind their narrative and many others like them lies a
hidden agenda to reeducate a new generation into an erroneous
understanding of American history?
Pressing home the point regarding the Judeo-Christian origins
of the Constitution, James Madison, author of The Federalist Papers
was of the firm belief that GOD was the One who guided in the
establishment of the United States of America. He wrote:
It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in
it a finger of that almighty hand which has been so frequently
and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the
Revolution.8

Alexander Hamilton, in reference to the Constitution said:

For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without
the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed
upon by such a diversity of interests. 9

George Washington regarded it as nothing short of a miracle:

It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle that the delegates
from so many different States…should unite in forming a sys-
tem of national government.10

Benjamin Franklin, signer of the Constitution, believed that

the Hand of God was there to guide and influence. He
actually quoted Acts 17:28 in his explanation:

528
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

…should be suffered to pass without being in some degree

influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omni-
present, and beneficent Ruler in Whom all inferior spirits ‘live
and move and have their being. 11

Even if one was tempted to argue the question of the Masonic

connection and deistic beliefs, etc. of the Founding Fathers,
such as George Washington, you would still run into serious
problems in trying to effectively make your case. Besides the
evidence presented above, it is not a foregone conclusion that
someone who is part of the Masonic Brotherhood cannot be a true
Christian (read my earlier chapter on William Miller, the
father of SDA sanctuary doctrine and Freemasons). In fact, it
might be worth mentioning that of the fifty-six signers of the
Constitution only nine were Freemasons. 12 It is likewise a gross
exaggeration that the majority of the signers of the Constitution
were deists.
Th
e bottom line is that those who framed and signed the
Constitution believed that the Hand of God was present in all
they did, that what they formulated was based on Judeo-Christian
principles and that all those who became leaders of the Nation
were sworn to uphold a Constitution that was based on those
guiding principles.
Indeed, even SDA’s consider the birth of the United States of
America and the establishment of its Constitution as events directed
by God’s Divine leading. Ellen White herself considered the
Republican form of Government to be the key to America’s success and
was of the opinion that, should it ever reject the Protestant
principles that made it such a great nation it would then give
in to papal delusions. In essence, this means that America
would become an evil satanically controlled power—based on
the SDA interpretation of Revelation 13 and the second beast
described in that chapter, whom they believe is the U.S.A.
In direct connection with the issue of oppression, Ellen
White makes the comment that Sabbath-keeping brethren who
sympathize with oppressing the colored race are rejecting the
Constitution. She expresses it in the following words:
529
Brian Neumann

These brethren cannot receive the approval of God while they

lack sympathy for the oppressed colored race and are at variance
with the pure, republican principles of our Government. 13

Surely, if she viewed the “republican principles of Government” as

“pure” then she should have understood that these principles
operated within the framework of a Constitution that was based on
Judeo-Christian ideals. She was right to speak out against
oppression, but on the basis of what will be revealed later in this
investigation, did she really understand how the branches of
government functioned and that if something in the Constitution
needed to be amended there was due process that HAD to be
followed? In connection with Protestant America coming into
union with the Roman power and Spiritualism and how this
would signal the fall of the nation and the end of time, she
wrote:
When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to
grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the
abyss to clasp hands with Spiritualism, when, under the influ-
ence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every
principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican
government, and shall make provision for the propagation of
papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time
has come for the marvelous working of Satan, and that the end
is near.14

She clearly recognized the Protestant Christian origins of the

U.S. and its system of government. She seems to have regarded
the principles of the Constitution with great value and warned
against repudiating them. Surely, in light of this, why would
she, as will be seen, have condemned Lincoln and his
Government for wanting to stay true to the Constitutional
process? Unless of course, she regarded due constitutional
process as being vital in some cases but not in others.
It goes without saying, nothing man designs is perfect. It
is true that some laws that were put in place by the Founding

530
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Fathers had to be reviewed and adjusted—the slave laws being a

prime example. Also true though, is the fact that the Founding
Father’s made provision for needed adjustments. However, this
provision was allowable only within the framework of checks and
balances, put in place so that no branch of Government could
simply enact laws without accountability and proper procedure.
If God’s hand was in the establishment of the nation and its
Constitution then surely He expected it vital to safeguard the
principles of operation that made the American form of
Government so unique—Сxceptional among the nations of this
world.
In light of these facts the above submissions from the
writings of Ellen White (there are more) will become most
relevant when evaluating her prophetic statements about the
Civil War and involvement in political issues. Before
proceeding with that, let’s first look at the branches of
government, the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil
War—from an historical perspective.

THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT

Th
e following questions may well be asked: “If the Constitution
was SO Christian, then why was the practice of slavery protected by
the Constitution? Why did the Founding Fathers not address this
issue and do away with it immediately? Why were there key
clauses in the Constitution that protected this institution, such
as the Fugitive Slave Clause and the Th
ree-fifths Clause, that
allowed the Southern States to count slaves for the purpose
of representation in the Federal Government?”
Th
is will be addressed as we continue. What we first need to
understand, in broad terms, is how the three branches of
Government, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial
function within the Constitutional framework and what relation
this had to why and how Lincoln dealt with the problem of
slavery during the Civil War.

531
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Th e Delegates who were part of the Constitutional

Convention, wanted to make sure that the Federal Government’s
power was not ЩЫЪНЮПФХПНШ. TФey did this so that power would
never be controlled by one person or group. History taught them,
particularly the history of Europe and Great Britain, that in a
system where there was no separation of powers, where the
various facets of life, religious, political, social, etc., were under
the control of a pope, king or group that could at whim pass
laws on the basis of their supposed superior judgment, inevitably
resulted in tyranny and oppression.
A Government, divided into three main branches, was put
into place: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Built into this was a
system of checks and balances that would encourage cooperation,
prevent one branch from gaining supremacy and protect the opulent
minority from the majority. Th is allows for a system-based regulation
where one branch limits the other, such as the power of the United
States Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the
Federal Courts. Th is principle of separation of powers allows for the
branches represented by the separate powers to hold each other
reciprocally responsible to the assertion of powers as appointed
by law.

Th e Executive Branch:
Headed by the president. Th e president carries out federal laws
and recommends new ones, directs national defense and foreign
policy, and performs ceremonial duties. Powers include directing
government, commanding the Armed Forces, dealing with
international powers, acting as chief law enforcement officer, and
vetoing laws.

Th e Legislative Branch:
Headed by Congress. Th is includes the House of Representatives
and the Senate.

Th e main
task
of these two bodies
is
to
make the

532
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

laws. Its powers include passing laws, originating spending bills

(House), impeaching officials (Senate), and approving treaties
(Senate).

Th e Judicial Branch:
Headed by the Supreme Court. Its powers include interpreting the
Constitution, reviewing laws, and deciding cases involving states’
rights, etc.
It needs to be understood that the Government, voted in by the
citizens, was a limited Government, a μЫвСЮЪЩСЪа
ЫТ
аФС
ЬСЫЬШСΑ

Ое
аФС
ЬСЫЬШС
НЪР
ТЫЮ
аФС
ЬСЫЬШСΔ Government was not designed
to rule the people but to serve them. Th e limitations placed on
Government were for the purpose of preventing Government from
meddling in those spheres of personal and public/social life where it
did not have the right to interfere. One example would be the idea of
separation of church and state—something which has become greatly
misunderstood and misapplied in recent times.
Th e idea of separation of church and state does not mean that
government has the right to tell a preacher what they can and cannot
preach or that it has the right to ban someone from praying or using the
name of Jesus in public. It does not either mean that a minister of the
gospel cannot be involved in politics—he is a member of society as
much as anyone else and has the right to be politically active. Th is
almost goes without saying, especially in light of the fact that the U.S.,
as already shown, is a Christian nation founded on Christian
principles. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers, involved in the
political arena, were religious leaders of their respective Christian
denominations. Th us, the idea of “separation,” while it allows for
religious men and woman to be involved in Government, DOES
NOT mean that the Government can dictate in religious matters.
Interestingly, the phrase, “separation of church and state,” is not
worded as such in the Constitution. What the Constitution DOES say is:
“Congress
shall
make
no
law
respecting
the

establishment

533
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Th is prevents

Congress from, for example, establishing a state religionΑ
but does not prevent a religious group, within the parameters
of the Constitution, from freely and openly exercising their
faith (a Constitution based on Judeo-Christian guidelines).
Of course, the freedom to exercise one’s faith and speak freely
of what one believes does not, e.g. give any religious group
the right to kill someone who does not believe as they do or to
take part in ritual-human-sacrifice, regardless of whether their
religion teaches such repulsive doctrines.
These facts, in regard to religious/political matters, will have
a significant impact once we evaluate Ellen White’s statements
in regard to politics and religion—especially in the context of a
Judeo-Christian nation such as America.
It is important to evaluate the institution of slavery, the
Civil War and Lincoln’s actions, within the framework of the
Constitution and separation of powers. I will thus outline, in
point form, Lincoln’s pre-Civil War, Civil War and post Civil
War position on slavery and why, in relation to the Constitution
and law, he took the actions he did.

1. Lincoln was of the firm opinion that slavery was morally

wrong. The problem he faced, however, was that it was
sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution.
The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how
to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slav-
ery” in the Constitution, but, as mentioned earlier, they
did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a
fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed
Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representa-
tion in the federal government.
2. Lincoln was not an Abolitionist, according to the defini-
tion of that era. He could not be, in light of his belief and
allegiance to the Constitution. Abolishionists felt that slavery

534
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

should be immediately abolished and freed slaves should be

incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care
about working within the existing political system, or under the
Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slav-
ery and slave owners. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd
Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and
an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at
a Massachusetts rally in 1854. Though Lincoln saw himself as
working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common
anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them.
3. Lincoln, for much of his career, believed that coloniza-
tion—or the idea that a majority of the African-American
population should leave the United States and settle in
Africa or Central America—was the best way to con-
front the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes,
Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored coloni-
zation; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects
of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could
live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for
colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct
would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia”
(the African state founded by the American Colonization
Society in 1821). Lincoln did not permanently hold to this
position. His own ideas regarding a solution to the slavery
problem evolved. Proof of this can be seen in the ultimate
Emancipation Proclamation—no such option [coloniza-
tion] was presented in this. Indeed, it would appear that
Lincoln adapted his earlier position to come into line with
the argument presented by black leaders and abolitionists.
They argued that African-Americans were as much natives of
the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After
he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation,
Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and

535
Brian Neumann

a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time

the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.
4. As alluded to in point one, slavery existed because of state
laws, and the president had no power to declare state
laws invalid. The Supreme Court could declare a state
law unconstitutional, but nothing in the Constitution
as it existed in 1863 made slavery unconstitutional. The
president instead based his legal argument for abolishing
slavery on the Constitution’s grant of war powers to the
president. Claiming that slavery was enabling the rebels
of the South to carry out their war, he maintained that
abolition was “warranted by the Constitution, upon mili-
tary necessity” to save the government. It is a fact that
the Emancipation Proclamation was limited. However,
it marked a crucial turning point in the evolution of
Lincoln’s views of slavery, as well as a turning point in the
Civil War itself. “By war’s end, some 200,000 black men
would serve in the Union Army and Navy, striking a mor-
tal blow against the institution of slavery and paving the
way for its eventual abolition by the 13th Amendment.” 15

THE BIBLE AND SLAVERY—IMPACT ON

ITS PRACTICE IN NORTH AMERICA
For many, the fact that slavery was even allowed to exist in a
nation such as the U.S. is a perplexing contradiction. Those who
came from across the ocean to start a new life in America were
escaping an oppressive religio-political system. They knew what
it was to live in an atmosphere void of true liberty. Their faith
was based upon biblical, Judeo-Christian, Protestant beliefs and
central to this belief-system was the supreme example of Jesus
Christ, the Chief Cornerstone upon which their whole faith
was built.

536
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

If the Founding Fathers were truly men of faith, establishing the

Constitution on biblical ideas, such as liberty justice and
freedom, believing that all men were created equal and had certain
inalienable rights, etc., then why was the practice of slavery even
allowedΑ or, at the very least, allowed to continue? What biblical
precedent or sanction made such a practice permissible?
As reprehensible as the idea of slavery is, there are ample
evidences in the scriptures of God not only tolerating but personally
designating the parameters of operation connected to the practice.
Th
e reason for God’s toleration of slavery is not, when one considers the
problem of man’s fallen state and God’s manner of dealing with
humanity because of this condition, impossible to comprehend.
Th
ere is little doubt that God is not the author of enslavement of
any kind—liberty and free choice were core components of His
original ideal for mankind. However, as can be seen in so many
scriptural examples (not only in regard to slavery), God deals
with humanity within the context of their sinful, fallen condition.





For example, because of sin and the hardness of man’s heart, God
made provision for divorce. God’s knowledge of man’s
fallen nature and His infinite XJTEPN

of
ФЫг

аЫ

РСНШ


гХаФ every

complexity (cause and effect of every




ЯХЪТбШ

action) that could manifest itself in man’s interaction with one
another, gave Him reason to make certain allowances. In
these cases God set parameters within which these exceptions were
to operate. He did the same thing with Israel when
they demanded a king to rule over them, something which
was not in His original plan. In this case, as in the others,
He set parameters. However, the lines were crossed and the nation
divided. Disaster after disaster followed, each consecutive king
of the North, from Jeroboam on, being more evil than the one
before—for the South it was much the same. TIe price paid by the
nation was a high price indeed.
T
h
is was God’s prerogative and it is not in man’s finite capacity to
judge or question Рivine decision. In certain cases, such as
sodomy
or
incest
no allowable
parameters were set
within which

537
Brian Neumann

these activities could operate. Rather, very clear uncompromising

punishments were decreed. To be sure, there were penalties in
connection with the slavery question too, but these were carried
out when the boundaries set by God had been overreached. The
Mosaic Law permitted certain types of slavery to which very
specific conditions were attached.

Old Testament
Indentured Servants (voluntary servitude within the house
of Israel): People who could not pay their debts and needed
protection or assistance were allowed to become indentured
servants (Exodus 21:2-6; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). These slaves
were dependent on their masters, not the state, for the duration
of their servitude. This was not intended to be a permanent
arrangement but simply a means of helping the poor establish
themselves. It needs to be noted that it was not the person of an
indentured slave that was purchased but the labour. Once they
had completed their term, they were set free.
Criminal Restitution (making restitution for theft within the
house of Israel): If someone caught stealing was not able to make
restitution (for stolen goods or property), “then he shall be sold
for his theft” (Exodus 22:1, 3). When restitution, according to
the amount due, was made, the slave was free to go.
Pagan/Gentile Slaves (acquired from non-Hebrew nations):
Slaves could be bought from surrounding nations or from aliens
who lived among the Israelites. These slaves could be held on a
permanent basis and could be passed on to the next generation
(Leviticus 25:44-46).
Involuntary Servitude (kidnapping for the purpose of slavery):
This practice met with severe punishment. “He who kidnaps a
man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall
surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7).
After six years, in the seventh year, indentured slaves (Hebrew
slaves) were released from their debts. Although this was not the

538
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

case with foreign slaves (Deuteronomy 15:3), there were laws that
protected them and provided for their eventual redemption. They
could also become part of the covenant and family and had the
possibility of receiving an inheritance. Concerning the buying
and selling of slaves in Israel, theologian, R. J. Rushdoony writes:

Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a

foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master
(Deuteronomy 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis
under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a
member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market
could not exist in Israel. The slave who was working out a res-
titution for theft had no incentive to escape, for to do so would
make him an incorrigible criminal and liable to death.16

Slaves that ran away from foreign masters, seeking freedom in

Israel, were to be welcomed, treated justly and given sanctuary.
Th ey were not to be returned to their masters (Deuteronomy
23:15-16).
Laws protecting female slaves from maltreatment were also
set in place (Exodus 21:4-11). These laws existed to protect them
from types of abuse that male slaves might not have to face.
There is more that could be said regarding Old Testament
slavery. However, what has been addressed is sufficient for this
discussion. It is quite evident that while God made allowance for
slavery, the practice was to function within a framework of justice
and respect/love for one’s fellowman (Leviticus 19:17-18). This
attitude was not only reserved for fellow Hebrews but applied to
strangers and aliens as well (Leviticus 19:33-34).

New Testament
Paul wrote a considerable amount regarding the behaviour of
slaves and their masters (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25;
4:1; 1Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10). His instructions concerning
the practice were mainly aimed at Christian converts who already

539
Brian Neumann

found themselves involved on either spectrum of slavery (owners

or subjects). He was not condoning the practice, particularly as
it was conducted in the pagan context. The practice was clearly
opposed to Christ’s teachings on fairness and liberty, etc.—the
golden rule. Under Roman law slave owners had absolute power
of life or death over their slaves but Paul was not sent to be a
political revolutionary and so did not encourage anything that
would inspire the ire of the Roman Government. Rather, what
he endeavoured to do was encourage both slaves and owners with
the right attitude of heart—how a follower of Christ would act
towards fellow believers and non-believers.
According to Paul, for the Jew the core of the gospel was liberty
and freedom from the entanglement of legalistic religion, based
on the principle of love for God and your fellowman (Galatians
5:1). For both Jew and Gentile, the gospel, as proclaimed by
Christ, was to “heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance
to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at
liberty them that are bruised” (Luke 4:18). In both a tangible and
spiritual sense, the message of the gospel was liberty, justice and
freedom under God’s law of love.
When one reads Paul’s letter to Philemon, concerning his
runaway slave Onesimus, a clear picture as to Paul’s manner
of dealing with the issue of slavery emerges (see the book
of Philemon).
Onesimus stole money from his master Philemon (a Christian
man) and ran away to Rome. In Rome he encountered Paul,
heard him speak and as a result was converted to Christ. Under
Roman law, it was not Paul’s prerogative to pronounce Onesimus
a free man or to demand that his master set him free. Rather, he
wrote a letter to Onesimus’ master, trusting that it would affect
his heart in such a way as to inspire him, the owner, to deal with
his runaway slave in the spirit of Christian love.
He did not justify Onesimus’ dishonesty or escape—under
Roman law a slave who had done this could well be put to death.

540
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

What Paul did was emphasize the genuineness of Onesimus’

conversion and asked Philemon to receive him as he would
receive Paul himself. More than this, he told Philemon that
he, Paul, would be willing to pay the debt (Philemon 1:17, 18).
Paul encourages Philemon not to receive Onesimus as a servant.
Instead, he asks him to welcome him as a “brother beloved”
(Philemon 1:15, 16). Paul (verse 21), expresses his faith in
Philemon’s Christian Charity by saying: “Having confidence in
thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do
MORE than I say” (Philemon 1:21. Emphasis supplied).
It seems to be quite plain that Paul, in all his writings concerning
slavery, was trying, through imparting Christ’s principles of love,
equality and freedom, to inspire new Christian converts, who
found themselves in a culture of oppression (many of them slave
owners themselves), to treat all people as they would wish to be
treated themselves. He did not advocate an anti-slave revolution
throughout the Roman Empire, where violence and the ultimate
disgrace of Christians would certainly have been the end result.
Rather, within the culture and laws that governed the time, he
sought to encourage Christians to a higher standard than the
world around them.
In spite of Paul’s admonishing, grounded in the teaching of
Christ Himself, Christians still, in some way or other, continued
the practice of slavery as did every other culture. What Paul’s
teaching did do however, was to leave Christians without excuse
for the unjust treatment of their fellow-man, and in more than a
few cases, where slaves and owners became Christians, changed
the manner in which they related to one-another. This biblical
backdrop helps to inform the student of history regarding the
practice of slavery in the North American context.
The Founding Fathers did not introduce slavery into North
America. It was inherited from England and other European
countries where various forms of slavery already existed. It is an
unfortunate fact that even though England and the rest of Europe

541
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

were Christian, the practice of slavery in some shape or form still

continued from earlier times. As it is with so many other teachings in
Scripture, people, in spite of being Christian, still follow the dictates
of their sinful, fallen natures. The practice of slavery was no exception.
It needs to be pointed out that even though much of modern
history seems to highlight the practice of slavery in Christian
society, particularly in the American context and its relation to
the question of white on black racist attitudes, it is not because
this was a predominantly American or Christian problem. In
fact, quite the opposite is true.
It is quite plain from the record of history that slavery was
not the brain-child of Judaism or Christianity. Since the dawn
of recorded history every civilization practiced some or other
form of slavery. The Chinese, Mesopotamians, the entire Greco-
Roman empire practiced it in some of its most extreme, inhumane
forms. Slavery was practiced by the natives of the Americas long
before Columbus made his voyage in 1492. In Africa, rival tribes
enslaved each other and made profitable business selling people of
their own complexion to traders from countries such as Portugal,
Holland, England and Spain. No civilization can claim a lesser
degree of slavery than another. Neither can any civilization claim
to be exempt from racial sentiment or action. Racism is NOT a
white on black problem alone, regardless of who might be ruling
at the time. Black people are capable of hating and resenting other
races as much as anyone—the problem exists across-the-board.
What is true however, is the fact that of all the various
protocols put in place to govern slavery in various civilizations,
those laws and parameters instituted by God, designed to govern
the institution among the Hebrew nation, were more just than
could be claimed by any other culture. Even though Christians
themselves did not follow on with all the principles of human-
relations taught by Christ and the Нpostle’s, is not a reflection,
in itself, on Christianity, God or the Bible. Rather, it reflects on
the sinful condition of humanity as a whole and the tendency,

542
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

in this fallen condition, to feelings of superiority and prejudice

over people not of their own tribe, nationality or system. Slavery
in North America, the course it took over time, the Civil War
and steps that were finally taken to abolish it and the criticisms
of Ellen White and other individuals, need to be seen in light
of what Scripture and history have revealed. For this reason, the
history of slavery in North America is important to understand.

North America
When the early settlers came to America, England allowed
forced labour of convicts, servants, apprentices and the practice of
indentured servants. A large number of these early settlers came
to America as indentured servants—similar to the Old Testament
practice. They worked for the person who had financed their
passage and were then set free. 17
In reference to the practice of slavery, Hugh Thomas, in his
book, The Slave Trade, said that roughly 11,328,000 Africans
were shipped to the New World between 1440 and 1870. About
4,000,000 were taken to Brazil (Portuguese colony), 2,500,000
to Spanish Colonies, 2,000,000 to the British West Indies,
1,600,000 to the French West Indies and, in comparison, about
500,000 to the United States of America.18
In spite of these statistics, the U.S. still seems to be singled
out as a Christian nation run by slave drivers, racist bigots and
hypocrites. Part of the reason for this is that America, after
freeing itself from British rule, had formulated a Constitution
that espoused the biblical ideal of freedom and equality for all
while still continuing the practice of slavery.
Were the Founding Fathers insincere, was it hypocrisy that
allowed this institution to continue or were there contributing
factors that made the immediate, categorical deletion of
slavery inexpedient?
It seems clear, based on the evidence, that the majority of
pioneer Americans believed slavery to be morally wrong. Their

543
Brian Neumann

belief in Scripture, particularly, the teachings of Christ, were the

basis for this belief. In fact, the majority of these settlers and
even most of their leaders did not own slaves. Indeed, some who
did own slaves set them free after independence—especially in
the North. For example, William Livingston, Governor of New
Jersey and one of the signers of the Constitution, wrote to an
anti-slavery society in New York regarding his biblically inspired
beliefs on slavery. The President of this society was John Jay, the
first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the
Continental Congress:
I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-
slavery society] and…I can safely promise them that neither my
tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the
abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with human-
ity and Christianity…May the great and the equal Father
of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence
of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a
design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let
the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 19

John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end

slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the Founders in the
South. Making specific reference to Jefferson, he wrote:
The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with
the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and
lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by
no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by
the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity
or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from
their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the insti-
tution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach
fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country
[England] and they saw that before the principles of the
Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every
other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be

544
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction

of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, writ-
ten at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the
solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant
when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of
their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in
the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” 20

Th e list of Founding Fathers that abhorred slavery is indeed

comprehensive: James Otis, George Washington, Charles Carroll,
Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster (father of American education,
and contributor to the ideas in the Constitution), John Adams,
Benjamin Franklin and many more. 21
Prior to independence, the colonists attempts to institute anti-
slavery measures were thwarted by the British Government.
Franklin wrote about this in 1773:
A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that
many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and
that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for
permission to make a law for preventing the importation of
more into that colony. This request, however, will probably
not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always
been repealed. 22

Th e original draft of the Declaration (written by Th omas

Jefferson) strongly denounced slavery. Th e reason for
its perpetuation he laid at the feet of the King of England who
had vetoed anti-slavery measures, stating that this was one of
the major reasons for declaring independence:
He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human
nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and lib-
erty in the persons of a distant people who never offended
him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere… Determined to keep open a market where
MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his nega-

545
Brian Neumann

tive for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or

restrain this execrable commerce.23

It is unfortunate, in spite of the obvious Judeo-Christian

beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the influence of the same on
the Ъation’s governing principles that modern scholars are bent on
trying to rewrite history so as to discredit the true narrative of
America’s origins and bring into question the sincerity and just
cause that motivated the Founding Fathers in formulating the
Constitution and making it the basis upon which the various
branches of Government would operate. It is the misrepresentation of
these truths, lying at the heart of the new history, that have led
modern generations of Americans to misinterpret the past, hold in
suspicion, disrespect and treat with contempt the Constitution,
without which they would never have the freedoms they so easily
take for granted—the history of slavery being one of the prime
weapons of choice.
It is the same ignorance and misconception, via the inspired
words of Ellen White that cause many SDA’s to treat the U.S.A.
with suspicion and prevent them from taking an active role in the
destiny of their nation at a time (the present) when it is most critical
to make a stand and call for a return to the roots of what made this
land great in the first place.
Th is is hardly surprising, considering the SDA church’s
prophetic view of the U.S.A. Th eir teaching is that America
will become the diabolical beast power of Revelation 13:11 that
will speak as a dragon (Satan). Many in the church believe that
America, via its leaders, has already begun to fulfill this role. It is
this prophetic view, confirmed by Ellen White via her published
visions (read Ellen White’s Th e Great Controversy) and preached by
conservative SDA evangelists that has caused ПСЮаНХЪ SDA’s to
become suspicious of anyone or anything connected to politics
and caused them to separate themselves from involvement in the
affairs of the nation. Of course, by not getting involved and fighting
the just cause, through active participation or vote they are only, by
non-participation, helping the enemy to achieve their goal.
546
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Although on the official level the church might appear to have a

lot to say, via its publications such as Liberty magazine, etc.,
it is more often than not in connection with issues of religious
liberty—freedom of religion. Th
e fact is, the very reason for the
existence of these types of publications is that they give the
Adventist world up-to-date news that help membership and
leadership “know” whether the prophecies concerning America,
the papacy, whom they regard as antichrist, and the enforcement
of a prophesied Sunday law, are being fulfilled.
Th
e prophetic motivations for SDA’s suspicion of American
government might be different to what motivates the political left
in their quest to rewrite U.S. history and shred the Constitution
but the end result is similar—a misrepresentation of vital
components of American history that result in, either a total
lack of involvement in pursuit of America’s original calling, or a
misguided involvement motivated by suspicion and fear.
One of the core issues behind these misrepresentations goes
back to the question of the Founding Fathers and their apparent
contradictory actions regarding slavery. This was the issue that
Ellen White wrote about (on the basis of what she claimed God
had shown her) at the time of the Civil War and caused her to
call upon SDA’s to abstain from taking part in Lincoln’s day of
fasting and prayer. Her prophetically inspired diatribe against
the war and the nation really go back to the belief, although
not stated in an overt sense yet obviously insinuated, that the
Founding Fathers had inadequately and dishonestly dealt with
the issue of slavery and that the status of affairs that led to the
Civil War were ultimately the result of their hypocrisy in this
regard. She saw Lincoln’s focus on saving the Union, instead of
immediately emancipating the slaves, as an action God strongly
condemned and declared that God would not bless the cause of
the North until a clear stand was made on this issue.

547
B
r i a
n N e
u m a
n n

#FDBVTF
PG
&MMFO
8IJUFT
TUBUFNFOUT
SFHBSEJOH
UIF
$JWJM
8BS
JU

JT
WJUBM
UP
UBLF
B
MPPL
BU
UIF
BMMFHFE
DPOUSBEJDUJPOT
JO
SFHBSE

UP
+FGGFSTPO
BOE
UIF
'PVOEJOH
'BUIFST
SFTQPOTF
UP
UIF

QSPCMFN
PG
TMBWFSZ
"
NJTVOEFSTUBOEJOH
PG
UIBU
IJTUPSZ

JT
POF
PG
UIF
GBDUPST
UIBU
MFOE
DSFEFODF
UP
&MMFO
8IJUFT

$JWJM
8BS
TUBUFNFOUT
"MM
UIFTF
JTTVFT
OFFE
UP
CF
DMBSJGJFE

CFGPSF


FWBMVBUJOH
IFS
WJTJPOT
EVSJOH
UIBU
QFSJPE

+FGGFSTPOT
$POUSBEJDUJPOTy
0G
BMM
UIF
'PVOEJOH
'BUIFST
+FGGFSTPO
TFFNT
UP
CF
TJOHMFE
PVU
BT

TPNFPOF
XIP
XBT
IZQPDSJUJDBM
JO
IJT
QPTJUJPO
SFHBSEJOH
TMBWFSZ

)FODF
XIFO
SFBEJOH
+FGGFSTPOT
BOUJTMBWF
SIFUPSJD
UIFZ
XJUI
B

TFOTF
PG
KVTUJGJDBUJPO
TJOHMF
PVU
BQQBSFOU
DPOUSBEJDUJPOT
SFHBSEJOH

IJT
WJFXT
PO
XIJUFCMBDL
SFMBUJPOT
BOE
IPX
UIF
QSPDFTT
PG

FNBODJQBUJPO
TIPVME
CF
EFBMU
XJUI
$FSUBJO
TUBUFNFOUT
PG

+FGGFSTPO
BSF
GPDVTFE
PO
UP
UIF
FYDMVTJPO
PG
DPOUFYU
XIJMF
MJUUMF

UP
[FSP
DPOTJEFSBUJPO
JT
HJWFO
UP
UIF
DPNQMFYJUJFT
BOE
WBSJBCMFT

UIBU
FYJTUFE
QSF
BOE
QPTU
3FWPMVUJPO
LFFQJOH
UPHFUIFS
UIF

6OJPO
BOE
IPX
UP
DIPPTF
BOE
JOJUJBUF
B
QSPDFTT

PG
FNBODJQBUJPO
UIBU
XPVME
QSFTFOU
UIF
MFBTU
QPTTJCMF
SJTL
GPS
B

OBUJPO
UIBU
IBE
KVTU
HPOF
UISPVHI
UIF
QSPDFTT
PG
QBJOGVM
CJSUI
)F
BOE
UIF
SFTU
PG
UIF
'PVOEJOH
'BUIFST
GPVOE
UIFNTFMWFT
JO

B
WFSZ
TJOHVMBS
TJUVBUJPO
UIBU
JO
TQJUF
PG
UIFJS
IJHI
BJNT
XPVME

IBWF
UP
CF
DPOTJEFSFE
JO
UIF
QSPDFTT
PG
BUUBJOJOH
UIFJS

VMUJNBUF
HPBM
+FGGFSTPOT
DBTF
XIJMF
VOJRVF
JO
DFSUBJO
SFTQFDUT

JT
B
TBNQMF
PG
XIBU
B
OVNCFS
PG
PUIFS
GPVOEFST
XFSF
EFBMJOH

XJUI
BU
UIF
UJNF
5IVT
XIFO
QBTTJOH
DPNNFOU
PO
+FGGFSTPO
JU
JT

BMXBZT
JNQPSUBOU
UP
DPOTJEFS
DPOUFYU
BOE
EFWFMPQNFOU
PG
JEFBT

QFSTPOBM
BOE
QPMJUJDBM

TP
BT
OPU
UP
QBTT
VOGBJS
KVEHNFOU
PS
FOE
VQ

ESBXJOH
XSPOH
DPODMVTJPOT
*
XJMM
TUBSU
CZ
QSFTFOUJOH
+FGGFSTPOT

PWFSBMM
$POTJTUFOU
7JFX
/FYU
*
XJMM
MPPL
BU
IJT
1FSTPOBM

4JUVBUJPO
$POTUJUVUJPOBM1PMJUJDBM$JWJM
$POTJEFSBUJPOT
BOE

UIFO
NPWF
UP
B
TFSJFT
PG
4FOTJCMF
$PODMVTJPOT

548
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

When GBJSMZ
considering Jefferson’s view, specifically in regards to the

institution of slavery and what should VMUJNBUFMZ be done about it,
one does not walk away with a list of glaring contradictions. Based on
his own words and the testimony of others, Jefferson along with the
majority of the Founding Fathers believed with uttermost
sincerity that slavery was not acceptable and should ultimately be
abolished. I reiterate John Quincy Adams’ words regarding Jefferson:
…slavery with the principles of the Declaration of
Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern
patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more
unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration
himself [ Jefferson]… Never from their lips was heard one syl-
lable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery… “Nothing
is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than
that these people are to be free.” 24

TIe issue of whether or not Jefferson or the majority of the

Founding Fathers regarded slavery as inhumane and desired its
VMUJNBUF demise is not the question at all—there can be no doubt.
TIroughout his life Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery.
He regarded it as a “moral depravity,” a “hideous blot.” He was
convinced that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival
of the new American nation and felt that it was contrary to the laws of
nature and God, who decreed everyone’s right to personal liberty.
Yet, while holding these views, he found himself in a part of the
world where slavery had been institutionalized. Understanding the
facts regarding the context of Jefferson’s situation—the world he
found himself in—is what really helps to clear the way to see past the
apparent contradictions.
Jefferson’s Personal Situation, in context of the times, is
probably one of the most important aspects to consider. When
TIomas Jefferson was born in 1743, slavery had existed in Virginia for
almost 75 years—slavery was not something Jefferson or the other
Founding Fathers invented or sought to perpetuate.
By
the time he

was an
adult

and

had
GPSNVMBUFE

his
own

ideas
regarding

549
Brian Neumann

slavery, he had already inherited a plantation with enslaved

workers, owning nearly 200 slaves himself. One might say that he
was literally born into and then inherited an environment filled
with contradictions of massive moral consequence. In the midst
of this environment, with all its inherent prejudice, Jefferson
began to formulate his own concepts of right and wrong.
He lived the first portion of his life under British rule of
law that fully accepted the practice of slavery. Many, probably
in an attempt to justify its existence and appease their own
conscience, held the opinion that blacks were inferior to other
races. Some even resorted to biblical justification in support of
this view, making reference to the curse of Ham. Jefferson himself,
even though he strongly abhorred slavery, struggled with this
perception, something he had been exposed to since birth.
In regard to Jefferson and race, Anette Gordon-Reed wrote:
Of all the Founding Fathers, it was Thomas Jefferson for whom
the issue of race loomed largest. In the roles of slaveholder, pub-
lic official and family man, the relationship between blacks
and whites was something he thought about, wrote about and
grappled with from his cradle to his grave. 25

Concerning existing prejudices regarding black people’s

intelligence or intellect, Jefferson finally came to the conviction
that anyone who found themselves in such degraded conditions
could easily be perceived as inferior by those with greater
opportunity and better circumstance. By 1791 he could say:
Nobody wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit,
that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to
those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a
want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of
their existence. 26

" number of historians, particularly since the early 1960’s,

have judged Jefferson’s actions, in regard to setting at liberty his

550
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

own slaves, as hypocritical—according to them his actions did

not match his rhetoric. Reportedly, during his lifetime, Jefferson
only released two of his slaves (Robert Hemings, in 1794 & James
Hemings, in 1796), this in spite of the fact that by 1782 Virginia
and other states had passed a law making manumission (releasing
of slaves by their owners) legal.
Other historians record that he had freed between six and
seven, all from the Hemings family, by the time he died. It is
claimed that the reason he released them is that they were
related to one of Jefferson’s slaves, Sally Hemings, whom he had
a relationship with once his wife, Martha (1748-1782) had died,
several months after being weakened by childbirth.
Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemings apparently started
somewhere in the late 1780’s, while he served as the American
Minister to France. According to recent DNA testing and the
testimony of Peter Carr, Jefferson’s nephew, most, if not all of
Sally Hemings’ children were fathered by Jefferson, between
1790 and 1808.
It may well be speculated, especially when taking into account
the dates, that Jefferson’s ideas on mixing of the races and
inferiority of blacks changed as a result of his relationship with
Sally Hemings. Even so, in spite of these personal relationships
and their effect on his ever growing enlightenment, he still had to
struggle with the least disruptive course, for slaves, their owners
(himself included) and the nation, to resolving the problem
of slavery.
Certain academics, including William Freehling, Winthrop
Jordan and David Brion Davis, accuse Jefferson of immense silence on
the topic of slavery after 1789 and his return from France.27
TIis is not an entirely fair assessment however as some of his
strongest statements regarding black people and the question of
slavery were made after this period.
It was post 1789, after his return from France, that Jefferson
made the comment, quoted earlier, regarding the talents and

551
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

abilities of black people being equal to those of other races. This

statement alone would indicate an important shift in his opinion,
expressed during the very period critics accuse him of being silent.
Author Henry Wiencek, who vociferously criticised Jefferson,
wrote in 2012 that although Jefferson had enormous political
power he “did nothing to hasten slavery’s end during his terms
as a diplomat, secretary of state, vice president, and twice-elected
president or after his presidency.” 28
There can be little doubt, especially if one takes time to examine
the complete record of Jefferson’s relationship to and actions
regarding slavery that Weineck’s conclusions are exaggerated—a
lopsided, agenda-based account. What is true however is that
Jefferson and the other founders, in light of personal considerations,
the potential for explosive consequences on a national scale (all
scenarios considered), realized that regardless of what action they
took, it would still fall short of being ideal.
It is easy and patently self-righteous for someone like Weineck,
with his own inherent predisposition and biased perspective of
events, to evaluate Jefferson and pass judgment, when he was not
personally there, dealing with every complex facet of the situation,
inherited on a personal, social, legal and political level. All the
Founding Fathers, Jefferson being no exception, were compelled
to make difficult decisions in the face of the present reality and
possible future developments, for generations to come.
There could be no perfect short-term solution, such as passing
an arbitrary law that would, with immediate effect, free all slaves.
Only a fool, with no consideration for cause and effect, would
do such a thing. All Constitutional/Political/Civil Considerations
and the potential consequence of signing into law whatever
solution they finally chose, weighed heavily on the collective
conscience of the framers of the Constitution, not only for the
general slave population but for the slaves which some of them
personally owned.
It may well be true that in the end the best solution was not
implemented. But, in an imperfect world, all things considered,

552
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

a “best” option may well not even have been a choice. One thing
all these men knew, barring a few exceptions, the exceptions
themselves having a massive bearing on the final modus-operandi
they chose, was that slavery would sooner or later HAVE to go.
The Constitutional/Political/Civil Considerations Jefferson had
to deal with are well known. The history of the Founding Fathers,
Jefferson in particular (personally) and the American nation
(collectively), in connection with slavery, are recorded in black
and white for all to see. How one interprets this record however,
on the basis of bias or agenda, makes a whole lot of difference to
what conclusion one finally draws.
As stated previously, slavery was a legal institution inherited
from Great Britain. It was part of daily life, with significant
socio-political and economic ramifications. Even though one
of the motivations for the war of independence had to do
with the question of slavery, Jefferson, along with other fellow
countrymen, was himself, as much as he abhorred the institution,
a slave owner too. However, unlike some of his countrymen who
had no desire to free their slaves, he was trying to find the best
and wisest possible road to ultimate emancipation. Jefferson may
not have freed a significant number of slaves during his lifetime
but he endeavoured treating them with dignity and respect until
a proper solution to the entire problem was found.
It was not without grounds that Jefferson harboured concerns
in connection with the plan of emancipation and this would
certainly have influenced his decisions concerning freeing his
own slaves. He feared the eruption of some kind of genocidal
violence if slaves were instantly turned loose in white territory.
There were slave owners who, on no account, desired to lose their
slaves. There were slaves who, not without cause, resented their
owners. Expounding on these fears Jefferson stated:
Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites’ ten thousand
recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained;
new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made

553
Brian Neumann

and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and

produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the
extermination of the one or the other race.29

Th ese were some of the reasons why Jefferson could not

conceive of emancipated slaves living together in harmony
with their former oppressors. Some believed that freeing slaves
on American soil could potentially result in constant conflict
leading to a large-scale race war that might end up as brutal and
deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. About ten years
(1800) after the Haiti revolt an aborted rebellion took place in
Virginia that also affected how leadership would follow through
with an emancipation plan.
Although these events had not yet occurred at the time of the
Constitutional Convention, fears of discontent and retaliation
were nevertheless present in the founders’ minds. The very fact
that Georgia and South Carolina were willing to walk out of
the union, the question of setting free their slaves being a major
consideration, was proof that violent reaction, sooner or later,
could become an ugly reality.
In Jefferson’s words, slavery was like clutching “a wolf by the
ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” Yet he
also believed that keeping slaves in bondage, with the South in
favor of perpetuating slavery and the rest of America in favor
of abolition, could only result in a civil war that would destroy
the union. Sadly, in 1861, Jefferson’s prediction did indeed come
to pass.
For reasons stated above, Jefferson and a number of other
leaders (at one time Lincoln also entertained this idea), seriously
considered the option of deportation/colonization once slaves
were freed—whether to Africa or somewhere in the West Indies.
However, even though this idea stuck around for quite a while,
logistically and financially, it would have been almost impossible
to implement and would ultimately have created problems for

554
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the slaves at their final point of destination. During a speech at

Peoria, Illinois, October 16th, 1854, Lincoln put it this way:
My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them
to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflec-
tion would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I
think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden
execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day,
they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not
surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to
carry them there in many times ten days. 30

TIere are many other facts that could be presented, however,

the purpose of this analysis is not to write a comprehensive
history but to simply make the point that there were clearly
serious, complicated factors—personal, collective, political/
constitutional—that lay behind the Founding Father’s course
of action. Instead of trying to assign blame or make it look as
though they were racist, hypocritical or that Judeo-Christian
principles were not the basis for the Constitution, etc., a well
rounded inclusion of factors needs to be considered so that
Sensible Conclusions can be drawn.
One of the Sensible Conclusions one can draw is that the Founders
took active steps to deal with slavery, within the context of a variety
of complex issues they were having to deal with. Black slaves who
fought during the Revolutionary War won their freedom in every
state except South Carolina and Georgia. Many of the founders
started anti-slavery societies—Franklin, Rush, John Jay, etc. Many
served in anti-slavery societies (James Madison, Richard Bassett,
James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few,
John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, etc.).31 Following
independence from Great Britain each state had the freedom to
deal with the problem of slavery. Within 25 years of the 1783
Treaty of Peace with Britain, northern states started to abolish
slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and
Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793;

555
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

New York in 1799; New Jersey in 1804. The Northwest Ordinance

of 1787 governing the admission of new states into the Union
from the then northwest territories forbade slavery. Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This
was the first federal act dealing with slavery and was authored by
Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by
President George Washington.
While most states moved to free slaves, the Deep South
(South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia) remained largely
pro-slavery. In spite of this, free blacks were citizens and were
allowed to vote in the majority of Northern states and Virginia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina. Prior to 1800, in Baltimore,
more blacks than whites voted.
Unfortunately, in some cases, particularly in the South, two
steps forward sometimes reverted to three steps backwards. These
reversed decisions were a clear indication that these states were
still reticent to give up the institution of slavery. Thus, in 1801
and 1809, Maryland started restricting the black vote and in 1835
North Carolina prohibited it altogether. No doubt, recantations
such as these were part and parcel of what would finally rupture
the Union and lead to civil war between the North and South.
While a number of other states instituted restrictions, some
Northern states not only permitted blacks to vote but allowed
them hold office. This was a right in the state of Massachusetts
nearly ten years before the American Revolution and was never
rescinded, either before or after the Civil War.
Notwithstanding the negatives, the evidence
BDDPSEJOH
UP

NZ
SFTFBSDI
shows that the Founding Fathers were not
trying to uphold the institution of slavery. TIey, on the basis
of biblical morals
BOE
WBMVFT and in opposition to England,
whose laws controlled them till independence, were actively
seeking to rid themselves of this curse. Th e primary reason
why it continued (almost exclusively in the South) after
independence, and why it had some sort of provision in the

556
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Constitution was, as previously noted, because of the resistance of a

minority of representatives during the Constitutional Convention.
Most delegates were opposed to slavery, but when the
representatives from Georgia and South Carolina threatened
to walk out they struck a compromise. Delegates realized, not
without substantial grounds, that slavery would continue in
these states whether there was a union or not. They agreed that
unity of ALL the colonies/states was the best means of securing
liberty. So, while for this reason, they did not abolish slavery
(there were many who wanted to), they did take the vital step of
giving Congress the power to end the slave trade after 20 years.
It was with this plan in mind that Congress, in 1794, banned
the exportation of slaves from any state and then in 1808 also
banned the importation of slaves. However, several Southern
states continued the import and export of slaves regardless.
The hope of the Founding Fathers was that slavery would
gradually be abolished, thus avoiding the potential explosion that
would result from a sudden emancipation. For a time it seemed
that this would indeed happen. Roger Sherman said:
…the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S.
and that the good sense of the several states would probably by
degrees complete it. 32

Th
e unfortunate truth is that in spite of the hope expressed by

the Founders, succeeding generations did not have the world
view or integrity of character to complete the task. Compromise
with the South and the South’s adamant desire to continue
slavery would, sadly, cause the union to fall apart and MFBE
UP
Civil War.

LINCOLN & THE CIVIL WAR

Lincoln’s official aim in going to war was not to free the slaves.
Th e dominant objective was to keep the country united—North
and South. TIe South, for reasons that were related to their

557
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

economy, which was heavily dependent on slave labour, feared

the ever increasing abolitionist influence in the North gaining
ground in the South. This was a primary reason to separate and
gain independence.
Already in 1828, business men of the Oorthern Ttates urged
the passing of the Tariff Act, to encourage the manufacture of
products in the U.S. In so doing, they wanted to encourage the
South to buy products from the North instead of Europe.
Added to this, in the years just prior to the Civil War, the
equilibrium of political power in the Federal Government, which
had been centered in Washington D.C., was beginning to shift.
As the population in the Oorthern and Nid-Xestern states
began to grow, their ability to exert stronger political influence
increased. Th is meant that the Touthern Ttates would gradually
lose more political power in the Federal Government. Naturally,
southern politicians did not take kindly to this as they felt their
interests were not being served.
Although changes seemed to be against the South, their economy
was still very prosperous, in spite of the fact that the country had
gone through a serious depression in 1857. The panic caused by this
depression was devastating to the North but left the South virtually
untouched, a disparity that caused serious tension between the
poorer industrial North and the wealthy agricultural South. The slave
abolitionist movement of the North immediately took advantage of
this struggle between the classes to further agitate their cause, a
move that did not go down well with Tlave owners of the South.
Cotton exports from the South, sold abroad, totaled 57% of all
American exports before the war. Th e South did not have
agricultural machinery and so relied heavily on slave MBCPS to work
their fields—they felt it was their constitutional right to own
slaves. TIese were some critical factors that contributed to the
South desiring separation.
Of course, the North did not want this to happen and were
prepared to fight to maintain the union. After the Constitution
was adopted in 1789, compromise between the North and

558
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

South had worked well, but by 1861 the differences between the
Oorthern, Nid-western and Xestern Ttates and the South had
become so great that compromise could work no longer.
By the time Lincoln was elected President and the Civil War
commenced, Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and
Texas had all seceded from the Union. On February 18th, 1861,
Jefferson Davis was inaugurated president of the South, fourteen
days after the drafting of their own constitution. The intentions of
the South were crystal clear, the stage was set. Exactly one month
after drafting their Constitution, the Confederate Military fired
on Fort Sumter at Charleston, South Carolina resulting in the
surrender of the federal garrison stationed there. This was the
event that officially triggered the war.
Even though Lincoln was repulsed by and actively opposed
slavery, as U.S. President, in harmony with the Constitution and
restrictions of present circumstances, his most important order
of business was to keep the nation united—Lincoln’s and thus
the battle-cry of the North was, Preserve the Union. Lincoln had
to remain faithful to the Constitution. Slavery existed because
of state laws—under the Constitution. The President did not
have the power to simply do away with laws he did not like. The
Supreme Court could declare a state law to be unconstitutional.
However, there was nothing in the Constitution prior to 1863
that made slavery unconstitutional. Lincoln, as president, had to,
on the basis of sworn oath, uphold the Constitution. Breaking
this oath, would in and of itself create disunity and wreak havoc
with an already fractured Union. What Lincoln had to do was
find a way to accomplish his aims while remaining faithful to
what he had sworn to uphold as leader of the American people.
Lincoln needed a strategy that would not merely do away with
slavery but one that would also save the Union. Indeed, if the
war or any other action resulted in a divided nation, the North
would have no slavery and the South, a nation in their own right,
would simply continue slavery as they had always done. Nothing

559
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

would have been accomplished. Indeed, the situation wouldhWF

beFO far worse—a divided nation with no respite in sight for
slaves in the South.
For Lincoln, it would be disastrous to lose the Union if such
a state of affairs resulted. At all costs, he had to first maintain
the Union, even if it meant accomplishing this through conflict.
Under the circumstances, the wisest approach was to preserve the
Union and then, when the time was right, emancipate the slaves.
What I am saying is not based on conjecture. Historical fact that
I will shortly provide will clearly support my thinking.
As a President controlled by morals, ethics, integrity and the
fear of God, Lincoln did not have the right or desire, within the
constitutional parameters of the nation, to go against what he
had sworn to uphold—unlike certain presidents of more recent
times. Simply freeing the slaves on the basis of what was morally
correct (Lincoln certainly believed that slavery was abominable
and that all men should be free), without due consideration for
constitutional process would have had far-reaching, negative
consequences. As the South was the major contributor to the
nation’s economy, a sudden, unconstitutional move would not
have helped the nation, a nation that was still suffering from a
major economic crisis. A continued union with the South was
imperative. A transitional strategy that remained true to the
Constitution would have to be found.
Some believe that the South should simply have been
compelled to pay their slaves a salary for work rendered or that
the government should have given the slave owners financial aid,
under a compensated emancipation program. Lincoln himself had
considered such a solution, even prior to becoming president.
However, this approach, which had already been implemented
by some other colonial nations, had inherent weaknesses that in
the context of America and its unique set of circumstances would
not work.
Lincoln had to follow a different plan, survival of the Union
being the first and most specific order of business. Other

560
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

decisions would have to be made as the situation developed and

opportunities arose.
The general consensus of the North was that the war would
be short, with Union forces gaining a speedy victory. As it turned
out however, an easy victory for the North did not materialize.
In spite of this, Abraham Lincoln provided the means for
taking a series of actions that would lead to the Emancipation
Declaration of 1863, and ultimately, the Thirteenth Amendment. At
the same time, the first course of action—saving the Union—was
also realized.
In support of this evaluation of Lincoln’s actions, one only has
to look at the historical record of his work as a practicing lawyer.
This provides insight into his understanding and appreciation
of that which he wrote or publicly stated in regards to the
Constitution and the question of slavery, years before he even
became president. In March of 1837, at the age of 28, While he
was serving in the Illinois General Assembly, Lincoln presented one
of his early arguments against slavery to the House, revealing, not
only his belief in the wrongs of slavery, but also his understanding
of this in light of the Constitution, something that he, as a lawyer,
would have been very familiar with. The protest reads:
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed
both branches of the General Assembly at its present session,
the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
Th ey believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both
injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of aboli-
tion doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.



Th ey believe that the Congress of the United
States has no power, under the constitution, to
interfere with the institution of slavery in the different
States.



Th ey believe that the Congress of the United States
has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery
in the District of
Columbia [the one district where this

561
Brian Neumann

was possible]; but that that power ought not to be exer-

cised unless at the request of the people of said District.




Th e difference between these opinions and those contained in
the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest.
Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of
Sangamon. 33

A number of things become plain when reading this protest.

Lincoln believed the institution of slavery was unjust and based on
bad policy. However, he also understood that Congress, “unless at
the request of the people” (the government was there to serve the
people), had “no power, under the Constitution,” to just go ahead
and pass a law to abolish slavery. It was because of this that he
could not agree to the “promulgation of abolition doctrines,”
at least certain of their ideas, on the basis that some of
them were impractical in the American context—most
specifically because one could not simply enact laws that went
against what the Constitution provided for. TIere was due-
process that had to be followed and at that time
circumstances were not yet ripe for such a move to be made.
TIus, Lincoln was correct in stating that, were the suggestions of
abolitionists to be followed (especially in regard to a
compromise of Constitutional provisions), it would tend
“rather to increase than to abate its evils.”
TIe U.S. Constitution was unique and binding. If


existing laws were to be changed it had to be according to
correct protocol. Americans who understood the Constitution
would not have agreed to a top-heavy action from some
president who imagined he had the right to change the course of
a nation by the stroke of a pen. Such a move would simply have
agitated an already tenuous situation and divided the country.
Patience and IPOPSBCMF action was called for.
Even though the nation did become divided and Civil War
ensued, that which was gained was done, as best as anyone could, by
IPOPSJOH Constitutional process.

If it had not been done

562
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

this way—slaves set free by force and the Union maintained via
the same means—the foundation of American exceptionalism,
honour and integrity to right, because it is right, would have
caused the nation to crumble at this very early stage of its
existence. It is precisely this disregard for the Constitution that
in this day and age, by leaders with despicable intent, threatens to
destroy this nation.
On October 16th, 1854 Lincoln delivered a speech in Peoria,
Illinois, emphasizing how hypocritical it was for a nation such
as the U.S. to continue the practice of slavery. Nonetheless, he
confessed that he was not certain how to do away with it:
I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery’s
spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery
itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of
its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free
institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—
causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and
especially because it forces so many really good men amongst
ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental
principles of civil liberty—criticising [sic] the Declaration
of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle
of action but self-interest…
…When it is said that the institution exists; and that it
is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can
understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame
them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself.
If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what
to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would
be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their
own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince
me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may
be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If
they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the
next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus
money enough in the world to carry them there in many times
ten days. 34

563
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Only later, during his presidency and under the peculiar set of
circumstances provided by War, would Lincoln see the way clear
to find and implement the solution. All the same, even though
he did not yet, in 1854, have the solution, he saw clearly that
slavery ran counter to American democratic principles and
the phrase in the Declaration of *ndependence stating that all
men are created equal. He believed that this applied to
African Americans as well. He addressed these issues during
a debate (one in a series of a series of debates) with Judge
Stephen A. Douglas in Galesburg, Illinois on October 7th, 1858:
Judge Douglas, and whoever like him teaches that the negro
has no share, humble though it may be, in the Declaration
of Independence, is going back to the era of our liberty and
independence, and so far as in him lies, muzzling the cannon
that thunders its annual joyous return; that he is blowing
out the moral lights around us; when he contends that who-
ever wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he is penetrat-
ing, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicat-
ing the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is in
every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast
influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual
and national. 35

In the next debate, on October 13th, Douglas argued that the

Founding Fathers established the nation half-slave and
half-free, in the belief that it should remain that way. Lincoln, on
the other hand, rightly argued that this was based on a
distortion of the facts and that they were firmly of the belief that
it would eventually die a natural death
…I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave
and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they
found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not
make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get
rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say
that as a matter of choice the fathers of the government made

564
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is his-
torically a falsehood. More than that; when the fathers of the
government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of
the slave trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from
the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain
that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible
men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction;
and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as
our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not
let it remain as our fathers made it? 36

It is abundantly clear that, while he was not yet sure how to

eradicate it, Lincoln found the institution of slavery abhorrent
and was looking forward to a time when it would eventually reach
its demise—if possible peaceably. Little did he know that as God
opened the way for him to be in the ultimate position of power,
he would be the very person to facilitate the process. In a speech
at Chicago, Illinois, March 1st, 1859, Lincoln, although he was
still struggling with the how of slavery’s demise, was absolutely
convicted that it should not be allowed to continue. In a letter
to Henry L. Peirce, April 6th, 1859, he wrote about what the end
result of denying freedom to one’s fellow-man leads to:
I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in
this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best
way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a
length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and
perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we
should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong,
with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.
…This is a world of compensations; and he who would
be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny
freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under
a just God, can not long retain it. 37

Lincoln clearly understood the hypocrisy that lay at the heart of

the issue of slavery. No human who desired to enslave another

565
Brian Neumann

human would themselves be content to be on the receiving end

of such a deal. The argument of colour or intellect was just as
transparent to Lincoln. Years previously, on July 1st, 1854 he
had argued:

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is colour, then; the

lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By
this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a
fairer skin than your own. You do not mean colour exactly? You
mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks,
and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again.
By this rule you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with
an intellect superior to your own. But you say, it is a question
of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the
right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his
interest, he has the right to enslave you.

Insight such as this is not instilled “out of the blue.” Like

Jefferson, Lincoln went through the process of seeking, by
personal experience, an understanding of human nature and
careful consideration of history and present reality, regarding
that which lay at the root of one man’s desire to force another
to be his slave. Lincoln was not just an ordinary man chosen
for an extraordinary job. He had been hand-picked by a higher
power for a very special purpose.
It seems providential that at the very time circumstances,
such as problems with the economy, the separation moves in the
South and impending War, brought the nation to crisis, a
man such as Lincoln should take office and work towards a
solution. He had the right mind, the right training, and most
importantly, a powerful desire to see slavery eradicated.
It is in the light of THIS background and what happened
next, as circumstances provided and Lincoln took office and
executed his plan, that one should judge Ellen White’s and the
SDA Church’s unwillingness to participate in Lincoln’s national

566
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

day of prayer and fasting. It is in light of these facts that Ellen

White’s so-called revelations from God and her diatribe against
Lincoln, the government and the Civil War should be evaluated.
There is no doubt that this history and the present, contradictory,
divided position of the SDA denomination would, as far as SDA
participation is concerned, have impacted Dr. Ben Carson’s bid
for the presidency.
Without this knowledge, defenders of the SDA Church and
Ellen White will continue to bamboozle their own members
and unsuspecting outsiders by presenting selected extractions of
U.S. History and carefully dissected portions of Ellen White’s
testimonies that pass themselves off as candid, transparent
explanations of her words.

SOURCES
1. ‘A Constitution or Frame of Government, Agreed upon by the
Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts-Bay’.
2. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/213140-the-teachings-
of-the-bible-are-so-interwoven-and-entwined; The Christian
Evangelist Vol. 38. Oct, 17 1901, p. 1336.
3. Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Philadelphia Merchants, July 9,
1769.
4. To read more about this go to www.presidency.ucsb.edu
5. Samuel Adams, speech as Governor to the Legislature of
Massachusetts, on January 17th, 1794.
6. Edmund Burke: Appraisals and Evaluations. Edited by Daniel E.
Ritchie. 1990, Transaction Publishers. p. 202.
7. http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/quotes/. John Adams
Historical Society, The Official Website.
8. James Madison, The Federalist Papers, #37.
9. Alexander Hamilton, Letter to Mr. Childs, October 17, 1787.
10. George Washington, Letter it the Marquis de Lafayette, Februar y
7, 1788.
11. Benjamin Franklin, A Comparison of the Conduct of the Ancient
Jews and of the Anti-Federalists in the United States of America.
12. http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.
htmAmerican Masonic History.
13. Testimonies Vol. 1, p. 533, 544, 1865-1868. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
14. Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 451. Emphasis & italics supplied.
15. http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-
about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation, Also, in point
4—L.A. Times article, ‘Lincoln’s Slavery Tactic,’ by Jon Wiener,
January 2, 2013. Jon Wiener is professor of history at UC Irvine
and the author, most recently, of “How We Forgot the Cold War: A
Historical Journey Across America.” Emphasis & Italics provided.
16. R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, vol.1, p. 485-486.
Emphasis provided.
17. Albert Bushnell Hart, The American Nation: A History (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1906), vol. 16, Slavery and Abolition,
1831-1841, p. 50.
18. “History of slavery is wide-ranging saga”, book review by Gregor y
Kane of The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas, Simon and Schuster, in
The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, Va., December 7, 1997.
19. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl
E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press,
1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on
June 26, 1786. In “The Founding Fathers and Slavery” by David
Barton, unpublished paper, p. 5. Emphasis & italics supplied.
20. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants
of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First
Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837
 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50. Emphasis &
Italics supplied.
21. Rights of the Colonies, in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the
American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1965), p. 439. In “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case
of Slavery,” by Thomas G. West, Principles, a quarterly review of
The Claremont Institute, Spring/Summer 1992, p. 1; Hart, p. 53;
Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington:
A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988),
p. 319; Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles
Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons,
1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820.
In Barton, p. 3; Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a
Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established
in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia
(Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. In Barton,
p. 4; Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry
(Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48. In Barton, p. 4;
Adams to Robert J. Evans, June 8, 1819, in Adrienne Koch and
William Peden, eds., Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 209. In West, p. 2; John
Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United
States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and
Co., 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob
Lindley on January 24, 1801. In Barton, p. 3; “An Address to
the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the
Abolition of Slavery” (1789), in Franklin, Writings (New York:
Library of America, 1987), p. 1154. In West, p. 2.
22. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared
Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839),
Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.
Emphasis supplied.
23. The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds. (New York: Random House, 1944), p.
25. Emphasis supplied.
24. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants
of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First
Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837
(Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50. Emphasis &
Italics supplied.
25. Annette Gordon-Reed, “Thomas Jefferson: Was the Sage a
Hypocrite?”, cover story, TIME, 4 July 2004.
26. Thomas Jefferson to Banneker, August 30, 1791.
27. William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion, Vol. 1: Secessionists at
Bay, 1776–1854 New York, 1990.
28. Wiencek (2012), Master of the Mountain Thomas Jefferson and
His Slaves, p. 267-268.
29. Jefferson’s Notes, Query XIV, p. 188.
30. Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois
(II, 255-256).
31. Benjamin Quarles, The Negro and the American Revolution
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), chaps.
4-6. In West, p. 2; Barton, p. 5; N. Dwight, The Lives of the
Signers of the Declaration of Independence (New York: A.S. Barnes
& Burr, 1860), p. 11.
32. Remarks at the Constitutional Convention, August 22, Farrand,
vol. 2, p. 369-72. In West, p. 7-8.
33. While serving in the Illinois General Assembly, Lincoln made one
of his first public declarations against slavery—March 3, 1837–
I,75 http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm.
Emphasis provided.
34. Lincoln, in a speech delivered, October 16, 1854 at Peoria, Illinois–
II,255-256 http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/
slavery.htm. Emphasis provided.
35. Lincoln, in his 5th debate with Stephen E. Douglas, Quincy,
Illinois,October7,1858–III,234 http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/
historyculture/slavery.htm. Emphasis provided.
36. Lincoln, in his 6th debate with Stephen E. Douglas, Quincy,
Illinois,October13,1858–III,276 http://www.nps.gov/liho/
learn/historyculture/slavery.htm. Emphasis provided.
37. Lincoln speech in Chicago, Illinois, March 1, 1859 / letter to
Henry L. Pierce, April 6, 1859—III, 370 III,376 http://www.nps.
gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm. Emphasis provided.
 Chapter XIV

Visions of War
Heavenly Insight or Earthly Deception

[Every] purpose is established by counsel:

and with good advice make war.
—Proverbs 20:18

T
hree months before the Civil War began, Ellen White,
purportedly, received her first Civil War vision from God.
This event occurred at Parkville, Michigan on January
12 , 1861. She apparently delivered this account:
th

There is not a person in this house who has even dreamed of the
trouble that is coming upon this land. People are making sport
of the secession ordinance of South Carolina, but I have just
been shown that a large number of states are going to join that
state, and there will be a most terrible war.
In this vision I have seen large armies of both sides gath-
ered on the field of battle, I heard the booming of the cannon,
and saw the dead and dying on every hand. Then I saw them
rushing up engaged in hand-to hand fighting.
Then I saw the field after battle, all covered with the dead
and dying. Th en I was carried to prisons, and saw the suffer-
ings of those in want, who were wasting away. TIen I
was taken to homes of those who had lost husbands, sons, or brothers
in

the

war.


I
saw
there
distress
and
anguish.




TIen
surveying

573
Brian Neumann

her audience, Ellen slowly added a foreboding note: “There are

those in this house who will lose sons in that war.” 1

TIe reader might notice that in introducing the account of the

vision I used the words, purportedly and apparently. Th e
reason for this is because Ellen White did not personally record
this vision with her own pen. It was the eyewitness account of
J. N. Loughborough, recorded in his diary and was not published
until 1892 in his first book on SDAhistory, Rise and Progress of
Seventh-day Adventists. Revised in 1905 and re-titled,
Great Second Advent Movement.
I am not suggesting Loughborough was publishing a total
fabrication of White’s vision. Only God knows the truth about
this. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that what was published
in Loughborough’s book seems to be a direct dictation of her
words, was it really so? Loughborough recorded Ellen White’s
words in a diary he had been keeping since November of 1853,
after the meeting in Parkville. When he published it over 30
years later did he copy the words, already not a direct dictation,
word for word from his diary without any editing? Is there cause
for reasonable doubt as to whether any changes were made? The
truth is, cause for reasonable doubt does exist. This is provided
by the fact that in that very same book, as shown in an earlier
chapter, Loughborough published blatant inaccuracies about the
visions and life/death of William Foye, post 1844, to fit the SDA
narrative of how Ellen White became God’s chosen instrument.
Thus, unfortunately, of the three recorded Civil War visions,
the one that could be viewed as the most significant showcase
of Ellen White’s prophetic gift ends up being a second-hand
account, published decades after the fact. In and of itself, this
does not prove that it was all made up and then conveniently
released years later. However, as previously noted, what this and
Loughborough’s other exaggeration does is provide cause for
reasonable doubt. If Loughborough provided false or inaccurate
information about Foye then it is not inconceivable that he

574
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

might have done the same in regard to Ellen White’s first Civil
War vision.
Certainly, it is probable that messing up in regard to
Foye was on account of having received second-hand
information. Not completely inexcusable but at least not
wholesale fiction. Nevertheless it is an indication of sloppy
research and does not reflect GBWPSBCMZ on him as a leading
SDA Church historian. It also raises the question as to
whether his hyperbole when recording SDA history was
motivated to promote the legend of Ellen White.
To be sure, if Loughborough had not said what he did
concerning Foye, it would have changed the whole account of
how the prophetic calling, rejected by two men, Hazen Foss
and William Foye, was then finally passed on to Ellen
White,
the weakest of the weaL her description of herself.
Th e account of these things certainly created a legend a
false narrative that, even till the present, circulates the
SDA denomination.
Even if every word Loughborough recorded concerning Ellen
White’s first Civil War vision was accurate it hardly provides
overwhelming evidence to support all of Ellen White’s further
revelations about the war. Th e reason for this is simple. Of all
three Civil War visions, it is only the first one that could truly be
said to have HFOVJOF prophetic value, in terms of an absolute forecast
that came to pass. It will be shown that the next two Civil War
visions could well have been based on current information or news
of the day,

embellished, tailored and interspersed with
admonitions and predictions that anyone, who was half aware of
what the trends of events connected to the war were, could have
come up with. It will also be shown that her diatribe against
Lincoln’s calls for prayer and fasting and decisions regarding the
slaves, etc., were based on an inadequate knowledge of the facts
and a total lack of appreciation for how legislative decisions were
carried out under constitutional provisions.
She clearly had no

575
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

comprehension of why Lincoln, wisely, chose to proceed the way he

did.
It is true, as everyone knew at the time, there were politicians
and leading military men from the North, who were pro-slavery and
were actively seeking to help keep the practice alive. However, it is
also true that the overwhelming will of the people and the
consensus of leading men in Lincoln’s government, including
and most importantly, Lincoln himself, was that slavery was
unacceptable and had to be done away with. More reference will be
made to this shortly.
Even though Lincoln’s first order of business was to keep the
Union, it is indisputable that B
QSJNBSZ
DBVTF
PG
UIF
XBS
IBE
UP
EP

XJUI
TMBWFSZ. Only an ignoramus would suggest that the
motivation for the war had absolutely nothing to do with JU. Th e
Confederacy in the South, their secession from the Union, their
election of their own president, framing of their own Constitution
and their action of triggering the war when firing those first shots
at Fort Sumter at Charleston in South Carolina were, in a primary
sense, about wanting to maintain their right to continue slavery. By
simple default, this would dictate that an anti-slave president and
his political supporters were going to war with the Confederacy
knowing that central to all the actions taken by them was the
question of slavery. Lincoln was well aware that the JTTVF of slavery
had a lot to do with the war and that at some point it would have to
be addressed at the highest level. Th e very fact that he was debating
the issue of freeing the slaves in connection with the war is evidence
that this was an inherent part of what the war was abouU.
Th e Union, being the first order of business in going to war,
was really about saving the nation, not violating the Constitution
and what it provided for in respect to Government OPU
IBWJOH
UIF

SJHIU to legislate laws that would disregard the rights of
individual states to self-government and the will of the people who
were citizens of those states. Th is, as already stated, is the key to

576
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

understanding why Lincoln, in the process of war, legally and

constitutionally, took advantage of opportunities as circumstances
dictated—this was really all he could do as a sworn upholder of
the Constitution. In his letter to A. G. Hodges, Lincoln explained
his belief that:
If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong… And yet I have
never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an
unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and
feeling… I claim not to have controlled events, but confess
plainly that events have controlled me. 2

Th is evidence, together with what has been said regarding

the Founding Fathers, their Judeo-Christian blue-print for the
nation and how it would be governed (the Constitution) casts a
significant and damning light on Ellen White’s tirade regarding
the Civil War and the question of slavery, her later position on
political involvement and the present contradictory position
taken by the SDA Church.
If Ellen White’s visions concerning the Civil War, in particular
the first vision which she supposedly received three months prior
to the first shots of the war being fired is irrefutable evidence of
her prophetic gift, then she is not alone in having such status
conferred upon her. Indeed, thirty years before the rumblings of
the Civil War even entered the imaginations of the American
people, Joseph Smith (Founder and prophet of the Mormon Faith),
penned his vision concerning the separation of North and South
and the coming war—directly from his own hand, not a second-
hand account (December 25th, 1832):
Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly
come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina,
which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of
many souls; and that time will come that war will be poured
out upon all nations, beginning in this place. For behold, the
southern states shall be divided against the northern states,

577
Brian Neumann

and the southern states will call on other nations, even the
nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall call
upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other
nations and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise
up against their masters who shall be marshalled and disci-
plined for war… 3

A number of researchers who have made comparisons

between Ellen White and Joseph Smith’s writings (mentioned
earlier in this book ), contend that Ellen White stole ideas from
other prophets—William Foye’s visions being a prime example.
Interestingly, Joseph Smith was not the only one who XSPOHGVMMZ


predicted England coming into the war and saw an ultimate
global involvement as a result. Ellen White, like Joseph Smith, in
context of her second Civil War vision, wrote of a
global conflagration of war and confVTJPO4 Could Ellen
White have been exposed to the writings of Joseph Smith?
Can one establish a possible connection between Smith and White?
Interestingly, the Mormons moved into Portland, Maine in
1835 and it is known that many of Ellen White’s relatives had
Mormon connections. In 1842, Ellen Harmon’s second cousin,
Agnes Moulton Coolbirth Smith, widow of Don Carlos Smith,
became a wife of Joseph Smith. In this very year, Ellen White, at the
age of fifteen, had her first dream about entering a temple, a dream
that closely resembled a vision received by Smith many years
previously.5 Clearly, there was an early connection between Ellen
White/Harmon and the Mormon Faith and opportunity for
borrowing ideas. In fact, based on the plagiarism evidence
already presented in this book, it is absolutely possible that Ellen
White, at a very early age, began borrowing thoughts and ideas
from other writers and prophets, a practice that she refined and
honed with time.
In regard to Civil War revelations before the
event

PDDVSSFE
and who
might

hold pre-eminent prophetic status,

there can be little

578
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

doubt

Joseph Smith would stand first in linF
Fven though

SDA’s consider him to be a false prophet. It is true, Ellen White
said a lot more regarding the Civil War, the major bulk of this
during the war, however, it is the very quantity of what she
espoused that proves to be her downfall. In saying too much she
eventually said enough to cause her to put her proverbial foot in
it, exposing not only her lack of real insight, but also her
arrogant belief that she could, even in the long-term, get away
with positioning herself as a true prophet of God—according
to SDA’s, the ONLY true prophet in the end-time age.

Second and Third Civil war visions

If the reader desires to read complete publications of the second
and third Civil War visions, they are available over the internet via
the Ellen White Estate or can be found in the book Testimonies to
the Church, Vol. 1. I encourage the reader, for purpose of absolute
context, to read these visions in their entirety.
In the following submissions I am going to highlight particular
segments interspersed with commentary that provide clear
evidence, based on all I have previously covered, that Ellen White
was out to lunch in regard to a number of vital considerations
regarding the Civil War. Indeed, if God was giving her Eivine
insights and if these insights had factored into her narrative,
she would not have said half the things she did. Her words are
based on an intrinsic ignorance of critical facts connected to the
war, what was really happening behind the scenes in regard to
decisions that were being made by the nation’s leadership and
why they were being made.
There is no doubt that God certainly knew about all that was
developing and where Lincoln, in particular, was ultimately headed
with his strategy. Indeed, it may be accurate to say that God was
guiding events Himself and Lincoln, as God’s chosen instrument,
was responding to opportunities as they presented themselves.

579
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

As quoted earlier, Lincoln freely admitted to his developing

strategy during the war and his responsibility to be true to the
Constitution and to only make decisions as events dictated: “I
claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that
events have controlled me.” 6
It goes without saying, if God was going to reveal prophetic
insights regarding what He knew was developing at the very time
He was communicating to His messenger, He would not have
communicated information that was an inaccurate reflection of
visible events or events transpiring behind the scenes.
To start my evaluation I will quote a portion of Ellen White’s
third vision as it deals directly with what she believed to be the
reason for conscripts signing up and what motivated the North
going to war:
January 4, 1862, I was shown some things in regard to our
nation. My attention was called to the Southern rebellion…
The North have had no just idea of the strength of the
accursed system of slavery. It is this, and this alone, which
lies at the foundation of the war. The South have been more
and more exacting. They consider it perfectly right to engage in
human traffic, to deal in slaves and the souls of men…
Thousands have been induced to enlist with the under-
standing that this war was to exterminate slavery; but now
that they are fixed, they find that they have been deceived,
that the object of this war is not to abolish slavery, but to
preserve it as it is.
… They see no good results from the war, only the preser-
vation of the Union, and for this thousands of lives must be
sacrificed and homes made desolate…7

A number of things that Ellen White highlights in the

above segment are certainly based on fact, facts that just about
anyone who was keeping up to date with issues connected to the
war would have been aware of, such as the South considering
it their right to engage in the practice of slavery and the defense

580
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

of this right being a motivation for them going to war.

TIis was not SPECIAL/PRIVILEGED insight requiring
Eivine revelation. By the time 1862 came around these facts
were common knowledge.
However, her observations about the North, which she also
claims XFSF
CBTFE
PO Eivine insight, are the ones to evaluate on
the basis of historical fact—a retrospective view always helps
when appraising claimed





E
JWJOF


insight.
It is simply not right to give the impression that thousands of
soldiers went to war because they were “deceived” into believing that
the war was for the purpose of ending slavery. For example, historian,
James M. MacPherson, based on extensive reading of soldier’s diaries
and letters, concluded that Civil War combatants were motivated by
specific ideological and political values. His book, For Cause and
Comrades, is one of the most intensive Civil War studies to date.
In considering what motivated the soldiers, he makes extensive use
of military historian John A. Lynn’s work on Why Men Enlisted.
TIe essential conclusion MacPherson came to is that, ideologically,
Confederate soldiers fought primarily for their own independence
from what they saw as a tyrannical government—independence
to self rule that, in a secondary or resultant sense, would also allow
them to continue owning slaves. On the other hand, the
overwhelming majority of Union soldiers fought to preserve the
Union.8 Even though some
of
the Union soldiers had personal
opinions about emancipation being a motivation for the war,
there was
no official,
government

or

military sanctioned agenda
that led conscripts to the “understanding,” as Ellen
White said that thF war was to exterminate slavery
and that once they were conscripteE

suddenly
discoverFE “that they have been deceived

BOE tIBU

UIF
PCKFDU
PG
UIJT
XBS
XBT
OPU
UP
BCPMJTI
TMBWFSZ
CVU

UP
QSFTFSWF
JU
-JODPMO
IJNTFMG
EVSJOH
IJT
JOBVHVSBM

BEESFTT
EFMJWFSFE
PO
.BSDI
 UI


NBEF
JU
DMFBS
UIBU
UIF
QSJNBSZ


581
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

QVSQPTF

GPS

HPJOH
to war was NOT to end slavery but to

preserve the Union—this was public knowledge.
TIough Ellen White was correct in stating that preservation
of the Union was the primary motivation for the North going to
war, she was wrong in giving the impression that conscripts only
realized this once they were “fixed,” as she put it, in the military.
Her comment that soldiers were “induced,” as if there was some
official agenda to get them conscripted on the basis of a lie, is
simply not correct.
To make claims about people’s motives when the general
public has no idea of things that are happening behind the scenes,
things that may only be revealed years after the fact, presents
no real challenge. One can get away with this when no one has
present evidence to disprove the claims. However, historical
evidence that comes to light when all the players have had time
to record events from all perspectives has a way of exposing that
which is fraudulent.
Some of Ellen White’s claims might not have been blatantly
fallacious, but, as in the above examples, they were certainly prone
to exaggeration—hyperbolic renditions of SVNPST that may
well have been circulating at the time but were not an accurate
reflection of any large-scale official or unofficial trend.
In the following selection, also from her third vision (
January
4 , 1862), one finds combinations of hyperbole and falsehood:
th

If we succeed in quelling this rebellion, what has been

gained? They can only answer discouragingly: Nothing. That
which caused the rebellion is not removed. The system of
slavery, which has ruined our nation, is left to live and stir
up another rebellion…
…A great share of the volunteers enlisted fully believing
that the result of the war would be to abolish slavery. Others
enlisted intending to be very careful to keep slavery just as it
is, but to put down the rebellion and preserve the Union…
some of the officers in command are strong proslavery men
whose sympathies are all with the South, yet who are opposed to

582
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

a separate government…Some of our leading men in Congress

also are constantly working to favor the South. In this state of
things, proclamations are issued for national fasts, for prayer
that God will bring this war to a speedy and favorable ter-
mination. I was then directed to Isaiah 58:5-7…
I saw that these national fasts were an insult to
Jehovah. He accepts of no such fasts…I was shown how our
leading men have treated the poor slaves who have come to
them for protection…Great men, professing to have human
hearts, have seen the slaves almost naked and starving, and
have abused them, and sent them back to their cruel masters
and hopeless bondage, to suffer inhuman cruelty for daring
to seek their liberty…In view of all this, a national fast is
proclaimed! Oh, what an insult to Jehovah! 9

Once again the record of history debunks just about every

assertion in the above submission. In early 1862 (the dates are
significant) Ellen White claimed that if the “rebellion” of the
South was quelled that nothing would have been gained, that
slavery would not be removed and that another rebellion would
be stirred up.
What is significant about these statements is that
they
indicate, according to Ellen White’s account of events, that
nothing in regard to the slaves had changed—insight given her
of God. Indeed, her comments about nothing being
gained by quelling the rebellion, is in the context of claims
that soldiers were enlisting (obviously at that time) to “keep
slavery just as it is” UIat men in “Congress” were “working to
GBWPS the South” and that slaves that had escaped to the
North were being sent “back to their cruel masters” in
the South. All these accusations were made to substantiate
her declaration that Lincoln’s call for a national day of fasting
and prayer “were an insult to Jehovah”—that these fasts would
not be accepted by God.
Her claims
IPXFWFS are a blatant
misrepresentation, both militarily and politically.

583
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

,FFQJOH
UIF
EBUF
PG
+BOVBSZ
UI

in mind—the time

frame of this vision—let’s consider the historical facts.
In the early part of the war blacks who wanted to enlist in the
military were turned away, except for the Navy, where exceptions
were made. At this time, slaves that escaped to the North were
often, though not in every case, returned to their owners. Part
of the reason for this action, reprehensible though it might
seem, was that there was no consistent federal policy regarding
fugitives Because of this, individual commanders made their own
decisions about what they would do with these escaped slaves. In
some instances they were put to work for Union forces, in others
they were returned to their owners. However (here the dates are
vital), on August 6, 1861, fugitive slaves were officially declared to
be contraband of war—at least five months before Ellen White
received this third vision.
If the slaves MBCPS had in any way been found to aid the
Confederacy (the South), they were declared free. Thousands of
fugitives fled across Union lines. The federal authorities and the
army were not prepared for this overwhelming flood of refugees.
Although the government tried to provide them with land that
had been confiscated, there was not enough land to accommodate
the ever growing numbers. Because of this many fugitives were
put into crowded camps. But, without the proper infrastructure to
take care of their needs, starvation and disease often led to death.
This state of affairs was not allowed to simply continue without
some sort of action being taken. Black and white citizens from
the North organized relief societies to aid the situation. Schools
were organized to teach the woman and children to read and
write. As a result, thousands of African Americans received an
education throughout the war.
These efforts might not have been an effort that was officially
supported by the government. Yet, they were a clear indication that
sentiment and action were in favour of taking care of and preparing
free slaves for integrated public life. More importantly though, on

584
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

an
official
level,
unbeknown to the average soldiers and

general

population, including Ellen White, at that very time
developments were taking place that would officially, turn the
emphasis of the war from simply saving the Union to freeing the
slaves.




A number of factors need to be considered when criticizing the
MBUF
EBUF
of the final Emancipation
Proclamation.

5IF
reason for this
is
that the
actual
passing
of this
act,
though
it
was the official/
visible statement of the government’s decision to free the slaves, did
not happen in a vacuum,
and indeed could not have
happened

until
circumstances
provided
for
it.
5IF

FTTFOUJBM
SFBTPO
GPS
UIJT

IBE

UP


EP
XJUI
XIBU
UIF
$POTUJUVUJPO
BMMPXFE
GPS
BOE

UIF

1SFTJEFOUT
QPXFS
UP
UBLF
FYFDVUJWF
BDUJPO
UP

DIBOHF

FYJTUJOH
MBXT
UIBU

HPWFSOFE
JOEJWJEVBM
TUBUFT
FUD
It was for the purpose of understanding this that I dedicated the
entire first part of this chapter to dealing with these issues. If you, the
reader, have been observant, then the quintessential “ah-ha!”
moment will just about have arrived 5he realization that the
passing of the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1st, 1863), was
the culmination of a strategy, dictated by events that were
unfolding and governed by what constitutional parameters
provided for

XJMM

OPX

CFDPNF

DMFBS

"ll this XBT

developing


unfolding behind the scenes while Ellen White was slinging her
proverbial, prophetic mud at Lincoln’s request for national days of
humiliation fasting and prayer and whatever else she decided
deserved condemnation in connection with the war and
the question of slavery. Of course, she could not have known
this, for the simple reason that she had not been shown. When
one takes a look behind that curtain, now open in the light of
what history reveals, then a different picture starts to emerge.
TIere are three points to address: the Constitution

BOE

UIBU


XIJDI could legally be done within its parameters
UIF

RVFTUJPO

PG the
6OJPO

-JODPMOhT motivation for going to war and DBMMT

GPS


humiliation
fasting and

QSBZFS
BOE

Jn light of the
first two DPOTJEFSBUJPOT

585
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

XIFUIFS

these calls XFSF

really an insult to God? All these

JTTVFT
were either directly
or
indirectly
criticized
by
Ellen White.
TIe Constitution, for reasons addressed earlier in this chapter,
did not allow President Lincoln, or any other president for
that matter, to simply pass an all-encompassing slave abolition
law—a president was sworn to uphold the Constitution and to
operate within its parameters (if needed please refer
back). TIe Southern States expressed their will and right

UP


PXO

TMBWFT‰for reasons already mentioned As abhorrent as this
was, to Lincoln himself (refer to his statements posted
earlier), he could not simply pass and enforce laws without
going through due process. He was the President and thus it
was also incumbent on him to choose very carefully the
way in which he publicly stated and also approached the
execution of his agenda.
TIe Southern states were set on continuing slavery. So set in fact
that they seceded from the Union and fired the first shots of the
war—a provocation and challenge to the North. TIe
disintegration of the Union would have created two sovereign
nations, North and South. Slavery would simply have continued in
the South and nothing would then have been accomplished in
regard to the question of slavery. Lincoln could not pass an
abolition law (because of constitutional considerations) and thus, for the
same reasons, could not either go to war for the exclusive
purpose of freeing the slaves.
For this reason, the only way to approach the problem would be to
first focus on saving the Union. Save the Union (keep the South) and
then when the opportunity presented itself the government could
still influence aOd
VMUJNBUFMZ using due process, deal with
the question of slavery. Lose the Union (Southern states become
an independent nation), the South continues as a bastion for
slavery and the North has no power to do anything at all.
One does not need a degree in QPMJUJDBM science to understand that
for the purpose of keeping the nation together, to be faithful to
the
process of change according to the parameters of the

586
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Constitution that Lincoln, as President of the United States

swore to uphold, had no choice CVU to make the Union his
primary motivation for going to war. To ride roughshod over the
Constitution, force a law for emancipation via executive action,
while the Confederacy was willing to go to war and die to preserve
the practice of slavery, would have been insane and would very
quickly have set a precedent for future leaders to bypass due
process and ignore a constitution that the Founding Fathers
believed was established under the guidance of a Eivine Hand.
Ellen White herself warned against rejecting the principles of
the Constitution. In connection with the U.S. forming an alliance
with the papacy she said, when America “shall repudiate every
principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican
government, and shall make provision for the propagation of
papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time
has come for the marvelous working of Satan, and that the end
is near.” 10
How consistent would it be to warn against repudiating
principles of the Constitution in regard to the papacy and then
castigate the government for not disregarding it when it came to
the war not being fought for the purpose of freeing the slaves?
Surely, the reader can see why it was important for Lincoln to
consider all these things and then to speak and act accordingly.
Ellen White’s strongest rebuke is reserved for Lincoln’s
call to humiliation, fasting and prayer. It is a fact that until
the Emancipation Proclamation, Ellen White was against
supporting the national days of humiliation, fasting and prayer.
In considering her vehement adversity to these events, a number
of important factors need to be considered.
Regular, annual days of prayer have been held since 1775.
Most presidents have proclaimed annual or special occasion
proclamations for prayer. President Lincoln’s call for National
days of prayer and fasting were not, when considered in the
ordinary sense, unusual. However, in the context of war, Lincoln

587
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

signed a number of resolutions calling the nation to this purpose.

Considering all the historical facts already highlighted in this
chapter, was it truly an insult to God for Lincoln to call the nation
to prayer, simply because he had not made an official statement
regarding emancipation?
In her accusation against the calls for national prayer, Ellen
White quotes Isaiah 58:5-7. In fact, she says that she was directed
to this text by her heavenly guide. The implication is quite obvious
that the sin of the North, regarding their lack of action on the
question of slavery and the practice of returning escaped slaves to
the South, was on a level with an apostate Israel during those Old
Testament times. One of the central calls in Isaiah is “to loose the
bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the
oppressed go free.” But what exactly is this about?
The first point to consider is that God was not, in the case of
Israel, referring to the general practice of keeping slaves. God
allowed Israel to keep slaves in the framework of certain laws
connected to the practice (refer back to my section on The Old
Testament and slavery). In Isaiah God was making reference to a
more general moral and social injustice, perpetrated by those in
power and the deeper question of spiritual apostasy that really
lay behind this.
Of course, there is no doubt that the desire of the South to
continue slavery was condemnable, a system inherited from the
pre-Jndependence era that they sought to perpetuate
)owever,
Ellen White’s rebuke was not, primarily, for the South. Her
rebuke was for the North, for upholding slavery. In Testimonies
to the Church, Vol. 1, recorded in the second vision of the war she
wrote: “All the abuse and cruelty exercised toward the slave is
justly chargeable to the upholders of the slave system, whether
they be Southern or Northern men.” 11
However, as previously explained, the Northern States who
had abandoned the practice of slavery were having to deal with
the rebellion of the South and slavery’s continued practice in that

588
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

region. TIis had to be done in consideration of the Constitution

that protected the right of states to govern themselves and the
urgent need to restoring the fractured Union. TIe right to self
government, in and of itself, was not the problem. TIe problem
was that the South took advantage of constitutional provisions
regarding slavery and instead of gradually reversing the practice, as
the signer’s of the Constitution hoped would happen were,
rather, seeking to perpetuate it. In light of the Constitution, at
least for the present, Lincoln’s hands were tied.
For the North, due to the conditions existing at the time,
there was no quick-fix option. TIus, while Lincoln was taking
the steps that any wise statesman would under the circumstances
(constitutional considerations, the union issue and the ultimate
question of slavery notwithstanding), was it truly fair to say that it
was an insult to ask the nation to pray to God and that God
would not hear their prayers? Was the attitude of the North, in
particular Lincoln, their leader, an attitude of arrogance, self-
righteousness and denial, as was Israel’s in the time of Isaiah?




When one considers the specific issues that the nation was
called to address in those national days of humiliation, prayer and
fasting, were they defiantly defending the sin of slavery, were the
majority of key leaders, such as Lincoln, truly turning a blind eye
to the practice, or were they asking the nation to plead for
forgiveness for its existence and guidance in how to deal with it?
TIe characteristics of Lincoln’s calls were definitely of the latter.
After the defeat of the Union Army at U I F
Battle of Bull
Run, also known as First Manassas (
July 21st, 1861), Lincoln, on
August 12th, appointed a Day of Humiliation, Prayer and Fasting for all
the people of the nation. In reference to this defeat, recorded in
Ellen White’s second vision, she states that God was punishing
the North “for their sins.” 12 If God was punishing the North for their
sins, which Lincoln himself alluded to in his proclamation, was it for the
sin of allowing the South to continue slavery or for not fighting
the war to
immediately
free the slaves—was
God unaware of the

589
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

constitutional issues faced by Lincoln? Perhaps, as Ellen White

suggests, God’s hand was indeed over all that was happening, just
not in the way she imagined. Lincoln certainly believed God’s hand
was over everything. Not because he thought God was intervening
purely for the purpose of punishing the North but also for the
purpose of positioning events in such a way as to provide the legal
basis for Lincoln to end slavery without violating constitutional
law. Ellen White might have been half right in saying that the
nation was responsible for sin and that God was in control, but she
was dead wrong in castigating Lincoln for going to war to keep
the Union and not for the TJOHVMBS
purpose of freeing the slaves and
just as wrong for denigrating his calls for national prayer.



With these thoughts in mind, consider Lincoln’s words and
tone
in his call to the Nation for humiliation, prayer and fasting:
It is fit and becoming in all people, at all times, to acknowl-
edge and revere the Supreme Government of God; to bow
in humble submission to His chastisement; to confess and
deplore their sins and transgressions in the full conviction
that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and
to pray, with all fervency and contrition, for the pardon of
their past offenses, and for a blessing upon their present and
prospective action.
And whereas when our own beloved country, once, by the
blessings of God, united, prosperous and happy, is now afflicted
with faction and civil war, it is peculiarly fit for us to rec-
ognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation, and in
sorrowful remembrance of our own faults and crimes as a
nation and as individuals, to humble ourselves before Him
and to pray for His mercy…that the inestimable boon of civil
and religious liberty, earned under His guidance and blessing
by the labors and sufferings of our fathers, may be restored. 13

It is Impossible, after reading this proclamation, to conclude

that Lincoln, while recognizing the guilt of the Nation, was in
no way referencing the problem of slavery—that his confession

590
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

did not also come with the desire to make right that which was
wrong. While it is clear that Lincoln was distraught over the fact
of a divided nation, it is also clear that he saw “transgression” as
the cause for this division—clearly the transgression of slavery as
he well knew the Confederacy’s motives for going to war. What
is also poignant is the fact that, even though the South was guilty
of the sin of slavery, in the primary sense, Lincoln still held the
whole nation accountable. His prayer was a recognition of fault, a
plea for forgiveness and mercy and a call for Eivine “guidance.”
Does God turn a deaf ear to such sincere confession and call to
national repentance?
Lincoln knew exactly what he was dealing with, and even
though not publicly stated, what had to be done to solve the
problem. He was a lawyer, knew the Constitution and in particular,
as shown in an earlier part of this chapter, was especially informed
as to the legal difficulties involved in dealing with the problem
of slavery.
TIere was no tone of arrogance or even blindness to the
collective sin of the nation. For anyone, taking all the facts into
account, to suggest that it was an insult to God to call a nation to
this type of prayer is arrogant and should bear the accusation of
insult themselves.
When Ellen White is criticized for saying, in
regard to Lincoln’s call for prayer and fasting: “A national
fast is proclaimed! Oh, what an insult to Jehovah!” 14 her
apologists will cite a letter written by Lincoln to Horace
Greely, editor of the New York Tribune (August 22nd, 1862), in
an attempt to prove that Lincoln had OP desire to undo the
economy of slavery and was POMZ interested in saving the
Union. Interestingly though, if the time-frame (over five
months prior to the Emancipation Proclamation) of this letter
is considered and if they knew what Lincoln had already
planned for initiating freedom for slaves, they would never use
this statement in her defense.

591
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

TIis letter, one of Lincoln’s most famous, was written during the
heart of the Civil War. TIe Tribune had released an editorial to
Lincoln titled: Th e Prayer of Twenty Millions, in which they
suggested that the Lincoln’s administration lacked direction and
resolve. What is interesting and most revealing is that Lincoln
wrote his reply while a draft of the Emancipation
Proclamation was already lying in the drawer of his desk.
Lincoln’s reply received wide acclaim in the North and
stands, very significantly, as a classic statement of Lincoln’s
DPOTUJUVUJPOBM

responsibilities. A number of years after Lincoln
died Greely wrote an evaluation of Lincoln’s response. His
conclusion was that Lincoln used his editorial as a platform to
prepare the public for his altered position on how the emancipation
of slaves would be conducted. Of course, defenders of Ellen
White will not mention these historical facts. TIey will only
quote the portion of Lincoln’s letter that seems to compliment
her account. However, when one examines Lincoln’s entire
response, in conjunction with the facts already considered, one
encounters a different story. Following is Lincoln’s entire letter (I
will emphasize the portion quoted by defenders of Ellen White
and will underline the portions I wish to specially comment on):
Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through

the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or
assumptions of fact, XIJDI
*
NBZ
LOPX
UP
CF
FSSPOFPVT
*

EP
OPU
OPX
BOE
IFSF
DPOUSPWFSU
UIFN
*G
UIFSF
CF
JO
JU

BOZ
JOGFSFODFT
XIJDI
*
NBZ
CFMJFWF
UP
CF
GBMTFMZ
ESBXO

*
EP
OPU
OPX
BOE
IFSF
BSHVF
BHBJOTU
UIFN If there be
perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive
it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always
supposed to be right.
As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have
not meant to leave any one in doubt.

592
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

*
XPVME
TBWF
UIF
6OJPO
*
XPVME
TBWF
JU
UIF
TIPSUFTU
XBZ

VOEFS
UIF
$POTUJUVUJPO
5IF
TPPOFS
UIF
OBUJPOBM
BVUIPSJUZ

DBO
CF
SFTUPSFE
UIF
OFBSFS
UIF
6OJPO
XJMM
CF
iUIF
6OJPO
BT
JU

XBTw
*G
UIFSF
CF
UIPTF
XIP
XPVME
OPU
TBWF
UIF
6OJPO
VOMFTT

UIFZ
DPVME
BU
UIF
TBNF
UJNF
TBWF
TMBWFSZ
*
EP
OPU
BHSFF
XJUI

UIFN
*G
UIFSF
CF
UIPTF
XIP
XPVME
OPU
TBWF
UIF
6OJPO
VOMFTT

UIFZ
DPVME
BU
UIF
TBNF
UJNF
EFTUSPZ
TMBWFSZ
*
EP
OPU
BHSFF

XJUI
UIFN
.Z
QBSBNPVOU
PCKFDU
JO
UIJT
TUSVHHMF
JT
UP
TBWF

UIF
6OJPO
BOE
JT
OPU
FJUIFS
UP
TBWF
PS
UP
EFTUSPZ
TMBWFSZ
*G
*

DPVME
TBWF
UIF
6OJPO
XJUIPVU
GSFFJOH
BOZ
TMBWF
*
XPVME
EP
JU

BOE
JG
*
DPVME
TBWF
JU
CZ
GSFFJOH
BMM
UIF
TMBWFT
*
XPVME
EP
JU
BOE

JG
*
DPVME
TBWF
JU
CZ
GSFFJOH
TPNF
BOE
MFBWJOH
PUIFST
BMPOF
*

XPVME
BMTP
EP
UIBU
8IBU
*
EP
BCPVU
TMBWFSZ
BOE
UIF
DPMPSFE

SBDF
*
EP
CFDBVTF
*
CFMJFWF
JU
IFMQT
UP
TBWF
UIF
6OJPO

BOE
XIBU
*
GPSCFBS
*
GPSCFBS
CFDBVTF
*
EP
OPU
CFMJFWF
JU
XPVME

IFMQ
UP
TBWF
UIF
6OJPO
*
TIBMM
EP
MFTT
XIFOFWFS
*
TIBMM

CFMJFWF
XIBU
*
BN
EPJOH
IVSUT
UIF
DBVTF and I shall do more
whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try
to correct errors when shown to be errors; and *
TIBMM
BEPQU
OFX

WJFXT
TP
GBTU
BT
UIFZ
TIBMM
BQQFBS
UP
CF
USVF
WJFXT
*
IBWF
IFSF
TUBUFE
NZ
QVSQPTF
BDDPSEJOH
UP
NZ
WJFX
PG

PGGJDJBM
EVUZ
; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed
personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours, A. Lincoln. 15

When seen in context, then surely, this letter stands as a

testament to Lincoln’s wisdom as the leader of the American
nation at one of the most critical times in U.S. history. He could
have said: “What do you mean by saying I have no direction and
resolve? I am actually planning to emancipate the slaves, I have a
draft of a proclamation to this end right here in my desk.”
Any thinking person, who actually understands the history
and Lincoln’s resolve to work within the Constitution, will know
why he did not officially make his intentions known. He was
waiting for the “events”‰Uhe one’s
he said were controlling his

593
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

decisions,‰that would tip the scales and allow him, in the context
of war, to do what he could not do under other circumstances.
Little did Greely know, when reading Lincoln’s response,
that already one month previously, on 21st, July 1862, Lincoln
had mentioned his Emancipation Proclamation to members of his
cabinet. Secretary of State, William H. Seward, suggested to
Lincoln to wait for a victory over the Confederacy before he
issued the proclamation. Doing it before such an opportunity
would seem like “our last shriek on the retreat,” as Seward put it. 16
In retrospect, Lincoln’s wording in his response to Greely was
the wisest strategy for the moment. Even though he knew that
what the Tribune was accusing him of was “erroneous” and based on
“assumptions,” he chose not to “argue against them.” Arguing
against them would necessitate a defense and explanation and
would cause him to risk revealing the direction he had already
planned to take. TIe reader will recall that the Tribune had
accused him of lacking “direction and resolve.” When understood in
light of events that were already happening behind the scenes then
one can fully appreciate why Lincoln spoke of “the policy I am
pursuing,” in the way he did. Even though he knew that he was
going to declare emancipation, he still took his original public
stand that his intention was to have “the Union as it was.” Lincoln
was purposefully avoiding any definitive statement—particularly
in reference to the slaves, in spite of the fact that he had discussed
the Emancipation Proclamation with his cabinet and that it was
in his desk drawer at the time of his response to Greely.
He refused to do too little if it would “hurt the cause” and
would do more if it would “help the cause.” TIe specifics of the
more or less he did not discuss. However, a plan he most surely
had; a plan that would spring into action as soon as circumstances
provided the means.
Lincoln’s last paragraph puts the question of his responsibility
,
under the Constitution, which he swore to uphold, in clear
terms,

594
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

and once again, as was the tone of the rest of his letter, ambiguous
enough so as not to impart specific knowledge at a time when he
believed it was not expedient to do so. He stated his “purpose”
according to his view of “official duty.” And then, avoiding any
specific defense regarding accusations on how he as President had
been dealing with the slave question, yet expressing his “personal
wish,” he states: “I intend no modification of my oft-expressed
personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
Lincoln was really saying that he had NOT forgotten about
the slaves. He was providing a clue that the question of freedom
for the slaves was not something he had erased from his agenda—
he simply chose not to give any details regarding his ultimate
plan of action. Again I emphasize, as Commander in Chief this
was surely a wise position to take.
On September 17th, 1862, the month following his response
to Greely, the Battle of Antietam, also known as the Battle of
Sharpsburg, provided Lincoln the opportunity he was seeking—
the bloodiest day in American history and the turning point of the
Civil War. Following the results of this battle, Lincoln garnered
added official support at the War Governor’s Conference which set
the stage for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.17 Exactly
one month after his letter to Greely, on September 22nd, 1862,
Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
Antietam provided the North with a strategical advantage
and gave Lincoln, within constitutional provisions, the chance
to exercise his Presidential war powers. The stage was set. Just
over three months later, on January 1st, 1863, Lincoln issued
the final Emancipation Proclamation, a powerful move that
promised freedom for slaves in the Confederacy as soon as the
Union armies reached them and also authorized the enlistment
of African Americans in the Union Army. Lincoln was no fool,
politically/constitutionally, strategically and legally. He was the
right President for that moment in American history, a spiritual
man who spent time on his knees in prayer. Any thinking Bible-

595
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

believing Christian can see that it was Eivine providence that

put Lincoln in power and then guided him to where his actions
would ensure that freedom for slaves would become a reality.
The irony is that while all these developments were happening
behind the scenes, developments that God most certainly knew
were taking place—within the framework of a Constitution that
Americans believe was inspired by Him (God)—Ellen White
was on her high horse, taking opportunity to reprove and rebuke
the government for not making the war a war about freeing the
slaves, ensuring the SDA faithful viewed Lincoln’s heart-felt calls
for Humiliation, prayer and fasting as an “insult to Jehovah.”
However, it seems apparent that Jehovah did hear the prayers
of Lincoln and the Oation (barring the prayers that EJE

OPU
ascend from Ellen White and the SDA faithful) and worked on
behalf of the Oation, without the president having to disregard
the Constitution. It becomes painfully clear that Ellen White,
as she did on so many occasions, opportunistically made use of
events to build her “prophetic profile” and further the cause of the
SDA Church, which she claimed was God’s true Church—the
only ones who kept the commandments of God and had the faith
of Jesus.
Interestingly enough, even though prior to this time a general
attitude of non-political involvement (except for voting for
temperance men) existed in the Church, when Lincoln was elected
to power Adventists (Not yet called Seventh-day Adventists) made
their vote count. James White wrote: “TIose of our people who
voted at all at the last Qresidential election, to a man voted for
Abraham Lincoln. We know of not one man among Seventh-day
Adventists who has the least sympathy for secession.” 18
Clearly, Adventists, based on their vote, viewed Lincoln as a
man they could trust to lead the nation, especially as they were
entering into a critical time of separation and war. Yet, in spite
of this confidence in Lincoln, demonstrated by the their vote,
Ellen White, within months of him becoming president, would

596
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

start her criticisms of the Union’s motives for going to war and
Lincoln’s calls for national prayer, fasting and humiliation. More
will be said about the history of the SDA Church and voting in
the next chapter.
What would the outcome have been if Lincoln had simply
taken executive action and wielded his pen to pass laws that
were not his constitutional right to pass? What if he decided to
ignore the potential results of officially declaring the war a war to
emancipate the slaves, without finding a way to accomplish this
by using the legal mechanisms provided for in the framework of
the Constitution, that he had trained so many years to understand
and which he had for so many years defended? What if Lincoln
simply considered his own (or some prophets) short-term goals,
accomplishing them by twisting the meaning and intent of the
Constitution to fit his agenda? What if Lincoln had, already at
such an early and critical stage of American history, made it clear
that when the President saw fit he would assert monarchal rights
which he did not really have and pass laws at will? What if he
had done, back in 1861, what President Obama and his
government
so flagrantly and arrogantly EJE in EVSJOH
IJT

UFOVSF—what precedent would then already have been set?
Where would America be now if Lincoln had stepped outside
constitutional parameters simply because some people, such as
Ellen White, were suggesting that God did not approve of his
plan of action even though that same God and His philosophy
were the basis for the Constitution he might have chosen to
ignore?
To say that Ellen White was “out on a limb” in regard to the
whole question of the Civil War is putting it mildly. Anyone
who reads the content of all her Civil War visions will
quickly see that she was not out on a limb at all, she had
fallen out of the tree altogether.
However, before I end this evaluation, there are still a few
more Civil War statements from Ellen White that need to be
appraised in light of historical fact. Following are a number of

597
Brian Neumann

condescending, contradictory, and patently inaccurate portions of

Ellen White Civil War verbiage:
I was shown that if the object of this war had been to exter-
minate slavery, then, if desired, England would have helped
the North…the war is not to do away slavery, but merely to
preserve the Union; and it is not for her interest [England]
to have it preserved…The people of this nation have exalted
themselves to heaven, and have looked down upon monar-
chical governments, and triumphed in their boasted liberty,
while the institution of slavery, that was a thousand times
worse than the tyranny exercised by monarchial govern-
ments, was suffered to exist and was cherished…
…Had our nation remained united it would have had
strength, but divided it must fall. 19

It is simply not correct to say that England would have “helped the
North” if the goal of the war had been to “exterminate slavery.”
TIe fact is, even when Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation

unmistakably shifted the emphasis of the war, England still did

not lift a finger to come to its
BJE—she resolutely maintained
an official position of neutrality. However, the historical truth
is
that right from the start England, unofficially, leaned towards
sympathy with the South, in spite of the Southern desire to
preserve slavery. Here are the facts:
TIroughout the war Britain officially maintained a position
of neutrality. A major reason for this is because England did not
want to lose Canada to the North, if by taking sides with the
South she ended up antagonizing the North. TIere was solid
support and sympathy from the British upper class for the
South, despite the fact that Britain had already abolished slavery
within its territories. TIere was a feeling of kinship between the
British nobility and the South, a kinship that also extended
to British industry—textile workers in places such as
Lancashire who had lost work because of a shortage of cotton
from the Confederate States.

598
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Henry Adams who was the son and aide to the United States
Minister in London during the war wrote regarding the attitude
of England: “As for this country, the simple fact is that it is
unanimously against us [the North] and becomes more firmly
set every day.” 20
During the war the Manchester Guardian wrote about
a question that was put before the House of Commons on
whether England should officially recognize the Confederacy.
Th e article said that the debate “should not be thought to have
anything to do with the sentiments and sympathies of the
English people, for these were entirely with the South.” 21
Even though England was fully aware of continued slavery in
the South she did not indicate an official desire to help the Union
should the North make it clear that they were fighting to free the
slaves. Indeed, during the war England allowed the building of
armed and manned commerce raiders such as the CSS Alabama
that preyed on U.S. ships during the Civil War. In reality, the
Alabama was a Confederate ship in name only because it was
built, financed, manned and even officered by a British crew.
In spite of the fact that Britain traded with both the North and
South during the war and thousands of British citizens enlisted to
fight for both North and South, British merchants, who evaded
Union naval blockades to continue trade with the South, played a
role that was far more helpful to the Confederacy’s ability to fight
than any trade Britain might have offered the North. The South
imported over six-hundred thousand arms, mainly from Britain.
In 1864, General William Tecumseh-Sherman said that on every
battle-field he had “found the British mark,” on just about every
article of Confederate military equipment—muskets, projectiles,
cartridges, caps, etc., all were British. 22
It is true that Lord Palmerston, British Prime Minister during
the course of the war, hated slavery and criticized the South for
its perpetuation of it and blamed the entire United States for not
abolishing slavery by international treaty soon after Britain had

599
Brian Neumann

done so back in 1833. However his opinion was not a mirror of

unanimous sentiment and was not reflected in any action taken
by Britain who, while she was officially neutral, still found ways
to aid the South in furthering their agenda—even though it was
common knowledge that the South was fighting for their right
to keep slaves.23
Of course, the facts presented here do not adequately portray
the full complexity of all the issues involved in the North/South/
British relationship during the war. Nevertheless, it says enough
to debunk the idea that England, under any circumstances, would
have sided with and helped the North, simply because they might
have fought the war, as Ellen White put it, to “exterminate slavery.”
Ellen White’s statement that it was not in England’s interest
to have slavery “preserved,” might be true in so far as England,
after 1833 and her own action on slavery did pressure the U.S.
to abolish slavery by international treaty. However, this was not
true when one considers how England decided to act, officially
or unofficially during the Civil War. Indeed, what really shines
through the historical facts in regard to England during the war
is that she was playing a somewhat double game and was really
taking care of her own interests, regardless of whether slavery was
going to continue or not.
Ellen White’s accusation that the American Nation has
“looked down upon monarchical governments, and triumphed in
their boasted liberty, while the institution of slavery, that was a
thousand times worse than the tyranny exercised by monarchial
governments, was suffered to exist and was cherished,” is almost
laughable in light of British monarchial history, particularly
in regard to slavery and the facts already presented regarding
Lincoln’s actions within the context of the Constitution, etc.,
during the war—he hated slavery and was the man at the helm of
the American Nation.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, prior to independence,
the colonists attempted to institute anti-slavery measures which

600
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

were thwarted by the British Government. In 1773, Benjamin

Franklin wrote: “A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North
America… This request, however, will probably not be granted as
their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.” 24
Jefferson laid the blame for slavery’s perpetuation at the feet
of the King of England, who had vetoed anti-slavery measures,
stating that this was one of the major reasons for declaring
independence. He said that King George III “has waged cruel
war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights
of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never
offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in
another hemisphere… Determined to keep open a market where
MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative
for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain
this execrable commerce.” 25
Not only did the monarchial government of Britain restrict the
liberty of its own people, but on top of the deplorable restrictions
inherent in its system of government, Britain, at the very same
time while enforcing its system of rule, refused to grant North
America permission to take anti-slavery measures and was, at the
time, quite prepared to let slavery continue in all her colonies.
Was America really, in light of all considerations, “a thousand
times worse” than what was perpetrated on numerous levels in the
monarchial system of Britain? This exaggeration of Ellen White
only emphasizes the fact that she was clueless and ignorant and
exposes her as a historical and political hack that simply built
on what might have been published publicly here and there or
communicated via rumours that were circulating at the time—
rumours and speculations that were not a true reflection of any
official or serious predisposition of the British Government.
It is evident that she was not sharing special Divine insight
that revealed events taking place behind the scenes. If she had
truly glimpsed behind the curtain of visible events, her words and
tone would have been very different. Of course she could not have

601
Brian Neumann

known the historical facts that would come to light down the line,
facts that would quite literally contradict just about everything
she claimed and would expose the self-righteous, unjust nature
of the variety of criticisms she saw fit to deliver.
For Ellen White to say: “had our nation remained united it
would have had strength, but divided it must fall,” in light of
what she said regarding the war being to save the Union, seems
painfully contradictory. Lincoln’s first order of business in
going to war was to preserve the Union—he knew that if the
American Nation was divided it WOULD fall. He saw this as
his paramount objective.
It almost seems, the situation being what it was at that time,
that Ellen White is saying: “because North and South are separated
anyway (the southern states had seceded from the Union) it is pointless
going to war to get back or save the Union—this would be completely
the wrong motive for the war. Rather, the right motive would be to
fight to free the slaves. If we fight the war to free the slaves then God
will hear our prayers.” The whole idea is ridiculous and flies in the
face of what rights Lincoln would even have had in light of the
circumstances—if this is indeed what she meant.
Indeed, what else could she have meant? The South was
already, according to their perception of things, an independent
entity, with their own constitution and newly elected president.
The only way to get them to free their slaves, via the laws of the
land, would be to bring them back into the Union—this would
require war. You can only compel them to obey a rule of law (the
government of the Union) if they themselves, were again part of
that Union. While they remained separate they were a law unto
themselves and would continue the practice of slavery if their
independent principles of government allowed for them to do so.
Thus, in reality, it would simply have been verbal semantics to say,
we are fighting for emancipation and not union. Fighting to save
the Union had to be the first step, even though a vital component
for southern aggression was about wanting to continue slavery.

602
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

For this reason Lincoln waited for a clear turn-around in the

war, where it became evident that the North could have the
ultimate victory, before he exercised his war-time presidential
powers to sign into effect the Emancipation Proclamation.
Th e net result of Lincoln’s strategy was: a) Faithfulness to the
process’ of the Constitution. b) Saving the Union—unfortunately
this had to happen via the process of war. c) Within this process, the
opportunity to constitutionally initiate the plan for emancipating the
slaves came to fruition.
For Ellen White to say, at the time the North was fighting
to save the Union that had it “remained united it would have
had strength,” seems irrational and irrelevant. The South chose
to secede from the Union, the North were fighting to save it so
that they COULD have the “strength” they once had. Of course,
it is quite plain, if the North just let the South remain a separate
entity and did not fight to save the Union then, indeed, “divided”
the nation “must fall,” or cease to function in the way envisioned
by the Founding Fathers.
Saving the Union was an imperative first consideration. Via
Lincoln’s strategy this was accomplished and the nation DID
NOT fall. That which lay behind much of the southern desire to
secede—slavery—was also addressed in the process.
Every issue that Ellen White had something to say about was
dealt with. Maybe not in the way her uninformed mind designed
it ought to have happened, but nevertheless, it was done through
a process that was best for the survival of the nation and the
Constitution, without which America would not be what it is.
In a certain sense one might say that the Civil War, or at least
the test it provided for the leadership of the nation, was neither
about the emancipation of slavery or the saving of the Union. In
the final analysis, it was about making sure that a way was found,
even when dealing with the toughest and most divisive issues,
to stay true to a Constitution they knew was the best the world
had to offer—to show that when those entrusted with leadership

603
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

were prepared to work through due process and rule of law, the
American Constitution would ensure justice was being done.
Justice, delivered in this manner, remained true to the original
Judeo-Christian intent of those Founding Fathers who leant on
Divine guidance, through prayer and study of the Word, when
working out a system that would best serve the American people.
In different ways, throughout her second and third Civil War
visions, Ellen White repeated her diverse rebukes regarding the
North—most of these have already been addressed. A number
of times she asserted that “God was punishing the nation,” that
“God’s scourge” was upon the North and that He would also
“punish the South,” etc. 26
Of course, Lincoln himself understood and spoke of the
nation’s guilt. Yet, bringing the issue to an ultimate resolution
required a process dictated by events that provided opportunities,
opportunities that were recognized and advantageously used by
Lincoln to accomplish what needed to be done.
Was this painful process the result of God actively dishing
out punishment or simply a natural reaping that came with the
procedure of needed change? One could endlessly debate this
question and still not answer it to everyone’s satisfaction. However,
my contention would be that God, knowing the end from the
beginning, being the One who guided the framers and signers
of the Constitution, understanding the imperfection of man,
foresaw a time in the future when, via that Constitution that He
helped design, the American Nation would need to purge what
needed to be purged and make amendments, via constitutional
process’, that needed to be made. Not impatiently or irrationally
but steadily and wisely till the ultimate goal was reached.
TIis does not seem like a Eivinely vengeful act but rather the
act of a heavenly Father who was using his chosen instruments,
such as Lincoln, to guide the American Nation through what
He knew would be one of the most painful and yet, in the end,
healing moments of its history.

604
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

According to Ellen White’s prophetic vision, what was

unfolding in America at that time, as a result of the upheavals
of Civil War and the globally published interpretations of these
events, indicated that the “great day of God [end of the world] is
right upon us” and that the “signs of Christ’s coming are too
plain to be doubted.” In light of this belief and in context of
what was taking place in America she said the “scenes of earth’s
history are fast closing. We are amid the perils of the last days.” 27
Her advice, as prophet of God, to the SDA faithful, then still
a fledgling denomination, was that “God’s people [SDA’s], who
are His peculiar treasure, cannot engage in this perplexing war,
for it is opposed to every principle of their faith.” 28
Even though, in the end, SDA’s were conscripted and had to
go to war, she made it clear that the church was not in support
of Lincoln’s war efforts. Her emphasis was that SDA’s “kingdom
is not of this world.” Because of her opposition to the whole war
effort she admonished that conscripted SDA men could not “obey
the truth and at the same time obey the requirements of their
officers. There would be a continual violation of conscience.”29
Her negative view of the war and just about anyone and
everything that was involved (particularly the North) were so
strong that she claimed, via Eivine revelation, it was in essence
Satan who was leading the effort.
She asserted: “men in authority, generals and officers, act in
conformity with instructions communicated by spirits. The spirits
of devils, professing to be dead warriors and skillful generals,
communicate with men in authority and control many of their
movements.” 30
She said that, “instead of the leading men in this war trusting
in the God of Israel, and directing their armies to trust in the
only One who can deliver them from their enemies, the majority
inquire of the prince of devils and trust in him.” 31
Thus, according to Ellen White, this was not a problem
that existed in a few isolated cases but seemed to be a rampant
occurrence among top military brass.

605
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

She compared the spirit that guided the men who led in the
Revolution with that which controlled the leaders of the Civil
War: “Leading men in the Revolution acted unitedly, with zeal,
and by that means they gained their independence. But men
now act like demons instead of human beings.” 32
By all accounts, according to Ellen White, until the war
officially became about emancipation of the slaves, America, at
the highest levels, was being controlled by demons that literally
imbued their satanic spirit into the minds of leading men who, in
turn, vicariously became demons themselves.
Apparently, following Ellen White’s line of reasoning, not
even the faintest semblance of the revolutionary spirit was
present in those who ultimately responded to their Commander
in Chief (Lincoln) and his constitutionally guided decisions that,
when due process was complete, set the captives free. In reality,
what Ellen White did via her Civil War communications was to
instill in the hearts and minds of members of her denomination
an arrogant, unpatriotic attitude towards a country whose very
system (its government and military), in spite of its shortcomings,
was guided by the principles of Scripture.
This is why, even at present, if one could hear the honest
opinion of many SDA leaders regarding young men joining the
military, especially the more combatant branches of service, you
would hear strong counsel against such occupation. When my
wife’s brother in law approached his pastor, a famous SDA TV
evangelist, in the state of Michigan, regarding his decision to join
the military, he was accused of becoming a “baby killer.”
When one combines these attitudes with SDA teachings on
America’s role in fulfilling Bible prophecy then you are left with
a denomination who are ever waiting for the moment when a
once Protestant America, in union with the papacy, will turn its
venom on them, the only true remnant church of God. Indeed, in
her book The Great Controversy, this is exactly what Ellen White
predicted would happen. 33

606
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It is true, however, that not all members of the SDA Faith hold to or
follow everything Ellen White has said. Many, like Dr. Ben Carson,
believe they should take an active role in bringing America back to its
roots. Even so, it begs the question as to how much of the SDA
prophetic view influences their opinion and action and at what point will,
even they, like the multitude of fundamental Ellen White believing
membership, decide that America has completely morphed into the
satanically controlled beast of Revelation 13.
It is as a result of these beliefs, spread via the official publications of the
church, that were read and re-read and ingrained in the minds of
those early SDA’s who shared them with their posterity that then laid
the groundwork for an inbred suspicion of the United States of
America and its leaders. Coupled with this, is the general belief that
God’s faithful remnant should not involve themselves in the process of
politics. After all their kingdom is not of this world and the end of all
things was at hand. I challenge any reader who doubts the veracity of my
words to do thorough research into the SDA Church’s interpretation of
end-time Bible prophecy and read all Ellen White’s materials on
America in prophecy, particularly her book, Th
e Great Controversy.
Has anything changed in the SDA Church since those days,
especially since the end has not yet come? How does the Church explain
its present position in regard to the military and politics? Does she still
believe that America, as the second beast power of Revelation 13,
will speak as a dragon (Satan)? How do they interpret the emphatic
statements of Ellen White regarding all these issues and her belief that
already, in the Civil War era, they were “amid the perils of the last days”?
How do they make sense of her end-time predictions a hundred and
fifty years down the line?
Do they still believe in Ellen White’s interpretation of things or
have they found a way to re-interpret and re-explain her so that what
she says will still compliment the shift and compromise in how they
communicate their peculiar Ellen White inspired beliefs? Can they,
in spite of the shift,
still make
her words appear
to be
Eivine

607
Brian Neumann

revelations of present events as they unfold—especially in regard

to America? Does the main-stream even dare publicly emphasize
some of the particulars of these prophetic interpretations? These
questions become even more significant since one of their own
respected men made his bid to become President of America.
With what mindset would Dr. Carson have approached
the office of President of the United States? Is his perspective
of America and its role in end-time events the same as Ellen
White? If so, would he have been able to be entirely objective
in making decisions for a country that many of his fellow SDA’s
believe to be the dragon power of Revelation 13?
An additional question, one I have alluded to but want to
raise again, has to do with the responsibility that every American,
especially those Christians who have chosen to steer clear of
anything political, share in allowing the country to get to the
point it has in the present. Have SDA Christians who have not
gotten involved, by their abstinence, suspicion of America and
their belief in its prophetic role, not contributed to the balance
of power shifting so far to the left that America is fast losing any
semblance of what it once used to be?
These perplexing questions will be addressed in the
following chapter where I will examine the SDA position on
political involvement.

SOURCES
1. The Great Second Advent Movement, Its Rise and Progress, J. N.
Loughborough,p. 338. Review and Herald Publishing Assn. 1905.
2. Lincoln’s Letter to A. G. Hodges, April 4, 1864. Emphasis &
italics provided.
3. see: United by Faith—The Joseph Sr., and Lucy Mack Smith Family,
pp. 361, 362. Edited by Kyle R. Walker; Also read: Joseph Smith,
Doctrine and Covenants, p. 87:1-4. Italics & emphasis provided.
4. Testimonies Volume 1, p. 267, 268.
5. Dale Ratzlaff, Proclamation Magazine article, The Mormon
Connection, Did Ellen White Copy from Joseph Smith? Summer
2015, Vol. 16, Issue 2.
6. Lincoln’s Letter to A. G. Hodges, April 4, 1864. Italics provided.
7. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 253-254. emphasis supplied.
8. For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. By
James M. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
9. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 253-260. Italics &
emphasis supplied.
10. Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 451. Emphasis supplied.
11. Testimonies to the Church, Vol 1, p. 266. Emphasis supplied.
12. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 267.
13. President Lincoln’s proclamation on August 12, 1861, after the
Union lost the Battle of Bull Run.
14. Testimonies to the Church, Vol 1, p. 257.
15. Lincoln to Horace Greely, editor of the New York Tribune (August
22nd, 1862).
16. Stephen B. Oates, Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths,
p. 106.
17. Images of America: Altoona, by Sr. Anne Francis Pulling, 2001, p.
10.
18. Review and Herald, Aug. 12, 1862.
19. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 253-260. Emphasis supplied.
20. The Mind and Art of Henry Adams, Jacob Clavner Levenson,
Stanford University Press,1957. California P. 14.
21. Which Side did Great Britain Support During the Civil War?
https://www.quora.com/Which-side-did-Great-Britain-
support-during-the-US-Civil-War-the-North-or-the-South.
22. Diary by Gideon Welles. Civil War Daily Gazette, A Day-
By-Day Accounting of the Conflict, 150 Years Later. http://
civilwardailygazette.com/they-have-not-it-would-seem-been-
humbled-enough-gideon-welles-on-southern-arrogance/.
23. For more information on this subject refer to: A Cycle of
Adams Letters 1861-1865, W. C. Ford; Europe & the American
Civil War, D. Jordan and E.J. Pratt; A World on Fire: Britain’s
Crucial Role in the American Civil War, Amanda Foreman;
King Cotton Diplomacy, Frank L. Owsley, Quoted by Foreman,
p. 731; Donald, David and J.G. Randall. The Civil War and
Reconstruction, Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966: 355-
278; Europe and the American Civil War, Civil War Potpourri.
2004. http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm.
24. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared
Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839),
Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.
25. The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds. (New York: Random House, 1944), p.
25. Emphasis & italics supplied.
26. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 264-268.
27. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 260-264. Emphasis supplied.
28. The Rebellion, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 1, pages 355-368.
Emphasis supplied.
29. Ibid.
30. The Rebellion, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 1, pages 355-368.
Emphasis supplied.
31. Ibid. Emphasis supplied.
32. Ibid.
33. ‘The Great Controversy,’ p. 563-581, Chapter: Aims of the Papacy,
Ellen G. White.
 Chapter XV

To Vote or Not to Vote

5he SDA Church and
the 
Presidential Race

He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous:

but with kings [are they] on the throne; yea, he doth
establish them for ever, and they are exalted.
—Job 36:7

I
n regard to the question of voting and political involvement,
the history of the SDA Church has been contradictory and
inconsistent. As will be shown, this fluctuation has often
been the result of Ellen White’s statements about the exclusive
calling of the SDA Church in relation to the end of the world
– statements about how current events of the day (religious or
secular) were clear signs of Christ’s imminent return. Unlike
most other Protestant churches, the SDA Church have what
they believe to be a prophetic voice, a voice that strongly impacts
the beliefs of all its members and leaders – a pontifical authority
that at almost every step of the way influences the thinking and
actions of the whole denomination.
In the years following 1844 the fledgling Adventist movement,
in its relationship to the world and other Christian faiths, was
strongly influenced by Ellen White and her prophetic insight.

613
Brian Neumann

In 1980, Paul A. Gordon, the then undersecretary of the Ellen G.

White Estate, authored a two part article in the Adventist Review
(September 18 & 25) in which he explained, based on statements
by Ellen White, the SDA position on voting and politics. The
article was recently republished in an endeavour to give a new
generation of SDA’s a “proper” understanding of how they should
or should not participate in casting their vote. What the article
attempts do is show the progression of Adventist reaction to and
participation in voting and politics in general, leading up to a
final conclusion on where they presently stand. Interestingly,
Gordon’s explanation confirms a number of things I have dealt
with earlier in this book.
In submitting the portion of the article dealing with the early
SDA pioneers, prior to formal organization and the ultimate
adoption of the name Seventh-day Adventist, I intend to prove,
that under direct prophetic leadership of Ellen White, an attitude
towards the rest of the Christian and secular world developed.
This attitude grew out of their imminent “end of time” belief and
their special “chosen” status belief, which dictated what position
they would take. The basis of the so-called development of the
church’s stand, which Gordon or the church does not seem to
realize, is an inadvertent admission that Ellen White’s prophetic
claims were false and that her inconsistent stance on voting
and politics lends no clarity to what the denomination actually
believes at present.
In Part 1 Gordon starts off by saying that the reasons for
the early SDA position regarding voting and politics is that the
founders of the church, after the 1844 disappointment (dealt
with in detail in an earlier chapter), were “settling on a new
course.” This new course was the result of “ridicule” because of the
disappointing non-event of October 22nd, 1844 (William Miller’s
prediction for the end of the world), causing the founders to
become “independent” and separate. It was “a time of isolation
from the rest of the world.” Gordon asserts that “related to their

614
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

isolation from other churches was the isolation of Adventists

from involvement with civil government. Just as other churches
were considered ‘Babylon,’ so the civil government was regarded
with suspicion and distrust.”
He tries to make it appear that there was “good reason” for
SDA suspicion of the “civil government” at the time because this
period [between 1844 and Lincoln’s election] was filled with
“political corruption perhaps unmatched by any preceding period
in United States history.”
What Gordon is really saying is that the whole SDA attitude
towards the Christian Churches and civil government was the
result of a natural, “reasonable” reaction to other Christian’s
ridicule of them and the corruption taking place in the political
realm.
However, when one knows the facts, it becomes immediately
apparent that Gordon engineers a not so subtle turn-around or
shift in emphasis, as to why the SDA pioneers saw things the
way they did‰ he shifts the blame from Ellen White, whose
revelations were really the a prime basis for the SDA suspicion
of the outside world (religious and political) and tries to make
it seem that circumstances of the time were really the problem.
Gordon’s whole opening approach to his article is based on a false
narrative that, when exposed, discounts practically every other
conclusion he makes throughout the rest of it.
He does correctly state that the early SDA pioneers considered
the other churches “Babylon” and that they viewed the “civil
government” with “suspicion and distrust.”
It will become obvious as we continue that this was NOT
a transitional attitude because of what was happening at the
time. Rather, it was directly because of Ellen White’s and thus
the SDA denomination’s continuing and still current view of the
church’s separateness and superior standing as God’s only true
church in relation to the rest of the Christianity and the secular
world. The arguments of early SDA pioneers, both lay members

615
Brian Neumann

and leaders, in defense of their political stand, are simply an

echo of what Ellen White, God’s messenger, was admonishing
them to believe. In his article Gordon dedicates a section to
some commentary by a “solid lay member” in the Battle Creek
congregation, David Hewett, editor of the denominations Review
and Herald publication:

. . . David Hewett, a thoughtful and solid lay member in the

Battle Creek congregation, asked a question in 1856, seven
years before our church was officially organized:
“My brethren, shall we spend our time in political cam-
paigns, . . . when we so soon expect Christ in all the glory of
His Father, and all the holy angels with Him, when He shall
sit upon the throne of His glory?” Review and Herald, Sept.
11, 1856.
Uriah Smith, editor of the Review, as if in answer to the
question--declared in the same issue that the Adventist posi-
tion was one of “neutrality in politics,” with our people refus-
ing “to take part in a contest so exciting as the one which is now
agitating this nation.” He concluded his editorial by stating:
“To the question, why we do not with our votes and influ-
ence labor against the evil tendency of the times, we reply, that
our views of prophecy lead us to the conclusion that things
will not be bettered. . . . And we feel it our duty to confine our
efforts to preparing ourselves, and others as far as in us lies,
for the great and final issue already pressing upon us--the
revelation of the Son [of ] man from heaven, the destruction
of all earthly governments, the establishment of the glorious,
universal and eternal kingdom of the King of kings, and the
redemption and deliverance of all His subjects.” 1

In the same year, a minister in Western New York, Roswell F.

Cottrell, echoed similar sentiments with the added conclusion

that “on the eve of a political contest” (taking place in America at

the time) that this “contest” would “finally result in the formation

616
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

of the image” (Where America speaks as the dragon) a fulfillment

of Revelation 13:11. He went on to state:

Under these circumstances, if I cast my vote at all, it will . . .

tell for, or against the making of the image. If I vote in
favor of the formation of the image, I shall aid in creating
an abomination which will persecute the saints of God. . . .
On the other hand, if I vote against this work, I shall vote
against the fulfillment of the prophecy. . . . Th erefore, I can-
not vote at all.” Cottrell concluded by saying: “I cannot vote
for a bad man, for that is against my principles; and, under
the present corrupt and corrupting state of politics, I cannot
wish to elevate a good man to office, for it will ruin him.2

TIe first thing to consider is that the men I am quoting here

were, in an official or unofficial capacity, merely reflecting the
general belief of the Adventists of that time. Th
e belief was that
it was pointless getting involved in political matters of a corrupt
government (the things of this world) because their “views of
prophecy,” as Cottrell said, led to the conclusion that their “efforts”
should be confined to “preparing” themselves for “the revelation
of the Son of man” (the second coming) and their redemption.
Simply put, SDA’s believed that they were the remnant, the rest
of the denominational Christian churches were Babylon and the
government of the USA was about to morph into the dragon/
satanic power of Revelation 13:11 – the end of the world was at
the door. It is absolutely clear, on the basis of their own words,
they were convinced that these events were about to occur.
TIese beliefs were held as a DIRECT result of Ellen White’s
prophetic teachings. She claimed that the other churches were
unknowingly praying to Satan, based on her visions of Christ’s
work in the heavenly sanctuary (an earlier chapter deals with this
entire issue). She taught that Christ was about to return and that
for this reason the focus of God’s people should not be on the
world or questions of politics. Indeed, as shown in the previous

617
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

chapter, only a few years later, during the Civil War, she spoke of
America fulfilling the prophecy of Revelation 13:11 and the end
of the world being at hand. This, interestingly enough, was after
the voting lapse when Lincoln ran for office and when practically
“to a man” SDA Church members voted for him.3
From 1856 to 1861, in the short space of about six years, there
seemed to be a transition from the civil government being corrupt,
America becoming the beast, the end being at hand and a total
abstinence from voting, to a fervent voting spree for Lincoln, a
good man. Only a few years before Cottrell said he would not
“elevate to office,” even a “good man,” because the experience of
being in office would “ruin him.”
However, within months, the good man they all voted for,
Ellen White started accusing of going against the will of God.
Once again she is telling SDA’s not to be involved at all, that
the Union leaders are being led by demons and that their (SDA
Church) kingdom is not of this world and that the end is, once
again, right upon them‰ the “scenes of earth’s history are fast
closing. We are amid the perils of the last days.” 4
It sounds like those SDA’s, in a primary sense Ellen White,
could not make up their/her mind what they should do. Was
it the end or not? To call for a no-vote position because of the
emphatic belief, based on revelation, that the world is about to
end and then to change it to an all out vote for Lincoln (which
goes against the very reason for the original position) and then to
once again call God’s people to non-involvement because, once
again, the last days are upon them, all in the space of a few years,
seems patently schizoid.
There is little doubt that Ellen White and the church she was
leading fluctuated in their belief that the end was right upon
them, on more than just a few occasions. Her rhetoric, right from
1844, clearly indicated that the world was not going to last much
longer. At times, right after the disappointment, it seemed to be a
matter of months before Christ would come and that, in contrast

618
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

to the rest of the fallen world, Advent believers‰ survivors of

the Millerite movement – were the only ones who were going to
be ready5 (See earlier chapters in this book for greater detail on
these issues).
In fact, in May, 1858, at an SDA Conference in Battle Creek,
Ellen White made this prophetic statement, regarding those
present at the meeting, after receiving “a very solemn” vision:
I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the
angel, ‘some food for worms, some subjects for the seven last
plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth, to be
translated at the coming of Jesus.’ 6

Of course, all these people have long since passed away but one
can only imagine what effect such a prophetic statement would
have had on those present. Without doubt, revelations such as
this would greatly have impacted the “remnant’s” relationship to
the rest of the Christian world and civil government‰Babylon.
Ellen White apologists offer a very unsatisfactory explanation
for this and other unfulfilled prophecies. Suffice to say, the
evidence quite clearly shows that SDA’s, since the failed prediction
of William Miller, which led to the Great Disappointment in
1844, via various Ellen White predictions at different times, were
constantly in a state of flux between the imminent end and how,
in that atmosphere of being, they should relate to the rest of the
world‰secular and religious‰ especially since they were the
only true church left on the face of the planet. This attitude of
suspicion towards politics and voting was reflected in the Review
and Herald, one year before Ellen White’s 1858 “food for worms”
prophecy. It stated:
If I enter the lists as a voter, I do in fact endorse this govern-
ment as worthy of fellowship. If my name is entered upon the
poll-book I then become a part of the body-politic, and must
suffer with the body-politic in all its penalties. 7

619
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

It is in light of these apocalyptic attitudes, inspired by Divine

revelations from Ellen White and not simply because of a natural
consequence of the disappointment of 1844, that the SDA
position on involvement in politics and the question of voting
need to be understood.
Paul Gordon continues his 1980 article on SDA’s and voting.
He attempts to show a reconsideration among SDA’s on the
question of voting, as if greater light had now revealed that they
should more actively participate as citizens of the U.S. Even
though, only a year previously, they were talking about the end of
the world and not participating in supporting a government who
were apparently not worthy of fellowship. Gordon wrote:
A local election in Battle Creek in 1859 challenged Adventists
to reconsider their responsibilities as citizens in a commu-
nity. They were pressed to make a more definite commitment
on the subject of voting. What were they to do?
Ellen White, who was present as Adventist leaders dis-
cussed this question, made this entry in her diary: ‘Attended
meeting in the eve. Had quite a free, interesting meeting. After
it was time to close, the subject of voting was considered and
dwelt upon. James first talked, then Brother Andrews talked,
and it was thought by them best to give their influence in
favor of right and against wrong. They think it right to vote
in favor of temperance men being in office in our city instead
of by their silence running the risk of having intemperance
men put in office. Brother Hewett tells his experience of a
few days [since] and is settled that [it] is right to cast his vote.
Brother Hart talks well. Brother Lyon opposes. No others object
to voting, but Brother Kellogg begins to feel that it is right.
Pleasant feelings exist among all the brethren. O that they may
all act in the fear of God.
‘Men of intemperance have been in the office today in a
flattering manner expressing their approbation of the course
of the Sabbathkeepers not voting and expressed hopes that they
will stick to their course and like the Quakers, not cast their
vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time, and he

620
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

has workers upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is

my prayer.’ 8

Only POF years after the 185 “food for worms” prophecy
and in the face of the well accepted, often repeated call to be
citizens of the kingdom and not the world as it was soon to
meet its end, SDA leaders, with the approval of Ellen White,
decide not to object to voting for temperance men.
A number of important observations come to light when
reading the above quote. Firstly, this decision to vote was in the
context of a local not national election and in a specific sense
was inspired by their desire to have a particular class of men in
office. These points will become more relevant later on. What
is interesting though, in contrast to previously held opinions, is
that they decided to vote at all‰even if it was about local and
not necessarily national elections. Bear in mind, they progressed
from this, two years down the line and voted on a national level
for Lincoln.
At the Battle Creek Conference in 1859 they were encouraged
to “GIVE THEIR INFLUENCE IN FAVOUR OF RIGHT
AND AGAINST WRONG,” yet, a year later in the build-up to
the presidential elections, James White (Ellen White’s husband)
does not encourage the brethren to vote for Lincoln, a good man:
The political excitement of 1860 will probably run as high as it
has for many years, and we would warn our brethren not to be
drawn into it. We are not prepared to prove from the Bible
that it would be wrong for a believer in the third [angel’s]
message to go in a manner becoming his profession, and cast his
vote. We do not recommend this, neither do we oppose. If a
brother chooses to vote, we cannot condemn him, and we want
the same liberty if we do not. But we do believe that he who
enters into the spirit of the coming contest, loses the spirit of
the present truth and endangers his own soul. 9

621
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

TIe reader will recall however, when all was said and done
James White actually published the fact that nearly all SDA
voters, “to a man,” DID vote for Lincoln.
Yet, according to the above statement, it would seem that as
far as reconsidering their responsibilities as patriotic U.S. citizens
was concerned and becoming involved in the affairs of a
nation they themselves believed was founded on biblical
principles a completely neutral position was taken‰ do not
discourage, do not encourage. Except, it would appear, when it
came to the issue of temperance. At least this was how things
stood at that time.
T h is type of attitude raises the question of SDA’s
belief in "NFSJDBO

&YDFQUJPOBMJTN. If they are in the
BGGJSNBUJWF that America was a nation called by God and
established on godly principles then it is hardly patriotic,
towards the nation or the God upon whose principles it was
established, to take such a non-committal position. In fact,
if all the historical evidence is considered, the SDA
Church, motivated by the inspired insights of Ellen White,
have more often than not opted to denigrate the government
and hold it in suspicion.
As already mentioned, just after Lincoln was elected and the
Civil War commenced, Ellen White was once again reminding
the church that leaders were acting like demons and that SDA’s
“kingdom is not of this world. We are waiting for our Lord from
heaven to come to earth to put down all authority and power,
and set up His everlasting kingdom



Prophecy shows us
that the great day of God is right upon us. It hasteth greatly.” 10
Right after the war however, once Lincoln and the nation
had done what Ellen White said they were not doing and it was
clear the world had not come to an end yet, another General
Conference meeting was held at Battle Creek on May 17th, 1865,
where the issue of voting and politics was addressed once again.
TIis historic third session of the General Conference of SDA’s
was attended by the most prominent SDA leaders of the time,
including
J. N. Andrews who spoke to a crowd of
over
six-hundred
622
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

people. During his speech he remarked that “this is probably the

largest body of Sabbathkeepers that has assembled for fifteen
hundred years.” An interesting, albeit incorrect statement, as
Seventh-day Baptists and other seventh-day believers, throughout
the centuries, had been gathering long before SDA’s began
keeping the Sabbath. Gatherings of Sabbath-keepers had
probably exceeded this number on more than a few occasions.
Of course, this is not a vital point except that Andrews’ remark
accentuates the typical SDA belief that they are the exception to
all other faiths on the planet today, the only ones who keep ALL
the commandments of God.
Indeed, the idea of exceptionalism for SDA’s has nothing to
do with a belief in American Exceptionalism, but is rather about
their very exclusive and arrogant belief in Seventh-day Adventist
Exceptionalism‰ God’s only true church, the Israel of the
end-time.
A church with this attitude, by very virtue of its superiority
and exclusiveness, cannot fully participate in or be truly patriotic
to any nation they inhabit‰ even a nation based on Christian
ideals‰because they believe their own Christian standard to be
superior to any other that exists.
Th ey desire to enjoy the benefits experienced from a
Judeo-Christian Constitution‰free speech, religious freedom,
equality of all men, wealth and happiness, etc.‰ all without
becoming actively involved in the politics and government that
guide the nation. Unless, of course, as in the case of Ellen
White, a pet cause such as temperance, slavery or the
seventh-day Sabbath becomes an issue.
The bottom line is that one should not have the right to
criticize or complain about the state of a nation or its government
when you refuse to get your hands dirty by becoming involved
in the process of working out the best possible solutions to the
problems facing the nation‰ via voting, political involvement,
prayer and Christian support.

623
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

Th
e reader might recall, Ellen White was quick to compare the
spirit of the Union during the Civil War with the spirit of
those who fought in the Revolution, saying: “Leading men in
the Revolution acted unitedly, with zeal, and by that means they
gained their independence. But men now act like demons instead of
human beings.”11 But, what most people do not realize is that
ministers and church members were actively involved in the whole
process that brought victory and freedom during the Revolution
and in the formulating and establishing of the Constitution‰a
little bit of historical research will amply confirm this fact.12

However, Ellen and James White chose to ignore these facts and
instead directed her church to remain aloof and “neutral.”
Th e sad truth is that in the present, regardless of the official
face church leaders are trying to present, at one of the most
critical times in U.S. History, B

MBSHF

QFSDFOUBHF of SDA
believers do not believe they should vote or participate in politics
in any way shape or form‰they are not becoming actively involved
in saving their country from ruin. Th
e basis for this belief, even in
this day and age, is Ellen G. White and her pointed statements in
regard to the subject of politics‰regardless of what the historical
General Conference session of 1865 concluded.
Indeed, the conclusions reached at that General Conference
session are interesting and need to be examined so as to fully
grasp the extent of the SDA contradiction on politics and voting. In
regards to the subject of voting and political involvement it was
resolved that:

   in our judgment, the act of voting when exercised in

behalf of justice, humanity and right, is in itself blameless,
and may be at some times highly proper; but that the cast-
ing of any vote that shall strengthen the cause of such crimes
as intemperance, insurrection, and slavery, we regard as
highly criminal in the sight of Heaven. But we would dep-
recate any participation in the spirit of party strife.13

624
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

In regard to this General Conference resolution, Paul Gordon says:

“Th
is basic resolution, along with supporting counsels from the pen
of Ellen White, has continued to be a guide for the church for
more than 100 years. Note the clear distinction that is made
between the exercise of the voting right and ‘participation in the
spirit of party strife.’”14
On the surface, this official resolution might seem to be fairly
reasonable. However, when carefully evaluated some serious
problems start to evolve. Th
e first thing that seems tobe seen as a
prime motivation for casting one’s vote, is temperance, followed by
issues related to the Civil War which they had just come out of‰
insurrection and slavery. Certainly, this is not a problem in and
of
itself. However, when one reads just about every statement of
Ellen
White that encourages people to vote, it is in the context of

temperance and one or two other pet concerns. T
Iis immediately

creates the impression that hers and thus the church’s field of

acceptable voting criteria was fairly narrow.
Th
e primary problem with the resolution is the clause that
discouraged members to become involved in what they termed,
“party strife.” Th
is statement has been the dividing line or overall
standard that has prevented, in fact
QSBDUJDBMMZ forbade,
any SDA
from becoming actively involved in the political arena‰
until
SFDFOUMZ‰
XJUI
Dr. Ben CarsoOhT JOWPMWFNFOU
XIJDI
XBT heavily
criticized by conservative SDA’s who still hold firm to this belief.
Even though, in Part 2 of Gordon’s article, we will consider
one or two Ellen White statements that he uses to create the
impression she condoned participation in the political realm, it will
be shown that Gordon is simply twisting her words and the context
to make it fit the conclusion he desires to draw‰B
NBke it fit
approach that Ellen White apologists are experts at doing.
When broken down to its bare-bones, the net result of this
General Conference resolution is: you may vote, if your vote fits
the parameters stated. You cannot actively participate in the political

625
B
r i a
n N
e u m a
n n

arena because doing so will be against the will of God. Simply put, this
means that you may take your pen and make a mark and that is about as
far as it goes.
Th e unfortunate thing is that for a massive part of the SDA
membership it does not even go as far as these parameters. Many
conservative leaders discourage their church members from
voting at all. Th
e primary reason for this is the confusing and often
contradictory guidance found in Ellen White’s writings.
At this very moment, while writing this book and for this very
reason, the SDA Church is in a divided state regarding Dr. Ben
Carson’s JOWPMWFNFOU
JO
QPMJUJDT Many conservative church
members, on the basis of what they believe Ellen White taught, feel
that Carson has been in apostasy for getting actively involved
in the political arena‰that he has become worldly and corrupted by
getting his hands dirty in party politics. Dr. Carson’s claim that he is
not a politician makes no difference as it goes without
saying
that
in
running
for
office
one
CZ
EFGBVMU becomes politically
involved. And, XIFO
TFSWJOH
JO
BOZ
QSJNBSZ
PGGJDF political
involvement is absolutely inevitable.
Officially,
denominational
leadership
neither endorseE
nor

condemnFE
Carson.
Th ey
simply publishFE
the
original/official
position
taken
by
the General
Conference,
with
added interpretations
of
Ellen White’s
statements,
and hopeE,
while
members
NJHIU
IBWF

WPUFE
JO
UIF
FMFDUJPO whether Carson was B candidate or not that
they XPVME keep it
to themselves and XPVME not publicly voice
their opinion in favor of or against any of the issues involved in
the political debate. In fact, when one evaluates Carson’s decision
to run for president, then he stands automatically
condemned
by
official
SDA
General Conference
Church policy which states: “we
would deprecate any participation in the spirit of party strife.” 15
Ellen White’s own inspired advice supports this conclusion. She said:
8F
BSF
OPU
BT
B
QFPQMF
UP
CFDPNF
NJYFE
VQ
XJUI
QPMJUJDBM

RVFTUJPOT

#F
ZF
OPU
VOFRVBMMZ
ZPLFE
UPHFUIFS
XJUI
VOCF

626
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

lievers in political strife, nor bind with them in their attach-

ments. . . . Keep your voting to yourself. Do not feel it your
duty to urge everyone to do as you do. 16

It is wholly and completely impossible to get involved in a bid

for the presidency
PS
OBZ
PUIFS
PGGJDF without getting involved
in “party strife ” whatever shape or form it might take. Th
ere is
ALWAYS strife in the political arena‰this is a simple fact of
dealing with the various critical and often divisive issues
involved in running a nation. Strife comes with the territory,
even in a land established on Christian ideals. Th
is is the REAL
world‰Christians are not in heaven yet and Carson discovered
this fact very early on in his bid for the White House. Indeed,
the question of party strife XBT perhaps more pronounced in
this MBTU
presidential cycle than it has ever been before.
By the very nature of Carson’s action, the SDA Church is
placed in a position where, presently and in the future, it will
have to seriously consider how it will direct its membership and
what kind of official political face it will wear for the rest of
the world. Th
e present climate has resulted in a series
of carefully worded articles‰ambiguous and non-committal
‰interspersed with selectively chosen statements from
Ellen White that, hopefully, will not inspire too much
criticism from inside or outside the church.
Of course, as far as internal criticism is concerned, there is
simply going to be no getting away from it. Lay-members and
leaders, some of considerable standing, became very vocal in
their resistance to Dr. Carson’s bid for the presidency. As
Carson’s popularity grew for a time and the debates between
candidates
heated
up
the
internal
SDA
debate correspondingly
increased
in
temperature.
Th e
church
particularly in light of its
belief in regards to America’s role in end-time Bible prophecy
(becoming the dragon-like beast of Revelation 13:11), will have to
take a more solid stand or offer a far more satisfactory explanation as to
why it takes the position it does in regard to voting and politics.

627
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

One of Ellen White’s pet projects was the temperance/

prohibition movement. When it came to this cause she even
encouraged ministers to promote it in their churches. She
campaigned on this for much of her life and her counsels are
often interspersed with comments regarding this. TIus, lending
evidence to the fact that her calls to vote were usually for the
purpose of promoting temperance J U
is not difficult, UP
QSPWF

UIF
PGGJDJBM
QPTJUJPO
PG
UIF
DIVSDI
BU
UIBU
UJNF
For example, a month before the death of James White, at
a camp meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, a proposed action
was presented to the delegates present. It read:
Resolved, That we express our deep interest in the temper-
ance movement now going forward in this state; and that
we instruct all our ministers to use their influence among
our churches and with the people at large to induce them to
put forth every consistent effort, by personal labor, and at
the ballot box, in favor of the prohibitory amendment of the
Constitution, which the friends of temperance are seeking
to secure. 17

It is interesting and quite revealing (as late as 1881) that some

leaders in the SDA church were still against going to the ballot
box. Th e evidence for this is in Paul Gordon’s own account of
some of the church delegates present. He wrote:

Some disagreed with the clause that called for action at “the
ballot box,” and urged that it be taken out. Ellen White, who
was attending this camp meeting, had retired for the night,
but she was called to give her counsel. Writing of it at the
time, she said: ‘I dressed and found I was to speak to the point
of whether our people should vote for prohibition. I told
them “ Yes,” and spoke twenty minutes.’18

Up until the time of her death, Ellen White continued to

campaign for temperance and prohibition, encouraging SDA

628
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

citizens to exercise their influence in casting their vote. In 1914,

a year before she passed away, she wrote:
While we are in no wise to become involved in political
questions, yet it is our privilege to take our stand decidedly
on all questions relating to temperance reform. . . .
There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society.
Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foun-
dations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist,
but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the
matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influ-
ence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some
voice in determining what laws shall control the nation.
Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side
of temperance and virtue? 19

TIe above statement by Ellen White is probably one of

the most revealing there is when it comes to her position on
voting and politics. TIis was not simply a personal opinion but
it was her
inspired
counsel
to
the whole
SDA
denomination,
communicated

via

the

church’s

official

publication.

Her
statements are emphatic, even

at

this

late

stage of life,
and reveal

clear

reason for why most conservative SDA’s, till
this present day, still abstain from any involvement in
politics

or abstain from casting their vote in elections of a
political nature.
No matter how the official, present SDA leadership try to
twist Ellen White’s meaning on voting and politics, to make it
seem that she encouraged involvement in this arena in a more
general sense, they cannot get away from such clear admonition
as that displayed in the above quote. Her encouragement was
almost exclusively in the field of promoting temperance,
prohibition and religious liberty. Any other interpretation is
actually a blatant attempt at selectively quoting Ellen White
and twisting her words so as to present an acceptable, non-
extreme position to the outside world.

629
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Ellen White stresses and is quite forceful in her statement that “we
[SDA’s] are in NO WISE to become involved in political
questions.” When it comes to temperance though, she says it is “our
PRIVILEGE to take our stand DECIDEDLY on all questions
relating to temperance reform.” TIus when she talks about “every
voter” exerting an influence on society so as to determine “what laws
shall control the nation,” she is making reference to issues associated
with prohibition. Her call to “vote” was clearly in this connection.
What comes across as disturbing and contradictory is the fact
that while Ellen White is concerned about the laws that govern the
nation, members should only vote within the narrow parameters she
specified. When it comes to other issues that may just as strongly
influence the nation she advises that members should have nothing to
do with it.
Th e reader can see why conservative SDA’s, on the basis of
Ellen White’s teachings, choose NOT to vote in national elections.
Th e bottom line is that SDA’s should vote ONLY when the issue voted
on conforms to the peculiar, superior doctrines/teachings of the SDA
Church and its prophet, Ellen White. Th is would include
involvement in influencing laws that have to do with religious
liberty, such as a law that might promote Sunday sacredness. Indeed,
back in the 1800’s when Congress was considering passing such a
law, SDA leadership sent A. T. Jones to Washington to defend the
SDA position – something which, in this case, he rightfully and very
successfully did.
On one occasion Ellen White implored:

. . . take heed to the Word of God, Be ye not unequally yoked

together with unbelievers in political strife, nor bind with
them in their attachments. There is no safe ground in which
they can stand and work together. The loyal and the disloyal
have no equal ground on which to meet. 20

630
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It is important to note that Ellen White’s definition of

unbelievers was not restricted to non-Christians alone.
Unbelievers constituted the other denominational churches that
did not keep ALL the commandments of God as SDA’s do.
Bear in mind, as pointed out earlier on, Ellen White
believed the fallen denominational churches are Babylon. In fact,
based on her teaching of the SDA Sanctuary doctrine, covered in an
earlier chapter, the churches who did not by faith follow
Christ into the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in
1844 were actually praying to Satan who had (in a metaphorical
sense) taken Christ’s throne in heavenly the Holy place. 21
TIe picture that unfolds is that SDA’s
because of their belief
in their only true church status, are not citizens of this world and
should rise above the mundane, sinful, earthly issues that
concern other citizens of the U.S.A. and the rest of planet earth.
Anyone who doubts that SDA’s, even presently, consider
themselves to be this elite, exclusive body, need only listen to the
words of the present SDA General Conference President, Ted
Wilson, leader of the SDA Church, in a sermon he delivered at
the 2014 Annual Council on Oct 11th, in Silver Spring,
Maryland. Following are some key statements of that discourse:
As Seventh-day Adventists at this 2014 Annual Council, we
affirm without hesitation that God has given us a spe-cial
mission for these closing hours of Earth’s history, and the devil is
furious. .
Th is prophetic movement [SDA Church], described in
Revelation 12:17 as God’s remnant people who “keep the
commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus,” is
constituted in ONLY one body of faith today: the Seventh-
day Adventist Church. . Chapter 13 [which includes
verse 11 and the second beast, the U.S.A.] outlines Satan’s
two-fold war plan to destroy God’s last-day people . . . Yet,
God’s people are not merely victims of Satan’s assaults.
Revelation 14 reveals the Lord’s counteroffensive‰ His

remnant people [SDA Church] demonstrating His charac-
ter
and
proclaiming His final appeal to the world
.
It is

631
 Brian Neumann

little wonder then that Satan is doing everything he can to

attack the Seventh-day Adventist movement in an attempt
to neutralize our influence in the territory he claims as his
own [the world]. As we pray for the converting power of the
Holy Spirit and for a revival and reformation of genuine god-
liness, the devil opposes every of us every step of the way. . . .
Though large-scale persecution will certainly come [to the SDA
Church], currently Satan is trying to work from the inside to
weaken the church through dissension, discord, and conformity
to the world (Emphasis & italics supplied).

TIe words of President Wilson speak for themselves. Th e SDA

Faith is God’s one and only true body‰“His remnant people.”
TIe ONLY one’s “proclaiming God’s final appeal to the world.”
It is this body that Satan is specifically attempting to “neutralize”
so as to destroy their “influence in the territory he claims as his
own”‰the world.
It is not my intention, at least not in this chapter, to
attempt debating whether the SDA Church is God’s POMZ true
body of faith. I will do this later on. It is clear however

besides
the view regarding their chosen status

UIBU SDA’s believe,
according to their prophetic leader’s counsel (Ellen White),
that while they should have an influence in the world it
should not be an
influence that impacts the political arena.
Once again, I repeat, the SDA church is a system of faith with
little patriotic commitment to any earthly institution, including
America. According to Ellen White, this is NOT their
NJTTJPO. TIus, in spite of them confirming the Judeo-Christian origins
of the American nation and its unique calling, its Republican form
of government and its Constitution, it really boils down to lip-service
as they will have no significant part in defending it in its entirety


and

NBOZ PG

UIFN

will not become involved in exercising their
influence, via the ballot-box, in vital issues that threaten to
divide and
destroy the
nation at
some of
the most
critical levels

632
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

and most critical time for its survival, when desperately needed
participation counts the most‰they are ABOVE all that.
Part 2 of Gordon’s article attempts to prove that Ellen White
was not against an SDA holding political office. Indeed, he
makes it seem like she was GBWPSBCMZ disposed to this. Th e
problem Gordon faces however, when trying to prove that
Ellen White was “pro-political,” is that he really has only one
or two prime statements from her for drawing this conclusion.
Th e reader needs to bear in mind that when it comes to her
negative commentary on political involvement, her statements
are clearly, categorically negative‰as has already been shown.
In fact, that which has created confusion and controversy for
SDA’s, in regard to politics and a host of other issues, is exactly
the type of make it fit approach to Ellen White that Gordon
practices. Whenever the church is at risk for coming under fire
on a particular position, on the basis of Ellen White’s inspired
instruction, someone immediately finds some of her obscure,
sometimes unpublished commentary that says the opposite to
what the widely, officially published testimonies say. The next
step is to do some fancy exegetical tap-dancing so as to come to
a so-called “balanced” conclusion.
These attempts seek to create the impression, for those who
are not as deeply familiar with and educated in Ellen White’s
writings (the average SDA lay-person and outsiders) that the
church and Ellen White are not actually out on a limb‰in this
case, on the question of politics and casting one’s vote. In the
end all this does is create confusion, controversy and debate
to which satisfactory conclusions are never found‰ an endless
rotation of ducking and diving, explaining and re-explaining that
continues year after year, decade after decade and generation
after generation.
Some wishful thinkers hope that it will all eventually sort
itself out and go away. It never does. That is why it is imperative

633
Brian Neumann

to consider the facts and expose them to the light of day so that
the ducking and diving activity can be seen for what it really is.
Gordon asks a few prime questions at the start of Part 2:
Can Seventh-day Adventists participate in certain aspects of
politics with good conscience? Are we ever to help in the mak-
ing of laws, and if so, how? Is it ever proper to hold public
office, either elective or appointive? 22

It is in this second part of Gordon’s article where the glaring

contradictions in Ellen White’s counsel and the nescience of the
official SDA Church become most apparent.
In reference to the wearing of political badges, Gordon points
out that Ellen White said:

We cannot with safety take part in any political schemes,” she

said. Christians “will not wear political badges.” She counse-
led that teachers “who distinguish themselves by their zeal in
politics, should be relieved of their work,” and ministers “who
desire to stand as politicians shall have their credentials taken
from them.23

He also quotes Ellen White’s emphatic statements on political

parties and the casting of one’s vote:
The Lord would have His people bury political questions.” “We
cannot with safety vote for political parties.” “Let political
questions alone.” “It is a mistake for you to link your interests
with any political party, to cast your vote with them or for
them.” 24

TIen, after quoting these pointedly unambiguous statements

by Ellen White Gordon proceeds to the question of
whether SDA’s should personally participate in lawmaking or
run for office. His reason for asking these questions is to
provide the opportunity to display what would be viewed by
White apologists as balancing statements.

634
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

TIis really means that one reads two Ellen White statements
that seem to express absolutely opposite sentiments and then the
interpreter
not Ellen White herself provides some sort of
explanation as to why there is really no contradiction but rather
absolute harmony‰thesis, antithesis and then final synthesis
‰ if indeed in this case JU
JT at all possible.
Gordon tries to show, based on Ellen White, that SDA’s
can hold office and participate in legislative decisions and that,
“this witness is not limited to occasional appearances on behalf
of specific issues, and in fact includes participation in legislative
decisions, is evident from another statement Ellen White made
in an address to the teachers and students of Battle Creek
College, November 15th, 1883.” He then quotes a portion of her
speech: “Have you thoughts that you dare not express, that you
may one day
 sit in deliberative and legislative councils, and
help to enact laws for the nation? Th ere is nothing wrong in
these aspirations.” 25
After this he points out that Ellen White was not against
“engaging in temporal [earthly] pursuits,” as long as they are
subject to “the higher claims of the gospel of Christ.” On this
basis “balanced by religious principle,” Ellen White says: “you
may climb to any height you please.”
Would these heights you can climb to include running for
political office? Would engagement in temporal pursuits mean
you can align yourself with a political party? The question begs;
is it even possible to run for and hold office, be involved with
the law-making process of the nation and not interact with and
become directly involved with various political parties and the
people that represent them?
When Ellen White encouraged students to pursue their
dreams and that there was nothing wrong with having “temporal”
aspirations, was it her intention to convey the message that she
had changed her mind about pursuit of political careers? Or, was
she being specific about the nature of pursuit, e.g. legislative,

635
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

one could participate in? All the evidence clearly shows she was
strongly opposed to anything that smacked of politics. What may
be said though is that it was rather naïve of her to assume that
pursuit in the lines she was suggesting (legislative) would not
bring one into contact with things political.
How do you reconcile encouragement from Ellen White to
get involved in office and law-making, having an influence on this
level, while at the same time remaining true to her counsel that
says: “Let political questions alone  It is a mistake for you to
link your interests with any political party, to cast your vote with
them or for them  [Christians] will not wear political badges.”
And for those who are involved in the work of the Church her
statements are, as already quoted, even more dogmatic. She said
that those who seek involvement in political affairs: “should be
relieved of their work” and that ministers should “be relieved of
their credentials.”
In his two part article Gordon attempts to show how the SDA
Church, with guidance from Ellen White, settled on a balanced
position regarding voting and politics. However, when one tries
to reconcile Ellen White’s statements you do not end up with a
clear unified, unambiguous synthesis‰the contradictions are
too powerful to ignore.
Years after her speech to students and teachers at Battle Creek
in 1883, where she seems to be encouraging students to pursue
their “temporal desires,” to the point, as Gordon suggests, of even
becoming involved in matters of civil government, you find her
saying in a 1914 Review and Herald article that SDA’s, “are in
no wise to become involved in political questions.”26 Clearly
Gordon was misrepresenting her meaning.
Gordon creates the impression of progression and unity of
thought where there is no such thing. He finds a way of tying
totally opposite counsel together in order to bring the reader
to the conclusion that the church’s divinely inspired prophet, is
actually saying that it is quite possible for Christians/SDA’s to

636
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

hold office, climb to ANY height you please, sit in deliberative and
legislative councils, and help to enact laws for the nation, and still,
in no wise to become involved in political questions. That you will
not affiliate with any political party and that you will let political
questions alone.
Gordon makes his point rather emphatically by saying:
“It appears quite clear, then, that the counsel of the Spirit of
Prophecy writings does not rule out the holding of public
office and, in fact, states that some Adventists will hold office” 27
It is one thing to encourage people to pursue whatever dreams
they have, tell them that their temporal aspirations should be
subject to God’s higher demands while knowing full well that
when they do pursue their dreams, especially in the arena of
holding public office, they will find it well nigh impossible not
to be involved, in some way or other, in issues of a political or
party nature. In fact, a particular situation that took place in
Battle Creek in 1882, where Elder William C. Gage, an SDA, was
elected mayor, is a prime example of the conflict between the
ambiguous SDA standard and how pursuit of public office only
ends up creating confusion.
In his article, Gordon refers to this situation. He FOEFBWPST to
show that the problem was not Gage’s pursuit of mayoral/
political office (not the office or pursuit of it was the problem)
but that Gage, the man, was the problem. I will let Gordon
describe the situation‰ Gage’s election and the church’s
reaction to it. After that I will share my perspective.
A rather unusual editorial by Uriah Smith stated: “Elder
William C. Gage has been elected mayor of the city of Battle
Creek.” The editorial went on to explain that the advocates of
temperance in the city had felt betrayed by current officehold-
ers, and when no other man could be persuaded to run against
them, Elder Gage had been approached. The editorial contin-
ued: “When it appeared that to decline absolutely would be to
jeopardize the interests of the temperance cause, he accepted,

637
Brian Neumann

and the people ratified the nomination, giving him a plural-

ity.” Review and Herald, April 11, 1882.
Both Uriah Smith and G. I. Butler, president of the
General Conference, appeared apologetic for the election of
Gage. In the same issue of the Review, Elder Butler urged
support of the temperance issues of the day, but cautioned:
“We have not time or ability to waste in the arena of poli-
tics while the cause of God is languishing.” Both men stated
their conviction that Adventists normally should not become
involved in politics. Elder Butler stated further that even
though we favor temperance, we are to be cautious “about
being absorbed and carried away in excitements over it or
any other question” (ibid). Surely, this advice is appropriate in
the light of pressing social and political issues of our day.
It may be of interest to note that halfway through his
one-year term as mayor, Gage was strongly rebuked by Ellen
White. She said: “He has ever been a curse to the church in
Battle Creek.” She added: “I warn the people of God not to take
this man as their pattern.”28

Gordon continues making the point he has been leading up to

all the way through his article, an attempt at reconciling all
the contradictions. He turns the reader’s attention to biblical
examples such as Joseph, who served in the Egyptian government
and makes the point, a valuable one to be sure, that a “true
statesman is a long way from the corrupt politician,”29 and that
“there are many noble men filling positions in the government
of the world.”30 Gordon is careful to not, at least not in so many
words, suggest that it would be acceptable for a Christian/SDA
to pursue a career in POLITICS.
His remark that “noble” men are involved in politics is just
enough to give license for political pursuit and just too little to
give those who are anti anything political, sufficient reason to
criticize. Ambiguity and double-speak has been a longstanding
partner of SDA Ellen White apologists since the very earliest
days of Adventist history. For the very sake of survival they have

638
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

turned it into a fine art that in most cases, at the very least, does
the job of bamboozling the uninformed.
In spite of Ellen White’s most emphatic statements about
absolutely no pursuit of political office or involvement in
political parties, etc., Gordon brings it all together into one final
IBSNPOJPVT
DPODMVTJPO, as if to say, this is really what Ellen
White and the leaders of the church, in all their contradictory
counsel, were trying to say: “What makes the difference?
Obviously, the man makes the office, not the office the man.” 31
In other words, getting involved in civil government is not
wrong at all as long as you, the man, do it right‰you are a
GOOD man. In Gage’s case he, the man, did not do it right and
thus it turned out wrong.
Well then, why didn’t Ellen White, in regards to pursuit of
political office, just come right out, on the basis of what
was divinely revealed to her and say just that, in plain simple
English‰impossible to misunderstand or misinterpret? Th
e
answer
is simple, because that is NOT what she meant, even
though
Gordon was trying to make it seem that way. Th
e fact
is, Ellen
White NEVER suggested that good men (the
difference maker)
should get involved in running for political
office. Her sentiment,
as shown very adequately, was that even
good men such as pastors
and even teachers (no doubt she viewed
such as good), should be
“relieved of their work” or have their
“credentials taken away” if
they decided to become politically
involved. One of the reasons
was that she warned they would
beDPNF corrupted.
What the Gage situation actually reveals is not what Gordon
is trying to make his readers conclude. Let’s consider the facts, in
light of everything that has been discussed in this chapter thus far.
Even though Ellen White went so far as to suggest involvement
in legislative pursuits‰ her statements, as already pointed out,
seem contradictory‰ she did not say in any incontrovertible
manner that political involvement was acceptable. Indeed,
during the same time period of Gage’s mayoral election in
Battle

639
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Creek, she was still speaking out strongly against connection to

anything political.
It seems apparent, CBTFE
PO
TUBUFNFOUT
CZ
6SJBI
4NJUI and
G. I. ButleS
UIBU
they had the General Conference resolution and
Ellen
White’s anti-political involvement (barring the casting of
one’s
vote on temperance and related issues) in mind in their
3FWJFX
BOE
)FSBME editorial of "QSJM
UI
. Indeed, the
only reason
for them even giving what might be perceived as
tacit approval
for Gage’s mayoral office, is the fact that he
pursued it on the
basis that the advocates of temperance had
been betrayed and
were in desperate need of a man to represent
their concerns. In
fact Butler saw it as a “waste of time” to get
involved in the “arena
of politics.” He made it clear that even
though he was in GBWPS of
“temperance” it was not right to be
carried away in “excitements
over,” even temperance in his
opinion, “or ANY OTHER
question.” Context dictates that
he meant it in connection with
political pursuits.
Both Butler and Smith were leaders of the church who were
not merely N B L J O H
their personal opinions known, but
were presenting to their readers, in a formal church
publication, the official position of the denomination.
Ellen White’s rebuke of Gage, quoted by Gordon, halfway
through his term as mayor, is also interesting when you consider
the rest of what she said to him – the parts Gordon did not quote.
The context of her statement can be found in a letter she wrote
to Battle Creek, from Oakland California, on August 3rd, 1882. She
had apparently been given a view of a meeting where the brethren
and sisters were humbling their souls before God in confession,
“while Eld. Smith, Bro. McLearn, and Wm. Gage seemed to feel
no spirit of confession; and these very men who had brought
the church into difficulty, were not by their own course of action
leading them out.” She then speaks specifically about the children
of God in contrast to Gage and McLearn saying: “Their [children
of God] calling, their character, their prospects, are peculiar;

640
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

and it is these peculiarities that distinguish them from the world,

and separate them in spirit and practice from the people of the
world.” 32
Ellen White was against Gage’s pursuits‰ his “calling” and
“prospects” because they did not conform to the pursuits of
God’s children. Was it not perhaps because he was following
a career in politics? Throughout her letter she continually uses
phrases that she had previously used in connection with other
counsel she had given in regard to voting and politics things
she considered worldly and incompatible with the Christian life
such as: “walls of separation that divide the heavenly from the
earthly,” “no place for friendship with the world,” “not permitted
to seek the friendship of the world, or to co-operate with wicked
men.” She had been shown: “.
the wall of separation which the
Lord himself has established between the things of the world
and the things he has chosen out of the world and sanctified unto
himself, has been broken down by those who profess godliness.”
In the same letter she said that educators of the people (no
doubt Gage and those aligned with him): “by their practice
annihilated the difference between the holy and the profane. But
the separation exists, notwithstanding so many have in practice
made it void, and seem determined to maintain concord between
Christ and Belial. ‘The Lord hath set apart him that is godly for
himself;’ and this consecration to God and separation from the
world.”
Based on the available evidence one obtains from the words of
Ellen White, Uriah Smith and G. I. Butler, together with everything
else the church and Ellen White had to say about political pursuits,
there is no way to pool this all together and conclude that Ellen
White was in favour of men running for political office. Gordon
is bridging gaps and trying to reconcile opposites where no real
unity of thought exists. This does not negate the fact that Ellen
White’s own statements are often contradictory. If that was
not the case and she was always clearly consistent in how she

641
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

verbalized her counsel, Gordon would never have even had the
material with which to construct his skewed narrative.
The current philosophy of the SDA Church, on voting and
politics, is really built upon the same premise presented by
Gordon. In an official statement regarding %S
#FO
$BSTPOT
bid for president, the church explained its reaction to Carson’s
decision, its position on voting and politics, and the reason for
this position. The article is premised by the Editor’s note: “The
Seventh-day Adventist Church’s North American Division has
released this statement about the May 4 announcement of Dr. Ben
Carson, retired neurosurgeon and Adventist member, that he will seek
the Republican Party nomination for U.S. President.” Following
are key portions of the statement:
The Adventist Church has a longstanding position of not
supporting or opposing any candidate for elected office. This
position is based both on our historical position of separation
of church and state and the applicable federal law relating to
the church’s tax-exempt status. . . . While individual church
members are free to support or oppose any candidate for
office as they see fit, it is crucial that the church as an institu-
tion remain neutral on all candidates for office. . . . Church
employees must also exercise extreme care not to express views
in their denominational capacity about any candidate for
office, including Dr. Carson. . . . We also want to remind our
church members, pastors, and administrators of the church’s
official position on the separation of church and state. The
church has worked diligently to protect the religious rights
of all people of faith, no matter what their denominational
affiliation. . . . Adventists should not, however, become pre-
occupied with politics, or utilize the pulpit or our publications
to advance political theories.” . . . The Seventh-day Adventist
Church values Dr. Carson as we do all members. However,
it is important for the church to maintain its long-standing
historical support for the separation of church and state by
not endorsing or opposing any candidate. 33

642
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

When reading this article and comparing it to all the

statements on politics and voting that have gone before, from the
church and Ellen White (Ellen White being the inspired basis
for their position) one can see a gradual yet consistent playing
down of rhetoric. TIe point of focus is the fact that they have
arrived at a perspective that, in spite of their claim, is NOT clearly
based on their historical divinely inspired position‰ positions,
in spite of prophetic counsel, that are filled with contradictory
instruction. It might be worthwhile to note that, in spite of the
church’s modern attempts at trying to create the impression of
“balance,” all one has to do is look at earlier official publications,
produced for the purpose of educating membership on various
issues, including political involvement, to clearly establish that
in just about all the counsel the church was decidedly against
any participation in politics. Th e reason for this, quoting Ellen
White’s words from the book Gospel Workers p. 391, is because,
even if one voted for someone who might appear to be a
worthy candidate, if they reneged on their position later on,
voters are “partakers with them of the sins which they commit
while in office.”
It is interesting that although the recent Seventh-day Adventist
Church’s North American Division article was published as a
direct reaction to Carson’s bid for the presidency, the majority
of the article is really addressing the SDA position in a more
general sense. This might be seen as insignificant until one
considers Ellen White’s strong commentary on SDA’s running
for political office and the historical-majority attitude of church
leadership and members, especially men of standing, becoming
involved in politics‰let alone running for the office of
president, where involvement in general and party politics, etc.
are totally unavoidable.
Three times, the article mentions separation of church and state.
In the modern/current philosophy of the SDA Church, this
position is of vital importance. SDA pioneers did not really use

643
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

this phrase when defining their position, even though the article
gives the impression that this was the historical basis for the
SDA Church position. It is in recent times that this phrase has
become an important inclusion because it helps to bolster and
give apparent constitutional support for their earlier/traditional
anti-political position‰the state’s own separation of church and
state position GBWPSBCMZ reflects on the SDA standard as it seems
they are in total agreement with the state and the Constitution.
Of course, this exact phrase is not in the Constitution
anyway and it is vital that one correctly understands, in view
of the Constitution and its intention as a whole, in regard to
government and the people, what the idea of separation of church
and state really means.
Even though the article states that members are free to support
or oppose, obviously via their vote, “any candidate for office,” it
does not qualify what was so strongly stated in the historical
position regarding votes at the ballot-box being for men of
temperance and virtue or religious liberty, etc. There was always a
clear qualification, particularly from Ellen White, that members
should NOT vote for men who do not further these ideals.
The shift in the recent position is subtle yet significant, as it
leaves the door open to members who want to vote for whoever
and whatever they please, while still placating the old SDA
“traditional” NFNCFST
by letting them believe the church
remains true to its historical, Ellen White defined position.
Th ose who are not in the church
or even those members who
are ignorant of the facts will not be any the wiser.
While the church has worked to protect the religious rights
of all faiths it needs to be reiterated that she, the SDA Church,
as shown earlier, sees herself as the ONE true church above all
others – a position SDA’s have always criticized the Catholic
Church (according to their prophetic interpretation, the first
beast of Revelation 13 and other scriptures) for having.

644
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

What is most revealing and is actually the cause for this

article putting its proverbial “foot” in it, as far as Dr. Carson is
concerned, is the statement that “Adventists should not,
however, become preoccupied with politics.”
When one considers Ellen White’s strong position on
preoccupation with politics and especially actual involvement in
such, then according to the SDA Church’s own divinely inspired
counsel, Dr. Ben Carson, in his bid for the highest position the
American Nation has to offer, as an ordained elder in the SDA
Church and former affiliate professor of the world-renowned
SDA Oakwood University, TUPPE trenchantly and irrevocably
condemned and should be stripped of his leadership DSFEFOUJBMT.
Of course, as the article did not reveal the fuller implications
of the SDA position, based on its history and the teachings of its
prophet, it refrained from expressing what would most certainly
have been the reaction of Ellen White and most of the pioneers to
an SDA seeking this most coveted of all political positions. If the
present official stand of the SDA Church denies or excludes the
plain counsel of Ellen White, then this would simply be another
clear indication that the church, when convenient, denies the one
they claim to be the prophetic voice of the church. This would
tell all those who are keenly observing the church’s course that
they pick and choose what counsel to follow and what counsel
to ignore.
When one listens to opinions about Carson’s bid, originating
from the heart of the SDA Church, an interesting picture starts
to unfold. A
report by Gideon Resnick, for the Daily Beast,
addresses this very issue. Daily Beast published the article on
18th November 2015, after Resnick conducted interviews with
members of Dr. Carson’s own congregation at the Spencerville
SDA Church. He opens his article by saying: “there is trepidation
among many of the church’s thought leaders about their
association with a candidate for political office. And some simply

645
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

view his controversy-prone bid for the White House as a lose-

lose for the church’s public image.”
In Resnick’s opinion, “The conundrum Ben Carson presents to
Seventh-day Adventists is not about how he expresses his faith.
But that inherently, they are cautious about mixing their politics
with religion.” Resnick’s opinion is strongly confirmed by David
Trim, SDA Church archivist and a fellow of the Royal Historical
Society. He told the Daily Beast: “I think there’s a feeling among
some of the more professional Adventists that this isn’t a win-
win, it’s a lose-lose for the church.”
He went on to explain: “I’ll be honest with you, I’m a little
more centrist in my political views than him and I find some
of the things he says really rather troubling or just doesn’t make
any sense. Th e feeling is ‘will we be tarred with a brush because
of what he says?’” Trim said. “Or even if he turns out to be
‰even if he were a more unifying figure than he is‰ would
the position that he has to adopt to be elected be such that he’d
have to compromise his principles and then the church
wouldn’t be happy with that either. It’s kind of like can this
really end well for us?” 34
The answer to Trim’s question is a simple, no. It cannot end
well for SDA’s because Dr. Carson, in his bid for presidency,
whether he intended it or not, brought many nagging questions
about the SDA Church to the fore‰ questions that the SDA
Church would love to avoid making public. Especially questions
about Ellen G. White and her teachings that so indelibly impact
every aspect of SDA faith.
It disturbingly ironic that even though a good man such as
Ben Carson ran for president, his church, instead of publicly
standing behind him, viewFE the consequences of his bid for
office as not being a “safe bet” for the denomination but a bad
thing. If his church could not even IBWF vocalizeE their support of
a man with apparent integrity and high moral standards running
for office, then what does it say about who and what they are?

646
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Perhaps SDA’s are so set on having prophecy unfold the way

they say it will that having one of their own in the White House,

would most certainly have worked towards ensuring religious
liberty and protected SDA’s rights to worship on Saturday BOE
would either have delayed or even prevented their prophecies
from being fulfilled. TIFy might well consider it a “safer bet” if
a president came to power that would enforce Sunday
observance. At least this would lend credence to their Ellen
White-based prophetic beliefs.
TIus, all things considered, Carson’s run for president
has simply not been a safe bet for his church.
5Iis book
and all it exposes regarding Mrs. White and the
contradictions that exist because of her teachings,
together with the church’s ducking, diving and cover-up
routine regarding her “Divine” calling may well place
UIFN in a predicament that will, hopefully, compel
them to take a fresh, honest look at where they stand on
a host of issues that cannot be clearly sustained by
Scripture. Th e church’s official, current position on
voting and politics does not really do a satisfactory
job of clarifying its stand and certainly does not help Dr.
Carson’s case.
In actual fact, when one considers the historical claims as to
the SDA Church’s reasons for discouraging political
interaction, in the sense of career or voting, and compares that to
its present stand, a glaring motivational contradiction is
revealed. One of the most important reasons, quoted by SDA
historians, for Ellen White, thus the church, speaking out so
strongly regarding casting one’s vote or becoming politically
involved, was because of the corruption in civil government.
For example, the reader will recall Gordon’s statement
about there being “good reason” for SDA suspicion of the “civil
government” at the time between 1844 and Lincoln’s election,
this being the reason for their abstinence on voting and politics.
It was because of “political corruption perhaps unmatched by

647
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

any preceding period in United States history,” Gordon said, for them
taking that position.
Based on that sort of motivation for past exclusion, a very
important question arises, one that the SDA church will never be able to
satisfactorily answer, without, in the process, contradicting their founders
and their prophet, Ellen White.
If one of the most serious considerations for staying out of
voting and politics in the past was because of corruption in
government, then why does present SDA leadership not, in
unequivocal terms, discourage ANY involvement of leadership or
members in modern-day politics? It is common knowledge that
serious corruption is rife in politics in this present age‰perhaps as
never before. Not only in a general sense, but in the very areas of
temperance and morality that would have immediately excluded
SDA’s in formative years. Party strife, backbiting, lying and blatant
hypocrisy, total constitutional disregard on issues such as gay
marriage, etc
Leadership of the highest rank, such as the President himself, taking

audacious,
impeachable
action,
assuming NPOBSDIJDBM rights
with
a
stroke of the
pen blatantly supporting causes that the
majority of we the people condemn 5he list goes on and on




Ellen White and SDA pioneers, who were suspicious of civil
government, would be turning in their graves at the very
thought of members of God’s “remnant church” becoming
even vaguely involved in voting and political pursuit.
If SDA church leadership were REALLY true to their roots
and what they profess to stand for they would be publicly calling for
ABSOLUTE disengagement in political affairs. Th
e corruption, on
every level of current politics, makes the corruption of the past look
like a children’s tea-party. In spite of this the SDA church now
takes a more lenient and permissive position than ever before. Why?
TIF “why?” is rather simple when one is aware of the
contradictions
that

exist

on


just

about
every
level
of


SDA

profession

648
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

versus practice, such as its official stand on pro-life/abortion

issues compared to what actually happens on the ground in its
hospitals and clinics. In fact, I would encourage readers to peruse
a most revealing article, Abortion in Adventism by Colleen Tinker,
published in the Summer 2014 Vol. 15, Issue 2, of Proclamation
Magazine (ProclamationMagazine.com), which exposes the SDA
Church’s frighteningly contradictory and hypocritical profession
versus practice in this regard. This is especially relevant in light of
the current Planned Parenthood controversy.
What all the above evidence dove-tails to is how it reflects on
Dr. Ben Carson’s  bid for President of the United States.
It is irrevocably clear, based on the testimonies of Ellen White
and the official past and present resolutions of the General
Conference of the SDA Church, that even if it were, in some
obscure, convoluted, contradictory sense, possible to get involved
in political office it would not be possible, not even in the vaguest
sense, to run for and become president and still avoid becoming
involved in “party politics,” wear a “political badge” or to link
“interests with any political party.”
Carson would not have been able to operate as the leader of
the nation by only involving himself in issues related to religious
liberty, temperance or other moral issues.
*f he had become the
Republican nominee, IF
would have had to be, in every aspect
of involvement, part of the whole political deal, hook, line and
sinker‰period.
By the very nature of the road Carson has chosen to follow
he, and those SDA’s who dared to openly state their support for
him, stand automatically condemned by Ellen White and the
pioneers, on the basis of stated moral and ethical principles that
cannot be altered with the passing of time.
It is only in the self-serving interest of the official SDA Church
to stay clear from making any statement either way, in support or
condemnation of Carson’s recent bid and other political pursuits.
If they openly condoned his political pursuit, they would’ve gone

649
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

against the counsel of their prophet Ellen White, contradictory

though it is. If they publicly condemned his course, they would’ve
faced criticism from the world at large and invited a barrage of
questions and deeper investigation that they would like to avoid
at all costs.
However, the biggest contradiction of all is the kind of logic
that underlines the WHOLE approach of the SDA Church and
its “Divinely” inspired prophet in regards to political involvement
at any level. Whether they think they have found a reasonable
balance on the question of separation of church and state
or on the “special” role they play as a denomination amid the
various challenges the world faces in this day and age, becomes
completely negated and indeed non-sensical and sublimely naïve

when evaluated from an intelligent rational perspective. In fact,
revealing the folly of the SDA position on this whole question
should be a lesson to any other Christian body who take a
similar stance. And there are indeed a number that do.
Consider these facts, according to E.G. White/SDA logic.
If in a nation, established on Judeo-Christian principles and
inhabited by a majority of Christians (much more so in the early
days of the nation and time of Ellen White), these Christians
were forbidden to become politically involved‰run for political
office
PS be attached to a political party, etc.‰ then
who
would run the country via all the various
branches of government
a government by the people, for the
people
POF
OBUJPO
VOEFS
(PE? And, even if some bold Christian
were to dare follow this pursuit, who would vote for him or
her while he or she is disobeying the clear stand “true”
Christians/SDA’s take on this kind of involvement?
From cause to effect, SDA’s or any other Christian

denomination who follow the kind of course suggested by Ellen
White are really saying that it would only be possible for non-
Christian/atheistic/agnostic/Godless individuals to become the
political leaders of the American Nation. How ironic,

when you

650
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

consider that the very Constitution that governs this nation was
established on Judeo-Christian ideals.
Of course, this attitude is even more illogical, even reprehensible
in the case of the SDA faith because of their opinion regarding
their special status. They are quite content to let members of other
Christian faiths (Babylon) become actively involved in politics,
are quite happy to let SDA members quietly vote for them, while
they, according to their own stated position, would view these
so-called Christian politicians as disobeying God by becoming
involved in political issues. How much more so, in the case of Dr.
Carson, who as an SDA, according to their standard, should’ve
known better. This whole approach seems to be nothing less
than hypocritical. No matter how much they duck and dive and
attempt to explain and balance their position, they will always
end up with proverbial egg on their face
It is a flagrant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the
concept of separation of church and state to suggest that Christians/
Churches and their members should not run for political office
and become involved in party politics, etc. In a nation that is
Christian, one would expect that just about anyone following
these pursuits would BE Christian anyway. Surely Christians,
including SDA’s, would be much more comfortable knowing
that the majority of those leading the nation are Christians
themselves. Unless, as may well be the case with conservative,
traditionalist SDA’s, they may actually want “their” interpretation
of prophecy to be fulfilled. This is not just a speculation when
one considers the attitude of a minister in Western New York,
Roswell F. Cottrell, quoted earlier: “if I vote against this work, I
shall vote against the fulfillment of the prophecy
Th erefore, I
cannot vote at all.” This attitude is still prevalent today.
In a sinful, fallen world, there will always be those who seek
to promote an evil cause, a cause opposed to the principles of a
Bible-based, Judeo-Christian Constitution. Does this mean that
men and woman of Christian faith should withdraw from active

651
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

participation in government? How will Christians, including

SDA’s ever have an influence on the direction taken bythose who
lead the nation if they are not prepared to get involved in the
issues and controversies that are often a natural consequence of
promoting a just cause in a world that Satan is trying to make
entirely his own?
It makes no sense to suggest that ministers of the gospel should not
get involved in voicing their opinions on political questions or
even, at some point, pursue a career in politicT‰the political arena
needs the input of men who are educated in the wisdom of God’s
Word. Whether one is a lay-person or pastor, you are still a citizen
of the +VEFP$ISJTUJBO
OBUJPO you live in, with all the rights,
privileges and responsibilities any other citizen might have. Just
because you preach from the pulpit does not mean that you are
bound by some clause that prohibits you from involvement in affairs
of state‰ this is not the meaning of separation of church and state,
even though Ellen White wanted to exclude people involved in
ministry from being involved in civil government.
Does this mean you have to preach politics from the pulpit?
No. It does mean, however, whether you are a practicing
minister or not, UIBU
you have the right, even the duty, to play a
part in making America a better place by becoming involved in
civil issues, even if it means dealing with difficult and
sometimes messy problems‰via ballot box or active participation.
When one examines the whole concept of separation of
church and state within the context of American history and the
Constitution, then clearly, men of religious calling were always
involved. If it were not for ministers preaching the cause, even
from their pulpits, during the American Revolution and getting
involved in the establishing, signing of the Constitution and the
running of Government, then America would never have become
exceptional.


TIe separation was NOT a rule for ministers or Christians
(church)
to not get involved in civil affairs.

TI
e separation of

652
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

church and state was more for the state than the church‰ it
prevented the STATE from involving itself in religious matters
CZ
USZJOH
UP
DPOUSPM
UIF
DIVSDI
*G
UIF
DIVSDI
XIJDI
JT
NBEF
VQ

PG
QFPQMF
MFBEFST
PS
PUIFSXJTF

DBOOPU
HFU
JOWPMWFE
JO
UIF
BGGBJST

PG
TUBUF
UIFO
XIP
JO
B
$ISJTUJBO
DPVOUSZ
XJMM
HFU
JOWPMWFE‰POMZ

BUIFJTUT
PS
BHOPTUJDT





&WFO
JO
CJCMJDBM
UJNFT
UIF
QPMJUJDBM
MFBEFST
PG

UIF

OBUJPO
PG

*TSBFM
(kings, judges, etc.) were guided by the prophets who,
at times, became very directly involved in the affairs of state
and even the military. In some cases they even took matters
into their own hands, such as Samuel taking action when King
Saul neglected to do so (1 Samuel 15). Anyone reading their
Bible will testify to the fact that politics in the time of the
ancient nation of Israel was a very messy business indeed. So
messy at times that it became absolutely critical for a prophet
or priest of God to become directly involved.
One can be sure that when Daniel and his three friends
became leading politicians in the pagan nation of Babylon, they
got involved in various affairs of state. The same can be said
for Ezra, Nehemiah or Mordecai. Surely, they would not have
compromised religious principle, but they were certainly involved
in the most profound sense‰ not in Christian nations but in
nations that were fully pagan in every sense.
In light of everything that has been dealt with in these last few
chapters, it may well be asked, what influence XPVME
4%"

UFBDIJOH have IBE
on the decision-making ability of $BSTPO in
the SPMF of President? Is it possible, without reservation, to
lead a nation JG you believe it to be UIF
TBUBOJDBMMZ
MFE
CFBTU
PG

3FWFMBUJPO
? How would the belief that the SDA Church is
God’s only true, final church on earth have influenced Carson
should he have become President‰would he have been able to
be truly objective in regard to all other faiths?
Of course, it needs to be established if Carson even believes all
the
teachings of Ellen White and the Church he belongs to?
Many

653
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

SDA’s do not believe in all she teaches and in some cases reject
her completely. Some members and even leading SDA scholars
do not hold to a number of traditional SDA interpretations of
end-time prophecy. However, if Carson is of the traditional,
conservative SDA mold, would he, for example, have been able
to operate without prejudice when dealing with the Vatican
whom SDA’s teach is the "OUJDISJTU power of Bible prophecy
and whom they believe will receive its end-time supremacy from
Protestant America?
When Reagan established diplomatic ties with the Vatican in
the 1980’s, during the time of Pope John Paul II, SDA’s saw that
as a major step in America fulfilling this prophecy. Continued
relations with the Vatican and regular visits to the U.S. by
subsequent pope’s have only helped solidify this belief. In light
of these developments, most traditional SDA’s BMSFBEZ see
America fulfilling the role of this dragon-like beast. Indeed, if
what SDA’s teach is true regarding Revelation 13 it cannot be
otherwise.
The key Scripture for this belief says: “And I beheld another
beast [U.S.A.] coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns
like a lamb and spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power
of the first beast [papal Rome] before him, and causeth the earth
and them which dwell therin to worship the first beast, whose
deadly wound was healed” (Revelation 13:11, 12).
The “wound” received by the papacy is believed to have
occurred in 1798, when Pope Pius was taken captive by Napoleon’s
general, Berthier and the Vatican’s powers of state were removed.
A most significant first step in the healing of this wound was
when Mussolini, in 1923, once again reinstated the Vatican by
giving back her state powers. This healing process is seen as
reaching a most significant level, in light of Revelation 13, when
America herself established ties with the Vatican. SDA’s believe
that when America enforces a Sunday law, honoring what they,
SDA’s, call the papal Sabbath, the mark of Rome’s authority, the

654
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

image to the beast process (Revelation 13:14), will reach its climax
and persecution of God’s true Sabbath-keeping remnant will
commence.
To be fair, it must be clarified that the SDA view of the Papal
system is not peculiar to them alone. Even Ellen White, with all
her “prophetic insight,” is not the originator of the teaching that
Rome is the antichrist power of Revelation 13 (the first beast).
Martin Luther, considered by many to be the father of the
Protestant Reformation, expressed this view of the pope and the
Catholic institution – which he once faithfully served: “I said
formerly that the pope was Christ’s vicar. Now I assert that he is
our Lord’s adversary, and the devil’s apostle.” 35 In an expression
that suggested full and final realization Luther said: “. . . at last I
know the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan
himself.” 36
In fact, based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy, just
about every one of the reformers, Cranmer, Wycliff, Huss, Jerome,
Savonarola, Knox, Melanchthon, etc., all identified the antichrist
as Papal Rome. Luther did not claim to be the originator of this
idea. Concerning himself and other reformers, Luther stated:
“We are not the first who interpret the Papacy as the kingdom of
Antichrist . . . He ( John Purvey in 1390 A.D.) rightly and truly
pronounces the Pope ‘Antichrist’ as he is, . . . a witness indeed,
foreordained by God to confirm our doctrine.” 37
Many view it as entirely contradictory and a denial of Luther
that the modern-day Lutheran Church has come back into
good relations with the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Protestant
Reformation was reform of the Catholic Church’s anti-scriptural
teachings and protestation against and separation from the same.
The one thing the reformers neglected to address however was
Rome’s own acclaimed mark of ecclesiastical authority, which
places her in a position she claims is even superior to that of
Scripture, Sunday sacredness. Regarding Sunday as the day of
worship, The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, by Peter

655
Brian Neumann

Geiermann states: “. . . We observe Sunday instead of Saturday

because the Catholic Church in the Council of Laodicea (A.D.
336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” 38
The following quote, often used by SDA’s in evangelistic

presentations to prove that Rome sees her mark of authority as
the transference of the Sabbath to Sunday, declares: “Sunday is
our mark of authority  Th e church is above the Bible, and the
transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” 39
In fact, at the Council of Trent the Catholic Church took
occasion to condemn the Protestant Reformation on this very
point. Archbishop Reggio, in his speech at the last opening session,
January 18th, 1562, stated:
The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only.
They profess to uphold the Scripture alone as the standard of
faith . . . The written word especially enjoins the observance of
the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the sev-
enth day but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone
as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day
as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only
reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written
word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of
Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church
[Roman Catholic]. Consequently, the claim of ‘Scripture alone
as the standard,’ [Sola Scriptura, the slogan of the Protestant
Reformation] fails, and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradi-
tion’ as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves
being judges. 40

It was on the basis of what was already established during the

Protestant Reformation and taught by William Miller prior to
1844 that SDA pioneers and on into the present view the Papacy
as the beast power of Revelation‰ the servant of the dragon,
Satan.
Th e unique aspect in Seventh-day Adventism is the additional
aspect of Sunday sacredness as the mark of Rome’s authority,

656
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

which, according to Ellen White, when it is enforced in America

and around the world, will signify the complete healing of the
wound – facilitated by America, the second dragon-like beast.
Some of the Catholic Church’s own statements in regard to
the U.S.A. and what Rome will do if she ever gains a foothold in
this country are seen by the SDA’s as a clear indication that their
interpretation of prophecy, based on the visions of Ellen White,
are coming to pass. By way of illustration, one pertinent Catholic
statement, published in 1851, had a powerful effect on SDA’s
during their early years, helping to solidify their stand. It said:
The Church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when
and where she must, but she hates it and directs all her ener-
gies to destroy it. If Catholics ever gain a sufficient numerical
majority in this country [U.S.A.], religious freedom is at an
end. So our enemies say. So we believe. 41

Th e fact that Rome has consistently viewed herself as the

one true church (the very same opinion the SDA Church has of
itself
), has not helped alleviate this perception. In fact, during
the same era, another statement, published in the $BUIPMJD

3FWJFX, helped solidify the SDA stand. Regarding
Protestantism the article stated: “Protestantism has not, and
never can have, any right where Catholicity has triumphed.” 42
Based on decelerations like this, in direct reference to
America, Rome’s history of the inquisitions and then the recent
establishing of diplomatic relations with the Vatican, SDA’s,
according to their estimation, have constant confirmation that
what Ellen White predicted and what they have consistently
taught is absolutely correct.
There are SDA’s who see the porous border situation and
lax immigration policy of the U.S. as a premeditated plan, via
entrance of thousands of Spanish/Catholic immigrants, as an
attempt to increase the Catholic vote.

657
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Th e recent visit of Pope Francis in September 2015, has only

helped confirm, for SDA’s, that America has led the world in
recognizing the Papacy as the pre-eminent religio-political
power on the planet. TIe fact that he is a Jesuit has, especially
among more conservative, rightist SDA’s only made them more
suspicious of his agenda – Jesuits have always been seen as the
militant, infiltrating/subversive arm of the Catholic Church.
It is impossible, and indeed, not my burden to get into the
history of this branch of the Papacy in this work. However, I will
post a number of links in the sources section at the end of this
chapter so that the readers can do their own study into this and
other issues I have dealt with.43 A significant number of these
sources are from SDA ministries.
A few major unexpected turns I should make mention of have
occurred since Francis has become Pope that to some extent has
thrown the proverbial fly into the ointment of SDA/Ellen White,
end-time predictions regarding Catholic religious intolerance.
Already, on June 20th, 2014, while addressing speakers and
participants at an International Religious Liberty and the Global
Clash of Values conference in Rome, Pope Francis said:
Religious freedom is not just a matter of thought or private
devotion, it is the freedom to live -- both privately and pub-
licly -- according to the ethical principles that are a consequence
of the truth found.’ 44

He went on to say that religious freedom is a “fundamental

right of the human person” and that national and international
laws and organizations must “recognize, guarantee and protect
religious liberty.” He is of the opinion that religious freedom is
“an indicator of a healthy democracy and one of the principal
sources of a nation’s legitimacy.” 45 (Ibid).
He expressed these same views when speaking at the White
House on Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015:

658
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

With countless other people of goodwill, [American Catholics]

are likewise concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely
ordered society respect their deepest concerns and their right to
religious liberty. That freedom reminds one of America’s most
precious possessions . . . all are called to be vigilant, precisely as
good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from every-
thing that would threaten or compromise it.46

It is almost certain‰not just speculation on my part as I was

personally an active part of conservative SDA ministry‰that Pope
Francis’ words will be viewed as a smokescreen for hiding
Rome’s secret agenda. More than likely, according to their
thinking, calm before the storm strategy so that when the
“proverbial” hits the fan everyone will be taken completely off-
guard.
Much speculation and discussion could go into addressing
these ideas, however, it is not my purpose to confirm or debunk
this aspect of SDA thinking, even though, in spite of what Pope
Francis has said, there appear to be substantial historical reasons
for believing what they do‰ Pope John Paul II’s references to
Sunday sacredness and penalties connected to its violation in
his Dies Domini encyclical are recent examples that play into the
SDA teaching regarding the end-time Sunday-law issue. 47 Th e
history of how the Jesuit branch of the Catholic Church operates
provides interesting evidence as well. 48
Just after the visit of Pope Francis, the November/December
edition of the SDA Liberty magazine published a section
specifically dedicated to the event. In the editorial section,
Editor Lincoln E. Steed noted, with reference to Protestant
sensibilities in the time of President Nixon, when attempts
were made to recognize Vatican State, as opposed to the time
of Reagan and the present: “Protestant memory and sensibility
was still strong, and republican realities meant that such a
state presented certain constitutional incompatibilities. But
that was then
” He then quoted Senator Rick Santorum as
saying, five years ago:

659
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

“Protestantism in this country [United States] is in a shambles,

[and] is gone from the world of Christianity.”
Further on he noted: “. religious liberty was best protected
by keeping the Roman Catholic Church and all other churches
from exercising more than moral influence over the running of
government. Maybe those days are fast passing.” Steed said that
he was, “troubled as always at a recommendation of a Sunday
substitution that owes its origin not to God but to the ‘venerable
day of the sun.’”
He also made reference to the use of the phrase, “reciprocal
subsidiary” and stated that it was an often repeated phrase used
by the Vatican that actually means “that the state is ‘subsidiary,’
to the church.” He “found the appropriation to Lincoln,” in the
Pope’s speech “odd, since his assassination was widely presumed
to be a Jesuit plot.”
Also of interest, is the exchange between the Pope and Donald
Trump just prior to the South Carolina Primary (20th, February
2016). Pope Francis made a comment about Trump and his plans
to build a wall to stop illegal immigrants crossing the border
between Mexico and the U.S.A. His comment was interpreted
as questioning whether Trump was a true Christian. Speedy
clarifications from the Vatican and Trump, to help resolve the
issue, and the responses their dialogue inspired from a number
of Catholic Americans is quite revealing. On the whole Catholic
voters in the U.S.A. were of the firm opinion that the Pope had
no business getting involved in American politics. Contrary
to traditional SDA opinion, the indication seems to be that
American Catholics are not as easily swayed by Rome’s political
agenda as some suggest.
My reference to and discussion of these things is primarily
for giving the reader an insight into what might contribute to
the religious perspective of an SDA, such as Dr. Carson, should
he have occupied the White House. Whether or not these things
would’ve influenced Carson in how he approached foreign

660
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

policy, is another question. Indeed, it would seem as if Carson

XBT emphatically concerned with bringing America back to
its constitutional roots. TIe very fact that he was running shows
that his thinking is in some ways independent of traditional
SDA ideas concerning government and politics.
Yet, some observers might wonder if his opinion regarding
Rome is as emphatic as his stand on Islam being incompatible
with the Constitution and its statement on freedom of religion,
would he not perhaps be predisposed to treating any Catholic
interference in U.S. politics with equal suspicion? Again, this is
simply a question as there is no concrete evidence that Carson
agrees with FWFSZ
BTQFDU of SDA/Ellen White prophetic
interpretation, even though, as will be shown, some of his opinions
suggest at least partial agreement.
Interestingly enough, as an aside, SDA conspiracy theorists,
such as well-known speaker, Professor Walter Veith, of Amazing
Discoveries, teach that Islam was actually the creation of the
Catholic Church (Refer to links in the sources section at end of
this chapter). 49
Getting back to another issue Carson would face as U.S.
President – the nation of Israel. Would he be able to see the State of
Israel through the eyes of most Evangelical Christians, who view
the reestablishment of Israel as the fulfillment of Bible prophecy,
in relation to their status as God’s chosen people, in the belief
that it will play a vital role in end-time prophetic fulfillment? Or,
will the SDA belief that Israel as a nation (not as individuals),
fell under the curse of God when they rejected Christ, have an
effect, albeit subconsciously, on how Carson would’ve pursued a
relationship between that nation and America?
For the reader, these and other questions no doubt come into
focus and will be examined in the remainder of this chapter. I
will supply prime-source evidence so that everything I make
reference to can be adequately confirmed.

661
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

SDA Church, Ellen White, the U.S.A & Dr. Ben Carson
Th e prime source one needs to consult, in order to establish
exactly what SDA’s teach regarding America, is Ellen G.
White. Ultimately all theories and ideas, whether of liberal or
conservative SDA origin will be subject to review by the Biblical
Research Institute of the SDA Church‰the official church body
that determines whether any new interpretations of Scripture/
SDA teachings are acceptable or not. Invariably, these will be
evaluated, not only on the basis of the SDA interpretation of the
Bible, but will also be compared to Ellen White’s inspired insight. In
the end, the prime peculiarly SDA source, really boils down to
Ellen White. TIe reason for this is simply that much of the detail
of SDA end-time prophecy cannot be categorically verified in any
absolute sense by the Bible alone‰ such as persecution resulting
from the passing of a national Sunday law in the U.S.A.
In light of this it is vital to know what Ellen White says about
America in prophecy, particularly in reference to Revelation
13:11, 12‰ the second dragon-like beast? In an official SDA
daily devotional publication, Maranatha, Ellen White is quoted:
I beheld another beast [U.S.A] coming up out of the earth; and
he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. Rev.
13:11.
One nation, and only one, meets the specifications of
this prophecy; it points unmistakably to the United States of
America.
Here is a striking figure of the rise and growth of our own
nation. And the lamb-like horns, emblems of innocence and
gentleness, well represent the character of our government, as
expressed in its two fundamental principles, Republicanism
and Protestantism.
The Lord has done more for the United States than for
any other country upon which the sun shines. Here He pro-
vided an asylum for His people, where they could worship
Him according to the dictates of conscience. Here Christianity

662
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

has progressed in its purity. The life-giving doctrine of the

one Mediator between God and man has been freely taught.
God designed that this country should ever remain free for
all people to worship Him in accordance with the dictates
of conscience. He designed that its civil institutions, in their
expansive productions, should represent the freedom of gospel
privileges.
But the enemy of all righteousness [Satan] has designs
upon God’s purpose for this country. He will bring in
enterprises that will lead men to forget that there is a God.
Worldliness and covetousness, which is idolatry, will prevail
through the working of the archdeceiver, till the law of God, in
all its bearings, shall be made void.
I have been shown that Satan is stealing a march upon us.
The law of God, through the agency of Satan, is to be made
void. In our land of boasted freedom, religious liberty will
come to an end.
When our nation, in its legislative councils, shall enact
laws to bind the consciences of men in regard to their reli-
gious privileges, enforcing Sunday observance [the mark of
Rome’s authority], and bringing oppressive power to bear
against those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, the law
of God will, to all intents and purposes, be made void in our
land; and national apostasy will be followed by national
ruin.
 When the leading churches of the United States,
uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them
in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees
and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America
will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy [papal
Rome], and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will
inevitably result.
The Scriptures teach that popery is to regain its lost
supremacy, and that the fires of persecution will be rekin-
dled through the time-serving concessions of the so-called
Protestant world. 50

663
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

A number of important issues, especially in the wake of the

recent religious liberty statements by Pope Francis, come to light
when reading the above extract. As previously pointed out, it is
quite clear Ellen White recognizes God’s direct hand in the
establishment of Judeo-Christian America and thus its
Constitution and Government. She expressed these thoughts
after the Civil War and prior to 1888 when in her first publication of
the book Th e Great Controversy, she wrote of this in great detail‰
the 1911 version contains this information as well. During all
this
time she actively discouraged political involvement, even
though
she recognized, based on the principles of its government,
that “here”
in America, “Christianity has progressed in its purity.”
All this is
directly related to the Constitution and the political
process of
American government, yet Ellen White admonished
SDA’s to not
get involved in the governing of the nation.
She goes on to define the role Protestant America will play in
bringing about religious intolerance by forming an alliance with
the Roman Catholic Church. According to SDA’s America has
already gone a long way to speaking as a dragon. TIus, in its
present religious/political position, the U.S.A. has passed the
point of corruption and compromise that would, based on
historical SDA and Ellen White criticisms of political evils, make it
unacceptable for one of its ordained elders to become involved in
government‰the past, in comparison with the evils of present
politics seem almost pure and wholesome. In fact, according to Le
Roy Edwin Froom (major contributor to Questions on Doctrine,
extensively quoted from previously), William Miller, James White
and other SDA pioneers of the early years, believed that the
U.S.A. was actually the 666 beast of Revelation 13:18. In Vol. 4, p.

1061 of Th e Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (1950) he said: “But
he
[
James White], like various writers, for a time connected the
number
666 with the second beast [U.S.A.] . . .”
In light of these considerations and the fact that Carson is an
SDA, many might, with good reason, inquire what position he

664
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

takes on prophetic matters. Is he in agreement with the Church’s

prophetic voice, Ellen G. White?
.BOZ
IBWF
RVFTUJPOFE Carson’s personal beliefs in regard to the
Catholic Church and the U.S.A., especially in light of SDA
teaching on these subjects. Does he concur with the traditional
SDA/Protestant Reformation view that the Papacy is the anti-
Christ power of Bible prophecy, as dogmatically stated by Ellen
G. White? How many of the peculiarly, non-progressive SDA
beliefs does he hold to? Is he a “traditional” SDA at his core, a
liberal progressive or something in between?
For example, it has become public knowledge that Ben Carson
does not agree with his church’s official stand on the ordination of
woman. Christian News quoted Carson as saying: “I don’t see any
reason why women can’t be ordained,” he said, adding that it was a
“huge mistake” for Adventist leaders to vote against female
“ordination.” 51
Carson was referring to a vote taken at the 60th SDA General
Conference Session held in San Antonio last January, where the
majority voted in GBWPS of not ordaining woman.
When it comes to the question of Carson’s personal beliefs
regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the U.S.A. in
contrast to the teachings of the official SDA body, the general
perception, based on statements he has made, is that he is also in
disagreement with his church on this point.
Speaking about his spiritual journey while at Yale University,
when he became frustrated with the SDA church and attended
Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist and Lutheran services and
then finally returned to the SDA faith, Carson said: “I concluded it
[SDA faith] was the right church, just the wrong people. Th e
church was very segregated . You know, if you have the love of God
in your heart, it seems like you wouldn’t do that. TIat has
changed fairly significantly since that time.” 52
Whether he meant that the SDA Church was the “right” church
in a supreme sense PS
KVTU
iSJHIUw
GPS
IJN
QFSTPOBMMZ
POF
DBOOPU
CF
TVSF

665
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

However, the fact that he was willing to fellowship with a variety

of faiths, including Catholicism, should be taken as a sign that

he surely does not see the Catholic Church in the same light as
most other SDA’s. 5Ie following statements by Carson: “I love
Catholics,” and “My best friend is Catholic. I have several
honorary degrees from Catholic universities,” certainly go a long
way to bolstering this perception.
One is left wondering if his “love” for “Catholics” is his way
of saying that he does not agree with the SDA Church and its
prophetess’ position on the Catholic Church (not individual
Catholic people, but the institution), or if it is not perhaps his
way of avoiding giving an uncomfortably transparent statement
about his beliefs, maybe even an attempt to avoid putting the
SDA Church on the spot.
T
Ie truth is, SDA’s, as a general rule, do not hate
Catholics, neither did Ellen White, in spite of her teaching that
the papal institution is the anti-Christ system of Bible
prophecy. She said that God loves Catholics and that many
Catholics would be saved‰notwithstanding the fact that they
were members of the Catholic Church. Ask most church
members who hold to the SDA teaching on Roman
Catholicism about their view of Catholics and they will respond
exactly as Dr. Carson did‰they love Catholics.
Most people who get that kind of response from an SDA will
probably just leave it at that. However, if you start pressing the
point about Ellen White’s teaching on Rome
PS
"NFSJDB
GPS
UIBU

NBUUFS being the 666 beast power
and demand specific
clarification, then you will probably hear: “It is the system (its

beliefs, etc.) that we reject, not the individuals who happen to be
members of the system XIP do not know better – we love them
and believe that many will be saved‰God loves them as much
as anyone else .” Ellen White held this position. TIis is not
an indication that they EP

OPU
SFKFDU
UIF
$BUIPMJD
CFMJFG

iTZTUFNw

666
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It simply means that in most cases SDA’s will avoid exposing

their more “peculiar” beliefs unless pushed into a corner. Th
e
same can be said regarding their beliefs on America’s role in end-
time prophecy.
Coming to grips with Carson’s personal stand, as opposed to
the traditional SDA view, regarding the prophetic roles that
Rome, the U.S.A. or any other power might play is really not an
easy task.
Any interviewer who is satisfied with a general, potentially
evasive response such as, “I love Catholics,” might be surprised to
know that if they directly asked Carson about how he felt about
individual Muslims (not the religious system), he would readily say:
“I love Muslims.” However, to get a clear opinion, that avoids the
escape-hatch of simply quoting the general Christian tenant given
by Christ that one should love one’s fellow man, even one’s
enemies, requires pressing the point by asking the right series of
questions so that an unambiguous BOTXFS can be obtained. Chuck
Todd, of Meet the Press, by being persistent, managed, at least to
some extent, to get Carson to elaborate on whether he thought the
faith of a president should matter.
Carson responded by saying: “I guess it depends on what
that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of
America, then of course it should matter. If it fits within the realm
of America and the principles of the Constitution, I have no
problem.” 53
Todd did not leave it at that. He pressed Carson to elaborate:
“So, do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”54
To this Carson immediately responded: “No, I do not, I would
not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I
absolutely would not agree with that.”
Even though Carson somewhat elaborated on why he would not
advocate a Muslim becoming president, he did not clearly
explain what it was about the Islamic faith that would conflict
with the Constitution of the U.S.A.
He must have decided to give

667
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

the core reason for his position because a while later he posted on
Facebook: “I could never support a candidate for President of the
United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central
tenet of Islam: Sharia Law.” 55
Of course, he was getting flack for what he had said on Meet the
Press and was thus put in a position where specific clarification
became imperative.
TIe point is, if you want to know exactly what 4%"hT believe
regarding Catholicism, the U.S.A.,
other Christian faiths and the
role they will play in a prophetic end-time scenario, then you have to
press UIFN for some categorical answers. Th e right series of
questions need to be asked so that you do not leave room for
evasive, ambiguous replies. To effectively do this one has to have a
thorough knowledge of SDA teachings (especially the teachings of
Ellen White). Armed with this insight you will know how to
formulate your questions so as to force total clarification.
Indeed, if one knows how to read between the lines of Carson’s
bold statements about his faith and by so doing get to know
more about what SDA’s really believe, it might be discovered
that no SDA, unless they reject those peculiar Ellen White/SDA
teachings, should ever hold the office of president, or for that
matter, any other prominent political position.
After Dr. Carson had already decided to join the 2016
presidential race he was invited to speak at the Avondale
Memorial SDA Church, near Sydney, Australia on July 12th, 2014
(Avondale College is one of the leading SDA institutions in that
part of the world). Prior to delivering this Saturday sermon he
was interviewed regarding his bid for the presidency and how
this related to the prophetic views of the church. Following are
some of the vital moments of that interview:
Interviewer: I have to ask you some questions about that
[Carson’s bid for the presidency] because we as Seventh-
day Adventists understand the role that the United States is
to play, not only [present fulfillment of Revelation 13:11,

668
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

12]
now but in the future . . . tell me about the United States

today in the whole political landscape.

Dr. Ben Carson: This is a country that was established for, of

and by the people. It was never supposed to become for, of and
by the government . . . freedom of speech, freedom of religion
–
all of these things are under enormous attack right now

in the United States. They have been for a while – there is an

agenda. People who read a lot know exactly what I am talking

about. If you go back and look at the writings of Karl Marx,

Vladimir Lenin and, ah, Saul Alinsky. And they talk about

how important it is to bring United States into line with eve-
rybody else in order to achieve a new world order. But in order

to do that they would have to knock down the strongest pil-
lars, the Judeo-Christian belief system and the strong family

values. Those are the things that are under attack and that’s

why I am coming out so strongly against those things. And also

the fact that we have to be willing to stand up for what we

believe. Most Americans actually do believe in God. But the

media has been so hard on people who proclaim their faith

that most people are afraid and they’ve been beaten into sub-
mission by the ‘political correctness police.’ And I have declared

war on political correctness and, ah, a lot of people have joined

that war . . . I don’t know what role the Lord has for me in all

of this. I do know when looking at prophecy that the United

States will play a big role. That there has to be a return first to

a religious awakening and, more than likely, any persecution,

particularly of the Sabbath [Sunday law], will come from

the right, not from the left . . . people will get a little bit over-
zealous and then they’ll say, see how much better things are,

now that we’ve come back to God and we need to go completely

back to him, and we need to go . . . you know and they’re going

to go overboard [pass a Sunday law and begin persecution

of those who keep the 7th day Sabbath]. I hope by that time

I’m not around anymore [with humour]
 56

For someone who is not an SDA, reading this interview

might not seem to reveal too much. However, when one has even

669
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

a working knowledge of SDA end-time beliefs, influenced to a

large extent by the writings of Ellen G. White, then it is absolutely
clear what Carson and his interviewer are talking about.
Carson is careful about how he words his responses. He BWPJET

QVUUJOH his foot in it CZ
TBZJOH something he might later regret.
Indeed, this is a commendable characteristic and it is refreshing
to hear someone weigh their words before speaking
0O
UIF

PUIFS
IBOE
JO
SFDFOU
UJNFT Carson has said and done some
inexplicable things that have DFSUBJOMZ
raised eyebrows.
However, the point of this exercise is not to discuss Carson’s
thoughtful manner, or lack thereof, but rather to show that while
running for president he certainly had some of the SDA/Ellen
White prophetic beliefs in mind. His insight into global politics,
the players and where it will all lead to seem to be influenced by
at least some SDA interpretations of end-time prophecy.
For example, it is a common belief among SDA’s, based on
Ellen White’s description in her book Th e Great Controversy, that a
spurious religious/spiritual awakening in the U.S.A. will lead to the
enforcement of international compulsory Sunday observance
(IPOPSJOH the papal Sabbath) and that persecution of Sabbath-
keepers (SDA’s) will be the result. 57 When this occurs, according to
Ellen White, it will be the final sign that Babylon, the religious
world, is finally and completely fallen and that the MBTU phase of
the end will have begun, according to her interpretation of
Revelation 14:8-12. 58
Of course, it is interesting that Carson, if he by some stroke of
fate had become the GOP candidate, would almost certainly have run
as a Republican (the right). Conceivably, if Ellen White’s
prediction is correct, the very people who Carson might’ve
partnered with politically would, in the end, according to
traditional SDA belief, have become his and his fellow Sabbath-
keepers persecutors. In other words, according to Carson and
other SDA’s who hold to this teaching, it is NOT the liberal

670
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

left/Democrats who present the biggest and ultimate threat to

America and its Constitution, in regard to religious freedom, but
the Republican right. Th
is clearly reveals the built in suspicion of
American government when it comes to SDA thinking.
8hen one looks at the open and honest manner in which Carson
appears to deal with everything ZPV
BSF
MFE
UP
DPODMVEF: Carson,
though he DFSUBJOMZ
IPMET to some SDA views on end-time prophecy,
NJHIU
OPU
BHSFF with
B M M
Ellen White’s predictions concerning
Catholicism or her statements about the other churches
being Babylon. TIe very fact that he has become so deeply
involved with politics TFFNT
UP
TVHHFTU that he not only disagrees with
his church on running for political office, but is willingly at
odds with its prophetess, Ellen G. White
JO
UIJT
SFHBSE.
*T

$BSTPO
TPNF
NJHIU
RVFTUJPO
FOUJSFMZ
IPOFTU
PS
KVTU
TJNQMZ
OBÕWF
Regarding the essential call of Carson’s message to
Americans, Spectrum Magazine published an article (16th, June
2014) by Douglas Morgan titled, National Unity Under God:
Ben Carson’s Manifesto. Morgan made an interesting observation
in regard to Carson’s call:

Religion suffuses Dr. Carson’s manifesto. He sees a nation

imperiled not just by “reckless spending” and “mean-spirited
attempts to silence critics,” but by “godless government.” God,
Jesus, the Ten Commandments, and Creation figure promi-
nently, as they would in the faith of most any Seventh-day
Adventist.
Yet, his development of these themes is strikingly dis-
cordant with much that has been central in the Seventh-day
Adventist heritage. The national unity Dr. Carson promotes
requires that “most citizens” look to the Bible and the Ten
Commandments for authoritative answers on moral issues
disputed in the public realm such as abortion and gay mar-
riage. He hastens to add that this does not mean being unkind
to nonbelievers or forcing our beliefs upon them. However, he
affirms that “we have to make a choice as to what we believe
and form our societal values around that choice.”59

671
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

In essence, what Morgan is saying is that the whole SDA

understanding of separation of church and state means that
religious issues will stay out of the political arena. Th
is seems
contradictory when one considers, even based on Ellen White’s
own statements, that God was directly involved in influencing the
establishment of the nation and the Constitution. At the very
least Christian values were most definitely on the agenda.






However, this is the type of dichotomy SDA’s attempt
to make. Morgan makes an interesting point when he talks about
Adventist’s getting involved in a religious legislation issue back in
the late 1800’s, when their representative, A. T. Jones, successfully
helped curb an attempt at instituting a Sunday law, on the basis of
the concept of keeping religion out of politics‰ separation of
church and state. Concerning this and the SDA view of the
Nation of Israel, which also brings a religious component into
American foreign policy, Morgan writes:
When Adventists first entered the political arena in the late
nineteenth century, it was to defend the Constitution against
a growing movement to “nationalize Christianity.” In more
recent times, Adventist evangelistic and doctrinal presen-
tations have critiqued the dispensationalist teaching that
makes the modern nation-state of Israel central to the ful-
fillment of end-time Bible prophecy. The related notion that
America’s special vocation under God is military support for
Israel to ensure fulfillment of its last-day role makes for a very
direct influence on the foreign policy advocated by conservative
evangelicals.60

No doubt, the reader can see what the potential problems might
have been for Ben Carson in the position of American President‰if
his views of prophecy are identical to traditional SDA’s.
While
he clearly sees a return to conservative commandment-keeping
religion as essential to saving America, a nation under
God, at the
same time, he states that “there has to be a return first
to a
religious
awakening
and,
more
than
likely,
any
persecution,

672
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

particularly of the Sabbath [Sunday law], will come from the

right, not from the left.” 61
It may well be perceived by some that Dr. Carson, if he had
brought America back to a religious awakening would actually,
intentionally or not, have helped to bring about and indeed
initiate the GVMGJMMNFOU of Ellen White and the SDA
Church’s end-time predictions.
Is it naïve, some might ask, for Dr. Carson to think that he, as
an SDA, could’ve run for president? Did his attempt at running
for president reveal a possible lack of wisdom and foresight in
a man who is generally known for his intelligence and careful
consideration before making a decision? Or, was his choice to
run an absolutely intentional decision where everything was
carefully weighed in the balance? It would seem out of character
for Carson to have made a choice to run for president without
carefully considering every angle. This being the case, it provides
further evidence that Carson’s views regarding prophecy and
politics may be quite different from Ellen White and traditional
SDA’s.
One of the strongest arguments in GBWPS of Carson’s bid XBT

his integrity. His deep spirituality was also another important
characteristic, especially for Evangelical voters. However, some
jumped at every opportunity to DBQJUBMJ[F on what appeared to be
his contradictory or ill-informed statements and actions, which
ended up negatively affecting his ratings in the polls. One of
these contradictions that directly impacted on his integrity had
to do with his campaign advertisement.
Journalist, Nahala Aboutabl, writing for The Breeze, found
Carson’s comments about hip-hop culture and his use of hip-
hop music for his campaign advertisement to be hypocritical. He
quotes Carson in a radio interview as saying: “‘When I talk about
the hip-hop community, I’m talking about the aspect of modern society
that pretty much dismisses anything that has to do with Jesus Christ,
that’s what I’m talking about.’ That’s what presidential candidate

673
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

and now GOP frontrunner Ben Carson said about hip-hop in

a radio interview back in April of 2015. In that same interview,
he also said that ‘the hip-hop community destroys faith, family and
values.’” 62
“Seven months later,” Aboutabl writes, “the same man who
was bashing the musical genre just a few months ago for being in
opposition to Jesus Christ and family values is now using hip-
hop to garner the votes of both the African-American and young
demographic. If that isn’t the most exploitative piece of trash I’ve
ever heard from a presidential candidate thus far, I don’t know what
is.” 63
However, in spite of the above report and other potential
problem areas exposed in this chapter, the record of Dr. Carson’s
life still seems to speak volumes about who he appears to be at his
core. He may not be perfect but he is, according to general opinion,
a man of principle and conviction, in spite of his connection to
the SDA Church.
Post the CNN GOP debate of February 25th, 2016 and the
Super Tuesday results, Carson’s bid petered out to the inevitable
‰announcing his withdrawal from the race. Perhaps he believed

that if he just hung in there he would finally have been able to

surpass Trump‰the final victor of the proverbial race between

the “tortoise and the hare.” 64
Of course, another reason for his staying in the race for as
long as he did might be the belief that he had a Eivine calling
to become the nation’s leader and play a vital role in bringing
America back to its Judeo-Christian roots.
TIis “Eivine calling,” according to many observers, especially
those who are inclined to a more SDA perspective of the whole
Carson affair, seemed to take a weirdly twisted and contradictory
turn since his leaving the race. Instead of making a decision to
step back from political involvement, as some thought he might
do, Carson made the decision to plough straight ahead and
remain actively involved.

674
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

It must certainly have come as a disappointment, especially for

traditional E. G. White based SDA’s, to hear that Carson had
decided to accept the “chair” position of My Faith Votes, a group
that is dedicated to motivating Christians to vote at the ballot
box.65
Some also wondered, when he delivered his speech at the
Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington, D.C.,
what he meant when he said: “There’s a lot of people who love me,
they just won’t vote for me.”66 Was it a reference to the millions
of SDA’s, who love and support him for his accomplishments an
deep faith, but would simply not cast their vote for a fellow church
member who had chosen to move contrary to the instruction of
Ellen White in regard to political involvement? Yet, what these
SDA’s might initially have viewed as weird, contradictory and
twisted, took on a darker and more sinister tone
GPS
UIFN

when Carson made the decision to endorse his former rival
Donald Trump.
On Friday morning, March 11th, 2016, while delivering
his endorsement speech at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in
Palm Beach, Florida, Carson gave this glowing yet strangely
disjunctive report: “TIere are two different Donald Trump’s,
there’s the one you see on the stage and there’s the one who is
very cerebral, sits there and considers things very carefully. You
can have a very good conversation with him. T
Iat’s the Donald
Trump that you’re going to start seeing more and more of.”67
On hearing this some
FTQFDJBMMZ
4%"hT were left
wondering which of the two Trump’s Carson XBs actually
endorsing.68 Had Carson, many XPOEFSFE, finally taken leave of
his senses? Was his endorsement of Trump his way of getting
back at Cruz for messing up his chances in Iowa? Was
he EJTBQQPJOUFE at not receiving the support and recognition
he had hoped he would receive from his own SDA brethren
and other
Evangelical Christians?
Or
X B T
J U
U I B U
as
a
consequence of some fresh realization IF
GPVOE a new way to
redirect his Eivine calling?

675
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

It
XBT
inconceivable
UP
DPOTFSWBUJWF
4%"hT
that
a
man
with
apparently

high
and
lofty
NPSBMT
BOE
WBMVFT,
especially
those
espoused
by
the

church denomination
of
which
he
is
an
ordained
elder,
would
suddenly make the
decision
to
jump on the Trump
bandwagon. DJE his decision
to
support
a
man
who
seemFE
to
have no compunction about
using
four letter
words
during

campaign
speeches,
who
publicly
maEF disparaging
remarks
about

woman and
juvenile references
to
other
inappropriate
things
come
as a
belated confirmation that
$BSTPO
XBT
UPUBMMZ
naïve and

without
TVQFSJPS
wisdom
and KVEHNFOU? After
all, he was not, in
his endorsement speech of Trump, referring
to a teenager in
the throes
of discovering his true self but an
adult man in
later years of maturity who XBT running for no
Mess an PGGJDF
than President of the U.S.A.


5IFTF
XFSF
TPNF
PG
UIF
RVFTUJPOT
UIBU
B
TQFDJGJD
DMBTT
PG

$ISJTUJBOT
XFSF
BTLJOH
5P
UIFN
JU
TFFNFE
UIBU
JO
PSEFS
GPS

$BSTPO
UP
DPOUJOVF
JO
QPMJUJDBM
TPDJFUZ
UIFSF
XPVME
EFGJOJUFMZ
CF

DFSUBJO
DPNQSPNJTFT
IF
XPVME
IBWF
UP
NBLF
UIBU
XFSF
JO

DPOUSBEJDUJPO
UP
IJT
BQQBSFOUMZ
QSJTUJOF
SFDPSE
'PS
DPOTFSWBUJWF

&MMFO
8IJUF
CFMJFWJOH
4%"hT
UIJT
XPVME
DFSUBJOMZ

IBWF
CFFO
B

TFSJPVT
QSPCMFN
8IBU
JT
DFSUBJO
JT
UIBU
DPODFSOFE
4%"hT
WJFXFE
IJT
BDDFQUBODF
PG

UIF
PGGJDF
PG
6OJUFE
4UBUFT
4FDSFUBSZ
PG
)PVTJOH
BOE
6SCBO

%FWFMPQNFOU
BT
B
GVMM
MPOHUFSN
DPNQSPNJTF
XJUI
UIF
XPSME
PG

QPMJUJDT

Maybe Carson, as indicated in his comment regarding the dual
character of Trump, sBX something that
others dJE not seem to
see? %JE
IF
SFDPHOJ[F
JO
5SVNQ
OPUXJUITUBOEJOH
5SVNQhT
SPVHI

FEHFT
UIF
TUSFOHUI
PG
DIBSBDUFS
UIBU
XBT
OFFE
UP
NBJOUBJO
American
exceptionalism
BOE
UIF
LJOE
PG
DPNNJUNFOU
UIBU
XPVME
IFMQ
UP
.BLF

"NFSJDB
(SFBU
"HBJO.
At this point at least, these questions, among many others,
will have to be left hanging in the air.
Certainly, Carson
XPVME

EJTBHSFF
that any such motives,
suggested by these RVFTUJPOT
MJF

676
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

behind the choices he has made and perhaps it would be

the right thing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this. Time
will tell what the GVMM consequence of his choices will be. For
those who have been keen observers however, one thing is
certain, the picture that unfolds in regard to Carson’s political
ventures, the SDA Church and Ellen G. White is a complex

BOE contradictory one indeed.
Hopefully, in the process of all that plays out SDA’s, in their
opinion of their faith, their mixed and often ambiguous views
on voting and politics and in the trust they place in the person
and authority of Ellen G. White and her claimed prophetic
calling, will
JOEFFE “quench not the spirit, despise not
prophesyings,” but yet will, “QSPWF
BMM
UIJOHT” and “IPME
GBTU
UIBU

XIJDI
JT
HPPE” (1 TIessalonians 5:20, 21).

SOURCES
1. Reprinted from Adventist Review, September 18 & 25, 1980
Paul A. Gordon served as undersecretary of the Ellen G. White
Estate. Emphasis provided.
2. Review and Herald, Oct. 30, 1856. Emphasis supplied.
3. Review and Herald, Aug. 12, 1862.
4. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 260-264.
5. See: Ellen White’s published visions in, Present truth, 1847
edition for full original version, p. 31, 32, 64 & Early Writings,
p.37-39.
6. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts Vol. 4b, 1864, p. 18.
7. Review and Herald, April 23, 1857.
8. Temperance, p. 255,256. Emphasis provided (Reprinted from
Adventist Review, September 18 & 25, 1980 Paul A. Gordon
 served as undersecretary of the Ellen G. White Estate.
Emphasis provided).
9. Review and Herald, Aug. 21, 1860. Emphasis provided.
10. For more evidence see: Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 260-
264 & Testimonies to the Church Vol. 1, pages 355-368.
11. The Rebellion, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 1, pages 355-368.
12. www.wallbuilders.com – Building on the American Heritage
Series, with historian David Barton. See DVD: Social Justice,
Politics in the Pulpit, Christians in the Civil Arena.
13. Review and Herald, May 23, 1865. Emphasis & italics provided.
14. Reprinted from Adventist Review, September 18 & 25,
1980 Paul A. Gordon served as undersecretary of the Ellen G.
White Estate. Emphasis provided.
15. Review and Herald, May 23, 1865.
16. Selected Messages, book 2, p. 336, 337. Emphasis provided.
17. Review and Herald, July 5, 1881. Emphasis & italics supplied.
18. Temperance, p. 255. Emphasis & italics supplied. (Reprinted
from Adventist Review, September 18 & 25, 1980 Paul A. Gordon
served as undersecretary of the Ellen G. White Estate. Italics &
emphasis provided).
19. Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914. Emphasis & italics supplied.
(Reprinted from Adventist Review, September 18 & 25,
1980 Paul A. Gordon served as undersecretary of the Ellen G.
White Estate. Italics & emphasis provided.
20. Selected Messages, Book 2, p. 336, 337.
21. Rights of the Colonies, in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the
American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1965), p. 439. In “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case
of Slavery,” by Thomas G. West, Principles, a quarterly review of
The Claremont Institute, Spring/Summer 1992, p. 1; Hart, p. 53;
 Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington:
A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988),
p. 319; Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles
Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons,
1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820.
In Barton, p. 3; Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a
Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established
in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia
(Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. In Barton,
p. 4; Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry
(Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48. In Barton, p. 4;
Adams to Robert J. Evans, June 8, 1819, in Adrienne Koch and
William Peden, eds., Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 209. In West, p. 2; John
Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United
States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and
Co., 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob
Lindley on January 24, 1801. In Barton, p. 3; “An Address to
the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the
Abolition of Slavery” (1789), in Franklin, Writings (New York:
Library of America, 1987), p. 1154. In West, p. 2.
22. Reprinted from Adventist Review, September 18 & 25,
1980 Paul A. Gordon served as undersecretary of the Ellen G.
White Estate.
23. See: Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 475-484. (Reprinted
from Adventist Review, September 18 & 25, 1980 Paul A. Gordon
served as undersecretary of the Ellen G. White Estate).
24. Gospel Workers, p. 391-393. (Ibid).
25. Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 82. Emphasis &
italics provided.
26. Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914.
27. Reprinted from Adventist Review, September 18 & 25, 1980
Paul A. Gordon served as undersecretary of the Ellen G. White
Estate. Emphasis supplied.
28. Special Testimony to the Battle Creek Church, Nov. 30, 1882,
p. 6. (Reprinted from Adventist Review, September 18 & 25,
1980 Paul A. Gordon served as undersecretary of the Ellen G.
White Estate. Emphasis & italics supplied)..
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ellen White Letter from Oakland, Cal., Aug. 3, 1882. Pamphlet
155. Emphasis supplied.
33. From an official Seventh-day Adventist Church statement,
adopted by the Council of Interchurch/Interfaith Relations of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church in March 2002. Adapted and
republished for the Carson bid, May 4 2015. Emphasis supplied.
34. (Gideon Resnick, the Daily Beast. 18 Nov 2015, Ben Carson’s
Church: We’re Glad He’s Not Here. http://www.thedailybeast.
com/articles/2015/11/18/ben-carson-s-church-we-re-glad-
he-s-not-here.html).
35. J.H.M.D. Aubigne, History of the Reformation, Vol. 7, Chapter 6.
36. Ibid, Vol. 6, chapter 9.
37. Martin Luther, Commentarius in Apocalypsin, Purvey,
reprint preface.
38. ‘The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine,’ by Peter Geiermann,
p. 50.
39. ‘The Catholic Record,’ London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.
40. Archbishop Reggio made his speech at the last opening session
of Trent, on the 18th January, 1562 – J. H. Holzman, Canon and
 Tradition, published in Ludwigsburg, Germany, in 1859, p. 203.
Emphasis & italics supplied.
41. The Shepherd of the Valley, official journal of the Bishop of St.
Louis, Nov. 23, 1851.
42. Catholic Review, July 1870.
43. Walter Veith - How the Jesuit order is deceiving the whole world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc5vhAwae5E.
44. Pope Francis: Religious liberty is a fundamental
Human Right. http://dioceseofraleigh.org/content/
pope-francis-religious-liberty-fundamental-human-right.
45. Ibid
46. While saying this, Pope Francis turned to look directly at
President Obama). (Fox News: Pope Francis talks religious
liberty, climate change in first message to US. http://www.
foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/23/pope-francis-to-deliver-
first-message-to-us-on-white-house-lawn/.
47. See article in: The Detroit News, July 7th, 1998 or read
Dies Domini.
48. Walter Veith Commentary on Pope Francis’ Visit to the
USA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-6uxBDHZk8
Two Allies, The Beast, And It’s Image - Walter Veith:
h t t p s : / / w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = EX k m c W 2 - i 6 c
The Secret Behind Secret Societies / Final Conflict Update - Walter
Veith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUaSfF0mcX4
Pope Francis Visit to US Abomination - Doug
Batchelor SDA Commentary: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=Qh1JCzPQG6A
Doug Batchelor 2015 Not Very Far: https://
w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = K Z q Q F g Q U R Z E
The Mystery of Israel, Doug Batchelor 2015, Amazing Facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekILAvEXFM8Walte r
Veith - The Islamic Connection to Rome Catholicism:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT L0PM9CdNE
The Islamic Connection / Total Onslaught - by Walter Veith:
https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=MfaQNq7xkNM
The Secret Behind Secret Societies / Total Onslaught - Walter
Veith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDrscByKEUQ
Lucifer Worshipers Exposed! Plotting World
takeover! Illuminati, Jesuits, Freemasonry: https://
w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = P _ 7 G I y q Q u h w
Seventh-day Adventist Ben Carson going to see Pope
Francis says “exciting time for our nation: https://
w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = O Z K X 4 b t u V p A
Pope Francis Said “Tollerance”, Ben Carson Explains Pope Francis
Speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb5cjZaa0yE
Walter Veith - How the Jesuit order is deceiving the whole
world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc5vhAwae5E
All Roads Lead to Rome – Eric John Phelps: https://
w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = y O Y P LF 4 o z JA
I Want My Church Back - Walter Veith: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=5FYxm0mMHIg
49. Road to Rome: Via ut Roma – Brian Neumann: https://
w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 4 X v G B m k H G M Y
Brian Neumann Changes In Our Religion – 02:
h t t p s : / / w w w. yo u t u b e. c om / w a t c h ? v = K 8 j r W LG K s 9 A
Brian Neumann Changes In Our Religion 03 The Godhead A Masterful
Delusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UWjEugf3G4
Brian Neumann Changes In Our Religion 04 God’s Church in
the End: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f8ZMe1BV74
Brian Neumann Changes In Our Religion 05 The Final Chapter:
h t t p s : / / w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = l S F E 5 I 3 I O T Y
(Ellen White) Greater Than Nostradamus - Part 4 - The Message For
Our Time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JgktaUmmE8
Brian S. Neumann - Crisis Hour - 02 - The Secret Rapture:
h t t p s : / / w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = v T 9 4 y I C 6 F V g
Brian Neumann - Alfa i Omega otpad 1deo: https://
 w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 4 t P 5 G B 8 j K 1 E
Ellen G. White - prorok Bozji?: https://
w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = B t U v 2 n K K I w g
Brian Neumann - Alfa i Omega otpad 3deo: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=mUy01TBL9CE
50. Maranatha, Ellen G. White, daily devotional compilation, p.
193, 194. Emphasis & italics supplied.
51. (Ben Carson disagrees with Seventh-day Adventist Church on
ordination of women, embrace of Catholicism. http://www.
christiantoday.com/article/ben.carson.disagrees.with.seventh.
day.adventist.church.on.ordination.of.women.embrace.
of.catholicism/69787.htm. Italics provided).
52. Ibid.
53. Rebecca Berg, Real Clear Politics, October 1 2015, http://www.
realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/01/the_heart_of_ben_
carsons_faith.html.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. Dr. Ben Carson, 12 July 2014, Avondale Memorial SDA Church,
Australia. See video at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abdel_
luhPY. Emphasis & italics supplied.
57. The Great Controversy, p. 586-592, 1888 edition. By Ellen G.
White.
58. The Faith I Live by, p. 285, 286. by Ellen G. White.
59. Spectrum Magazine article, 16 June 2014, by Douglas Morgan,
‘National Unity Under God: Ben Carson’s Manifesto.’ http://
spectrummagazine.org/article/book-reviews/2014/06/16/
national-unit y-under-god-ben-c arson%E2%80%99s-
manifesto. Emphasis & italics supplied.
60. Ibid. Emphasis & italics supplied.
 Dr. Ben Carson, 12 July 2014, Avondale Memorial SDA

Church, Australia. See video at: www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Abdel_luhPY.
 Practice what you preach: Ben Carson’s rap campaign advertisement
is
hypocritical, Nahala Aboutabl / Th e Breeze. Posted Wed, Nov
11,
2015. http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/practice-what-you-
preach-ben-carson-s-rap-campaign advertisement/
article_1aba9090-88b8-11e5-bf10-335234e64f23.html.
 Ibid. Italics supplied.
 Ben Carson Explains Why He Won’t Drop Out: ‘Remember the

Story of the Tortoise and the Hare?’by Lindsey Ellefson | 11:34

am, February 23rd, 2016. http://www.mediaite.com/online/
ben-carson-explains-why-he-wont-drop-out-remember-the-
story-of-the-tortoise-and-the-hare/.
 NBC NEWS: Ben Carson Suspends 2016 Campaign

at CPAC. Fri, 4th March 2016. By Andrew Rafferty.

h t t
p : / / w w w. n b c n e
w s . c o m / p o l i t i c s / 2 0 1 6 - e l e c t i o n /
ben-carson-suspends-2016-campaign-cpac-n532056.
 Ibid.
 Ben Carson Will Endorse Donald Trump Before Trailing Off for a

Quick Nap. By Elliot Hannon MARCH 10, 2016 THE SLATEST.

Original Post: Robert Costa of the Washington Post reporting

that Ben Carson plans on endorsing Donald Trump on Friday

morning. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/
ben_carson_reportedly_will_endorse_donald_trump.html.
 Ibid.
 Chapter XVI

A Trunk-Full of Contradictions
Amalgamation…Dead Leaves…Dead Meat…

Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them

that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words,
lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
—Proverbs 30: 5, 6

W
hen it comes to addressing teachings of Ellen
White that cannot be substantiated by clear biblical
evidence, more than a few scattered examples can
be cited. SDA apologists find ways of stretching unambiguous
statements of Scripture so that they appear to be in harmony
with Ellen White’s teachings, when in fact no harmony exists—
“by hook or by crook they’ll make it fit the Book.” The problem
that exists for most SDA’s, especially generational members (laity
or leadership), is that the teachings of Scripture have become so
blended with those of Ellen White’s that they find it very difficult
to “un-blend” the two—separate fact from fiction. For many who
eventually realize the seriousness of these discrepancies there
seems to be no other option but to leave Adventism. In most
cases the disillusionment they suffer is so great that even though
remaining Christian, they reject any doctrine that even vaguely

685
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

smacks of that which they have left behind. In a number of cases

they end up avoiding anything religious altogether.
The reason for such strong reaction is not difficult to
comprehend. When you belong to an exclusive faith, who are the
ONLY ones to have the TRUTH (the most elite group on the
planet), only to find you were deceived, a drastic knee-jerk
reaction is more often than not the end result. The unfortunate
thing about all this is that any one of these reactions mentioned
above are not healthy or well informed. Th e fact is that
much SDA doctrine is based on Scripture. Ironically though,
it is exactly this that makes the peculiar mixture of Ellen White
and the Bible so hard to spot and deal with. Th e well known
adage about a little poison in the mix holds true—two percent
arsenic with ninety-eight percent sugar is still deadly. To be
sure, when it comes to Ellen White in the mix along with
scriptural truth, it ends up being far more than just a measly
two percent.
Unfortunately, as one starts seeing through the facade of Ellen
White’s false teachings, it is easier to simply throw the baby out
with the bathwater instead of holding on to that which is good
while rejecting the rest. The more deeply one’s commitment has
been to the teachings of Ellen White the more complicated and
challenging will be the separation.
It is this very type of struggle that I went through—the struggle
of not being sure what to throw out and what UP
LFFQ Dealing
with this is not simply an intellectual challenge but a
profoundly emotional and spiritual one as well. In the process
of my personal “coming to terms” with these issues, I almost lost
my spirituality completely. Indeed, there were times when I came
to the very brink of permanently rejecting religion. Discipline,
a commitment to following, truth in light of Scripture alone, a
desperate clinging to God, emptying myself of all preconceptions,
while engaging in serious investigation, deep Bible-study and

686
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

prayer, was the only way to make it through the ordeal without
throwing it all away in the process.
This chapter is dedicated to revealing the unbiblical, fallacious
nature of some of Ellen White’s less prominent yet nonetheless
emphatic teachings. There are a considerable amount of these
teachings; however, time and space allows us to only deal with only
a few of the most blatant examples—those at the top of my SDA/
Ellen White “trunk-full of contradictions.” For further investigation
readers are encouraged to do their own expanded investigation.

AMALGAMATION
Critics of Ellen White often quote her statements on the
antediluvian practice of “amalgamation of man and beast.” These
are primary submissions that offer clear evidence that she was
“out to lunch” because, according to the critics, there is no possible
way that this could have happened.
In response, White apologists normally offer two lines of
defense. Rather unfortunate though as these two defenses really
end up contradicting each other. In both cases prime portions
of Ellen White’s so called insights are ignored in order to make
their point. Yet, in spite of these weak defenseT, critics have not
come back with really effective rebuttals.
5IVT
I will revisit
arguments from both sides and will
then offer the most conclusive evidence that proves, beyond
doubt, the contradictory, non-sensical nature of Ellen White’s
amalgamation statements and the weakness’ in her defender’s
arguments. In his book, Ellen White and Her Critics, Francis D.
Nichol, an avid defender of her ministry, quotes the two key
amalgamation statements of Ellen White:

But if there was one sin above another which called for the
destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of
amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of
GOD, and caused confusion everywhere. GOD purposed to

687
Brian Neumann

destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had cor-

rupted their ways before him. 1
Every species of animals which God had created was pre-
served in the ark. The confused species which God did not cre-
ate, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed
by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of
man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties
of species of animals, and in certain races of men. 2

At the start of Chapter 20, Nichol presents the charge of

the critics:
Charge: Mrs. White teaches that before the Flood, and also after-
ward, men cohabited with beasts and that the offspring constitutes
certain depraved races of men today. She is here simply revealing
a credulous belief in ancient myths regarding strange creatures
produced by unholy alliances between human beings and beasts. If
progeny could result from such unions, it would support the anti-
Biblical doctrine of evolution. But it is an unscientific statement,
wholly fanciful. Later on, she suppressed the statement.3

Nichol begins his defense by saying that “in the long ago,
when virility was greater, and conditions possibly in some
respects different, more diverse forms of life might have crossed
—such as man and some higher forms of animals—can be set
forth only as an assumption.” 4 His point is that the argument of
the critics is based on the false premise that something like
hybridization or crossbreeding between species was even
possible. He goes on to argue that the critics, by twisting the
“long-established meaning of the key word amalgamation,” to
mean crossbreeding of different species accused Ellen White

of inferring something she never intended and that the “burden
of proof rests on those who BGGJSN that Mrs. White gave a new
and alien meaning to the term.” 5
Of course the whole defense of Nichol’s argument hinges on
whether in fact IF is right in assuming that Ellen White did
NOT mean that crossbreeding between man and beast had taken

688
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

place. I will be considering all the evidence here and if

indeed, she did mean crossbreeding CFUXFFO
NBO
BOE
CFBTU

then the burden of proof would rest on her defenders to prove
otherwise.
Nichol’s submits the dictionary definition as a primary part of his
defense
to show that Ellen White who must have been well
aware of the correct definition and usage of the term at the time,
could obviously not have meant amalgamation in the sense of
crossbreeding of species. He asserts that no “dictionaries we have
had access to, not even the exhaustive Oxford English Dictionary,
indicate that the term has ever been used to describe this act.” 6
However, it was incumbent on him to admit that in “the mid-
nineteenth century the word was commonly employed in the United
States to describe the intermarriage of the white and the Negro
race.” 7 He had no choice but to recognize that the term was in fact
used to describe the act of procreation, at the very least, between
people of various races.
Th e word “amalgamate” is derived from a medieval Latin word,
finding its way into the English language in the early 17th Century.
Meanings, according to past and current dictionary definitions are:
fused, united, mingle, co-mingle, mix, etc. Th e associated word,
“amalgam” means: combine, combination, associate, etc.
Clearly, based on the dictionary definition, it is the context
that determines what kind of “mingling,” “mixing,” “fusion,”
“combination,” “amalgamation,” etc. is being referred to. Th e
very fact that it was used in the 19th Century to describe, as
Nichol’s rightly states, “intermarriage of the white and the Negro
race,” already suggests that the term can be used in the sense of
“interbreeding.” Th e
only
challenge
that
faces
us,
in FOEFBWPSJOH
to disprove Nichol’s argument, is to establish whether Ellen
White only meant “amalgamate” within the confines of racial
intercourse or in the broader sense of actual crossbreeding
of
different species, which is not even scientifically possible.
Nichol suggests that all Ellen White was saying was that
there

was amalgamation within
the parameters of various animal

689
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

species and the same between the races of man, for example
black and White. TIis, according to him, is what Ellen White
was referring to when she said “if there was one sin above another
which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the
base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the
image of (PE.” 8
His contention is that Ellen White, in reference to the pre
flood era, was talking about the “sin” of intermarriage between
the descendants of Seth with the sinful descendants of Cain and
then the mixing of various animal species, within their realm—
this was the sin of amalgamation that brought down the
judgment of God. He argues that her statement in Spirit of
Prophecy Book One where she says that after the flood “there has
been amalgamation of man and beast” and that it can still be
seen in “certain races of men” today was, like in the antediluvian
context, the result of mixing of the godly with the ungodly. Th
e
most effective way of debunking Nichol’s defense is to use his
own arguments/defenses against him. Th
e first of these defenses
being his reference to the common usage of the term in the 19th
Century.
Certain beliefs, based on popular Darwinist/evolutionary
ideas in regard to discrepancies between the white and black races
existed at the time. TIese beliefs had a direct impact on racist
attitudes regarding intermarriage between blacks and whites.
For Nichol to cite the use of the term amalgamation or its
alternative expression, “miscegenation,” in the 19th Century racial
context, without taking some of the deeper implications into
account is not entirely forthcoming. One of the factors that
directly contributed to attitudes about black and white
“amalgamation” was the belief that blacks were inferior to whites.
Certain laws, banning mixed marriages were enforced in a number
of U.S. states since 1691. 9
Till recently, similar laws existed in Nazi Germany and South
Africa during the apartheid era. What is significant are the
reasons that lay behind the “inferior race” belief. Regarding the
690
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

beliefs of this period, "VESFZ
4NFEMFZ, in Origin of the Idea

of Race writes: “the differences between ‘races’ had been so
magnified and exaggerated that popular consciousness had
already widely accepted the idea of blacks being a different and
inferior species of humans. Justice Taney’s decision reflected this,
declaring, ‘the /FHSP is a different order of being.’ TIus slave-
owners’ rights to their ‘property’ were upheld in law by appeal to
the newly invented identity of peoples from Africa.” 10
The belief was that black people were descendants of the “ape”
species. For example: George Gliddon, co-editor of a famous scientific
book Types of Mankind, (1854), said that “Negroes were closer to
apes than to humans and ranked all other groups between whites
and Negroes.”
Already, this information suggests another possible perspective
on Ellen White’s statement that “amalgamation of man and
beast” can still be seen “in certain races of men.” Is it possible that
she too shared the common belief that black people might be
descendants of apes, thus proving her use of “amalgamation” was
literally about crossbreeding of man and beast?
One does not have to look far to establish that Ellen White’s
“inspired” view of the amalgamation of man and beast was
precisely based on the idea of hybridization between humans
and animals. In 1868, when questions were being asked about
certain controversial statements by Ellen White, including
her amalgamation statements, Uriah Smith, Editor of the SDA
publication, Review and Herald, came to her defense. Four
years after Ellen White’s first published amalgamation remarks
(1864) he published a book covering fifty-two objections to her
statements entitled: The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation
of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture.
Smith does not deny that Ellen White meant that there was
amalgamation/crossbreeding between man and beast. In fact, he
confirms that this is what she was saying. His essential argument
in her defense was that although the effects of this amalgamation

691
Brian Neumann

could still be seen in certain races of men, did not mean that they
were not human or human beings. He went further to actually
name some of the confused species that Ellen White herself did
not name. He said that Ellen White’s: “vision speaks of all these
classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration,
they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are
not human beings! But does anyone deny the general statement
contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they
could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild
Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps
the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists
affirm that the line of demarcation between the human and
animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm,
to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins.” 11 He
said that, in this day and age, “we are to take all races and peoples
as we find them. And those who manifest sufficient powers of
mind to show that they are moral and accountable beings, are
of course to be esteemed as objects of regard and philanthropic
effort.” 12 He then rounds off his defense by asking: “Then what
about all this ado over the charge, which is itself false, that the
visions teach that the negro is not a human being? What does it
amount to? It is simply an effort to create prejudice in the minds
of the people…” 13
In an official church release, by the editor of its foremost
publication, The Review and Herald, in the defense of Ellen White,
it is clearly spelled out that she did indeed mean amalgamation in
the sense of crossbreeding between man and beast.
Ellen White’s husband, James White, read Smith’s book and
in the August 25, 1868, Review and Herald, enthusiastically
recommended Smith’s book. He said: “While reading the
manuscript, I felt very grateful to God that our people could
have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize
which others despise and oppose. This book is designed for very

692
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

wide circulation.” Apparently, James and Ellen White took 2,000

copies of Smith’s book with them to camp meetings that year. 14
Amazingly, at the end of Nichol’s defense he refers to James
White’s endorsement of Smith’s book by suggesting that just because
James endorsed it did not mean that he agreed “with every detail of
every explanation and defense that Smith presented.” 15 He goes on
to comment on the fact that later James “gently ridiculed a point
of prophetic interpretation that is reflected in one statement…”
16
Apparently, this minor correction by James White is enough
evidence that there may well have been other things in the book that
he and Ellen White might not have agreed with, including
Smith’s defense of Ellen White’s Bmalgamation statements. If
anything is a stretch, then such a premise surely takes the cake.
The fact of the matter is that Ellen White had 47 years, from
the time of the book’s release till her death in 1915 to correct
Smith. However, she never did. A number of times over the years
she disagreed with Smith and even stated, in reference to his
book on Daniel and Revelation that there were some things she
did not see exactly as he did, but never, not even vaguely, did she
ever correct him on such a serious mistake as misrepresenting
her own “inspired” comments on amalgamation. If his defense
had been misleading then why didn’t she personally publish some
clarification that would correct his error and silence the critics?
She did attempt to clarify detractor’s objections over the years,
so why did she not address the amalgamation accusation? The
reason is simple. Uriah Smith had already done the job to her and
James White’s satisfaction.
Some modern-day apologists who defend her on the basis that
her amalgamation statements were indeed about crossbreeding
between man and beast can still not come up with any satisfactory
defense. After asking the question, “What is amalgamation?” one
modern day internet apologist expands on Uriah Smith’s defense
by declaring:

693
Brian Neumann

It is mixing things that should not be mixed.

It is now possible for scientists to do this–its called
GENETIC ENGINEERING. By introduc-
ing foreign genetic codes into the cell structures
they can cross species barriers and alter genetic codes!
But, the opponents say, “There was no genetic engineering
in Noah’s day!”
The trouble is, people are so sold on the evolution theory
that even those who still believe somewhat in creation cannot
conceive of the idea that people before the flood were very, very
intelligent and advanced scientifically. Their knowledge and
skill and understanding was WAY BEYOND OUR OWN. 17

Th e position of this internet apologist, based on Ellen

White’s own statements regarding the superior knowledge of
the antediluvians, is that they “experimented with genetics just
like scientists are doing today.” Th e reason they were able to do
this, according to divine revelations received by Ellen White, was
because of their superior intellect, used for the purpose of evil—
in particular the “one sin” of amalgamation which was “above” all
others. 18
It must be noted however that Ellen White didn’t know
anything about genetic engineering or that it is not possible to
cross-breed different species.
Nonetheless, to make the point more believable this apologist
refers to the fact that modern science has successfully bred
a genetically modified monkey at the Oregon Health Sciences
University. 19 Based on this modern-day scientific feat, which does
not even come close to the type of science needed to successfully
hybridize or amalgamate humans and animals, they assert that
it was obvious, “based on Ellen White’s writings” that “this type
of genetic knowledge was ONE OF THE BIG causes that God
sent the flood. He stopped transgenic modification of the species.
Who knows what kind of monstrosities would have resulted if
God had not stopped it?”

694
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Even if, for argument’s sake, the antediluvians did possess such
scientific ability, then how would it have been possible after the flood,
with no sophisticated scientific means, to continue the practice of
such advanced hybridization? After all, Ellen White did claim that:
“Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast…”
and that it could STILL be seen “in certain races of men.”20
TIis defender of Ellen White’s amalgamation teaching does
not explain how post-flood scientists were capable of developing the
means for successful crossbreeding of humans and animals so that
the effects could still be visible in certain races of men today. A big
deal is made about the amazing ability of the antediluvian people to
practice such science but no argument is presented to vindicate
Ellen White’s assertion that this science continued after the flood.
Th e reason for this is obvious, no such thing happened.
Modern science, with all of its knowledge and technology,
admits that there are simply too many things that would
stand in the way for the successful hybridization of animals to
occur. An article presenting these facts from an evolutionary
perspective stated:
In general, two types of changes prevent animals from inter-
breeding. The first includes all those factors called “pre-zygotic
reproductive isolating mechanisms”—that would make ferti-
lization impossible. After so many generations apart, a pair of
animals might look so different from one another that they’re
not inclined to have sex. (If we’re not even trying to mate with
monkeys, we’ll never have half-human, half-monkey babies).
If the animals do try to get it on despite changed appearances,
incompatible genitalia or sperm motility could pose another
problem: A human spermatozoon may not be equipped to navi-
gate the reproductive tract of a chimpanzee, for example.
The second type of barrier includes “post-zygotic repro-
ductive isolating mechanisms,” or those factors that would
make it impossible for a hybrid animal fetus to grow into a
reproductive adult. If a human were indeed inclined and able
to impregnate a monkey, post-zygotic mechanisms might result

695
Brian Neumann

in a miscarriage or sterile offspring. The further apart two ani-

mals are in genetic terms, the less likely they are to produce
viable offspring. At this point, humans seem to have been sepa-
rate from other animals for far too long to interbreed.21

Did Ellen White, as questioned by Francis Nichol, change

the meaning of the term amalgamation, contrary to anything
scientifically provable, except in some fictional sense, based on
evolutionary theory and the underlying racial prejudice of the
19th Century?
According to Nichol the “burden of proof rests on those who
affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the
term” amalgamation. However, based on the evidence and the
contradictory vindications, coming from Ellen White apologists,
the burden for any kind of proof, whether of the Uriah Smith or
Francis Nichol variety, rests on the supporters of Ellen White.
As is usually the case with those who defend Ellen
White, a clear unambiguous vindication of her questionable
statements, rather than simply an alternative explanation, is
never forthcoming. Even the official defenders within the SDA
denomination, such as Uriah Smith, who was alive and worked
closely with James and Ellen White, or Francis Nichol, who
published what is considered by many to be a definitive defense
against the critics, came up with two opposite explanations of
Ellen White’s amalgamation statements. Not even James White
or Ellen White herself, who were well aware of the criticisms,
spoke out to set the record straight.
In a “nutshell,” not only did Ellen White have no understanding
of the laws of genetics in the natural world but along with her
husband James and Uriah Smith her thinking appears to have
been rather in line with racist attitudes and other ludicrous
dogma’s of the day.

696
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

EVER GREEN
Once again, Ellen White comes up with an “inspired” statement
for which no real verifiable evidence in the Bible or real world
exists. Simply because she claimed to have received it via Divine
revelation, should it be believed and accepted as fact? Amazingly,
there are many, even well educated SDA’s, who simply on the
basis of something that has proceeded from the mouth or pen
of Ellen White, accept it as such. In this case, the statement in
question is related to the first visible effects of sin in the natural
world. Ellen White wrote:
As they witnessed in drooping flower and falling leaf the
first signs of decay, Adam and his companion mourned more
deeply than men now mourn over their dead. The death of the
frail, delicate flowers was indeed a cause of sorrow; but when
the goodly trees cast off their leaves, the scene brought vividly
to mind the stern fact that death is the portion of every liv-
ing thing. 22

TIe question that needs to be asked is whether or not the

natural decay of flowers or leaves turning the DPMPST of autumn
were simply the result of the built in process’ of nature’s cycle or
whether it was a direct result of sin coming into the world?
TIere is no doubt, based on Ellen White’s description, that any
sign of decay in nature was absolutely unprecedented until
Adam and Eve sinned.
Another Ellen White statement, related to decay in the
natural world, is what she experienced while in vision, when
picking flowers in heaven:
I saw another field full of all kinds of flowers, and as I plucked
them, I cried out, “They will never fade!” Next I saw a field of
tall grass, most glorious to behold; it was living green and had
a reflection of silver and gold as it waved proudly to the glory
of King Jesus. 23

697
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Based on these two samples from Ellen White’s writings, it is

suggested that in a perfect, sinless environment, whether Eden
or Heaven, no decay occurs in nature. Th e cycle we witness in
nature today, where leaves fall, buds form, new leaves and
flowers appear, etc., is all the result of the curse of sin. Without
even getting into the science of this yet, does such a proposition
even make logical sense? Did Adam and Eve ever pick flowers?
If so, did the flowers they picked, once disconnected from the
water and minerals that the parent tree absorbed from the soil,
simply lie on the ground forever like some “plastic” plant and
never fade? Or rather, did the leaves and flowers they might
have plucked become compost for the continued growth and
sustenance of the rest of nature?
When God said, “let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its own kind,
whose seed is in itself…” (Genesis 1:11), did He create one plant
of each variety that would never reproduce, that would simply
stand like plastic creations for the rest of time? Obviously not.
The intrinsic evidence is in the text of Genesis itself. Plants were
created to yield seed, to produce new plants “after its own kind.”
A built in, natural “cycle” is unquestionably implied.
Jesus Himself spoke of the natural cycle of seed bearing plants
in John 12:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of
wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die,
it bringeth forth much fruit.”
So, when Adam plucked a peach, ate it, and threw the pit on the
ground, did it really remain unchanged? Surely, for it to be the
seed that would give birth to a new tree, it would have to go through
the process that all seeds do to produce new plants or trees. Did
God not build a natural cycle into nature as part of His plan for
nature to be self-sustaining—all organisms dependant on each other,
working together as one whole to continually produce and
reproduce? Should the natural cycle really be understood as
DEATH, the curse of sin, or the means of producing new LIFE?

698
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Is there not amazing beauty in the intricate, self-sustaining,

biological process’ of the natural world? Is this to be understood
as death or sin? When God said that man would surely die if
he sinned, was He suggesting that such a radical, never before
witnessed change would occur in nature, such as a leaf or flower
fading and that this was to be understood as part of the sure
result of sin?
I am not suggesting that nature hasn’t been affected by sin,
it surely has. The question is whether a fading flower or leaf, the
process of which is so obviously a part of nature’s cycle, were
really, as claimed by Ellen White, one the first signs of EFBUI in
a world turned sinful?
It does not take much to imagine what a populated, sinless
world would look like after a few thousand years of billions of
people picking flowers and throwing them on the ground. The
earth would be littered in an ocean of “plastic” flowers that
never faded or went through the natural cycle of nature we see
today. No trees would cast their seed, no new buds would form
and grow into flowers, the promise of fruit to come… For any
of this to happen something would have to fall on the ground,
whether leaf or flower—leaves and flowers that would never fade
or die? They would simply lie there for all eternity in their full
original colour? If this were to be the case, then why did God
even bother creating plants that yielded seed after their own
kind? There is simply no rational or logical explanation, not even
biblical, that would support Ellen White’s claim that “Adam and
his companion mourned more deeply than men now mourn over
their dead,” when they saw the first sign of decay in flowers and
leaves. Every time we look at the amazing yellows oranges and
reds of autumn, should we be reminded that it would never have
looked this way if it were not for the curse of sin… ?
The following article, Do Leaves Die? by Michael Todhunter,
does a far better job of addressing the questions I have alluded
to. It offers solid rational, biblical and scientific perspectives that

699
Brian Neumann

reveal the ludicrousness of Ellen White’s so-called Divine insight

into the results of sin on the natural world:
Fall in America and throughout much of the Northern
Hemisphere is a beautiful time of year. Bright reds, oranges,
and yellows rustle in the trees and then blanket the ground as
warm weather gives way to winter cold. Many are awed at
God’s handiwork as the leaves float to the ground like Heaven’s
confetti. But fall may also make us wonder, “Did Adam and
Eve ever see such brilliant colors in the Garden of Eden?”
Realizing that these plants wither at the end of the growing
season may also raise the question, “Did plants die before the
Fall of mankind?”
Before we can answer this question, we must consider the
definition of die. We commonly use the word die to describe
when plants, animals, or humans no longer function biologi-
cally. However, this is not the definition of the word die or
death in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for die (or
death), mût (or mavet), is used only in relation to the death of
man or animals with the breath of life, not regarding plants.
This usage indicates that plants are viewed differently from
animals and humans.

Plants, Animals, and Man—All Different

What is the difference between plants and animals or
man? For the answer we need to look at the phrase nephesh
chayyah. Nephesh chayyah is used in the Bible to describe sea
creatures (Genesis 1:20–21), land animals (Genesis 1:24),
birds (Genesis 1:30), and man (Genesis 2:7). Nephesh is never
used to refer to plants. Man specifically is denoted as nephesh
chayyah, a living soul, after God breathed into him the breath
of life. This contrasts with God telling the earth on Day 3 to
bring forth plants (Genesis 1:11). The science of taxonomy,
the study of scientific classification, makes the same distinction
between plants and animals.
Since God gave only plants (including their fruits and
seeds) as food for man and animals, then Adam, Eve, and

700
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

all animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Genesis

1:29–30). Plants were to be a resource of the earth that God
provided for the benefit of nephesh chayyah creatures—both
animals and man. Plants did not “die,” as in mût; they were
clearly consumed as food. Scripture describes plants as wither-
ing (Hebrew yabesh), which means “to dry up.” This term is
more descriptive of a plant or plant part ceasing to function
biologically.

A “Very Good” Biological Cycle

When plants wither or shed leaves, various organisms,
including bacteria and fungi, play an active part in recycling
plant matter and thus in providing food for man and animals.
These decay agents do not appear to be nephesh chayyah and
would also have a life cycle as nutrients are reclaimed through
this “very good” biological cycle. As the plant withers, it may
produce vibrant colours because, as a leaf ceases to function, the
chlorophyll degrades, revealing the colours of previously hidden
pigments.
Since decay involves the breakdown of complex sugars and
carbohydrates into simpler nutrients, we see evidence for the
Second Law of Thermodynamics before the Fall of mankind.
But in the pre-Fall world this process would have been a per-
fect system, which God described as “very good.”

A Creation That Groans

It is conceivable that God withdrew some of His sustain-
ing (restraining) power at the Fall when He said, “Cursed is
the ground” (Genesis 3:17), and the augmented Second Law of
Thermodynamics resulted in a creation that groans and suffers
(Romans 8:22).
Although plants are not the same as man or animals, God
used them to be food and a support system for recycling nutri-
ents and providing oxygen. They also play a role in mankind’s
choosing life or death. In the Garden were two trees—the Tree
of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The
fruit of the first was allowed for food, the other forbidden. In

701
Brian Neumann

their rebellion Adam and Eve sinned and ate the forbidden
fruit, and death entered the world (Romans 5:12).
Furthermore, because of this sin, all of creation, includ-
ing nephesh chayyah, suffers (Romans 8:19-23). We are born
into this death as descendants of Adam, but we find our hope
in Christ. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22 kjv). As you look at the
“dead” leaves of fall and remember that the nutrients will be
reclaimed into new life, recognize that we too can be reclaimed
from death through Christ’s death and resurrection.

What determines a leaf ’s colour?

When trees bud in the spring, their green leaves renew for-
ests and delight our senses. The green colour comes from the pig-
ment chlorophyll, which resides in the leaf ’s cells and captures
sunlight for photosynthesis. Other pigments called carotenoids
are always present in the cells of leaves as well, but in the sum-
mer their yellow or orange colours are generally masked by the
abundance of chlorophyll.
In the fall a kaleidoscope of colours breaks through. With
shorter days and colder weather, chlorophyll breaks down, and
the yellowish colours become visible. Various pigments produce
the purple of sumacs, the golden bronze of beeches, and the
browns of oaks. Other chemical changes produce the fiery red
of the sugar maple. When fall days are warm and sunny, much
sugar is produced in the leaves. Cool nights trap it there, and
the sugars form a red pigment called anthocyanin.
Leaf colours are most vivid after a warm, dry summer fol-
lowed by early autumn rains, which prevent leaves from fall-
ing early. Prolonged rain in the fall prohibits sugar synthesis in
the leaves and thus produces a drabness due to a lack of antho-
cyanin production.
Still other changes take place. A special layer of cells slowly
severs the leaf ’s tissues that are attached to the twig. The leaf
falls, and a tiny scar is all that remains. Soon the leaf decom-
poses on the forest floor, releasing important nutrients back

702
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

into the soil to be recycled, perhaps by other trees that will once
again delight our eyes with rich and vibrant colours. 24

In reference to the redeemed and eternal life, Revelation 21:4

says there will be “no more death… neither shall there be any
more pain,” because, “the former things have passed away.”
T
Ie Bible is not talking about the natural cycle of nature—the
natural cycle is not death even though it feels the effects of sin.
On the New Earth the redeemed will eat the fruit of the tree of
life and of all the other fruits, grains and nuts, etc., God created
for them to use. Each time the redeemed have picked all the
fruit from a tree that tree will not just remain bear for the rest
of eternity. Small sprouts will spring up, flowers will bud, seeds
will drop… new fruit will grow and the cycle of life will continue
—not a sign of sin or death as a result of sin, simply part of
God’s plan for nature to replenish itself.
T
Ius, the question of leaves fading as the result of sin is
simply one more example, among many, where Ellen White
claimed Divine insight that, when critically examined, does not
vindicate her but rather puts her and the institution she helped
found, the SDA Church, in an extremely embarrassing light.

TO EAT OR NOT TO EAT

When it comes to Ellen White’s counsel on lifestyle issues,
particularly the question of diet in relation to eating “the flesh of dead
animals,” as she often put it, the contradictions in profession
as opposed to her own personal practice are numerous. From
the time she received the first health vision (1863), for at least
thirty years or more, while she was actively promoting
vegetarianism, till 1894, Ellen White ate meat—even meat that
was unclean according to Scripture. Yet she claimed: “It has been
reported by some that I have not followed the principles of health
reform as I have advocated them with my pen; but I can say that I have

703
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

CFFO
a faithful health reformer. Th
ose who have been members

of my family know that this is true.” 25
Was she truly a faithful health reformer at all times? Was
she faithfully following health reform in the 1870’s when she, in
very strong and often condemnatory terms castigated others for
eating, not only meat but even butter and spices too?
On one occasion (there were more) during those years she
wrote: “One family in particular have needed all the benefits they
could receive from the reform in diet, yet these very ones have
been completely backslidden. Meat and butter have been used by
them quite freely and spices have not been entirely discarded.” 26
Even though, during this same period she claimed: “I do not
preach one thing and practice another…,” 27 it can clearly be
shown, not just once, but over and over again, that Ellen White
did not “practice” what she preached in regard to her own health
message. In fact, it can be confirmed beyond doubt that
her message on meat eating and its relation to living the
Christian life and preaching the gospel, is completely out of line
with the most direct teachings of Scripture and the practice
of God’s people throughout time.
The truth about these things has been, if not blatantly hidden,
then at least twisted and sanitized, to the degree that church
members and even the bulk of ministers and other church workers,
have ended up with a view of Ellen White and her health message
that is based on a complete intentional fabrication of the facts.
The issue is not whether Ellen White was right about many of
the things she wrote concerning vegetarianism. In many respects
she was certainly correct—time and practice by many in the SDA
faith have proven this beyond doubt. Before Ellen White ever
wrote her first testimonies on health reform it was taught and
practiced by well known physicians in Europe and America, to
good effect. Indeed, as shown in an earlier chapter, Ellen White
gained much of her knowledge about health reform from others
and plagiarized from their writings. Thus, the question is not

704
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

about the effectiveness of applying certain health principles but

about Ellen White’s twisting of Scripture to make, specifically
the question of meat eating, a test for those who were God’s
messengers for the end-time and her own hypocritical practice
as God’s “chosen” end-time messenger.
The first phase of this investigation is to look at whether
Ellen White practiced what she preached. While she proclaimed
the dangers of eating meat, did she eat it herself ? Once this is
done we will look at whether her testimony on this issue can be
supported by Scripture.

Practice What You Preach

When it comes to Ellen White doing what she advised others not
to do, the defense is invariably that she was human—prophet’s are
human and are prone to failings like anyone else. There is no doubt
that this is true. Prophets are sinners and can have shortcomings
like any other human being. Paul’s point in Acts 14:15, when he
said that he and Barnabas were men of “like passions” with all
other human beings, would be a good example. However, in the
case of Ellen White and her practice, as opposed to her teaching
on the question of eating meat, one is not just talking about
human failure in the general sense. Her apologists focus on this
aspect and by doing so confuse three separate issues—human
failure as opposed to theological failure or a combination of both.
It is very hard to stay morally true when the theological basis for
what you are demanding is not based on direct revelation from
God or is devoid of clear, unambiguous scriptural support
TIe real source for Ellen White not practicing what she
preached in regard to the eating of meat goes back to the failed
theological basis for the teaching. In the Bible, when a prophet
who was remaining true to God, received an instruction from
God (which would not contradict the other teachings or theology
of the rest of Scripture—Scripture being the test) the prophet
remained true to that teaching. Scriptural examples of
continued

705
Brian Neumann

moral and/or theological failure in a prophet are usually in the

case of the prophet being either false or apostate—such as the
prophet Balaam.
When it came to being a teacher or spiritual leader of the
people, whether prophet or otherwise, presenting what were
ostensibly emphatic scriptural requirements that God’s people
were expected to practice, but not practicing it themselves, then
Christ’s words to the scribes and Pharisees become specifically
applicable (Matthew 23:2-4):
The scribes and the pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore
whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do
not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind
heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s
shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of
their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men…

Although He is instructing his listeners to follow the teachings of the

scribes and Pharisees, no doubt insofar as the teachings did not
contradict the Scripture (“we ought to obey God rather than man”),
Christ is addressing the essential problem of hypocrisy and its
effects on others. TIe people were asked to obey rules that the
spiritual leaders neglected to follow themselves. In doing this, they
placed unnecessary burdens on others that essentially made it
difficult for them to enter the kingdom. TIe leaders could not enter
because of their hypocrisy, and by demanding unscriptural
obedience, made it impossible for others to enter as well. Verse 13
says: “… you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you
neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go
in”—a combined theological, moral failure. When imposed on
others, particularly on the basis of it being direct instruction from
God or accompanied by the claim that the teaching is soundly
scriptural (especially from a prophet), the effects on followers
who themselves become promulgators of the error is disastrous. No
wonder Christ said: “… ye compass sea and land to make one

706
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the

child of hell than yourselves” (verse 15). With these thoughts the
starting date of 1863 and Ellen White’s first health vision in
mind, let’s consider the following statement she made in 1864:
But since the Lord presented before me, in June, 1863, the
subject of meat eating in relation to health, I have left the
use of meat. For a while it was rather difficult to bring my
appetite to bread, for which, formerly, I had but little relish.
But by persevering, I have been able to do this. I have lived
for nearly one year without meat. For about six months most
of the bread upon our table has been unleavened cakes, made of
unbolted wheat meal and water, and a very little salt. We use
fruits and vegetables liberally. I have lived for eight months
upon two meals a day. 28

Th e first point to observe is that when “the Lord” gave her

this vision it was directly related to “the subject of meat eating in
relation to health.” According to her testimony, she responded to
God’s instruction and “left the use of meat,” for “nearly one year,”
at that time.
When God gives a vision one can be sure that timing and
significance are vital considerations—He would not give it
otherwise. If the instruction regarding meat eating was important
in 1863 it would remain important, perhaps even more so, as time
went by. In fact, in later instruction Ellen White warned of the
greater danger that would exist because of diseased meat, the
closer God’s people got to the end of the world.
By 1867 health reform became an intrinsic part of the “three
angel’s messages” (Revelation 14) as can be substantiated by Ellen
White saying:
The health reform, I was shown, is a part of the third angel’s
message and is just as closely connected with it as are the arm
and hand with the human body. 29

707
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

To make such emphatic connection to the very warning

message for the end-time (Revelation 14:9-10), as claimed by
Ellen White, suggests immediate and continued adherence till
all is done—no compromise. Whether or not a health message is
implied in this portion of Scripture is not important at this
point. What is important is the imperative nature of Ellen
White’s counsel and how she imposed the burden of
obedience of her instructions on others while not following it
herself. In 1868 she wrote to some parents stating:
You place on your table butter, eggs, and meat, and your chil-
dren partake of them. They are fed with the very things that
will excite their animal passions, and then you come to meet-
ing and ask God to bless and save your children. How high
do your prayers go? 30

She claims the problem of eating meat is so significant that it

excites “animal passions” in those who consume it (something
she warned about numerous times). Worse than that, it prevents
“prayers” from being answered. Interestingly enough, in spite of
the counsel to these parents, God, at another time, told Ellen
White that it would be beneficial to feed eggsto a sick child,
one of the ingredients she stated excited “their animal passions”
and prevented prayers from reaching God. 31
Nothing Ellen White was suggesting can be substantiated by
either direct teaching or the example of the practice of God’s
people in Scripture. Throughout the scriptures God’s people ate
eggs, butter and meat. In spite of this God answered their prayers.
One does not either find any warning in Scripture that the eating
of these things would arouse animal passions. If what she was
counseling is indeed true then why did she, as will be shown from
the “horse’s mouth,” risk exciting her own animal passions, over
and over again, by eating various kinds of meat.
In 1870 she wrote about the compromise of eating meat,
EVEN OCCASIONALLY:

708
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Those who digress occasionally to gratify the taste in eating a

fattened turkey or other flesh meats, pervert their appetites,
and are not the ones to judge the benefits of the system of health
reform. They are controlled by taste, not by principle. 32

It is not hard to notice how the tone of this type of instruction

would inspire feelings of guilt in the receiver and place a huge
burden of compliance upon them. In light of daring to give such
direct, categorical, no-holds-barred instruction to others it would be
imperative for the messenger to astutely practice what they
preached. Especially in view of the fact that those who even
occasionally eat meat cannot be trusted to judge the benefits of
health reform. Was Ellen White’s judgment beyond being
impaired if she ate meat herself—was hers a special, exceptional
case? Considering the health issues she suffered with all her life it
would seem even more imperative for her to stay absolutely true to
the counsel. Yet, at the 1919 Bible Conference, A. G. Daniells, then
General Conference President of the SDA Church and long-
time friend of the White’s, testified that in 1871 Ellen and James
White, while down in Texas, were eating meat every day:
When we were down in Texas, and old Brother White was
breaking down, (Sister White) just got the most beautiful
venison every day to eat, and my wife would cook it, and he
would sit down and say ‘O Ellen, that is just the thing!’ She
never did hold him up and make him live on a diet of starch! 33

So while she was telling others that even the occasional

compromise with eating meat would pervert their appetites and
cloud their judgment, she and her husband were eating meat
every day—while her husband was sick. Lest it be said, because
of it not being emphatically stated in the above quote that
Ellen White herself was eating the meat
BOE
UIBU
she was faithful
to the counsel, the following letter she wrote to her family in
1878, is telling indeed:

709
Brian Neumann

Christmas morning we all took breakfast together—James

Cornell; Florence and Clara, their two girls; Brother and
Sister Moore and their three children; Sister Bahler and Etta,
a girl living with them; and Sister Daniells, our cook, Father,
and myself. We had a quarter of venison cooked, and stuffing.
It was as tender as a chicken. We all enjoyed it very much.
There is plenty of venison in market. 34

Not only does she admit to eating the meat, her tone is also
most complimentary and enthusiastic. One can only wonder,
based on her own testimony about meat-eating, how her and
James’ animal passions must have been excited as a result of that
Christmas breakfast.
Yet, while she herself was enthusiastically in contravention of
the health reform message, she could write in 1871, the year she
was eating venison with the Daniells’:
The apostle Paul exhorts the church, “I beseech you therefore,
brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a
living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your rea-
sonable service.” Men, then, can make their bodies unholy by
sinful indulgences. If unholy, they are unfitted to be spiritual
worshipers, and are not worthy of heaven. If man will cherish
the light that God in mercy gives him upon health reform, he
may be sanctified through the truth, and fitted for immortal-
ity. But if he disregards that light, and lives in violation of
natural law, he must pay the penalty. 35

Paul’s instruction was not in connection with the eating of

food. His other comments regarding this matter clearly indicate
that he did not see “meat”/food as a salvational issue. What is
significant is the audacity of Ellen White to make the practice of
health reform (the eating of meat being one of the central issues
in this message right from the start), a question of salvation—

“not worthy of heaven”/”fitted for immortality”—while she was
flagrantly ignoring the message herself. Again, in 1873 she wrote:

710
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Brother Glover left the camp today to go for supplies. We are

getting short of provisions. We got him the best we could for his
meals on the way. He was to send Mr. Walling immediately
and to get our mail. A young man from Nova Scotia had come
in from hunting. He had a quarter of deer. He had traveled
20 miles with this deer upon his back. The remainder of the
deer he had left hung up in the woods. He saw six elk but did
not try to shoot them as he knew he could not carry them out.
He gave us a small piece of the meat, which we made into
broth. Willie shot a duck which came in a time of need, for our
supplies were rapidly diminishing. 36

It starts to become quite apparent how the words of Christ to

the scribes and Pharisees become directly applicable to Ellen
White. It is the inconsistency of her practice that makes it even
more problematic. Not because all are sinners and stumble and
fall many times in their walk. But, because she as a prophet of
God, while demanding explicit compliance on pain of eternal
loss, was doing what she claimed God forbade—with apparent
enthusiasm. Compromise of this nature is obviously the reason
why, when in 1874, her and James gave up meat, at least for
a time, it was bound to be a commitment that would not last
for long. TIat year, she wrote to her children:
Your father and I have dropped milk, cream, butter, sugar, and
meat entirely since we came to California. We are far clearer
in mind and far better in body. We live very plainly. We can-
not write unless we do live simply. Your father bought meat
once for May while she was sick, but not a penny have we
expended on meat since… 37

Not only did they give up meat but butter as well, something
else that was forbidden because of its potential to excite animal
passions. Interestingly, Ellen White seemed to think it was
perfectly fine to buy meat for sick “May,” even though she, in
1868 told parents not to give their sick children meat and butter
and that if they did God would not hear their prayers.

711
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

Interestingly, fish did not seem to count as meat, because in

1896 she wrote from Australia:
Two years ago [1894 when she finally gave up meat—not
fish—entirely] I came to the conclusion that there was dan-
ger in using the flesh of dead animals, and since then I have
not used meat at all. It is never placed on my table. I use fish
when I can get it. We can get beautiful fish from the saltwater
lake near here. I use neither tea nor coffee. As I labor against
these things, I cannot but practice that which I know to be
best for health, and my family are all in perfect harmony with
me. You see, my dear niece, that I am telling you matters just
as they are. 38
However, getting back to her and James’ decision to quit meat, this
fresh awakening to the dangers of meat eating did not last for long.
In 1879 she was having beef tea for breakfast. 39 In 1880, chicken broth for
breakfast. 40 TIese occasions, although not meat-eating in the complete
sense, may well have been an indication of progressive compromise
until she was finally eating meat in the “full-blown” sense again.
Th
is time, not simply beef or chicken, but meat that according
to Scripture was declared unclean.
In 1880 Ellen White scolded a Battle Creek youth for
eating oysters41 and then two years later, in 1882, while
living at Healdsburg, California, she was adding “cans of
oysters” to her shopping list. TIis list appears in a letter she wrote
to her daughter-in-law, Mary Kelsey White, who was going to
visit from Oakland. Ellen White requested, among other things,
oysters:
Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones,
please do so. Th ese last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If
you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes,
please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of
good oysters, get them. 42

According to Scripture, oysters would fall in the category of

unclean meats. Yet, in this case, the issue is not even
so much about

712
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

eating meat, clean or unclean. Rather it is about condemning

others while doing the opposite yourself. In 1888 Ellen White
emphatically stated, as she had on other occasions:
I do not preach one thing and practice another. I do not pre-
sent to my hearers rules of life for them to follow while I make
an exception in my own case… 43

Th ere is simply no getting around the fact that Ellen White, on

numerous occasions, made exceptions for herself. What comes
across as really disturbing is the descriptive language she used
to address the issue of eating “the flesh of dead animals”—as
if she was utterly repulsed by the practice—while freely and
enthusiastically imbibing in its consumption herself.
With this kind of hypocrisy taking place, it is hardly surprising
that in 1891 Ellen White’s duplicitous practice in regard to health
reform blew up in her face as the result of a communication her
editor, Fannie Bolton, sent to E. C. Slawson in regard to an oyster
binge and the eating of “bloody” beefsteak and shrimp (also
addressed in an earlier chapter). This incident took place on the
day that Fannie and Ellen White sailed for Australia:
…At the depot Sr. White was not with her party, so Eld. Starr
hunted around till he found her behind a screen in the res-
taurant very gratified in eating big white raw oysters with
vinegar, pepper and salt. I was overwhelmed by this incon-
sistency and dumb with horror. Eld. Starr hurried me out and
made all sort of excuses and justifications of Sr. White’s action;
yet I kept thinking in my heart, ‘What does this mean? What
has God said? How does she dare eat these abominations?’ On
the cars out to California, W. C. White came into the train
with a great thick piece of bloody beefsteak spread out on a
brown paper and he bore it through the tourist car on his own
two hands. Sarah McEnterfer who is now with Sr. White as
her attendant, cooked it on a small oil stove and everyone ate of
it except myself and Marian Davis… I was with Mrs. White
for seven and a half years like a soul on a rock, because of all

713
Brian Neumann

kinds of inconsistencies, injustices, and chicaneries. I have seen

Sr. White eat meat, chicken, fish, fowl, shrimps, rich cake,
pies, etc. etc. I cannot go into detail but Sr. Daniells told me she
herself had cooked meat for Sr. White on the campground. Eld.
Horn told me his wife had done the same thing. Sr. Rousseau
told me that she too had done so… 44

For those who have read my earlier chapter on the Fannie

Bolton story you will know that Ellen White defenders have left no
stone unturned to paint as black a picture of her as possible—practically
all she has ever said has been labeled as lies. I discussed those
defamatory attempts in that chapter so there is no need to go over
that again. TIe thing about her testimony regarding Ellen White’s
“carnivorous compromises” can hardly be labeled as being fabrications.
I have already shown how Ellen White contradicted her own
counsel. T
Iere can be no debate in this. A big noise is made
about &MEFS
4UBSS calling Fannie’s claims “rubbish.” When asked
about Ellen White’s meat binge he apparently said:
I can only say that I regard it as the most absurdly, untruthful
lot of rubbish that I have ever seen or read regarding our dear
Sister white. The event simply never occurred. I never saw
your mother eat oysters or meat of any kind either in a res-
taurant or at her own table. Fannie Bolton’s statement that
‘Elder Starr hunted around till he found her behind a screen
in the restaurant of the station where she was apparently very
gratified in eating big white raw oysters with vinegar, pepper
and salt,’ is a lie of the first order… the story of the ‘bloody
beefsteak’ spread on a brown paper, and carried into the tour-
ist car and cooked by Miss McEnterfer, is. I do not believe that
either. I think this entire letter was written by Fannie in one
of her most insane moments… 45

Th e first thing to consider is that if, as already revealed, the

prophet can tell outright lies about herself never contradicting
her own message in word and practice, then why would it not
be possible for one of her faithful followers, such as Starr, to

714
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

blatantly lie in order to protect her? The second thing to consider,

perhaps even more pertinent than the first, is that practically all
the things Fannie claimed Ellen White ate, things that Starr
claimed he did not even see her eat at her own table, she herself,
at different times over the years, admitted to eating—Her letters
about eating chicken, deer, duck, beef and her shopping list for
oysters, etc.—personal testimonies against herself. This alone
adds credibility and likelihood to Fannie’s claims while making
Starr’s denials look like exaggerated fabrications.
Fannie was by no means a stupid woman. She was well educated
and possessed a mind capable of complex deduction, the very
abilities that made her such a talented editor. Thus, it would be
wholly out of character for her to offer sources of evidence (names)
when she knew full well that none of them had ever confided
anything to her at all. She named, Sarah McEnterfer, Marian Davis,
Sr. Daniells, Eld. Horn and Sr. Rousseau, all of whom either cooked
meat for Ellen White, saw her eating meat or were associated with
someone who had—people who could potentially corroborate her
testimony. In fact, the reader will remember that Elder Daniells
himself said that his wife had cooked meat for the White’s when
they visited Texas in 1871. So, in spite of Starr’s attempt to make it
sound ridiculous that Ellen White would eat meat in a restaurant
or at home, testimony from her own mouth and others say exactly
the opposite. The fact that none of the people she named are on
record as either debunking or confirming her account, is neither
here nor there as the investigation seems to really have stopped at
Elder Starr. It goes without saying that enough evidence exists to
lend ample credibility to Fannie’s account.
In fact, another piece of interesting evidence can be found in
Ellen White’s son Willie’s response to Starr’s letter. He confirmed,
“I [Willie] went out and purchased two or three pounds of
beefsteak and this was cooked by Sister McEnterfer on a alcohol
stove, and most of the members that composed Sister White’s
party partook of it.” 46

715
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

He could not comment on the oysters as he was not present to

witness this episode and so obviously found it expedient to
accept Starr’s account, saying that he regarded it as “an
unwarranted fabrication.” 47
However, it will be noticed by the astute reader that Willie
corroborated a number of vital details of Fannie’s story, things
that Starr had emphatically denied were possible. He confirmed
that he was the one who provided the beefsteak, Sister McEnterfer
cooked it and “most of the members of Sister White’s party” ate
it—Fannie Bolton and Marian Davis refrained.
Another convenient piece of evidence can be found in a letter
that John Harvey Kellogg wrote to E. S. Ballenger in January of 1936.
In this letter he writes about a number of issues and comments
on Elder Starr’s feigned ignorance of Ellen White’s meat eating
habits. What makes Kellogg’s words significant is the fact that
during Ellen White’s stay in Australia she personally wrote to
him and confirmed the specific occasion that finally decided her
to permanently give up eating meat. Following is his account:
I am surprised that Elder Starr 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 tem-
perance was attended by a Catholic woman who was presi-
dent 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.” 48

716
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Kellogg’s testimony lends greater credibility to Fannie’s

claims while casting an even more negative light on Elder
Starr’s testimony. In the 1890’s Ellen White had regular contact
with Kellogg. Th is was before their falling out in later years
—an interesting story that could occupy a whole other book.
Her account of the event that inspired her to finally give up meat
for good (1894) is most revealing—revealing, because of the
time-frame and cause for her decision.
For over thirty years, since her health reform vision of 1863,
when apparently God Himself warned her of the dangers of eating
the flesh of animals, and during which time she warned people
of the eternal consequences of doing the same, she continued to
imbibe the habit.
It would appear that it was not God who inspired her to give up
meat, in spite of the fact that she had been addressed on this issue
face to face, as it were, by the Almighty Himself—at least this was
her claim. After thirty years of clearly relishing the consumption of
meat she finally gave it up because a Catholic vegetarian implored
her, with tears in her eyes, to do so—more than likely the rheumatism
played somewhat of a part as well. Regarding this event and the
decision to quit, Ellen White wrote: “I have absolutely banished
meat from my table. It is an understood thing that whether I am
at home or abroad, nothing of this kind is to be used by my family,
or come upon my table. I have had some representations before my
mind in the night season on this subject that I feel that I have done
right in banishing meat from my table…” 49
It seems almost ridiculous that Ellen White, after all the light
she had received for over thirty years, would now, in 1894, speak
of “representations” (from God) “in the night season” confirming
she had “done right in banishing meat from her table.”
After telling people for decades that they should not serve
meat at their tables, God finally shows her that it was right for
her to have done the same!? Seriously!? Quite obviously, for all
those years, she saw herself as an exception to the rule. What adds

717
Brian Neumann

to the contradiction, especially in light of the strong testimony

she had given over all those years, is that she added the exception:
“Yet I would not take the position that meat be wholly discarded
by everyone.—for instance, by those dying of consumption.” 50
The evidence regarding Ellen White’s hypocrisy in regard to
the meat issue is overwhelming. The evidence that Starr was not
forthcoming in his testimony is just as damning. As usual though,
those who defend Ellen White will simply claim that Kellogg
is the liar, in spite of the fact that so much evidence points to
a contrary conclusion. Thirty years of evidence was supplied by
Ellen White’s own words and practice, culminating in the events
prior to and during her period of stay in Australia, where she
finally “banished it from her table.”
Quite clearly, it does not take much discernment to figure out
who the most likely liars in all this were—Starr, Ellen White,
Bolton, Kellogg… ? The answer seems to be quite apparent.
In that same letter, Kellogg revealed a number of other truth’s
regarding Ellen White and her appetite for the flesh of dead
animals. At the very start of his letter, in response to Ballenger’s
enquiry on the subject, he wrote:
Mrs. White ate meat and plenty of it. The next day after she
arrived in America on her return from Scandinavia. I took din-
ner 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.” 51

718
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

He then goes on to describe Ellen White’s practice of eating

meat at camp meetings:
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 gen-
erally 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 bet-
ter get some quick.” 52

Obviously, after Ellen White finally reached the point where

she had gathered enough will power to fully refrain from the
meat-eating practice, she was now free to really hit it hard when
it came to her counsel for others who were still participating in
the practice. In 1898 she could write about how she had to meet
the issue of meat eating for so many years:
The light has come to me for many years that meat eating is
not good for health or morals. And yet it seems so strange that
I have to meet this meat-eating question again and again. 53

Seriously!? What about her own health and morals—during

thirty years or more of relishing the habit? For all those years
she delivered testimonies as the end-time messenger of God.
Testimonies on meat-eating and a slew of other issues related to
health reform and more and then, in 1899, she has the boldness
to declare:
…those that do not accept the light that God has given on
health reform, who subsist on the flesh of dead animal…can
not represent the truth to others.54

719
Brian Neumann

Two years later, in 1900 she wrote:

No man should be set apart as a teacher of the people while his
own teaching or example contradicts the testimony God has
given His servants to bear in regard to diet…His disregard
of health reform unfits him to stand as the Lord’s messen-
ger… 55

Ellen White’s own testimony comes back to condemn her. If

anyone else was unfit to stand as a messenger of God while not
practicing health reform, then how much more so, one who was
a prophet of God? Interestingly enough, a few months later, with
full approval of Ellen White, A. G. Daniells, a lifelong meat
eater, was made president of the General Conference of SDA’s.
In 1902, Ellen White, in very strong language, wrote in a
Review and Herald article, concerning the eating of “the flesh of
dead animals,” using Daniel as her example:
God gave Daniel knowledge, superior knowledge, in all mat-
ters of difficulty, and the Lord gave him the power to obtain
that education that placed him on the highest platform of
higher education before all the astrologers and magicians in
all the realm of mighty Babylon. Now what is God going to
do for every diligent searcher for truth. You see what He gave
to Daniel. Daniel would not touch the king’s meat. Who of
us are eating meat today? Who have thought that they must
live upon the flesh of dead animals? We should not do it. We
are composed of what we eat. God has given you those things
that will make you healthy. Do not put corpses upon your
tables; do not, I beg of you, eat the flesh of dead animals; for
there is enough that you can live upon without that. 56

Again she wrote, concerning Daniel and his companions:

…as Daniel and his fellows were brought to the test, they
placed themselves fully on the side of righteousness and
truth. They did not move capriciously, but intelligently. They
decided that as flesh meat had not composed their diet in

720
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

the past, neither should it come into their diet in the future.
And as the use of wine had been prohibited to all those who
should engage in the service of God, they determined that
they would not partake of it… 57

Besides the glaring contradictions in Ellen White’s practice, her

use of Scripture, in this case Daniel, her prime example, is
completely erroneous. Daniel 1:8 says: “But Daniel purposed in
his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the
king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank.”
As a result of this commitment, Daniel and his three
companions, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, ate pulse and
drank water. Based on these statements in Scripture Ellen White
concludes that they decided not to use flesh meat or wine (no
doubt fomented) then or in the future—ostensibly, for the rest
of their lives. Is this what a reading of the Scripture reveals or is
this what Ellen White read into Scripture or, as the claim would
be, God revealed to her? If this is what was revealed to her as a
prophet of God then surely it can be tested and corroborated by
the law and the testimony—the Bible.
The first point to take note of is that the motivation for not
eating the kings meat was because they, as Jews, did not want to
defile themselves. Why not and with what? The first reason would
be that they did not want to eat that which the law prohibited.
Did the law prohibit eating meat? No, only unclean meats. This
leads one to conclude that the meats served from the king’s table
during this training period must have been unclean, improperly
prepared or sacrificed to idols. For this reason they chose pulse.
If only clean meat was being served, prepared according to God’s
instruction, without being sacrificed to idols, then it would surely
not have been a question of defilement via meat-eating but
rather of simply not wanting to eat meat that was not dealt with
according to Jewish law. God never said a Jew would be defiled by
eating meat—meat was not the issue, per-se. The problem was in
connection to eating unclean or improperly prepared meat.

721
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

When it came to the wine, two questions need to be asked:

was the abstinence for the duration of the training only or was it
a permanent abstinence, as suggested by Ellen White? Surely, there
should be some sort of biblical evidence, either verbally or via
silence that would help to establish some sort of conclusion.
In Daniel 10, when Daniel received a vision in the third year
of Cyrus, king of Persia, he had been fasting for three weeks. Verse
3 states: “I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine
in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole
weeks were fulfilled.”
Usually in the case of SDA Bible commentators, they resort
to an array of “hermeneutical acrobatics” to find variations of
scriptural passages or words, based on options in the original
language that will not contradict Ellen White. If they cannot
effectively side-step the issue or offer at least a marginally
feasible explanation, via their “interpretive contortionisms” they
will either avoid an explanation or opt for inserting a reference
to Ellen White’s comments on the subject—as if commentary
from her settles the matter. Their treatment of Daniel 10:3 and its
impact on how one understands Daniel 1:8 is no exception.
Daniel 10:3 specifically mentions Daniel abstaining from flesh
or wine. What kind of flesh was it? Well, the first thing to consider
is that the prophet Daniel wrote this himself—a first-hand
account of what he chose not to eat. In other words, there can be
no misunderstanding, via second-hand or third-party source, that
he was talking about a specific type of food—he chose the word
he would use. With this in mind, let’s examine the Hebrew word
for “flesh,” used in the text.
Basar (baw-sawr’), used 291 times in the Bible, means: flesh,
of the body, of humans, of animals, the body itself, euphemism for
male organ of generation, kindred/blood relations, frail erring flesh
(man as opposed to God), all living things, animals, mankind. Of
course, the context of its use in Daniel 10:3 is in relation to food.
Thus, there can be no doubt, based on the original word used by

722
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Daniel himself, when recounting his experience he was talking

about refraining from eating the flesh of animals/meat.
On page 858 in Volume 4 of the 1955 SDA Bible Commentary,
no comment is offered on this aspect of verse 3. In fact, both the
meat and wine are entirely ignored. There is no doubt that if the
commentators had to give an in-depth explanation of these aspects
they would have to admit that the “flesh” Daniel was referring to
was the flesh of dead animals, which Ellen White emphatically
said, in reference to Daniel 1:8, would not “come into their diet in
the future.” Daniel’s OWN testimony contradicts Ellen White.
No wonder the SDA commentary is mute on this point.
However, when one turns back to page 760 of the same SDA
Bible Commentary to see what is said about Daniel 1:8, the
commentators say exactly what I proposed a few paragraphs back
about what might have been motivating factors for not eating the
king’s meat:
There are several reasons why pious Jews would avoid eating
of the royal food: (1) the Babylonians, like other pagan nations,
ate unclean meats; (2) the beasts had not been properly killed
according to Levitical law (Lev. 17:14, 15); (3) a portion
of the animals eaten was first offered as a sacrifice to pagan
gods… (4) the use of luxurious and unhealthful food and drink
was contrary to strict principles of temperance…

NOTE: Point (4) is not really an option based on the

scriptural evidence but rather on Ellen White’s ideas, as
will be shown shortly.

Th e final option in their lists of possible reasons for avoiding the

“kings meat” states: “(5) for Daniel and his friends there was the
added desire to avoid a flesh-diet.” TIis comment about what
was motivating Daniel and his friends decision is, once again,
not based on clear textual evidence but rather on the words of
Ellen White. Indeed, right after that statement, “(5),”
the commentary

723
Brian Neumann

directs the reader to Ellen White: “(see EGW, Supplementary

Material on Dan. 1:8).”
When referring to Ellen White’s inspired comments however,
one is not only faced with the decision made by Daniel and his
friends regarding the king’s meat of Daniel 1:8.
Of course, for the Ellen White devotee, Daniel’s testimony
about flesh in Daniel 10, presents no problem at all. Ellen White
is the prophet of God, thus her inspired commentary cannot be
wrong. It does not matter that Daniel was a prophet of God as well
and that, based on the evidence of his own first-hand account, he
DID eat meat in the future. This is just another example of Ellen
White’s pontificating superseding the authority of Scripture.
Briefly, regarding the question of Wine. The Hebrew word
Yayin is used in Daniel 10:3. It comes from the root meaning,
to “effervesce” (to intoxicate or foment—when fomentation takes
place the liquid bubbles). Thus the word is often used in connection
with “banqueting” or “intoxication.”
Based on the common use of the word it would suggest that
Daniel may well have been referring to having abstained from
the use of wine in the fomented sense. I am not going to be
dogmatic about it here as the flesh issue is the main point under
consideration. However, one cannot simply write off such an
alternative based on the fact that Ellen White said it was so.
She was wrong about the flesh and may be just as wrong about
the wine.
Something the reader might well find of interest is that the
principal editor for the SDA Commentary was none other than
Ellen White apologist, Francis D. Nichol, who, as shown earlier,
was wrong about a number of vital facts.

The Testimony of Scripture

Perhaps the greatest evidence exposing the fallacious claims of
Ellen White, concerning the eating of the flesh of dead animals, is
found in the Scripture itself. It can be categorically shown that

724
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

not one credible shred of biblical proof exists that the eating of
meat ever was, is or will be a test for God’s people, as it relates
to their living witness and their ultimate salvation, ever—not
even for those who will live during the end-times. In fact the
testimony of Scripture proves exactly the opposite.
As far as the Old Testament is concerned, the teaching
and practice concerning meat-eating, particularly post flood,
is abundantly clear. An exhaustive study is not needed. Simply
highlighting the most important facts will suffice.
Without doubt, based on the biblical record, God’s original
dietary plan for man did not include the eating of meat. Man’s
essential diet was fruits, grains and nuts (Genesis 1:29). The
first time where one reads about God specifically giving man
instructions concerning the eating of meat, is found after the
flood (Genesis 9:3, 4). However, even though it is not specifically
stated that man ate meat before the flood, there are certainly
statements that would suggest this was the case. For example, the
first mention of animal’s being killed for man’s use, is when God
made Adam and Eve “coats of skins” (Genesis 3:21). It is not
directly stated whether the skins were sheep skins, or once these
animals were killed, if they were sacrificed as a first sin offering
to God. Many Christians, specifically SDA’s, based on Ellen
White’s testimony, believe that these animals were sacrificed
and that their skins provided clothing/covering for Adam and
Eve, representative of Christ, the ultimate sacrifice, whose
righteousness covers the believer.
The first obvious reference to a lamb offering is when Abel
“brought of the firstlings of his flock” to offer as a burnt offering
to God (Genesis 4:4). Again, it is not spelled out, but one can
infer, based on the Levitical practice of eating the meat of
sacrificed animals, that the eating of sacrificial meat MAY well
have occurred from the inception of sacrificial practices.
If man did indeed eat meat prior to the flood, it would be quite
ironic in light of the fact that all the evidence seems to suggest

725
Brian Neumann

that the antediluvian race would have had an abundance of plant

food of superior quality and variety, making it unnecessary to
substitute their dietary requirements by eating meat. Indeed, even
Ellen White states that the “inhabitants of the Noachian world
were destroyed, because they were corrupted through indulgence
of perverted appetite.” 58
Whether the “perverted appetite” also included the eating
of meat might be debated. However, when one considers all
the wickedness of the antediluvians then surely, if indeed eating
meat was sinful or perverted, it would have been one of the lesser
crimes committed by that generation.
There is additional reason though, once again based on
scriptural evidence, to believe that meat was eaten prior to the
flood. This evidence can be found in the account of the animals,
clean: “by sevens, male and female” and unclean “by two, the male
and his female,” going into the ark (Genesis 7:2, 3).
The concept of clean and unclean meat is directly associated
with the eating thereof (Leviticus 11). Thus when God said to
Noah “thou shalt take to thee by sevens…,” of clean animals into
the ark (Ibid), it can surely be assumed that Noah understood
the concept of clean and unclean animals—God was directly
addressing Noah concerning the animals. Thus, the evidence
seems to suggest that the eating of meat was common among
believers, not only non-believers. Surely, the non-believers would
not have cared about clean and unclean.
There can definitely be no guesswork involved regarding what
happened after the flood. Meat eating was sanctioned, in fact
initiated, by God Himself. The post flood account states that as
soon as Noah and his family came out of the ark, sacrifices of
“every clean beast” were offered to God (Genesis 8:20, 21). It was
on this occasion that God specifically tells Noah that animals
were given to mankind for food.
Based on God’s instruction to Noah concerning the eating
of meat it is clear that He fully condoned the practice, whether

726
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

or not prior to the flood the first act of meat eating was initiated
by God or man. Did God permit it or wink at it because of sin
and the hardness of man’s heart, giving in to a demand that really
went against His better judgment? Knowing full well that by
eating meat animal passions would be aroused and the spread of
disease would be facilitated?
Scripture records a number of things God allowed against His
better judgment—because of the hardness of man’s heart. One
of these had to do with the issue of marriage and divorce. Christ
addressed this in Matthew 19 when he was asked concerning
this practice. Was God, for similar reasons, motivated to make
a provision/exception in regard to eating meat? There is no
Scripture that would suggest this to be the case, in spite of Ellen
White’s apparent insight which we will shortly consider. A few
vital scriptures that show God condoning, even commanding
its consumption or personally participating in the act, need to
be considered.
Scriptural evidence, clearly indicating that Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob were all meat-eaters, is not lacking. Indeed, these fathers
of the Jewish nation, in particular Isaac, seemed to relish their
favourite meat dishes (Genesis 27:7-9). The evidence of meat-
eating by all the Old Testament people of God hardly needs to
be proven. Even a superficial reading of Scripture amply testifies
to this. However, for the purpose of removing all doubt, I will
examine a few specific examples.
One of the first that comes to mind is found in Genesis 18.
Three heavenly visitors, one whom Abraham addresses as “My
Lord” (Genesis 18:3), arrive at Abraham’s tent on the plains of
Mamre. Abraham expresses his hospitality by offering them food,
the main course of which is “a calf tender and good” (Genesis
18:7). After it was prepared and presented to them, the Scripture
says that Abraham “stood by them under the tree, and they did
eat” (Genesis 18:8).

727
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

A few things become obvious when reading this account.

Firstly, Abraham obviously was in the habit of eating
meat. Secondly, and far more importantly, these heavenly
visitors did not, even by example, refuse to eat, as Ellen
White put it, the flesh of dead animals, or corpses of animals.
Indeed, being heavenly beings, even the Lord Himself, probably
meant that they could have survived without eating at all. Yet, to
show their appreciation for Abraham’s hospitality they ate the
meat.
It could also be argued that the effects of meat-eating would
not be manifest in them. Perhaps not, but the fact remains, and
it is an extremely important one, by neither word nor deed did
they give the impression that eating meat was in any way
offensive. Indeed, the point will be made later on that Christ
Himself ate meat on various occasions. As mentioned, there is
the story of Jacob preparing a special dish of venison for Isaac
when he stole the birthright from Esau (Genesis 27:6-8).
Two of the most interesting portions of Scripture,
opportunistically used by Ellen White to make her point about
God’s abhorrence of the meat-eating practice, is found in Exodus
16, the story of the manna and quails during the
Israelites wilderness sojourn, and Numbers 11, when the mixed
multitude’s lusting for flesh inspired the Israelite’s to do the same.
Either Ellen White did not read these portions of Scripture
thoroughly enough, or being so set on her agenda regarding health
reform and the eating of meat and her claim of Eivine revelation,
she felt at liberty to interpret it however she saw fit.
Nevertheless, the reading of these scriptures, within the
framework and context of all the rest of Scripture regarding
the issue of meat-eating, reveals something very different.
TIe first evidence I would like to examine is a statement by
Ellen White regarding the eating of meat in relation to these
two scriptures. In the Paulson Collection of Ellen G. White
Letters, she is recorded as writing in 1895:

728
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

When the Lord took His people from Egypt, He did not give
them flesh-meat to eat till they mourned and wept in His
ears, saying, “Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the
flesh, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and
the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick; but
now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all beside this
manna, before our eyes.” Then the Lord gave them flesh to eat.
He sent them quails from heaven, but we read, “While the flesh
was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the
Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the
people with a very great plague. 59

Th e main point of debate is whether or not God punished

them so severely because of their desire for flesh OR because
of their insubordination and complaining. We will get to this.
But, right now the first point of issue is the inaccuracy of Ellen
White’s statement in regard to when God gave or did not give
them flesh to eat—an evidence she might well have been reading
Scripture to make her point at the cost of staying true to the
facts.
Her reference is actually to the Sin at Kigroth-Hattaavah,
found in Numbers 11, after they departed from Mount Sinai. Th e
first event with the quails in the Wilderness of Sin (Exodus 16)
was shortly after the exodus from Egypt. Based on these facts,
Ellen White’s statement that: “When the Lord took His people
from Egypt, He did not give them flesh-meat to eat till they
mourned and wept in His ears, saying…” in reference to the later
event of Numbers 11, is not at all accurate.
Th e Lord DID give them meat to eat, right after they left
Egypt, in the Wilderness of Sin, as recorded in Exodus 16—He
personally sent the quails. In addition, another point that will be
enlarged upon shortly, He made the eating of meat a daily part
of the sacrificial system for the priests. At the very least, God
personally instituted the perpetual eating of the sacrificial Passover
lamb for all of Israel. TIus, Ellen White’s statement that
God “

did not
give them flesh to eat till they mourned”
and

729
Brian Neumann

desired the “cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the
onions, and the garlic” was inaccurate, to say the least.
The interesting thing about the Kigroth-Hattaava event (the
later one) is the part that Ellen White did not quote. The lust
of the people, expressed in their cry was: “We remember the
fish which we did eat in Egypt freely.” (Numbers 11:5) then the
part she quotes: “and the leeks and the onions…” They did ask
for “flesh,” in the general sense, but part of the “flesh” they were
“lusting” for, which they specifically mentioned, was the “fish.”
Based on Ellen White’s own statements and practice regarding
meat—the reader will recall when she testified at one point to
giving up meat she still continued eating fish—she apparently
did not equate the eating of fish with a carnivorous diet. The
very type of “flesh” she personally found acceptable to eat is the
“flesh” the Israelites remembered and craved for, together with
the “leeks and the onions, and the garlic.”
However, facts are facts, and it is a fact that when God gave
the law regarding clean and unclean animals in Leviticus 11, fish
were included among the beasts. Verse 2 says: “… These are the
beasts which you shall eat among all the beasts that are on the
earth.” In verse 8 He goes on to say: “of their flesh shall ye eat…”
and then from verse 9 He defines what kinds of fish or water
“beasts”/”flesh” they could eat: “whatsoever hath fins and scales…
them shall ye eat.”
In Numbers 11, the Israelites were not specifically asking
for red meat or quails. They simply wanted meat, in the general
sense, including, if it were possible, fish—the one they specifically
mention. Moses’ later question to God in verse 22 of the same
chapter: “shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for
them, to suffice them?” indicates, besides the question of whether
they should slay their herds for meat, that he understood that one
of their prime desires was for fish. In the end, God sent quails—
in abundance.

730
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Based on the fact that meat was not forbidden as part of the
Israelites diet; that God gave them instructions about clean and
unclean meat as He did to Noah; that meat-eating was in fact
a part of the sacrificial system, was it REALLY the desire for
meat or the essential attitude of dissatisfaction and boredom
with a regular diet of manna, that lay at the root of God’s
reaction towards the Israelites? Was God truly wanting to make
sure that their animal passions were not aroused? Was He
trying to turn them into manna eating vegetarians to prepare
them for Canaan where they would be living on an Edenic
diet of fruits grains and nuts, even though the priests had a
daily diet of sacrificed flesh and even though God went to the
trouble of giving them clean and unclean rules for eating
meat? Of course, this is not even suggested in the Scripture but
Ellen White was certainly of this opinion:
God might as easily have provided them with flesh as with
manna, but a restriction was placed upon them for their good.
It was His purpose to supply them with food better suited to
their wants than the feverish diet to which many had become
accustomed in Egypt. The perverted appetite was to be brought
into a more healthy state, that they might enjoy the food orig-
inally provided for man—the fruits of the earth, which God
gave to Adam and Eve in Eden. It was for this reason that
the Israelites had been deprived, in a great measure, of ani-
mal food. 60

So yes, Ellen White believed that God was trying to bring them
to the Edenic diet of Adam and Eve, even though the 4cripture
gives NO hint of this. In fact, as already shown, God connected
the eating of meat with the sacrificial system—directly to a most
solemn spiritual activity. Ellen White goes on to say:
God brought the Israelites from Egypt, that He might establish
them in the land of Canaan, a pure, holy, and happy people.
In the accomplishment of this object He subjected them to a

731
Brian Neumann

course of discipline, both for their own good and for the good
of their posterity. Had they been willing to deny appetite, in
obedience to His wise restrictions, feebleness and disease would
have been unknown among them. Their descendants would
have possessed both physical and mental strength. They would
have had clear perceptions of truth and duty, keen discrimi-
nation, and sound judgment. But their unwillingness to
submit to the restrictions and requirements of God, prevented
them, to a great extent, from reaching the high standard which
He desired them to attain, and from receiving the blessings
which He was ready to bestow upon them. 61

Again, according to Ellen White, it is plain that God, for

mental, spiritual and physical reasons, with Canaan in mind,
wanted to eventually completely exclude meat from the Israelites diet—
exactly what she says SDA’s (God’s end-time Israel) should be
doing in preparation to entering the “heavenly Canaan.”
To lend credence to her comments Ellen White quotes Psalm
78:18-21, where the Psalmist says: “TIey tempted God in their heart
by asking meat for their lust. Yea, they spake against God; they said,
Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? Behold, He
smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams
overflowed; can He give bread also? can He provide flesh for His
people? TIerefore the Lord heard this, and was wroth.”
It is quite obvious, based on the overall evidence of the rest of
Scripture, that the Psalmist was not of the opinion that meat was not
intended to be a part of the Hebrew diet and that God had only
allowed them to continue eating meat because of the hardness of
their hearts or against His better judgment. Th e Psalmist is
primarily addressing the fact that they murmured/ “spake
against God,” that they doubted His ability to “furnish a table in the
wilderness” with meat, water or bread. TIis was the central problem.
TIis does not suggest that God found it acceptable to gorge
themselves on flesh day in and day out, simply because He had

732
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

made provision for the eating of it. After all, He had given them
manna which no doubt had all the nutrition they might need.
God knew that in a wilderness situation they would need a staple
such as this otherwise they would, as Moses alluded to, end up
killing all their livestock, not only for sacrifice but for their regular
diet as well.
The problem with the Israelites, egged on by the mixed
multitude from Egypt, was that manna was simply not what
they had in mind for their primary dietary needs. God desired
balance, they desired imbalance. They were expecting to have all
the luxuries of regular life in the middle of a wilderness sojourn,
which had it not been for their murmuring, would only have
lasted a relatively short time. It was not merely meat that they
were clamouring for. They wanted the leeks, the onions, the garlic
and of course the fish as well (Ellen White did not mention the
fish)—these were all the things they were “lusting” after.
The fact of the matter is, Ellen White abuses the scriptures,
twisting the context and meaning, ignoring ALL the other
evidence, which we will continue examining, in order to prop
up her testimony in regard to “eating the flesh of dead animals.”
All this, while she herself clearly relished eating meat (of various
kinds) for over thirty years after receiving her first health vision.
During which time she boldly castigated lay members and
ministers alike for doing the same.
When it comes to the New Testament, the evidence against
Ellen White’s position is in many ways even more damning.
This can be easily substantiated by examining the practice and
teaching of God’s people at that time—from Christ all the way
into the early Apostolic Church.
The New Testament, although it is an account of Christ’s birth,
life, death, resurrection and then a history of the conception,
growth and outreach of the Apostolic/Christian Church, starts
off in the context of the Hebrew people, with all their way of
life encapsulated. Notwithstanding all that was wrong with

733
Brian Neumann

their religious practices at that time, they still continued in the

traditions handed down from earlier times. One of these was the
annual keeping of the Passover festival, which took place in the
month of Abib, the first month of the Jewish year—end of March/
early April of our modern calendar. The Torah mandated Jews to
ritually slaughter the Paschal Lamb, or Passover Lamb on the eve
of Passover and then to eat it with bitter herbs and unleavened
bread/matzo.
It was into this religious environment that Christ was born.
Without doubt, His parents, Joseph and Mary, were faithful
adherents of the Jewish religion. Luke 2:41-50 records that when
Jesus was twelve years old Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem
to celebrate the Passover. It is not inconceivable that on such visits
they might even have spent time with Mary’s cousin Elizabeth
whose husband, Zacharias, was a priest (they were the parent’s of
John the Baptist).
In such a setting, there is little doubt that from His earliest
years Jesus took part in the ritual of the Paschal sacrifice and no
doubt, like everyone else, ate the roasted lamb. The Gospels record
that during His ministry Jesus faithfully attended the Passover,
right up until the night before His crucifixion when He Himself
would become the sacrificial Lamb. Luke and Matthew record
that Jesus told His disciples to go out and make preparations to
eat the Passover (Matthew 26:19; Luke 22:7, 8). Surely, as faithful
Jews, this entailed doing it according to the custom which God
Himself/Jesus had instituted in the first place. As the modern
colloquialism says, it’s an absolute “no-brainer.”
Of course, the Scripture does not say whether Jesus, outside
of religious ritual, regularly ate red meat. It gives ample evidence
however that he often ate fish and fed it to others. His disciples
Simon Peter, James and John (the sons of Zebedee), were fish-eating
fisherman. When Jesus called them by the sea to follow Him He
filled their nets with fish to the point of nearly sinking their boats
(Luke 5:1-11).

734
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

In Matthew 14:13-21 we read about Jesus feeding the five

thousand with five loaves and two fishes and in Matthew
15:32-39 He feeds the four thousand with seven loaves
and a few fish (bread and fish were obviously a daily staple,
especially for the populations living near the coast).
When Jesus appears in the upper room, after His
resurrection, He asked the disciples for “meat” so He could eat.
Th ey offered him a “piece of broiled fish” and a
“honeycomb” (Luke 24:41-44). Soon after, when Simon Peter
and a few other disciples (including the sons of Zebedee) were
fishing by the sea of Galilee, Jesus once again filled their nets
to overflowing and when they joined Him on the beach He
offered them “bread” and grilled “fish” and invited them to
“dine” with Him (
John 21:1-13). Let’s not forget that fish was
not some sub-category of animal flesh that fell outside of the
Levitical guidelines for clean and unclean meats. God includes
fish among all the rest of the clean and unclean beasts.
Thus, clearly, since the fall of Adam and Eve, or at the very
least from the flood, the Bible gives more than ample evidence
that God’s people, often by direct instruction from Him, ate flesh
of various kinds (that which was stipulated as clean). In both
Old and New Testaments, God/Jesus Himself ate meat and fed
it to others. There is even tacit approval of the practice of eating
the flesh of a grilled “fatted calf
” in the story of the Prodigal
Son (Luke 15:11-32). By word and deed, the Bible is filled with
examples of believers who ate meat.
One of Ellen White’s constant and emphatic themes,
in her argument against the consumption of flesh, is that it
arouses animalistic behaviour and affects one’s spirituality. She
reprimanded parents for feeding their ill children meat because
it would “excite their animal passions, and then you come to
meeting and ask God to bless and save your children,” as if God
would not hear their prayers. 62 She emphatically made the point
that those who even “digress occasionally to gratify the taste

735
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

in eating a fattened turkey or other flesh meats, pervert their

appetites.” 63 Yet she could write of the pleasures of her meat-
eating, well after her first health vision, while she was warning
other’s of the dangers of eating animal flesh: “We had a quarter
of venison cooked, and stuffing. It was as tender as a chicken. We
all enjoyed it very much. There is plenty of venison in market.” 64
While the Bible is absolutely consistent in God’s instruction
to His people, in word and deed, concerning meat eating, Ellen
White is wholly inconsistent and hypocritical regarding meat
eating‰in word and deed.
Why would anyone believe Ellen White, who, as a so-called
messenger of God, while eating meat could say to others: “Those…
who subsist on the flesh of dead animal… can not represent the
truth to others.” 65
Or when, along similar lines, she emphatically declared: “No
man should be set apart as a teacher of the people while his own
teaching or example contradicts the testimony God has given
His servants to bear in regard to diet… His disregard of health
reform unfits him to stand as the Lord’s messenger…” 66
What IS wholly contradictory is Ellen White’s own example.
Her primary accusation, that the eating of meat excites the animal
passions and blunts one’s spiritual discernment, unfitting them to
stand as messengers for the Lord should, if this were true, apply
across time and space—to patriarchs, prophets, disciples, even
God/Christ Himself—unless someone can offer proof that from
the 19th Century onwards meat was different from the meat that
people ate before.
Of course, this cannot be because Ellen White herself stated
that it was for these reasons that God did not want the Israelites to
eat meat in the wilderness or why Daniel and his three friends did
not partake of the king’s meat. Did these stalwarts of spirituality not
care about exciting their animal passions? Did heavenly messengers
sent to Abraham (the Lord Himself
), not care about the example
they were setting by eating food that would blunt spirituality and

736
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

feed the animal propensities of those who followed suit? Did God
not care about making the flesh of dead animals a part of sacrificial
ceremonies that would be food for the priests in His service? Did
Jesus not care… ? Or was it different because the blood had been
drained from the meat? If so, why did Ellen White not publish an
amendment to her anti-flesh tirade and say: “Kosher flesh (without
blood) of clean animals can be eaten…” This was the decision of
the elders during their counsel with Paul in Jerusalem, regarding
the Gentiles and the keeping of the ceremonial laws (Acts 21:25).
Even in this, Ellen White did not follow the balanced, reasonable
counsel of those worthy fathers of the Christian Faith.
Thus, the questions beg: were the disciples or any other
messengers of God throughout Scripture unfit to stand as
messenger’s for the Lord? What makes it different? The fact
that people in her day were living in the end-time? Yet, here we
are in the 21st Century with, arguably, more sanitary means of
packaging and storing meat than ever existed in Bible times or
Ellen White’s day. Their meat-markets were far from safe and
the risk of disease must have been great. One sees this problem
in parts of the world where meat is still sold as it was in ancient
times
Bnd this brings us to an important point.
Ellen White DID speak of and warned against the dangers
of diseased meat. In this respect she was certainly correct—even
in modern times we have dealt with issues such as mad-cow and
other diseases that are communicable via infected meat. To be
sure, there are even risks of picking up sickness through eating
infected plant produce. Danger to one’s health exists when
eating fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed with various
pesticides, unless you buy organically grown produce. However,
these considerations are not the core question here. Regardless
of the potential risks involved in eating suspect meat or plant
produce, the issue is about the teachings of Ellen G. White in
contrast to the teaching of Scripture.

737
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

So far we have seen no viable shred of evidence that sustains her

position, notwithstanding the fact that her own practices
contradicted her very emphatic testimony. However, there is more
scriptural evidence that needs to be considered before finalizing
this chapter.
According to the supreme, infallible, inerrant blueprint for
Christian belief and practice, the Bible (Sola Scriptura), the
standard for every other teaching that would threaten to lead
God’s people into strange doctrines and practices, abstinence
from eating meat is never a test of any sort. The only time the
consumption of flesh is mentioned in connection with Christian
practice is when Paul admonishes the believers in Corinth. A
simple reading of those passages will show that he was not
forbidding the eating of meat but was addressing the issue of
being a stumbling-block to the “weaker” brethren by eating meat
sacrificed to idols. Indeed, he makes the point of saying that
they were at “liberty” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols because a
believer settled in the faith knows that an idol is nothing in this
world and that “meat commendeth us not to God.” But, for the
sake of those weak in the faith, who still attach significance or
meaning to food that was dedicated to an idol, he says that he, if
it causes such fellow believers to stumble or be offended, would
“eat no flesh while the world standeth…” (1 Corinthians 8:7-13.
See also 1 Corinthians 10:23-33).
Hypothetically speaking, it would seem those who might be
making an issue about meat or any other food in the context of
their religion are those who are weaker in their faith.
In fact, Paul makes the point on a number of occasions, that the
believer’s religion has nothing to do with what one eats, barring
the question of consideration for others who might not see or
understand things the way you do. He, in no uncertain terms,
deals directly with the issue of how people are to be judged on
the basis of what they eat. Did Ellen White not understand this,
in the context of ALL that we have seen Scripture reveal? Is she

738
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

above the test of “the law and the testimony?” (Isaiah 8:20). If we
cannot test Ellen White’s statements regarding health reform, in
particular the eating of meat, by what the Bible plainly says, then
how are we able to test her at all? Ellen White’s own claim that
the Bible and the Bible alone is the standard by which everything
stands or falls, is a straw-man. For when she is arduously tested
by that standard she exposes herself as an exception to the rule.
Consider what Paul is saying in Romans 14:1, 2:
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubt-
ful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things:
another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 67

Paul is not speaking about being weak in physical strength.

He says, “weak in the FAITH” (Emphasis supplied). TIis
one simple text, although not at this point mentioning meat,
declares the essential principle that WHAT PEOPLE EAT
is NOT the issue. Paul goes on to speak about esteeming one
day above another and then in verse 6 continues on the
question of food saying: “… He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not [the one who
eats only herbs]… giveth God thanks.”
In verse 13 he says that we should not “judge one another”
or put a “stumbling block” in someone’s way on the question of
food. The same point he made in 1 Corinthians 8. He goes on to
add that he is “persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing
unclean [common] of itself.” Then, to press home the point of
individual freedom of choice he adds in verse 14: “but to him
that esteemeth any thing to be unclean [common], to HIM it is
unclean” (Emphasis supplied).
Paul continues, from verse 15, to expound the question of
consideration for fellow believers (within the context of the whole
chapter he is still talking about consideration for the weaker
believer). Finally, in verse 17, he reaches the climax of the whole
point he started to make initially by saying: “For the kingdom

739
Brian Neumann

of God IS NOT MEAT AND DRINK; but righteousness, and

peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Emphasis supplied).
In winding up his discourse Paul asserts (verse 20, 21) that
one should not let “meat” or “food destroy the work of God.”
The question of consideration (from both sides) is re-emphasized
by adding, as he did in 1 Corinthians 8, that it is not good to
“eat flesh, not drink wine [in this case it must be the ferment
variation of grape juice] nor anything” that will be a stumbling-
block to a fellow believer (contextually, he is still speaking about
consideration for the weaker in faith).
Verse 23 says: “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat,
because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is
sin” (Emphasis supplied).
Interestingly, the more comprehensive alternative replacement
for “doubteth” would read: “And he that discerneth and putteth a
difference between meats is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of
faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Emphasis supplied).
It is hard to imagine what Bible Ellen White was using to test
her revelations. Paul is clear regarding making an issue of what
one eats. The whole Bible is clear on this point. And this same
Bible commands the believer to “… try the spirits whether they
are from God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
world” (1 John 4:1). One can only “try” the spirits by the Bible,
not some other source. The problem is that SDA’s are often found
testing the spirits and even the Bible by Ellen White.
However, when Ellen White, along with her teachings and
personal practice regarding meat, are tried by this Word, what
does it reveal?
When reading Colossians 2:16, although Paul is specifically
dealing with legalistic practices, he still makes the point that one
should not let anyone “judge you in meat or in drink.” Not overtly
about one’s regular diet, but nonetheless, even in the context
of religion, we should not judge others on the basis of food or
drink either.

740
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Finally, to complete our study of what the New Testament

reveals, we turn to 1 Timothy 4:1-5. Here Paul warns Timothy
about deceptions of the latter times that will cause people to
give “heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” One of
these is the false teaching that people should not marry. Another
one of these “doctrines of devils” deals directly with the subject
under consideration—food. Paul says in verse 3 that those who
have departed from the faith will teach people to “abstain from
meats (Greek: brômata/food) which God hath created to receive
with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”
TIen, to make sure that Timothy does not misunderstand, Paul
makes the comprehensive statement, with additional reference
to what can only be the flesh of animals, by saying: “For every
CREATURE of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it
be received with thanksgiving” (Emphasis supplied). Some will
argue that the Greek word, pamkitsma used for “creature,” could
also mean EVERYTHING founded or created by God, which does
not make it flesh-specific. However, it goes without saying that
“creatures” are inclusive of EVERYTHING God created, for He
made them too.
Based on all the scriptural evidence that clearly shows meat-
eating was not forbidden at any point, not even in the New
Testament, one can be almost certain that Paul’s reference to
creature was “flesh-specific.” In this case the optional meaning of
the Greek, pamkitsma—everything founded or created by God—is
more certainly a reference by Paul to clean as opposed to unclean
meat. Everything “founded by God,” defines that which God has
established or has approved of—clean rather than unclean.
Thus, Paul was not saying that ALL creatures can be eaten,
irrespective of what has been pronounced clean or unclean?
Notice, he says in verse 3, one can eat what God has created “if
it be received with thanksgiving.” Implicit in this comment, on
the basis of what the elders decided in their Jerusalem counsel
about Gentile converts not eating “blood” (a levitical teaching

741
Brian Neumann

connected to God’s instruction on meat-eating), is that we

can receive “with thanksgiving,” that which God has blessed.
If something has been cursed—declared unclean by God—
no amount of thanksgiving will make it clean, UNLESS God
Himself pronounces it clean.
One finds this principle communicated in Acts 10 when God
gave Peter the vision of the unclean creatures while he was praying
on the roof-top. He heard a voice saying, “rise, Peter, kill and
eat” (Acts 10:13). Peter refused to do it because as a Jew he was
faithful to the instruction concerning clean and unclean things.
Then the voice he heard told him, “what God hath cleansed, that
call not thou common.” Peter was confused by the vision and only
understood what it meant when he came down from the roof-top
to meet the Gentile men that had come to see him. Once he met
them the confusion concerning the vision left him because he
finally realized that the vessel containing the unclean animals was
not some new teaching that unclean animal flesh was now clean.
God used this strong symbolism (something a Jew could very
easily relate to) to illustrate to Peter that if God had said Gentiles
were not unclean or common, then it was not unlawful for a Jew to
socialize with them.
The vision, in essence, had nothing to do with literal meat-
eating. It purely served to illustrate the point concerning Jews
and Gentiles. Peter himself verbalizes this realization when he
says in verse 28: “… it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a
Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but
God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common
or unclean.”
The principle is clear and works both ways. If God pronounces
something that was clean to be unclean, then there is no second
guessing God. If He pronounces something unclean as clean,
then the same applies.
Nowhere in Scripture did God pronounce clean flesh-meat to
be unclean or unfit for food. Neither did He ever make unclean

742
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

flesh-meat clean—Peter’s vision was not meant to communicate

such an idea. Thus Paul’s admonition to Timothy regarding
“meats” that God “created” quite literally means that “every
animal/beast/creature (pronounced clean) of God is good and
nothing to be refused…”
Once again, as in so many other things we have examined in this
book, Ellen White is at odds with Scripture. Her counsel on
meat, even in the context of the end-time, is not only extra-
biblical and non-sensical but positively contra-biblical. Clearly, by
example, she does not seem to have taken her own counsel seriously.
Why should anyone who is seeking to live a Christian life based on
Scripture alone, subject themselves to additional burdens of
practice that Scripture does not demand, simply because someone
claimed “Eivine” revelation for setting such standards?
If however, a believer desires to be vegetarian, out of free choice
and because they feel convicted that this is a healthier diet, then
they should certainly feel free to do so. TIere is little doubt that
a balanced plant-based diet, in most cases, is more beneficial
than an essentially meat-based one. TIis is indisputable,
providing one gets all the essential nutrients. It should not be
understood for one moment that I am shooting down or
belittling vegetarianism. Not in the least. Th e merits of such a
diet have been proven and tested—I know this from personal
experience. Nevertheless, this investigation is not about better
or worse. It is about biblical or unbiblical—true or false—Ellen
White or the teaching of Scripture?
While Paul does say that our bodies are the temple of God
(1 Corinthians 3:16-19; 6:19), he does not make the eating
of meat a contravention to that teaching. What he does do is
encourage the believer to be “temperate” (equable, moderate) and
to teach things that are based on “sound doctrine”—doctrine can
only be sound if it is based on the Scripture (Titus 1:8, 9). And
temperance or moderation, on either end of the spectrum, is only
possible if a person avoids extremes. Clearly, one of the extremes
Paul warned about, as we have seen, was in the sphere of diet.

743
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

If, by comparison, one evaluates the overall effect of Ellen

White’s teachings on those who choose to follow them to
the letter—dress, worship, salvation, diet, recreation, etc.
—then one discovers that fanaticism, exclusivity and
imbalance inevitably result.
Fanaticism or imbalance is not faith, just because one
happens to be different from the rest of the world. Oswald
Chambers makes this profound statement: “Faith in antagonism
to common sense is fanaticism, and common sense in
antagonism to faith is rationalism.”68
Common sense and faith go hand in hand (God gave the
ability for rational thinking). When one imagines or is taught
things that lead to extremes then the clear teaching of Scripture
prevails upon common sense to think and act in a balanced,
rational manner.
There are numerous other teachings of Ellen White that
we could test by the scriptural standard—teachings that lead
to unrealistic religion—the idea of living without a mediator
(Christ) during the time of trouble—when the door of probation
for humanity has been shut. 69 Or the effects that her counsel
on moving into the country in the end-time have had on scores
of SDA believers who sold up everything in town or city to
escape the various pitfalls of modern suburban or city life only
to discover that they really did not have the means to survive and
make ends meet for any sort of long-term period. 70
I personally know many well intentioned adherents of Ellen
White’s counsel who eventually had to move back to more
populated areas because following Ellen White’s counsel to get
out of the cities was far from practical, especially for younger
couples with children who often do not have the means to
purchase land and who’s professions, in modern times, largely
dictate they find work where they can get it. Unfortunately, in
most cases, this means living closer to populated areas.

744
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Without doubt, living in the country is wonderful, if one has the

wherewithal to do it. Th e bad thing is that Ellen White, well
over one hundred years ago, was telling people to get out of the
cities and move to more secluded areas. Many made the move.
Families set up home far from the bustle of city life. Institutions
were built as far from populated areas as was reasonably possible…
Today many homes and institutions, due to expansion of those
populated areas, are practically in the cities and towns they once
were trying to avoid.
Generations of Ellen White’s SDA contemporaries who
faithfully and with a sense of urgency followed her counsel that
said they “should NOW begin to heed the instruction given us
over and over again: get out of the cities,” are long dead and gone.71
Yes, the list of Ellen White teachings that lend themselves
to fanatical CFIBWJPS is a considerable one indeed. Many of
these ideas, if approached on the basis of free choice, without the
motivating fear that you might lose your salvation if you do not
follow the counsel, are reasonable.
However, the unavoidable problem with anything Ellen
White, by simple virtue of her declaring it an essential part of
true Christian living, together with her claim of it being a Eivine
command, is that it becomes essential for all those who choose
to take her word for it—even if it cannot be found in Scripture.
The truth be told, no Bible believing SDA can afford to take
her word for it any longer—they never should have in the first
place. Simply believe and trust the Bible as it reads, without
the added Talmud of teachings that in so many cases cannot be
substantiated by a clear thus sayeth the Lord. Any SDA who is
skeptical of or fears a call to make the Bible the EXCLUSIVE
standard of belief, without Ellen White’s commentary on what it
means, should take that as a clear and urgent indication that they
should probably not be reading her at all.
Her claim that her testimonies lead people “back to the the
Word [the Bible] that they have neglected to follow,” 72 is simply

745
B
r i a n N
e u m a n n

not true and has been clearly demonstrated in this chapter and
the rest of the pages of this book. Indeed, for many SDA’s, it
may well end up being a case of CFJOH
TBWFE
not BECAUSE of
Ellen White, but IN SPITE of Ellen White.
There is little doubt that SDA’s, whether initiated from the
top down or via simple choice of congregations or individual
members, need to make a decision about what they are going
to do with the White Elephant, Ellen White. Will they doggedly
cling to her unscriptural teachings and continue to venerate
her as a true prophet of God? Will they try to quietly, without
sinking the ship, sweep her piece by piece under the proverbial
rug, in the hope that she will eventually fade more and more into
the background—quietly and without too much fuss?
As already shown, action to this end is already being taken by
many pastors and church leaders. In some cases certain congregations,
even whole conferences, prefer making no reference to her at all
while others give her lip-service, not because they believe in all she
teaches but only because this is expected and/or desired by the more
traditional members. Time will tell if SDA’s will ever, collectively,
take the bold step of facing the truth about Ellen White. But face
the truth in some or other shape or form they will have to do. They
may well have to do this sooner rather than later.

SOURCES
1. Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, Chapter 6, p. 64. Emphasis & ital-
ics supplied.
2. Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy Book 1, p. 78. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
3. Ellen White and Her Critics,’ Frances D. Nichol, Chapter 20,
p.176-18. Emphasis & italics supplied.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Miscegenation: Definition of Miscegenation at Dictionary.
com”. Downing, Karen; Nichols, Darlene; Webster, Kelly (2005).
Multiracial America: A Resource Guide on the History and
Literature of Interracial Issues. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow
Press. p. 9. ISBN 0-8108-5199-7. Frank W Sweet (1 Januar y
2005). “The Invention of the Color Line: 1691—Essays on
the Color Line and the One-Drop Rule.” Karthikeyan, Hrishi;
Chin, Gabriel (2002). “Preserving Racial Identity: Population
Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to
Asian Americans, 1910–1950”.Asian Law Journal 9 (1). SSRN
283998). Backentyme Essays. red name =”abc news”> |url =http://
abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3277875.
10. Anthropology Newsletter, November 1997 http://www.pbs.org/
race/000_About/002_04-background-02-09.htm. Fredrickson,
G. M. 1987. The Black Image in the White Mind. Middletown:
Wesleyan University Press. Smedley, A. 1993 (1999). Race in North
America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview. Boulder: Westview
Press. Stepan, Nancy. 1982. The Idea of Race in Science. London:
Macmillan. Audrey Smedley is a professor of anthropology at
Virginia Commonwealth University. She is author of the American
Anthropological Association’s position paper on ‘race,’ and the new
millennial edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica’s entry on ‘race’.
11. Uriah Smith, THE VISIONS OF MRS. E. G. WHITE, A
MANIFESTATION Of SPIRITUAL GIFTS ACCORDING
TO THE SCRIPTURES, pp.102-105, 1868.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14.
15. Ellen White and Her Critics,’ Frances D. Nichol, Chapter 20,
p.176-18. Emphasis & italics supplied.
16. Ibid.
17. http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/amalgamation.html.
Ellen White and Amalgamation Issue.
18. Manuscript Releases Volume Four, p. 149, paragraph 2; Letter 175,
1896; Spiritual Gifts, p. 154-156.
19. h t t p s : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i /
Oregon_National_Primate_Research_Center.
20. Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy Book 1, p. 78. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
21. Humanderthals! We mated with Neanderthals. Can we breed
with other animals, too? By Torie Bosch. Updated Tuesday,
Nov. 14, 2006, at 3:20 PM ET. http://www.slate.com/articles/
news_and_politics/explainer/2006/11/humanderthals.html.
Emphasis & italics supplied.
22. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 62. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
23. Ellen G. White, Adventist Home, p. 546. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
24. Do Leaves Die? by  Michael Todhunter, on September 6, 2006;
last featured October 15, 2007. https://answersingenesis.org/
biology/plants/do-leaves-die/.
25. Councils on Diet and Foods, page 494, 1909.
26. Testimonies Vol. 2, p. 485.
27. Selected Messages Book 2, p. 302. Letter 12, 1888.
28. Ellen G. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 482. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
29. Ellen G. White, Testimonies Vol. 1, p. 486 (1868-1871). Emphasis
& italics supplied.
30. Ellen G. White, Testimonies Vol. 2, p. 326 (1868-1871). Emphasis
& italics supplied.
31. Letter 112a, 1897.
32. Ellen G. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 399. Ellen G.
White, Testimonies Vol. 1, p. 486 (1868-1871). Emphasis &
italics supplied.
33. A. G. Daniells—Spectrum, 1919 Bible Conference, p. 41.
34. Written December 26, 1878, from Denison, Texas, to “Dear
Family at Battle Creek—Willie, Mary, Aunt Mary, Edith,
Addie and May, and Brother and Sister Sawyer.”—Manuscript
Releases, Volume Fourteen, p. 318 [1081-1135]. Letter 23, 1878.
Emphasis & italics supplied.
35. Ellen G. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 70. Testimonies for
the Church Vo. 3 (1872-1875). Emphasis & italics supplied.
36. Manuscript Release Vol. 14 [Nos. 1081-1135], Diary entry, Sept
28, 1873. Ellen G. White Estate, Washington, D.C. April
11, 1985. Written in the Colorado mountains, diary entry for
September 28, 1873. Emphasis & italics supplied.
37. Manuscript Release #1128; Letter 12, Feb 15, 1874; Manuscript
Release, Volume 14, p. 322 [Nos. 1081-1135]. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
38. Manuscript Release, Vol. 14, p. 330 [Nos. 1081-1135]. Emphasis
& italics supplied.
39. The Signs of the Times, July 18, 1878. T 4, p.289.
40. Ellen’s–Letter 6a, 1880–to Her Sister Elizabeth, Manuscript
Release, Volume Eleven, page 142, paragraph 3. Chapter Title:
Geographical descriptions and travel in the Western U. S.
41. Ellen G. White, Testimonies Vol. 4, p. 435.
42. Manuscript release No. 852. Letter 16, 1882. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
43. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages Book 2, p. 302. Letter 12, 1888.
Emphasis & italics supplied.
44. Letter from Fannie Bolton to Mrs. E. C. Slawson, Dec. 30, 1914,
as quoted in The Fannie Bolton story, pp. 107,109. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
45. Letter from G. B. Starr to W. C. White, August 20, 1933,
as quoted in The Fannie Bolton Story, p. 1. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
46. Letter From W. C. White to G. B. Starr, Aug. 24, 1933, as quoted
in The Fannie Bolton Story’, p. 119.
47. Ibid.
48. January 9, 1936, letter from J. H. Kellogg to Mr. E. S. Ballenger,
4138 Mulberry Street, Riverside, California, in reply to
Ballenger’s letter of December 10. Emphasis & italics supplied.
49. 1894: Spalding and Magan Collection, p. 81, paragraph 1.
Emphasis & italics supplied.
50. Ibid. Emphasis & italics supplied.
51. Ibid. Emphasis & italics supplied.
52. Ibid. Emphasis & italics supplied.
53. Counsels on Diet and Foods, page 413, paragraph 3, letter 84,
1898. Emphasis & italics supplied.
54. In a testimony to Elders Irwin, Prescott, Waggoner, and Jones,
February 21, 1899. Emphasis & italics supplied.
55. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 6, p. 378. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
56. Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, January 7, 1902. Emphasis
& italics supplied.
57. HP 261. Emphasis & italics supplied.
58. Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, Sept 2 1875.
59. Miscellaneous Collections, PC—Paulson Collection of Ellen G.
White Letters, PC 1.4, 1895. Emphasis & italics supplied.
60. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 378. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
61. Ibid. Emphasis & italics supplied.
62. Ellen G. White, Testimonies Vol. 2, p. 326 (1868-1871). Emphasis
& italics supplied.
63. Ellen G. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 399. Ellen G.
White, Testimonies Vol. 1, p. 486 (1868-1871). Emphasis &
italics supplied.
64. Written December 26, 1878, from Denison, Texas, to “Dear
Family at Battle Creek—Willie, Mary, Aunt Mary, Edith,
Addie and May, and Brother and Sister Sawyer.”—Manuscript
Releases, Volume Fourteen, p. 318 [1081-1135]. Letter 23, 1878.
Emphasis & italics supplied.
65. In a testimony to Elders Irwin, Prescott, Waggoner, and Jones,
February 21, 1899. Emphasis & italics supplied.
66. Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 6, p. 378. Emphasis &
italics supplied.
67. Greek: lachna—vegetables. Emphasis & italics supplied.
68. Oswald Chambers. The Classic Daily Devotional, My Utmost for
His Highest, October 30.
69. Ellen G. White. Early Writings, p. 71, 72. 1882.
70. Country Living—compilation—p. 4, 11,14, 17, 18, 24-25. 1946.
71. Ellen G. White, The Adventist Home, p. 141. Child Guidance, p.
310-311. Letter 5, 1904. Emphasis supplied.
72. Ellen G. White, Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, p. 663-664.
Early Writings, p. 78. 1882.
 Author’s Plea

I
do not want to end this book without making a plea to the
SDA Church. Neglecting this would leave me with the
feeling that I have left an important work undone. It was
intentional to approach my last segment of this book in the form
of a “plea” as I wanted to leave no doubt as to the spirit that
has motivated me from start to finish. The fact that I have not
“held back” when dealing with issues and have called a “spade”
a “spade,” in no way indicates that I do not love Seventh-day
Adventists or desire to diminish the tremendous amount of good
this church has done for me and many others around the world.
Of all people, I should know that no individual or institution
is perfect. There was a time, when I was ministering within the
SDA Church, that I felt most blessed to be a part of what I
believed to be God’s final remnant movement. I know all too
well the temptation to manifest a sometimes patronizing spirit
towards the other “fallen” churches—verbalized in such a way as
to still leave one feeling that you have been most magnanimous
in how you have expressed your “love” for other “less fortunate”
believers of the Christian faith.
The lessons I learned, in the process’ of personal failure,
embarrassment and rejection, instead of hardening my heart
and making me angry at the world and the SDA Church, in
the end drew me nearer to God and to a deeper understanding

753
Brian Neumann

and appreciation of who and what He really is, and also to a

renewed determination to discover truth, on the basis of sound,
unambiguous biblical support, at all costs. One thing is certain, I
did NOT become “perfect” in the process, but I did come to the
most profound realization that we are ALL, in particular myself,
sinners that are in desperate need of a loving, merciful God who
is doing ALL He can to save souls for His Kingdom. When
one is in this frame-of-mind it leaves no room for feelings of
superiority or pride—you are no better off than any other human
being, regardless of denomination or knowledge.
In addition to this, I have come to appreciate even more fully
(not just in theory), that the one thing God detests above all
else is spiritual arrogance and pride. It should go without saying
that, more often than not, those (individuals or institutions) that
are infected with this disease are usually quite oblivious to the
fact—they may well think of themselves as filled with a spirit
of humility and love for their fellow-man. After all, they are
constantly labouring to bring “sinners”/“lost sheep” into God’s
“true fold.” Unfortunately, this perception is a deception of the
most pernicious kind.
In the context of Seventh-day Adventism there seems to be
legitimate license for feeling this way because someone they believe
to be a true prophet of God has designated their denomination/
movement as such—contributing “divine” credence to their status.
However, I plead with sensible, thinking SDA’s to step back and
take another look—leaders and lay-members alike.
If it was not for Ellen White, the SDA Church may never
have found itself in the situation of believing they are the one
true remnant Christian faith. In addition however, if it were
not for Ellen White the SDA Church would not either have
faced constantly being on the brink of Christian cult status and
would not have had to deal with untold internal controversy over
doctrinal beliefs (such as the sanctuary teaching and belief in
Ellen White’s prophetic status), that most SDA theologians know

754
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

cannot be concretely established on the basis of clear scriptural

evidence. The SDA dilemma can clearly be traced back to Ellen
White’s unscriptural teachings. The embarrassment the church
has had to endure and will still continue to endure if nothing is
done about it, rests squarely on the shoulders of Ellen G. White,
and secondarily, on the shoulders of those who either choose to
remain blind to overwhelming evidence or choose to continue
speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
On the basis of what this book has exposed, over and above
all that has been revealed by many others in the past, my plea
to SDA leaders is to get together and formulate a plan to come
“clean” on Ellen G. White.
I plead with those leaders, such as those who played a part
in my wife Kamy’s separation from the SDA Church, to STOP
your lying and secret agendas. STOP pretending to support a
prophet you KNOW is false so that you can keep the SDA ship
afloat, save your jobs and status, while surreptitiously changing
the fundamental beliefs of the church you lead, in the hope
that you can rearrange her teachings just enough to fit your
twisted narrative of SDA “truth.” Or better still, fulfill your hope
that she will eventually fade into the mists of time—a white
elephant tucked away in some secret corner of the museum of
SDA pioneers.
Stop empowering the independent, self-supporting ministries
to perpetuate their fanatical teachings and practices, thinking
that they are the faithful “remnant” of the “remnant” holding the
torch of truth who, like the “Sword of Damocles,” hold Ellen
White over your heads because you, the official shepherds of
the flock, do not obey her yourselves. It might be that you will
get away with the deception for a little longer but one day you
will have to stand before the throne of ultimate reckoning and
give an account of how you perpetuated your deception simply
to maintain the “chosen status” of the SDA Church, a status
conferred upon the church by the very “prophet of God” you so

755
Brian Neumann

selectively choose to obey. The price you will pay is not worth the
reward of the present.
The irony is, if any institutions within the SDA system
of belief are faithful to what they claim to be truth, it is those
organizations, often self-supporting ministries, who are at least,
by appearance, staying true to the teachings of Ellen White and
the pioneers of your faith—they are at least “outwardly” faithful
even though they might be deceived.
Bear in mind, God is NO respecter of persons, and by the
same token, He is not bound by any church or denomination. The
SDA Church is NOT the only system of Christian faith that can
claim the Bible and the Bible alone for its beliefs. In fact, as has
been demonstrated in this book, many of her core beliefs, founded
on the “inspired” teachings of Ellen White, are not biblical at all.
It is time for leaders and lay members alike to break free from
anything and everything that cannot be sustained by Scripture
and to cling to that standard and THAT standard ALONE.
Drop Ellen White’s lie of Adventist “exclusivity” and “chosen
remnant” status. Drop the Talmud of teachings that cannot be
sustained by a CLEAR “thus saith the Lord.” Stop the ducking
and diving routines within your institutions, your congregations
and the outside world and come clean on Ellen White. If you
choose not to, then at the very least, those of you who are the
educators and leaders of this denomination, be bold enough
to make your stand on ALL that Ellen White has called this
church to be. Ministers, refuse meat, coffee, tea and alcohol.
Forbid competitive sports in your institutions. Shun “frivolous”
entertainment, such as dancing, checkers, cards and chess. Take off
the outward adornment, call upon your woman to dress as God’s
inspired servant, Ellen White, described—in all these things
follow her counsel. Unashamedly declare Ellen White’s and the
SDA Pioneers’ whole sanctuary doctrine in its unadulterated and
original form. Stand up without shame or excuse and declare
to the rest of the world that the SDA Church IS “the apple of

756
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

God’s eye,” that your church is such because, even though you are
not the only Christian body who can claim you keep ALL the
commandments, you DO claim to be the only ones who have the
“Spirit of Prophecy” in your midst, in the form of Ellen G.
White’s writings.
If you, the leaders of this faith, refuse to follow ALL that has
been given via Ellen White, and do not teach your members to do
the same, even if the world might regard you as “odd, singular,
straight-laced extremists,” then it will send a clear signal to all that
you, the designated shepherds of the flock, do not TRULY believe in
the “standard” that “God” has called you to “reach” and that Ellen G.

White is TRULY, as the title of this book describes, a white

elephant that serves no constructive purpose, except to patronize

and appease the conscience of a fast disappearing generation
of
“faithful believers,” and provide you with dubious prophetic

authority to still declare yourselves God’s Remnant Church.
Lest individuals or any collective body within the broader
Christian community are tempted to point fingers at SDA’s,
bear in mind, no religious system is perfect. Th e reason for this
is because all religious systems are composed of human beings
who stand equally, irrespective of rank, accomplishment, or
recognition, sinful and fallen before the throne of God—perfection
is a Person and that Person is Jesus Christ. Our righteousness is
simply filthy rags.
Scripture and the living word, Jesus Christ alone, are the
standard, and it is to this that we should cling. It is not our
knowledge of Bible doctrine, not affiliation to an organization
or membership to a church or cause that decides our eternal
destiny—salvation is a Person and that Person is Jesus Christ—to
live or die is entirely, wholly, completely and without exception
dependent on our relationship to Him.
If there is one thing I regret more than anything else, when I
previously ministered within the SDA faith, it is that I did not
build my entire ministry on the foundation of Jesus and Jesus

757
Brian Neumann

alone (the written and living Word). Far more important than
asking forgiveness for the errors I might have taught, many of
them based on the teachings of Ellen White, I ask forgiveness
for not lifting up Jesus above ALL else. I have come to see that
all preachers and religious educators, regardless of profession,
affiliation or creed, are not without error in what they teach.
However, the one’s that shine above the rest, even when they are
not always right on every doctrine, are those who ARE RIGHT
in making every theme, every sentence and every word replete
with Jesus Christ, till the moment they present their final plea for
sinners, such as themselves, to choose life instead of death.
I will let my wife, Kamy, have the final word.

* * *
If you are an SDA and after reading this book are wondering how
to manage the daunting task of sifting through what to keep and what
to throw away when it comes to your beliefs and how to separate the
truth of God’s Word from all your preconceived notions that may not
be based solely on the Bible, my suggestion is simply this:
Get out your Bible and study God’s Word as you have never
studied it before. TIe passages you have always looked at a certain way,
because it is what you have been taught but not necessarily because it is
clear in Scripture, look at those things with an open mind and
prayerfully ask God to unveil His true meaning to you.
You will be
surprised how much God will reveal strictly from His Word that
you never saw before and things that used to be obscure and
difficult to explain will become more and more simple and

understandable as you let God’s Word interpret itself instead of
someone else having to interpret it for you. TIis is what we have
been doing and it has been an exciting adventure to realize that there is
more to everything we previously understood or believed than we
ever conceived.

*O

GBDU

*

BN

DVSSFOUMZ

XSJUJOH

B

CPPL

BCPVU

UIF


NJMMFOOJVN

CBTFE

TPMFMZ

PO

0ME

BOE

/FX

5FTUBNFOU

QSPQIFDZ


FOUJUMFE
%FTUJOZhT
%SFBN

‰EVF
GPS
SFMFBTF
JO

758
 Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t

Don’t be discouraged. Don’t allow superstition to cause you to

fear trusting in the Bible and the Holy Spirit to give you
clarity and interpretation. I say superstition because there have
been warnings made from Ellen White’s writings that if a person
rejects her than they will eventually reject the Bible as well and
this has caused people to be afraid of giving the Bible full ability
to interpret itself without some other authority. Th
e Catholics use
the priests, Mormons use Joseph Smith, Islam uses Mohammed
and Adventists use Ellen White.
TIere are thousands of people who have chosen to give up
their belief in Ellen White and trust to the Bible alone and have
only grown stronger in their faith and not in any way given up
their relationship with God and His Word.
Sometimes we have to start at the beginning again. A quote
is brought to mind that I read from Oswald Chambers in a book
called My Utmost for His Highest where he says, “Let the attitude
of the life be a continual ‘going out’ in dependence upon God,
and your life will have an ineffable charm about it which is a
satisfaction to Jesus. You have to learn to go out of convictions,
out of creeds, out of experiences, until so far as your faith is
concerned; there is nothing between yourself and God.” 2 Peter
1:3, 4 tells us that “His divine power has given us everything we
need for life and godliness through our knowledge of Him who
called us by His own glory and goodness. Through these He has
given us His very great and precious promises, so that through
them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the
corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
Resist the temptation of pride and stubbornness. It is a
difficult thing to come to a juncture after a lifetime of dedication,
loyalty and perhaps work in a specific church and then to make
changes. It might be a temptation to feel that it is too much
to ask to admit that there are still things God has not revealed
to you or that perhaps you were even wrong in some of your
understanding and that He would actually ask you to go in a
different direction. It is not for VT to
question why
God chooses

759
B
r i a n N

e u m a n n

the times He does to reveal things. Even if XF are in the last leg
of MJGF XF must be willing to follow Jesus wherever He leads and
give up whatever XF must give up for Him. “If any man
come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26. We will end this
book with a poem by 3PCFSU
'SPTU.

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I–
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
05)&3
#00,4
#:
#3*"/
4
/&6."//

4IBEPX
PG
%FBUI

-FHBM
"MJFO

#MJOE
'BJUI

#00,4
#:
,".:
-://
/&6."//

0I
UP
CF
B
7VMDBO

&OJHNB

%FTUJOZhT
%SFBN

4PVM
1SPWJEFS
EBJMZ
EFWPUJPOBM