Scholars Share Views on Ellen G. White at Loma Linda University Event
by Monte Sahlin
By Adventist Today News Team, June 11, 2014
Historians from within and outside the Adventist movement shared assessments of Ellen G. White and her contributions during a May 31 event on the campus of Loma Linda University (LLU). The complete manuscripts of the presentations, as well as an article summarizing the surprising number of scholarly books on White that are being produced, will be published in the summer issue of Adventist Today’s quarterly print magazine.
This is a topic that has long been invisible outside the Adventist community, and it has been narrowly focused on predictable issues during insider discussions. The focus of this event was much broader than debating again these narrow concerns. It comes in the same season as the publication of two landmark volumes: Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, a collection of papers published by Oxford University Press, and The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia (Review & Herald), a monumental collection of virtually all known information on the figure, with nearly 200 contributors and 1,500 pages. It includes, for example, the first published list of every White letter, noting to whom is was originally addressed to, when and where it was written, and where extracts have been published. (Appendix C)
Most of what has been written on White over the years is rooted in opinion or devotion, pro or con, instead of the careful, comprehensive fact-finding done by professional historians. Many pages of passionate pleas and heated exchanges, often rooted in less-than-accurate information, are typical. The discourse at this event was of a different nature. The theme was “Scholars Discover Ellen, Finally.”
Two of the presentations at the event were from scholars no longer connected with the Adventist denomination. Dr. Ronald L. Numbers is an emeritus professor of the history of science at the University of Wisconsin; the author of two acclaimed histories: Ellen White: Prophetess of Health, now in its third edition, and The Creationists, in a second edition. Dr. Jonathan Butler has written several significant essays on Adventist history over four decades and is completing a cultural biography of White.
Numbers’ book on White was first published in the 1970s and kicked up considerable controversy. Other presenters have key roles within the denomination. Dr. Theodore Levterov is director of the White Estate branch office at LLU. Dr. Terrie Aamodt is a professor of history and English at Walla University. Dr. Jon Paulien is dean of the School of Religion at LLU and a well-published Bible scholar on the book of Revelation.
Historians outside Adventist circles and at the most prestigious institutions have begun to take an interest in the contribution the movement has made to the larger society. Numbers is under contract with Harvard University Press to produce a book on Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the originator of Adventist health ministries and a close associate of White’s for many years. He is also collecting information to write a biography of his grandfather, Pastor W. H. Branson, who served as president of the denomination’s General Conference in the 1950s.
If you would like to get a copy of the complete presentations from the May 31 event, contact the Adventist Today office by email at atoday@atoday.org or by telephone at (503) 826-8600.
If you have not perused (it would take a few months to really read and disgest the whole thing) the new EGW Encyclopedia or read Ellen Harmon White, American Prophet, you have missed out in a big way. Head straight to Amazon and purchase both at your earliest convenience! (Only the Encyclopedia is currently available at our local ABC.)
George Knight, Jerry Moon and Denis Fortin did a masterful job that deserves a place in every library. While there are things I wish they had included or presented more details on, this volume is a Tour de Force that deserves both wide distribution and acclaim. (ie. It is apparent from both my correspondence with the editors and the White Estate that no one has ever attempted to compile a list of Ellen White's visions, when the occured and what they contained – an amazing oversight considering her pivotal role in our own church and the Victorian Era – omissions of this nature are minor. Even Arthur White could only conjecture that it was approximately 2000 visions, while the SDA Index to the Ellen White writings lists 354.)
The Oxford University Press book, Ellen Harmon White will go down in history as one of the finest books on Adventist History as well as Ellen White ever written. It should take its place, along with Herbert Douglas's book, Messenger of the Lord and George Knight's Meet Ellen White, as books which demythologize Ellen White and present her and her work in a more nuanced and balanced manner than has been the case for most of our church's history. Ellen White emerges from this book as a person first, then as a prophet – her humanity moving her and her husband James from 2D icons to a 3D, very human but very committed and spiritual leaders.
I, for one, have been blessed by both of these books and, as mentioned above, encourage everyone to read them!
While it is true that the Ellen White Encyclopedia includes the first widely available printed list of every White letter and manuscript, searchable electronic lists have been available from Loma Linda University and Southwestern Adventist University for several years now.
They too note who a letter was originally addressed to, when and where it was written and where extracts have been published. Both universities also provide searchable lists of letters written to Ellen White and her office, among other electronic indexes.
Additionally, the electronic indexes available at Southwestern (egw.swau.edu) include the White Estate's topical index of her letters and manuscripts, summaries of most letters and some manuscripts, and links to the full text that will be available next year on the Ellen White Writings website.
Alfredo Vergel
Public Services and Special Collections Librarian
Southwestern Adventist University
Those interested in different points of view concerning the nature of EGW visions and various types of written materials composed by EGW and others in her name will certainly want to compare and contrast the treatment of these topics in the EGW encylopedia, the Oxford University EGW volume, the Douglas volume and George Knight's earlier treatment of EGW. Such a work of contrast and comparison would be worth, at least, a full length article. It would reveal a number of things about how far the study of EGW has come–from sectrian, apologetic hagiographic treatments that views her as a unique religious figure with a direct pipeline to God to a scholarly historical and sociological assessments that places her in cultural context as reflecting the religious turmoil of 19th Century America situating EGW along side a number of other contemporary American mystics and charismatics as well as such figures as Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith Jr..
Each of the three religions depending on a prophet or visionary leader were viewed equally by their followers. Do Adventists revere EGW more than Mormons view Joseph Smith? Without devoted and devout followers, none of those would be known today. It is their followers, not the individuals, who created those religions.
Elaine,
You are right. Very succinct post. You will never talk a devoted Mormon out of the idea that their prophet is a man of god and the subsequent church that came out of this idolatry is a religion claimed as being the one "true" religion. Where have we heard that before?
Elaine is, of course, correct. We tend to focus on the charismatic leader/prophet/visionary. Such a person without, as Elaine termed it, a "devoted and devout" following gets, at best, a footnote in a dusty history book. Prophets only become Prophets when they acquire a following and get them organized.. In the modern world, to create a Church, Prophets need one or more Organizers to push the Prophet among groups of Followers. In EGW's case, she married her full time Organizer. A very convenient arrangement. She also attracted someone with economic resources, i.e., money (Joseph Bates). As far as we know, the other mystics who were contemporaries of EGW in New England who reported having visions acquired neither an Organizer nor attracted anyone with financial resources. They are thus footnotes in dissertations.
Ervin,
My Australian brother-in-law when asked why Americans are so often seen around the world as "the ugly-Americans" said that for the most part it is not true that we are perceived that way – rather that we are seen as very naive and very ignorant – we get all of our information from the same two or three news channels, the same two or three news magazines, the same radio programs – all produced in the United States and all with a United States slant. He said that one of the healthiest things we could do was listen to the BBC and Al Jazeera other non-North American news and read online news articles from a wide variety of sources to get a truly fair and balanced understanding of world affairs.
The same is true when it comes to Ellen White. Arthur White's treatment of his grandmother in his six volume biography gave us a lot of detail many did not have – but, as would be expected it was very hagiographic (A worshipful or idealizing biography.). It was after all his grandmother. George Knight is a careful and respectful historian with a great deal of sympathy for Ellen White who, while he sees her through somewhat rose-colored glasses, goes out of his way to show her warts and wrinkles as well as her good points. Most have appreciated the way he balances an ability to see Ellen White in 3D and very human and someone who God used to guide his church. Herbert Douglas surprised me when I first read his messenger of the Lord. Definitely on the far right of Adventism, he still went out his way to show a very human Ellen White and to try to develop a hermeneutic for studying and using her work that went beyond overly simplistic. The new Encyclopedia is just that – encyclopedias just present as many facts as possible without attempting to parse out meanings and be apologetic. It remains to future students to discover whether they are accurate and comprehensive. What is clear is that it is so far the closest to an Adventist World Book or Brittanica approach to Ellen White that deserves respect not only for the volume of information it encompasses, but also for it's attempts to be neutral when it comes to a particular slant. While Moon and Fortin deserve real credit for the work it took to prepare this amount of material, I would also imagine that George Knights bent to fairness and honesty made certain that it was balanced.
The new book by Oxford Press finally provides the view from beyond the insular world of official Adventism by a group of scholars who go out of their way to be honest and complete but respectful – a view that Adventisst and non-Adventists have all needed for almost 100 years. You cannot understand Ellen White if you do not understand James White's role in elevating her above the many competing prophetic voices in early Methodism and Adventism. This book fills in many of the gaps You cannot really understand the Great Disappointment unless you begin to appreciate it, and especially William Miller and his followers, in the context of the Second Great Awakening. (The printed works of J. Edmin Orr are a good place to start for a very accessible read.. You can also search on YouTube for several of his lectures given back in the 1960s.) You will never comprehend Ellen White's theology and how it appears to contradict itself unless you understand the many ways it grew and evolved through the years. I could go on with numerous examples, but suffice it to say that this book presents a very balanced, and at times disturbing, view of the prophetic and personal Ellen White that, no matter your view on her spiritual authority, fills in the blanks that for many have existed since and before her death.
A counselor friend told me a while back that a person never really deals with the baggage they carry from their childhood until they are able to see their parents strengths and failings honestly. When that happens, you can then begin to accept them for what and who they were and to love them in ways that transcends their failings and can forgive their failures. Because we have rarely if ever been allowed to see the real Ellen White and to understand her failings and shortcomings personally and theologically, we have not been able to develop healthy and balanced ways of viewing her work and works. While this book may disturb some, and may even challenge the faith of those who can only accept the prophetic ministry of a saint who is always right and who always lives perfectly what she teaches, for most it will be an opportunity to appreciate her and her work as we never have before.
Moose: 'It is apparent from both my correspondence with the editors and the White Estate that no one has ever attempted to compile a list of Ellen White's visions, when the occured and what they contained – an amazing oversight considering her pivotal role in our own church and the Victorian Era – omissions of this nature are minor.'
In other words, an Adventist Hadith. An interesting idea.
Dr Taylor: 'Elaine is, of course, correct. We tend to focus on the charismatic leader/prophet/visionary. Such a person without, as Elaine termed it, a "devoted and devout" following gets, at best, a footnote in a dusty history book. Prophets only become Prophets when they acquire a following and get them organized.'
Of course true. I can call myself king, president or any other name or title, but unless there are people willing to accept that, then it is rather meaningless.
For similar reasons, there has been a long debate within Christianity that the founder of Christianity is in many respects Paul, not Jesus. One could say the same as Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith for Mormonism. So the critical question here, for Adventism, is who were the "head cheerleaders" for Adventism, without whom Ellen White's professed gift would have been meaningless. Perhaps as much research, if not more, should be written about them?
The known and studied "head cheerleaders" were, of course, EGW's husband, James White and Joseph Bates. But Mr. Ferguson is correct, we need to know more about some of the other major supporters early in EGW prophetic career. The role of her mother needs to be explored. I assume that professional historicans and others are working on this and other individuals now that EGW is out of the historical closet that Adventist tradition keep her enclosed for so long. .
The collateral effect of the Great Disappointment tsunami was indeed volatile, sweeping away to historical oblivion a surprisingly large number of advent groups and subgroups that accepted one or another of the fast-fleeing advent mystics of the early 1840s and 1850s. For several years, it appeared that the Little Flock would also be swept away, as it nonetheless inched its way to late prominence. In fact, the comparatively robust Advent Christian Church at first grew rapidly and was viewed as wearing the true mantle of Millerism for many years. That denomination, though now seriously diminished in size and influence, still has members and chapels here in Oregon's Willamette Valley and elsewhere, and to my knowledge follows strictly the injunction not to post crosses on the exterior of its buildings. Two other small groups (seventh-day Sabbatarian, in this case) are centered in southern Idaho. Each of these has tenaciously opposed any overtures to accept the writings of Ellen White as inspired.
I would recommend for further study "Ellen White and Adventism: Beyond the True/False Prophet Debate" in Volume 13, Issue 4 (July/August 2005) of Adventist Today. An expanded version of this article is available at http://jimmoyers.com/spirituality/egw.html.
The other interesting point that comes from all this, that a prophet becomes a prophet as opposed to some deluded soul by virtue of being accepted as such by followers, is that what of the mindset of those followers? In other words, what was it about the purported prophet's message that resonated with people?
Perhaps we focus too much on the prophet as the starting point, not the followers first. It is the need of the followers that is critical, and the prophet is simply the person who best fills that need. With Adventism, there was very much the Great Disappointment, as we all know too well. But what about other professed prophets throughout history, including Jesus Himself?
And why did Adventism take its own peculiar bent, into Sabbath-keeping, vegetarianism, soul sleep, health message etc?
Because the pioneers rejected the Christian churches where they had previously attended. They read the Hebrew Bible to the neglect of the NT where they they found Sabbath as a Jewish Law; the unclean foods that were part of the Law given to Jews, The OT for their belief about death, and the health message was taught by such people as Sylvester Graham and Dr. Kellogg. EGW wrote it and it became part of her prophecy to the fledgling church.
I take it that you're not a Sabbath keeper then Mrs Nelson. What about the other nine 'Jewish' commandments? Perhaps worshipping idols is now ok practice for NT Christians?
The first four commandments are made for, and require a theocratic government, which was the type under which the Israelites live. The other 5 have been in civil governments long before the Decalogue was given at Sinai. The 9th is only "hidden" in the human heart and cannot be observed or judged. Judaism. It was never part of Christianity. Neither God nor humans can command worship on a certain day. The command was only to "rest." There is no single writing by and for Christians in the NT that commands any day to be sacred. The Gospels were written long after the apostolic writings which specifically wrote that we were not to judge anyone on a day or other festivals (see Lev.23). The 7th day Sabbath was given solely to Jews and it is THEIR day, never given Christians
So then NT Christians are free to worship idols, blaspheme the Name of God, and have as many other gods as they wish?
Sorry Elaine but this makes no sense to me.
Yes, freedom is guaranteed and all religions are based on accepting its premises. No one is forced. Does everyone who calls himself Christian meet with your expectations?
Elaine, I think you are twisting the notion of 'freedom'. Yes, in a society which separates church from state, a non-theocratic society, then people should be free to worship or not worship what they will. But that is not to suggest Jesus' kingdom of heaven, which He continually preached about, advocated the abolition of monotheism and embrace of paganism. I can't find that idea anywhere in the NT. Your point of view is just lunacy I am affraid.
I know we've been on this ride before but…
'The first four commandments are made for, and require a theocratic government, which was the type under which the Israelites live.'
I don't think it can be said that worshipping other pagan gods and making idols to them was only relevant to a theocratic government. I would rather say they are the very basis of monotheism. I can see nowhere in the NT which suggests Christians should not be monotheistic. In fact, you have Paul trying to use the alter of the unknown God to convince the philosophers of Athens to adopt monotheism.
'The other 5 have been in civil governments long before the Decalogue was given at Sinai.'
True, which only highlights that these aphoratic laws (as opposed to other causatic laws in the Torah) are seen as universal principles – like what we might today consider natural universal human rights.
'The command was only to "rest."'
Actually, it was ironically also a command to work – on the other six days. If you sit on your bum for 7 days a week you also break the 4th commandment of the Decalogue. That is a point emphasised by the great Jewish theologian Abraham Herschel.
'There is no single writing by and for Christians in the NT that commands any day to be sacred.'
Silence is not proof.
The NT is also silent on the 2nd commandment, of making graven images, yet few Christians (except the really way-out variety, which maybe you are Elaine) would suggest Christians should engage in making graven images. The NT also doesn't say anything about not cursing the deaf, as the Torah requires, and yet few Christians would deny that still applies today either.
In fact, the Apostles in Acts 15:20 didn't look at the issue as one of the traditional 'moral' and 'ceremonial' laws, as almost all Christian creeds (and Adventists) suggest. Rather, the 4 commands against offering sacrifices to idols, from strangled animals, from blood, and from fornication, seem to correspond to the 'alien' requirements of the Torah.
You see, the Torah never commanded Gentiles to keep all the rules that applied to Jews, like circumcission. Rather, the Torah only commands Gentiles to keep a lesser number of relevant rules, that govern the basics of monotheism and ethics, again roughly equivalent to natural law notions of universal human rights. So it was in the NT times, so it is with Jews today in how they view Gentiles.
The Sabbath was not an issue for Gentile Christians in the NT period, because they were already keeping it. Compare that to say circumcission, which was an obvious barrier to conversion. If the Apostles wanted to strike down the Sabbath, then they had a perfect opportunity in Acts 15:21. Instead, James simply affirms in an oblique way that the synagogues already had long understood what requirements were applicable to Gentiles, because the Law had been read in the synagogues on Sabbath for generations.
'The Gospels were written long after the apostolic writings which specifically wrote that we were not to judge anyone on a day or other festivals (see Lev.23).'
Couple of points here. First, Paul's writing on the Law are confusing, as 2 Pet 3:15-17 attest, and were used then (and used by you now), to promote antinominism.
Second, Paul wrote to individual Churches; compare with the "catholic" (i.e. universal) epistles of James, Peter and John. Thus, this also led to Paul's words being misapplied outside of their specific and narrow context.
Third, the so-called 'anti-Sabbath' proof texts involve situations where Paul is deal with Gnostic heresies, often with Judaizing elements. For example, in the well-known text in Col 2, Paul mentions weird doctrines about worshipping angels. The text in Romans 14 also seems to be about mandatory fasting days, come about through Gnostic ascetic practices, not the seventh-day Sabbath. So again, context is everything.
'The 7th day Sabbath was given solely to Jews and it is THEIR day, never given Christians'
Except of course the Sabbath is the only one of the 10 commandments that says it explicitly is to apply to Gentiles. The 4th commandment is the only one of the Decalogue that explicitly says it is to apply to 'aliens' – to Gentiles. In fact, it is so universal, it is to apply to dumb animals!
So it is a true irony of history that it alone is the only commandment of the Decalogue that Christians have done away with. And Jesus Himself made clear the Sabbath was given for mankind – not just for Jews.
Sorry also forget to add
'The Gospels were written long after the apostolic writings which specifically wrote that we were not to judge anyone on a day or other festivals (see Lev.23).'
It is true the Gospels were written after the apostolic writings, especially of Paul. That is not a problem – that is a benefit.
In my view, Acts 15:20,21 is Luke's explanation of how the Torah, and the portions of it, are to apply to Gentiles. The fact Luke wrote this after Paul's writings is a benefit, not a problem, because it in effect is Luke's attempt to explain Pauline concepts that Paul himself has problems explaining.
Luke is pro-Paul, as clear in various parts of Acts. And Paul struggles to explain this issue himself, as 2 Pet 3:15-17 attests. And Luke really wants to emphasise this theologican understanding about the Law, which is why he records James repeating the summary later in Acts 15 and then again later in Acts 21.
With all due respect to y'all, it seems that this discussion has cycled far away from the subject of the article. While the Sabbath may deserve discussion, it is far from the subject at hand and might be better carried on elsewhere.
That's what happens Moose here, when people keep bringing up their favourite pet subjects. With Elaine Nelson, it is the idea that the Law was done away with at the Cross, and that the NT promotes a totally new religion distinct from OT Judaism.
We've been on that round-a-bout before and we'll do so again. That is the nature of AToday – it just to annoy me – now I just accept it. I don't think you or anyone else will be able to change it. Nathan and Stephen Foster have both railed against the "drive-by" off-topic comment, alas to no avail.
There are other scholarly books on the subject of founders of particular religions. William James's lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience" is one. In general he describes religious leaders such as EGW and Joseph Smith very well. These people pursue their religious life exclusively which makes them eccentric and prone to visitations from god or his messengers. They also become obsessive, given over to trances, hearing voices etc all of which are in part pathological. However, James points out the pathology imparts to them their religious authority and influence. Indeed these people gain authority when followers set aside the power of their skeptical intellect.
It is a good thing for historians to render a perspective on these people and pull off the veil of mysticism. I wonder what the GC apologists will do as more light is shed on EGW?
Is the history of world religion, and in turn the history of the world itself, driven by people suffering from schitzophrenia? Was it any coincident that Mary Magdelene saw the risen Jesus first, given she previous was demon possessed, which some today might suggest is evidence of mental illness?
Is the history of the whole world built on a lie?
There have been deluded followers of proclaimed prophets since history has been recorded. What makes a prophet? Followers. If no one recognizes someone as a prophet, he is simply another deluded human. Throughout history there have been many false prophets but followers are not those who determine whether someone is a false prophet or true one.
Jim Jones may have had more followers in a few short years than EGW, but what does that say other than people are easily deluded and deceived.
Elaine,
I think you have misunderstood something. A LEADER is identified by them having followers. Not so with a prophet. They are identified by their calling from God and are neither identified or affirmed by the number of their followers.
Where would EGW be if no one listened or accepted her visions? Unheard and unknown.
But where do the visions come from? That's my question. From someone's own deluded imagination, or from a higher source (which many call God), or a combination of the two? What do you think Elaine? Were Jesus, Paul, Mohammed, Buddha, Zoastria and yes Ellen White all completely deluded, just thinking they were communing with the divine, but in fact from just having a psychotic episode?
Where do visions come from? Psychiatrists report that many of their patients have "visions" and even in the media we read of crimes commited because of voices ordering them or visionary experiences.
There is no one way to determine the origin of visions but it is well known that brain injuries can induce strange mental changes.
There were no psychiatrists who examined EGW when she first began having visions. Why did people believe she was given these by God? That's the real question as many religions: Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, and others began with visionary experienes by the founders.
Elaine, it seems you believe in (if that is the right word) something akin to a non-realist approach to religion, as most recently promoted by the organisation 'Sea of Faith' associated with Don Cupitt. They in turn are seen to derrive their ideas from that of Plato's noble lie. It fundamentally involves the most-modernist notion:
"the belief that God has no "real", objective, or empirical existence, independent of human language and culture; God is "real" in the sense that he is a potent symbol, metaphor or projection, but he has no objective existence outside and beyond the practice of religion.[11] Non-realism therefore entails a rejection of all supernaturalism, including concepts such as miracles, the afterlife, and the agency of spirits.[12]
Cupitt wrote, "God is the sum of our values, representing to us their ideal unity, their claims upon us and their creative power".[13] Cupitt calls this "a voluntarist interpretation of faith: a fully demythologized version of Christianity".[12] It entails the claim that even after we have given up the idea that religious beliefs can be grounded in anything beyond the human realm, religion can still be believed and practised in new ways."
And your point is? Merely to diagnose what you think are my beliefs? Why does it matter to you what I believe? You should only be concerned with your own faith.
Why shoud I only be concerned with my own faith Elaine? Am I like Cain, to assert that I am not my brother's keeper? Did not Paul say we should be like Jews to Jews and like Gentiles to Gentiles? Did not Paul use a pagan alter to the unknown God to dialogue with the Athenians? So isn't the basis of dialogue essentially about trying to understand where both sides are coming from; otherwise, both sides simply talk past each other?
Your on an SDA-affiliated website. You come here to challenge SDAs in their beliefs. Is it not natural for people to want to know where you are coming from in your beliefs?
In life, and I know it is far shorter than yours, I have found that it is easy to criticize. But when those critics are themselves challenged, it seems more often than not they don't offer a very good alternative.
So what's your alternative Elaine?
If there are some here who do not know what I believe, I am happy to oblige them. This is the reason for this blog: to encourage conversations about SdA beliefs and you and I both recognize that there is a great variety represented here and little total unanimity. Neither you, nor most of the others are in full agreement with the interpretations of SdA doctrines, otherwise, such people would not be here; there would be nothing to discuss. If everyone agreed, there are none who are thinking.
Yes of course. And if you are going to participate in those discussions, then expect to have people ask you for where you are coming from, from your context, to help make the dialogue meaningful. I am willing for the same.