In previous chapters we have seen several ways Ellen White and the early Adventists dealt with their doctrinal errors. In this chapter we will briefly summarize and enumerate what we have already discovered, and add a number of other methods used by Ellen White and the SDA denomination in their ongoing attempt to relate to the doctrinal problems associated with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment.
Ways EGW and/or SDAs dealt with doctrinal error
1. They made God responsible.
Ellen White said God held his hand over the mistake on Miller’s chart. When she claimed God removed his hand, early Adventists immediately saw their error.1 She also said that God wanted them to meet with disappointment.2
2. They changed or reinterpreted the predicted event.
After the October 22, 1844, disappointment, Adventists changed the predicted event. They had prophesied that Christ would come to cleanse the earth on that date. When He did not, they said that He started cleansing the heavenly sanctuary on that date.3
3. They redefined the “door.”
When early Adventists could no longer hold to the shut door of mercy, they redefined their “door theology.” In 1849 they added the open door in Revelation 3:8.4 Later they reinterpreted the door in the parable of the ten virgins5—which at first they applied to 1844 to some time in the future at the close of Christ’s ministration in the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary.6
4. They changed or omitted the shut-door statements.
When republishing his early works, James White changed or omitted the shut-door statements from his writings.7
5. They suppressed the vision.
There is evidence that attempts were made to suppress the early visions of Ellen White which taught the shut door.8
6. They changed the vision.
When Adventists reprinted the first vision of Ellen White, they changed the vision by leaving out the words that taught the shut door.9
7. They contradicted themselves.
Some might even say they were untruthful. In the preface of Early Writings, a reprint of her early visions, it is stated:
No 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.10
The actual facts are that James11 and Ellen White left out the portion of her first vision which taught the closed door. The facts show that EGW was dishonest when she denied that her early visions taught the shut door.
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.12
The truth is, as we have seen, that not only did the first vision of EGW teach the shut door, but so did her second vision, a number of her other statements, and her Camden vision as well.
8. They redefined the term “within the veil.”
The biblical term, “within the veil” always refers to the Most Holy Place,13,14 and thus Hebrews 6:19, 20 by itself proves the whole scheme of Adventist theology wrong. Ellen White, without any biblical support, redefined this term to mean the curtain separating the holy place from the outer court.15
The above eight points are a summary of what has been covered thus far in this book. Now we turn to more ways EGW and/or SDAs dealt with doctrinal error.
More ways Adventists dealt with error
9. EGW wrote testimonies to undermine critics.
A. F. Ballenger, who at one time was a respected denominational leader, later developed his own sanctuary theology.16 His interpretation of the sanctuary was divergent from the mainstream SDA view17 and showed some of the errors of the doctrine of the SDA cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment, including the errors of Ellen White’s misuse of the term “within the veil.”18 He circulated his interpretation which soon attracted the attention of Ellen White. To stop this “heresy,” Ellen White used two more methods to support her error. Please read carefully the following quotation.
I long daily to be able to do double duty. I have been pleading with the Lord for strength and wisdom to reproduce the writings of the witnesses who were confirmed in the faith in the early history of the message. After the passing of the time in 1844, they received the light and walked in the light, and when the men claiming to have new light would come in with their wonderful messages regarding various points of Scripture, we had, through the moving of the Holy Spirit, testimonies [in context these are her visions] right to the point, which cut off the influence of such messages as Elder A. F. Ballenger has been devoting his time to presenting. This poor man has been working decidedly against the truth that the Holy Spirit has confirmed. When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained!19
Ellen White, who before had condemned nearly everyone outside the little flock of Adventist believers who had not accepted her understanding of “truth,”20 found that she could use the same technique to silence those inside denominational circles who disagreed with her. In the quotation above she said “we had testimonies right to the point,which cut off the influence of such messages as Elder A. F. Ballenger.” These “testimonies,” which she claims were “through the moving of the Holy Spirit,” were her own writings by which she silenced her opposition. Many, if not most, members of the SDA church considered her writings to have divine authority. Ellen White, herself, claimed that authority in hundreds of places.21,22 Therefore, when she lingered a man to be“working decidedly against the truth,” for all practical purposes, his influence and employment within Adventism were finished.
10. They taught that confirmed “truth” was never to be investigated.
Once “truth” was confirmed by the visions or testimonies of Ellen White, no thought was ever to be given to anything contrary to that “truth.” That “truth” was to stand forever.
When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained.23
This statement deserves careful attention. It puts the believer in Ellen White in a position of being unable to objectively evaluate any “truth” confirmed by her “testimonies.” Could this be the reason why the SDA church continues to have such a following despite the fact that objective evaluation of the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment shows it to be in error?24 Could this be the reason so many documented errors in the published writings of Ellen White have never been seriously addressed by the SDA church?25
The above quotation is not an isolated statement of EGW. She says that it is Satan’s plan to weaken faith in “the Testimonies” and if people lose faith in her writings they will end up in destruction.26 She says that when she speaks in the Testimonies, “it is God, and not an erring mortal, who has spoken.27
I encourage the reader to thoughtfully contrast Ellen White’s method of control with that of Paul’s method of encouraging his listeners to check out what he, an apostle of Christ, taught.
And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed…(Acts 17:10-12).
Unlike Paul, Ellen White condemned people who examined her writings to see if they agreed with Scripture. They were not even to entertain the idea that she could possibly be wrong!
Ellen White’s benchmark of “truth” appears to be the validity of the 1844 movement. Of Ballenger she wrote:
Elder Ballenger’s proofs are not reliable. If received, they would destroy the faith of God’s people in the truth that has made us what we are. We must be decided on this subject; for the points he is trying to prove by scripture are not sound.28
11. They made multiple applications or interpretations.
As time passed, it again became evident that many, if not most, of the biblical applications made by Ellen White to the Advent movement of 1844-1851 were erroneous.29 She now started making what we will call multiple applica-tions. There are dozens of examples which could be cited.30 Only a few are given to demonstrate this method
In her book Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, published in 1858, Ellen White applied “the first angel’s message” to the 1843 Miller prediction that Christ would come in that year.31 EGW applied “the second angel’s message” to the call to come out of Babylon-the “fallen churches”—which rejected Miller’s date-setting for the second coming.32 EGW applied the third angel’s message to the reinterpretation of Miller’s “corrected” 1844 message of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the duty to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.33
After 1844 there were some who concluded that the Adventist interpretation of the first and second angel’s messages of Revelation 14 was wrong. They felt the true fulfillment of these messages lay in the future and not in the 1844 movement. In response to these suggestions Ellen White wrote:
After the great disappointment in 1844, Satan and his angels were busily engaged in laying snares to unsettle the faith of the body. He was affecting the minds of individuals who had a personal experience in these things. They had an appearance of humility. They changed the first and second messages, and pointed to the future for their fulfillment, while others pointed far back in the past, declaring that they had been there fulfilled. These individuals were drawing the minds of the inexperienced away, and unsettling their faith. Some were searching the Bible to try to build up a faith of their own, independent of the body.Satan exulted in all this; for he knew that those who broke loose from the anchor, he could affect by different errors and drive about with winds of doctrine. Many who had led in the first and second messages, denied them, and division and scattering was throughout the body.34
Two things must be said about the above statement of EGW. First, she indicates it was Satan who was causing some to search the Scriptures to try to build up a faith of their own. Second, Ellen White states that Satan and his angels were behind those promoting a future fulfillment of the first and second angel’s messages. With this well in mind, we see that Ellen White, herself, did exactly what she said Satan was behind.
The second angel’s message of Revelation 14 was first preached in the summer of 1844, and it then had a more direct application to the churches of the United States, where the warning of the judgment had been most widely proclaimed and most generally rejected, and where the declension in the churches had been most rapid. But the message of the second angel did not reach its complete fulfillment in 1844. The churches then experienced a moral fall, in consequence of their refusal of the light of the advent message;but that fall was not complete. As they have continued to reject the special truths for this time they have fallen lower and lower. Not yet, however, can it be said that “Babylon is fallen.”35
Here, Ellen White states that the real fulfillment of the second angel’s message was yet future, the same interpretation she earlier said came from Satan. One begins to wonder who the angel was that showed her all these things.
Of interest to evangelicals at this point, is what EGW says about the other churches. Earlier, she said that the pastors who rejected the various “truths” of early Adven-tism were rejected by God and under the delusions of Satan. Now, she states: “As they have continued to reject the special truths [Adventist message] for this time they have fallen lower and lower.” If the evangelical churches in 1844 were rejected by God and under the delusions of Satan, and have since then “fallen lower and lower,” as EGW asserts, Adventists must think evangelical churches are in a desperate condition now.36
In Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, the chapter entitled “The First Angel’s Message,” is dedicated to Miller’s prediction that Christ would come in 1843.37 In The Great Controversy, EGW applies the first angel’s message to the heavenly sanctuary investigative judgment.
The first angel’s message of Revelation 14, announcing the hour of God’s judgment and calling upon men to fear and worship Him….38
Which one is correct?
This concept of multiple applications is a major dynamic in SDA theology. It is reflected in the title of an early Adventist publication called Present Truth. As the name suggests, the “truth” of yesterday may not be the same as the “truth” of today, nor is today’s “truth” necessarily the “truth” of tomorrow. Adventists, even their respected scholars, continue to speak of “the larger view,” meaning, of course, Ellen White’s later comments which often contradict the early visions which were full of errors.
In practice, this method of making multiple applications to cover up the errors of the past is very much like the method employed by Jehovah’s Witnesses: “When persecuted in one text, flee to the next.” When I was trying to sort out the inconsistencies of the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment, I contacted a number of respected SDA theologians and Bible teachers. When I would show them the inconsistencies of the early statements, which are really the foundation of the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment, I was usually told, “Yes, but look at the ‘larger view’ Ellen White presents in…” and I was directed to a more nearly correct statement. However, this did not change the fact that the early erroneous statements are said to have come from God.
12. They used conflicting statements.
Ellen White used conflicting statements to “give balance” to other erroneous statements. Any “good Advent-ist” who reads this book will, by this time, have already accused me of selecting her “bad statements” while ignoring her “good statements.” However, if all her statements are “a continuing and authoritative source of truth”39 as stated in the Fundamental Beliefs of SDAs, why all the conflicting statements? As an example of this method, note the two following quotations:
When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained.40 [In context, Ellen White is referring to her own visions as the final authority].
But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms….Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support.41
Which one is correct? Obviously the second. However, in practice Adventists will often pick and choose among her writings to find “inspired” support for what they want to prove.
13. They used false analogy.
Another method of dealing with error, one used very successfully by Ellen White and SDA leaders, is false analogy. This method attempts to draw a close analogy between the experience of the early Adventists with the great men of faith in Scripture. This is designed to help Adventists identify with the Bible heroes and in so doing to find assurance in a similar experience.
In Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, in the chapter, “Advent Movement Illustrated,” Ellen White makes several false analogies.
The disappointment of the disciples well represents the disappointment of those who expected their Lord in 1844. I was carried back to the time when Christ triumphantly rode into Jerusalem. The joyful disciples believed that he was then to take the kingdom, and reign a temporal prince…Their expectations were not realized in a single particular.42
In context, this statement attempts to give credence to Miller’s predictions as genuine truth by the use of false analogy. EGW does not mention, however, that Jesus told the disciples on several occasions that he was to be rejected and killed.43 Nor does she admit that Miller was wrong in his predictions. Rather, she draws a comforting parallel implying that all is well
On page 154 of the same chapter, she draws another false analogy between the experience of the disappointed Millerites who received mocking from those who had told them that Miller and his predictions were wrong
I was pointed back to the translation of Elijah. His mantle fell on Elisha, and wicked children (or young people) followed him, mocking, crying, Go up thou bald head! Go up thou bald head! They mocked God, and met their punishment there. They had learned it of their parents. And those [people mocking the disappointed Millerites] who have scoffed and mocked at the idea of the saints’ going up, will be visited with the plagues of God, and will realize that it is not a small thing to trifle with him.44
Other than the mocking, there is no analogy. However, by stating, “I was pointed back…” Ellen White, implies that God gave her this analogy to comfort the little flock of Adventists. They would then identify with Elisha, a true prophet of God, who also underwent mockings. It is of interest that those who mocked Elisha did receive the judgment of God. As far as I know, those who mocked the Millerites for their erroneous theology received no such judgment—other than the condemnation of Ellen White.
14 & 15. They hid known problems and denied that a problem even existed.
The following fascinating almost unbelievable account will show two more ways the SDA church has responded to the errors of the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment.
In 1980 the late SDA theologian Dr. Raymond Cottrell revealed some large lumps that had been swept under the SDA denominational rug many years earlier.45
Dr. Cottrell, a trained scholar, skilled in Hebrew, and recognized by his friends as a man of high integrity, was assigned the position of Associate Editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Among other duties, he was specifically assigned to write commentary on the book of Daniel. As he studied Daniel 8, he was unable to come up with any biblical support for the investigative judgment. Therefore, he went to the main editor, F. D. Nichol, and explained his problem. Nichol advised him to seek counsel from the best Bible teachers in the SDA church. Thereupon, Dr. Cottrell prepared and distributed a questionnaire relating to the contextual problems of Daniel 8:14, with the necessary link to Leviticus 16. He sent this to eight teachers of Hebrew, several experienced Bible teachers, and a few respected denominational leaders. When the questionnaires were returned, no one had the answers. The best reason several committee members gave was, “the Spirit of Prophecy [Ellen White] so applied it.” Two members said it was “a fortunate accident” in translation.46
The names were removed from the questionnaires and these were then given to General Conference President, RR. Figuhr. As a result, a super-secret committee47 was formed called the “Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel.” This committee was chaired by Harry Lowe, and was comprised of the best SDA theologians the church had.48 Their assignment was to find a way to honestly support the SDA doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment from the Bible. This committee met between 1961 and 1966. During this time, not only did committee members work on the problems, but others were asked to submit papers as well.49 What did the committee conclude? Now we quote Dr. Cottrell.
The majority said that the Adventist interpretation can be established satisfactorily on the basis of the assumptions mentioned and that problems, if any, should be forgotten and that the committee should prepare a report that will strengthen the faith of our people in the traditional interpretation.50
The minority said that to ignore the problems would be a tacit admission that we had no answers for them. Remember that the name of the committee was the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, and the majority was suggesting that we forget the problems and not say anything about them, and make the committee appear naive and foolish to knowledgeable SDAs and biblically literate non-SDAs.51
Four different suggestions were made for a committee report they could all sign.
Our first suggestion was that we deal fairly with the problems and set forth both points of view. Well, the majority didn’t want that.
So we came up with a second suggestion that the report of the committee be published without the names of the committee members attached to it. Well, they [majority] didn’t want that. They wanted our names attached to it.
Three, we suggested that the members submit their papers for publication under their own names only.
Four, the minority should be permitted to withdraw from the committee in order that the majority may issue a unanimous report in keeping with its wishes. We offered to step outside the door while they took a vote so that it could be unanimous. Or, if they insisted, we were ready to withdraw from the committee completely.
Well, none of these suggestions were acceptable to the majority so the committee adjourned sine die and made no report after working five full years on the subject.52,53
As a seminary graduate, pastor, and Bible teacher in the SDA church, I met many people who served on this committee, but I was never told about this committee nor of the doctrinal problems it was unable to solve. Had not Dr. Cottrell, after his retirement, shared this information, we might never have known that the best minds of Adventism worked diligently for five years, and could not find biblical support for the SDA doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. This, perhaps, should be called the SDA INVESTI-GATE. The least we can say is that a few top denominational leaders and the best SDA scholars knew that the SDA doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment was without biblical support. Sadly, how-ever, there are still denominational leaders, and even a few scholars, who continue to promote the traditional teachings.
Apparently, some, like the majority on the Committee on the Problems in the Book of Daniel, still feel that based upon the “traditional assumptions” any problems should be forgotten. They seem to believe that denominational leaders should continue to do what they can to strengthen the faith of the SDA laity in the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment.
These are large lumps under the Seventh-day Adventist denominational rug.
16. They say Ellen White did not always understand her own visions.
Ellen White several limes uses phrases such as: “Though this was not at first understood by Adventists…”54 In recent conversations with Adventists I have asked them how they react to the errors in the early visions of Ellen White. One answer I received was that “EGW sometimes misunderstood her visions.” I don’t know how widely this reasoning is used in SDA circles. However, three things should be said about this way of dealing with the errors in the writings of EGW. First, it is the responsibility of the communicator to communicate. That is Communication 101. In essence, one could argue that the above reasoning is an underhanded way of making God responsible for the errors in the writings of EGW. Why did God not speak more clearly? Second, if in fact EGW did misunderstand her visions, then this fact—if indeed it is fact-brings all her visions into question. How is one to tell which ones she understood and which ones she did not? The early, erroneous visions seem to be the ones where she speaks with the most authority: “I saw,” “said the angel,” “from the light given me,” etc. Third, in Scripture when an angel communicated to a person, there is a clear understanding of the communication.55 When a Bible writer did not understand the vision, as was the case with Daniel,56 he immediately stated his misunderstanding and did not try to put his own interpretation on it.
17. They say that God allowed the early errors of Adventism for the good of a “larger purpose.”
The early errors in the writings of EGW, such as the comprehensive endorsement of Miller’s methods and message, the test on date-setting, the shut door, and the multiple reinterpretations of “truth,” were wrong in themselves. However, some Adventists57 say that the larger truth behind these errors is the integrity of 1844 as the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14, and the multi-million member church that has developed from these early Adventists.
I do not know how widespread this reasoning is, but it seems flawed to me. It undermines the integrity of the character of God. It promotes the ethics of “the end justifies the means.” It makes situational ethics God’s mode of operation. Not only that, but many of the early errors are still incorporated in the Adventist movement.
There is yet one more way some in the SDA church are currently (1995) dealing with this problem. This, however, we will save for the chapter entitled “Tampering With the Word.”
Chapter Summary
Ellen White and/or SDA church leaders have dealt with the errors in the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment and in the writings of Ellen White in the following ways:
- They made God responsible.
- They changed or reinterpreted the predicted event.
- They redefined the “door.”
- They changed or omitted the shut-door statements.
- They may have suppressed the vision.
- They changed the vision.
- They contradicted themselves, perhaps to the point of dishonesty.
- They redefined the biblical term “within the veil.”
- They wrote testimonies to undermine critics.
- They taught that no after-suppositions were to be entertained regarding “truth” which had been confirmed by the Testimonies of EGW.
- They made multiple applications, interpretations or reinterpretations.
- They used conflicting statements.
- They used false analogy.
- They hid known problems.
- They denied that a problem even existed.
- They say that EGW did not always understand her own visions.
- They say that God allowed the early errors of Adventism for the good of a “larger purpose.”
- The last and most alarming way some in the SDA church are currently seeking to cover up the error of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment will be covered in the chapter, “Tampering With the Word.”
Endnotes
- Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 137, 138.
- Ibid., p. 137.
- Ibid., pp. 157, 158.
- Compare Ellen G. White,Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 151-160 with Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, pp. 269-271.
- Ellen G. White,The Sprit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 268.
- “But clearer light came with the investigation of the sanctuary 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 that door of hope and mercy by which men had for eighteen hundred years 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. One part of His ministration had closed, only to give place to another. There was still an “open door” to the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ was ministering in the sinner’s behalf.” Ellen G. White,The Great Controversy, p. 429.
- See Ford, Daniel 8: 14, p. 355
- Specifically the Camden Vision. See Canright,The Life of Mrs. E. G. White, p. 148ff.
- Compare Ellen White’s first vision as recorded in The Day Star, as reproduced in Knight, Rise of Sabbatarian Adventism, p. 146, with Ellen G. White, Early Writings, pp. 14, 15.
- Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 3.
- James White was a printer and doubtless typeset this preface with his wife’s full approval.
- Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 63.
- See Ex. 26:33; Lev. 16:2, 12, 15; Num. 18:7.
- See Adams, The Sanctuary, pp. 107-111. Here Adams plays theological hop-scotch. He shows how Ballenger pointed out the errors of EGW’s interpretation of Heb. 6:19, 20. Then says, ” …we can decide that it would be inappropriate and unwise to take up a position on the side of a renegade [Ballenger] who has been so vociferous in criticizing the church, especially someone whose theology Ellen G. White so strongly condemned.” Then Adams goes on to say that Ballenger “was essential conflict between the affirmation of Hebrews 6:19, 20 and the assertion of our pioneers.” However, Hebrews 6:19 teaches that Christ entered the Most Holy Place at the ascension and SDA pioneers, including EGW, said Christ entered there for the first time in 1844. This certainly appears to be an essential conflict.
- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 421. See also Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1 p. 159; Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 251.
- See Ford, Daniel 8: 14, pp. 35-45.
- For more details of his sanctuary theology see Ibid., pp. 35, 36
- Ibid., pp. 37-42.
- Ellen G. White, Loma Linda Manuscript, No. 150.
- See E.G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 135, 136, 139, 140, 144, 151, 152.
- Note the many “I was shown,” “I saw,” “I heard,” etc., statements in the quotations already listed in this book. For example, “I saw a great light from heaven shining upon the people of God…I heard the voices of angles crying, Behold the Bridegroom Cometh.” Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 140ff.
- Ellen White uses the phrase, “I was shown” over 950 times in her writings. Usually she uses this to show that God has shown her the truth. Many of these statements are, as we have already seen, blatant error that contradict God’s word and undermine the gospel.
- Ellen G. White, Loma Linda Manuscript, No. 150.
- Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. 25-66, A-107-116.
- See Gilbert M. Valentine, The Shaping of Adventism (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1992), pp. 215-229. For example, W. W. Prescott, an early, respected leader in Adventism, in his later years wrote: “It seems to me that we are betraying our trust and deceiving the ministers and the people. It appears to me that there is much more anxiety to prevent a possible shock than to correct error.” p. 227. See also Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 370. In a letter to “Dear Brother White” (Ellen White’s son) W. W. Prescott writes: “It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorized books [books written by EGW] and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people and our average ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use our books as sufficient authority in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things which we know to be untrue. I cannot feel this is right….The way your mother’s writings [Ellen White’s] have been handled and the false impression concerning them which is still fostered among the people have brought great perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to deception, though probably not intentional, has been practiced in making some of her books, and that no serious effort has been made to disabuse the minds of the people of what was known to be their wrong view concerning her writings. But it is no use to go into these matters, I have talked with you for years about them, but it brings no change.” p. 370
- “It is Satan’s plan to weaken the faith of God’s people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.” Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4, p. 211. “Those who would in any way lessen the force of the sharp reproofs which God has given me to speak, must meet their work at the judgment.” Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 19.
- Under the section, “The Nature and Influence of the Testimonies” we find this statement. “Those who are reproved by the Spirit of God [in context, addressed by EGW in her Testimonies] should not rise up against the humble instrument [EGW]. It is God, and not an erring mortal, who has spoken to save them from ruin….God has given sufficient evidence, so that all who desire to do so may themselves as to the character of the Testimonies; and, having acknowledged them to be from God, it is their duty to accept reproof, even though they do not themselves see the sinfulness of their course….Those who despise the warning will be left in blindness to become self-deceived.” Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 682.
- Ellen G. White, Loma Linda Manuscript, No. 150.
- For example, see Ellen White’s use of the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:10 where she applied the “shut door” to 1844; Christ was “married to the New Jerusalem” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p158); her application of the first angel’s message of Revelation 14:6, 7 to the 1843 Miller movement (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 133-140); her use of Acts 3:19 as applying to the investigative judgment (The Great Controversy, p. 485); etc., all of which are clearly in error.
- See Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. 339, 340 for over fifteen illustrations.
- Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 133-140. Note the chapter title and the contents of the chapter.
- Ibid., pp. 140-143.
- Ibid., pp. 162-168.
- Ibid., p. 168.
- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 389.
- This quote comes out of The Great Controversy, published in 1911.
- See Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 133-140.
- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 379.
- Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, No. 18, The Gift of Prophecy.
- Ellen G. White, Loma Linda Manuscript, No. 150.
- Ellen G. White,The Great Controversy, p. 595.
- Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 150.
- Mt. 17:22; Lk. 9:44.
- Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 154.
- Dr. Cottrell’s presentation is available on tape from the Loma Linda Adventist Forum. Most of it is printed in Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. A-107-116. See also Dr. Cottrell’s tape of March 1984, “The Sanctuary Problem” available from the San Diego Adventist Forum, P.O. Box 3148, La Mesa, CA 91944-3148. Dr. Cottrell’s last paper on 1844 was read at the San Diego Forum on February 9, 2002. This is available at http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/AssetOrLiability.html. Dr Cottrell passed away January 12, 2003. He will long be remembered as a kind, careful, honest and loyal friend and scholar.
- Ibid., p. A-112.
- It is my understanding that most of the members of the General Conference Committee at the time did not know about this ad hoc committee. It is said that Neil Wilson, a recent General Conference president, did not even know about this committee until about fifteen
- Members of the committee were: H. W. Lowe as chairman, and R. A. Anderson, Raymond F. Cottrell, Richard Hammill, Edward Heppenstall, W. G. C. Murdoch, D. F. Neufeld, Leo Odom, and W. E Reed. Others later invited to meet with the committee included Earle Hilgert, S. H. Horn, Alger John, Graham Maxwell, and M. R. Thurber.” As quoted from “an unpublished manuscript” in Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 62
- Desmond Ford was one of those who submitted papers to the committee but was not a regular member of it.
- See Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. A-114.
- Ibid., p. A-114.
- Ford, 1844, pp. A-114, 115.
- It is my understanding that Elder Lowe did, privately, write out a non-committal report for Elder Figuhr, who was then General Conference president.
- See Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 429, 431.
- Hagar understood the angel (Gen. 16:1-14). Abraham understood the angel (Gen. 22:11-18). Please note that the message to Abraham, “And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 22:18), was not fully understood, but—and here is the important point—it was true nonetheless. It was not error that had to be changed and contradicted sometime later.
- “Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. Then I got up again and carried on the king’s business, but I was astounded at the vision, and there was none to explain it.” (Dan. 8:27).
- This was the reasoning told to me in private conversations with Adventist pastors.
- 11. Lumps Under the Rug—A Historical Evaluation - December 4, 2025
- 10. A Broken Chain: A Biblical Evaluation - November 27, 2025
- 9. The Sliver—The Investigative Judgment - November 20, 2025