Seventh-day Adventism - The
Spirit Behind the Church
Introduction, Indexes, Points #1-#20
by Bob Pickle
This is a critique of a video on Seventh-day Adventism which I saw in
October of 1999.
Repeatedly the video seemed to try to lead the viewer to
look upon Adventism as a cult or as less than Christian. Having studied
into a lot of the areas covered by the video, it wasn't difficult for me
to see that many of the points covered, if not all, were just not valid. It was absolutely shocking how much misinformation the video
contained, all put together in a very convincing way.
I spent three months trying to dialog with Jeremiah Films as well as the author
of the script (Lorri MacGregor of MacGregor
Ministries), and two of the
former pastors featured on the video (Dale Ratzlaff
and Mark Martin). These attempts went nowhere. So the
next step I felt was to provide to the public exactly where the video
falls short.
This critique covers a total of 239 points for a video that is about 50
minutes long. Of these 239 points, 232 also relate to the slightly shorter
edition of the video, which runs about 45 minutes long. Thus we have
an average of about 4 or 5 disputed points per minute of footage.
The document has extensive hyperlinks. Look for buttons and hyperlinked
text (typically in a different color and underlined).
Also notice that any emphasis I have supplied in my responses will
always be both bolded and italicized, and that the Bible version used for
quotations, unless otherwise noted, is the King James Version.
The reader will find repeated references to a Documentation Package which
is offered at the end of the video to those wanting proof that the
allegations on the video are true. It is copyrighted 1999 by MacGregor
Ministries, and is analyzed along with the video in this critique.
Sometimes the video confuses Millerite Adventists and First-day
Adventists with Seventh-day Adventists. I have therefore attempted in my
discussion to make clear which group is being referred to.
In categorizing the various points, a bit of subjectivity entered, as
would be expected. For example, was the point a major error or a minor
inaccuracy? To help determine this, I took into consideration the
magnitude of the error, the gravity of the accusation, and the ready
availability of correct information concerning the point. Still, some
would probably categorize the points differently.
Any errors, typographical or otherwise, that are found I would greatly appreciate being brought to
my attention.
I am deeply indebted to the Words of the Pioneers CD-ROM from
Adventist Pioneer Library, to The Published Ellen G. White Writings
on Compact Disk from the White Estate, to the commentaries found on
the Online Bible CD-ROM, and to the Master Christian
Library from Ages Software. These reference tools provided a good bit of the material
and facts found below.
Lastly, let me mention who I have chosen to dedicate this critique to.
Near the end of the video is this statement:
You really just have to search for it yourself, and if you, if you love the Lord, if you really do, then you really want to know the truth.
(Kim Marshall)
For all such who "really want to know the truth," this critique is
sincerely dedicated.
William Miller was a powerful
preacher. Oversimplification. Miller was a Baptist preacher, and but one of 200
preachers and 500 lecturers from many denominations all preaching
about the same thing.
Miller taught that Christ would
return in 1843. Oversimplification. His major point of difference with the theology of
the times was not the date, but his conviction that Christ would come
visibly and literally before the millennium instead of after.
Ellen White claimed God hid the
mistake. Bad quotation. The last clause that was omitted explains
that her words meant that God was not revealing the mistake to the
people, rather than hiding it.
Adventists view her writings as
inspired as the Bible. So? Adventists believe in degrees of authority,
but not in degrees of inspiration. One prophet is not more inspired
than another, but the prophets of the Bible have the final say.
Her visions are unbiblical.
This begs the question, for not one unbiblical aspect of her visions
has been shown.
Adventists say her writings are as
inspired as the Bible. This straw man is answered already under
#23.
The Documentation Package's documentation for this point makes it
clear that Adventists believe the Bible is the final authority, not
Ellen White.
Miller's prediction of October 22,
1844, failed. As mentioned under #6, Miller
didn't make this prediction or even accept it. As far as his
calculations go, his most learned opponents, like Dr. George Bush,
could find no fault in them, and the greatest scholars of several
centuries had come to similar conclusions.
The shut door was opened.
Oversimplification. As
in the apostolic church, God opened the door of opportunity to reach
others with the truths of His Word. This had nothing to do with the
cleansing of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrines.
It's called The Clear Word
Version. Why did the makers of the video change the title of
Jack Blanco's paraphrase? It's not called The Clear Word Version.
N. H. Barbour was an early
Adventist. False. The impression is left that Barbour was a
Seventh-day Adventist, and there is no evidence that he ever was.
Both Jehovah's Witnesses and
Seventh-day Adventists have set dates for Christ's return. False.
Jehovah's Witnesses have set dates, but not for Christ's return. And Sabbatarian Adventists early on took a strong stand against
date-setting. Ellen White opposed such as early as 1845, even before
becoming a Sabbatarian. Seventh-day Adventists as such did not exist in
1844.
Because of this, the book was
quickly taken out of print. False. Published in 1883, the book was
promoted in Signs of the Times through 1885, advertised in Great
Controversy through 1887, and included on the title page of Great
Controversy until 1907 in England, homeland of the authors who were
"stolen" from.
Prove that 20% of Ellen White's
writings are original. Such a challenge doesn't make sense, for it
would require infinite knowledge to prove that 20% of her writings are
original. It makes more sense to say, Prove that 80% of her writings
are not original.
[Not in all editions
of the video.] Mrs. White (apparently) gives a
list of diseases caused by masturbation. Actually, the quotation is
not accurate. The video combines a statement by Mrs. Gove with the views
of Dr. Deslandes. The video adds words, and omits words and quotation
marks without using an ellipsis.
Ellen
White said rich and highly seasoned foods act as aphrodisiacs.
Medical science has neither proven nor disproven what she said. It's like
when she said that cancer is caused by a germ. She said this five years
before a maverick scientist proposed the idea. After being
ridiculed by the scientific community, this scientist years later
won the Nobel Prize for being right.
[Not in all editions
of the video.] Ellen White used a feather bed against her
own advice.
False. There is no evidence that she ever used a feather
bed in an unventilated, small room, which would have been against Dr. E.
P. Miller's advice, not her own. She was strongly opposed to
unventilated rooms.
[Not in all
editions of the video.] The Battle Creek Sanitarium
used hydrotherapy to treat secret vice. Actually, hydrotherapy
treatments stimulate the immune system and increase the white blood
cell count. They have been used successfully to treat a variety of
ailments.
Ellen
White was against wearing any kind of wig. False. The context of her
statement clearly shows that she was not talking about simple wigs. Her
published and released writings do not contain the word "wig"
at all.
The
reform dress was hot. False. Far from being hot, it was
comparatively light. The dress was designed as a healthful alternative
to the too-heavy, too-long, multiple skirts typically worn by women in
those days.
The
reform dress was long. False. It was not long. Besides being called
the "reform dress," it was also called
the "short dress."
Faithful sisters struggled with the
reform dress. False. Problems arose when these so-called
"faithful sisters" did one of the following: a) wouldn't quit complaining about not
being fashionable, b) pushed the dress on others contrary to Ellen
White's expressed counsel, or c) constructed it distastefully.
Ellen White had no patience with
Christians who say, I am saved. Ellen White was not denouncing the
doctrines of justification and righteousness by faith. The first
quotation is not talking about those who mean, "I have been justified."
The second quotation is referring to those who believe they can continue to
murder and steal and sell dope, and still go to heaven.
Adventists are inflexible, guilt-ridden legalists.
False. While it is true that every faith has its legalists, the vast
majority of Adventists are
opposed to legalistic concepts. Legalism is generally not the cause of
guilt but a faulty method of trying to get rid of the guilt brought on
by a conviction of sin. Therefore the discovery of a genuinely
guilt-ridden legalist would indeed be a rare find, regardless of his
or her religious affiliation.
We don't have to worry about
obeying the law, since Christ is the end of the law. Since James
5:11 talks about the "end of the Lord," we know that
sometimes "end" must mean something other than a cessation
of existence. Christ is "the end of the law" because the law leads
sinners to Christ for release from guilt (Gal. 3:24), not because the
Ten Commandments don't exist anymore.
Christians will keep God's
commandments out of love. Thus Mr. Martin destroys the force of
much of his whole argument thus far: We don't have to keep God's law, but
if we love God we
will gladly keep His law. The simple conclusion from his words is that if we
don't keep God's law, it shows that we don't really love God.
Being under the law leads to
sin. Actually, according to the New Testament, it seems more
natural to say that sinning leads to being under the law, rather than
that being under the law leads to sinning.
Being under grace leads to
holiness. Mr. Martin contradicts himself again, for if we don't
have to obey the law, why would the grace of God lead to holiness?
The doctrine of soul sleep is
unbiblical. Not so. Tyndale, Luther, Wycliffe, and many others
came up with this idea just from studying the Bible. Besides, saying
that our souls are immortal undermines the necessity of 1) the gospel,
2) the resurrection, and 3) the second coming.
Conditional immortality flies in the face of two Scriptures.
Actually, it doesn't, unless we want to say that the Bible contradicts
itself. Martin's interpretation of these two texts in actuality flies
in the face of hundreds of Bible texts from Genesis to Revelation.
The
vision was intended to settle the matter with the dissenters.
According to one account, there were only two dissenters:
Joseph Bates and Ellen White. Does it not sound a bit preposterous
that since Ellen White wanted to convince herself, she decided to have another
vision? And this vision didn't mention sunset at all or anything not
contained in the previous vision, except that they should study the
Bible to find out what "even" really meant.
Adventists teach
that Sunday keeping is a mark of rebellion. Gross oversimplification.
Given the standard Protestant interpretations about the beast at the time
Adventism arose, and given some of the strong statements Catholics have made
about Sunday keeping, it's no wonder that Adventism arrived at the
interpretations that it did.
Christ's resurrection day is the
Lord's Day. False. The Bible is crystal clear that 1) Jesus rose on the
first day of the week, and 2) the Lord's Day is the seventh day of the week.
One must wait over a hundred years after the resurrection before one finds a
document calling the resurrection day the Lord's Day.
Christ's followers met
regularly on the resurrection day for their worship. There is no Bible
evidence for this statement. In all the New
Testament, we
have only one explicit instance of the disciples meeting on the first day of
the week for worship. In that one instance, they met on what we call
Saturday night.
An Adventist pastor supplied the following five marks of a cult.
But the letter these five marks came from says that the co-producers and
script writer of the video have been supplying false information about
Seventh-day Adventists for 14 years! The video's credibility is thus called
into question.
Ellen White publicly aired reproofs
sent to people. False. When some of them were printed for the benefit of
individuals having similar problems, she almost always left out the name and
address of the guilty.
Adventists originally denied the deity of Christ. False. An 1853 Advent
Review said, "Warn those who deny the divinity of the only Saviour, that they must perish everlastingly if they go on rejecting him, for it is fearful and blasphemous to reject him."
"Michael" being a name for Christ contradicts Hebrews 1:13.
False. Scripture uses the term "angel" in a number of ways. Sometimes
it refers to the uncreated Being who is simultaneously called the "Angel of the LORD,"
God, and Yahweh, and sometimes it refers just to the created angelic beings,
as in Hebrews 1:13. There is no biblical justification whatsoever for insisting that
Michael cannot be the divine "Angel of the LORD" and must
therefore be a created being.
Those who felt betrayed began searching for themselves, and made lurid
discoveries. False. The conservative element who felt betrayed did not do
the searching referred to. The liberal element who did not feel betrayed
engaged in "searching" into other issues, and in consequence ultimately abandoned a number of crucial teachings found
in Scripture, including the teaching that Scripture must be the final authority!
"The Adventist Church had deceived me." If the (mis)information the
preacher told you was anything like what is on this video, then it was he
who deceived you, not the Adventist Church. At least, he didn't know what he
was talking about.
". . . all these writings she had
. . . plagiarized, . . . I felt . . . lied
to." Do you feel lied to
because between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, two copied from the other? Do you
feel lied to because John copied from others when he put together the book of
Revelation? Even though they copied, can you prove that Ellen White, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Peter, and Jude are guilty of "plagiarism"?
(#91) N. H. Barbour was an
early Adventist. False. The impression is left that Barbour was a
Seventh-day Adventist, and there is no evidence that he ever was.
(#96) Both Jehovah's Witnesses
and Seventh-day Adventists have set dates for Christ's return.
False.
Jehovah's Witnesses have set dates, but not for Christ's return. And
Sabbatarian Adventists early on took a strong stand against
date-setting. Ellen White opposed such as early as 1845, even before
becoming a Sabbatarian. Seventh-day Adventists as such did not exist in
1844.
(#105) Because of this, the book
was quickly taken out of print. False. Published in 1883, the book
was promoted in Signs of the Times through 1885, advertised in Great
Controversy through 1887, and included on the title page of Great
Controversy until 1907 in England, homeland of the authors who
were "stolen" from.
(#129) Ellen
White was against wearing any kind of wig. False. The context of her
statement clearly shows that she was not talking about simple wigs. Her
published and released writings do not contain the word "wig"
at all.
(#133) The
reform dress was hot.
False. Far from being hot, it was
comparatively light. The dress was designed as a healthful alternative
to the too-heavy, too-long, multiple skirts typically worn by women in
those days.
(#136) The
reform dress was long. False. It was not long. Besides
being called the "reform dress," it was also called
the "short dress."
(#137) Faithful sisters
struggled with the reform dress. False. Problems arose when these so-called
"faithful sisters" did one of the following: a) wouldn't quit complaining about not
being fashionable, b) pushed the dress on others contrary to Ellen
White's expressed counsel, or c) constructed it distastefully.
(#143) Ellen White had no patience
with Christians who say, I am saved. Ellen White was not denouncing
the doctrines of justification and righteousness by faith. The first
quotation is not talking about those who mean, "I have been justified."
The second quotation is referring to those who believe they can continue to
murder and steal and sell dope, and still go to heaven.
(#185) Christ's resurrection day is
the Lord's Day. False. The Bible is crystal clear that 1) Jesus rose on
the first day of the week, and 2) the Lord's Day is the seventh day of the
week. One must wait over a hundred years after the resurrection before one
finds a document calling the resurrection day the Lord's Day.
(#186) Christ's followers met
regularly on the resurrection day for their worship. There is no Bible
evidence for this statement. In all the New
Testament, we
have only one explicit instance of the disciples meeting on the first day of
the week for worship. In that one instance, they met on what we call
Saturday night.
(#200) Ellen White publicly aired
reproofs sent to people. False. When some of them were printed for the
benefit of individuals having similar problems, she almost always left out
the name and address of the guilty.
(#206) Adventists originally denied the deity of Christ. False. An 1853 Advent
Review said, "Warn those who deny the divinity of the only Saviour, that they must perish everlastingly if they go on rejecting him, for it is fearful and blasphemous to reject him."
(#208) "Michael" being a name for Christ contradicts Hebrews 1:13.
False. Scripture uses the term "angel" in a number of ways.
Sometimes it refers to the uncreated Being who is simultaneously called the
"Angel of the LORD," God, and Yahweh, and sometimes it refers just
to the created angelic beings, as in Hebrews 1:13. There is no biblical
justification whatsoever for insisting that Michael cannot be the divine
"Angel of the LORD" and must therefore be a created being.
(#219) Adventists believe that salvation comes by placing sin upon Satan. Utterly
false. Adventists believe that salvation comes through our Sin-bearer, Jesus
Christ. The sins are only placed upon Satan after salvation is
completely finished. That event is future.
(#47) Miller's prediction of
October 22, 1844, failed. As mentioned under #6,
Miller didn't make this prediction or even accept it. As far as his
calculations go, his most learned opponents, like Dr. George Bush,
could find no fault in them, and the greatest scholars of several
centuries had come to similar conclusions.
(#61) It was a time of doctrinal
reversal. Neither the video nor its documentation provides
evidence that that time was characterized by doctrinal reversal.
(#80) It's called
The
Clear Word Version. Why did the makers of the video change the
title of Jack Blanco's paraphrase? It's not called The Clear Word
Version.
(#148) Adventists are inflexible, guilt-ridden legalists.
False. While it is true that every faith has its legalists, the vast
majority of Adventists are opposed to legalistic concepts. Legalism is generally not the cause of guilt but a faulty method of trying to get rid of the guilt brought on by a conviction of sin. Therefore the discovery of a genuinely guilt-ridden legalist would indeed be a rare find, regardless of his or
her religious affiliation.
(#154) Being under the law
leads to sin. Actually, according to the New Testament, it seems
more natural to say that sinning leads to being under the law, rather
than that being under the law leads to sinning.
(#158) The doctrine of soul
sleep is unbiblical. Not so. Tyndale, Luther, Wycliffe, and many
others came up with this idea just from studying the Bible. Besides,
saying that our souls are immortal undermines the necessity of 1) the
gospel, 2) the resurrection, and 3) the second coming.
(#159) Conditional immortality flies in the face of two Scriptures.
Actually, it doesn't, unless we want to say that the Bible contradicts
itself. Martin's interpretation of these two texts in actuality flies
in the face of hundreds of Bible texts from Genesis to Revelation.
(#166) The
vision was intended to settle the matter with the dissenters.
According to one account, there were only
two dissenters: Joseph Bates and Ellen White. Does it not sound a bit
preposterous that since Ellen White wanted to convince herself, she
decided to have another vision? And this vision didn't mention sunset
at all or anything not contained in the previous vision, except that
they should study the Bible to find out what "even" really
meant.
(#225) Those who felt betrayed began searching for themselves, and made lurid
discoveries. False. The conservative element who felt betrayed did not
do the searching referred to. The liberal element who did not feel betrayed
engaged in "searching" into other issues, and in consequence
ultimately abandoned a number of crucial teachings found in Scripture,
including the teaching that Scripture must be the final authority!
(#226) "The Adventist Church had deceived me." If the (mis)information the
preacher told you was anything like what is on this video, then it was he
who deceived you, not the Adventist Church. At least, he didn't know what he
was talking about.
(#15) Ellen White claimed God
hid the mistake. Bad quotation. The last clause that was omitted
explains that her words meant that God was not revealing the mistake
to the people, rather than hiding it.
(#118) Mrs. White (apparently) gives
a list of diseases caused by masturbation. Actually, the quotation
is not accurate. The video combines a statement by Mrs. Gove with the
views of Dr. Deslandes. The video adds words, and omits words and
quotation marks without using an ellipsis. The average viewer cannot
tell that Ellen White never wrote this.
Oversimplifications: More Detail Would Neutralize
Point
(#4)William Miller was a powerful
preacher. Miller was a Baptist preacher, and but one of 200
preachers and 500 lecturers from many denominations all preaching
about the same thing.
(#5)Miller taught that Christ would
return in 1843. His major point of difference with the theology of
the times was not the date, but his conviction that Christ would come
visibly and literally before the millennium instead of after.
(#58) The shut door was opened.
As in the apostolic church, God opened the door of opportunity to
reach others with the truths of His Word. This had nothing to do with
the cleansing of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment
doctrines.
(#121) Ellen
White said rich and highly seasoned foods act as aphrodisiacs.
Medical science has neither proven nor disproven what she said. It's
like when she said that cancer is caused by a germ. She said this five years
before a maverick scientist proposed the idea. After being
ridiculed by the scientific community, this scientist years later
won the Nobel Prize for being right.
(#126) [Not in all
editions of the video.] The Battle Creek Sanitarium
used hydrotherapy to treat secret vice. Actually, hydrotherapy
treatments stimulate the immune system and increase the white blood
cell count. They have been used successfully to treat a variety of
ailments.
(#164) Adventists
weren't following what the Bible says about beginning the Sabbath at
sunset. The Bible "says"
to keep the Sabbath from "even to even." It doesn't
"say" to keep the Sabbath from sunset to sunset. Therefore
these Adventists were not blatantly disregarding the Bible during
the time they were unclear about the true meaning of
"even."
(#180)
Adventists teach that Sunday keeping is a mark of
rebellion.
Gross oversimplification. Given the standard
Protestant interpretations about the beast at the time Adventism
arose, and given some of the strong statements Catholics have made
about Sunday keeping, it's no wonder that Adventism arrived at the
interpretations that it did.
(#45) Adventists say her writings
areas inspired as the Bible. This straw man is answered already under
#23. The Documentation
Package's documentation for this point makes it clear that
Adventists believe the Bible is the final authority, not Ellen White.
(#111) Prove that 20% of
Ellen White's writings are original. Such a challenge doesn't make
sense, for it would require infinite knowledge to prove that 20% of
her writings are original. It makes more sense to say, Prove
that 80% of her writings are not original.
(#125) [Not in all
editions of the video.] Ellen White used a feather bed
against her own advice. There is no evidence that she ever used a
feather bed in an unventilated, small room, which would have been
against Dr. E. P. Miller's advice, not her own. She
was strongly opposed to unventilated rooms.
(#93) Both Jehovah's Witnesses
and Seventh-day Adventists teach the heresy that Michael is Christ.
The Bible clearly teaches that there is an "angel" sent from
God who Himself is called God. If it isn't Christ, who is it? If it
isn't Christ, must we conclude that the Bible endorses polytheism,
that there is a mere angel who is God as well as the Father, Son, and
Spirit?
(#151) We don't have to worry
about obeying the law, since Christ is the end of the law. Since
James 5:11 talks about the "end of the Lord," we know that
sometimes "end" must mean something other than a cessation
of existence. Christ is "the end of the law" because the law
leads sinners to Christ for release from guilt (Gal. 3:24), not
because the Ten Commandments don't exist anymore.
(#228) ". . . all these writings she had
. . . plagiarized, . . . I felt . . . lied
to." Do you feel lied to
because between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, two copied from the other? Do you
feel lied to because John copied from others when he put together the book of
Revelation? Even though they copied, can you prove that Ellen White, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Peter, and Jude are guilty of "plagiarism"?
(#153) Christians will keep
God's commandments out of love. Thus Mr. Martin destroys the
force of much of his whole argument thus far: We don't have to keep
God's law, but if we love God we will gladly keep His law. The simple
conclusion from his words is that if we don't keep God's law, it shows
that we don't really love God.
(#155) Being under grace
leads to holiness. Mr. Martin contradicts himself again, for if we
don't have to obey the law, why would the grace of God lead to
holiness?
(#194) An Adventist pastor supplied the following five marks of a cult.
But the letter these five marks came from says that the co-producers and
script writer of the video have been supplying false information about
Seventh-day Adventists for 14 years! The video's credibility is thus called
into question.
#1: "The quotes of Ellen G. White which appear in this program are
taken from official Seventh-day Adventist publications. Page numbers are
in reference to standard hardback editions." (Text appearing
immediately before the program begins.)
All quotes of Ellen White are from official SDA publications. The
truth is that some of the "quotes of Ellen G. White" referred to
in the
video either 1) do not exist at all, 2) are by someone else, or 3) have been
altered.
As stated under #10 below, David Snyder states that
Mrs. White, in her own words, said that she was in "this hopeless
condition for months" after Christ did not come when expected. No
such quotation can be found. The Documentation Package offered at
the end of the video gives only a single reference from one of Ellen
White's books which the context clearly shows is talking about Almira
Pierce, not Ellen White.
As stated under #37 below, the quotation Sydney
Cleveland uses to show that Mrs. White predicted the downfall of the
United States has been rearranged. A sentence appearing six sentences
before the rest of the quote is put at the end of the quote, and the
intervening five sentences have been deleted. These five sentences
neutralize the point being made on the video by Mr. Cleveland.
As stated under #52 below, Dale Ratzlaff refers to a
quote from a preface in the July 21, 1851, issue of the Review. A
picture of this issue appears on the video. However, the
quotation is totally non-existent.
As stated under #118 below, many viewers are left
with the impression that Ellen White gave the list of diseases quoted.
However, the list quoted is not from Ellen White but is
actually a fusion of comments made by a Mrs. Gove and a Dr. Deslandes. Words
and quotation marks have been deleted without the use of an
ellipsis, and words have been added without the use of
brackets.
As stated under #119 below, many viewers are left
with the impression that Ellen White said that kids who practice secret
vice will get green skin. However, the quotation is from E. P. Miller,
M.D., not Ellen White.
As stated under #122 below, many viewers are left
with the impression that Ellen White said, "Sip no
more. . . ." However, these are the words of Professor
O. S. Fowler, not Ellen White.
As stated under #124 below, many viewers are left
with the impression that Ellen White said not to sleep on feather beds. However, the quotation is from E. P. Miller,
M.D., not Ellen White.
As stated under #142 below, the quotation given is
actually a fusion of two different quotes from two different
journals from two different continents written seven years apart. Enough
context is removed to leave the impression with the viewer that Ellen White was
condemning the doctrine of justification by faith, which she was not.
Quotations that have had critical context removed also occur under #15,
#120, #172, and #177.
#2 & #3: "Based around the teachings and philosophies of its
nineteenth-century founder, prophetess Ellen G. White, Seventh-day
Adventism exhibits tremendous influence world-wide." (Narrator)
#2: Based around Ellen White's teachings. This is not correct.
Seventh-day Adventism is not based around the teachings and philosophies
of Ellen White. Generally, the doctrines found in her writings did not
originate with her and were held and taught by Seventh-day Adventists
before she wrote them out.
In materials prepared for the general public, we quote Scripture to
substantiate our beliefs, for they are based on Scripture. For
material prepared for use by our own members, since her books are held in
high esteem by most members, they as well as the Bible are often quoted
from, giving an appearance that the charge is true when it is not.
Much of what Seventh-day Adventists believe was hammered out in the
Sabbath Conferences of 1848. Ellen White, to her chagrin, could not
understand the topics under discussion. The only exception was when she
was in vision, which occurred when the brethren could not come to
agreement on their own about what the Bible said about a particular point.
She wrote:
During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the
brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the
meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the greatest
sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the
principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony
with the Word of God. (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 207)
Since much of our beliefs were arrived at in meetings where Ellen White
couldn't understand what was being discussed, how then can it be said that
Seventh-day Adventism is based around her teachings and
philosophies?
So Seventh-day Adventism is based around the teachings and philosophies
of the Word of God, or at least that is our honest conviction, a
conviction supported by the incidents from our history just described.
The Documentation Package offered at the end of the video gives
no documentation for this point.
#3: Ellen White was the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
It would appear that this video is intended to be primarily an attack
upon Ellen White, as well as upon the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It seems to lead
the viewer to believe that Ellen White was the sole or primary founder of
the church. This is simply not true.
Though a number of others played important parts in the forming of
Seventh-day Adventism, there are three who are considered the founders:
Joseph Bates, James White, and Ellen White. Sometimes Hiram Edson and
perhaps others are added to the list.
Narrowing down responsibility for an incident or teaching to a single
individual makes that incident or teaching less credible to the average
mind. Likewise, having many people say the same thing makes an incident,
teaching, or allegation seem more credible.
The Documentation Package offered at the end of the video gives
no documentation for this point.
#4: "Her Methodist family came under the influence of William
Miller, a powerful preacher." (David Snyder)
Miller, a powerful preacher. In this oversimplification, the
whole Millerite Movement is reduced to a single individual described only
as a powerful preacher. Such an oversimplification made necessary the
factual error found under #6.
Miller was a licensed Baptist preacher, and but one of two hundred
ministers and five hundred lecturers in the U.S. and Canada. These seven
hundred ministers and lecturers, from many denominations, were all
teaching practically the same thing: that Jesus would return visibly and
literally before the millennium instead of after, and that the entire
world's conversion would never take place.
The video is intended to attack Seventh-day Adventists, not Baptists and
Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Neither Miller's denominational
affiliation nor the widespread nature of this massive ecumenical movement
is mentioned.
Miller was the recognized leader of the movement, at least the American
phase of the movement. He lived in Low Hampton, New York, not near Ellen
White's family in Maine.
Miller and his associates called for genuine commitment to the Lord
Jesus, resulting in a multitude of infidels being converted. Miller wrote
in July 1845:
In nearly a thousand places, Advent congregations have been raised
up, numbering as nearly as I can estimate, some fifty thousand
believers. On recalling to mind the several places of my labors, I can
reckon up about six thousand instances of conversion from nature's
darkness to God's marvelous light, the result of my personal labors
alone; and I should judge the number to be much greater. Of this number
I can recall to mind about seven hundred, who were, previously to their
attending my lectures, infidels; and their number may have been twice as
great. Happy results have also followed from the labors of my brethren,
many of whom I would like to mention here, if my limits would permit. (Memoirs
of William Miller 327, 328)
Miller gave a course of lectures in Portland, Maine, where Ellen
White's family resided, in March 1840. Elder L. D. Fleming, pastor of the
Christian Church in Portland, had invited him. Elder Fleming described the
effects of Miller's lectures in April, one month later:
At some of our meetings since Br. Miller left, as many as 250, it has
been estimated, have expressed a desire for religion, by coming forward
for prayers; and probably between one and two hundred have
professed conversion at our meeting; and now the fire is being kindled
through this whole city, and all the adjacent country. A number of
rum-sellers have turned their shops into meeting-rooms, and those places
that were once devoted to intemperance and revelry, are now devoted to
prayer and praise. Others have abandoned the traffic entirely, and are
become converted to God. One or two gambling establishments, I am
informed, are entirely broken up. Infidels, Deists, Universalists,
and the most abandoned profligates, have been converted; some who
had not been to the house of worship for years. Prayer-meetings have
been established in every part of the city by the different
denominations, or by individuals, and at almost every hour. Being down
in the business part of our city, I was conducted into a room over one
of the banks, where I found about thirty or forty men, of different
denominations, engaged with one accord in prayer, at about eleven
o'clock in the day-time! In short, it would be almost impossible to give
an adequate idea of the interest now felt in this city. There is nothing
like extravagant excitement, but an almost universal solemnity on the
minds of all the people. One of the principal booksellers informed me
that he had sold more Bibles in one month, since Br. Miller came
here, than he had in any four months previous. A member of an orthodox
church informed me that if Mr. Miller could now return, he could
probably be admitted into any of the orthodox houses of worship, and he
expressed a strong desire for his return to our city. (Ibid. 17,
18)
The movement elsewhere in the world was largely unconnected to Miller,
but was much the same in its general characteristics.
In Sweden it was against the law to preach that Christ was coming soon.
Yet prophecy foretold that a message announcing the soon-coming judgment
had to be given before the return of Christ (Rev. 14:6, 7, 13-16). The
Holy Spirit therefore came upon children who would then preach, and could
not be made to refrain from preaching. Their sermons called upon the
people to forsake card playing, drunkenness, dancing, and frivolity. It
was sobering to those who heard.
The reports of the times give the ages of the large number of children
involved as being six, eight, ten, twelve, sixteen, and eighteen.
A brief account of the Swedish child preachers can be found in Great
Controversy pp. 366, 367. For a fuller account, complete with
references to Swedish sources, most of which were written by opposers to
the phenomena, see Leroy Froom's Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers,
vol. 3, pp. 670-686.
"Taught
That Christ Was Coming in 1843 and on Oct. 22, 1844"
#5 & #6: "He taught that Christ would return first in 1843, and
then on October 22, 1844, supposedly the Jewish Day of Atonement for that
year." (Ibid.)
#5: Miller taught Christ would return in 1843. This is an
oversimplification. As alluded to in #4, the major thrust
of Miller's preaching, and that which aroused so much opposition, was not
the fact that Miller preached that the judgment would begin and Christ
would come about the year 1843, but that he taught that Christ would come
soon.
It sounds strange today, but at the time the churches in general taught
that Christ would not come soon, and that He would not return until after
a thousand years of peace on earth, during which thousand years the whole
world would become converted. They taught that prophecies about the second
coming and the resurrection would not be literally fulfilled. These
doctrines were popularized by Daniel Whitby, an Englishman who died in
1726.
Miller and his associates taught most definitely that the whole world
would not become converted, and that Christ would come personally and
visibly before, not after, the thousand years. The date of 1843 only
brought to a head these major points of theological difference.
Most churches, it seems, now believe what Miller taught about the
second coming of Christ. They can thank William Miller, in part, for this
correction in their theology.
The Documentation Package,offered at the end of the
video, lists in its index as "Point 4" Miller's teaching that
Christ would come in 1843. However, when one turns to "Point 4,"
no evidence is given to substantiate that Miller ever taught this.
It is true, though, that Miller, as of December 1842, taught that
Christ would come in 1843, more
than eleven years after he gave his first sermon on the soon return of
Christ. Previous to December 1842, Miller had consistently said Christ
would come "about the year 1843" "if there
were no mistake in my calculation" (Memoirs of William Miller
329).
Being censured by some of his associates in 1842 for constantly
including the "about" and the "if," and
not finding any error in his calculations, and being falsely accused by
the public press of having set the date of April 23 for Christ's return,
Miller decided to remove the "about" and the "if"
in December 1842. From then until March 21, 1844, he taught Christ would
come in the Jewish year of 1843 (Ibid.).
#6: Miller taught Christ would return October 22, 1844. This is
not true.
Miller and Joshua V. Himes were preaching in the west the summer of
1844. When they returned east they found everyone afire with the idea that
Christ would come on October 22, the tenth day of the seventh Jewish
month. This fast-spreading message, initiated by Samuel S. Snow around
mid-July 1844, became known as the "seventh-month movement."
Miller, as well as the other principal Millerite leaders, resisted for
awhile the idea of predicting the return of Christ on a particular day,
something they had always shunned. Miller's opposition can still be seen
in his letter dated September 30, 1844, written soon after his arrival
back home from his extended preaching tour.
Unable to explain what was so evidently to him the work of the Holy
Spirit reforming and converting people's lives, Miller for the first time
began to capitulate on October 6. In a letter written on that date,
published in the October 12, 1844, issue of Midnight Cry, Miller
said he would be disappointed if Christ did not return "within twenty
or twenty-five days," which means he was looking toward October 26 or
31 as being the limit, not October 22.
The data from the letter is this, in the order that it appears: ". . . Christ will come in the seventh month. . . ." "If he does
not come within 20 or 25 days, I shall feel twice the disappointment I did
this spring." ". . . it must and will come this
fall." ". . . I see no reason why we may not expect him within
twenty days." ". . . just so true will redemption be completed
by the fifteenth day of the seventh month. . . ." "I am strong
in my opinion that the next [Oct. 13] will be the last Lord's day sinners
will ever have in probation; and within ten or fifteen days from thence,
they will see Him. . . ."
As can be clearly seen, Miller had fixed on no specific day in October
1844 for the Lord to come. He was convicted that Christ would come that
month, but not necessarily on the 22nd. His words most often suggest that
Christ would come by the 26th, but they also suggest that Christ would
return by the 23rd, by the 27th, by the 28th, and by the 31st, all in the
same letter. Not once does he pinpoint the 22nd, even though he twice
refers to the typical Day of Atonement being on the tenth day of the
seventh month in Old Testament times.
If Miller was ever going to teach "that Christ would
return . . . on October 22, 1844," he was definitely running
out of opportunities that October 6th.
Miller's first letter to Himes after October 22 is dated "November
10th," and expresses his disappointment. This date, November 10, was
the date of the astronomical new moon, which in Miller's mind would have
marked the end of the Jewish seventh month according to the Karaite lunar
calendar.
The fact that Miller waited until the new moon before expressing his
disappointment is further confirmation that he felt Christ would come in
the seventh Jewish month, but not necessarily on the tenth day of that
seventh Jewish month.
In a letter to J. O. Orr of Toronto, Canada West, on December 13, 1844,
Miller wrote:
The ninth day [of the seventh month, or October 21] was very remarkable. We held a meeting all day and our
place of worship was crowded to overflowing with anxious souls apparently.
In the evening I told some of my [brethren] Christ would not come on the
morrow [October 22]. Why not? said they. Because he cannot come in an hour they think not, nor
as a snare.
Clearly, even on October 21, Miller had not yet accepted the date of
October 22, much less taught it.
By leaving the impression that the date of October 22 is based on
Miller, the video can more easily attack Millerite Adventists, since views proposed
by single individuals appear to have less credibility.
The Documentation Package,offered at the end of the
video, lists in its index as "Point 4" Miller's teaching that
Christ would come on October 22, 1844. However, when one turns to
"Point 4," no evidence is given to substantiate the claim that
Miller ever taught this.
#7: "...October 22, 1844, supposedly the Jewish Day of Atonement
for that year. However, using information from the Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia we find that in 1844, the Day of Atonement began after
sundown, September 23rd, not October 22nd. So this crucial date in
Adventism was flawed, incorrect, from the very beginning." (Ibid.)
October 22 was not Jewish Day of Atonement. Samuel S. Snow never
identified October 22 as being the "Jewish" Day of Atonement per
se. He knew better, as did other Millerites. And neither was September 23
the "Jewish" Day of Atonement. But in all truth it can be said
that October 22 was the true "biblical" Day of Atonement. The
explanation for these puzzling statements follows.
There are many different sects of Judaism, and one prominent sect, the
Karaites or Caraites, regularly differed from Rabbinical Judaism in how
they would begin the year. This meant that the Karaite Jews usually kept
the Jewish feasts a month later than the Rabbinical Jews. Thus usually
there was more than one "Jewish" Day of Atonement per year. When
this happened, no one date could be called the "Jewish" Day of
Atonement.
The Rabbinical Jews accepted oral traditions in addition to the Word of
God, but the Karaite Jews rejected all such traditions and relied only on
the Bible. They were therefore a fundamentalist movement within Judaism.
A modern-day Karaite Jewish leader in Israel, Nehemiah Gordon, informs
us that in 1999, the biblical Day of Atonement was on October 20, not in
September like most other Jews thought.
The Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar. Its months are but 29 or 30
days each. That's about 354 days to a year. To keep the calendar synchronized
with the seasons, a thirteenth month is added about seven
times every nineteen years.
When and under what circumstances should the thirteenth month be added?
The Rabbinical method uses merely mathematical calculations. The Karaite
method uses observation of the barley crop in Palestine. Biblically
speaking, the Karaites are correct.
The day after the sabbath after the Passover, a sheaf of barley grain
was to be waved before the Lord (Lev. 23:10-15). If the barley wasn't ripe
enough, this could not be done. This is why the Karaites would often have
their year start one month later than other Jews, so that the barley would
be ripe enough. (Even the name of the
first Jewish month, Abib, refers to the barley being in a certain
stage of growth.)
Some critics of Seventh-day Adventism cite Nehemiah Gordon to show that Karaites in
1844 in Palestine had long before adopted Rabbinical reckoning. However,
the point is not what the Karaites were doing in 1844, but what the Bible
says they should have been doing. If the barley was not ripe enough, then
biblically the year could not begin, regardless of what any Karaite or
Rabbi said.
In actuality, Nehemiah Gordon provides evidence indicating that the
Karaites utilized Rabbinical reckoning "for some time" before
1860, but it does not prove what they were doing in 1844. This can readily
be seen by turning to "Point 5" in the Documentation Package
offered at the end of the video, where some of Nehemiah Gordon's comments
can be found. (Large portions of this selected document in the Documentation
Package were deleted, so the reader cannot tell that Nehemiah Gordon
was the one writing the comments. The full document clearly shows that he
is the writer, though.)
The April 1840 issue of American Biblical Repository contained a
letter written in 1836 by E. S. Calman, a missionary in Palestine who was
a converted Jew. He states that the Karaite Jews were generally keeping
the feasts a month later than the Rabbinical Jews in his day:
But, at present, the Jews in the Holy Land have not the least regard
to this season appointed and identified by Jehovah, but follow the rules
prescribed in the oral law, namely, by adding a month to every second or
third year, and thus making the lunar year correspond with the solar.
And when the 15th day of Nisan (nisan), according to this
computation, arrives, they begin to celebrate the above-mentioned feast,
although the chedesh haabib may have passed, or not yet come. In
general the proper season occurs after they have celebrated it a whole
month, which is just reversing the command in the law, which directs
that the chedesh haabib precede the festival, and not the
festival the chedesh haabib. Nothing like ears of green corn have
I seen around Jerusalem at the celebration of this feast. The Caraite
Jews observe it later than the Rabbinical, for they are guided by Abib, abib,
and they charge the latter with eating leavened bread during that feast.
I think, myself, that the charge is well founded. If this feast of
unleavened bread is not celebrated in its season, every successive
festival is dislocated from its appropriate period, since the month
Abib, abib, is laid down in the law of God as the epoch from
which every other is to follow. (pp. 411, 412) (Hebrew transliterated)
According to this letter, Karaite Jews in Palestine were keeping the
annual feasts generally one month later than the Rabbinical Jews in 1836.
The conclusion of the critics that the Karaites had given up their special
form of reckoning long before the nineteenth century is therefore
unfounded. More importantly, the letter affirms the fact that the Rabbinical Jews
were not calculating the times of their feasts to harmonize with the
Bible's requirements.
An additional inadequacy in the Documentation Package is that it
does not even attempt to substantiate the correctness of the Rabbinical
date of September 23rd for the Day of Atonement in 1844. Instead, it
quotes Nehemiah Gordon as saying, "While late September may or may
not have been the correct month in which to celebrate Yom
Kippur. . . ."
This gives away the whole point the video was trying to make. If late
September "may not have been" "the correct month" for
the Day of Atonement, then late October may have been "the correct
month" after all.
S. S. Snow popularized the October 22 date the summer of 1844, but he
didn't come up with the idea of using Karaite reckoning. Karaite reckoning
was the acceptable thing for a year or more prior to this.
Miller's associates, though not himself, decided that the Jewish year
1843 began on April 29 and ended on April 17, 1844. In doing so, they used
the Karaite form of reckoning, as stated in the June 21, 1843, issue of The
Signs of the Times, p. 123.
Now there is a dispute between the Rabbinical, and the Caraite Jews,
as to the correct time of commencing the year. The former are scattered
all over the world, and cannot observe the time of the ripening of that
harvest in Judea. They therefore regulate the commencement of the year
by astronomical calculations, and commence with the first day of the new
moon nearest the vernal equinox, when the sun is in Aries. The Caraite Jews on the contrary, still adhere to the letter of the Mosaic law, and
commence with the new moon nearest the barley harvest in Judea; and
which is one moon later than the Rabbinical year. The Jewish year of
A.D. 1843, as the Caraites reckon it in accordance with the Mosaic law,
therefore commenced this year with the new moon on the 29th day of
April, and the Jewish year 1844, will commence with the new moon in next
April, when 1843 and the 2300 days, according to their computation, will
expire. But according to the Rabbinical Jews, it began with the new moon
the first of last April, and will expire with the new moon in the month
of March next.
Six Jewish months and ten days after the new moon of April 1844 takes
us to October 22. So, biblically speaking, the date of October 22 was
correct.
#8: "William Miller's meetings were marked by much emotionalism
and a great deal of hysteria over Christ's imminent return." (Ibid.)
His meetings were marked by emotionalism and hysteria. This is
not true. The fact is that Miller and his associates sought to suppress
all such manifestations.
In an ecumenical movement like the Millerite Movement, many people of
many beliefs and worship styles come together. There were those in the
movement who would have felt comfortable in the more emotional services of
some modern Pentecostal and charismatic churches, but Miller and his
associates consistently sought to repress such things and called them
fanaticism.
The eyewitness account of Pastor L. D. Fleming of Portland, Maine, has
already been cited where he said, "There is nothing like extravagant
excitement, but an almost universal solemnity on the minds of all the
people." Let us also read the account of Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
Unitarian minister A. P. Peabody:
If I am rightly informed, the present season of religious excitement
has been to a great degree free from what, I confess, has always made me
dread such times, I mean those excesses and extravagances, which wound
religion in the house of its friends, and cause its enemies to
blaspheme. I most cheerfully express my opinion, that there will be in
the fruits of the present excitement far less to regret, and much more
for the friends of God to rejoice in, much more to be recorded in the
book of eternal life, than in any similar series of religious exercises,
which I have ever had the opportunity of watching. "Sermon on
Revivals")
Joshua V. Himes, Miller's closest associate and ardent publicist,
testified in 1853:
As the public learn to discriminate between the actual position of
Mr. Miller and that which prejudice has conceived that he occupied, his
conservativeness and disapprobation of every fanatical practice will be
admitted, and a much more just estimate will be had of him. (Memoirs
of William Miller iv)
Miller himself wrote on January 1st, 1843:
I beseech you, my dear brethren, be careful that Satan get no
advantage over you by scattering coals of wild-fire among you; for, if
he cannot drive you into unbelief and doubt, he will try his wild-fire
of fanaticism and speculation to get us from the word of God. (Ibid. 173)
Himes makes some comments regarding a lecturing tour in September and
October 1843. He writes:
During this tour, Mr. Miller was much pained by witnessing a tendency
to fanaticism on the part of some who held to his views. As he had no
sympathy for anything of the kind, and has been unjustly identified with
it in the minds of the public, it becomes necessary to show its origin,
that its responsibility may rest where it rightly belongs. (Ibid. 229)
Himes then proceeds to describe the origin of these things. A Mr. John
Starkweather, an Orthodox Congregationalist, was called to be an assistant
pastor at Himes's church, since Himes was often on the road with Miller.
According to Himes, Starkweather "taught that conversion, however
full and thorough, did not fit one for God's favor without a second work;
and that this second work was usually indicated by some bodily
sensation" (Ibid. 232).
Starkweather came in October 1842. Near the end of April 1843, things
were such that Himes felt the matter had to be addressed. Himes addressed
the congregation about the dangers of fanaticism, to which address
Starkweather gave a vehement reply. So Himes gave another address.
This so shocked the sensibilities of those who regarded them as the
"great power of God," that they cried out and stopped their
ears. Some jumped upon their feet, and some ran out of the house.
"You will drive out the Holy Ghost!" cried one. "You are
throwing on cold water!" said another.
"Throwing on cold water!" said Mr. Himes; "I would throw
on the Atlantic Ocean before I would be identified with such
abominations as these, or suffer them in this place unrebuked."
Starkweather immediately announced that "the saints" would
thenceforth meet at another place than the Chardonstreet Chapel; and,
retiring, his followers withdrew with him.
From this time he was the leader of a party, held separate meetings,
and, by extending his visits to other places, he gained a number of
adherents. He was not countenanced by the friends of Mr. Miller; but the
public identified him and his movement with Mr. Miller and his.
This was most unjust to Mr. Miller; but to this day the Romanists
identify, in the same manner the fanaticism consequent on the
Reformation, with Luther and those who repudiated the doings of Munzer,
Storch and others.
While Starkweather was thus repudiated, he persisted in forcing
himself, wherever he could, upon the public, as a religious teacher and
lecturer on the Advent.
On the 9th of August, 1843, a camp-meeting commenced at Plainfield,
Ct., at which Starkweather was, and some manifestations were exhibited
which were entirely new to those present, and for which they could not
account. Another meeting was held at Stepney, near Bridgeport, on the
28th of the same month, where the developments were more marked. A few
young men, professing to have the gift of discerning spirits, were
hurried into great extravagances.
Elder J. Litch [another very prominent Millerite leader] published a
protest against such exhibitions, in which he said:
"A more disgraceful scene, under the garb of piety, I have
rarely witnessed. For the last ten years I have come in contact nearly
every year, more or less, with the same spirit, and have marked its
developments, its beginning, and its result; and am now prepared to say
that it is evil, and only evil, and that continually. I have uniformly
opposed it wherever it has made its appearance, and as uniformly have
been denounced as being opposed to the power of God, and as resisting
the operations of the Spirit. The origin of it, is the idea that the
individuals thus exercised are entirely under the influence of the
Spirit of God, are his children, and that he will not deceive them and
lead them astray; hence every impulse which comes upon them is yielded
to as coming from God, and, following it, there is no length of
fanaticism to which they will not go." - Midnight Cry, Sept. 14,
1843.
This fanaticism was the result of Starkweather's teaching that
"gifts" were to be restored to the church. Even he seemed at
first amazed at the results. (Ibid. 233, 234)
One last comment from Himes:
Not only Mr. Miller, but all who were in his confidence, took a
decided position against all fanatical extravagances. They never gave
them any quarter; while those who regarded them with favor soon arrayed
themselves against Mr. Miller and his adherents. Their fanaticism
increased; and though opposed by Mr. Miller and his friends, the
religious and secular press very generally, but unjustly, connected his
name with it; - he being no more responsible for it than Luther and
Wesley were for similar manifestations in their day. (Ibid. 239)
After calling vocal utterances during meetings fanaticism (the one example given is
"Bless God"), Miller wrote, "I have often obtained more
evidence of inward piety from a kindling eye, a wetcheek,
and a chokedutterance, than from all the noise in
Christendom" (Ibid. 282).
Regarding the seventh-month movement in particular, when beginning with
the summer of 1844, most Millerites expected Christ to return on October
22, Miller testified:
There is something in this present waking up different from anything
I have ever before seen. There is no great expression of joy: that is,
as it were, suppressed for a future occasion, when all heaven and earth
will rejoice together with joy unspeakable and full of glory. There is
no shouting; that, too, is reserved for the shout from heaven. The
singers are silent: they are waiting to join the angelic hosts, the
choir from heaven. (Ibid. 270, 271)
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the video,
gives no documentation for this point whatsoever.
Picture of one of Miller's meetings before 1844. This picture is
not of one of Miller's meetings at all. It was drawn to illustrate a
critic's description of a meeting occurring after 1844, yet the video uses
it to illustrate a pre-October 22 meeting.
Ellen White is shown having a vision, in the way the critic described,
but she had no visions before October 22, 1844. Her first vision came in
December 1844.
James White is shown behind her. While he remembered meeting her prior
to October 22, she recounted meeting him for the first time a bit
later. Not until 1845 did they labor together. He could not have
stood behind her in this manner, therefore, until the following year.
#10 & #11: "Ellen Harmon was a willing participant, though
when Christ did not return when Miller predicted, she dissolved into tears
and prayers and remained, as she said, in this hopeless condition for
months." (Ibid.)
#10: She said she was in a hopeless condition for months. There
is no such statement anywhere in her writings.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the video,
lists this as "Point 6." "Point 6" mistakenly provides
page 293 of Life Sketches 1880 edition: "My wife has for many
years been subject to occasional, and sometimes protracted, seasons of the
most hopeless despair." This same wording is found in the 1888
edition, as well as page 169 of the second volume of Spiritual Gifts.
The immediate context clearly shows that this was written by Stephen
Pierce about his wife, Almira Pierce. It isn't about Ellen White at all!
Page 190 of Life Sketches clearly says: "We were
disappointed but not disheartened."
"Point 6" also quotes from Spectrum magazine, a
theologically liberal journal that does not support the idea of the
infallibility of the Bible and does support the theory of evolution. The
quotation from Spectrum speculates that when Ellen White later
wrote about others, she was in fact writing about herself. By no stretch
of the imagination can this be used as proof that she ever said she was
"in this hopeless condition for months."
#11: Ellen White felt in a hopeless condition for months because
Christ did not return on October 22. This is not true.
Like most young people, she was depressed at times. For instance, she
felt in despair for a period of months around 1840, when she was but
twelve years old (Selected Messages 3:324, 325). This was just prior to
her conversion. However, it should be pointed out that this is how many
have felt just prior to their own conversion, as they realize the depth of
their sin and their need of a Savior.
In 1842 she was convicted that the Lord wanted her to pray publicly,
but she didn't want to, and stopped praying altogether. This resulted in a
state of melancholy and despair that lasted three weeks or a little
longer, until she followed through with what she believed was her duty. (Spiritual
Gifts 2:15-20).
After her second vision, soon after the first one of December 1844, she
was troubled. With her frail health and being so young, she shrank from
the duty of traveling to share what God had revealed, which duty had been
expressed to her in that vision. She dreaded the scoffs, sneers, and
opposition she would surely meet. She wrote:
I really coveted death as a release from the responsibilities that
were crowding upon me. At length the sweet peace I had so long enjoyed
left me, and my soul was plunged in despair. (Life Sketches 195,
1880 ed. See also Testimonies for the Church 1:63)
These words indicate that she had no episodes of despair between the
previous incident in 1842 and her second vision a few months after October
22, 1844. So Ellen White was not "in a hopeless condition" for
months after October 22, and had no depression after Christ did not return
when expected.
#12 & #13: "Ellen White just could not accept the fact that
Christ did not return in 1843 or 1844. She could not admit her mistake.
Interestingly enough, William Miller did." (Ibid.)
#12: Ellen White didn't admit her mistake. This is not true.
Both Ellen White and William Miller freely admitted that they were
mistaken in thinking that Christ would return in 1843 or 1844. Yet they
explained their mistake quite differently.
Ellen White first admitted what she thought was a mistake, and then she
admitted a different mistake.
In 1847 her husband wrote, "When she received her first vision,
December, 1844, she and all the band [the group of Advent believers] in
Portland, Maine (where her parents then resided) had given up the midnight
cry, and shut door, as being in the past." Ellen White wrote the same
year, "At the time I had the vision of the midnight cry [December,
1844], I had given it up in the past and thought it future, as also most
of the band had" (Ellen G. White: The Early Years 61).
What the above two statements mean is this: During the seventh-month
movement, the prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9 were connected to a number of
other Scriptures, particularly the parable of the ten virgins of Matthew
25.
And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 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.
(Mat. 25:6-12)
At the conclusion of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, it was expected
that the bridegroom would come, the wedding between Christ and his people
would begin, and the door would be shut, whatever that means. The term
"midnight cry" used in the quotations from The Early Years is taken from the parable, for a
cry goes out at midnight: "The Bridegroom cometh. Go ye out to meet
Him."
By Ellen White initially giving up the idea that the midnight cry and
the shut door were past, she was giving up the idea that the 2300 days had
really ended on October 22, 1844, an easy enough conclusion for she and
many other Millerites to reach.
After her first vision, she realized that she had made a mistake in
calling the October 22 date a mistake. The real mistake she and the 50,000
other Millerites had made was in thinking that the beginning of the
judgment and the ending of the 2300 days was synonymous with the second
coming of Christ.
Daniel 8:14 had declared that the 2300 days would end with the
cleansing of the "sanctuary." The popular belief among both
Millerites and non-Millerites was that this
"sanctuary" was the earth or some part of it. The
Millerites felt that the predicted cleansing of the sanctuary was Christ's
cleansing of the earth by fire at His second coming.
The Millerites were mistaken that this was the predicted event of the
prophecy, and this mistake Ellen White was always willing to freely admit:
As the disciples were mistaken in regard to the kingdom to be set up
at the end of the seventy weeks, so Adventists were mistaken in regard
to the event to take place at the expiration of the 2300 days. In both
cases there was an acceptance of, or rather an adherence to, popular
errors that blinded the mind to the truth. (Great Controversy
353)
Christ's disciples thought He would set up the kingdom of glory at His
first coming, in which kingdom the Jews would rule the world and the
Romans. Shall we reject their teachings, since they had mistaken views
about prophecy, even as late as at the time of Christ's ascension (Acts
1:6)?
There are a number of mistakes in this video. Will those responsible
for these mistakes freely admit them to the Christian community?
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the video,
offers no documentation for this point whatsoever.
#13: Miller admitted his mistake. This is an oversimplification.
To explain what Miller really admitted to would make the inclusion of this
point in the video appear silly.
In a statement dated August 1, 1845, Miller specified what mistake
he was admitting to:
But while I frankly acknowledge my disappointment in the exact time,
I wish to inquire whether my teachings have been thereby materially
affected. My view of exact time depended entirely upon the accuracy of
chronology; of this I had no absolute demonstration; but as no evidence
was presented to invalidate it, I deemed it my duty to rely on it as
certain, until it should be disproved. Besides, I not only rested on
received chronology, but I selected the earliest dates in the circle of
a few years on which chronologers have relied for the date of the events
from which to reckon, because I believed them to be best sustained, and
because I wished to have my eye on the earliest time at which the Lord
might be expected. Other chronologers had assigned later dates for the
events from which I reckoned; and if they are correct we are only
brought into the circle of a few years, during which we may rationally
look for the Lord's appearing. As the prophetic periods, counting from
the dates from which I have reckoned, have not brought us to the end,
and as I cannot tell the exact time that chronology may vary from my
calculations, I can only live in continual expectation of the event. I
am persuaded that I cannot be far out of the way, and I believe that God
will still justify my preaching to the world.
Thus the mistake that he admitted to was not the way he had interpreted
and calculated the time prophecies of Scripture, but the dates of the
human chronologers he had used to begin those time prophecies with.
The book shown in the video to illustrate the point that William Miller
admitted his mistake is that of Sketches of the Christian Life and
Public Labors of William Miller, written by James White and published
in 1875.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the video,
lists this point as "Point 7." Under "Point 7" is
given a page of a research paper which is dealing with the Albany
Conference of April 1845. The page allegedly describes what was voted at
that Conference, but says nothing about whether Miller was in harmony with
the vote or not. It also says nothing about what mistakes Miller allegedly
admitted to making.
If one compares what was actually voted at the Albany Conference with
the page of the research paper found in the Documentation Package,
one will find that they do not agree. Hence I used the word
"allegedly" in the previous paragraph. The person compiling
the Documentation Package must not have verified the accuracy of
the page from the research paper.
#14 & #15: "Instead she claimed she had a vision from God, the first of
many. 'I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the
Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He
wanted them, that His hand was over, and hid a mistake in some of the
figures...' Early Writings p. 74." (Ibid.)
#14: This was her first vision. This is not true. The statement
quoted from Early Writings is from a vision that occurred on
September 23, 1850. However, Ellen White's first vision occurred in
December 1844.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the video,
gives no documentation for this point whatsoever.
#15: God hid the mistake. The context has been removed to
apparently leave the impression that this is what Ellen White meant.
However, the last clause of the sentence that was omitted says: ". . . so that none could see it, until His hand was removed."
This shows that rather than God hiding the mistake, He was instead not
bringing the mistake to the notice of the people. There is a difference.
#16: "Rather than admit she was in error, Ellen Harmon claimed that
God was the one who had made the mistake, and had covered it up
Himself." (Narrator)
Ellen White said God made the mistake. This is not true. She
never said that God made a mistake at that time or at any other time. God
makes no mistakes.
Early Writings 74 is used on the video to substantiate this
strange claim:
I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord,
and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted
them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures,
so that none could see it, until His hand was removed.
Have you ever made a mistake? Why didn't you see it was a mistake
earlier? Why didn't God show it to you earlier? Because God didn't show
you your mistake earlier, does that mean God made the mistake?
What Ellen White is talking about here is not about October 22 at all.
Miller and his many associates began the 2300 days in 457 BC. Subtracting
457 from 2300 gives 1843. Thus they thought that the 2300 days would end
in the Jewish year 1843, which they felt began in the spring of 1843 and
ended in the spring of 1844. But there is a major mistake here in our
math.
There is no 0 BC or 0 AD, unlike a conventional number line. Hence the
spring of 457 to the spring of 1843 is only 2299 years, not 2300. This no
one realized until after the Jewish year of 1843 had already passed.
Of course, God knew that their math was off, and He permitted them to
understand this after the fact.
No mistake about the validity of the October 22 date is even suggested
in the quoted statement.
But Ellen White's words indicate that there was some sort of divine
purpose in the mistake about there being no 0 year. Perhaps the experience
of the disciples can illuminate our understanding.
The disciples of Christ were tested severely at two different times,
both relating to mistaken views about prophecy. John 6:66 says that many of
Christ's disciples just up and left Him when He cryptically told them that
His kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, not a kingdom in which they would
rule the Romans. This was the first test, and it was hard. The second one
came at the crucifixion, when all the hopes and dreams of the disciples
for an earthly kingdom of power were dashed to pieces.
If the first and only test had been at the crucifixion, and if it had
been then when the majority of Christ's followers forsook Him, the test
would have been much more overwhelming for the disciples. Having the
previous test strengthened the disciples for the later test.
Did God make the mistake about prophecy found in John 6? No, but He
permitted it for a reason.
Likewise the Millerites were tested twice. The former test strengthened
them for the latter test. God did not make the mistake (and Ellen White
never said He did), but He permitted it for a reason.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the video,
gives no evidence that Ellen White ever said that God made any mistake. It
merely repeats the quote from page 74 of Early Writings, and shows
a picture of the 1843 chart Ellen White was referring to in that quote.
"Controversial
Vision Changes Dates and Doctrines"
#17 & #18: "Ellen's controversial vision forced the readjustment
of many Adventist dates and doctrines." (Ibid.)
#17: Ellen White's vision was controversial. Neither her first
vision nor her vision of September 23rd, 1850, should have been considered
controversial at the time. Both should have appeared either reasonable or
middle-of-the-road to their targeted audiences.
After October 22, 1844, there were two major and opposite divisions of
thought: 1) The 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 had not ended yet and Christ's
literal and visible coming was yet future. 2) The 2300 days had ended and
Christ had already returned in a spiritual way.
In contrast, Ellen White's first vision taught that the 2300 days had
ended, but Christ's return was yet future and would be literal and visible
as the Bible says. Thus it promoted a middle-of-the-road position between
the two major camps.
50,000 Millerites had felt moved by the Spirit of God during the
seventh-month movement. The vision taught that that movement was indeed of
God. Thus this point too should have been considered non-controversial.
The 1850 vision the video quoted from taught that:
It was proper to
print a periodical to proclaim the truth.
The word
"sacrifice" in Daniel 8:12 was not in the original, but had been
added by the translators (which is a fact that is readily apparent).
"Time . . . will never again be a test." In other
words, there should be no more setting of dates for Christ's return.
It
was wrong to spend lots of money to send people over to Jerusalem,
thinking that somehow this would help fulfill prophecy. (Advent Review
11/1/1850; Early Writings 74-76)
What was so controversial about this vision? Some who wanted to go to
Jerusalem probably didn't like what Ellen White was shown, but even point
4 harmonized with what the 50,000 Millerites had believed and taught.
The Millerites did not believe that the Bible foretold a restoration of
literal Israel. They felt that Israel today is composed of all believers,
as the apostle Paul indicates:
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
(Rom. 2:28, 29)
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. . . .
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Gal. 3:7, 29)
This
teaching may be controversial today, but it wasn't controversial in 1844.
Some who were into setting dates might have thought that point three of
the 1850 vision was controversial, but she had already been pushing this
idea for five years by that time (see Testimonies for the Church 1:72,
73).
No documentation whatsoever is given for this point in the Documentation
Package.
#18: Readjustment of many dates and doctrines. No dates were
readjusted by either vision. The first vision didn't really introduce any
new doctrines. The 1850 vision called for a moratorium on date setting,
but that wouldn't constitute a readjustment of many doctrines,
especially since she had already been calling for such a moratorium for
five years.
Going to Jerusalem not being a fulfillment of prophecy was already a
standard Millerite doctrine, so this doctrine was not readjusted either.
No documentation whatsoever is given for this point in the Documentation
Package offered at the end of the video.
#19 & #20: "Even though the 1843 datehad now been
adjusted to 1844, it was still an error." (Ibid.)
#19: 1843 date adjusted to 1844. Neither Ellen White's first
vision of December 1844 nor her 1850 vision had anything to do with the
change of date from 1843 to 1844. The simple proof of this is the fact
that the date was already adjusted before she had either of these visions.
Once again, here is the history: Samuel S. Snow, as described before,
provided the biblical evidence and chronological evidence to show that the
2300 days of Daniel 8:14 ended on October 22, 1844. He provided this
evidence in a powerful way in the Boston Tabernacle on July 21, 1844. Then
in August he presented his material at a camp meeting in Exeter, New
Hampshire. After that the idea spread like wild fire. By October 22,
50,000 Millerites had accepted the idea, a couple months before Ellen
White had her first vision.
No documentation whatsoever is given for this point in the Documentation
Package offered at the end of the video.
#20: 1844 date still an error. No documentation whatsoever is
given for this point in the Documentation Package offered at the
end of the video. The reason is simple: The theological understandings of
those of any and every persuasion have yet to produce any valid objections
to the basic interpretations of Scripture that lead to this date. No
better date has been arrived at.
If the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 did not end in 1844, when did they end?
Actually, this question is premature. A better question to start with is,
When did the 490 days of Daniel 9 end?
Linguistically, Daniel 8 and 9 are tied together. In chapter 8, Daniel
says that "none understood" the "vision," even though
Gabriel had already explained every part of the vision to Daniel except
for the 2300 days of verse 14.
Actually, there are two different Hebrew words translated
"vision" in chapter 8: mar'eh and chazown. Chazown occurs
in verses 2, 13, 15, 17, and the last half of 26. Mar'eh occurs in
verse 16, the first half of 26, and 27.
When Gabriel says in verse 26 that the "vision of the evening and
the morning which was told is true," he provides the key to our
understanding the difference between the chazown and the mar'eh.
Literally, the Hebrew for "2300 days" in verse 14 is
"2300 evening-morning." So the vision or mar'eh of the
evening-morning must specifically refer to the 2300 days, while the chazown
refers to the entire vision.
Thus when Daniel said none understood the vision or mar'eh, he
was correct, for Gabriel had not gotten to explain the mar'eh of
the 2300 days yet. But in verse 16 Gabriel had been assigned the special
task of making Daniel "to understand the vision," or mar'eh,
of the 2300 days.
In chapter 9 Gabriel returns, "the man" "whom I had seen
in the vision" or chazown (vs. 21). Gabriel tells Daniel,
"Consider the vision," or mar'eh, the 2300 days. The rest
of what he says to Daniel in the chapter is connected to a time prophecy,
the prophecy of the 70 weeks, or 490 days.
One troublesome problem in chapter 8 is that there is no starting point
given for the beginning of the 2300 days. This problem is removed in
chapter 9: These time prophecies begin with the decree to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem.
Nearly everyone agrees that the first 483 days of the 490 days of
Daniel 9 end at some point in the ministry of Christ. Each day represents
a year (Ezek. 4:6; Num. 14:34).
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the
Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. (Dan. 9:25)
Seventh-day Adventists begin the 490 years with the seventh year of
Artaxerxes, or 457 BC. In that year the Jews' autonomy was restored to the
point that they could even execute the death penalty against violators of
God's law (Ezra 7:7, 8, 26). Adventists begin the last seven years of the
prophecy with Christ's baptism in 27 AD, when He was anointed with the
Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:1, 22; Acts
10:38). Since the Hebrew word for "Messiah," and the Greek word
for "Christ" both mean "the anointed one," it seems
most logical to identify the coming of the Messiah of Daniel 9:25 with the
baptism of Jesus.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for
one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and
the oblation to cease. (9:27)
When Christ died after a ministry of 3½ years (31 AD), the veil of the
temple was torn from top to bottom (Mat. 27:51). Thus Christ showed that
the sacrifices were to cease, since the true sacrifice for sin had been
offered.
This leaves but half a week left of the prophecy, 3½ years, stretching
to 34 AD. In Acts 7 we find Stephen being stoned as the first Christian
martyr. Immediately after this the gospel started going to non-Jews:
Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Roman centurion Cornelius, along
with his household. Since Gabriel said that the 70 weeks were especially
for Daniel's people, the Jews, it seems most logical to end the 70 weeks
with the stoning of Stephen. For one week (7 years) the gospel, the new
covenant, was confirmed with many, the Jewish nation: 3½ years during the
ministry of Christ, and 3½ years after his resurrection.
The first 490 days of the 2300 thus ended in 34 AD. The remaining 1810
years can be added to 34 AD to arrive at 1844 AD.
Before it can be said emphatically that 1844 is "an error," a
better interpretation than the above must be found. None has been found to
date.
The most popular alternative interpretation today is the following,
which is more complex than what was above, which should tell you
something: The first 69 weeks stretch from Artaxerxes's supposed twentieth
year in 445 BC to about the death of Christ, and the seventieth week is
yet future.
Sir Robert Anderson proposed multiplying the 69 weeks, or 483 days, by
360 days to the year, and then dividing this product by 365.25 days per
year. By this method he reduced the 483 years to just over 476 years, a
total of 173,880 days. But he mistakenly added three leap days too few,
owing to the difference between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars. He
then began the time period on March 14, 445 BC, what he supposed was the
first day of the first Jewish month of Nisan that year. Then he ended it
with April 6th, 32 AD, what he supposed was Nisan 10, Palm Sunday, the
week Christ was crucified.
The seventieth week of Daniel 9 Anderson's puts off into the future to
a yet unknown time.
Besides the problem of mistakenly adding three leap days too few (his
ending date should really have be Thursday, April 3 instead of Sunday,
April 6), there are other problems with Anderson's theory:
Nisan 10 could not have been earlier than Wednesday, April 9 in 32
AD. Thus it could not have been April 6.
Nisan 14, the Passover, when Christ would have died, would have been
on a Sunday or Monday in 32 AD, not on a Thursday as Anderson
supposed.
The Jews of Elephantine used accession-year reckoning for
Artaxerxes. In other words, his first year was his accession year, and
his second year was called his "first year." This would make
his twentieth year really 444 BC, not 445 BC. So Anderson's starting
date was a year off.
While we have record of a decree from Artaxerxes's seventh year (457
BC) in the seventh chapter of Ezra, we do not have record of a decree
from his twentieth year.
Putting the seventieth week of Daniel 9 into the future ignores the
linguistic ties between chapters 8 and 9, and the resulting connection
between the 2300 days and the 490 days.
The method of reducing the 69 weeks of 483 years to only 476 years
ignores the Jewish seven-year cycle.
Number 6 needs a little more explanation: The Israelites were to work
their fields for six years, and then let the land keep a sabbath for the
seventh year (Lev. 25:2-7). It is easy to see an
allusion to this practice in Daniel 9's "70 weeks," "7
weeks," "62 weeks," and "1 week." In fact, many
scholars of various persuasions have recognized such a connection.
The Adventist way of reckoning the 70 weeks begins them in 457 BC and
ends them in 34 AD. 457 BC was the first year of a seven-year cycle, and
34 AD was the seventh year of a seven-year cycle. Thus, when 31 AD is
identified as the date for Christ's crucifixion, the middle of the last
week of seven years, it truly is the precise middle of a seven-year cycle.
Back to the original point: Until a better interpretation is found that
fits all the data, it cannot really be emphatically stated that the 1844
date is an error.