Gilbert Valentine
1979
A document used by critics to show that Ellen White once held a Shut Door view similar to
that held by others is the Camden Vision copied by R. R. Chapin and dated June 29,
1851. The document is of interest for three reasons:
It contains some strong
Shut Door statements.
It contains an interesting
example of the way Ellen White then applied passages of Scripture.
It purports to have been
shown by God in vision.
The original text of the
vision is not held by the White Estate, although the Estate does hold copies of
it. The vision is signed
"E. G. White," but the White Estate claims that the vision is spurious: that it
was something that Ellen White herself neither saw nor published.
The vision over the years
has been the subject of inquiries to the Estate, which various trustees have answered by
giving reasons for regarding the vision as spurious.
[On the copy at the E. G.
White Research Center at Andrews University the word spurious is written on the
front page in red pencil and a handwritten note following the name of Chapin reads:
"who apostatized and became a bitter critic and some thing about vision lead us to
believe it is not a correct account -- A. L. White."]
These replies were developed
into a standard reply by D. E. Robinson. A similar reply was later made in 1941 by
F. L. Wilcox.
[D. R. Robinson, "That
Camden Vision." File DF 103b.]
Their reasons are:
The copying of the vision
is credited to R. R. Chapin, a man who apostatized in 1854. (Review and Herald,
August 22, 1854.)
Ellen White's published
writings contain no similar "strong" statements for the Shut Door.
During the year given on
the document, 1851, Ellen White was not in Camden. She was there (according to
Robinson) a year earlier.
While at Camden in 1850,
Ellen White did have a vision, but it concerned a woman living immorally.
Brother Preston, a witness
to this 1850 vision, indicates that it applied to this woman and not to sinners in
general.
In 1885, J. N.
Loughborough mentions a document purporting to be the Camden Vision, which word
implies he did not consider it to be authentic. [Review and Herald, March
24, 1885. On the other hand, some copies of vision held by the Estate have a
statement attesting that J. N. Loughborough accepted the vision as authentic.]
In Robinson's view:
"The combined evidence constitutes an impeachment of the authenticity."
Wilcox in the main follows
Robinson and reiterates his first five reasons. But he adds one of his own:
Wilcox also mentions that
Ellen White was in fact in Camden during June 18-23, 1851, but he confuses the vision of
that visit with the one of 1850 mentioned by Robinson.
F. D. Nichol, in his
comprehensive Ellen G. White and Her Critics (Washington: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1951, p. 615-619), also discusses the vision. He clarifies
the confusion over the two Camden visits. In 1850 a vision at Camden did concern an
immoral woman. And on June 21, 1851, there was a vision concerning time-setting, of
which the Estate has the original text. (The disputed vision is dated June 29.)
Nichol corrects Robinson by
acknowledging that publications by Ellen White do contain statements similar to those in
the disputed vision, but he still considers the Camden Vision to be unauthentic. His
reasons:
Loughborough's evidence
concerning it is ambiguous.
The date of June 29 seems
to be in error: the Whites were in Camden from June 18-23.
The text of the vision has
come down to us only through "avowed critics of Mrs. White."
I will argue that the
evidence shows that the vision is authentic.
*
*
In 1868 Uriah Smith addressed himself to a
defense of the ministry of Ellen White in a book titled, The Visions of Mrs. E. G.
White.
[Uriah Smith, The Visions of
Mrs. E. G. White, Manifestations of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures.
Battle Creek: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868, p. 20-41.]
In this book Smith takes up
a number of objections to the visions and answers them at length. In the fourth
objection he considers the Shut Door, and one by one he discusses Ellen White's Shut Door
statements. These statements, according to Smith, only seem to accept the
Shut Door, but in fact do not. The statements he gives are as follows:
I saw that Jesus finished
his mediation in the holy place in 1844.
He has gone into the most
holy, where the faith of Israel now reaches.
His Spirit and sympathy are
now withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy should be with him.
The wicked could not be
benefitted by our prayers now.
The wicked world whom God
had rejected.
It seemed that the whole
world was taken in the snare [of Spiritualism], that there could not be one left.
The time for their salvation
is past.
Three quotations of the
seven are from the Camden Vision:
His Spirit and sympathy are
now withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy should be with him.
The wicked could not be
benefitted by our prayers now.
The wicked world whom God
had rejected.
A fourth, "The time for
their salvation is past," is found in the Camden Vision; but it is also in a vision
published in Experience and Views (p. 29).
By defending the vision,
Smith showed he believed it authentic: that is, he believed it to be published by Ellen
White as something she had in fact seen. He states that he will deal with none but
authentic documents:
Much is reported purporting
to be the testimony of the visions, for which they are not at all responsible . . .
Our only proper course, therefore, is to confine ourselves to what has been published
under Sister White's own supervision, and by her authority, and what appears in manuscript
over her own signature in her own handwriting.
By defending the Camden
Vision, Smith showed that he believe that it met these criteria and was authentic.
The assertion by Robinson (p. 4), that the vision was not accepted as genuine by the
pioneers, is therefore not the case.
*
*
Other evidence deriving from
Smith's book further shows that during Ellen White's lifetime the Camden Vision was
accepted by herself and the pioneers as genuine.
[1] Smith's book first
appeared as a series of articles in the Review and Herald: "The Visions --
Objections Answered," Review and Herald, June 12 - July 31, 1866. It
is clear from his article on the Shut Door that Smith assumed that the Review's
readership accepted the Camden Vision's authenticity.
[2] Before their
publication, Smith's articles were carefully examined by the leading brethren. Their
note states:
This manuscript was prepared
before our late conference; but its publication was withheld till it could be submitted to
the ministering brethren . . . for them to decide upon its merits, and the disposition
that should be made of it. It was examined by them, and received their approval . .
. Most of the manuscript was also read before a joint session of the General and
Michigan State Conferences, whereupon the following action was taken.
Resolved: That we, the
members of the General and Michigan State Conference, having heard a portion of the MS
read . . . hereby express our hearty approval . . .
Resolved: That we
tender our thanks to Brother Smith for his able defense of the visions . . .
(Review and Herald,
June 12, 1866, p. 16.)
In light of this double
checking of the manuscript it would seem that the Camden Vision was at that time accepted
by church leaders as authentic.
[3] Following the
publication of the series, a number of articles appeared commending the articles and
urging their careful study.
J. N. Andrews wrote of the articles that they
are well worthy of the
attentive perusal of the readers of the Review. I ask those who have not
read them, to take time and read them with care, and those who have read them
hastily, to give them further attention. I hope we may have these articles
in pamphlet form.
(J. N. Andrews, "Answers to the
Objections Against the Visions,"
Review and Herald, August 14,
1866, p. 16. Italics supplied.)
A month later, one C. O.
Taylor strongly endorsed the series and again urged their careful study. (C. O.
Taylor, "The Visions, Objections Answered," Review and Herald,
September 11, 1866, p. 16.)
Read twice, yes thrice and
even more till you can see the point.
Despite such scrutiny, no
one suggested that the Camden Vision may not be genuine. The readership of the Review,
including the church's scholars and James and Ellen White, raised no question as to the
vision's authenticity.
[4] Smith's articles
were occasioned by an attack on Ellen White by B. F. Snook and Wm. H. Brinkerhoff, two
leaders in the Iowa Conference who had apostatized in 1865. They had published a
book, The Visions of E. G. White, Not of God, and theirs were the attacks to
which Smith replied.
[ B. F. Nook and Wm. H.
Brinkerhoff, The Visions of E. G. White, Not of God (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Cedar
Valley Times Press, 1866). This book was apparently first published before 1866,
perhaps circulating in mimeographed form. A letter to Thomas Hare from J. N.
Loughborough, dated October 29, 1865, speaks of Hare's concern for the need of "an
answer to the objections." See File 349, E. G. White Research Center, Andrews
University. ]
In one criticism, they
accuse Ellen White of believing for several years that probation for the world had closed
in 1844. In proof, they quote the Camden Vision.
[ The quotation is a long
one and shows that the text of the vision, over the intervening years, had not changed. ]
They add:
We are aware that doubts
have recently been sug- gested as to the genuineness of this vision. But of this
there can be no question as Mrs. White attempted to explain it to the writer, and did not
attempt to deny its validity. If it [were] a forgery, why did she not then condemn
it as such?
Granted, this comes from a
critic. But as the church leadership was much concerned with Snook and Brinkerhoff's
book, and had closely evaluated Smith's reply, they clearly accepted what Snook and
Brinkerhoff asserted: that Ellen White had not denied having seen and published the
vision.
[5] That Ellen White
accepted having had the vision is shown by the fact that she raised no protest that Smith
would defend it. And she certainly read Smith's defense. Not only is it
reasonable to assume that she read the Review, but in writing Great
Controversy (p. 428 to 431) she quoted a lengthy section from Smith's Shut Door
answer.
[6] That James and
Ellen White knew and read Snook and Brinkerhoff's book is shown by the fact that the reply
to it was originally to have come from James White. Around October of 1865 we find
Thomas Hare writing Loughborough, wishing that "Bro. White would hurry out his answer
to the objections." As it turned out, the reply was written not by James White
(who was ailing at the time) but by Uriah Smith. Yet it is evident that the Whites
read the Snook-Brinkerhoff book. If the Camden Vision -- heavily relied
upon by these critics -- were in fact spurious, the silence of James and Ellen
White is baffling.
[7] What is true at
this time also holds for subsequent years. James White, for example, addressed the
Shut Door problem two years later, in his 1868 series of articles, "Life
Incidents." Although the Camden Vision had been the critics' strongest exhibit
for the charge, James White did not deny the vision's authenticity. There is in fact
no known statement, either from Ellen White or from James White, ever denying that she had
had the vision, or alleging that it was something made up by her enemies.
[8] Although Snook and
Brinkerhoff's quoting of the vision was known to the ministering brethren, and although
Uriah Smith's defense of it was also known to them, no one mentioned R. R. Chapin as being
the cause of any problem. The brethren knew of Chapin's departure from the church,
and knew of his attacks, but no one raised this as a problem. It seems that either
Chapin's name attached to the vision was not then considered a problem, or (more likely)
that texts of the vision were available without Chapin's name attached.
[ It is likely that a
genuine text existed that Chapin merely copied. This is indicated by the fact that
Chapin claimed to have copied a written account signed by E. G. White. Such
could have been later lost: many early publications were lost because of Mrs. White's
constant traveling. See her own statement to this effect: MS 4, 1883. ]
[9] In defending Ellen
White against the Camden vision's "strong statements" on the Shut Door, Uriah
Smith's most convincing course would have been to deny that she had had the vision.
This avenue seems not to have been open to him.
*
*
Conclusion
As Nichol points out, the testimony of J. N. Loughborough concerning the vision is
ambiguous. Secondly, the apostasy of R. R. Chapin does not discredit the vision's
authenticity.
The contention of F. L.
Wilcox, that by June of 1851 the pioneers had abandoned the Shut Door, is unfounded.
Just eight days before arriving in Camden, James White had published an article stating
the Shut Door in terms much like those in the vision. He wrote:
At the seventh month, 1844,
we were called out from the world . . . Previous to this, we were warning the world
with tears to be ready for the Lord's coming; but on that day, or about that time, our
labor for unbelievers rolled off from us, and an unseen hand drew us away from the world,
and shut us up in sweet communion with Jesus. The . . . experience of the entire
body of Advent brethren established this point. The church of Christ, since the day
of Pentecost, has not experienced so sudden and so great a change in labor and feeling, as
Adventists experienced in 1844. A few days before the tenth of the seventh month [a
few days before October 22, 1844, thousands were running to and fro, giving the cry, and
papers containing the message were scattered everywhere, like the leaves of autumn.
But about the tenth, every Advent paper was stopped, and the traveling brethren returned
to their homes, feeling that they had given their last message to the world. The
state of feeling throughout the entire body of Advent brethren can be accounted for in no
other way, than that a change then took place in the position of the "VINE"
[Jesus], and the living "BRANCHES" felt it. And as he ceased to plead for the
world, and moved within the second vail, the living branches were called away from the
world, and their sympathy was with Jesus, and with each other.
[ Review and Herald, June 9, 1851.
The timing of article and vision,
and their similarity of content,
are suggestive. ]
This leaves the remaining
problem of the June 29 date. In view of the fact that other White Estate documents
have had to be re-dated because they had been assigned a wrong date, this is not much of a
problem.
[ Letter 8, 1895, for
example, was originally listed as written Feb. 9, 1896. ]
Two explanations suggest
themselves. Firstly, as Ellen White was in Camden from June 18 to 23, the 29 could
be a miscopying of the figure 20, or 21, or 22.
[ Inasmuch as F. D. Nichol
elsewhere in his book defends statements of Ellen White on the basis of typographical
errors and printer's errors, it is difficult to believe that he sincerely put weight on a
date's being off by a digit. ]
Alternatively, the vision
may have been had during the June 18 to 23 stay at Camden but written out while Ellen
White was at nearby West Milton and given the then current date of June 29.
Confirmation of this might be seen in the fact that an early critic, relying on documents
available to him and writing long before any controversy had arisen over the June 29 date
(H. E. Carver, Examination of the Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, p. 40, 1877)
describes the vision not as having been had on June 29 but as published
on June 29, 1851.
*
*
The Camden Vision is
obviously relevant to the whole Shut Door discussion, and its genuineness or spuriousness
ought to be decided on the weight of evidence. The evidence suggests that the vision
was authentic.