In a testimony dated March 30, 1906, and sent to about
two dozen individuals, Ellen White asked that anyone having perplexities regarding the
testimonies to send her their objections and criticisms. This testimony begins as
follows:
Sanitarium, Cal., March 30, 1906
To Those Who are Perplexed Regarding the Testimonies Relating to the Medical Missionary
Work:
Recently in the visions of the night I
stood in a large company of people. There were present Dr. Kellogg, Elders Jones,
Tenny, and Taylor, Dr. Paulson, Elder Sadler, Judge Arthur, and many of their
associates. I was directed by the Lord to request them and any others who have
perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the testimonies that I have
borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to
answer these objections, and to make plain that which seems to be intricate.
|
Replies containing perplexities and
objections were sent to her by a large number of recipients. Of these replies we
have four, which you may read by clicking the names below:
Ellen White's defenders have tied themselves in knots, trying
to appear to explain her actions while hiding from their readers
one singularly-relevant fact: although specific and detailed "perplexities" from
Sadler and Stewart and Jones amount to several dozen, specific and meaningful
explanations of these from Ellen White amount to zero.
(The reader interested in pursuing
this matter -- the men's specific questions, and EGW's lack of specific replies --
should compare Sadler's letter with Ellen White's reply [part in 1SM 49-53, another part
of it is in 9MR 202-206]; Stewart and Jones were given no reply at all; and the letter to
Sadler was apparently never sent to him, which means that he like Stewart and Jones
received no reply at all. From first to last, Ellen White's conduct scarcely
resembles that of an inspired prophet.)
We will go into the matter of their
questions, and Ellen White's evasive non-replies, elsewhere. Also elsewhere will we
go into the matter of how deceitful her defenders have been: they resort to a whole bag of
tricks to make Ellen White's conduct appear to be acceptable:
Chapter 24 of Ellen G. White and
Her Critics (F. D. Nichol, 1951);
Chapter 7 of Ellen G. White: The
Later Elmshaven Years (Arthur White, 1982).
For now, we wish merely to bring our
reader's attention to the above letters, particularly to those of Sadler, Stewart and
Jones. The things they bring out, and for which they received not a single
meaningful reply, add up to a portrait of a fake prophet: a woman who claimed to have the
divine leading and divine inspiration that she in fact so painfully lacked.