PDF version

Prologue

Isaac’s Storm

 It is Friday, Sept. 7, 1900. It       is a hot, humid day in the booming Texas island town of Galveston. The     temperature is over 90 degrees and coupled with humidity over 80% it makes     for a sticky       afternoon. This morning’s edition   of the Galveston Daily News includes       a short article embedded among many other seemingly more important stories.       The article, one paragraph long, is from the National Weather Bureau, which     reports that a terrible storm has hit New Orleans, Louisiana. 

“There was a brief article in the Friday, September 7, 1900 issue of The Daily News noting that a storm was raging in the Gulf of Mexico; but the reader had to search diligently to find it: nine lines at the very bottom of the page, just above an illustrated ad for Royal Baking Powder. It was datelined Jacksonville, and it described high winds and downing of telegraph wires. The storm was “said to be northwest of Key West, Florida.” But at the time it was published the news was already trailing far behind actual events. In fact, the eye of the hurricane was near New Orleans, and moving fast.
At the office of the United States Weather Bureau on the third floor of the Levy Building on Market Street [in Galveston], the meteorologists had been monitoring the reports of the storm. They had already raised the city’s storm warning flags.” (http://galvestonhistory.info/blog/?p=44)

Ace weatherman Isaac Cline, one of the Weather Bureau’s top and most promising men, is keeping tabs on the storm, tracking its movements as adeptly as early 20th century technology allows.
The wind has shifted to the North in Galveston, and the seas are beginning to swell. Cline keeps close watch on this unusual phenomenon and records with precise skill every change in barometric pressure, temperature and tide.

“That evening, Cline went to the beach and was astounded by the unusually high tides and roaring surf.” http://www.galvestonhistory.org/hrc-fact-sheet.htm

“By midnight September 7 the moon was bright and there was no apparent sign of storm. There was only a slight wind. The weatherman noticed, however, long swells breaking on the beach with an ominous roar, and a tide rising above normal height.
"The storm swells were increasing in magnitude and frequency and were building up a storm tide which told me as plainly as though it was a written message that a great danger was approaching.” [Cline wrote in his report]
By dawn Saturday, the high tide, some two feet over normal, began creeping over the lower parts of the island. The barometer slowly dropped, and Cline, contrary to department procedures, harnessed a horse to his two-wheeled cart and headed down to the beach to warn people to seek high ground.
(The Safest House in Town, http://galvestonhistory.info/)

The Great Storm hit. People ran for higher ground, but it was too late. Isaac Cline then invited about fifty people to come into his own home, regarded as one of the best built in town for which to weather a severe storm. But even his stout beach home was destroyed by a huge piece of trestle railing, as well as millions of pounds of water forcing itself against the structure. Isaac Cline and his brother Joseph grabbed Isaac’s daughters and made a dive for it, clinging for their lives to pieces of floating debris.
At storms end, the booming coastal city of Galveston, Texas was left in a mass of splintered homes and broken lives in the worst weather-related disaster in U.S. History. Over 6000 lives were lost, 3600 buildings were destroyed and the prospect of rebuilding seemed a daunting task at best.
For his part, Isaac Cline became known as a Texas legend for his heroics in sensing the impending danger, and at risk to himself, warning the town to evacuate, saving hundreds or even thousands of potentially lost lives.
Galveston rebuilt, constructed a seawall for protection, and to this day still exists as a small resort town on a gulf island outside Houston.
End of story.
Or is it?
One day, a man named Eric Larsen, who was fascinated by the often overlooked Galveston event, came upon an archived article in the Galveston Daily News written by Isaac Cline in 1891, nine years earlier, as relating to storms in East Texas, piquing his interest. This motivated Larsen to look far more carefully at the event, and so he set out to investigate the various aspects of the story in order to clarify the actual events and chronology of the storm that devastated the Texas island town. If this tidbit of history had been overlooked, he reasoned, then it was possible that there was more to the Great Storm story than was previously published or told.
Larsen rechecked the historical sources and eyewitness testimonies, perusing through archived writings and reports. He then weighed each report and testimony with the actual known facts to come up with a version that is in some ways very different from the commonly told legend of the Great Storm. This research was then written into a book titled “Isaac’s Storm”, published in 1999.
Eric Larsen’s book, while a retelling of the events of the Galveston hurricane, focuses in part on the role of Isaac Cline, the Texas legend.
Here then is a short synopsis of the story according to Larsen’s research, which is based in part on testimony from Isaac Cline’s brother, Joseph, who was also employed in Galveston by the National Weather Bureau.

Larsen’s Story

Isaac Cline was a brilliant young college graduate holding two degrees from Hiwassee College when he joined the Weather Bureau. The Bureau was at that time struggling for credibility because of poor practices and corruption within the organization. In light of this, Cline was regarded as a wunderkind who promised hope and reform.
Nine years before the great Storm, in 1891, Cline had written an article for the Galveston Daily News stating that the island town was not vulnerable to hurricanes based on its prevailing wind patterns and shallow gulf waters. In the article, Isaac Cline wrote that any notion of a hurricane harming Galveston was “an absurd delusion”. Cline was committed to this idea, and when storms came to the island, he was always the voice of calmness and assurance. According to Larsen, based on eyewitness reports, this storm was no different.
Now, sometime earlier Isaac’s brother, Joseph Cline, was hired on at the Weather Bureau ‘s Galveston office. Joseph, like Isaac, was well qualified as a weather predictor though he stood in his more famous brother’s shadow. Isaac Cline was the face of meteorology in Galveston and he certainly let his younger sibling know that in no uncertain terms.
As reports of a strong tropical storm came in from Cuba on Wednesday, four days before it reached Galveston, Isaac Cline was not concerned. He had seen storms hit Cuba before that never tracked west into the gulf, but always tracked north up the Atlantic Coast. However, by Friday the storm had become a hurricane and was battering New Orleans. This should have been a wake-up call for Cline, since it certainly indicated that the storm did not track its usual direction, but instead blew west into the Gulf of Mexico. Cline was still unimpressed. Was he subconsciously filtering his opinions through the bold prediction he made in 1891, that no devastating storm could ever reach Galveston?
On Friday, September 7, the breeze shifted to a north wind and was combined with a rising tide - an unprecedented condition for Galveston, and a sure sign of an approaching hurricane. Again, Isaac Cline was not concerned. Joseph, on the other hand, began to get a sinking feeling that something was terribly wrong, and shared his feelings with the Bureau office and his brother.
In reaction to this, and on the advice of the national office, the Galveston Bureau raised the storm warning flag, but not the hurricane warning flag. Now, this flag was one that flew often throughout the summer months, as summer storms were a common occurrence for the Texas gulf coast.
Around midnight Friday, Isaac Cline is awakened from his sleep by a worry that something is amiss. He lies awake for a short time considering his options, but then returns to sleep. Shortly thereafter, Joseph Cline appears at his brother’s house. The younger brother is very worried about the rising tide and the prevailing winds. He tells Isaac that this storm will be a deadly hurricane and that they should warn the town at once to evacuate. An argument ensues, and Isaac tells Joseph that if any decision is made to give a hurricane warning it would come from him and will be his decision, and not Joseph’s.
Saturday morning, Isaac Cline returns to the beach. By now the ocean’s swells are enormous and rain begins to fall. Cline records on his notepad that this is unusual weather behavior for Galveston. He then goes to his office to send the report to the Washington, D.C. main office. Later, he is met by many frightened Galveston residents who live in the flooded low lying areas of the city (Galveston’s highest geographical point was 8 feet above sea level). Cline assures them that there is nothing to worry about, that it is another typical summer storm. The hurricane warning flag is still not raised in spite of the huge waves which are flooding the lower island areas, along with 40 mph winds and heavy rain. Joseph Cline recommends evacuation once again, but Isaac feels that the storm will get no worse, that the worst is passed.
2:30 P.M.- Isaac Cline is just now realizing that that the storm is increasing in strength, and this is becoming a serious problem. The Hurricane flag is now raised, more than 2 ½ hours into the storm. By now there is nothing that can be done. The residents of the island town brace for the worst weather-related disaster to ever hit the United Sates.
By late that afternoon, some of those whom Cline had assured that the storm was minor are now dead. Others have survived by clinging to debris or finding taller, stronger buildings in the center of town. Ironically, the Levy Building where Cline worked was a several story tall brick building that could have sheltered hundreds of people, and was relatively unharmed by the hurricane.
September 17, 1900- Isaac Cline returns to work after spending nine days trying to locate his missing wife and unborn child. She was found dead under a pile of debris located near the ruins of the Cline house. Cline then files his report with the National Weather Bureau.
In his report, Isaac Cline wrote that “storm warnings” were timely (never using the word hurricane), that he was unfamiliar with the event as it unfolded, and that he rode his horse and cart on the beach Saturday morning warning residents to evacuate.

Now, much of the official story was taken primarily from Isaac Cline’s own report. There are Isaac Cline awards given out in Texas, Isaac Cline memorabilia, as well as Cline’s inclusion along side Texas legends such as Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin. As a result of his revealing research, Erik Larsen has become very unpopular with Texas residents since the publishing of “Isaac‘s Storm“, since nearly all had accepted the traditional story as being true for a hundred years.
The question is, which story is true? There are several historical facts that do not square with the traditional story of how Isaac Cline dealt with the storm.

1-There were no eyewitnesses or reports of any kind to support Cline’s claim of harnessing a cart and warning the residents.
2- The water and pounding surf was already too high on the beach for him to have done this. According to the official story, at the time Cline claims to have raced across the beach, the “lower parts of the island” were already under water. This would no doubt include the beach.
3- At the time Cline said he was warning the residents to evacuate, he was reported by eyewitnesses to have been assuring the residents in town that no danger was imminent.
4- Cline’s brother Joseph later estranged himself from Isaac because of how he dealt with the Galveston situation, and proclaimed in his own book that Isaac was defiant in the face of the warnings given, costing hundreds and maybe thousands of lives.
5- The head of the National Weather Bureau, Willis Moore, reportedly sent several hurricane warnings to Galveston, recommending the raising of the hurricane warning flag. These warnings were apparently ignored by Isaac Cline, who had dogmatically asserted nine years prior that a hurricane hitting Galveston was not scientifically possible.

As a result of Larsen‘s research, many Texas information centers and historians are modifying their accounts of the event, using wording such as “According to Cline’s own report, he harnessed a cart and warned the residents”. Some historians, on the other hand, continue to hold to the traditional story in the face of historical evidence and have left their reports unchanged.
How difficult it must be for Cline’s descendants, and for loyal Texans, to read such a condemning story of their legend and hero. There was no blame to be put on the historians, at least up to now, since they were limited in their search for accurate information regarding the event, taking their knowledge from supposedly reliable sources, like the National Weather Bureau’s official report, written by Isaac Cline.
Erik Larsen, on the other hand, lives in the modern “information age”, where historical facts, testimonies and reports are as close as a computer, and only click away.

A Lesson for us?

The same can be said of those in the Seventh-day Adventist Church who, before the 1990s, did not have “semi-unfettered” access to Ellen White’s writings, along with the various online study materials. Previously, one would have to scour the vaults of the White Estate, leafing through each individual letter, article and book, and buy several different dictionaries and a multitude of Bible versions in order to research a given topic. Like the Galveston historians, Adventist lay members in the past have been hampered by a lack of abundant information.
Thankfully, for the time being we now enjoy more open access to the writings of Ellen White, as well as digital Greek and Hebrew lexicons and Bible manuscript copies that until this day was previously unheard of. In the minds of some this is unfortunate, since like in the case of Erik Larsen, the true facts of historical matters are no longer under lock and key, open to a very few specifically approved scholars and leaders. The finer points of history can now be brought to light and the facts can speak for themselves. Quotes from Ellen White and other Adventist leaders can now be checked for authenticity and correct context by the average layman.
I originally quoted the Galveston story in order to illustrate this one point. But as I wrote and then re-read the story several other parallels came to view. These points of parallel will be revealed as we go through this story of how the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination came to adopt their current doctrine of God and Christ.

Chapter 1

The Great Advent Movement

Back in the 1800s, there was a new and dynamic religious movement that carried a special message of hope, faith and salvation. Their message was centered on the soon return of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that message was spreading throughout the world. It was given in earnest by self-sacrificing, honest, Bible students and scholars who gave what they had to reach a dying world with a gospel of hope, and a word of warning.
The movement became an organized church and this "Church Militant" studied diligently for Bible truth as if for digging for buried treasure. The aim was to restore first century Bible Christianity; to finish the Reformation begun by Luther, Tyndale, Huss and others in order to prepare God's people for the second coming of our Lord Jesus. Theological differences were settled by careful study and by the confirmation of God's Spirit of Prophecy as manifested in the words, counsels and warnings of Ellen G. White.
In 1872, the "Little Flock" had written a "Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" which were considered "unanimous" among the believers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The church pressed together on these fundamental beliefs, concentrated on applying them in their personal lives and then teaching these principles to others. The church grew exponentially with this "present truth" and through its urgent presentation by men who taught their doctrines with authority, scholarship and faith.
By 1888, the theology and work had come to a head. Two young and zealous "pioneers", A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner, gave what was to be the final message of reformation to the world, a teaching of "righteousness by faith" based on what the apostle Paul referred to as "Christ in you, the hope of glory" and the transforming power of grace through faith. According to Ellen White, this message was rejected by the corporate church.
MajShortly thereafter, men within the movement began to question the inspiration of its prophet, its founders and the platform of truth the movement was founded on.
As the founding pioneers began to die off, both new and old false theories sprung up like tares within the wheat. Ellen White's writings were being manipulated to appear like they taught "new theology". Dr. John Harvey Kellogg published a new book, The Living Temple, which claimed Spirit of Prophecy support for a different view of the personality of God in general and the Holy Spirit in particular.
Ellen White made many warnings to the church of that time, including the urgent message not to abandon the platform of truth, the Fundamental Beliefs, that had been established between 1853 and 1903. Sr. White warned that men would come into the church with new theories, and that these theories must be rejected in favor of the foundation which was formed in “the first fifty years” of the church. We were told, “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and his teaching in our past history.”
It was a pivotal time for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and our prophet was trying her best to hold back the tide of what appeared to be an unstoppable negative force moving into the church.
In 1915, the year Ellen G. White died, the publishing of the "Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" was ceased. New ideas were being introduced by various theologians. The church would be without a statement of fundamental beliefs until 1931, when a new version which partially and vaguely reflected these new ideas would be published. The baptism requirements took on a new flavor. A church manual, the idea of which the founding pioneers rejected in the strongest possible terms, was published and enforced.
By the 1940s, the church began to "revise" or “helpfully edit” the writings of Ellen White and its founders to reflect the church's "new theological direction". The 1888 message of final reformation was lost in a sea of new theology and self-based legalism. Eventually, the opposite extreme of liberalism would challenge the works-based view and divide the church in heart and mind, even if the members still shared the same pews.
The 1950s saw the rise of ecumenism to heights that had not previously been seen in Adventism. The organization carefully reinvented some of its basic views in a series of meetings with Evangelical "cult hunters" Martin and Barnhouse.
The great train called the Advent Movement had been derailed. Its original mission and message was in large part lost sight of in a quagmire of compromise and well-intentioned, but poor, decisions. What began as the final reformation for the Christian world, the calling out of God's people from spiritual Babylon, became a comfortable, mainstream, Evangelical church. Where the power used to be in the Word of God, it became largely absent amidst the jokes, drums and dramas of mainstream Adventism.

Chapter 2

The Adventist Trinity Story(s)

There is a story that accompanied this change in doctrine, and most who have heard the story do not doubt it, since it comes directly from the church organization itself, just as the official story of the Great Storm came from the state of Texas itself.
As Seventh-day Adventists, like native Texans, we are a loyal people, believing our church to be God’s remnant people of Bible prophecy. What other major denomination believes in the importance of "the commandments of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ"? However, in recent times it has become apparent that somewhere along the 150 year way, a mindset of "the ends justifies the means" has arisen. Today, many Adventists do not recognize the church they grew up in, or joined many years ago. Ecumenism has risen among the North American, Australian and European churches. Clowns, rock music, “comedy preaching” and celebration worship have come unashamedly onto the Adventist scene and pulpit.
What many do not realize is that this "ends justifies the means" mentality came in long ago, around the beginning of the 20th century. Many know what the church believes now, but have little knowledge of the foundation that the church was founded upon, the "pillars" of the church.
I, for one, am not fascinated by "conspiracy theories”, but like the 1900 Galveston hurricane, there are two stories, one of which can be proven to be true and the other false. That is the situation with how the Seventh-day Adventist church came to accept the Trinity doctrine.

Chapter 3

Story One: the Traditional Story

Story One begins with the pioneer Adventists and their history of Arian, or semi-Arian beliefs. Among those in the know and educated on Seventh-day Adventist history, there is no disagreement on this.

“The evidence from a study of Adventist history indicates that from the earliest years of our church to the 1890's a whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi-Arian position. The view of Christ presented in those years by Adventist authors was that there was a time when Christ did not exist, that His divinity is a delegated divinity, and that therefore He is inferior to the Father. In regard to the Holy Spirit, their position was that He was not the third member of the Godhead but the power of God.” (Gerhardt Pfandl, The History of the Trinity Among Adventists, Biblical Research Institute, 1999)

“Our pioneers clearly held Arian or Semi Arian views in regard to the person of Christ. They under stood "firstborn over all creation" (Col 1:15) and "only begotten Son" (John 3:16) in a literal sense. The Father, therefore, was first and superior, and the Son, who had a beginning sometime in eternity, was subordinate to the Father. A corollary of this view was the belief that the Holy Spirit is an influence or the power of God, but not a person.” (ibid)

The founders of the church were adamantly non-Trinitarian, and believed that Christ had a beginning. Arians (not to be confused with "the Aryan Nations" or white supremacists) reportedly believed that Jesus was a created being, a man who was the Son of God by His Holy Spirit, but whose life began in Bethlehem, although it is not clear exactly what the Arians actually believed. “Semi-Arians“, which eventually made up all of the pioneer Adventists, believed that Jesus was the literal Son of God, and was "brought forth" from the bosom of the Father in the dateless past, before the creation of the world.
According to the traditional story, the reason for the Arian and semi-Arian bent of the founders was due to the previous religious system they came out of, which were largely anti-Trinitarian churches such as the Christian Connection.

“Two of the principal founders of the Seventh day Adventist Church, Joseph Bates and James White, were originally members of the Christian Connection Church which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. James White was an ordained minister of that church. When he and Bates joined the Advent Movement, they continued to hold the anti Trinitarian view which they had learned in the Christian Connection Church” (Ibid)

Now, according to the official version, Ellen White was being given new light on the personality of God and Christ beginning sometime in the 1880s or 1890s, depending on who is telling the story. This "new light" was that Jesus was not a created being, was fully divine, and that the Holy Spirit was an actual being, and not merely a "power" or "essence" as some of the pioneers supposedly previously believed.

“In the late 1890's Ellen White published articles and books in which she made strong statements supporting the Trinity concept, although she never used the word "Trinity." (ibid)

This version of the story contends that there was no actual foundational belief in the church that included a “semi-Arian” view; that the issue of the Godhead was "open". As such, Ellen White's “new light” did not contradict "old light", as there was no old light, or established truth, to contradict.
The story goes that James White, the husband of Ellen White, was following this new light, and was growing out of his belief that Jesus was a created being, was not fully divine and “therefore was inferior to the Father“.

“However, it is also a historical fact that the understanding of our pioneers changed over time. For example, (1) In 1846 James White referred to "the old unscriptural trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus is the eternal God." But in 1876 he wrote that "S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians, that we apprehend no trial here." And a year later he declared his belief in the equality of the Son with the Father and condemned any view as erroneous that "makes Christ inferior to the Father." (ibid)

Story One authors aver that James White began to accept the “Trinitarian” beliefs of his prophetess wife before he died. Ellen White, for her part, was bearing patiently with the rest of the church, waiting for them to "catch up" with the new light she was given. Men like the Arian Uriah Smith, however, were stubbornly digging in their heels, militantly resisting the growing knowledge.
According to some church historians, there was a breakthrough in 1898 when Ellen White published The Desire of Ages. In this book, according to tradition, she herself made it perfectly clear that the Trinity doctrine was the truth, and that the church's semi-Arian beliefs were very much in error.

“The breakthrough came with the publication of Ellen White's article "Christ the Life giver" in Signs of the Times in 1897, 20 and the book The Desire of Ages in 1898. In "Christ the Life giver" after quoting John 10:18 "No one takes it [life] from Me, but I lay it down of Myself," she says, "In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived."21 In Desire of Ages in the chapter "The Light of Life" she quotes Jesus' answer to the Jews in John 8:58 "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Then she comments, Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi.” (ibid)

Acting on this new information, and because of their devotion to the inerrancy of the Spirit of Prophecy, the church leaders adopted the doctrine of the Trinity, and over the next thirty years, the rest of the church grew to accept it as well. The new "Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" were published, a church manual was written and the requirements of baptism were changed to reflect this growth in knowledge. In 1980, at the Dallas General Conference Session, the Trinity doctrine was adopted as a fundamental belief of the church and has been used as a test of fellowship.
It could now be written, as in the words of university professor and author George Knight:

"Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the trinity." - Ministry, October 1993, p. 10.

Now, the main points of Story One are as follows:

1- The church began as non-Trinitarian, except for Ellen White, who had a vague Trinitarian view of the doctrine of God, but did not support the anti-Trinitarianism of the church as a whole.

“In 1963 Erwin R. Gane broke new ground with his M. A. thesis arguing that most of the leaders among early Seventh-day Adventists held an antitrinitarian view of the Godhead, but that Ellen G. White was an exception. In Gane’s words, she was “a Trinitarian monotheist.” (Dr. Jerry Moon, Essay- The Trinity Debates: an Overview, referred to for the remainder of this work as “TDO“)

2- That the pioneers of the church were ignorant of the “biblical” Trinity and rejected it because they thought it originated in the Roman Catholic Church. The version of the Trinity taught and defended by the modern church is not the same as the creedal orthodox Trinity, which Ellen White and the church strongly opposed.

“A likely reason why she consistently shunned the term “Trinity,” even after she had embraced certain aspects of trinitarian teaching, is the second hypothesis: that she had become aware of two varieties of trinitarian belief, one that she embraced and one that she vehemently rejected.” (Moon, ibid)

“In charging that Kellogg, with his “spiritualistic” trinity doctrine, was “departing from the faith” ….She is clearly distinguishing between two varieties of trinitarianism.” (ibid)

3-That Ellen White grew in her understanding of the doctrine of God in the same way she grew in her understanding on the Sabbath and the health message.

“There is ample evidence, however, that Ellen White’s beliefs did change on a number of other issues, so it is entirely plausible that she grew in her understanding of the Godhead as well.”
(ibid)

4-That her husband, James White, also grew and changed his views on the doctrine of God as well.

“Perhaps her first statement that clearly disagreed with her antitrinitarian colleagues came in 1869 in a landmark chapter, “The Sufferings of Christ,” where in the opening paragraph she asserted on the basis of Heb 1:3; Col 1:19; and Phil 2:6 that Christ in His pre-existence was “equal with God.” Here it became evident that if no one else was listening, her husband was. Though James White’s early statements about the Trinity were uniformly negative, by 1876 and 1877 he was following his wife’s lead.” (ibid)

5- That this change in the church began in the 1890s, and was motivated primarily by Ellen White’s “new light” Trinitarian statements made in her book The Desire of Ages.

“The breakthrough came with the publication of Ellen White's article "Christ the Life giver" in Signs of the Times in 1897, 20 and the book The Desire of Ages in 1898. In "Christ the Life giver" after quoting John 10:18 "No one takes it [life] from Me, but I lay it down of Myself," she says, "In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived."(Pfandl, TAA)

6- That eventually the leadership of the church, because of their devotion to the new theological light of Ellen White, changed their view on the doctrine of God as well.

“… Ellen White’s developing understanding exerted a strong influence on other Adventist writers, leading eventually to a substantial degree of consensus in the denomination….” (Moon, TDO)

“ The chief individual responsible for our coming to this [trinitarian] position is Ellen G. White.” (Larry Kirkpatrick, Quick Thoughts on the Godhead, GreatControversy.org)

““the course of the denomination was decided by statements from Ellen G. White…,” (Russell Holt, as quoted by Moon, TDO)

7- That Ellen White’s writings have not been altered or manipulated at any time by individuals or committees within the church organization.

“Mrs. White’s writings have not been tampered with as some are teaching today.” (Kirkpatrick,QTG)

“They believe that …her books have been manipulated and changed. As we have seen the evidence does not support these charges. “ (Pfandl TAA)

8-That non-Trinitarian Adventists are conspiracy theorists who take the facts out of context.

“Citations from the primary sources, extracted from their historical context and repackaged in plausible conspiracy theories, proved quite convincing to many.” (Moon, TDO)

Now, the official story does have its “evidences“, and these are easily available to any reader. Perhaps you have seen these essays, articles and books already. In addition to the articles cited so far, primary sources for the official story are Trinity: Understanding God's Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships by Moon, Whidden and Reeve, Movement of Destiny by Leroy E. Froom and The Seventh-day Adventist Handbook of Theology, Vol#12.
We will go over these evidences in brief, but not exhaustively. I will try to keep this book short, relevant and to the point. To that end, I will not redundantly quote every source on every given point. I have found in my research that the official story, with only a couple of notable exceptions, is fairly consistent from author to author, but that each has his own emphasis and quotes his sources slightly differently depending on the point that is being made.
The idea here is to present the true historic picture as it actually happened, which sometimes stands in opposition to the official line, according to the limited resources available. There are certain aspects of the historical facts that do agree with the official story, so while those will not be dwelt upon, they will be acknowledged, such as the fact that the pioneers of the Adventist Church were non-Trinitarian. This both sides agree on. But the primary points regarding how the church changed its position away from that of the founders of the church are very much controverted. These points include those which were listed in the previous section.

A Look at the Authors of Story One

Dr. Jerry Moon of Andrews University recently published an essay through Samuele Bacchiocchi’s ministry website as part of Bacchiocchi’s “Endtime Newsletters”. While Dr. Moon presents this essay as a “brief overview”, this in reality represents the “nuts and bolts” of “Story One” regardless of how much exhaustive detail has been left out. I have found in my research that these “brief overviews” are very revealing in the sense that the author’s very best evidence is put forth, and that the rest is superfluous material that is merely “icing on the cake“. At the very least, we can safely say that whatever the “brief overview“ presents, the expanded story will be more of the same.
Gerhardt Pfandl of the Biblical Research Institute wrote his essay The History of the Trinity Among Adventists in 1999. This essay, like Dr. Moon’s, is a synopsis of events that tell the story of how Adventists came to adopt the Trinitarian doctrine. It is available through the General Conference website at the BRI link.
Vance Ferrell, author of Defending the Godhead, is known as a staunch ultra-conservative Adventist, a zealous “defender of the faith”. He is an independent writer for his own “Harvestime Books” publishing imprint. Br. Ferrell puts out thousands of his small pulp paperback books that are attainable for very little money. His stance on the Godhead issue is claimed to be very exhaustive and uses many quotes from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy to make his points. Unfortunately, his claim of “120 Spirit of Prophecy quotes and 511 Bible verses” is a bit misleading as we will see later. His primary claim is that present-day non-Trinitarian Adventists deny the divinity of Christ and the existence of the Holy Spirit, while at the same time asserting that the mainstream Adventists have accepted a false Trinitarian view of God, effectively making himself the only one who actually has the truth on the matter with his unashamed Tritheistic “threeness” (three gods) view. Because Ferrell is not entirely a supporter of either Story One or of Story Two, we will look at some of the claims of his book in the Appendix.
Leroy Edwin Froom’s Movement of Destiny is the foundation upon which the traditional story was built, even though later Trinitarians such as Dr. Jerry Moon admit that there are historical problems with the book, as well as the taint of personal bias. Leroy Froom rose to the top of the Adventist publishing world at an early age in the late 1920s and wrote the first truly Trinitarian book published in the church in 1928, The Coming of the Comforter. He went on to play a central role in the Evangelical Barnhouse and Martin meetings in the mid-Fifties, from which came the book Questions on Doctrine.
Curiously, in spite of its admitted problems with historical inaccuracies and biased reporting, Movement of Destiny is still considered a reliable starting point for the examination of the adoption of the Trinitarian doctrine among Adventists. It is probable that we can give much of the credit, or blame, to Froom for the bringing in of the Trinity doctrine, as we will see as the story unfolds.

A Quick Overview of the Facts

I will now give a short synopsis of the events leading to the change of doctrine of the personality of God, then we can examine each point of controversy and test it against the actual facts.
Although James White and Joseph Bates did indeed come out of the Christian Connection, the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s “semi-Arian” views were arrived at corporately by thorough Bible study and prayer, as well as confirmation by the visions of Ellen White. There actually was no specific name given for the beliefs of the historic church regarding the personality of God, since man-made pigeon-hole terms like “Bitinarian”, “Ditheist”, and “Unitarian” all fell short of the biblical truth.
The “Arian” (Christ as a created being) side of the equation, represented by Uriah Smith, eventually gave way to a unified belief in the actual begotten sonship and divinity of Christ. This belief was then included as part of the "Fundamental Principles of Faith" from 1872 to 1914. However, the Fundamental Principles of Faith were not voted on as an official GC in session document because of the anti-creed stance of the church, some of whom, including James White and J.N. Loughborough, believed that a creed, an enforceable list of tenets, would be the first step toward apostasy.
Eventually, new converts began to introduce different theories regarding the Godhead. A couple of primary movers in this area were apparently H.C. Lacey, and later W.W. Prescott, with Trinitarian concepts within Adventism beginning in Australia with the preaching of Lacey. Among those who reportedly listened to Lacey’s speeches were A.G. Daniells, Prescott, and Ellen White’s copyist, Marian Davis.
Another one of the higher profile characters in the Trinity movement was John Harvey Kellogg, who had married a Trinitarian Seventh-day Baptist wife and gained much of his theology from her Trinitarian Seventh-day Baptist minister. Kellogg then wrote a controversial book entitled The Living Temple, which claimed Ellen White's writings to support his new theology. This book was condemned by Ellen White as teaching Pantheism; the view that "God is in everything". She went on to say that her writings were taken out of context and misapplied, and that Satan, not God, was the inspiration of Kellogg's theology.
As part of this experience, Ellen White was shown that other dangerous heresies would come into the church, all claiming to have the support of her writings and the Bible. Mrs. White dubbed The Living Temple the "alpha of deadly heresies". In connection with this crisis, Mrs. White then warned the church repeatedly in the following years that men would come in and attempt to change the theology of the church on the issue of the Godhead, or as she put it, "the personality of God and of Christ". Kellogg began to teach the Trinitarian doctrine, saying that it was the basis of his book, and that from a Trinitarian viewpoint, his writings made sense.
A small group of men in the publishing work led by Edson Rogers, F.M. Wilcox, as well as W.W. Prescott and eventually Leroy Froom, brought the Trinity doctrine into the church several years after Ellen White's 1915 death. High profile writers within the church later wrote church history in a way as to show that James White eventually accepted the main points of the Trinity doctrine, when in fact he did not. They also credited the 1872 Principles of Faith to the pen of Uriah Smith, when James White was really the primary contributor. Later, from the 1940s to the 1990s, conference-appointed committees and the Ellen G. White Estate actively re-edited and misquoted the writings of Ellen White, James White and Uriah Smith, among others, to support the Trinity doctrine and the unfallen nature of Christ.
Those are the claims of “Story Two” Are they correct or erroneous?

In short, the main questions to be answered are:

1- What exactly did the church believe about the identity of God, and did it have the full support of Ellen White?

2- Was the non-Trinitarian view of God a fundamental belief of the church and a pillar doctrine?

3- Was Ellen White a “closet Trinitarian” as an early Adventist? Did she only oppose the “orthodox view” of the Trinity while supporting and pushing for another form of Trinitarian doctrine?

4- Did Ellen White ever change her position on the doctrine of God?

5- Did the Trinity doctrine come into the church through Ellen White? Or did Ellen White warn the church not to move from its historic position on the doctrine of God?

6- Did Ellen White bring Trinitarianism into the church through The Desire of Ages?

7-Were Ellen White’s writings edited or altered to reflect Trinitarianism, either during her life or after she died?

8- Did those who wrote the official story (Story One) leave out pertinent information that would prove their version inaccurate and false?

9- Does the Seventh-day Adventist Church, while making the Trinity doctrine a test of fellowship, agree on what constitutes the Trinity doctrine?

We will answer these questions one by one using contextually-correct historical quotes from primary sources. We can then attempt to assemble the actual events that led to the adoption of the Trinity doctrine. Having then discovered the truth, we can move forward into the future as a people knowing, if nothing else, the real history behind the church changing its beliefs on this most fundamental issue, the identity of the God it worships. We can then test the biblical veracity of the various Godhead theories and doctrines currently being propagated within Adventism, comparing them to the original Fundamental Principles of Faith of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Holy Bible.

Chapter 4

The Historic View and Ellen White

Q- What exactly did the church believe about the identity of God, and did it have the full support of Ellen White?

According to history, the Advent movement was “semi-Arian”, a “semi-accurate”, though woefully inadequate, description of the actual doctrine of God held by the pioneers, including Ellen White. The original Statement of Fundamental Principles of Faith, written in 1872, states in its opening preamble:

“In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it
distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside
from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people,
nor is designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a
brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by
them. (A Declaration of Fundamental Principles, 1872, page 3).

The early Adventist pioneers were distinctly against any type of document which would be construed as acting as a binding creed of any kind. In fact, J.N. Loughborough stated that a creed was the first of “five steps to apostasy.”

"the first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such." (Loughborough/ Review and Herald, October 8, 1861)

As such, the original Fundamental Principles of Faith were not a binding test of fellowship, even though it is made plain that the statement represented the fundamental doctrines unanimously held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Regardless of its apparent lack of authority in terms of fellowship, it was to be considered the identity of the church in terms of its theology and its doctrine of God. Here then are the first two articles of that statement:

A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists, 1872

- I -
That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Psalm 139:7.
- II -
That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with his own blood, he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in Heaven. See Leviticus ch. 16, Hebrews 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7.

Now, it is said by some that this statement of faith was not actually anti-Trinitarian and thus left room for expansion into a Trinitarian doctrine. However, those same proponents certainly would by no means accept this as our present statement of beliefs, and refer to this as a non-Trinitarian commentary. The fact that it presents God as a “personal, spiritual Being” is in and of itself completely incompatible with any kind of Trinitarian or Tritheism doctrine, since God is here presented as a single person. The statement also describes attributes of God that are not listed in the description of Christ.
One repeating theme you will see in this book is that churches and their members do not generally act in a vacuum. The thoughts and expressions of one prominent member is almost always in harmony either with another member or with the whole. Such is the case with the non-Trinitarian sentiments presented in the Declaration of Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists of 1872. While one can isolate this statement and try to minimize the non-Trinitarian aspects of it, one should not do that in light of the more overt statements made by the founders and framers of the church themselves which reflect the overall meaning of the 1872 document.

E.J. Waggoner : The Scriptures declare that Christ is “the only begotten son of God.” He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject. He has by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels; He is "a Son over His own house." Heb. 1:4; 3:6. And since He is the only-begotten son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God and possesses by birth all the attributes of God, for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead.(E.J. Waggoner, Sermon in 1888, also in Christ and His Righteousness)

“In arguing the perfect equality of the Father and the Son, and the fact that Christ is in very nature God, we do not design to be understood as teaching that the Father was not before the Son. It should not be necessary to guard this point, lest some should think that the Son existed as soon as the Father; yet some go to that extreme, which adds nothing to the dignity of Christ, but rather detracts from the honor due him, since many throw the whole thing away rather than accept a theory so obviously out of harmony with the language of Scripture, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He was begotten, not created. He is of the substance of the Father, so that in his very nature he is God; and since this is so “it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” Col. 1:19 … While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, while Christ’s personality had a beginning (E. J. Waggoner, The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1889).

The Scriptures declare that Christ is “the only begotten son of God.” He is begotten, not created (E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, p. 21).

James S. White- "Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the "three-one God." They are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption. (Life Incidents, p 343)

“The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first. The Son was equal with the Father in that he had received all things from the Father.” ( The Review & Herald, January 4, 1881).

A.T. Jones- “He was born of the Holy Ghost. In other words, Jesus Christ was born again. He came from heaven, God’s first-born, to the earth, and was born again. But all in Christ’s work goes by opposites for us: He, the sinless one, was made to be sin in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. He, the living One, the Prince and Author of life, died that we might live. He whose goings forth have been from the days of eternity, the first-born of God, was born again in order that we might be born again (Christian Perfection, paragraph 53). (This is also found in Lessons on Faith, p. 154.)

“He who was born in the form of God took the form of man (The General Conference Bulletin, 1895, p. 449).

John Matteson- Christ is the only literal Son of God. “The only begotten of the Father.” John 1:14. He is God because he is the Son of God; not by virtue of His resurrection. If Christ is the only begotten of the Father, then we cannot be begotten of the Father in a literal sense. It can only be in a secondary sense of the word (The Review & Herald, October 12, 1869).

The following statements from Uriah Smith are proof positive that he gave up his early “full-Arian” stance and came into line with the denominated Fundamental Beliefs of his church.

Uriah Smith- The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but on the contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father. (Uriah Smith, Daniel and Revelation, p. 430)

“God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be, - a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity, - appeared the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1. This uncreated Word was the Being, who, in the fulness of time, was made flesh, and dwelt among us. His beginning was not like that of any other being in the universe. It is set forth in the mysterious expressions, “his [God’s] only begotten Son” (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9), “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), and, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:42 (Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, p. 10).

Stephen N. Haskell- The rainbow in the clouds is but a symbol of the rainbow which has encircled the throne from eternity. Back in the ages, which finite mind cannot fathom, the Father and Son were alone in the universe. Christ was the first begotten of the Father, and to Him Jehovah made known the divine plan of Creation (Stephen N. Haskell, Story of the Seer of Patmos, pp. 93, 94).

Christ was the firstborn in heaven; He was likewise the firstborn of God upon earth, and heir to the Father’s throne. Christ, the firstborn, though the Son of God, was clothed in humanity, and was made perfect through suffering (Ibid., p. 98).

R.F. Cottrell - But if I am asked what I think of Jesus Christ, my reply is, I believe all that the Scriptures say of him. If the testimony represents him as being in glory with the Father before the world was, I believe it. If it is said that he was in the beginning with God, that he was God, that all things were made by him and for him, and that without him was not anything made that was made, I believe it. If the Scriptures say he is the Son of God, I believe it. If it is declared the Father sent his Son into the world, I believe he had a Son to send. If the testimony says he is the beginning of the creation of God, I believe it. If he is said to be the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person, I believe it. And when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one," I believe it; and when he says, "My Father is greater than I," I believe that too; it is the word of the Son of God and besides this it is perfectly reasonable and seemingly self evident.” ( Review and Herald, 1 June, 1869)

J.N. Andrews- ‘‘And as to the Son of God, he could be excluded also, for he had God for His Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have beginning of days. So that if we use Paul’s language in an absolute sense, it would be impossible to find but one being in the universe, and that is God the Father, who is without father, or mother, or descent, or beginning of days, or end of life. Yet probably no one for a moment contends that Melchizedek was God the Father.’’ ( Review & Herald, September 7, 1869)

James Edson White (son of Ellen White)- The angels, therefore, are created beings, necessarily of a lower order than their Creator. Christ is the only being begotten of the Father ( Past Present and Future, p. 52).

W.W. Prescott - “As Christ was twice born, - once in eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and again here in the flesh, thus uniting the divine with the human in that second birth, - so we, who have been born once already in the flesh, are to have the second birth, being born again of the Spirit, in order that our experience may be the same, - the human and the divine being joined in a life union.’’( Review & Herald, April 14, 1896)

In 1915, coincidentally (?) the year Ellen White died, the Declaration of Fundamental Principles, which according to the document itself was agreed to unanimously by the members of the church itself, was not printed in the Adventist Yearbook. The church would be without a statement of beliefs until 1931.
The question now is, did Ellen White support the non-Trinitarian view of the church during her lifetime, or was she, as asserted by the traditional story, the “lone wolf” that held a different view from the church she helped found?
Some proponents of the traditional theory suggest that Ellen White was never non-Trinitarian, but was more of a “closet Trinitarian” or, as E.R Gane put it, “a Trinitarian monotheist”. These authors and speakers aver that although she was not anti-Trinitarian, her view of God was “immature” until God gave her new light in the late 1890s. In other words, she did not change her view of God per se‘, but rather simply grew from an immature view to a mature view. We are then told the church “matured” with her as a denomination, eventually adopting the Trinity doctrine, or as some prefer to call it, “the Godhead doctrine“.
So let us now look at Ellen White’s statements made during the same time that the pioneers and the church “unanimously agreed” to a non-Trinitarian view of God and a pre-incarnate literal sonship of Christ. Was she supportive of this view or not? Let’s examine the evidence.

Ellen White wrote:

Thoughts from, the Mount of Blessing, p.106
“ Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Mt. 6:9. To hallow the name of the Lord requires that the words in which we speak of the Supreme Being be uttered with reverence.”

Review and Herald, 3/9/97
“ And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’ To render acceptable service to God, it is essential that we should know God, to whom we belong, in order that we may be thankful and obedient, contemplating and adoring him for his wonderful love to men. We could not rejoice in and praise a being of whom we had no certain knowledge; but God has sent Christ to the world to make manifest his paternal character. It is our privilege to know God experimentally, and in true knowledge of God is life eternal. (Review and Herald, 9 March 1897)

Review and Herald, 11/8/98 (same year as Desire of Ages)
“There is a personal God, the Father; there is a personal Christ, the Son.”

Patriarchs and Prophets, p.34
“Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father-- one in nature, in character, in purpose--the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.”

Ministry of Healing, p.421
"The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each.“

Signs of the Times, 05/30/95
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (The Signs of the Times - 05-30-95)

Desire of Ages, p.21
“ All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings; through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life.”

Great Controversy, p.479
“Thus was presented to the prophet’s vision the great and solemn day when the characters and the lives of men should pass in review before the Judge of all the earth, and to every man should be rendered "according to his works." The Ancient of Days is God the Father. Says the psalmist: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." Psalm 90:2. It is He, the source of all being, and the fountain of all law, that is to preside in the judgment. And holy angels as ministers and witnesses, in number "ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands," attend this great tribunal."

I think it can be unequivocally stated that Ellen White was in lock-step with her colleagues on the doctrine of the Father as “the only true God” and the literal sonship of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. From the “first born” origin of Christ, to God the Father as “the Source of all being“, these statements from the pen of inspiration make it clear that far from being a “closet Trinitarian”, her views were identical to those of the church at large.

Chapter 5

Disagreement Between the Whites?

Q- Did James and Ellen White Disagree on the Identity of God?

The traditional story also attempts to put a certain amount of disagreement between James and Ellen White, with James eventually adopting his wife’s Trinitarian view of the nature and origin of Christ. This of course leads one’s mind to the conclusion that had James White not died when he did, he would most certainly have become fully Trinitarian. Let’s examine the following comment from Dr. Jerry Moon of Andrews University.

“Perhaps her first statement that clearly disagreed with her antitrinitarian colleagues came in 1869 in a landmark chapter, “The Sufferings of Christ,” where in the opening paragraph she asserted on the basis of Heb 1:3; Col 1:19; and Phil 2:6 that Christ in His pre-existence was “equal with God.” Here it became evident that if no one else was listening, her husband was. Though James White’s early statements about the Trinity were uniformly negative, by 1876 and 1877 he was following his wife’s lead.” (Jerry Moon, TDO) (emphasis mine)

But is this true? Please note the similarity between James White’s following 1881 statement and a quote from the pen of Ellen White some seventeen years later, supposedly after adopting a “mature Trinitarian view” of the Godhead.

James White 1881- “The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first. The Son was equal with the Father in that he had received all things from the Father.” (The Review & Herald, January 4, 1881).

Ellen White 1898- “All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings; through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. ( The Desire of Ages, pg 21)

Ellen White, in what has been touted as her definitive book on the deity of Christ, The Desire of Ages, echoes her husband’s semi-Arian belief that Christ received everything from God and that the Father alone is the source of everything and all being. Since this statement by James White was made shortly before his death, there is little reason to believe that his view of the doctrine of God ever changed, even if traditional story tellers attempt to paint a picture of “following his wife’s lead” on the part of James White.

 

Chapter 6

What’s a Pillar?

Q- Was the Non-Trinitarian View of God a “Pillar”, or “Landmark” Doctrine?

As was laid out in the previous chapter, the non-Trinitarian belief that the Father alone is properly God and that Jesus Christ was His only begotten divine Son was the most basic fundamental belief of the Seventh-day Adventist Church from its inception until at least 1931, with the final change coming as late as 1980. Let us review the first two Fundamental Beliefs of the early Adventist church:

A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists, 1872

- I -
That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Psalm 139:7.
- II -
That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with his own blood, he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in Heaven. See Leviticus ch. 16, Hebrews 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7.

Now, it has been suggested that although these statements were considered the first two “Fundamental Principles” of the Adventist faith, that at the same time they were not “pillar” or “landmark” doctrines. I find that suggestion very difficult to believe. But even so, when Ellen White mentioned the “pillars” of our faith, did she include a specific belief in the single personality of God and the literal begotteness of Jesus Christ the Son? Many say no, that the “pillars” consisted of only five doctrines, leaving room for “growth” on the doctrine of the personality of God and of Christ. Many cite the following quotation from Ellen White as proof of this assertion:

“In Minneapolis God gave precious gems of truth to His people in new
settings. This light from heaven by some was rejected with all the
stubbornness the Jews manifested in rejecting Christ, and there was much talk
about standing by the old landmarks. But there was evidence they knew not
what the old landmarks were. There was evidence and there was reasoning
from the word that commended itself to the conscience; but the minds of men
were fixed, sealed against the entrance of light, because they had decided it
was a dangerous error removing the "old landmarks" when it was not moving a
peg of the old landmarks, but they had perverted ideas of what constituted the
old landmarks. The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events,
opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in
heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth, [also] the
first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which
was inscribed, "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." One of the
landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving
people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of
the transgressors of God's law. The non-immortality of the wicked is an old
landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all
imaginary." (MS 13, 1889; 1888 Materials, p 518 [1889MS] p 441)

Traditionalists say that based on this quotation, the “landmarks” consisted of only the following doctrines as mentioned above by Ellen White:

1. the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven;
2. the first and second angel’s messages and the third;
3. the temple of God in heaven and the ark containing the law of God;
4. the light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment
5. the non-immortality of the wicked.

However, just because only these doctrines were specifically mentioned at that time does not mean that is all the church and Ellen White considered to be fundamental “foundational” principles of the Adventist Christian faith. It is ironic that some Adventists would use this statement to the effect that they have, for in so doing they echo the methods used by Sunday-keeping Evangelicals and Roman Catholics in defense of their day of worship. How many times have Sunday-keeping Christians quoted Acts 15: 20 in defense of the Sunday?

“But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from
fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Acts 15:20

Many Catholics and Evangelicals have said that according to the apostle Peter, there are only 4 “landmark” or “pillar” doctrines, and that these do not include the Sabbath or the non-immortality of the soul. However, Adventists are quick to point out that there are some very serious holes in this argument. Namely, that these “pillar” doctrines also do not include belief in Christ‘s divinity, the virgin birth, the Resurrection or many other foundational Christian doctrines.
Likewise, Trinitarian Adventists then assert that only those five doctrines were fundamental to the Adventist faith. Likewise, the divinity of Christ, the health message, the resurrection, the virgin birth, etc., are all missing from Ellen White’s list of “pillars”. Does that mean I am “explaining away” Ellen White’s statement by silence? No. It means that these were the special points at issue at that time, which were being controverted. Please read this sentence again:

“I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks….”

Ellen White did not say that this was “all there is”. She said , “I can call to mind nothing more …”. Later, when new challenges arose concerning attacks on the Seventh-day Adventist faith during the Kellogg crisis, she mentioned another “pillar”, or “landmark”, not included in her first statement:

“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are
not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring
in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the
sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ are working
as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the
people of God adrift without an anchor.” (Ellen White, MS 760, p 9,10 )

Of course, logic demands that for an old landmark or pillar to be removed, there must have been one to start with. According to Trinitarian Adventist apologists, the Trinity or “Godhead” view was “new light” that was discovered and brought to light in the late 1890s and was not a belief of the church until much, much later. So since this statement was made just five years later, certainly Ellen White could not call “new light” an “old landmark”. And just as certainly, she could not be referring to her own supposed “Trinitarian monotheism” as an old landmark, since even according to Trinitarians she was basically isolated in her “new-found maturity”, waiting for the rest of the church to catch up.
Historical context leaves no other option than to believe that this statement was a reference to the Fundamental Principles of Faith of 1872-1915 which were “unanimously held“ by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and were “semi-Arian” in belief. And that this belief regarding the personality of God and of Christ was indeed a “landmark” doctrine, a “pillar” of the faith of God’s remnant people.
Now, some attempt to deflect this fact by saying that this quote was responding only to the Pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg, and that Ellen White was only saying that God “was not a tree” (we will address this in detail later). Even if that were true, she still said that there was an “old landmark” regarding the doctrine of God and His Son. This landmark doctrine was not the doctrine of “anti-Pantheism” or “anti-Spiritualism“, but of a pro-active and safeguard truth held by the church, which was that “God is a person” and that “God the Person” is the Father only and that Christ was His actual divine Son. Ellen White’s statement regarding “the personality of God or of Christ” shows that this entails the entire core belief regarding the doctrine of God and was not limited to Kellogg’s Pantheism. Why? Because Kellogg’s pantheistic theory had nothing to do with the personality of Christ, but was according to himself limited only to his view of the Holy Spirit, which was based in the Trinity doctrine.
Ellen White was defending the denominational position regarding the doctrine of God as seen in the following quote, which was made in 1905, seven years after The Desire of Ages was published.

"One thing it is certain is soon to be realized, the great apostasy, which is
developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until
the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout. We are to hold fast the
first principles of our denominated faith and go forward from strength to
increased faith. Ever are we to keep the faith that has been substantiated by
the Holy Spirit of God from the earlier events of our experience until the
present time. We need now larger breadth, and deeper more earnest,
unwavering faith in the leadings of the Holy Spirit. If we needed the manifest
proof of the Holy Spirit's power to confirm truth in the beginning, after the
passing of the time, we need today all the evidence in the confirmation of
the truth, when souls are departing from the faith and giving heed to
seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. There must not be any languishing
of soul now." (Ellen White Special Testimonies, Series B, no. 7, p57. 4 December, 1905).

It would be unreasonable to believe that the personality of God and Christ was not a pillar, a foundational doctrine, of the Seventh-day Adventist Church during the first 90 or so years of the movement’s existence. According to the denomination’s official statements, it was certainly a fundamental belief “unanimously held” by the brethren….and defended as a landmark doctrine by Ellen White!

Chapter 7

Ellen White’s “Closet Trinitarianism”

Q- Was Ellen White a “closet Trinitarian” as an early Adventist?

It is asserted by some traditionalists that Ellen White was never non-Trinitarian. E.R. Gane, in an early dissertation, wrote that Ellen White was a “Trinitarian monotheist”.

“In 1963 Erwin R. Gane broke new ground with his M. A. thesis arguing that most of the leaders among early Seventh-day Adventists held an antitrinitarian view of the Godhead, but that Ellen G. White was an exception. In Gane’s words, she was “a Trinitarian monotheist.” (Dr. Jerry Moon, “TDO“)

Others aver that while she was not fully Trinitarian because of her “immature” view of God, she was never actually non-Trinitarian either. This is then presented as a growing experience, but at the same time it is also said she disagreed with the non-Trinitarianism of the church:

“There is ample evidence, however, that Ellen White’s beliefs did change on a number of other issues, so it is entirely plausible that she grew in her understanding of the Godhead as well.” (Moon, TDO)

“Perhaps her first statement that clearly disagreed with her antitrinitarian colleagues came in 1869 in a landmark chapter, “The Sufferings of Christ,” where in the opening paragraph she asserted on the basis of Heb 1:3; Col 1:19; and Phil 2:6 that Christ in His pre-existence was “equal with God.” (ibid)

This point raised by Dr. Jerry Moon puts Ellen White’s disagreement with the church at an early date of 1869, just six years after the official formation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and three years before the first publication of the list of the Declaration of Fundamental Principles. The question is, did her view that Christ was “equal with God” oppose the beliefs of the rest of the church on this point? Did this belief put her in “clear disagreement with her colleagues“? Did non-Trinitarian Adventists believe at that time that Christ was not equal with God, or did they ever?
The answer is no. Several things come to mind in regards to this assertion. First, it is a known fact that Ellen White made “a suitcase full” of non-Trinitarian statements before and after 1869. Second, the majority of Trinitarian apologists for the church claim that she “grew” to be Trinitarian, and that this was not manifested in her writings until the late 1890s. Third and most importantly, there is not a single quote from anyone in the church at any time that states a belief in an “unequal” Christ when understood in its proper context.
The word game that appears to be being played here is that the pioneers believed that Christ’s authority and equality was “given to Him” by God His Father, a fact confirmed by Christ Himself. This is taken by many Trinitarians as evidence that those who believe as such think Christ was “inferior”, since only a “superior” being could bestow authority or life on another.
However, Ellen White was very clear in both Patriarchs and Prophets and Story of Redemption that the Father “ordained by Himself” that Christ would share equality with him and that the Father was the ”Source of all being”. The supposed “Trinitarian quote” of 1869, if taken as such, would be out of step with her later writings as well as all of her writings if we were to take this quote as interpreted by the Trinitarian apologists.
This would effectively make her at first Trinitarian (before Adventism), then non-Trinitarian (early Adventism), then Trinitarian again (1869), then non-Trinitarian again (1870s and 1880s), then Trinitarian again (1898 and on), all according to the leading of God. Since we know this is not reasonable, we must learn what her real views were and what the proper interpretation of this quote would be to harmonize with her consistent position.
It is the “inferior Christ” game and accusation that is played with great skill by traditional apologists. However, it must be pointed out that the historic Adventist doctrine of Christ was that, like one’s spouse, Christ was not “inferior” even while he was not the Supreme Being, nor was He “God the person“. If one were to examine the writings of Ellen White (or even the Bible) using the “inferior to God” model put forth by apologists, then Ellen White herself would definitely have to be seen as one believing in the “inferiority of Christ.” We have already seen several quotes from Ellen White where she states candidly that the Father is the “Supreme Being”.
Ellen White was clear that Christ received his equality, and all things, from God himself and was not intrinsically equal to God the Father.

The Story of Redemption, p.13.
“ The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon His Son.... The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host."

Desire of Ages (1898) p 21.
“ All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly
courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the
Father’s life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous
service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all.”

8 Testimonies for the Church p 268 (1904)
“ God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been
given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the
counsels of God are opened to His Son.”

These words from Ellen White’s inspired pen, the last two of which were made after her supposed “Trinitarian growth” in the 1890s were identical in thought to the pioneer’s and her husband’s beliefs as revealed in the next two quotes from James White.

"The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, 'Let us make man in our image?'" (James White, Nov 29, 1877, Review and Herald)

It is important to note the date in which this statement was made. According to the theologians and apologists, the preceding quote was evidence that James White was “following his wife’s lead” and was becoming Trinitarian. However, you will notice that his “Trinitarian statement” is decidedly anti-Trinitarian, including the words “the inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough…”.
The following statement, made four years later and shortly before his death, shows that James White had no change in theology whatsoever, and that his statement mirrors the previous quotes from Ellen White.

“The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first. The Son was equal with the Father in that he had received all things from the Father.” ( The Review & Herald, January 4, 1881).

As you can see, there was no discrepancy between the theology of Ellen White and that of her husband and her church. Any false accusation of believing in an “inferior Christ” can be equally attributed to both Ellen White and the pioneers, since they all held the same view that Christ “received all things from God”, that God the Father was “the Supreme Being” who “ordained by Himself“ that Christ would have equality and that Christ was “the only begotten Son of God”, who was given his authority and power by a power more authoritative than Himself.
These points alone make any kind of association with the Trinity doctrine impossible, since the Trinity in any form denies outright and unconditionally all three of these beliefs. Some have tried to say that the Father merely played a “supreme role”, and that Christ was an intrinsically co-equal being who voluntarily entered into the “role of the son”, taking a voluntarily subordinate position in the Trinity, thus making the Father’s “role” supreme. Proponents of such a view do not have a single Ellen White statement to back up their assertion of her belief in a “role play” Christ. These quotations are clear that Ellen White believed in God the Father as “the Supreme Being”, not a co-equal being who entered into a “supreme role”, that she believed and taught that Christ received “all things from God”, including His authority and His very existence. And counter to the Trinitarian belief that Christ was intrinsically equal but voluntarily subordinated Himself in His humanity only is just the opposite of the doctrine taught by Ellen White.

Chapter 8

Did Ellen White Change?

Q- Did Ellen White ever change her Position on the Doctrine of God?

While some Trinitarian proponents within Adventism claim that Ellen White was always a “closet Trinitarian”, others claim that she grew to become Trinitarian, having received more light on the topic.

“There is ample evidence, however, that Ellen White’s beliefs did change on a number of other issues, so it is entirely plausible that she grew in her understanding of the Godhead as well.” (Moon, TDO)

Dr. Moon avers that since Ellen White “changed her beliefs” on a “number of other issues”, then it should be entirely reasonable to expect her to change her beliefs regarding the Godhead. He is partly right. Ellen White came from the Methodist Church, a Trinitarian church. She changed her belief on the Godhead after becoming Adventist to one of non-Trinitarianism. As we look at the growth in understanding and unfolding revelation behind Ellen White on other issues, we see that in each case the change took her further and further from the mainstream Protestant and Roman Catholic- influenced views she grew up with.

“ The church that holds to the word of God is irreconcilably separated from Rome. Protestants were once thus apart from this great church of apostasy, but they have approached more nearly to her, and are still in the path of reconciliation to the Church of Rome. …It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy.” (ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4)

We are asked to believe that in the case of the Godhead, Ellen White herself “lessened the distance” between the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Rome. This has prompted commentators within Adventism to make such statements as the following:

“While Rome believes much that is false it also teaches much that is true.” Larry Kirkpatrick, www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/kir-godhead.php

“Nature of God. A reading of the above statements will show that with respect to their doctrine of God Seventh-day Adventists are in harmony with the great creedal statements of Christendom [Rome], including the Apostles' Creed, (Nicaea 325 A.D.), and the additional definition of faith concerning the Holy Spirit as reached in Constantinople (381 A.D.)”. George Reid, Biblical Research Institute / Seventh-day Adventists, an Introduction to Their Beliefs.

(Note- It should be understood that the Apostle’s Creed was not written by the apostles of Christ, but refers to the “apostolic succession” of Rome. The language is easily misunderstood on this point.)

However, to adopt the Trinity doctrine, Ellen White would have to have made an unprecedented move toward apostate Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Her growth in understanding in other areas of religion were not changes in doctrine, but rather, were advances in application, with each advance taking her farther from the fallen churches, not closer.
One such change in application included which hours to keep Sabbath, but no change in theology was made regarding the Sabbath commandment itself, once it was established by Adventists.
Another area of advancement was in the area of health reform. Ellen White and other Adventists were not aware of certain biblical principles and latest knowledge in terms of applying health reform, and there was growth in this case, but that growth was not a move away from a theological position, health reform, that they already held and were committed to expanding its application. It was this commitment to biblical health reform that fueled the search for biblical principles and knowledge of application. Thus there was no change in theology in this case either.

In each case of Ellen White’s “changing views”, there was no 180 degree swing in basic understanding. To go from saying that “God is a person” and that Jesus is God’s actual “only begotten Son” prior to the incarnation, to the presumed “growth position” that God is not a Being at all but a concept of “a unity” that exists within three co-eternal and co-equal God-beings (as viewed by Adventist tritheists) or the view that Christ and the Father are “One in Being“ (the Roman Catholic/Nicene Creed view) that George Reid claims the church accepts, would be an unprecedented shift in theology, taking her from a decided anti-Roman Catholic view to the sharing of the belief of the papacy (one being), the Mormons (three beings) or the apostate Protestant churches (various versions) on the most fundamental of all beliefs, the identity of its deity.
Had Ellen White actually made this shift in theology from “semi-Arianism” to Trinitarianism it would be amazing that her two sons, Willie White and James Edson White, both of whom were greatly committed to their mother‘s prophetic gift, never became Trinitarians at any time in their lives. Willie White later commented in the 1920s that he was “saddened” by preachers who taught that the Holy Spirit was a separate person from the Father and the Son.
Now, with all of that said, those who retell the traditional story still maintain that Ellen White not only changed her own theology regarding the identity of God, but also brought the church itself to change its theology on the same. They begin by citing certain quotations, taken out of their historic and literary context about having “much to learn and unlearn”. These quotes that were originally directed at individuals, fallen churches and the rejection of the 1888 message of Righteousness by Faith are then applied to the doctrine of God, saying that Ellen White was implying the church needed to “unlearn” its theology regarding the personality of God and Christ. But is this true? The next question will answer the first.

 

Chapter 9

New Light or Old Warnings?

Q- Did the Trinity doctrine come into the church through Ellen White? Or did Ellen White warn the church not to move from its historic position on the doctrine of God?

When we read her many warnings to the church in the wake of the J.H. Kellogg crisis, we do not see a messenger trying to bring new light and new truth, but rather, a prophet taking a stand for the theological status quo of what had been established in the first fifty years of the church‘s existence:

Testimonies for the Church, p 297 (1904)
” Let none seek to tear away the foundations of our faith--the foundations that
were laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the word and
by revelation. Upon these foundations we have been building for the last
fifty years. Men may suppose that they have found a new way and that they
can lay a stronger foundation than that which has been laid. But this is a great deception. Other foundation can no man lay than that which has been laid. “

Special Testimonies, Series B, no. 7, p57.
(4 December, 1905, Sanitarium California).
" One thing it is certain is soon to be realized, the great apostasy, which is
developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until
the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout. We are to hold fast the
first principles of our denominated faith and go forward from strength to
increased faith. Ever are we to keep the faith that has been substantiated by
the Holy Spirit of God from the earlier events of our experience until the
present time. We need now larger breadth, and deeper more earnest,
unwavering faith in the leadings of the Holy Spirit. If we needed the manifest
proof of the Holy Spirit's power to confirm truth in the beginning, after the
passing of the time, we need today all the evidence in the confirmation of
the truth, when souls are departing from the faith and giving heed to
seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. There must not be any languishing
of soul now."

New York Indicator, Standing in the Way of God's Messages – 7 Feb, 1906 p 4
“ The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as
we received the great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to
us in 1844, after the passing of the time. The languishing souls are to be
confirmed and quickened according to his word. And many of the ministers of
the gospel and the Lord's physicians will have their languishing souls
quickened according to the word. Not a word is changed or denied. That which
the Holy Spirit testified to as truth after the passing of the time, in our
great disappointment, is the solid foundation of truth. Pillars of truth were
revealed, and we accepted the foundation principles that have made us
what we are -- Seventh-day Adventists, keeping the commandments of God and
having the faith of Jesus.

MS 135, 1903
Ellen G. White, The Early Years Vol 1 - 1827-1862, p 145
“ The leading points of our faith as we hold them today were firmly established. Point after point was clearly defined, and all the brethren came into harmony The whole company of believers were united in the truth. There were those who came in with strange doctrines, but we were never afraid to meet them.
Our experience was wonderfully established by the revelation of the Holy
Spirit.”

And finally, once again, read the following quotes very closely and carefully.

Ellen White, MS 760, p 9,10 - To Build Upon the Foundation
“ Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are
not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring
in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the
sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ are working
as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the
people of God adrift without an anchor.”

Ellen White, Testimonies Volume 5, p 665- "The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed . . . Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given".

According to Ellen White herself, The Testimonies were never designed or intended to give “new light”, but to lift up that which was already established. The next to last quotation, as noted earlier, clearly shows that the early Seventh-day Adventist Church did in fact have a “pillar of faith” and an “old landmark” regarding the doctrine of God. Her other reference to “the first denominated principles of our faith” is a direct reference to the non-Trinitarian 1872 Fundamental Principles of Faith as published in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbooks. In 1903, five years after she supposedly “turned the tide” against non-Trinitarianism, she wrote that in their early experience the “whole company of believers were united in truth”. How could she write such statements if she was attempting to change the church’s theology on its most basic fundamental belief, the identity of its Deity? As was the case with the Galveston hurricane, the facts simply do not add up in favor of the traditional story.
Yet, in spite of these clear statements, those who propagate Story One continue to assert that Ellen White brought “new light” through the Testimonies on the doctrine of God that was in direct opposition to the established truth and fundamental beliefs as held by the church.
Would Ellen White change her theology, opposing the beliefs of her husband and the founders in turning away from the established first principles of the denominated faith, at the very same time she was warning the church at large not to? Not likely. Did she warn the church not to move from their foundational principles regarding the doctrine of God? Absolutely!

Chapter 10

The Desire of Ages

Q- Did Ellen White reflect her own switch to Trinitarianism in her book The Desire of Ages?

Among those who believe and assert that Ellen G. White became Trinitarian, or already was a “closet Trinitarian“, nearly all use her book The Desire of Ages as “irrefutable proof” of this change, citing her “bold new proclamations” that Christ had no origin and that the Holy Spirit is a third separate being and member of “the Godhead”.
Many are not aware that The Desire of Ages was not written as a chapter by chapter, page by page work. Rather, it was a book primarily compiled by Ellen White’s copyist, Marian Davis, using excerpts from earlier articles, letters, sermons and manuscripts. These excerpts from Ellen White’s writings were then arranged by the copyist and signed by Ellen White. This is not the stuff of conspiracies, but is a historical fact that, for the most part, is simply left untold to the masses.

Marian Davis and Desire of Ages
Referring to her involvement with Desire of Ages Marian Davis provides us with a clear indication of the extensive range of her personal input in the preparation of Ellen White’s books. She writes,

I see that neither in Brother Jones’ letter or yours have I stated definitely what I am doing on the manuscript or why. I have worked for a better opening to the chapters ... The chapters of the old manuscript began too often with some notice of Jesus going here or there, until the book seemed like a diary. [A reference to EGW’s original draft] That has been corrected. Then I have tried to begin the chapters and paragraphs with short sentences, and indeed to simplify wherever possible, to drop out every needless word, and to make the work, as I have said, more compact and vigorous. (Letter, Marian Davis to W C White, April 11, 1897)

A letter by H C Lacey to L E Froom indicates that Marian Davis not only used Ellen White’s writings she had a free hand in making use of other sources also. The letter reads,

“In this connection, of course you know that Sr. Marian Davis was entrusted with the preparation of “Desire of Ages” and that she gathered her material from every available source - from Sr. White’s books already in print, from unpublished manuscripts, from private letters, stenographical reports of her talks etc. - but perhaps you may not know that she (Sr. Davis) was greatly worried about finding material for the first chapter (and other chapters too for that matter) and I did what I could to help her; I have good reason to believe that she also appealed to Professor Prescott for similar aid, and got it too in far richer and more abundant measure than I could render“. (H C Lacey letter to L E Froom Aug. 30, 1945)

In her role as an active contributor to Desire of Ages Marian Davis approached Prescott for help. This request led her to insert into Desire of Ages faulty exegesis that Prescott supplied. Lacey explains how,

“At that time, Professor Prescott was tremendously interested in presenting Christ as the great “I Am” and in emphasizing the eternity of His existence, using frequently the expression “The Eternal Son”. Also he connected the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14, which of course was Christ the Second Person of the Godhead, with the fulfillment of Jesus in John 8:58, which we all agree to; but then linked it up with other “I ams” in that Gospel - 7 of them, such as “I am the Bread of life” “I am the Light of the world’ “I am the door of the Sheep” etc. all very rich in their spiritual teaching - but which seemed a little far fetched to me especially as the “I am” in all those latter cases is merely in the copula in the Greek, as well as in English. But he insisted on his interpretation. Sr. Marian Davis seem to fall for it, and lo and behold, when “Desire of Ages” came out, there appeared that identical teaching on pages 24 and 25, which, I think, can be looked for in vain in any of Sr. White’s published works prior to that time.” (Ibid)

In 1910, W. A. Colcord, an associate editor of the Review and Herald, wrote a letter in which he expressed concern that Ellen White’s secretaries had placed erroneous interpretations of Scripture into her writings.

“Neither do I think that the comment on Matt.24:20, found on page 630 of “Desire of Ages” correctly represents the thought of the text. What is said there is true, but I am confident that it is not a correct exposition of the text. We pretty well know how some of these things have found their way into her writings. Her helpers have ransacked our leading works to get hold of what they thought were the best expositions of Scripture, and woven these things remodeled into the text.” (Letter from W A Colcord to L A Smith, July 20, 1910, GC Archives)

Marian Davis worked for Sister White as a copyist for twenty-five years. Ellen White put a lot of confidence in Marian Davis to do her work faithfully. She was a very hard worker, and labored many times late into the night. She was Ellen White’s most trusted and capable copyist. Ellen White had this to say about her work:

“She [Marian Davis] is my book-maker. … She does her work in this way. She takes my articles which are published in the papers, and pastes them in blank books. She also has a copy of all the letters I write. In preparing a chapter for a book, Marian remembers that I have written something on that special point, which may make the matter more forcible. She begins to search for this, and if when she finds it, she sees that it will make the chapter more clear, she adds it.” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 5 p. 185)

She also wrote,

“I have done scarcely anything on the life of Christ, and have been obliged to often bring Marian to my help, irrespective of the work on the life of Christ which she has to do under great difficulties, gathering from all my writings a little here and a little there, to arrange as best she can.—Letter 55, 1894, p. 6.” (Manuscript Release No. 728: How the Desire of Ages was Written, p. 28)

“I feel very thankful for the help of Sister Marian Davis in getting out my books. She gathers materials from my diaries, from my letters, and from the articles published in the papers. I greatly prize her faithful service. She has been with me for twenty-five years, and has constantly been gaining increasing ability for the work of classifying and grouping my writings.—Letter 9, 1903.” (Ibid., p. 44)

It is certain that Marian Davis did not write any of Ellen White’s books, but she did have a great deal to do with the way they were laid out. Did Ellen White personally approve of every change that Marian made in the structure of the books?

In a personal letter, Ellen White wrote,

“Marian will go to him [Willie White] for some little matters that it seems she could settle for herself.... I have had a talk with her and told her she must settle many things herself that she has been bringing Willie.... Every little change of a word she wants us to see. I am about tired of this business.—Letter 64a, 1889, p. 1.” (Ibid., p. 22)

In the book, The Desire of Ages, certain aspects of how the text was to be arranged was left entirely up to Marian Davis to decide.

“As the work [The Desire of Ages] was thought to be nearing completion in 1896, Marian, working on the three general introductory chapters, ‘God With Us,’ ‘The Chosen People,’ and ‘The Fullness of the Time,’ sought the counsel of Herbert Lacey of the Avondale school on the arrangement of paragraphs. He was a rather youthful graduate of the classical course offered at Battle Creek College. He made some helpful suggestions in the matter of the sequence of the thoughts presented, which, when it became known, gave birth in later years, when he was known as a seasoned college Bible teacher, to rumors that Lacey had a prominent role in authoring the book. In both oral and written statements he flatly denied such a role (DF 508, H. C. Lacey to S. Kaplan, July 24, 1936).” (The Australian Years 1891-1900, p. 385)

In preparing the final portions of The Desire of Ages Marian consulted with H. Camden Lacey for advice regarding the arrangement of paragraphs. This caused some to believe that Lacey “had a prominent role in authoring the book.” It was in this year also that W. W. Prescott proofread the book in its final stages. In June of 1896, after counsel with Lacey and Prescott, Marian “had precious matter to insert” into the book.
Ellen White wrote,

“In the afternoon Brother and Sister Prescott came. We had a good visit with Sister Prescott. Brother Prescott was with Marian in the interest of the book ‘Life of Christ.’ [The Desire of Ages] He is reading it, for it is the last reading before publication.—MS 62,1896. (Ibid., p. 387)

Arthur White notes:

“So Ellen White and her staff thought; but it did not work out that way. Three or four months later there was more material to be added. Wrote Ellen White on June 1, 1896: ‘In the last discourses reported, Marian has had precious matter to insert, and this has necessitated her obtaining a new set of copies with the addition.’” (Ibid., p. 388)

The Counsel of Lacey and Prescott to Marian Davis

In a letter written by H. Camden Lacey to Leroy Froom he speaks specifically about this time period. Leroy Froom had written a letter to Lacey asking him about the events in Australia. He wrote,

“Dear Brother Lacey:… Elder D. E. Robinson of the White Estate, is under the impression, I believe from something told him by you, that over at Cooranbong around 1898 or 1899 you were giving a series of studies on the Trinity and were challenged by some of the brethren. I think Marian Davis was present at that time,…” (Letter written by Leroy Froom to Herbert Camden Lacey on August 8, 1945)

Lacey replied at length,

“Dear Brother Froom:… Well, that was not quite the angle in which I was involved in the studies conducted at Cooranbong way back in 1896. At that time, Professor Prescott was tremendously interested in presenting Christ as the great ‘I AM’ of Exodus 3:14, which of course was Christ the Second Person of the Godhead, with the statement of Jesus in John 8:58, which we all agreed to; but then linked it up also with other ‘I ams’ in that Gospel—7 of them, such as ‘I am the Bread of Life’ ‘I am the Light of the World’ ‘I am the Door of the Sheep’ etc. all very rich in their spiritual teaching—but which those latter cases is merely the copula in the Greek, as well as in the English. But he insisted on his interpretation. Sr. Marian Davis seemed to fall for it, and lo and behold, when the ‘Desire of Ages’ came out, there appeared that identical teaching on pages 24 and 25, which, I think, can be looked for in vain in any of Sr. White’s published works prior to that time!

“In this co