This manuscript is published in S. T. Belden, G. W. Amadon, and William Hall, To Brother J. N. Andrews and Sister H. N. Smith (PH016), pp. 32, 33.1EGWLM 425.3

Opposition to the visions and the leadership of James White as a reason for moving the Review office from Rochester, New York.1EGWLM 425.4

I saw that with some there has not been a receiving of what God has shown. It has been doubted. It has borne but with a feather's weight. I saw that straight testimonies must be borne, and they have not been received. I then saw that the church must be united, and if they could not endure straight testimonies when they were needed and we were bound, we must move the office and go where we could bear them.¹

By April 1854, the date of this manuscript, opposition to the visions of Ellen White among a small minority of Sabbatarian Adventists was developing and would soon result in the formation of the breakaway Messenger Party. However, the focus of this vision seems to be not on external challenges but on opposition from within, specifically in the Rochester area, where the “office” was located from 1852 to 1855. Ellen White later specified certain names: “Brn. Lamson, Orton, and Andrews, and the Stevens family,” who “felt justified to array themselves against us.” That J. N. Andrews is mentioned is, perhaps, surprising, given his later stature in the church. Still in his early 20s he had already made his mark as a scholar, writer, and itinerant preacher. Andrews, however, tended to undermine the Whites by siding with those who were admonished. As he later confessed, “sympathy for my immediate friends when reproved for their wrongs has been one great cause of leading me into the dark.” The mention of “the Stevens family” is no doubt a reference to Harriet N. Stevens, a young woman of literary bent from Paris, Maine, who joined the Review staff in 1854 or 1855. Writing to Harriet some years later, in 1860, Ellen White asserted that “the visions” “do not bear a feather's weight on your mind” and that she had shown the same attitude while employed in Rochester. Further, if someone was admonished or reproved by the Whites, “you sympathize with him, confide in him,” thus undermining their leadership. Significantly, both J. N. Andrews and Harriet Stevens came from Paris, Maine, where the parents of both maintained a skeptical attitude toward the visions throughout the 1850s.

See: Ellen G. White, Lt 7, 1860 (June); idem, Testimony to the Church at Battle Creek (1872) (PH123), pp. 72, 73; J. N. Andrews to Brother White, Feb. 2, 1862; Ron Graybill, “The Family Man,” in Harry Leonard, ed., J. N. Andrews: The Man and the Mission, pp. 24-28; Gerald Wheeler, James White, pp. 101-109.

I saw that we neither of us had done our duty. There has been a holding back, a shunning to declare the whole counsel of God. I saw that God wanted us to be free, that if we did not follow the movings of His Spirit and bear the testimonies He gave us,^{2
The specific inclusion of James White here brings out the fact that Ellen is speaking of opposition not only to her visions but also to the work of James. In a letter written in 1860 she wrote very frankly about the situation created by “the straight testimony and reproofs given by Brother White” through the years. Looking back to their time in Paris, Maine, 1850-1851, she acknowledged that “the feelings then were that James was censorious and severe” and that similar feelings had been held by some during the years in Rochester, New York (1852-1855). However, Ellen White held that the reproofs given in Paris “were no more than the case deserved.” Moreover, “when they were reproved, instead of carefully searching their own heart and confessing their ways, self rose right up [and they said], ‘It can't be so.’” She recognized that “Brother White is not perfect. In the ardor of his feelings he may speak too strongly,” but pled that those affected discuss the matter with him personally rather than spread rancor among others.
See: Ellen G. White, Lt 8, 1860 (June 11).} He would leave us in bondage and then our health and strength would fail, and worse than all this, the bondage would be felt on the people, and if there is not freedom and liberty here, we must move where there would be freedom and where the testimonies given us of God would be received. I saw that some had doubted what God had taught, therefore it could not have weight with them or serve to move them. I saw this, and begged of God to use another instrument, to send by one whom they would receive, or to fit up the frail instrument that the church might be convinced. Said the angel, God has chosen His own way, that through the simple means He has ordained that light should be given, and if it is not received God will give them up to their own ways to be filled with their own doing.1EGWLM 425.5

Lt 2, 1854

Published in YI