Adventists

William Miller (1792-1849), the namesake of the Millerite revival of the 1830s and 1840s, noted the pivotal role of the Holy Spirit in his personal conversion. “God by his Holy Spirit opened my eyes,” he observed. He is “a rock in the midst of the ocean of life.” Jesus became his friend and the Bible a delight. ^{38Joshua V. Himes, Views of the Prophecies (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1841), 11.} Democratized religion meant that anyone could study the Bible through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Miller, like many other innovators during the Second Great Awakening, upheld the primacy of Scripture, but allowed for the possibility for at least continued revelation through dreams. Even later Sabbatarian Adventists, such as James White, viewed Miller’s dreams as evidence of God’s divine leading.GOP 243.2

Some historians, such as George R. Knight, estimate that there were some 200 prophetic seers operating in New England alone during the 1840s. ^{39George R. Knight, presentation to the Mid-America Union Pastor’s Meeting, May 3, 2011.} M. F. Whittier, a non-Adventist observer and brother to John Greenleaf Whittier, noted that in Portland “nothing was more common than visions.” ^{40Cited by Ann Taves, “Visions,” in Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, ed. Terrie Dopp Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 40.} Merlin Burt highlights that such radical visionary activity was on the “periphery” of Millerite Adventism, ^{41Merlin D. Burt, “The Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian Adventism From 1844 to 1849” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2002), 27.} but research by Ann Taves suggests that they were much more central to the Adventist narrative. ^{42Ann Taves, Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience From Wesley to James (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999), 128-165.} Fred Hoyt and Ron Graybill highlight at least five prominent visionaries who operated in and around Portland, Maine, around 1844: Dorinda Baker, ^{43Records for Dorinda Baker are scarce. There does appear to be a Dorinda Baker who was born in Canada East about 1828 or 1829. If this is the same individual, she came over to Orrington, Maine, for a brief time before returning to Canada.} Emily C. Clemons (later Pearson), ^{44Emily C. Clemons and Clorinda S. Minor (another Millerite writer) were both active following the Millerite disappointment with Joseph Marsh and the publication of Voice of Truth, edited by J. D. Pickands and J. B. Cook in Cleveland, Ohio. They pointed to a series of prophetic dates, but were censored by Joshua V. Himes. See Burt, 93, 96.} Mary Hamlin, Phoebe Knapp, and William Foy. ^{45Ron Graybill, Fred Hoyt, and Rennie Schoepflin, “Scandal or Rite of Passage: Historians on the Dammon Trial,” Spectrum 17 (August 1987): 38, 39.} Extensive research has revealed very little about their lives with the exception of Clemons, who later went on to have a substantial literary career. ^{46Emily Clemens (1818-1900) after the Millerite revival later married and had a rather prolific literary career. See “Emily Clemens Pearson, 1818-1900,” Legacy: A Journal of American Women Writers 29, no. 2 (June 2012).}The most notable connection occurred between Dorinda Baker and Ellen Harmon (later White), who both apparently received visions following the Great Disappointment, including one highly publicized episode at the home of James Atkinson, Jr. The subsequent arrest and trial of Israel Dammon brought disrepute and suspicion to visionaries and fanaticism in the wake of the Great Disappointment. ^{47Newspapers picked up the news story in the spring of 1845. “The trial of Israel Dammon, a Millerite elder at Dover, Maine, on the 17th ult. disclosed scenes of disgusting obscenity among those deluded and wicked people, that are shockingly revolting.” See “Millerism” in Vermont Phoenix, Mar. 28, 1845, 2.} “Things are in a bad way at Portland,” wrote Joshua V. Himes to William Miller. He discussed the case of Dammon, who had taken his “spiritual wife” and accepted her visions. ^{48Cited by George R. Knight, William Miller and the Rise of Adventism (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press®, 2010), 218.} Some historians suggest that the Israel Dammon trial showcases how Ellen White, with the aid of James White, helped to assert herself over would-be prophetic rivals. ^{49Ann Taves, “Visions,” in Ellen Harmon White, 40.} Unfortunately, concrete evidence is lacking and some of the witness testimony contradictory. From the perspective of Ellen Harmon, she viewed Dammon and others as characteristic of the worst kind of fanaticism. ^{50Initially it appears that Ellen White thought positively of Israel Dammon, at least enough that she was willing to travel with him to his home. It appears that the incident that led to the subsequent trial of Israel Dammon was a tipping point, after which there are no positive references to him. The Israel Dammon incident later came into sharper focus during an exchange between Adventists and Advent Christians during the 1870s.} GOP 243.3

Instead, Ellen White viewed two other visionaries as especially significant to her own narrative. The first was William Foy (1818-1893), an African American, who received at least two visions and published a pamphlet. ^{51For an overview of Foy, see Delbert W. Baker, The Unknown Prophet: Before Ellen White, God Chose William Ellis Foy, rev. and updated ed. (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald®, 2013).} Ellen Harmon apparently heard him speak on at least two occasions and felt that his revelations were genuine. Another visionary, Hazen Foss (1819-1893), reportedly received visions. According to Ellen White, he refused to share these, which led to the visions being taken from him and given to her. She recounted that once when they met he warned her to be faithful in sharing the visions. ^{52Michael W. Campbell, “Hazen Little Foss,” in Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald®, 2013), 378, 379.} GOP 244.1

Dreams and visions appear to have been common within the Second Great Awakening. Thus it is not surprising that Millerites were at least open to the possibility of new sources of revelation. ^{53William Miller, for example, received several significant “dreams” that he felt had spiritual significance. Later on Sabbatarian Adventists reprinted these dreams in early publications as evidence of God’s supernatural leading as part of the Advent awakening. Although they were ultimately disappointed, they did not give up confidence in the validity of Miller’s dreams as God guiding them.} As the Millerite revival broke apart after the Great Disappointment, when Christ did not return as anticipated on October 22, 1844, many Millerite Adventists gave up their faith. Some were attracted to a host of other myriad movements, including the Shakers. Not a few gravitated over to Spiritualism. Such fluidity suggests that the borders of canonicity were blurred, which made it incredibly easy to exchange one set of beliefs for another. Ultimately, the main group of remaining Millerite Adventists, under the leadership of joshua V. Himes, who was the right-hand man to Miller, eventually denounced all forms of radicalism, especially visions, at the Albany Conference in May 1845: “We have no confidence in any new messages, visions, dreams, tongues, miracles, extraordinary revelations, impressions, discerning of spirits, or teachings not in accord with the unadulterated word of God.” ^{54“Proceedings of the Mutual Conference of Adventists held in the City of Albany, the 29th and 30th of April, and 1st of May, 1845” (New York, 1845), 30.} Himes clearly felt that all such supernatural manifestations were radical forms of Christianity that would discredit the movement as it splintered apart.GOP 244.2

One such group that Himes initially would identify as “radical” because of its identification with the visionary Ellen Harmon was formed by the “come-outers.” This group was “radical” because they both affirmed their Advent experience as legitimate, but also upheld the genuineness of Ellen Harmon’s visions. Some, such as Otis Nichols, went so far as to write William Miller urging him to give due consideration. If Miller replied, his response is no longer extant. ^{55Otis Nichols to William Miller, Apr. 20, 1846, Aurora University Archives.} After her first vision Ellen Harmon traveled with her sister, Sarah, and James White, encouraging disappointed Adventists. For his part, James White supported the end-time manifestation of visions: “I think the Bible warrants us in looking for visions.” ^{56James White, “Letter From Bro. White,” The Day Star, Sept. 6, 1845, 17.} GOP 245.1

Some of Ellen Harmon’s earliest opposition came from Joseph Turner, who believed that she was a fraud. Others, such as Sargent and Robbins, probably her two most vociferous opponents, traveled around New England seeking to undermine her prophetic claims. They suggested that they were mesmerists, and achieved a state of vision through James White’s odic force. Otis Nichols, an early supporter from Boston, noted the dramatic buildup:GOP 245.2

The bands of believers in Boston, Roxbury, and Randolph, a large company, had become almost totally alienated to Bro. & Sr. White, through the false teachings, deceptions, and satanic influences of J. Turner and his associates, T. Haskin Harvel and others. They were influenced to believe that her visions were of the Devil, that Bro. White mesmerized her— that she could not have a vision in Bro. W’s absence, and many other false charges were made against them. After this state of things continued for some months, I proposed to Sr. W. and Sarah her sister, who were then at their father’s house in Portland, to come up to Boston, without Bro. White accompanying them, to visit the bands in Boston, Roxbury, and Randolph, and wherever the warfare against visions were manifest to convince them if possible that they had been deceived by their teachers. ^{57Otis Nichols, handwritten manuscript, p. 4, in Ellen G. White Document File 439.} GOP 245.3

The visit culminated in a meeting between Ellen White and Sargent and Robbins. During their meeting Ellen had a vision that lasted all afternoon. During the vision she held “the heavy open Bible in hand, and walked the room, uttering the passages of Scripture.” Despite the efforts of Sargent and Robbins, they were unable to bring her out of vision. As a result, Sargent and Robbins were “silenced,” although part of the group continued to oppose Ellen’s prophetic ministry. Nichols noted that she denounced the two men by saying: “the curse of God would soon follow” them. Later they drifted into various forms of fanaticism. ^58Ibid. GOP 245.4

Ellen Harmon, James White, Otis Nichols, and others gradually coalesced around a group that became known as the Bridegroom Adventists because they believed in the validity of their place in Bible prophecy, most notably the “shut door” of the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), which they viewed as characteristic of their experience. During the late 1840s and early 1850s they continued to adhere to the perpetuity of charismata, including healings, dreams, visions, and other forms of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days (Joel 2:28-32). Gradually they formulated a theology of spiritual gifts that centered upon the supremacy of Scripture, but allowed for the continuation of all charismata, including the gift of prophecy.GOP 246.1

In 1849 James White argued “that the Bible nowhere teaches that the time has past for such special revelations; and that there is positive testimony that the church is to be blessed with special revelations ‘IN THE LAST DAYS.’ ” As a result, “we may expect such revelations until time closes.” ^{59James White, in The Present Truth, December 1849, 40.} Rather than being a contradiction to the canon, it was precisely the canon of Scripture that created the end-time bestowal of the gift of prophecy. Perhaps the fullest development of such a perspective was published by M. E. Cornell in his 1862 booklet, Miraculous Powers: The Scripture Testimony on the Perpetuity of Spiritual Gifts. In this volume Cornell traced the history of various visions and miracles after the close of the New Testament canon. Cornell appears to have overstepped his peers, though, since later expositors accepted Ellen White’s visions as the only genuine manifestations of postbiblical prophecy. ^{60Ron Graybill, “Prophet,” in Ellen Harmon White, 78.} GOP 246.2

Ellen White viewed her ministry within the context of the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. She eschewed the term “prophet,” which she explained was because of the many individuals who had brought the title into disrepute. This may be partly a result of her own negative experience with fanatics such as Dammon, Sargent, and Robbins. It also reveals a careful distancing of her own ministry from spiritualist mediums, whom she viewed as carrying out the work of Satan. Spiritualism was of such grave concern that she kept herself at a distance from the emerging women’s rights movement, whose leaders found an affinity with spiritualism. She also repudiated other movements, such as Mormonism. Altogether, she viewed her ministry and role as much broader than that of a prophet. Her counsels were not to take the place of Scripture, but to point people back to the primacy and authority of Scripture. While such continued revelations might blur the edges of canon, she affirmed the divine origins of Scripture. She believed that the source of her visions remained the same: from Jesus Christ, but in terms of their application they were a “lesser light” to lead people to the “greater light,” the Bible as the Word of God.GOP 246.3

Like many of her contemporaries, she retained some of the ambiguities that came with the blurred edges of canon. For example, in A Word to the “Little Flock,” there are references to the Apocrypha. Various explanations have been given for this fact, including the possibility that they were added by James White or Joseph Bates. It does not appear that she found such references disturbing. In fact, they appear to be included as informative and illuminating information, even if she did not personally elaborate on the meaning or significance of the Apocrypha. For her these were ultimately minor details, because the Word of God, the Bible, contained all that was necessary for salvation. In this sense Ellen White stands in clear contrast during a period of time when supernatural dreams and visions were commonplace. In contrast to such seers as Joseph Smith, who claimed that his visions superseded previous revelations, including the Bible, Ellen G. White on the other hand viewed her visions as a secondary authority, subject to the authority of Scripture. Furthermore, unlike in contrast to Shakers and Spiritualists, she did not seek an inward light that would guide her beyond the boundaries of the biblical canon. She believed that she had a specific role to play to reprove and encourage God’s people who were waiting for the soon return of Jesus Christ. Such radical authority came from a radical appeal to sola Scriptura.GOP 246.4