Two Basic Charges

This paper is not an attempt to justify the actions of church leaders in their dealings with Kellogg, nor to refute Kellogg’s defense of his personal theology. Rather, it considers the implications of the two basic charges Dr. Kellogg brought against Ellen White and her work. The many incidents related by Kellogg, as they pertain to Ellen White, essentially fall under one or the other of these two headings: First, Is everything written by Ellen White an inspired revelation? Second, Can her writings be trusted to accurately represent the Lord’s message?IJHK 2.2

The first question is answered straightforwardly by Ellen White herself. She wrote:IJHK 2.3

There are times when common things must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are not given under the special inspiration of the Spirit of God.—Selected Messages 1:39

Clearly, Ellen White recognized that not everything she wrote was to be regarded as inspired. This answer leads logically to another question: How can we know what is intended as revelation and what is merely Ellen White’s opinion?IJHK 2.4

Ellen White offers certain guidelines in helping us to arrive at an answer to this question (see Selected Messages 1:38-39), yet it would be dangerous, if not impossible, to set forth a rule that would always separate special revelation from personal opinion. For example, into what category would one place counsel given to meet a current crisis that was based upon divine instruction received during a similar but different situation? In such a case, inspired wisdom would be involved, although no new revelation had been given for that particular occasion.IJHK 3.1

As complex as some aspects of this question may seem, there need be no uncertainty regarding the many testimonies from Ellen White that clearly indicate the source of her information. Such expressions as, “I was shown...” or “From the light given me of God...” or “You were represented to me as...” leave little room for doubt concerning the authority being claimed. Yet, in this 1907 interview, Dr. Kellogg would lead the reader to suppose that even messages bearing claims such as these might be based on nothing more than mistaken rumor.IJHK 3.2

As evidence for his position, Dr. Kellogg referred to several instances where testimonies were received that he and others believed were contrary to the facts. The stories, as he related them, sound quite convincing. In attempting to verify them, however, we find his credibility becomes suspect. One of the obstacles in documenting his claims is the fact that very few written records were referred to; most of the incidents involved conversations (“I said,” “he said,” “they said,” etc.), where the witnesses quoted cannot defend themselves against misquotation or misinterpretation. We have only Dr. Kellogg’s testimony as to what was said.IJHK 3.3

In those instances where records exist and attempts have been made to document events, we find a mixture of truth, half-truths, misrepresentation, and, often, exaggeration. On some points, his account is correct. For example, Dr. Kellogg maintained that he never received the testimony published in Series B, No. 6, pp. 5-10, before it appeared in print. So far as the records show, that was what happened, because of an oversight by Ellen White’s staff. But Dr. Kellogg emphatically charged that a particular paragraph of the article was “interpolated” or inserted into the original manuscript at the time of publication to make it appear that he had acted against divine counsel.IJHK 4.1

The White Estate is fortunate to possess the original writing of that article, and while it is evident that Ellen White’s literary assistants rearranged material as they often did in preparing the final copy, every paragraph found in the published copy can be found in the original diary entry—refuting positively a charge Dr. Kellogg presented as fact.IJHK 4.2