James and Ellen White Stand in Support

In this same testimony, given in the spring of 1868 during the time of uncertainty when building operations were suspended, Mrs. White assures Adventists everywhere that she and husband have not withdrawn their support for the Institute. She proved her point in the most practical way:CBPH 62.30

The friends of humanity, of truth and holiness, should act in reference to the Institute on the plan of sacrifice and liberality. I have five hundred dollars in stock in the Institute, which I wish to donate, and if my husband succeeds with his anticipated book, he will give five hundred dollars more.... Let the sums, small and large, come in.—Testimonies for the Church 1:639-640.CBPH 63.1

Later that spring, as a member of the Board of Directors, James White assures Adventists everywhere that investments in the Institute are safe. Prophetess of Health on page 117 attributes a decline in Institute business to Mrs. White’s “harsh criticisms that had tarnished the institute’s reputation among Adventists.” But there were other more realistic reasons for the decline. Dr. Richard W. Schwarz, in his book John Harvey Kellogg, elaborates on the charity patient problem:CBPH 63.2

During the next several years a policy of accepting needy church members as patients at half rates brought a severe financial setback to the Health Reform Institute. By the fall of 1869 it had only eight patients paying regular prices, and the Institute had fallen $13,000 in debt.—p. 60.CBPH 63.3

Yet another factor in the decline is identified in Prophetess of Health on page 119. Trall had been drawn in to provide a special department for the Health Reformer, and the content had degenerated into arguments over salt, milk, and sugar. All the while, the editor [William Gage] used these articles himself. Mrs. White said the Reformer lay “at the very foundation of the success of the Institute” (31 175). Her analysis certainly seems correct in this case. As the Reformer went, so went the Institute. The people, offended by the extremes of the Reformer were apparently not keen on patronizing an institute where they might have to submit to such a regimen.CBPH 63.4

The actual course of events, briefly stated, is this: In January, 1867, Mrs. White in a hastily prepared article presented a call for a medical institution and gave a general endorsement of the Institute in Testimony No. 11. In September, 1867, she issued Testimony No. 12 which sounded cautions, and in October, 1867, she further reproved the managers of the Institute in Testimony No. 13 and her Review article of October 8, 1867. That fall a revival in Battle Creek apparently resulted in improvements, and in the spring of 1868 she issued a Testimony reviewing the developments at the Institute and announcing her renewed support of it (Testimony No. 14). But the reputation established in the first two years and confirmed, to be sure, by Testimonies No. 11 and 12, continued to cling to the Institute. Furthermore, Trall’s condemnations of salt, milk, and sugar, led to a decline in the Health Reformer’s fortunes and a matching decline in the Institute’s fortunes until in the fall of 1869 there were only eight paying patients.CBPH 63.5

James White stepped in as editor of the Reformer, steered it away from all extremes, the Reformer picked up steam, and, sure enough, as Prophetess of Health notes on page 121, “By the early 1870’s the financial outlook of the Institute and the Reformer appeared fairly bright.”CBPH 63.6

Mrs. White tells how she and her husband had “labored side by side” for the Institute to pull it up from its sad condition in the fall of 1869. She tells how the doctors—Ginley, Chamberlain, and Lamson “worked with earnestness and energy, for small pay, to build up this sinking institution” (Testimonies for the Church 3:175). These factors should be considered in interpreting the fortunes and misfortunes of the Western Health Reform Institute.CBPH 63.7

On page 120 Prophetess of Health states: “The fact that Trall left the Reformer at the height of its success, and apparently with the White’s blessing gives the lie to later charges by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg that he was the one responsible for the magazine’s earlier difficulties.”CBPH 63.8

In a sense, this is so—after all, when William Gage was editor he encouraged Trall to be more radical than he might otherwise have been, but when James White was editor, he kept Trall’s extremes out of the journal. In this sense William Gage could be blamed for the magazine’s earlier difficulties along with Trall. Still, it was Trall’s writings which were so disgusting to subscribers. Trall could have been responsible for the magazine’s early difficulties and still have stayed on until the Reformer reached the height of its success, because in its successful days Trall was somewhat controlled by White.CBPH 63.9