Physician’s Questions Unanswered

On pages 191 and onward there is portrayed the matter of Ellen White in 1906 offering to answer the questions certain Battle Creek physicians had about her work and her later refusal to do so.CBPH 89.13

It is too simple to state that Mrs. White refused to answer the charges and allegations of Stewart, Sadler, and others. A. T. Jones had earlier made a number of these same charges, and in May, 1906, the General Conference had issued a reply to him which covered many of the items raised in Stewart's letter published in what is known as “The Blue Book.” (A Statement Refuting Charges Made by A. T. Jones, Washington, D.C., May, 1906.)CBPH 89.14

F. D. Nichol in Ellen C. White and Her Critics devotes a chapter to the matter to which the reader is directed. See “Did Mrs. White Break a Promise?” pp. 345-349.CBPH 89.15

Ellen White answered many of the letters. W. C. White answered some of the points raised. When the Stewart letter came it consisted largely of questions that impugned her integrity. Of this W. C. White wrote on June 9, 1907:CBPH 90.1

That portion of the document addressed to her, which takes the form of an attack upon her integrity and her work, she will refer to the brethren to answer because for many years she has been instructed that it is not any part of her legitimate work to answer the numerous and violent attacks which have been made upon her by her critics and the enemies of the work.CBPH 90.2

Consequently, as noted in Prophetess of Health, page 197, “Willie White saw to it that a copy of Stewart’s confidential communication reach his friend A. G. Daniells.”CBPH 90.3

It should be pointed out, however, that Daniells had a good idea of what was in the document long before he received a copy. Drs. Knapp and Colver, from Battle Creek, attending a medical convention in Washington, D.C., in June of 1907, plied Daniells with questions raised in the document at a time when he had not yet seen a copy of it. On the basis of Daniells’ responses to questions raised at the convention, he was charged with having made wide-ranging public attacks on the doctors in Battle Creek. (See A. G. Daniells letter to W. C. White, June 24, 1907.)CBPH 90.4

The Testimonies made a test.—On page 198, Prophetess of Health states: “as a result of the clash between the forces of Daniells and Kellogg, acceptance of Mrs. White’s testimonies for the first time became an accepted ‘test of fellowship,’ a development unthinkable in the early days of the church.”CBPH 90.5

James White stated in the The Review and Herald, June 13, 1871:CBPH 90.6

They [the Seventh-day Adventists] do not, however, make a belief in this work [Ellen White’s prophetic work] a test of Christian fellowship. But, after men and women have evidence that the work is of God, and then join hands with those who fight against it, our people claim the right to separate from such, that they may enjoy their sentiments in peace and quiet.—RH 37; 205, June 13,CBPH 90.7

This statement applies very directly to the Kellogg case. Kellogg was disfellowshipped because he joined hands with “those who fight against” the prophetic gift. He denied this, but there seems to be ample evidence that it was so. But even if it were not so, he was disfellowshipped under a condition which James White had laid down which was not different from the stand taken in the Conference address published in The Review and Herald, December 4, 1855.CBPH 90.8

This was no “new test” or “innovation.” James White’s own statement bears this out. Nor was it the test that created widespread internal dissension. Application of this test served to relieve the church of those elements which were active in creating wide spread internal dissension.CBPH 90.9