1. Initial Points 

#1: These are official quotes of Mrs. White. The truth is that some quotes do not exist at all, some are by someone else, and some have been altered.

For example, David Snyder states that Mrs. White in her own words said that she was in "this hopeless condition for months" after Christ did not come when expected. Yet no such quotation can be found anywhere (see #10). Later, Dale Ratzlaff claims that the preface of an 1851 reprint "stated that no changes were made in idea or sentiment." Yet it said no such thing. Instead it stated, "I shall therefore leave out a portion" (see #52),

Regarding quotations really written by someone else, by folk who weren't even Adventists, it's just a simple fact that Mrs. White:

1. didn't give that list of diseases (#118);

2. didn't say kids would get green skin (#119);

3. didn't say, "Sip no more ..." (#122); and

4. didn't say not to sleep on feather beds (#124).

The quote under #118, besides being written by someone else, was altered as well. It represents the words and thoughts of two different people fused into a single statement. There really is no way for the viewer to know this, for quotation marks and words were deleted without using an ellipsis, and words were added without the use of brackets.

But that one wasn't as serious as the one under #142. There we have a fusion into one of two different quotes from two different journals from two different continents written seven years apart. Fill in three ellipses, and the selection gives a totally different impression than the one the video gives.

Then we have the one under #37 where a sentence appearing six sentences before the rest of the quote is put at the end of the quote, and the intervening five sentences are deleted. The deleted sentences actually neutralize the point being made by the video.

Whether this video teaches one much about Adventism is debatable, but it does teach quite well a very important lesson: Don't take anyone's word for it. Read it for yourself.

#2 & #3: "Based around the teachings and philosophies of its nineteenth-century founder, prophetess Ellen G. White, Seventh-day Adventism exhibits tremendous influence world-wide."

#2: It's based around her teachings. To the contrary, the doctrines found in her writings did not originate with her, and generally were held and taught by Seventh-day Adventists before she wrote them out. Where then did Adventists get them from? From Bible study.

In materials prepared for the general public, Adventists quote Scripture to substantiate their beliefs, for they are based on Scripture. In material prepared for use by their own members, since her books are held in high esteem by most, they as well as the Bible are often quoted from, giving an appearance that the charge is true when it is not.

Much of what Seventh-day Adventists believe was hammered out in the Bible studies of the 1848 Sabbath Conferences. Mrs. White, to her chagrin, could not understand the topics under discussion. The only exception was when she was in vision, which occurred when the brethren could not come to agreement on their own about what the Bible said on a particular point. She wrote:

During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the Word of God.-Selected Messages, bk. 1, p. 207.

Since much of what Adventists believe was arrived at in meetings where Mrs. White couldn't understand what was being discussed, how can it be said that Seventh-day Adventism is based around her teach­ings and philosophies?

2. The Millerite Movement

#4: Miller was a powerful preacher. No, Miller wasn't a local pastor in the Harmon’s community. He was a Baptist lecturer living in New York; they lived in Maine.

Sounds like we could use another William Miller today, wouldn't you say?

The movement elsewhere in the world, sometimes unconnected to Miller, was similar in its general characteristics, except for Sweden. It was against the law there to preach about Christ's soon coming and the approaching judgment. But prophecy foretold that such a message had to be given (Rev. 14:6, 7, 13-16).

To surmount this legal obstacle, the Holy Spirit moved upon children to preach, and the authorities could not get them to stop. Their sermons called upon the people to forsake drunkenness and worldly amusements, like card playing, dancing, and frivolity. It was sobering to those who heard.

The reports of that time give the ages of the large number of children involved as being six, eight, ten, twelve, sixteen, and eighteen. A brief account of this phenomenon can be found in The Great Controversy, pages 366, 367. For a fuller account, complete with references to Swedish sources, most of which were written by opposers to the phenomenon, see Froom, volume 3, pages 670-686.

#5 & #6: "He taught that Christ would return first in 1843, and then on October 22, 1844, supposedly the Jewish Day of Atonement for that year."

 #5: Miller taught Christ would return in 1843. This too is an oversimplification. The major thrust of Miller's preaching, and that which aroused so much opposition, was not that the judgment would begin and Christ would come about the year 1843. Rather, what aroused opposition was his teaching that Christ would come soon.

It sounds strange today, but at that time most churches were teaching that Christ would not come until after a thousand years of peace on earth, during which the whole world would be converted. Bible prophecies about the second coming and the resur­rection they believed would not be literally fulfilled. These doctrines were popularized by Daniel Whitby, an Englishman who died in 1726 (Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 651-655).

Miller and his associates taught most definitely that the whole world would not be converted, and that Christ would come personally and visibly before, not after, the thousand years. The date of 1843 only brought to a head these major points of theological difference (Ibid., vol. 4, pp. 765-766).

Most churches, it seems, now believe what William Miller taught about Christ's second coming. They can thank him, in part, for this correction in their theology. Regarding this very theological correction, one British writer put it this way in an 1843 issue of Christian Messenger and Reformer: "We shall all, under Christ, be indebted to Mr. Miller, even if the Lord shall not come in 1843."-Froom, vol. 4, p. 716.

The documentation package offered at the end of the video is supposed to substantiate the video's accusations. It consists of a compilation of photocop­ies covering a hundred different points. "Point 4" is listed in its index as "William Miller's dates of 1843 and 1844." However, when one turns to the photo­copy provided under "Point 4," the date 1843 cannot be found. Neither can Miller's views regarding either 1843 or 1844.

It is true, though, that in December 1842 Miller began to teach that Christ would come in 1843. This was more than eleven years after he gave his first sermon on Christ's soon return. Previous to Decem­ber 1842, he had consistently said Christ would come "about the year 1843" "if there were no mistakes in my calculation" (Bliss, p. 329).

In 1842 Miller found himself falsely accused by the public press of having set the date of April 23 for Christ's return. Additionally, he was censured by some of his associates that year for constantly saying "about" and "if." Therefore, not finding any error in his calculations, Miller decided to remove the "about" and the "if" that December. From then until March 21, 1844, he taught that Christ would come in the Jewish year of 1843 at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.

"And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (Dan. 8:14). Miller took these 2300 days to be 2300 years (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6). He began them at the same time as the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 in 457 BC, and thus ended them in 1843. The cleansing of the sanctuary he identified with the day of judgment.

In many of his conclusions, Miller was in harmony with multitudes of scholars spanning centuries. For example, Reformed pastor Johann Petri in 1768 said that the 2300 days begin at the same time as the 70 weeks, and end with the second coming in 1847 (Froom, vol. 2, p. 715). His date of 1847 and Miller's of 1843 were essentially the same (see #64).

#6: Miller taught Christ would return on October 22, 1844. He never did. By claiming that the date of October 22 is based on Miller, the video can more easily attack Millerite Adventists, since views proposed by single individuals appear to have less credibility. But Miller never taught this.

He and Joshua V. Himes were preaching in the west the summer of 1844. When they returned east, they found everyone afire with the idea that Christ would come on October 22, the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month by Karaite reckoning. This fast ­spreading message became known as the "seventh ­month movement."

Why the tenth day of the seventh month? Because that was the Day of Atonement, called Yom Kippur in Hebrew, an annual feast day of ancient Israel when their sanctuary was cleansed (Lev. 16). It seemed quite natural to connect this with the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14.

Samuel S. Snow was the originator of the date of October 22, presenting the topic in the Boston Tabernacle on July 21, 1844. Then in August he presented his material at a camp meeting in Exeter, New Hampshire. After that the idea spread like wild fire. By October 22, fifty thousand Millerites believed Christ was coming on that day (Froom, vol. 4, pp. 799-826).

Miller, as well as the other principal Millerite leaders, resisted for awhile this pinpointing of a particular day, something they had always shunned. Miller's opposition can still be seen in his letter dated September 30 (Bliss, p. 270).

Unable to explain what was so evidently the work of the Holy Spirit reforming and converting people's lives, Miller began to capitulate on October 6. In his letter of that date, published in the October 12, 1844, issue of Midnight Cry, Miller said he would be disappointed if Christ did not return "within twenty or twenty-five days," which indicates he was looking toward October 26 or 31 as being the limit, not October 22.

The data from the letter follows, in the order that it appears:

When did the 2300 days end? Last spring.

... Christ will come in the seventh month ....

If he does not come within 20 or 25 days, I shall feel twice the disappointment I did this spring.

... it must and will come this fall.... I see no reason why we may not expect him within twenty days.... just so true will redemption be completed by the fifteenth day of the seventh month ....

I am strong in my opinion that the next [Sunday, Oct. 13,] will be the last Lord's day sinners will ever have in probation; and within ten or fifteen days from thence, they will see Him ....

... in twenty days or less I shall see all that love Jesus.

So on October 6, Miller thought Christ would come that month, but not necessarily on the 22nd. His words most often suggest that Christ could come by the 26th, but they also suggest that Christ could return by the 23rd, 27th, 28th, and 31st, all in the same letter. And at the same time, he still maintained that the 2300 days had already ended the previous spring.

Miller's first letter to Himes after October 22 is dated November 10, and expresses his disappoint­ment (Bliss, p. 277). This was the date of the astro­nomical new moon, which in Miller's mind could have marked the end of the seventh Jewish month according to the Karaite lunar calendar. The fact that Miller waited until the new moon before expressing his disappointment is further confirmation that he felt Christ would come in the seventh Jewish month, but not necessarily on the tenth day of that seventh month.

In a letter to J. O. Orr of Toronto, Canada West, on December 13, 1844, Miller wrote:

The ninth day [of the seventh month (October 21)] was very remarkable.... In the evening I told some of my [brethren] Christ would not come on the morrow. Why not? said they. Because he cannot come in an hour they think not, nor as a snare.

Clearly, even on October 21, Miller had not yet accepted the date of October 22, much less taught it.

#7: ". . . October 22, 1844, supposedly the Jewish Day of Atonement for that year. However, ! using information from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia we find that in 1844, the Day of Atonement began after sundown, September 23rd, not October 22nd. So this crucial date in ', Adventism was flawed, incorrect, from the very beginning."

 #7: October 22 was not the Jewish Day of Atonement. Snow never identified October 22 as being the "Jewish" Day of Atonement per se. He knew better, as did other Millerites. And neither was September 23 the "Jewish" Day of Atonement.

There are many different sects of Judaism, and one l prominent sect, the Karaites or Caraites, regularly I differed from Rabbinical Judaism in how they began the year. This meant that the Karaite Jews often kept the Jewish feasts one month later than the Rabbinical Jews. Thus, there was often more than one "Jewish" Day of Atonement per year. When this happened, no one date could be called the Jewish Day of Atone­ment.

The Rabbinical Jews accepted oral traditions in addition to the Word of God, but the Karaite Jews rejected all such traditions and relied only on the Bible. They were therefore a back-to-the-Bible movement within Judaism.

A modern-day Karaite Jewish leader in Israel, Nehemia Gordon, informs us that in 1999, the biblical Day of Atonement was on October 20, not in September like most other Jews thought ("[Karaite Korner Newsletter] #6: Biblical Holidays 1999," Aug. 31, 1999, email newsletter). That's pretty close to October 22.

The Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar. Its months are but 29 or 30 days each, with about 354 days to a year. To keep the calendar synchronized with the seasons, a thirteenth month is added about seven times every nineteen years.

When and under what circumstances should the thirteenth month be added? The Rabbinical method uses mathematical calculations to determine this. The Karaite method uses observation of the barley crop in Palestine. Biblically speaking, the Karaites are correct.

The day after the sabbath after the Passover, a sheaf of barley grain was to be waved before the Lord (Lev. 23:10-15). If the barley wasn't ripe enough, this could not be done, and so the Karaites would postpone for a month the beginning of the first month of the year.

Nisan, the first Jewish month, was originally called Abib. This ancient name refers to the barley being in a certain stage of ripening, a fact that lends support to the Karaite practice.

Some critics of Seventh-day Adventism cite Mr. Gordon to show that Karaites in 1844 in Palestine had long before adopted Rabbinical reckoning. However, the point is not what the Karaites were doing in 1844, but what the Bible says they should have been doing. If the barley was not ripe enough, then the year could not begin, regardless of what any Karaite or Rabbi said.

In actuality, Mr. Gordon only provides evidence indicating that the Karaites were using Rabbinical reckoning "for some time" before 1860. This does not prove what they were doing in 1844, as can readily be seen by turning to "Point 5" in the documentation package where some of Mr. Gordon's comments can be found. (The last ellipsis of "Point 5" represents an omission that included Mr. Gordon's signature. He is therefore the author of the "Official Karaite Docu­mentation.")

The April 1840 issue of American Biblical Repository contained a letter written no earlier than 1836 by E. S. Calman, a converted Jewish rabbi and Christian missionary in Palestine. In this letter he discusses something he had discovered:

I will begin by stating one fact of great importance, of which I was totally ignorant before I came to this country, which will prove that the seasons of the festivals, appointed by God for the Jewish nation, have been annulled and subverted by the oral law of the Scribes and Pharisees, which is now the ritual of the Jews.-"The Present State of the Jewish Religion," p. 411.

Then follows an explanation of the biblical requirement that the barley be ripe at Passover time, after which he states:

But, at present, the Jews in the Holy Land have not the least regard to this season appointed and identi­fied by Jehovah, but follow the rules prescribed in the oral law .... In general the proper season occurs after they have celebrated it a whole month, which is just reversing the command in the law .... Nothing like ears of green corn [barley] have I seen around Jerusalem at the celebration of this feast.-Ibid., pp. 411, 412.

And now for the clincher:

The Caraite Jews observe it later than the Rabbini­cal, for they are guided by Abib, ... and they charge the latter with eating leavened bread during that feast. I think, myself, that the charge is well founded. If this feast of unleavened bread is not celebrated in its season, every successive festival is dislocated fromm its appropriate period, since the month Abib ... is laid down in the law of God as the epoch from which every other is to follow.-Ibid., p. 412.

So this letter indicates that Karaite Jews in Palestine were keeping the annual feasts generally one month later than the Rabbinical Jews around 1836. The conclusion of the critics that the Karaites had given up their special form of reckoning long before the nineteenth century is therefore unfounded. More importantly, this letter affirms the fact that usually the Rabbinical Jews kept their feasts one month too early, for the barley was not ripe enough.

The documentation package makes no attempt to substantiate the correctness of the Rabbinical date of September 23. Instead, it quotes Nehemia Gordon as saying, "While late September may or may not have been the correct month in which to celebrate Yom Kippur ...." This gives away the whole point the video is trying to prove. If late September "may not have been the correct month" for the Day of Atonement, then late October may have been the correct month after all.

S. S. Snow popularized the October 22 date during the summer of 1844, but he didn't come up with the idea of using Karaite reckoning. Karaite reckoning was the acceptable thing for a year or more prior to this.

Miller's associates, though not himself, decided that the Jewish year 1843 began on April 29 and ended on April 17, 1844. In doing so, they used the Karaite form of reckoning, as plainly stated in the June 21, 1843, issue of The Signs of the Times:

The Caraite Jews on the contrary, still adhere to the letter of the Mosaic law, and commence with the new moon nearest the barley harvest in Judea; and which is one moon later than the Rabbinical year. The Jewish year of A.D. 1843, as the Caraites reckon it in accordance with the Mosaic law, therefore com­menced this year with the new moon on the 29th day of April, and the Jewish year 1844, will commence with the new moon in next April, when 1843 and the 2300 days, according to their computation, will expire. But according to the Rabbinical Jews, it began with the new moon the first of last April, and will expire with the new moon in the month of March next.-Editorial, p. 123.

Between the start of the Jewish year on Nisan 1 and the Day of Atonement on Tishri 10, we have six Jewish months (averaging 29.5 days each) and nine days. Add these to the month commencing after the new moon of April 1844, and you have October 22, not September 23.

 #8: "William Miller's meetings were marked by much emotionalism and a great deal of hysteria over Christ's imminent return."

#8: They were marked by emotionalism and hysteria. Not at all. The fact is that Miller and his associates suppressed this kind of thing. Perhaps Mr. Snyder is confusing the Millerite Movement of the 1830's and 1840's with what happened in Kentucky during the Great Revival of 1800 (Froom, vol. 4, pp. 38-46).

In a vast ecumenical movement like the Millerite Movement, many people of many beliefs and worship styles come together. There were some in the movement who would have felt comfortable in the more emotional services of modem Pentecostal and charismatic churches, but Miller and his associates consistently sought to repress such things and even called them fanaticism.

The eyewitness account of Pastor L. D. Fleming of Portland, Maine, has already been cited where he said, "There is nothing like extravagant excitement, but an almost universal solemnity on the minds of all the people." He also testified:

"The interest awakened by his lectures is of the most deliberate and dispassionate kind, and though it is the greatest revival I ever saw, yet there is the least passionate excitement.... It seems to me that this must be a little the nearest like apostolic revivals of anything modem times have witnessed." Miller, vol. 1, p. 17.

Unitarian minister A. P. Peabody of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, said pretty much the same (Bliss, p. 143).

Miller himself warned those looking for the Advent that Satan would attempt to "get us from the word of God" by "his wild-fire of fanaticism and speculation."-Ibid., p. 173. In a December 1844 letter he called vocal responses from the congregation during meetings fanaticism. The one example he gives is, "Bless God," showing to what lengths he went in his opposition to "emotionalism" and "hysteria." He then went on to write, "I have often obtained more evidence of inward piety from a kindling eye, a wet cheek, and a choked utterance, than from all the noise in Christendom."-Ibid., p. 282.

Regarding the seventh-month movement in particular, Miller testified:

There is something in this present waking up different from anything I have ever before seen. There is no great expression of joy: that is, as it were, suppressed for a future occasion, when all heaven and earth will rejoice together with joy unspeakable and full of glory. There is no shouting; that, too, is reserved for the shout from heaven. The singers are silent: they are waiting to join the angelic hosts, the choir from heaven.-Ibid., pp. 270, 271.

Joshua V. Himes, Miller's closest associate and ardent publicist, had this to say:

Not only Mr. Miller, but all who were in his confidence, took a decided position against all fanatical extravagances. They never gave them any quarter; while those who regarded them with favor soon arrayed themselves against Mr. Miller and his adherents. Their fanaticism increased; and though opposed by Mr. Miller and his friends, the religious and secular press very generally, but unjustly, connected his name with it;-he being no more responsible for it than Luther and Wesley were for similar manifestations in their day.-Ibid., p. 239.

So where exactly did this slander originate? Himes endeavors to show its origin by describing some incidents he is all too familiar with (pp. 229 ff.). In October 1842 John Starkweather, an Orthodox Congregationalist, became the assistant pastor at Himes's church, since Himes was often on the road with Miller. According to Himes, [Starkweather] taught that conversion, however full and thorough, did not fit one for God's favor without a second work; and that this second work was usually indicated by some bodily sensation.-Ibid., p. 232.

Near the end of April 1843, things were such that Himes felt the matter had to be confronted. He addressed the congregation about the dangers of fanaticism, to which address Starkweather gave a vehement reply. So Himes gave another address, "exposing the nature of the exercises that had appeared among them, and their pernicious ten­dency."

This so shocked the sensibilities of those who regarded them as the "great power of God," that they cried out and stopped their ears. Some jumped upon their feet, and some ran out of the house. "You will drive out the Holy Ghost!" cried one. "You are throwing on cold water!" said another.

"Throwing on cold water!" said Mr. Himes; "I would throw on the Atlantic Ocean before I would be identified with such abominations as these, or suffer them in this place unrebuked."

Starkweather immediately announced that "the saints" would thenceforth meet at another place than the Chardonstreet Chapel; and, retiring, his followers withdrew with him.

From this time he was the leader of a party, held separate meetings, and, by extending his visits to other places, he gained a number of adherents. He was not countenanced by the friends of Mr. Miller; but the public identified him and his movement with Mr. Miller and his.

This was most unjust to Mr. Miller … Ibid., p. 233)

That it was. And it still is.

The documentation package gives no documentation for this charge whatsoever. Indeed, none can be found.

#9: [The picture used to illustrate #8, depicting fanatical adults crawling around like babies, and doing other inappropriate things.]

#9: This picture is of one of Miller's pre-October 22 meetings. It isn't at all, as any well-informed critic can verify. It was drawn to illustrate a description of a February 1845 meeting in Atkinson, Maine, when Miller was nowhere around.

The description appeared in an article in the March 7, 1845, issue of the Piscataquis Farmer. The article, which purports to be a condensed account of some court proceedings, is suspect because it was inten­tionally left anonymous, and the author was not present at the "fanatical" meeting in question. Additionally, he felt the need to excuse the errors of his account by calling it "imperfect" and by saying that he was "inexperienced." And since the article contains a number of contradictions regarding the meeting, what really happened is hard to determine.

We should remember that newspapers were not very unreliable in their statements regarding Millerites. Take for example an article in the

November 5, 1844, issue of The Daily Argus of Portland, Maine. It reprints information from The New York Commercial of the previous Friday that said that Himes had renounced Millerism the previous Tuesday evening. However, the Argus adds this note: "Someone else must have been mistaken for Elder Himes, as he was in this city on Wednesday last."

In the picture in the video, Mrs. White is shown having a vision in the way the Piscataquis article described, but she had no visions before October 22. Her first vision came in December 1844. James White is shown standing behind her, yet they did not begin associating and working together until 1845 (Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, vol. 1, pp. 70, 71, 77). He could not have stood behind her in this manner, therefore, in 1844.

Which leaves us with the question, Why does the video use this picture to illustrate an example of a pre-October 22 meeting of William Miller?

#10 & #11: "Ellen Harmon was a willing participant, though when Christ did not return when Miller predicted, she dissolved into tears and prayers and remained, as she said, in this hopeless condition for months."

#10: She said this. There is no such statement anywhere in her writings.

The documentation package lists this as "Point 6," which provides as proof of the charge page 293 of Life Sketches of James White and Ellen G. White, 1880 edition. On this page we read, "My wife has for many years been subject to occasional, and sometimes protracted, seasons of the most hopeless despair." The immediate context clearly shows that this was written by Stephen Pierce about his wife, Almira. It isn't about Mrs. White at all! And the very next paragraph says that this depression started in May 1852, over seven years after October 22 (p. 294)!

"Point 6" also quotes from Spectrum, a theologi­cally liberal journal that, unlike Mrs. White, does not advocate the concept of the infallibility of God's Word (cf. Selected Messages, bk. 1, p. 416). This quotation speculates that when Mrs. White later wrote about others going insane because of the teachings of fanatics, she was in fact writing about her own mental state. By no stretch of the imagina­tion can this be used as proof that she ever said she was "in this hopeless condition for months."

#11: She felt that way. It simply isn't true. Life Sketches of Ellen G. White clearly says: "We were disappointed but not disheartened."-p. 61. If she was not disheartened, it is quite clear that she never "dissolved into tears and prayers" for months.

Like most young people, she was depressed at times. For instance, she felt in despair for a period of months around 1840. This was just prior to her conversion when she was but twelve years old (Selected Messages, bk. 3, pp. 324, 325). Many feel this way as they realize the depth of their sin and their need of a Savior.

In 1842 she was convicted that the Lord wanted her to pray publicly, but she didn't want to and stopped praying altogether. This resulted in a state of melancholy and despair that lasted three weeks or a little longer, until she followed through with what she believed was her duty (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 15-20).

Her second vision, soon after the first one of December 1844, instructed her to share what God had revealed to her. This troubled her. Being so young and in frail health, she shrank from the duty of traveling to share with others, dreading the scoffs, sneers, and opposition she would surely meet. She wrote:

I really coveted death as a release from the responsibilities that were crowding upon me. At length the sweet peace I had so long enjoyed left me, and my soul was plunged in despair.-Life Sketches, 1880 ed., p. 195; cf. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 63.

The words, "sweet peace I had so long enjoyed," indicate that she had no episodes of despair between the previous incident in 1842 and her second vision a few months after October 22, 1844. So she was not "in a hopeless condition" for months after October 22, and had no depression after Christ did not return when expected.

#12 & #13: "Ellen White just could not accept the fact that Christ did not return in 1843 or 1844. She could not admit her mistake. Interestingly enough, William Miller did."

#12: She didn't admit her mistake. In actuality, both she and William Miller freely admitted that they were mistaken in thinking that Christ would return in 1843 or 1844. Yet they explained their mistake quite differently.

Mrs. White first admitted what she thought was a mistake, and then she admitted quite a different mistake. In 1847 her husband wrote,

When she received her first vision, December, 1844, she and all the band [the group of Advent believers] in Portland, Maine (where her parents then resided) had given up the midnight cry, and shut door, as being in the past.-Arthur White, vol. 1, p. 61.

And Mrs. White wrote the same year, "At the time I had the vision of the midnight cry [December, 1844], I had given it up in the past and thought it future, as also most of the band had."-Ibid.

To comprehend these two statements we must first understand the terminology being used. During the seventh-month movement, the prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9 were connected to a number of other Scriptures, particularly the parable of the ten virgins of Matthew 25.

And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord,

Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. (Mat. 25:6-12)

At the conclusion of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 (October 22), it was expected that the bridegroom would come, the wedding between Christ and his people would begin, and the "door" would be "shut." This all would occur after the "midnight cry," a term referring to the message being given during the seventh-month movement.

By Mrs. White initially giving up the idea that the midnight cry and shut door were past, she was repudiating the teaching that the 2300 days had already ended on October 22. This was a common conclusion among Millerites at that time.

After her first vision she realized that she had erred in calling the October 22 date a mistake. The real error she and fifty thousand other Millerites had made was in thinking that the beginning of the judgment and the ending of the 2300 days were synonymous with the second coming of Christ.

Daniel 8:14 had declared that the 2300 days ended with the cleansing of the "sanctuary." The popular belief among both Millerites and non-Millerites at that time was that this "sanctuary" was the earth or some part of it. Millerites therefore felt that the predicted cleansing of the sanctuary was Christ's cleansing of the earth by fire at His second coming.

They were mistaken that this was the predicted event of the prophecy, and this mistake Mrs. White was always willing to freely admit:

As the disciples were mistaken in regard to the kingdom to be set up at the end of the seventy weeks, so Adventists were mistaken in regard to the event to take place at the expiration of the 2300 days. In both cases there was an acceptance of, or rather an adherence to, popular errors that blinded the mind to the truth.-Great Controversy, p. 352.

Christ's disciples thought He would set up the kingdom of glory at His first coming, in which kingdom the Jews would rule the world and the Romans. When Christ died, they had a choice to make. Were they mistaken that Jesus was the true Messiah? Or were they mistaken about the kind of kingdom the Messiah was supposed to set up?

This observation prompts the question, Shall we reject the teachings of the apostles simply because they had erroneous views about prophecy, even as late as the time of Christ's ascension (Acts 1:6)? Of course not.

So Mrs. White made a mistake and freely admitted it. Are the contributors to this video willing to do the same regarding the mistakes it contains? To illustrate, under #103 and #104 is an allegation that a certain book was plagiarized in its entirety, resulting in a lawsuit. Since this allegation was proven to be fictitious more than half a century ago, would it not be well to freely admit this error to the Christian community? After all, Paul wrote, "Therefore thou art inexcusable, 0 man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" (Rom. 2:21).

#13: Miller admitted his mistake. This is a gross oversimplification. To explain what Miller really admitted to would make the inclusion of this point in the video appear rather silly.

In a statement dated August 1, 1845, Miller identified his mistake:

But while I frankly acknowledge my disappoint­ment in the exact time, I wish to inquire whether my teachings have been thereby materially affected. My view of exact time depended entirely upon the accuracy of chronology; of this I had no absolute demonstration; but as no evidence was presented to invalidate it, I deemed it my duty to rely on it as certain, until it should be disproved. Besides, I not only rested on received chronology, but I selected the earliest dates in the circle of a few years on which chronologers have relied for the date of the events from which to reckon, because I believed them to be best sustained, and because I wished to have my eye on the earliest time at which the Lord might be expected. Other chronologers had assigned later dates for the events from which I reckoned; and if they are correct we are only brought into the circle of a few years, during which we may rationally look for the Lord's appearing. As the prophetic periods, counting from the dates from which I have reckoned, have not brought us to the end, and as I cannot tell the exact time that chronology may vary from my calculations, I can only live in continual expectation of the event. I am persuaded that I cannot be far out of the way, and I believe that God will still justify my preaching to the world.-Wm. Miller's Apology and Defense, p. 34.

Thus the mistake that he admitted to was not the way he had interpreted and calculated the time prophecies of Scripture, but the dates of the human chronologers he had used to begin those time prophecies with.

The book shown in the video to illustrate this point is Sketches of the Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller, written by James White and published in 1875. We already noticed how James's wife Ellen admitted her mistake. James did as well in this very book on page 7, the third page of text: "But Mr. Miller was mistaken in the event to occur at the close of the prophetic periods, hence his disappointment." This is just one of many examples where the video displays or quotes from books that disprove its claims.

The documentation package lists this point in its index as "Point 7." Turning to "Point 7," we find a page of a research paper dealing with the Albany Conference of April 1845, a meeting conducted by the principal Millerite leaders. This page allegedly describes what was voted at that Conference, but says nothing about whether Miller was in harmony with the vote or not. It also says nothing about what mistakes Miller allegedly admitted to making.

If one compares what was actually voted at the Albany Conference with this page from the research paper, one finds that they do not agree (Bliss, pp. 301-313). No, that conference did not endorse "the following positions":

1. "The movement had been mistaken in all attempts to set the date for Christ's coming."

2. "The use of parables as prophetic allegories was a mistake."

3. "Rejection of ... the 'investigative judgement' theory."

Why, the investigative judgment theory wasn't really around yet (see #59; cf. #56). The paper also claims that the conference issued "a stern warning ... primarily directed at a young, rising charismatic star among sabbatarian Adventists: Ellen Harmon­White." But it's a simple fact that she was not yet a Sabbatarian (see #163), and that her name did not appear in the voted statements. There was mention of those "making great pretensions to special illumina­tion," but from the description given regarding the activities and teachings of that party, it is quite apparent that the statement wasn't talking about Ellen Harmon.

Far better would it have been if the compiler of the documentation package had provided the original source rather than an interpretation of it.

#14 & #15: "Instead she claimed she had a vision from God, the first of many. 'I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them, that His hand was over, and hid a mistake in some of the figures...' Early Writings p. 74."

 #14: This was her first vision. Not at all. This statement from Early Writings is from a vision that occurred on September 23, 1850, nearly six years after her first vision of December 1844 (Early Writings, pp. 13, 74; Present Truth, Nov. 1, 1850).

#15: God "covered up" the mistake. Under the next number, the narrator builds upon this out-of­-context quotation.

Let's fill in the ellipsis and thus complete the quoted sentence: "... that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand was removed." Rather than God covering up His own alleged errors, He was instead not bringing the mistakes of others to their attention until just the right time. The connota­tion of the actual quote is thus different than what the video alleges.

#16: "Rather than admit she was in error, Ellen Harmon claimed that God was the one who had made the mistake, and had covered it up Himself."

#16: She said God made the mistake. She never said that God made a mistake then or at any other time, for God makes no mistakes.

We've all made mistakes, but why didn't we recognize it sooner? Why didn't God show it to us sooner? Just because He didn't, does that mean God made the mistake instead of us? By no means.

Besides, what Mrs. White is referring to here is not about October 22 being a mistake. Rather, she's talking about how the original date of 1843 was arrived at through a mathematical error. This is the "mistake in some of the figures" she was referring to.

As mentioned under #5, Miller and his many associates began the 2300 days in 457 BC and ended them in 1843. Sometime in the Jewish year 1843, Christ's coming was therefore expected. Yet instead of 1843, the year was really supposed to be 1844.

Two things were not understood in 1843 (Uriah Smith, The Sanctuary and the Twenty-Three Days of Daniel VIII,14, pp. 93-96). First, if the decree foretold in Daniel 9 went forth on the first day of the Jewish year 457 BC, the 2300 days could not end until the last day of the Jewish year 1843, for it takes 2300 full years to fulfill the prophecy. Thus, under such a scenario, the 2300 days could not end until the new moon of April 1844. Second, if the decree did not go forth until a certain number of days into 457 BC, then the 2300 days could not end until that same number of days into 1844.

After the Karaite Jewish year of 1843 had ended in April 1844, it was apparent that some sort of mistake had been made. Eventually it was discovered that the decree of 457 BC did not go forth, did not go into effect, until that fall. Thus the 2300 days could not end until the fall of 1844.

Another way to arrive at the same result is the following: Christ's death was believed to have occurred in the middle of Daniel 9's 70th week. Since Christ died in the spring, that would make the middle of the week to be the spring, and the beginning and ending of all the weeks to be the fall. Thus the 70 weeks had to commence in the fall, and the 2300 days, commencing at the same time, must likewise end in the fall. (See #20 for more on this interpretation, and a comparison of it with the most popular alternative view today.)

Of course, God knew that the math of the Millerites was off, and He permitted them to understand this after the fact.

While no mistake about the validity of the October 22 date is suggested in the quoted statement, Mrs. White's words indicate that there was some sort of divine purpose in what happened. Perhaps compar­ing the experience of the Millerites to that of the disciples can illuminate our understanding.

The disciples of Christ were tested severely at two different times, both relating to mistaken views about prophecy. John 6:66 indicates that many of Christ's disciples just up and left Him when He cryptically told them that His kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, not a kingdom in which they would rule the Romans. This was the first test, and it was hard. The second one came at the crucifixion when all the hopes and dreams of the disciples for an earthly kingdom of power were dashed to pieces.

The Millerites likewise were tested twice. First, Christ did not come as expected during the Jewish year of 1843, for there was a mistake in their figures. Second, Christ did not come as expected on October 22, 1844, for the second coming does not occur at the same time as the judgment.

If the first and only test for the disciples had been at the crucifixion, and if it had been then when the majority of Christ's followers forsook Him, the test would have been much more overwhelming for the disciples. Having the previous test strengthened the disciples for the later one. Likewise, the first test strengthened the Millerites to be able to endure the second one.

Was God responsible for the mistaken views about prophecy that all those followers of Jesus had 2000 years ago, just because He didn't point out their errors sooner? Not at all. He revealed their mistakes at specific times for specific reasons. The same was true with the Millerites.

The documentation package gives no evidence that Mrs. White ever said that God made any mistake. Under "Point 8" and "Point 8a" it merely repeats Mr. Snydei s quote from Early Writings, and shows a picture of the 1843 chart referred to.

This is actually very common in the documentation package. Rather than substantiate the charges being made, it often resorts to only reproducing the identical paragraphs from which the video quoted, and sometimes not even the whole paragraph.

#17 & #18: "Ellen's controversial vision forced the re-adjustment of many Adventist dates and doctrines."

#17: This vision was controversial. Neither her first vision nor her vision of September 23, 1850 (see #14), should have been considered controversial at the time. Both appeared reasonable and middle of the road to their targeted audiences.

At some point after October 22, 1844, there were two major and opposite divisions of thought: 1) The 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 had not ended yet and Christ's literal and visible coming was yet future. 2) The 2300 days had ended and Christ had already returned in a spiritual way.

In contrast, Mrs. White's first vision indicated that the 2300 days had ended, but Christ's return was yet future and would be literal and visible like the Bible says. Thus it promoted a middle-of-the-road position between the two major camps.

Fifty thousand Millerites had felt moved by the Spirit of God during the seventh-month movement. Since her first vision indicated that that movement was indeed of God, this point too should have been considered non-controversial.

The 1850 vision the video quoted from, first published in November of that year, taught that:

1. There was nothing wrong with printing a periodical to proclaim the truth.

2. The word "sacrifice" in Daniel 8:12 was not in the original, but had been added by the transla­tors (an indisputable fact).

3. "Time ... will never again be a test." In other words, there should be no more setting dates for Christ's return.

4. Lots of money should not be spent sending people to Jerusalem, thinking that somehow this will help fulfill prophecy. (Present Truth, Nov. 1, 1850; Early Writings, pp. 74-76)

Nothing controversial here, though some who were setting dates might not have cared for the third point. However, she had already been opposing date setting for five years by that time, so this position was nothing new (see Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 72, 73).

Those who wanted to go to Jerusalem probably didn't like the fourth point, but this wasn't controver­sial either, for it harmonized with what the Millerites had believed and taught prior to 1844. They did not believe that the Bible foretold a restoration of literal Israel, but felt that Israel today is composed of all believers, as the apostle Paul taught:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter. (Rom. 2:28, 29)

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham....

If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3:7, 29)

This teaching may be controversial today, but it definitely wasn't among Millerites in 1844.

#18: It caused a re-adjustment of many dates and doctrines. No dates were re-adjusted by either vision. The first vision didn't really introduce any new doctrines. The 1850 vision called for a moratorium on date setting, but that wouldn't constitute a re­adjustment of many doctrines, especially since she had already been advocating that position for five years. Going to Jerusalem not being a fulfillment of prophecy was already a standard Millerite doctrine, so this doctrine was not re-adjusted either.

#19 & #20: "Even though the 1843 date had now been adjusted to 1844, it was still an error."

#19: It adjusted the 1843 date to 1844. Neither Mrs. White's first vision of December 1844 nor her 1850 vision had anything to do with the change of date from 1843 to 1844. The simple proof of this is the fact that the date was adjusted in the summer of 1844, long before she had either of these visions (see #6).

#20: The 1844 date was still an error. The documen­tation package is silent on quite a few points, including this one. The reason for silence here is simple: The theological understandings of those of any and every persuasion have yet to produce any valid objections to the basic interpretations of Scripture that lead to this date. No better date has yet been found.

If the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 did not end in 1844, when did they end? Actually, this question is premature. Since Daniel 8 and 9 are tied together linguistically, a better question to start with is, When did the 490 days of Daniel 9 end?

Even though Gabriel had already explained everything except the 2300 days, Daniel says that "none understood" the "vision" (8:27). How could that be? The answer lies in the Hebrew text.

There are two different Hebrew words translated "vision" in chapter 8: mar’eh and chazown. Chazown occurs in verses 2, 13, 15, 17, and the last half of 26. Mar'eh occurs in verse 16, the first half of 26, and 27. The distinction between these two words is critical to a proper understanding of the chapter, for it is the mar'eh that "none understood," not the chazown.

When Gabriel says in verse 26 that the "vision [mar'eh] of the evening and the morning which was told is true," he provides the key to understanding the difference between the chazown and the mar'eh. Literally, the Hebrew for "2300 days" in verse 14 is "2300 evening-morning." So the vision or mar'eh of the evening-morning must specifically refer to the 2300 evening-morning, while the chazown refers to the entire vision.

Thus, when Daniel said none understood the vision or mar'eh, he was correct, for Gabriel had not explained the mar'eh of the 2300 days yet. Gabriel was specifically assigned the special task of making Daniel "to understand the vision," or mar'eh, but Daniel fainted a little too soon (vss. 16, 27).

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns, "the man" "whom I had seen in the vision" or chazown (vs. 21). Gabriel tells Daniel, "Consider the vision," or mar'eh, the 2300 days (vs. 23). The rest of what he says to Daniel in the chapter is connected to the time prophecy of the 70 weeks, or 490 days. Somehow, therefore, the 70 weeks are supposed to be an explanation of the 2300 days.

Nearly everyone agrees that the first 483 of the 490 days of Daniel 9 end at some point in the ministry of Christ, each day representing a year.

One troublesome problem in chapter 8 is that there is no starting point given for the beginning of the 2300 days. This problem is removed in chapter 9, for these time prophecies are said to begin with the decree to restore and build Jerusalem:

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. (Dan. 9:25)

So we need to find a decree that both restores and builds. Adventists begin the 490 years with the decree of Artaxerxes' seventh year, or 457 BC. In that year the Jews' judicial system was "restored" to the point that they could even execute the death penalty against violators of God's law (Ezra 7:7, 8, 26). Isaiah 1:26 had predicted this restoration of the judges.

What about the "build" part of the decree? We need to understand that the giving of this decree was a process that took some time. It began with Cyrus commanding the building, and it ended with Artaxerxes restoring the judiciary (Ezra 6:14).

Ezra 1:2 records Cyrus's decree which commanded the building of the temple, but did Cyrus really fulfill Daniel 9:25 by also commanding the building of Jerusalem? Yes, he did. The Lord, calling Cyrus by name more than a century before his birth, said that he would command Jerusalem to be built (Is. 44:28; 45:13).

If we start the 70 weeks in 457 BC, then the first 69 weeks unto "Messiah the Prince" would end in 27 AD. Adventists identify this as being the year of Christ's baptism. At that time He was anointed with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:1, 22; Acts 10:38). Since the Hebrew word for "Messiah" and the Greek word for "Christ" both mean "the anointed one," it seems most logical to identify the coming of the Messiah of Daniel 9:25 with Christ's anointing at His baptism.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan. 9:27). When Christ died after a ministry of 3'h years (31 AD), the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Mat. 27:51). Thus Christ showed that the sacrifices were to cease, since the true sacrifice for sin had been offered.

This leaves but half a week left of the prophecy, 3'h years, stretching to 34 AD. In Acts 7 we find Stephen being stoned as the first Christian martyr. Immediately after this the gospel started going to non-Jews: Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Roman centurion Cornelius, along with his household (Acts 8:4-39; 10). Gabriel had told Daniel, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people" (Dan. 9:24). It therefore seems logical to end the 70 weeks with the stoning of Stephen, for at that point the gospel began to go to the Gentiles, not just Daniel's people, the Jews.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Dan. 9:27). For one week (7 years) the gospel, the new "covenant," was "confirmed" with "many," the Jewish nation: 3'h years during the ministry of Christ, and 3'h years after His resurrec­tion. After that, it went to the Gentiles.

The first 490 days of the 2300 thus ended in 34 AD. The remaining 1810 years can be added to 34 AD to arrive at 1844.

Before it can be said emphatically that 1844 is "an error," a better interpretation than the above must be found. None has been found to date.

The most popular alternative interpretation today is the following, which is more complex than what was above, which should tell you something: The first 69 weeks stretch from Artaxerxes' supposed twentieth year in 445 BC to about the death of Christ, and the 70th week is yet future.

Sir Robert Anderson proposed multiplying the 69 weeks, or 483 days, by 360 days to the year, and then dividing this product by 365.25 days per year. By this method he reduced the 483 years to just over 476 years, a total of 173,880 days. He then began the time period on March 14, 445 BC, what he supposed was the first day of the first Jewish month of Nisan that year. Then he ended it with April 6, 32 AD, what he supposed was Nisan 10, Palm Sunday, the week Christ was crucified. The 70th week of Daniel 9 Anderson put off into the future to a yet unknown time (The Coming Prince).

There are a number of serious problems with Anderson's theory:

1. In making this calculation, he mistakenly added three leap days too few, owing to his misunderstand­ing the differences between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars. 173,880 days should really end on Thursday, April 3, not Sunday, April 6.

2. Nisan 10 could not have been earlier than Wednesday, April 9, in 32 AD, and so could not have been April 6. This is because the sighting of the new moon which begins the new Jewish month could not have occurred as early as Anderson's theory demands.

3. Thus, Nisan 14 would have been on a Sunday or Monday in 32 AD, not on a Thursday as Anderson supposed. Anderson tied the last supper to Nisan 14, with Christ dying on the 15th. If Nisan 14 was on a Sunday or Monday, that would put Christ's death on a Monday or Tuesday in disagreement with the gospel accounts.

4. The Jews of Elephantine used accession-year reckoning for Artaxerxes, and the Jews of that time used a fall-to-fall calendar (Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, pp. 75-90; Neh. 1:1; 2:1). A king's accession year ran from the date of his enthronement until the next New Year's day. In a fall-to-fall calendar this would be Tishri 1, sometime in September or October. Not till after the accession year did the king's first year of reign begin. In contrast, non-accession year reckoning has no accession year, but begins the first year of reign with the king's enthronement. Each year of reign still ends on New Year's day.

Xerxes was murdered sometime in 465 BC. An Aramaic papyri, AP 6, written on January 2, 464 BC, is still dated in Artaxerxes's accession year, meaning that his first year would not begin until Tishri 464 (Ibid., pp. 98-115, 172-174). This makes Nisan in his twentieth year 444 BC, not 445. So Anderson's starting date was a year off.

5. Daniel 9 requires a "commandment to restore and build." While we have record of a decree from Artaxerxes' seventh year in Ezra 7, we have no record of a decree from his twentieth year. So how can we commence the 70 weeks with the twentieth year?

6. The reason Artaxerxes's twentieth year is chosen is because it is thought that then is when the Jews were commanded to build Jerusalem. However, Cyrus had commanded this long before (Is. 44:28; 45:13).

7. Putting the seventieth week of Daniel 9 into the future ignores the linguistic ties between chapters 8 and 9, and the resulting connection between the 2300 days and the 490 days.

8. The method of reducing the 69 weeks of 483 years to only 476 years ignores the Jewish seven-year cycle, since the 483 years no longer coincide with 483 actual years.

The Israelites were to work their fields for six years, and then let the land keep a sabbath for the seventh year (Lev. 25:2-7). It is easy to see an allusion to this practice in Daniel 9's "70 weeks," "7 weeks," "62 weeks," and "1 week." In fact, many scholars of various persuasions have recognized just such a connection. One's interpretation of the 70 weeks ought to therefore coincide with actual seven-year sabbatical cycles.

The Adventist way of reckoning them indeed does. The fall of 457 BC began the first year, and the fall of 34 AD ended the seventh year of a seven-year cycle (see "When Were the Sabbatical Years?" posted at http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers  Thus, when 31 AD is identified as the date for Christ's crucifixion, the middle of the last week of seven years, it truly is the precise middle of a seven-year cycle.

Back to the original point: Until the critics find a better interpretation that fits all the data, they really shouldn't be so emphatic that the 1844 date is an error. Indeed, with the evidence as overwhelming as it is, the 1844 date is as solid as it gets.