9. Health Counsel, Wigs, and the Reform Dress#113: "Dan Snyder followed in his father's footsteps by becoming a Seventh-day Adventist pastor. His examination of Ellen White's teachings caused him to eventually leave Adventism and enter the Christian ministry." #113: The Adventist ministry is not a Christian ministry. This begs the question, for what solid evidence has been presented that would show us that Seventh-day Adventists are not Christians? Besides, under #232 this same Dan Snyder says, "The last three years have been the most spiritually rewarding of my thirty-one years as a Christian." Thus he informs us that he was a Christian for twenty-eight years while still a Seventh-day Adventist. And during part of those twenty-eight years, Mr. Snyder was also a Seventh-day Adventist minister. So by Mr. Snyder's own testimony, the Adventist ministry must be a Christian ministry. #114, #115, & #116: "Researchers examining the early documents containing Ellen White's advice on diet and health are usually in for a rude awakening. We must concede that she was, after all, a Victorian lady, with very reserved ideas on the opposite sex. Most of her health advice had to do with bringing into submission the male sexual appetites, which she considered excessive." #114: In the early documents, most of her health advice had to do with .... This is a gross exaggeration. Consider the following statistics. The picture on the video at this point is of Health, or How to Live. The six articles by Mrs. White appearing in this pamphlet are now found in book two of Selected Messages, pages 411-479. These articles were first published in 1864, the year after her famous health reform vision. In 1865 in Spiritual Gifts volume 4a, a chapter entitled "Health" appeared on pages 120-151. A computerized search in these two early documents was conducted for: self-(abuse or pollut*) or (secret or solitary)(indulgence* or vice*) or immoral* or moral* or marri* or passion* or sensu* or vice* or sex* or lust* If you aren't sure why some of these terms were searched for, it may become clearer to you under #117. In the Health, or How to Live articles, statements dealing with morality, some very brief, appear on 11 to 14 pages out of 69. These statements, brief or otherwise, can be categorized thusly: 1 about the "moral pollution" before the Flood 3 dealing with the present immoral state of society 4 about the physical and mental results of immorality 4 regarding the causes of immorality 2 on the Christian duty to be morally upright 1 on the necessity of thinking about the upbringing of children before bringing them into the world Some statements fall in more than one of these categories, and three pages contain statements that are vague: Were they talking about liquor or immorality? In Spiritual Gifts volume 4a, statements touching on morality appear on 5 pages out of 32. Of these there were: 2 dealing with before the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah 3 about the present immoral state of society 2 dealing with the physical and mental results of immorality 1 about the causes of immorality 1 on the Christian duty to be morally upright So in these two early documents on diet and health comprising 101 pages, but 16 to 19 pages had any reference somewhere on the page to issues of moral purity. That's 16% to 19%. In 1864, Mrs. White's 30-page pamphlet, Appeal to Mothers, was published. It dealt almost exclusively with the subject of morality, though it also deals with some practical points relating to religious instruction and child rearing. Since it should probably be called an early document on morality instead of diet and health, it probably should be left out of the discussion, but we'll throw it in anyway. 27 of its 30 pages had some mention of morality issues somewhere on the page. Throwing it into our previous statistics, we now have 43 to 46 out of 131 pages dealing with moral purity, or 33% to 35% of the total number of pages. If we adjust the percentage to account for the fact that Appeal to Mothers had fewer words on the page than the other documents, we end up with but 28% to 30%. So that's what we come up with even when we skew the numbers in favor of the argument by 1) counting a whole page when only part of a page deals with moral purity, and 2) throwing in a book that's really on morality rather than on health and diet. "Most of her health advice"? #115: Most of her health advice had to deal with .... In the previous number we dealt with Mrs. White's early documents. But Mr. Snyder's statement could be understood to refer to all her health advice, an idea that is even more ludicrous. Out of the 622-page Counsels on Health, a minor portion talks about morality, modesty, etc. The average born-again Christian would appreciate most, if not all, of what she wrote in this portion. Whatever portion of her book Ministry of Healing that deals with this subject is extremely minute. #116:... had to deal with excessive male urges. Technically, it is not the male sexual appetites that are excessive per se, but the indulgence of them. Would any born-again Christian disagree that there is all too much promiscuity today? Anyone who has read what Mrs. White wrote on the subject will notice that she doesn't just talk about men. She also spends a good bit of time talking about women, even describing death-bed confessions by ladies who admitted that their own sinful, immoral practices were the cause of their dying (e.g. Appeal to Mothers, p. 12). But most of her health advice did not deal with this topic, whether regarding men or women. Some might wonder what prompted James White to issue the pamphlet Solemn Appeal, which is quoted so much by the video. The immoral practices of a Seventh-day Adventist minister named Nathan Fuller had recently come to light, in which practices he had involved some of the members of his congregation (Arthur White, vol. 2, p. 287). If you had been a church leader back then, you just might have been concerned about moral purity too. The following material does not appear in all copies of the video. To their credit, someone must have realized how preposterous this material was, since it was omitted from the second edition. Who actually decided to omit it is a puzzle. The script writer defended its inclusion in a 1999 conversation with this writer, and the documentation package she sent "substantiated" its "accuracy." She emphatically stated that this writer was the first to complain about the video. Also, a lady at Jeremiah Films was surprised to hear that Mrs. White didn't write the statements quoted below, and that their context clearly indicated such. And both these conversations took place when the second edition was already out! Another puzzle is why, when they were editing the second edition, they didn't omit the rest of the erroneous material. Yet that would essentially require starting from scratch at great expense. So the existing product was re-edited and shortened by about five minutes. Yet no one seems to have bothered to change the advertising, for it is still advertised as being fifty minutes long. #117 & #118: "She singled out the practice of masturbation which she called secret vice or solitary vice as the basis for almost every disease." "Mrs. White felt she had been given special light on the subject of masturbation. Along with her ideas her husband James also quoted others with similar views and published them in A Solemn Appeal. 'There is hardly an end to the diseases caused by solitary vice; dyspepsia, spinal complaint, headache, epilepsy, impaired eyesight, palpitations of the heart, pain in the side, bleeding at the lungs, spasms of the heart and lungs, diabetes, incontinence of the urine... rheumatism, affected perspiration, consumption, asthma...' A Solemn Appeal p. 12." #117: She felt she had been given special light. The documentation package supports this one under "Point 58" with a statement by her grandson, Arthur White: ". . . a subject on which she had been given special light . . . Thus the documentation package proves that her grandson felt she had been given special light, but it provides no evidence that Mrs. White herself felt this way. Which part of what she really did teach on the subject was "special light"? Much of what she wrote on the topic was already common knowledge in the medical circles of that time. This is readily apparent when one identifies the originators of the quotes that follow. #118: This is the list of diseases she gave. The average viewer will think that she wrote the selection just quoted, though she did not. Notice how the narrator said that James White also quoted others in the book Solemn Appeal, but then there is no clear identification of which things Mrs. White wrote and which things she didn't write. The average viewer can't distinguish which were her specific teachings and which were someone else's. This writer listened intently when viewing the video for the first time, and came away with the idea that the video said Mrs. White wrote these things. From #119 and #122&125 we can conclude that the video intended to connect these statements to Mrs. White rather than to her husband James. The quotation as it appears on the video is not accurate. It combines a quotation from a Mrs. Gove, a "celebrated physiological lectures," with a reference to the views of Dr. Deslandes, neither of whom were Seventh-day Adventists. The video adds words to the quotation that do not appear in Solemn Appeal, and deletes words and quotation marks without using an ellipsis. That this is true is apparent from "Point 59" of the documentation package. So James White's Solemn Appeal included material from his wife, Mrs. Gove, and Dr. Deslandes, but that wasn't all. Also cited were Sylvester Graham (from which graham flour and graham crackers are named); Rev. E. M. P. Wells, teacher in the school of moral discipline in Boston; William C. Woodbridge, a well-known educator; Dr. Woodward, celebrated superintendent of the Massachusetts State Lunatic Hospital; Todd; Dr. Goupil; Dr. Dwight; Prof. O. S. Fowler; Margaret Prior; Dr. Combe; Dr. E. P. Miller; Dr. Alcott; Dr. Snow of Boston; Dr. J. A. Brown of Providence; Adam Clarke, the Wesleyan Commentator; and Dr. Trall. How prevalent were such ideas back then? Prevalent enough that they even appeared in Clarke's Commentary, a Bible commentary extremely popular among Methodists. Here's what Adam Clarke identified as the health problems caused by "secret vice": 1. "speedily exhaust the vital principle and energy" 2. "the muscles become flaccid and feeble" 3. "the tone and natural action of the nerves relaxed and impeded" 4. "the understanding confused" 5. "the memory oblivious" 6. "the judgment perverted" 7. "the will indeterminate and wholly without energy to resist" 8. "the eyes appear languishing and without expression" 9. "the countenance vacant" 10. "the appetite ceases for the stomach is incapable of performing its proper office" 11. "nutrition fails" 12. "tremors, fears, and terrors are generated" 13. "a mind often debilitated even to a state of idiotism" (vol. 1, p. 417) Now Dr. Clarke, are you sure about all this? Reader, this is no caricature, nor are the colourings overcharged in this shocking picture. Worse woes than my pen can relate I have witnessed in those addicted to this fascinating, unnatural, and most destructive of crimes. If thou hast entered into this snare, flee from the destruction both of body and soul that awaits thee! God alone can save thee.-Ibid. Undoubtedly, Mrs. White agreed with a bit of what these physicians, professors, lecturers, preachers, and scholars taught, but we cannot assume that she and her husband agreed with everything. James White sometimes printed an article without agreeing with absolutely everything the article said. And what else would you expect him to do? The Whites were broad-minded people, able to recognize and appreciate the good in material even though it wasn't 100% correct. One thing Mrs. White did agree on was the effect that this practice has on mental health. The doctors above who worked with mental patients found that a high percentage of such patients, both men and women, were addicted to this vile habit. A scientific basis for this is documented in "Appendix A" of Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce. Two medical authorities pointed out, in 1978 and 1981, that those engaging in such a practice could easily become deficient in zinc. This in turn could lead to insanity since zinc is necessary for proper brain function (pp. 269, 270). (Speaking of insanity, does it not seem insane in this day and age of safe sex and AIDS that a "Christian" video would criticize someone's stance on the need of moral purity?) Back in 1870, Mrs. White wrote a pamphlet called Appeal to the Battle Creek Church, which was later adapted a little and then published in volume two of Testimonies for the Church. Besides referring a number of times to the reprehensible conduct of Nathan Fuller (see #116), she made these statements: Sexual excess will effectually destroy a love for devotional exercises, will take from the brain the substance needed to nourish the system, and will most effectively exhaust the vitality. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, p. 477. The body is enervated, the brain weakened. The material deposited there to nourish the system is squandered. The drain upon the system is great.-Ibid., p. 470. This sounds like zinc, for there are large amounts of zinc in neurons, glial cells, and various structures of the hippocampus. Given the following facts from Encyclopaedia Britannica, Mrs. White's statements are truly remarkable: Human zinc deficiency was not described until 1963, and it took an additional 10 years before it was confirmed and accepted that zinc is an important nutrient for humans.-"Nutrition: Recommended Intakes of Nutrients: Inorganic Elements." Features of zinc deficiency in humans have been protean: various combinations of loss of taste, retarded growth, delayed wound healing, baldness, pustular skin lesions, impotence in males, infertility in females, and reduced immunity to infections. -"Nutrition: Deficiency Diseases: Inorganic Elements." Who told Mrs. White that there was a "substance" or "material" connected with the brain and with "the nourishment of the system"? Who told her this a century before it was confirmed and accepted that zinc was an important nutrient for humans? Where did she plagiarize this from, pray tell? Mrs. White connected "secret vice" with poor memory, stunted growth, lethargy, irritability, and depression (Appeal to Mothers, pp. 6, 7; Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, p. 391). Since the practice does lower zinc levels, at least in men, and since zinc deficiency does result in poor memory, stunted growth, lethargy, irritability, and depression, her connection is valid. And given the need of zinc for the proper function of so many processes in the body, including the immune system, it isn't hard to see how zinc deficiency could result in greater susceptibility to many diseases. Want evidence that zinc deficiency can cause these problems and more? Check out the "Current Bibliographies in Medicine 98-3" entitled "Zinc and Health" ( http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cbm/zinc.html ). Prepared by the U.S. government's National Institutes of Health, it lists 3619 citations of documents published from 1990 to 1998. These citations are broken down into seven categories, including: Zinc and the Gastrointestinal Tract Zinc and the Immune System ... Zinc and Cellular Mechanisms Zinc and the Central Nervous System Zinc in Growth and Specific Disease Entities The simple fact is that Mrs. White is still current, even if her statements are nearly 140 years old. Today's scientists are still playing catch up to what she wrote back then. In 1864 she said that under certain conditions, "Cancerous humor, which would lay dormant in the system their life-time, is inflamed, and commences its eating, destructive work." Appeal to Mothers, p. 27. Dormant cancer that can be activated? Why, J. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus didn't publish their findings on "dormant viral oncogenes" until 1976, 112 years later! Their discoveries were deemed important enough that they won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1989. It now appears that dormant genes utilized by viruses or activated by carcinogens play a roll in "all forms of cancer" ("Bishop, J(ohn) Michael," Britannica® CD). And Mrs. White hinted at this in 1864! [The following does not appear in all copies of the video. See the note preceding #117-#118.] #119: "Ellen White was also concerned about children, and the ever-present danger of secret vice. James White included this quote as a warning to parents. 'After having indulged in this habit for a time, the child loses its bright and happy looks; it becomes pale with a greenish tint...' A Solemn Appeal p. 91." #119: Mrs. White said kids will get green skin. No, she did not. The book being shown at this point in the video is Mrs. White's Appeal to Mothers, and the narrator just said "Ellen White," leading the viewer to think that this statement was written by her. But the truth is simply that this quote is of E. P. Miller, M.D., physician of the Hygienic Institute in New York City, not Mrs. White. Dr. Miller was not a Seventh-day Adventist. The documentation package gives but a photocopy of this quotation under #60. If Mrs. White had really written this, it would be on the CD-ROM of her published and released writings. The documentation package gets many of its quotes from computer printouts from this CD. But for the statements from Solemn Appeal, it has to resort to photocopies of the original book, since Mrs. White didn't write these particular statements. Those born-again Christians who have concerns about the morality of their children might want to read what Mrs. White really did say on the subject. They just might find something helpful. #120 & #121: "But her belief was that these sexual appetites could be controlled by diet. First she gave a list of foods to avoid. 'Mince pies, cakes, preserves, and highly seasoned meats, with gravies... create a feverish condition in the system and inflame the animal passions... dispense with animal foods, and use grains, vegetables, and fruits as articles of diet.' A Solemn Appeal pp. 6566." #120: She said animal foods inflame the animal passions. This quotation is out of context. The impression is left that this quote says all animal foods inflame the animal passions. In reality, what it says is that highly seasoned meats, not all meats, inflame the passions. The first ellipsis shouldn't be there. The second ellipsis represents an omission of eight and a half sentences. Here's the last part that was left out: In order to strengthen in them the moral perceptions, the love of spiritual things, we must regulate the manner of our living, dispense with animal food, and use grains, vegetables, and fruits, as articles of diet. Thus while highly seasoned meats inflame the passions, a vegetarian diet would help to strengthen the moral perceptions. What about the part about preserves and cakes? Mrs. White a number of times elsewhere referred to "rich cakes and preserves" not being best for us (e.g. Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 130). Likewise, what she is talking about here is the connection between the "animal passions" and rich and highly seasoned foods. Today, many people who are not Adventists believe that avoiding rich foods is an important health practice. Your physician just may be one of them! #121: Mrs. White felt that rich foods and highly seasoned foods act as aphrodisiacs. The problem with either verifying or disproving the accuracy of her counsel in this area is, "Despite long-standing literary and popular interest in internal aphrodisiacs, almost no scientific studies of them have been made." -"aphrodisiac," Britannica® CD. So she was making apronouncement on a subject that medical science still has not researched. As already noted under #118, this is not the only time she made such statements. Consider also this one from her 1905 book Ministry of Healing: Flesh was never the best food; but its use is now doubly objectionable, since disease in animals is so rapidly increasing. Those who use flesh foods little know what they are eating. Often if they could see the animals when living and know the quality of the meat they eat, they would turn from it with loathing. People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated.-p. 313, italics added. This is really remarkable, considering the following: Rous, pronounced rows, Francis Peyton, pronounced PAY tuhn (1879-1970), an American medical researcher, proved that viruses cause some types of cancer. In 1910, Rous ground up a cancerous tumor from a chicken and filtered out everything larger than a virus. The resulting liquid produced cancer when injected into other chickens. For many years, scientists scoffed at Rous's discovery. These scientists believed cancer could not be caused by a virus because the disease is not contagious. In 1966, Rous shared the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine for his work.-"Rous, Francis Peyton," World Book Encyclopedia. In 1910 a maverick scientist proposed that cancer was caused by a virus and could be transmitted from chicken to chicken. He was subsequently derided by the scientific community for proposing such a ludicrous idea, and then waited fifty-six years before getting his Nobel Prize. Do you suppose that perhaps Mr. Rous "plagiarized" his novel idea from Ministry of Healing? Should Mrs. White be awarded a Nobel Prize posthumously? Want to win a Nobel Prize? 1. Find a concept in her writings that sounds absurd. 2. Make sure it's something that can benefit humanity. 3. Find a way to prove it. 4. Get ridiculed for proposing such a ludicrous idea. 5. Wait awhile. 6. Collect your prize. It's that simple. To be fair, it would have been nice if the video had included one of a number of stories in which Mrs. White's health counsel predated the findings of science. As Leslie Martin says on the video, "We were taught as Adventists that we had a special message for the world with our health message, and that our prophetess Ellen White was years ahead of her time." Though she may not want to admit it now, what Mrs. Martin was taught is true. #122: "Adherents were exhorted to 'Sip no more the beverage of China, no more the drinks of Java.' A Solemn Appeal p. 257." #122: She said, "Sip no more." These are the words of Professor O. S. Fowler, not Mrs. White, from his section in Solemn Appeal that was eightyseven pages long. He was not a Seventh-day Adventist. The shorter second edition of the video omits the brief explanation that James White, not his wife, put together this book (see #117-#118). Thus it is inevitable that the viewer of the second edition will wrongly conclude that Mrs. White said this. If the video wanted to criticize her views on tea and coffee, why didn't it quote what she really did say instead of what O. S. Fowler said? She did take a stand against the use of drugs, including the caffeine found in tea and coffee. But then, your doctor may have told you to kick these habits as well. It isn't easy, is it? Drugs are hard to get off of, even the milder ones. When you think about it, just about our entire nation is hooked on dope of some sort: caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and the narcotics we usually think of. Just think how the world would be a better place if we took the money saved by not using these substances and spent it on helping people. And think of how much we would save on doctor bills: Lung cancer and emphysema would become rare. The frequency of liver ailments and heart disease would lessen. Without the blood vessel constricting effects of caffeine, high blood pressure would be more easily controlled or cured. Without the sugar that often accumulates doses of caffeine and theobromine, dental expenses would drop. All without nationalized healthcare or health insurance! Sounds pretty good. But again, Mrs. White didn't write the words quoted on the video. #123: "To bring under control the male sexual appetites, besides being vegetarians, it was advised by Ellen White that they not eat an evening meal at all." #123: She said to abstain from supper for this reason. Utterly false. Under "Point 63" the documentation package offers as proof for this charge page 259 of Solemn Appeal, stating in the index that this is "EGW's advice to not eat an evening meal at all." Yet this is some of the lengthy advice of Professor Fowler, not Mrs. White. As a good health practice, for reasons quite different than what Mr. Snyder gives, Mrs. White recommended two meals a day for most people, but not everyone. For those who either had to or chose to eat a third meal, supper should be light and eaten several hours before bed time (Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 158). That way the stomach can also rest through the night. This makes good common sense. There were folk in her day who tried to make the recommendation of two meals mandatory upon all. Against this idea Mrs. White wrote, "The practice of eating but two meals a day is generally found a benefit to health; yet under some circumstances, persons may require a third meal."-Ibid., p. 176. The next two pages come down on those who would force the two-meal-a-day plan on others. On page 178 she actually called for suppers to begin to be served at Avondale College in Australia. Her position consistently was that most, not all, would do better on two meals a day, and that no one should be pushy about the matter. What the video has done here and elsewhere is nothing new. Folk back in 1845 were doing the same: On the other hand, the nominal [first-day] Adventists charged me with fanaticism, and I was falsely, and by some wickedly, represented as being the leader of the fanaticism that I was actually laboring to correct.-Early Writings, p. 21. By the way, when well-known medical doctor Sang Lee, newly converted to Christianity, was first given Counsels on Diet and Foods, he was immediately intrigued to find some of his modern ideas as an allergist in the book. He turned to the front of the book to find out where Mrs. White got her Ph.D. from, not knowing that she had only reached the third grade and had died in 1915. Why don't you check out a copy? [The following does not appear in all copies of the video. See the note preceding #117-#118.] #124: "The book A Solemn Appeal also warned readers of the dangers of sleeping on feather beds '...sleeping on feather beds and feather pillows, in close, unventilated rooms... aids in inducing this vile practice of solitary vice...' A Solemn Appeal p. 96." #124: She said not to sleep on feather beds. As with the quote under #119, this one comes from Dr. E. P. Miller, physician of the Hygienic Institute of New York City, not Mrs. White. His section in James White's Solemn Appeal was 21 pages long. The seven words omitted at the middle ellipsis state clearly what Professor Fowler had in mind: ".. . is another cause of weakness and therefore ... . Since sleeping on feather beds in unventilated rooms causes weakness and poor health, wrong habits are less easily resisted. Notice he said "sleeping on feather beds ... in close, unventilated rooms." So sleeping on them in large, airy rooms isn't a problem. It may sound strange today, but the idea that sleeping on feather beds in small, unventilated rooms was unhelathful was not an unheard of opinion back then. In 1856 a periodical listed seventeen "Ways of Committing Suicide" very slowly. Fourth on the list was "Sleeping on feather beds in seven by nine bedrooms" (Review and Herald, July 10, 1856, p. 83). Perhaps it had something to do with the bed accumulating moisture or mold. At any rate, physicians who were not Adventists were still warning against feather beds decades after Solemn Appeal came off the press (The People's Common Sense Medical Adviser, pp. 279, 377, 378). James White apparently agreed in 1870 (Solemn Appeal, p. 270). In contrast, Mrs. White's writings never warned against using feather beds or pillows. She may never have agreed with the idea. The video really ought to be criticizing the doctors of that age instead of Mrs. White, if they think there is a case to be made. But the criticizing of doctors who were never Adventists is not the purpose of the video. [The following does not appear in all copies of the video. See the note preceding #117-#118.] #125: "Interestingly enough, Ellen White on one occasion requested that her feather bed be sent to her without delay." #125: She hypocritically used a feather bed. Apparently Mr. Snyder did not read well the previous quote from Dr. Miller. He said that feather beds were unhealthful in "close, unventilated rooms." Mrs. White never said she was going to use her feather bed in such a room, so she was not contradicting her own advice, advice that she never gave. Thus she was not being hypocritical. Many Adventists do not know how Mrs. White's fourth son died in 1860: I have had a very afflicting experience in sleeping in damp beds. I slept with my infant two months old in a north bedroom [in someone else's housel. The bed had not been used for two weeks. A fire was kindled in the room, and this was considered all that was necessary. Next morning, I felt that I had taken cold. My babe seemed to be in great pain when moved. His face began to swell, and he was afflicted with erysipelas of the most aggravating form. My dear babe was a great sufferer for four weeks, and finally died, a martyr to the damp bed. Health Reformer, Jan. 1, 1872; Review and Herald, Jan. 2, 1872. Rest assured that Mrs. White, when she requested her feather bed to be sent in 1878 to where she was in Texas, planned on using it in a well-ventilated room. She knew by experience the importance of this as a measure for good health, even without connecting it to "secret vice." By the way, even if this phony charge were true, what would it prove? What about the Bible writers? Were any of them "hypocrites"? Does that mean we have to reject them as false prophets? We'll explore this issue more under #230. [The following does not appear in all copies of the video. See the note preceding #117-#118.] #126: "In the famous Battle Creek Sanitarium, while still under Adventist control, the so-called cure for secret vice was practiced. 'A sitz bath may be taken... at as low a temperature as can be tolerated without chilliness. Give at the same time a hot foot bath, and apply cool wet cloths to the head: A Solemn Appeal p. 271." #126: This is the so-called cure. Thus hydrotherapy, a very potent treatment for a variety of ailments, is ridiculed. This treatment isn't even the whole cure. It's only one part of five: "1. Diet and Regimen.... 2. Sleeping.... 3. Bathing.... 4. Exercise.... 5. Social Surroundings -pp. 270-272. The section this is found in has the heading, "Hygienic Treatment." What does this term mean? It refers to a particular school of medical thought. Today we have allopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, and other modalities of treatment. Hygienic medicine was yet another one. Hygienic physicians, such as Dr. E. P. Miller, avoided drug therapy with its side effects. Besides proper diet and exercise, they used simple treatments like hydrotherapy. So what can hydrotherapy do? When used properly, it can relieve congestion, pain, fever, fatigue, and muscle spasms; increase white blood cell activity, antibody production, and toxin elimination; and either stimulate or sedate (Dail and Thomas, Hydrotherapy, Simple Treatments for Common Ailments 1, 6, 17, 40). How effective can it be? Mrs. White advised a form of hydrotherapy for a malarial patient from Allegan, Michigan, who promptly recovered (Manuscript Releases, vol. 20, p. 279). Physicians at the General Conference sessions near the turn of the century reported the success they were having using hydrotherapy for a particular form of malaria. Their success was not attended with the side effects of drug therapy. Even in cases when quinine was unsuccessful, the hydrotherapy treatments worked (General Conference Bulletin, June 1, 1909, p. 236; June 6, p. 324; June 7, p. 357). As drug resistance in microbes becomes more of a problem, it might be wise to research the effectiveness of hydrotherapy on yet other forms of malaria, as well as other diseases. This writer knows of a physician who periodically has problems with bowel obstructions, due to scar tissue from previous surgery. She has treated herself with a particular form of hydrotherapy, and by so doing has recovered without surgery a number of times. Thus hydrotherapy rightly used is nothing to ridicule. (Those who are not sure what "rightly used" means should consult a hygienic physician. This book is obviously not intended to diagnose disease or advise a specific medical treatment.) The documentation package described "Point 66" in the index as "The Battle Creek cure for 'secret vice' used when EGW and Dr. Kellogg ran the sanitorium [sic]." The truth is that neither was running the sanitarium when Solemn Appeal was published in 1870. Kellogg was still a teenager, and didn't come on board the sanitarium staff until five or six years later. Mrs. White never ran any institution in the normal sense of the word. She only sat on one board, and that was of Madison College in Tennessee after the turn of the century. The sanitarium was founded in 1866. Between its founding and the publication of Solemn Appeal, much of that time James and Ellen were living in northern Michigan, not in Battle Creek. They had moved there to facilitate James's recovery from the paralytic stroke he had had in 1865. During this same time period, attitudes in Battle Creek were such that Mrs. White found it difficult to do far less than run an entire institution (Arthur White, vol. 2, pp. 138, 168-289). Page 268 of Solemn Appeal makes it clear that the advised course of treatment was being given by physicians who had treated "a large number of cases," the great majority of which must have been dealt with while Mrs. White was nowhere near Battle Creek. But for the video to have criticized the doctors of that time, whether Adventist or not, wouldn't have helped build its case against the ghost "behind the church." #128 & #129: "Women were not immune from Ellen White's health advice either, and she further controlled her female followers by issuing directives on their hairstyles and manner of dress. Speaking of wigs and other hair pieces she said, 'The artificial hair and pads covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves centering in the brain... in consequence... many have lost their reason and become hopelessly insane, by following this deforming fashion. Yet the slaves to fashion will continue to thus dress their heads, and suffer horrible disease and premature death...' The Health Reformer October 1, 1871." #128: She controlled her female followers with directives. Mrs. White did not issue "directives" on dress, nor did she try to control her "followers." Hear what she says regarding the reform dress, dealt with under #131 ff.: Some who adopted the reform were not content to show by example the advantages of the dress, giving, when asked, their reasons for adopting it, and letting the matter rest there. They sought to control others' conscience by their own. If they wore it, others must put it on. They forgot that none were to be compelled to wear the reform dress. It was not my duty to urge the subject upon my sisters. After presenting it before them as it had been shown me, I left them to their own conscience.... Some were greatly troubled because I did not make the dress a test question, and still others because I advised those who had unbelieving husbands or children not to adopt the reform dress, as it might lead to unhappiness that would counteract all the good to be derived from its use.-Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, pp. 636, 637. So others issued directives, but Mrs. White did not. Once again she has been charged with the very extremism she sought to counter. #129: She was against wigs. Her statement has nothing to do with what we call wigs. There is not a single usage of the word "wig" or "wigs" in all her published and released writings. Notice how the quote used by the video refers to something "deforming" that creates "heat." The context reveals even more clearly what she was talking about: Fashion loads the heads of women with artificial braids and pads, which do not add to their beauty, but give an unnatural shape to the head. The hair is strained and forced into unnatural positions, and it is not possible for the heads of these fashionable ladies to be comfortable. The artificial hair and pads covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves centering in the brain. The head should ever be kept cool. The heat caused by these artificials induces the blood to the brain.... The unnatural heat caused by these artificial deformities about the head, induces the blood to the brain, producing congestion, and causing the natural hair to fall off, producing baldness.-italics added. The White Estate posted the following at their web site (www.whiteestate.org): In the context of today's comfortable wigs, critics tend to ridicule this statement. But Mrs. White was referring to an entirely different product. The wigs she described were "monstrous bunches of curled hair, cotton, seagrass, wool, Spanish moss, and other multitudinous abominations." [The Health Reformer, July 1867.] One woman said that her chignon generated "an unnatural degree of heat in the back part of the head" and produced "a distracting headache just as long as it was worn." Another Health Reformer article (quoting from the Marshall Statesman and the Springfield Republican) described the perils of wearing "jute switches"-wigs made from dark, fibrous bark. Apparently these switches were often infested with "jute bugs," small insects that burrowed under the scalp. One woman reported that her head became raw, and her hair began to fall out. Her entire scalp "was perforated with the burrowing parasites." "The lady ... is represented as nearly crazy from the terrible suffering, and from the prospect of the horrible death which physicians do not seem able to avert." [Ibid., January 1871.] So Mrs. White was not condemning the use of a simple wig. But please, leave those jute switches alone. You might go crazy! #130: [The picture used to illustrate the previous number, consisting of a skeleton looking through a window at a lady who is fixing her hair before a mirror.] #130: This picture illustrates her concerns about wigs. The major problems with the picture, as can be seen from the context cited under #129, is that: 1. The picture does not show the lady's head loaded. 2. It does not show her head taking on an unnatural shape. 3. It does not show her wearing a wig which would make it impossible for her to be comfortable. 4. It does not show a wig that would cover the base of the brain. 5. It does not picture a style of wig that could be called a deformity. For these reasons, this picture does not illustrate at all what Mrs. White was talking about.
Cartoon illustrating the health-destroying fashions Mrs. White spoke out against. #131, #132, #133, #134, #135, & #136: "Once the deadly peril of wearing wigs was dealt with, Ellen White tried to force a hot, uncomfortable, strange style of dress on her female followers. She claimed it was designed by God. It was in reality a pair of pants with a bulky, long dress over them." #131: After the wigs came the dress. False. The article Mr. Snyder cited under #129 was dated 1871. The "reform dress" was introduced more than six years earlier in 1865. Thus the dress came before the counsel on heavy hairpieces, not after.
In contrast to the established fashion, Mrs. White's reform dress was lighter and shorter, and dispensed with the corset. Is it not interesting that the very improvements she advocated in the dress of women were eventually adopted by society? One university professor has her students study Mrs. White's position on dress reform, along with the silly criticisms she received. Hear what this professor has to say on the matter: Since the 19th Century, the forces of dress reform won their sartorial battles with the impressively cumbersome, class ridden, unhealthy and (often) anesthetic styles of the Victorian era. Dress reform went mainstream after 1900, and now we just assume the rightness of clothing that is comfortable, easy to wash, easy to move in, and healthy for the wearer.... Reform dress often isn't "pretty," but if you time traveled the average college student to 1855, she'd be wearing it in a week, because it would be the only comfortable clothes she could buy. Moreover, if she thought anyone would be insisting that she should be in a corset and petticoats, she'd think it would be a religious person like White. It is a nice bit of enlightenment for modern feminists to see that what they imagine is a purely feminist statement (bloomers) was in fact a REFORM statement, very often pushed by religious reformers, and artistic and political folks, not just feminists.-Tara Maginnis, Ph.D., University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 5, 2002, personal email. How much does Dr. Maginnis know about Adventism and Mrs. White? Is she biased? "... I'm not a member of this religion, know little about it and know next to nothing about White other than her stance on dress reform."-Ibid. Back to temperature: Since it was so much lighter than what society was wearing, it couldn't have been hot. And yet at the same time, the wearer was not cold in the winter. While the trunk had fewer layers on it and was thus cooler, the extremities were not left exposed to the winter winds (Health Reformer, May 1, 1872). #134: The dress was uncomfortable. How can not wearing corsets or long heavy skirts be uncomfortable? Repeatedly over the years, Mrs. White called upon women to wear more comfortable clothing. Take for instance these quotes from 1864 and 1868: Your girls should wear the waists of their dresses perfectly loose, and they should have a style of dress convenient, comfortable and modest.-Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 471. Christian Mother: Why not clothe your daughter as comfortably and as properly as you do your son? -Health Reformer, Sept. 1, 1868. And these from 1905: One of fashion's wasteful and mischievous devices is the skirt that sweeps the ground. Uncleanly, uncomfortable, inconvenient, unhealthful-all this and more is true of the trailing skirt. Ministry of Healing, p. 291. No part of the body should at any time be made uncomfortable by clothing that compresses any organ or restricts its freedom of movement.-Ibid., p. 382. #135: The dress was bulky. It was anything but bulky. Rather, it was intended to replace the clothing of the day that really was bulky. A wise grandmother counseled her granddaughter regarding a fashionable dress of that time: "There is no beauty in the present style, and leaving aside the awkwardness of the design, one would suppose the shackling of the limbs and the oppressive heaviness of the dress, on so delicate a part of the body as the spine, would deter women from such fatuity."-quoted in Health Reformer, May 1, 1872. The selection under #133 said that the style in 1913 had reduced the number of skirts. How ever many skirts the women of the 1870's were loading down their hips with, we do know this about Mrs. White's reform dress: "Our skirts are few and light, not taxing our strength with the burden of many and longer ones."-Ibid. #136: The dress was long. If it was long, why was it called the "short dress"? The following quote is just one example of many where it was called "short." It also shows just how little forcing Mrs. White did: Sisters who have opposing husbands have asked my advice in regard to their adopting the short dress contrary to the wishes of the husband. I advise them to wait. I do not consider the dress question of so vital importance as the Sabbath. Concerning the latter there can be no hesitation. But the opposition which many might receive should they adopt the dress reform would be more injurious to health than the dress would be beneficial. Several of these sisters have said to me: "My husband likes your dress; he says he has not one word of fault to find with it."-Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 522. At that time, many spiritualists were adopting an even shorter dress that came "halfway from the hip to the knee" (p. 465). The public was outraged by such a novelty, and novel it was. Typically, women were wearing dresses so long that they swept the streets like a "mop" (Health Reformer, Aug. 1, 1868). The reform dress avoided both these extremes, thus being more healthful without outraging the public (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 457, 464, 465). How more balanced could Mrs. White have been? #137, #138, & #139: "Faithful sisters struggled with the cumbersome dress, until Ellen White quietly stopped wearing hers some years later, with no explanation given." #137: Faithful sisters struggled. False. The dress was eventually dropped because: 1. Many "faithful" sisters wouldn't quit pushing the matter on people (see #128). 2. Other "faithful" sisters wouldn't quit complaining. 3. Other "faithful" sisters wouldn't use good taste in preparing the dress. What was it about the reform dress that caused so much complaining? There were two principal reasons: "Oh! it looks so to see women with pants!" .. . It is true that this style of dress exposes the feet. And why should woman be ashamed of her well-clad feet any more than men are of theirs? It is of no use for her to try to conceal the fact that she has feet. This was a settled fact long before the use of trailing skirts.-Health Reformer, May 1, 1872. So some didn't like the reform dress because then women would be wearing pants, something quite commonplace today. Also, they didn't like it because being able to see women's shoes was considered immodest. We've come a long ways since then. In fact, we've come too far, for there isn't a whole lot left unexposed in today's society. And so the "faithful" sisters complained: Some who wore the dress sighed over it as a heavy burden. The language of their hearts was: "Anything but this...." Murmuring and complaining were fast destroying vital godliness.-Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 637. Then we have the "faithful" sisters who lacked good taste when making the dress: In some places there is great opposition to the short dress. But when I see some dresses worn by the sisters, I do not wonder that people are disgusted and condemn the dress.... There is certainly nothing in these dresses manifesting taste or order. Such a dress would not recommend itself to the good judgment of sensible-minded persons. In every sense of the word it is a deformed dress.-Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 521, 522, #138: The dress was cumbersome. No it was not. See #133&136. #139: Mrs. White gave no explanation for stopping wearing hers. To the contrary, she explained it well: In preparing my wardrobe, both long and short dresses were made. Of the former, there were one or two for traveling, and to appear in before those who are ignorant of our faith and of dress reform, whose minds are balancing in favor of the truth. We do not wish to bring before such hearers any question that is not vital, to divert their minds from the great and important subject, for Satan takes advantage of everything that can possibly be used to divert and distract minds. I had explained all this fully. But notwithstanding all this, my sisters were so weak they could not appreciate my motives, and were too glad of a pretext to lay aside the reform dress making my example their excuse. I had felt that, for me, discretion was highly essential while laboring in California, for the salvation of souls. With Paul, I could say I became all things to all if by any means I might save some. I did not do anything secretly. I frankly gave my reasons. But unsanctified hearts which had long galled and chafed under the cross of dress reform, now took occasion to make a bold push and throw off the reform dress. They have taken advantage of my necessity to misinterpret my words, my actions, and motives. My position upon health and dress reform is unchanged. I have been shown that God gave the dress reform to our sisters as a blessing, but some have turned it into a curse, making the dress question a subject of talk and of thought, while they neglected the internal work, the adorning of their souls by personal piety. Some have thought religion consisted in wearing the reform dress, while their spirits were unsubdued by grace. They were jealous and fault finding, watching and criticizing the dress of others, and in this neglected their own souls and lost their piety. If the dress reform is thus turned to a curse, God would remove it from us. God bestowed blessings upon ancient Israel and withdrew them again because those blessings were despised and became a cause of murmuring and complaint.-Pamphlet 104, pp. 10-12, italics added except "for me." How could she have been more plain? She fully explained why she temporarily stopped wearing the reform dress. But as it is now, so it was then: Many wanted to misconstrue her motives and ignore her explanation. #140: "Our prophetess Ellen White taught that we should be vegetarians, especially in consideration of the soon return of Jesus Christ, because if we were not vegetarian when Jesus came, we would not go to be with Him when he came to gather his people." #140: Mrs. White said non-vegetarians can't go to heaven. She never made such an extreme statement. In 1905 she wrote the following: Yet it might not be best to discard flesh food under all circumstances. In certain cases of illness and exhaustion-as when persons are dying of tuberculosis, or when incurable tumors are wasting the life forces - it may be thought best to use flesh food in small quantities. But great care should be taken to secure the flesh of healthy animals.-Life and Health, Sept. 1, 1905; Bible Echo, Nov. 13, 1905. If she taught that those who aren't vegetarians when Jesus comes can't go to heaven, why would she say something like this so late in her life? The documentation package under "Point 70," "substantiates" this charge with two statements. Let's look at the second one first: Grains and fruits prepared free from grease, and in as natural a condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to heaven.-Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 64. While this statement most certainly says something, it doesn't say what Mrs. Martin said. Now let's look at the first one as it originally appeared in Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene: Again and again I have been shown that God is trying to lead us back, step by step, to his original design,-that man should subsist upon the natural products of the earth. Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat-eating will eventually be done away; flesh will cease to form a part of their diet.-p. 119. Clearly, this is another one of Mrs. White's many predictions. Time will tell if this one too will prove true. It's not a condemnatory statement. It's a simple prediction of what God's people will be doing at the time of Christ's return. That God's people will ultimately all be vegetarians is plain from Scripture: And there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Rev. 21:4) The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. (Is. 65:25; cf. 11:7) Anyone who isn't a vegetarian the day before Christ's return will be one the day after. In the new earth, even the lions will be. The immediate context of the selection from Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene will help us understand even better the biblical basis for Mrs. White's concepts on the matter. First of all, she mentions the original diet God gave Adam and Eve (p. 118). Indeed, according to the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were the very first vegetarians on the planet (Gen. 1:29; 3:18). Not until after the Flood did God permit the eating of flesh, after which man's life span drastically decreased (Gen. 9:3; 5:3-32; 11:10-32). Her point was that, in these last days, God is trying to lead us back to His original plan for mankind. She also refers to the fact that God gave the Israelites a mostly vegetarian diet during their forty years in the wilderness. Six times a week manna was on the ground in the morning, a food made by angels (Ps. 78:24, 25). On only two occasions did God in a similarly miraculous fashion provide them with flesh. Regarding the second occasion Mrs. White writes: "They murmured at God's restrictions, and lusted after the fleshpots of Egypt. God let them have flesh, but it proved a curse to them."-Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, p. 119. What was that second occasion? In Numbers 11 we find the Israelites being extremely rude, complaining about the food. So God declared: Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt? (vss. 18-20) As Mrs. White wrote, "it proved a curse to them," for some didn't live long enough to eat the flesh for a whole month: "And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague" (vs. 33). Now all this happened on their trip from Mt. Sinai to Kadesh-barnea. How far is it between the two? Just an "eleven days' journey" (Dent. 1:2). At Kadesh they sent twelve spies into the land of Canaan. After forty days, ten came back and said, "We can't conquer the land." Two, Caleb and Joshua, came back and said, "God is able to deliver the land into our hand." The people went with the majority report, rebelled once again, and tried to stone Caleb and Joshua (Num. 13:17-14:10). As a result, they had to wander around in the wilderness till all that generation was dead. Why would the Israelites have rebelled when they were on the very borders of the promised land? Psalm 106 gives us the secret: "They soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel: But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul" (vss. 13-15). Eating flesh for a whole month till it came out of their noses made their "souls" skinny. These effects were still wearing off when the spies returned and gave their report. If their souls had been fat in the Lord instead of lean, perhaps they would have gone forward in faith instead of sliding back in unbelief. Flesh was not the best article of diet for the Israelites. It affected their dispositions to the point that they could not react properly when trials and tests came their way. Even so, God never told them, "If you don't stop eating flesh, you can't enter Canaan." Let's take another look at the second of Mrs. White's two statements: Grains and fruits prepared free from grease, and in as natural a condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to heaven.-Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 64. Preparing for translation? Is there a preparatory work to be done? Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. (1 Jn. 3:2, 3) The First Epistle of John has a lot to say about overcoming sin. There is a work of preparation to be done, of giving all our sins to Jesus, and relying on Him for the power to overcome temptation. The eating of flesh does affect the disposition, and the hormones and chemicals in flesh do affect the body's processes in negative ways. Therefore, it is wise for those who are seeking to prepare for Christ's return to consider giving up eating flesh. It will only be a few days earlier than when we all will have to anyway. Speaking of hormones and chemicals, man's original diet and what happened to the Israelites isn't the whole picture, according to Mrs. White: Animals are frequently killed that have been driven quite a distance for the slaughter. Their blood has become heated. They are full of flesh, and have been deprived of healthy exercise, and when they have to travel far, they become surfeited, and exhausted, and in that condition are killed for market. Their blood is highly inflamed, and those who eat of their meat, eat poison.-Selected Messages, bk. 2, p. 418. While the animals get to ride instead of walk these days, there still is the question of how the ones that go to market get selected: Diseased animals are taken to the large cities and to the villages, and sold for food. Many of these poor creatures would have died of disease in a very short time if they had not been slaughtered; yet the carcasses of these diseased animals are prepared for the market, and people eat freely of this poisonous food.-Medical Ministry, p. 280. As the apostle Paul said, "The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Tim. 6:10). What we will do to save a buck and to make a buck. It's pathetic, isn't it? Still another problem is the following: "A very serious objection to the practice of meat eating is found in the fact that disease is becoming more and more widespread among the animal creation." -Manuscript Releases, vol. 7, p. 421. The Bible basically predicts the same (Rom. 8:19-22; Is. 51:6). As we get closer to Christ's return, disease in animals will become more and more of a problem. How bad had it gotten in her day? Cancers, tumors, diseases of the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, all exist among the animals that are used for food. Until late years we have never heard of anything approaching to the variety of diseases now apparent in the animal creation. It is stated that out of a herd of twenty cattle, the inspectors accepted only two; from another herd of one hundred, only twenty-five were accepted as having no apparent disease.-Ibid. How much better is it today? According to Mrs. White, things were going to get worse, not better: Let the people be taught how to prepare food without the use of milk or butter. Tell them that the time will soon come when there will be no safety in using eggs, milk, cream, or butter, because disease in animals is increasing in proportion to the increase of wickedness among men. The time is near when, because of the iniquity of the fallen race, the whole animal creation will groan under the diseases that curse our earth.-Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7, p. 135. Really, it would get that bad? Because of man's wickedness? Most folk have no clue what is being done for a profit today. When this writer asked a chicken farmer in Alabama around 1988 what was in the feed he was giving his chickens, the farmer replied that there was arsenic in it. It stimulated the appetites of the chickens to make them eat more and grow faster, giving higher profits in less time. Another farmer said that his chicken litter got shipped out west to the cattle feed lots. "The cows eat it like candy," he said. It saves money, and the cows get more nourishment from the pre-digested corn than from straight grain. How in the world do cows eat chicken litter like candy? "They mix it with oats and molasses," the farmer said. That explained it. Oh, but it probably wasn't just predigested corn. The feet, feathers, and bills left over from the slaughtering process typically go to a plant that turns it all into chicken feed. Another way to cut costs. And all that ends up in the chicken-litter cattle feed. It doesn't take too much intelligence to figure out that chickens aren't buzzards and cows aren't porkers. God didn't create them to eat such things. Are we not asking for trouble when we go so contrary to God's design just to make a buck? Of course, some will disagree. But with that scary Mad Cow Disease around, it's a bit more difficult to be skeptical. Cows ate cows, and their brains turned into sponges. Can that happen to the if I eat the cows? "No way," said the British authorities, but they don't say that anymore. So Mrs. White predicted that before the end, eating animal foods would become dangerous. To borrow some earlier wording from Sydney Cleveland, it either is or almost is "a matter of historical record that" this prophecy did "come true as she foretold."
|
