Why critics of Ellen G. White are "splitting hairs".

[Adventist Dissident]

Since you probally won't go and read it. I am bring it to you.

Canwright's Testimony in his own words. Let's start with the facts. Here is his side of the story. In 2 posts.


My experience shows the power which error can have over a person. I am amazed that I was held there so long, after my better judgment was convinced that it was an error. I propose to tell the simple facts, just as they were.
I was born in Kinderhook, Michigan, Sept. 22, 1840. I was converted among the Methodists under the labors of Rev. Hazzard, and baptized by him in 1858. I soon heard Elder and Mrs. White. He preached on the Sabbath, and I thought he proved that the seventh day was still binding.
As I wanted to do right I began keeping Saturday, but I did not expect to believe any more of their doctrine. Of course I attended their meetings on Saturday and worked on Sunday. This separated me from other Christians, and threw me wholly with the Adventists. I soon learned from them that other churches were Babylon; that Seventh-day Adventists were the one true people of God. They believed in Mr. Miller's work of 1844, in the visions of Mrs. White, the sleep of the dead, feet washing, etc. At first these things staggered me; but the Adventists explained everything so plausibly and so smoothed them over that I began to see things as they did and in time came to believe the whole system. Persuaded that time was short, I gave up going to school, dropped the study of all else, devoured their books, and studied my Bible day and night to sustain these new views. I was now an enthusiastic believer, and longed to convert everybody I met. I had not a doubt that it was true.
In May, 1864, I was licensed to preach. Soon began with Elder Van Horn at Ithaca, Michigan. We had good success; raised up three companies that year. In 1865 worked in Tuscola county, and had excellent success. Was ordained by Elder White that year. As I now began to see more of Elder White and wife, and the work at headquarters, I learned that there was much trouble with him. I saw that he ruled everything, and that all greatly feared him. I saw that he was often cross and unreasonable. This troubled me a little, but not seriously. In 1866 I was sent to Maine with J. N. Andrews. This was a big thing for me. I threw myself into the work with enthusiasm, and was very happy. Elder Andrews was radical in the faith, and I partook of his spirit. We had excellent success.
I returned to Battle Creek in 1867. At this time there was great trouble with Elder White, and many church meetings were held to investigate the matter. It was clear that he was wrong, but Mrs. White in her Testimonies sustained him and blamed the church. Andrews and a few proposed to stand up for the right and take the consequences. My sympathies were with them; but others feared, and finally all wilted and confessed that they had been blinded by Satan. This was signed by the ministers, and adopted by the church. (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 612.) This shook my faith a good deal, and I began to question Mrs. White's inspiration. I saw that her revelations always favored Elder White and herself. Any who questioned their course soon received a revelation denouncing him with the wrath of God.
I dared not open my mind to a soul. I was only a youth, and had little experience. Older and stronger men had broken down and confessed. What could I do? I said nothing, but felt terribly. Shortly I was back in the field. Busy with my work, preaching our doctrine, and surrounded with men who firmly believed it, I soon got over my doubts.
In 1868 I went to Massachusetts. Being away from the troubles at headquarters, I got on finely. But in May, 1869, I was in Battle Creek for a month. Things were in bad shape. Elder White was in trouble with most the leading men, and they with him. He was the real cause of it, but Mrs. White sustained him and that settled it. They were God's chosen leaders, and not to be meddled with. I felt sad. I was working hard to get men into "the truth"; to persuade them that this was a people free from the faults of the other churches; then to see such a state of things among the leaders disheartened me greatly. So far, I had had no trouble with any one, and Elder White had been cordial to me. But I saw that if I ever came to be of any prominence in the work I should have to expect the same treatment from him that all the others got.
I had been so thoroughly drilled in Adventist doctrine that I firmly believed it was what the Bible taught. To give up the SDA faith, I thought, was to give up the Bible. Hence I swallowed my doubts and went on. That year I went to Iowa to work, where I remained four years, laboring with Elder Butler, who later became the General Conference president. We had good success and raised up several churches. I finally opened my mind to Elder Butler, and told him my fears. I knew these things troubled him as well as myself, for we often spoke of them. He helped me some, and again I gathered courage and went on, feeling better. Still, I came to see more and more that somehow the thing did not work as it ought. Wherever Elder White and wife went they were always in trouble with the brethren, and the best ones, too. I came to dread having them come where I was, for I knew there would be trouble with someone or something and it never failed of so being. I saw church after church split up by them, the best brethren discouraged and maddened and driven off, while I was compelled to apologise for them continually. For years about this time, the main business at our big meetings was to listen to the complaints of Elder White against his brethren. Not a leading man escaped: Andrews, Waggoner, Smith, Loughborough, Amadon, Cornell, Aldrich, and a host of others had to take their turn at being broken on the wheel. For hours at a time, and times without number, I sat in meetings and heard Elder White and wife denounce these men, till I felt there was little manhood left in them. It violated my ideas of right and justice, and stirred my indignation. Yet whatever vote was asked by Elder White, we voted it unanimously, I with the rest. Then I would go out alone and hate myself for my cowardice, and despise my brethren for their weakness.
Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything. Not a nomination to office, not a resolution, not an item of business was ever acted upon till all had been submitted to Elder White for his approval. Till years later, we never saw an opposition vote on any question, for no one dared. The will of Elder White settled everything. If any one dared to oppose anything, however humbly, Elder White or wife quickly squelched him.
These, with other things, threw me into doubt and tempted me to quit the work. I saw able ministers and valuable men leave us because they would not stand such treatment. I envied the faith and confidence of brethren who went on ignorant of all this, supposing that Battle Creek was a little heaven on earth, when in fact it was as near purgatory as anything I could imagine.
In 1872 I went to Minnesota, where I had good success. By this time I had written much, and so was well known to our people. In July, 1873, my wife and I went to Colorado with Elder White and wife, to spend time in the mountains. I soon found things unpleasant living in the family. Now my turn had come to catch it, but instead of knuckling under, as most the others had, I told the Elder my mind freely. That brought us into an open rupture. Mrs. White heard it all, but said nothing. In a few days she had a long written testimony for my wife and me. It justified her husband in everything, and placed us as rebels against God, with no hope of heaven except by a full surrender to them. My wife and I read it many times with tears and prayers; but could see no way to reconcile it with truth. It contained many statements we knew were false. We saw that it was dictated by a spirit of retaliation, a determination to break our wills. For awhile we were in great perplexity, but still my confidence in much of the doctrine and my fear of going wrong held me; but for weeks I was miserable, not knowing what to do. I preached awhile in Colorado and then went to California, where I worked with my hands for three months, trying to settle what to do. Elder Butler, Smith, White and others wrote to us, and tried to reconcile us to the work. Not knowing what else to do, I finally decided to forget my objections, and go along as before. So we confessed to Elder White all we could, and he generously forgave us! But from that time on my faith in the inspiration of Mrs. White was weak. Elder White was very friendly to me again after that.
Now the Adventists say that I left them five times, and this is one of the five. This is untrue. I simply stopped preaching for a few weeks, but did not withdraw from the church or renounce the faith. If this is leaving them, then most their leading men have left them, for they all have had their periods of trial when they left the work awhile. About 1856, J. N. Andrews and J. N. Loughborough left the work and went into business at Waukon, Iowa. Elder Butler, for many years the General Conference President, got into trial with his brethren, and practically out of the work. He was a humble good man, with a strong sense of fairness. Elder White became jealous of him. Later Mrs. White turned against him and required a servile submission which he would not make. Said when he could not be an Adventist and a man, he would be a man. He went to Florida to work a small farm. Uriah Smith also had his seasons of doubts, when he engaged in secular employments.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

In 1874 Elder White arranged a debate between Miles Grant of Boston and one of our ministers. Though Elder White and wife, Elder Cornell and Elder Loughborough were there, they selected myself to defend our side, which I did for about a week. I mention this to show the confidence they had in me, though I had been in so great a trial but a few months before.
In 1875 we returned to Michigan. Elder Butler was now out with Elder White, who took every opportunity to snub him; but I was in high favor, was sent to the state meetings in Vermont, Kansas, Ohio, and Indiana. With Elder Smith, was sent as delegate to the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference. In 1876 I was sent to Minnesota, then to Texas, and through the southern states, to look after our interests there. Each year greater responsibilities were laid upon me. That year I raised up a church at Rome, N.Y., and labored over the State. Went with Elder White and wife to Indiana and Illinois, and was sent to Kansas to hold a debate, and to Missouri for the same purpose. This same year I was elected to the General Conference Committee of three, with Elders White and Haskell, and continued on it for two years. It is the denomination's highest official authority.
In 1877 I went to New England, where I raised up two churches. I spent 1878 working in Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio. In the fall I was elected president of the Ohio Conference. In 1879 I labored in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. At the general conference at Battle Creek in the fall, things were in a bad shape. Elder White was cross, and Mrs. White bore down heavily on several ministers. Harshness, fault-finding and trials were the order of the day. I felt that there was little of the spirit of Christ. I got away as quickly as possible. I saw more and more that instead of meekness, gentleness and love among brethren, the result of our work was a spirit of oppression, criticism, and dissension. For the next whole year these feelings grew upon me, till I began to fear we were doing more harm than good. My work called me among old churches where I could see the fruit of it. Churches that had once been large and flourishing were in a quarrel, or cold and dead. I lost heart to raise up more churches to go the same way. One day I would decide to quit them entirely, and the next day I would resolve to go on and do the best I could. I never suffered more mental anguish in my life. I labored that year in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.
In the fall of 1880 I resolved to leave and go with some other church. I was president of the Ohio Conference, and our annual meeting was at Clyde, Ohio. Elder and Mrs. White were there. My mind was made up to leave them as soon as the meeting was over. Against my protest they reelected me president. Mrs. White urged it. Though her special claim is to reveal hidden wrongs in the church, she said I was just the man for the job. I was all right so far as she knew. The next week I resigned, and wrote Elder White that I would go with them no longer. Mrs. White then sent me a written revelation, denouncing me as a child of hell and one of the wickedest of men, though two weeks earlier she thought me fit to be president of a conference!
For three months I taught elocution. I knew not what to do. I talked with ministers of other churches, but they did not seem to know how to help me. I could settle on nothing. Finally I met my present wife, who was an Adventist. Then I had a long talk with Elder Butler, Elder White, Mrs. White and others, and was persuaded that things were not as I had imagined. They said I was led by Satan, and would go to ruin. The influence of old friends, associations, habits and long cultivated ideas came up and were too strong for my better judgment. I yielded, and resolved again to live and die with them.
Early in 1881 I went with Elder White to New York. By this time he had lost the leadership of the people. Butler and Haskell had taken his place, hence he was hostile to them, working against them, and planning to get them out and get back in. He wished me to work with him against them, saying that we would then be on the General Conference Committee together. He had good grounds to oppose Haskell, who was a crafty underhanded man. Elder White wrote me: "February 11, 1881: I wish Elder Haskell were an open, frank man, so I need not watch him." Again: "May 24, 1881: Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influence over her [Mrs. White] that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined her." I could give much more to show how little confidence the church leaders had in each other.
I wrote Elder White that I could not unite with him nor work with him. July 13, 1881, he wrote me: "I have repeatedly abused you, and if you go to destruction, where many, to say the least, are willing you should go, I should ever feel that I had taken a part in your destruction. * * * I do not see how any man can labor with me." Soon after this he died. I have no doubt that Elder White persuaded himself that he was called of God to be a leader. He had some excellent qualities, and meant to be a Christian. But his desire to rule and run everything, together with an irritable temper, kept him always in trouble with someone. No one could work with him for long in peace. Elder Butler said his death was providential to save the body from a rupture. Mrs. White was so offended at this remark that for a long while she would not even talk with Butler, although he was officially the head of the church. All these things helped me to see that I was being led by selfish ambitious people, who were poor examples of religious reformers.
That year I labored in Canada, Vermont, Maine, New England and Michigan, and was elected to the State Executive Committee of Michigan. But I was unhappy; I could not get over my doubts; I had no heart in the work. Several leading ministers in the State felt about the same. I then decided to drop out of the ministry and go to farming. This I did for two years, but retained my membership with the church and worked right along with them. But I was in purgatory the whole time, trying to believe what I could not. Yet I wasn't settled on any other church, and feared I might go wrong, and so stood still. In the fall of 1884, Elder Butler, my old friend, made a great effort to get me reconciled and back at work again. He wrote me several times, finally telegraphed me and paid my fare to a camp meeting. Here I met old friends and associations, tried to see things as favorably as possible, heard explanations, etc., till at last I yielded again. I was sick of an undecided position. I thought I could do some good here anyway; all my friends were here, I believed much of the doctrine still, and feared if I left them I might go to ruin. I resolved to swallow my doubts, believe the whole thing, and stay with them for better or for worse. So I made a strong confession, of which I was ashamed before it was cold.
Was I satisfied? No. In my heart I was ashamed of myself, but tried to feel that it was not so. Soon I felt better, because I had decided. Gradually my faith came back, till I again really felt strong in the whole doctrine, and had no idea I should ever leave it again. I was sent to attend large meetings in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Iowa, and New England; assisted in revival meetings in Battle Creek; was appointed with Elder Butler to instruct the ministers on how to labor for souls; conducted a similar course in the Academy at South Lancaster, Massachusetts; was at the state meetings in New York, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In the spring of 1886 was appointed to lecture to the theology class in Battle Creek College, and Associate Editor of the Sickle.
By my appeal, an effort was made to bring our ministers to some plan of study in which they were deficient. I was on the committee to arrange this. I selected the studies, and framed the questions by which they were to be examined. I was then furnished a shorthand reporter, and in the summer was sent to ten states; namely, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota and Michigan, to attend state conferences, examine ministers, report meetings, etc., and this I did. In our conflict with the Disciples at Des Moines, Iowa, it was agreed that each side should select a representative and hold a debate on the Sabbath question. They selected Professor Dungan of Drake University; our people selected me. I made every effort to be ready, and that preparation did much to convince me of the unsoundness of some of our positions. That fall, a division occurred between our leading men over the law in Galatians. One party held it was the ceremonial law, the other the moral law: a square contradiction. After a long and heated discussion the conference closed, each party as confident as before. Nor was this the only disagreement over doctrine. This with other things brought up my old feelings of doubt, and decided me that it was time for me to examine for myself, and not be led by persons who could not agree among themselves.
I then used every minute I could to examine the evidence on the Sabbath, the law, the sanctuary and the visions, till I knew they were untrue. Then I laid the matter before the leading men at Battle Creek, resigned the positions I held, and asked to leave the church. This was the first and only time I ever withdrew; nor during my twenty-eight years with them had any charge ever been made against me. As soon as I took my stand, a great burden rolled off. I felt like a new man. At last I was free.
My doubts of it did not come to me all at once and clearly. The evidence accumulated year by year, till at last it overbalanced the doctrine, and then I abandoned it.
Adventists say that because I left them for the Baptists I am an apostate. If to change one's opinion and join another church makes a person an apostate, then half their members are apostates for they have come to the Adventists from other churches. Again, they praise the book Fifty Years in Rome, by a former Catholic. His high standing and long experience in that church they say make his book invaluable. But they say that my own high standing and long experience with them only proves that I am a hypocrite.
Suppose I had been an office-seeking man, caring more for place and position than for truth and conscience, what would I have done? I would have gone right along, pretending to be firm in the faith. But instead, time and again I went to the leading men, and told them my doubts. Let candid men judge of my motives.
The day I left them I held the following positions: Was their teacher of theology in the college at Battle Creek; was associate editor of the Gospel Sickle; was writing the lessons for all their Sabbath Schools; had charge of eighteen churches in Michigan; was member of the Executive Committee of the Michigan State Sabbath School Association; was chairman of the International Sabbath School Association; was on nine committees...
I was getting higher pay than ever, the leading men were my warm personal friends. Had I desired office, or better position, all I had to do was to go right along and positions would come to me faster than I could fill them. But if I left them, where could I go? What could I do? How even make a living? I took this all in, and it required all the courage and faith in God I could muster to take the risk.
It cost me a terrible struggle and a great sacrifice, for in doing it I had to leave my life-long friends, the whole work of my life, the means of my support, every position I held. I had to begin life anew, among strangers, uncertain where to go or what to do. No one who has not tried it can begin to realize the struggle it requires.
Anyone of fairness can see that if my motive was self-interest I would have stayed. Yet, as soon as I did leave them, though I went out quietly and peaceably, and even spoke favorably of them, they immediately attributed to me all sorts of evil motives and ambitious designs.

 

[reddogs]

All I can say is her prophecies are coming true:

"Every soul is taking sides. All are ranging themselves either under the banner of truth and righteousness or under the banner of the apostate powers that are contending for the supremacy."
Manuscript Releases, vol 7, p 92.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Either the evil angels or the angels of God are controlling the minds of men. Our minds are given to the control of God, or to the control of the powers of darkness; and it will be well for us to inquire where we are standing today--whether under the blood-stained banner of Prince Emmanuel, or under the black banner of the powers of darkness." SDA Bible Commentary, vol 6, p 1120. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"There can be only two classes. Each party is distinctly stamped, either with the seal of the living God, or with the mark of the beast or his image. Each son and daughter of Adam chooses Christ or Barabbas as his general. All who place themselves on the side of the disloyal are under Satan's black banner, and are charged with rejecting and despitefully using Christ. They are charged with deliberately crucifying the Lord of life and glory." Review and Herald, vol 4, p 148. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Since SDA's who profess, but do not obey Christ, are clearly not what God considers to be His true church and people, then to whose church do they belong? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Satan has a large confederacy, his church. Christ calls them the synagogue of Satan because the members are the children of sin. The members of Satan's church have been constantly working to cast off the divine law, and confuse the distinction between good and evil. Satan is working with great power in and through the children of disobedience to exalt treason and apostasy as truth and loyalty." Testimonies to Ministers, p 16. [/FONT]

 

[djconklin]

>wow you guys just take what ever the demoninations says.

Pardon me but I have no idea what the denomination said ab't this. I went solely on the basis of what was written in the posts on this forum. Please do not try to insult me again.

>As far as the supplying evidence for "canwright sectary." goes you are presenting the idea that it is valid, so the burden of proof is on you not me. ... now you show me your's.

I did not present any idea. I asked for proof of your claims--you made the claims so the burden of proof is on you. I have no burden of proof. The question now is did you verify what was claimed on the web site, or did you simply assume that they told you the truth?

>but to appease you here you go. You probally won't read it anyway's

1) Never assume.
2) I did.
3) I also checked on one of the claims: that the secretary claimed Canright had a "peg leg." I went to
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/canright/ and checked each and every single one of the chapters. None of them contained the words "peg leg." Now, why is that? Note that the web page you referred us to didn't say where (i.e., on what page) this claim is made. That is a clue that something might be wrong here.

I also checked Douty's book on the SDA church and he doesn't say anything about Canright (according to the index in the back of the book. Note also that the web site you gave us didn't tell us where we could verify that Douty asked and what the response was. That's another clue that something might be amiss.

Exactly how many of these "facts" did you verify?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

All I can say is her prophecies are coming true:

"Every soul is taking sides

That is funny! So there was a time when that didn't happen?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

That is funny! So there was a time when that didn't happen?

Good observation. those statments are so general and could be applied to any one at any time.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I have yet, with the exception of DL's one attempt, i have yet see you discuss the issues. This post is "is about why the critics are hair splitting" you wanted to discuss the critics issues. and I have only seen one attempt to get people to discuss the issues. I have posted canwrights own testiomony and you have not even responded to the issues in the statment. DL made and attempt to talk about issues and I respect that. I am not convinced by the argumen, at least he is disscusing the issues, The charges of the critics. I find it intresting that the Bible, creation, the reality of christ , the flood, the dating of daniel can be discussed, question and challanged in an intelligent manner, but question the validity of EGW, raise objections to the testiomonies and ...Let'st talk about issues. you have the links above to check out the claims of the crtics. check them out read them and then let's discuss. SDA make the claim that there is a prophet/messenger from the lord. ok. lets put it to the test. this post started with how to test a prophet ok let do it. The critics say she fails the test for varisous resons. If the evidence is there to conteract the critics then being it foreward

 

[Adventist Dissident]

http://www.ellenwhite.org/
http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm

http://www.truthorfables.com/
http://www.truthorfables.com/canwright

http://www.ex-sda.com/
http://www.ex-sda.com/experience-DMC.htm


Yea these are the links I was talking about.

here ar the critics, read this

 

[OntheDL]

Originally Posted by RC_NewProtestants
That is funny! So there was a time when that didn't happen?
Good observation. those statments are so general and could be applied to any one at any time.

With regard to the church, there were times the church was united. The apostles were united. The early Adventist church was united.

So Ellen White's statement applied to the apostasy of these last days.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

>wow you guys just take what ever the demoninations says.

Pardon me but I have no idea what the denomination said ab't this. I went solely on the basis of what was written in the posts on this forum. Please do not try to insult me again.

>As far as the supplying evidence for "canwright sectary." goes you are presenting the idea that it is valid, so the burden of proof is on you not me. ... now you show me your's.

I did not present any idea. I asked for proof of your claims--you made the claims so the burden of proof is on you. I have no burden of proof. The question now is did you verify what was claimed on the web site, or did you simply assume that they told you the truth?

>but to appease you here you go. You probally won't read it anyway's

1) Never assume.
2) I did.
3) I also checked on one of the claims: that the secretary claimed Canright had a "peg leg." I went to
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/canright/ and checked each and every single one of the chapters. None of them contained the words "peg leg." Now, why is that? Note that the web page you referred us to didn't say where (i.e., on what page) this claim is made. That is a clue that something might be wrong here.

Of this Elder Morrison wrote in his privately published book, issued a few months after the visit:Note 2 "We met and visited as friends." He then described a very serious accident that happened to Canright: "A few minutes after our last interview a sad and it was feared a fatal accident befell him. He fell and broke an arm and a limb. After he was taken to the hospital, I visited him every day while I stayed in Battle Creek."—Pages 2, 3.
Seemingly, the incident was of no interest to the public press, for no report of the accident appeared. There are some discrepancies regarding details of the occurrence. All agree that there was such an accident, and as to its seriousness. The hospital records sustain this.
As I visited with Canright's niece, Marie Wright, a few years after his death, she told me that her uncle, Dudley Canright, carried a key to the basement door of the Baptist church in Battle Creek, where he had a desk, and was privileged to come and go at will. Mr. Cornell told me of this while I was working with Mr. Canright.
Not having been to the church for some time, he was unaware that extensive remodeling was under way and that the steps leading down from the basement door had been removed. That Friday evening, March 10, 1916, Canright stepped inside the door and fell to the basement, landing on top of a heap of rubbish. He lay there badly injured until the following Sunday morning, when he was found by the janitor, more dead than alive.
Sanitarium records specify that he was admitted for care on Monday, March 13. This would tend to substantiate his

Page 164​

niece's memory that he was taken first to the city hospital, then transferred to the Battle Creek Sanitarium Hospital at his own request.
Other reports indicate that he fell on the stairs of the Tabernacle. While the exact location of the accident may be disputed, the facts are that, in mid-March, 1916, D. M. Canright sustained a fall, was badly hurt, and some thought fatally injured. The contemporary Morrison publication and the Battle Creek Sanitarium records sustain this fact.
Several operations ensued during his stay of more than two months at the Sanitarium. His leg was amputated. Mr. Canright suffered intensely, but made gradual recovery.


this is in the appendix of the link to the book you gave me. while it is true the "word" peg leg may not occur in the book, refrence to an amputation is. This would hold up the claim why people would be saying he had a peg leg



[/quote]
I also checked Douty's book on the SDA church and he doesn't say anything about Canright (according to the index in the back of the book. Note also that the web site you gave us didn't tell us where we could verify that Douty asked and what the response was. That's another clue that something might be amiss.

[/quote]

 

[Adventist Dissident]

A personal statement

I want to make a statment as to my postion on EGW. When ever I engage in discussion with SDA's there is a tendency to thing that a person criticizing you in againt you. I am not. I favor EGW and believe that she may have had the prophetic gift. That being said I do belive that SDA's tend to take for granted that the evidence will come out in her favor with out work. when ever critics have attacked SDA's don't deal with it. The invalidate or or deny it. . None of the SDA postitions are based on EGW not one. lets discuss the issues.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Since you probally won't go and read it. I am bring it to you.

Canwright's Testimony in his own words. Let's start with the facts. Here is his side of the story. In 2 posts.


My experience shows the power which error can have over a person. I am amazed that I was held there so long, after my better judgment was convinced that it was an error. I propose to tell the simple facts, just as they were.
I was born in Kinderhook, Michigan, Sept. 22, 1840. I was converted among the Methodists under the labors of Rev. Hazzard, and baptized by him in 1858. I soon heard Elder and Mrs. White. He preached on the Sabbath, and I thought he proved that the seventh day was still binding.
As I wanted to do right I began keeping Saturday, but I did not expect to believe any more of their doctrine. Of course I attended their meetings on Saturday and worked on Sunday. This separated me from other Christians, and threw me wholly with the Adventists. I soon learned from them that other churches were Babylon; that Seventh-day Adventists were the one true people of God. They believed in Mr. Miller's work of 1844, in the visions of Mrs. White, the sleep of the dead, feet washing, etc. At first these things staggered me; but the Adventists explained everything so plausibly and so smoothed them over that I began to see things as they did and in time came to believe the whole system. Persuaded that time was short, I gave up going to school, dropped the study of all else, devoured their books, and studied my Bible day and night to sustain these new views. I was now an enthusiastic believer, and longed to convert everybody I met. I had not a doubt that it was true.
In May, 1864, I was licensed to preach. Soon began with Elder Van Horn at Ithaca, Michigan. We had good success; raised up three companies that year. In 1865 worked in Tuscola county, and had excellent success. Was ordained by Elder White that year. As I now began to see more of Elder White and wife, and the work at headquarters, I learned that there was much trouble with him. I saw that he ruled everything, and that all greatly feared him. I saw that he was often cross and unreasonable. This troubled me a little, but not seriously. In 1866 I was sent to Maine with J. N. Andrews. This was a big thing for me. I threw myself into the work with enthusiasm, and was very happy. Elder Andrews was radical in the faith, and I partook of his spirit. We had excellent success.
I returned to Battle Creek in 1867. At this time there was great trouble with Elder White, and many church meetings were held to investigate the matter. It was clear that he was wrong, but Mrs. White in her Testimonies sustained him and blamed the church. Andrews and a few proposed to stand up for the right and take the consequences. My sympathies were with them; but others feared, and finally all wilted and confessed that they had been blinded by Satan. This was signed by the ministers, and adopted by the church. (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 612.) This shook my faith a good deal, and I began to question Mrs. White's inspiration. I saw that her revelations always favored Elder White and herself. Any who questioned their course soon received a revelation denouncing him with the wrath of God.
I dared not open my mind to a soul. I was only a youth, and had little experience. Older and stronger men had broken down and confessed. What could I do? I said nothing, but felt terribly. Shortly I was back in the field. Busy with my work, preaching our doctrine, and surrounded with men who firmly believed it, I soon got over my doubts.
In 1868 I went to Massachusetts. Being away from the troubles at headquarters, I got on finely. But in May, 1869, I was in Battle Creek for a month. Things were in bad shape. Elder White was in trouble with most the leading men, and they with him. He was the real cause of it, but Mrs. White sustained him and that settled it. They were God's chosen leaders, and not to be meddled with. I felt sad. I was working hard to get men into "the truth"; to persuade them that this was a people free from the faults of the other churches; then to see such a state of things among the leaders disheartened me greatly. So far, I had had no trouble with any one, and Elder White had been cordial to me. But I saw that if I ever came to be of any prominence in the work I should have to expect the same treatment from him that all the others got.
I had been so thoroughly drilled in Adventist doctrine that I firmly believed it was what the Bible taught. To give up the SDA faith, I thought, was to give up the Bible. Hence I swallowed my doubts and went on. That year I went to Iowa to work, where I remained four years, laboring with Elder Butler, who later became the General Conference president. We had good success and raised up several churches. I finally opened my mind to Elder Butler, and told him my fears. I knew these things troubled him as well as myself, for we often spoke of them. He helped me some, and again I gathered courage and went on, feeling better. Still, I came to see more and more that somehow the thing did not work as it ought. Wherever Elder White and wife went they were always in trouble with the brethren, and the best ones, too. I came to dread having them come where I was, for I knew there would be trouble with someone or something and it never failed of so being. I saw church after church split up by them, the best brethren discouraged and maddened and driven off, while I was compelled to apologise for them continually. For years about this time, the main business at our big meetings was to listen to the complaints of Elder White against his brethren. Not a leading man escaped: Andrews, Waggoner, Smith, Loughborough, Amadon, Cornell, Aldrich, and a host of others had to take their turn at being broken on the wheel. For hours at a time, and times without number, I sat in meetings and heard Elder White and wife denounce these men, till I felt there was little manhood left in them. It violated my ideas of right and justice, and stirred my indignation. Yet whatever vote was asked by Elder White, we voted it unanimously, I with the rest. Then I would go out alone and hate myself for my cowardice, and despise my brethren for their weakness.
Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything. Not a nomination to office, not a resolution, not an item of business was ever acted upon till all had been submitted to Elder White for his approval. Till years later, we never saw an opposition vote on any question, for no one dared. The will of Elder White settled everything. If any one dared to oppose anything, however humbly, Elder White or wife quickly squelched him.
These, with other things, threw me into doubt and tempted me to quit the work. I saw able ministers and valuable men leave us because they would not stand such treatment. I envied the faith and confidence of brethren who went on ignorant of all this, supposing that Battle Creek was a little heaven on earth, when in fact it was as near purgatory as anything I could imagine.
In 1872 I went to Minnesota, where I had good success. By this time I had written much, and so was well known to our people. In July, 1873, my wife and I went to Colorado with Elder White and wife, to spend time in the mountains. I soon found things unpleasant living in the family. Now my turn had come to catch it, but instead of knuckling under, as most the others had, I told the Elder my mind freely. That brought us into an open rupture. Mrs. White heard it all, but said nothing. In a few days she had a long written testimony for my wife and me. It justified her husband in everything, and placed us as rebels against God, with no hope of heaven except by a full surrender to them. My wife and I read it many times with tears and prayers; but could see no way to reconcile it with truth. It contained many statements we knew were false. We saw that it was dictated by a spirit of retaliation, a determination to break our wills. For awhile we were in great perplexity, but still my confidence in much of the doctrine and my fear of going wrong held me; but for weeks I was miserable, not knowing what to do. I preached awhile in Colorado and then went to California, where I worked with my hands for three months, trying to settle what to do. Elder Butler, Smith, White and others wrote to us, and tried to reconcile us to the work. Not knowing what else to do, I finally decided to forget my objections, and go along as before. So we confessed to Elder White all we could, and he generously forgave us! But from that time on my faith in the inspiration of Mrs. White was weak. Elder White was very friendly to me again after that.
Now the Adventists say that I left them five times, and this is one of the five. This is untrue. I simply stopped preaching for a few weeks, but did not withdraw from the church or renounce the faith. If this is leaving them, then most their leading men have left them, for they all have had their periods of trial when they left the work awhile. About 1856, J. N. Andrews and J. N. Loughborough left the work and went into business at Waukon, Iowa. Elder Butler, for many years the General Conference President, got into trial with his brethren, and practically out of the work. He was a humble good man, with a strong sense of fairness. Elder White became jealous of him. Later Mrs. White turned against him and required a servile submission which he would not make. Said when he could not be an Adventist and a man, he would be a man. He went to Florida to work a small farm. Uriah Smith also had his seasons of doubts, when he engaged in secular employments.

i have hilighted the issues raide by DM canwirght. please pick an issue so we can discuss it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

In 1874 Elder White arranged a debate between Miles Grant of Boston and one of our ministers. Though Elder White and wife, Elder Cornell and Elder Loughborough were there, they selected myself to defend our side, which I did for about a week. I mention this to show the confidence they had in me, though I had been in so great a trial but a few months before.
In 1875 we returned to Michigan. Elder Butler was now out with Elder White, who took every opportunity to snub him; but I was in high favor, was sent to the state meetings in Vermont, Kansas, Ohio, and Indiana. With Elder Smith, was sent as delegate to the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference. In 1876 I was sent to Minnesota, then to Texas, and through the southern states, to look after our interests there. Each year greater responsibilities were laid upon me. That year I raised up a church at Rome, N.Y., and labored over the State. Went with Elder White and wife to Indiana and Illinois, and was sent to Kansas to hold a debate, and to Missouri for the same purpose. This same year I was elected to the General Conference Committee of three, with Elders White and Haskell, and continued on it for two years. It is the denomination's highest official authority.
In 1877 I went to New England, where I raised up two churches. I spent 1878 working in Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio. In the fall I was elected president of the Ohio Conference. In 1879 I labored in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. At the general conference at Battle Creek in the fall, things were in a bad shape. Elder White was cross, and Mrs. White bore down heavily on several ministers. Harshness, fault-finding and trials were the order of the day. I felt that there was little of the spirit of Christ. I got away as quickly as possible. I saw more and more that instead of meekness, gentleness and love among brethren, the result of our work was a spirit of oppression, criticism, and dissension. For the next whole year these feelings grew upon me, till I began to fear we were doing more harm than good. My work called me among old churches where I could see the fruit of it. Churches that had once been large and flourishing were in a quarrel, or cold and dead. I lost heart to raise up more churches to go the same way. One day I would decide to quit them entirely, and the next day I would resolve to go on and do the best I could. I never suffered more mental anguish in my life. I labored that year in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.
In the fall of 1880 I resolved to leave and go with some other church. I was president of the Ohio Conference, and our annual meeting was at Clyde, Ohio. Elder and Mrs. White were there. My mind was made up to leave them as soon as the meeting was over. Against my protest they reelected me president. Mrs. White urged it. Though her special claim is to reveal hidden wrongs in the church, she said I was just the man for the job. I was all right so far as she knew. The next week I resigned, and wrote Elder White that I would go with them no longer. Mrs. White then sent me a written revelation, denouncing me as a child of hell and one of the wickedest of men, though two weeks earlier she thought me fit to be president of a conference!
For three months I taught elocution. I knew not what to do. I talked with ministers of other churches, but they did not seem to know how to help me. I could settle on nothing. Finally I met my present wife, who was an Adventist. Then I had a long talk with Elder Butler, Elder White, Mrs. White and others, and was persuaded that things were not as I had imagined. They said I was led by Satan, and would go to ruin. The influence of old friends, associations, habits and long cultivated ideas came up and were too strong for my better judgment. I yielded, and resolved again to live and die with them.
Early in 1881 I went with Elder White to New York. By this time he had lost the leadership of the people. Butler and Haskell had taken his place, hence he was hostile to them, working against them, and planning to get them out and get back in. He wished me to work with him against them, saying that we would then be on the General Conference Committee together. He had good grounds to oppose Haskell, who was a crafty underhanded man. Elder White wrote me: "February 11, 1881: I wish Elder Haskell were an open, frank man, so I need not watch him." Again: "May 24, 1881: Elders Butler and Haskell have had an influence over her [Mrs. White] that I hope to see broken. It has nearly ruined her." I could give much more to show how little confidence the church leaders had in each other.
I wrote Elder White that I could not unite with him nor work with him. July 13, 1881, he wrote me: "I have repeatedly abused you, and if you go to destruction, where many, to say the least, are willing you should go, I should ever feel that I had taken a part in your destruction. * * * I do not see how any man can labor with me." Soon after this he died. I have no doubt that Elder White persuaded himself that he was called of God to be a leader. He had some excellent qualities, and meant to be a Christian. But his desire to rule and run everything, together with an irritable temper, kept him always in trouble with someone. No one could work with him for long in peace. Elder Butler said his death was providential to save the body from a rupture. Mrs. White was so offended at this remark that for a long while she would not even talk with Butler, although he was officially the head of the church. All these things helped me to see that I was being led by selfish ambitious people, who were poor examples of religious reformers.
That year I labored in Canada, Vermont, Maine, New England and Michigan, and was elected to the State Executive Committee of Michigan. But I was unhappy; I could not get over my doubts; I had no heart in the work. Several leading ministers in the State felt about the same. I then decided to drop out of the ministry and go to farming. This I did for two years, but retained my membership with the church and worked right along with them. But I was in purgatory the whole time, trying to believe what I could not. Yet I wasn't settled on any other church, and feared I might go wrong, and so stood still. In the fall of 1884, Elder Butler, my old friend, made a great effort to get me reconciled and back at work again. He wrote me several times, finally telegraphed me and paid my fare to a camp meeting. Here I met old friends and associations, tried to see things as favorably as possible, heard explanations, etc., till at last I yielded again. I was sick of an undecided position. I thought I could do some good here anyway; all my friends were here, I believed much of the doctrine still, and feared if I left them I might go to ruin. I resolved to swallow my doubts, believe the whole thing, and stay with them for better or for worse. So I made a strong confession, of which I was ashamed before it was cold.
Was I satisfied? No. In my heart I was ashamed of myself, but tried to feel that it was not so. Soon I felt better, because I had decided. Gradually my faith came back, till I again really felt strong in the whole doctrine, and had no idea I should ever leave it again. I was sent to attend large meetings in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Iowa, and New England; assisted in revival meetings in Battle Creek; was appointed with Elder Butler to instruct the ministers on how to labor for souls; conducted a similar course in the Academy at South Lancaster, Massachusetts; was at the state meetings in New York, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In the spring of 1886 was appointed to lecture to the theology class in Battle Creek College, and Associate Editor of the Sickle.
By my appeal, an effort was made to bring our ministers to some plan of study in which they were deficient. I was on the committee to arrange this. I selected the studies, and framed the questions by which they were to be examined. I was then furnished a shorthand reporter, and in the summer was sent to ten states; namely, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota and Michigan, to attend state conferences, examine ministers, report meetings, etc., and this I did. In our conflict with the Disciples at Des Moines, Iowa, it was agreed that each side should select a representative and hold a debate on the Sabbath question. They selected Professor Dungan of Drake University; our people selected me. I made every effort to be ready, and that preparation did much to convince me of the unsoundness of some of our positions. That fall, a division occurred between our leading men over the law in Galatians. One party held it was the ceremonial law, the other the moral law: a square contradiction. After a long and heated discussion the conference closed, each party as confident as before. Nor was this the only disagreement over doctrine. This with other things brought up my old feelings of doubt, and decided me that it was time for me to examine for myself, and not be led by persons who could not agree among themselves.
I then used every minute I could to examine the evidence on the Sabbath, the law, the sanctuary and the visions, till I knew they were untrue. Then I laid the matter before the leading men at Battle Creek, resigned the positions I held, and asked to leave the church. This was the first and only time I ever withdrew; nor during my twenty-eight years with them had any charge ever been made against me. As soon as I took my stand, a great burden rolled off. I felt like a new man. At last I was free.
My doubts of it did not come to me all at once and clearly. The evidence accumulated year by year, till at last it overbalanced the doctrine, and then I abandoned it.
Adventists say that because I left them for the Baptists I am an apostate. If to change one's opinion and join another church makes a person an apostate, then half their members are apostates for they have come to the Adventists from other churches. Again, they praise the book Fifty Years in Rome, by a former Catholic. His high standing and long experience in that church they say make his book invaluable. But they say that my own high standing and long experience with them only proves that I am a hypocrite.
Suppose I had been an office-seeking man, caring more for place and position than for truth and conscience, what would I have done? I would have gone right along, pretending to be firm in the faith. But instead, time and again I went to the leading men, and told them my doubts. Let candid men judge of my motives.
The day I left them I held the following positions: Was their teacher of theology in the college at Battle Creek; was associate editor of the Gospel Sickle; was writing the lessons for all their Sabbath Schools; had charge of eighteen churches in Michigan; was member of the Executive Committee of the Michigan State Sabbath School Association; was chairman of the International Sabbath School Association; was on nine committees...
I was getting higher pay than ever, the leading men were my warm personal friends. Had I desired office, or better position, all I had to do was to go right along and positions would come to me faster than I could fill them. But if I left them, where could I go? What could I do? How even make a living? I took this all in, and it required all the courage and faith in God I could muster to take the risk.
It cost me a terrible struggle and a great sacrifice, for in doing it I had to leave my life-long friends, the whole work of my life, the means of my support, every position I held. I had to begin life anew, among strangers, uncertain where to go or what to do. No one who has not tried it can begin to realize the struggle it requires.
Anyone of fairness can see that if my motive was self-interest I would have stayed. Yet, as soon as I did leave them, though I went out quietly and peaceably, and even spoke favorably of them, they immediately attributed to me all sorts of evil motives and ambitious designs.

Here is the 2nd half, please pick an issue for discussion.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Brief Overview of the Shut Door

Esta pagina in Español​

When Christ failed to return in 1844 there was great confusion among the followers of William Miller. Most of the Millerites returned to their churches, but others were too ashamed to admit their error or felt too humiliated to return. It was among these people that the "shut door" teaching developed. The teaching is based upon the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25. These people firmly believed that they had given the "midnight cry" (Matt. 25:6) and that Jesus, the Bridegroom, came to the "marriage supper" on October 22, 1844:

And while they [foolish virgins] went to buy, the Bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with Him to the marriage; and the door was shut. Matt. 25:10​

They taught that on October 22, 1844, Christ got up and moved from the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place. In so doing, Christ shut the door of salvation to all except those Advent believers who had joined Miller's 1844 movement. They believed that Jesus was "shut in" with His special people, preparing them to receive His kingdom. They believed that since October 22, 1844, Christ was ministering only to Israel (the Advent believers). They taught that Christ was testing His children on certain points of truth, such as the Sabbath, and that their work for the salvation of others was finished. Joseph Bates held the view that there would be a 7-year period where Christ would test His children and that Christ would return to earth in 1851. In 1848 there was a war in Europe, and later a pestilence occurred, and the Advent believers took these events as signs that the time of trouble had commenced.
Ellen White had visions supporting this "shut door" doctrine, and James White's paper--Present Truth--trumpeted the shut door teaching up until late 1850. The doctrine was rejected by William Miller and most of the leaders in the Millerite movement. It was accepted by a small number of followers of Joseph Bates and the Whites.
In early 1850 the "shut door" began to slip open. Those who were Christians in 1844, but had not had opportunity to hear Miller's time-setting message were allowed to enter the church. Near the end of 1850 the "shut door" opened a little further. The Adventists were shocked when a man who was a non-believer in 1844 accepted the Adventist message in August, 1850, and started attending their meetings. It was their first conversion of an unconverted man since 1844!
In 1851, when it became evident that Christ was not going to return, the Whites modified their teaching on the "shut door". James White abandoned the Present Truth magazine and started a new magazine, the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. He reprinted his wife's visions in 1851, but was careful to remove those parts referencing the erroneous "shut door" doctrine. The doctrine disappeared from the writings of the leaders and most of the new converts into the church never heard of it nor had any idea that their prophet had seen a "shut door" of salvation in her visions.


http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw1.htm



How about talking about this issue.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Shut Door Chronology

Esta pagina in Español​

1844

October 22 Great Disappointment. Christ fails to return on the date predicted by William Miller. December Most Millerites have returned to their previous churches. Some continue to insist the movement was correct. They teach:

• Jesus entered the Most Holy Place on Oct. 22, 1844.
• Jesus fulfilled the parable of the 10 virgins where the Bridegroom "enters in" with the five ready virgins.
• The door of salvation has been "shut" to those who were not part of the 1844 Millerite movement.
• They are now in a "testing time" and Jesus will come within one year.

December 11 William Miller writes, "We have done our work in warning sinners and in trying to awake a formal church. God in his providence has shut the door; we can only stir up one another to be patient" (Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844). 1845

Jan. - Dec. Ellen White begins having visions regarding the "shut door." One who witnessed her visions in his home, John Megquier, wrote: "We well know the course of Ellen G. White, the visionist, while in the state of Maine. About the first visions she had were at my house in Poland. She said that God had told her in vision that the door of mercy had closed, and there was no more chance for the world." (The True Sabbath, by Miles Grant, p. 70) Mrs. L.S. Burdick was well acquainted with Mrs. White. She wrote: "I became acquainted with James White and Ellen Harmon (now Mrs. White) early in 1845. . . Ellen was having what was called visions: said that God had shown her in vision that Jesus Christ arose and on the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844, shut the door of mercy; had left forever the mediatorial throne; the whole world was doomed and lost; and there never could be another sinner saved." (The True Sabbath, p. 72).
February 7 O.R.L. Crosier publishes his understanding of Christ entering the Most Holy Place on Oct. 22, 1844, in the Day Star. Mrs. White later endorses this publication as "true light." February 19 William Miller expresses his belief that no sinners have been converted on the earth during the last five months: "I have not seen a genuine conversion since [Oct. 22, 1844]." Voice of Truth, Feb. 19,1845. 1846

April 20 Otis Nichols, a believer in Ellen White and a witness to her visions, writes to William Miller: "Her message...encouraged them to hold on to the faith, and the seventh month movement; and that our work was done for the nominal church and the world, and what remained to be done was for the household of faith." Fall Joseph Bates meets Ellen and James White. They accept Bate's teaching that the Day of Atonement would last seven years, ending in the fall of 1851. Bates later wrote out his theories: "The seven spots of blood on the Golden Altar and before the mercy seat, I fully believe, represent the duration of the judicial proceedings on the living saints in the Most Holy, all of which time they will be in their affliction, even seven years; God by his voice will deliver them, 'for it is the blood that maketh the atonement for the soul' (Lev. 17:11). Then the number seven will finish the day of atonement. (The Typical and Anti-typical Sanctuary, p. 10, 1850) 1847

April James White published "A Word to the Little Flock." In it we find:

• Ellen White has a vision showing the Advent people walking on a path toward heaven. She saw some fall of the path and she wrote of them: "It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected."
• James White: "From the ascension, to the shutting of the door, Oct. 1844, Jesus stood with wide-spread arms of love, and mercy; ready to receive, and plead the cause of every sinner, who would come to God by him. On the 10th day of the 7th month, 1844, he passed into the Holy of Holies, where he has since been a merciful 'high priest over the house of God.' "

1848

Jan. - Dec. Many of the Millerites give up the "shut door" teaching by the end of the year. O.R.L. Crosier, the originator of the SDA teaching on the Sanctuary tells of his experience in 1848: "I kept the seventh day nearly a year, about 1848. In 1846 I explained the idea of the sanctuary in an article in an extra number of the Day Star, Cincinnati, O. The object of that article was to support the theory that the door of mercy was shut, a theory which I, and nearly all Adventists who had adopted William Miller's views, held from 1844 to 1848. Yes, I know that Ellen G. Harmon - now Mrs. White - held that shut-door theory at that time." 1849

Joseph Bates announces the time of trouble has begun: "And now the time of trouble has began..." ("A Seal of the Living God", 1849) March 24 Mrs. White receives visions in Topsham, Maine, that confirm belief in the shut door: "God gave me two visions while there, much to the comfort and strength of the brethren and sisters. Brother Stowell was established in the shut door and all the present truth he had doubted." Manuscript Releases, Vol. 5, p. 93 August Ellen White places the "shut door" doctrine as a central teaching of the church, the message of the Testimony of Jesus: "There I was shown that the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not be separated..." Later in the same article an angel describes the condition of sinners to her: "My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it; for the time for their salvation is past." (Present Truth, August, 1849).
September A local pestilence is seen as a fulfillment of the end of the world. Mrs. White predicts this pestilence will become widespread: "What we have seen and heard of the pestilence, is but the beginning of what we shall see and hear. Soon the dead and dying will be all around us." (Present Truth, Sept. 1849). December David Arnold writes in the Present Truth: "Therefore, we are brought, by the force of circumstances, and the fulfillment of events, to the irresistible conclusion that, on the tenth day of the seventh month, (Jewish time,) in the autumn of 1844, Christ did close his daily, or continual ministration or mediation in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and SHUT THE DOOR, which no man can open; and opened a door, in the second apartment, or Holiest of all, which no man can shut, (see Rev.iii,7,8,) and passed within the second veil, bearing before the Father, on the breast-plate of judgment, all for whom he is now acting as intercessor." (Present Truth, Dec. 1849) 1850

February 10 The "shut door" is opened a crack to allow in those people who were Christians in 1844 but never heard Miller's message. In her letter to Brother and Sister Collins, Feb. 10, 1850, Mrs. White says "Souls are coming out upon the truth all around here. They are those who have not heard the Advent doctrine..." April Ellen White states: "The mighty shaking has commenced." (Present Truth, April, 1850) April The "shut door" is cracked open a little further to let the children of the saints enter: "As they [little children] were then [1844] in a state of innocence, they were entitled to a record upon the breastplate of judgment as much as those who had sinned and received pardon; and are, therefore subjects of the present intercession of our great high priest" (Present Truth, April, 1850). April James White writes that God's people have already left Babylon [Protestant churches]: "Babylon, the nominal church is fallen. God's people have come out of her. She is now the 'synagogue of Satan' (Rev. 3:9). 'The habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird' (Rev. 18:2)." (Present Truth, April, 1850) May James White writes: "But says the objector - 'The door of mercy will not be closed until Jesus comes.' We do not read of such a door as 'the door of mercy' in the Bible; neither do we teach that such a door was shut in 1844. God's 'mercy endureth for ever.' See Ps.cxxxvi; cvi,1; cxviii,1. He is still merciful to his saints, and ever will be; and Jesus is still their advocate and priest. But the sinner, to whom Jesus had stretched out his arms all the day long, and who had rejected the offers of salvation, was left without an advocate, when Jesus passed from the Holy Place, and shut that door in 1844." (Present Truth, May, 1850) June 27 Mrs. White has a vision of the soon return of Christ: "My accompanying angel said, 'Time is almost finished. Get ready, get ready, get ready.' . . . now time is almost finished. . . and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few months." (Early Writings, pp. 64-67). July 29 Miss Sarah B. Harmon, older sister of Mrs. White, in a letter written from Brookfield, N.Y., to Mrs. P.D. Lawrence, July 29/30, 1850, said: "I believe this is the last winter we shall see before Jesus, our great High Priest, comes out. Oh, let us live for God and sacrifice for him faithfully." August 24 Ellen White writes in a letter regarding the Present Truth magazine: "...the lines that were being published were written in the Spirit of God, and would rejoice the hearts of the trusting ones, and Satan knew it would hurt his cause because it would be seen by these testimonies that most of the Advent people once believed as we do that there was a shut door in '44. And to have the plain, clean truth come out in the paper . . . would cause many to decide for the truth and to take a firm and unyielding stand for God and His truth" (Ms 7, 1850) August The "shut door" was opened another crack to let in Herman Churchill, a man who was unconverted in 1844. According to General Conference president George Butler, the Adventists were "quite surprised" a non-believer would manifest interest in their message! September Mrs. White announces time is almost finished: "Some are looking too far off for the coming of the Lord. Time has continued a few years longer than they expected, therefore they think it may continue a few years more. . . I saw that the time for Jesus to be in the Holy Place was nearly finished, and that time can not last but a little longer." (Early Writings, p. 58, ed. 1907) December Sister White says that to oppose the shut door is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: "Then I saw the Laodiceans [first-day Adventists].... Dare they admit that the door is shut? The sin against the Holy Ghost was to ascribe to Satan what belongs to God or what the Holy Ghost has done. They said the shut door was of the devil and now admit it is against their own lives. They shall die the death." (Ms 11, 1850, pp. 3, 4) 1851

June 21 Mrs. White's vision at Camden, NY: "Then I saw that Jesus prayed for his enemies; but that should not cause us to pray for the wicked world, whom God has rejected. When he prayed for his enemies, there was hope for them, and they could be benefited and saved by his prayers, and also after he was a mediator in the outer apartment for the whole world; but now his spirit and sympathy were withdrawn from the world; and our sympathy must be with Jesus, and must be withdrawn from the ungodly." August 19 Joseph Bates wrote: "We understand that he [Christ] was a Mediator for all the world, ministering in the Holy Place (Heb. 9:26), in the Tabernacle called the Sanctuary, from the day of Pentecost (A.D. 31) until his appointed time, the end of the twenty-three hundred days, or years - the fall of 1844. At this point of time, then, the door was shut against the Sardis church [the Protestant church] and the wicked world." Review and Herald, Aug. 19, 1851 August James and Ellen White publish "Experience and Views", a little pamphlet of 64 pages. No reference is made in this to "A Word to the Little Flock," nor to Present Truth, although all but seven introductory pages of "Experience and Views" is copied word for word from these two publications. All references to the "shut door" were omitted from the publication. 1853

James White admits the shut door has opened slightly: "While the great work of saving men closed with the 2300 days, a few are now coming to Christ..." Review and Herald, No. 3, p. 176



http://www.ellenwhite.org/chrono.htm

 

[Adventist Dissident]

After 1851 The Shut Door Doctrine Disappears

The shut door teaching--which Mrs. White claimed was a part of the Testimony of Jesus--was reinterpreted by the Whites to mean that only those who rejected the 1844 message had the door of probation shut on them. After 1851 the shut door teaching--one of the central doctrines of the early Adventists--disappeared quickly from their writings. Nearly all new Adventists never heard of it nor knew that their prophet had seen it in vision.


http://www.ellenwhite.org/chrono.htm

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Posts 37-49 all apart of one article.
Ellen G. White’s Writings
NOT a Direct Revelation From God

By W.W. Fletcher (1879-1947)

The Signpost, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1988, edited by Keith Moxon


A wrong course has been followed by the denomination in ignoring, evading, or denying the fact of the mistaken teaching of the early years. Had all the facts been know to our people, they could not have continued to regard the testimonies as infallible. But the facts have not been known. They have been covered up. In saying this I am not bringing a railing accusation against anyone. I do not say that all who have helped to bring about this situation or to perpetuate it have done so willfully. A good deal has been due to a prevalent feeling that the Testimonies must be held to and believed in as inspired, notwithstanding the most serious difficulties and evidences to the contrary. It seems to be felt by many that it is duty to close the eyes to the clearest indications that Sister White held mistaken views, and taught doctrines out of harmony with the Bible; and that she eliminated passages from her writings, and changed them, for the very evident reason that she had taken mistaken positions, and had been compelled to relinquish them. These changes have been made even in what have been claimed to be inspired visions. I know that an effort is made to deny this; but it is an entirely unsuccessful effort.
The evidence of a change in Sister White’s teaching on the sanctuary question is overwhelming and undeniable. The evasion of the force of the facts in this case on the part of those who know them may in many cases be due to the weakness rather than the willfulness; but it is a culpable weakness nevertheless; for no Adventist minister can stand free from the responsibility to face the facts referred to, to weigh them, and protect the church from being misled.
Instead of the facts in the case being made available to our people, important information has been withheld, and unpleasant facts denied. This is not right. Many of our ministers have been kept in ignorance these things for a long period of years. The writer had been connected with the organized work for almost a quarter of a century before learning the truth about the eliminations from “Early Writings”, for instance. Such information should have been furnished us in a proper way from within the body. Is it right that our ministers here in the Antipodes, and in all the other ends of the earth should be encouraged, and even required to teach the inspiration and infallibility of the Testimonies, and at the same time be denied vital information bearing on the question of such infallibility? It certainly is not right. For we are expressly directed in connection with prophesyings to “prove all things”, and to hold fast only that which is good. And it is impossible to prove the nature of the gift when the vital information is withheld. When only that which is favorable to the claim is related and recorded, and all that is unfavorable is withheld or eliminated, neither the ministry nor the church is in a position to judge or to “prove” anything.
Sister White in the early years of the work taught the “shut door” view of the sanctuary service, and taught it on the authority of her visions, and in the name of inspiration. All the pioneers taught the “shut door” theory during those years. When sufficient time had elapsed to demonstrate that the views held were mistaken, they were modified and revised. Important passages teaching the “shut door” were either eliminated from Sister White’s “Early Writings” or else explained away by notes claiming that they did not teach that view. A publisher’s preface was introduced claiming that in that edition “no changes from the original work had been made, except the occasional employment of a new word, or a sentence, to better express the idea, and no portion of the work had been omitted”, which certainly was not true with reference to the original publication of the earlier visions, and was consequently very misleading.
A later publication, claiming to give a history of the rise and progress of the movement, denied point blank that Seventh-day Adventist had ever taught the “shut door”. This was a denial of the truth. The author, in making quotations from the publications of the early days, in some cases omitted expressions that would have revealed the fact at that at that time the brethren did teach the “shut door”. The book referred to is still stocked and circulated by our publishing agencies.1
This course of action has been continued right down to the present time, articles having been published of quite recent years in our leading church paper, denying that the “shut door” was taught in the early days.
Why all this evasion? Why this denial of indisputable facts testified to by the printed records of those days? Would it be a really fatal thing to acknowledge that our pioneer brethren for a time held mistaken views? Certainly not! We would not need to be ashamed of it. It would be sufficient for us to be able to show that not with standing early misconceptions, the brethren were eventually led into a wide field of truth. Why should there be a persistent effort to deny the “shut door” experience? The answer is, that it is because Sister White was involved in that experience, and set the seal of the approval of her testimonies upon that teaching. To acknowledge this would be to rob of their reputation for infallibility subsequent teachings of the same author.
“There is nothing covered”, however, ”that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.”
The facts are there in our early records, and cannot be denied. A comparatively recent publication, “The Shut Door and the Close of Probation”, written in defense of the Testimonies, acknowledges the fact that the pioneers did for a number of years hold to the “shut door” theory. This pamphlet even quotes statements made by the author of the Testimonies teaching that view, including some of the eliminated passages; but endeavors to show that Sister White did not really mean what she said in some of those instances. The appearance of this publication is gratifying in the respect that it frankly acknowledges that the “shut door” was taught in the early days of our work, and also in that it acknowledges the fact of certain eliminations from “Early Writings”, and even reproduces some of them. This is a refreshing departure from the policy of evasion or denial followed for so many preceding years.
Why should there be this very reluctant and restrained reproduction of the writings of the early days? We are practically limited to vague assurances from those who have access to the early volumes that everything is all right; that the pioneers did not teach the “shut door”; or that if they taught it, Sister White did not; or that if Sister White taught it, if she did not do so on the authority of the visions; or that if she taught it in relating the visions she did not really mean what she said! Meanwhile others are publishing the very words of the pioneers and of Sister White on those subjects, publishing them voluminously and in detail.2 Why does not the General Conference undertake that work? Why does not one of our publishing houses reproduce the whole of the publications of those early years? This would provide some original research work, and would provide valuable reference books for the denominational history classes in our school and colleges.
The report adopted by Australian union conference committee follows the usual practice of referring to favorable features of Sister White’s work, and ignoring those features which if properly weighed could not but prove that she was mistaken in her claim to be the channel of direct revelation from God.
HER UNDUE AUTHORITY HARMFUL

I do not deny the favorable features. Sister White’s pointed testimonies of reproof for sin, and her uncompromising and convicting demands for vital godliness, holy living, and unswerving devotion to the cause and kingdom of Christ have always impressed me greatly. But I cannot because of these things close my eyes to the evidence that her claim to inspiration, in the highest sense of all, was a mistaken one. Just how much she herself was responsible for the mistake I do not presume to judge. It seems that she was sincerely mistaken. But even this view does not justify her course in all respects in connection with her writings. It seems however, that she was an earnest fervent-spirited Christian woman. God is very merciful, and graciously blesses and uses his children despite their mistaken views, and their oft-times mistaken actions.
So also with some of those who have participated in ignoring, covering up, or explaining away facts that if generally know would long ere this have compelled a great modification of the claims made in behalf of Sister White. Doubtless this has in many cases been due to a mistaken sense of duty, and a fear that to doubt the inspiration of the Testimonies because of these facts would be a manifestation of unbelief, and thus displeasing to God. But this is not unbelief in the Bible sense for the faith that God calls for is defined as “the belief of the truth”. There is no genuine piety in believing things that are not true. God has mercifully blessed many who in sincerity of heart have believed in the plenary inspiration of the Testimonies. He has just as mercifully blessed a multitude of earnest men and women in other religious bodies, notwithstanding mistaken views on some points of truth and doctrine tenaciously held by them. The undue authority attached to Sister White writings has nevertheless had a harmful influence. Any help the Lord may have been able to give to those who believed the claims made, or to the one who made them, is to be attributed to his mercy, and not to the truth of the claims. The Lord has been good to his God-fearing children despite this mistake and not because it.
As for the harmful influence referred to, there has been a tendency to subject Bible teaching to the teaching of the Testimonies. Bible truth has been regarded as being “clinched”, when it could be supported by a statement from the Testimonies. And a statement from the Testimonies on any point has been sufficient to deter from the investigation of scriptures apparently teaching to the contrary. Voices that would teach differently from Sister White on any point, even in the smallest details, are immediately silenced by an appeal to something she has written. This could not be harmful if everything Sister White has written were in very truth by direct revelation from God; but if Sister White were mistaken in any teaching, it most effectually binds that mistake upon the whole church forever. No amount of evidence from the Bible, differing from Sister White, is sufficient to convince believers in the inspiration of the Testimonies.
Even in regard to Christian experience, many of our people are more familiar with what Sister White has said regarding forgiveness, and acceptance and the gift of Holy Spirit, than they are with the declarations and promises of the Bible itself. They seem to feel that the statements of the Testimonies are plainer and more understandable, and therefore a safer basis of reliance than their own understanding of the teaching of the Bible. This is a serious weakness. For the full assurance of faith springs from reliance upon the very word of God itself. Faith requires God’s word to rest upon, and not something Sister White has said about that word, no matter how good the saying may be.
The following extract from the columns of our denominational organ, “The Ministry”, may be taken as an illustration of this tendency:

“In doing personal work, I make constant use of Steps to Christ, because I find it meets every need better than anything else. Of cource, I use the Scriptures, but many of our young people are familiar with the Scriptures, as far as the theory is concerned, but they have no insight into the practical application of them, and this in what Steps to Christ gives. I use the ‘Army and Navy’ edition which is most convenient for carrying in my pocket.”3​

The writer then proceeds to give an outline of his method of teaching various phases of Christian experience by using Steps to Christ, giving page and paragraph from that book an all different points.
Why is it that “many of our young people have no insight into the practical application” of scriptures relating to Christian experience? Is it not the principal duty of the church to teach that very thing? And should not the ministers teach the flock how to exercise faith in the original promises of God recorded in the Bible, and not train them to depend on page and paragraph from Steps to Christ and other similar books? There has always been a tendency in the church to add some other authority to the word of God, some thing that explains things to the people so that they know what to do more clearly than they would if left to depend upon the Bible alone. The Pharisees of old added tradition to the word of God. The Roman Catholic Church has done the same. The statement quoted above, advocating “constant use of Steps to Christ, because… it meets the need better than anything else”, reminds one of Dr. di Bruno’s comparison of the Bible with the Roman tradition, in which he declared, while approving of the Bible, that “of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe.”

http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw84.htm

 

[Adventist Dissident]

THE FULL STORY OF THE “SHUT DOOR” COMPARED WITH THE LATER DENIALS

The object of this section is to make available to the reader evidences that show that for a period of years in their early history, Seventh-day Adventists held and taught the “shut door” theory, a form of the sanctuary teaching which was afterwards relinquished as mistaken; that Mrs. E. G. White held and taught the mistaken view, on the authority of what were claimed to be visions of revelation of God; and that a wrong course has been followed in subsequent years in ignoring these facts, denying them, or attempting to explain them away, so that both laity and ministry have been to a large extent kept in ignorance of them, and thus prevented from realizing their full force and significance.
The original teaching concerning the sanctuary as held by the denomination from 1844 to 1851, was that Christ’s intercession in behalf of the world of sinners ceased when He finished his ministration in the first apartment in heaven in 1844; that probation closed at that time; and that Christ’s intercession in the second apartment from 1844 onward , was in behalf of “the whole house of Israel” only.
Speaking of the Adventist in 1844 and immediately thereafter, Mrs. E.G. White thus explains the origin of the doctrine of the shut door:

“After the passing of the time when the Saviour was expected they still believed his coming to be near; they held that they had reached an important crisis, and that the work of Christ as man’s intercessor before God had ceased. It appeared to them to be taught in the Bible, that man’s probation would close a short time before the actual coming of the Lord in the clouds of heaven. This seemed evident from those scriptures which point to a time when men will seek and knock, and cry at the door of mercy, and it will not be opened. And it was a question with them whether the date to which they had looked for the coming of Christ might not rather mark the beginning of this period which was to immediately precede his coming. Having given the warning of the Judgment near, they felt that their work for the world was done, and they lost their burden of soul for the salvation of sinners, while the bold and blasphemous scoffing of the ungodly seemed to them another evidence that the Spirit of God had been withdrawn from the rejectors [sic] of his mercy. All this confirmed them in the belief that probation had ended, or, as they expressed it, ‘the door of mercy was shut.’”4​

The “shut door” is also thus explained by another of the early pioneers:

“What may we understand the shutting of the door to denote? .... By this act is undoubtedly denoted the exclusion from all further access to saving mercy, of those who have rejected its offers during their time of probation. … But can any impenitent sinners be converted if the door is shut? Of course they cannot, though changes that men would call conversions may take place.”5​

James White states plainly that the brethren regarded their “work for the world” as “finished forever”. He also expounds the reasons for holding the shut door view.

“That there is to be a shut door prior to the second advent many will admit; yet but few seem willing to have it where it actually took place. Let us take a brief view of our past history, as marked out by the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-11), and I think we shall clearly see that there can be no other place for the shut door but at the Autumn of 1844.” … “When we came up to that point of time, all our sympathy, burden and prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feeling and testimony was, that our work for the world was finished forever.”
“‘Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened (compared) unto ten virgins.’ When? At this very time, when the faithful servant is giving meat to the “HOUSE HOLD” (not to the unbelieving world) and is opposed by the evil servant, and when the advent history, marked out by the parable, is fulfilled, and the shut door is in the past. Now we may see that the only place for the shut door was in 1844. Amen.
“But says the objector—-The door of mercy will not be closed until Jesus comes. We do not read of such a door as ‘the door of mercy’ in the Bible; neither do we teach that such a door was shut in 1844. God’s ‘mercy endureth forever.’ (Ps. 136). He is still merciful to his saints, and ever will be; and Jesus is still their advocate and priest. But the sinner, to whom Jesus has stretched out his arms all the day long, and who had rejected the offers of salvation, was left without an advocate, when Jesus passed into the Holy Place, and shut that door in 1844. The professed church, who rejected the truth, was also rejected, and smitten with blindness.”6
​

“From the ascension to the shutting of the door, October 1844, Jesus stood with wide-spread arms of love, and mercy; ready to receive, and plead the cause of every sinner who would come to God by him. On the 10th day of the 7th month, 1844, he passed into the Holy of Hollies, where he has since been a merciful ‘high priest over the house of God.’”7​

Form these brief statements by Brother White it is evident:

1. That the brethren’s “burden and prayers for sinners” had “ceased.”
2. That they regarded their “work for the world” as “finished forever”;
3. That they were seeking to give “meat to the ‘HOUSE HOLD’ (not to the unbelieving world)”;
4. That while they believed that God was still merciful to his saints, and ever would be, and Jesus was still their Advocate and Priest”, they claimed,
5. That “ the sinner…was left with out an advocate”, and
6. That “the professed church…was also rejected and smitten with blindness.”

THE “SHUT–DOOR” REGARDED AS “PRESENT TRUTH”

Mrs. White states that “Adventists were for a time united in the belief that the door of mercy was shut.”8 This period of unity was brief, however. The Adventists who had accepted the Sabbath, at a conference held at Albany, N.Y., in April 1845, formally abandoned the shut door theory, and resumed their efforts for the salvation of the unconverted. For this they were sternly denounced by the Seventh-day Adventists. The latter continued the teaching of the shut door. In the December 1849, issue of the Present Truth, the editor, James White, wrote as follows:

“We still believe what the whole host once believed; and with holy confidence and energy published and preached to the world. And strange to tell, many of those who have abandoned the fulfillment of the prophecy in our past experience, are ready to brand us with fanaticism, and rank us with Shakers &c; for believing what they one believed, and for carrying out and showing a consistent fulfillment of the parable, in all its parts, which shows that the door is shut. These men should be the last to oppose our views, and complain of a lack of charity on our part, when they in such an unsparing manner, rank us with apostates for holding fast and carrying out what they once believed and boldly proclaimed. When we in 1843 sang ‘My Bible leads to glory’, we sang a true sentiment. It did not stop in 1844, and ‘lead’ us back around another way, no, no; but it led onward by the shut door, through the WAITING TIME, and keeping of ‘the commandments of God,’ into the kingdom. Glory to God ‘My Bible leads to glory.’ Amen.”9​

The Seventh-day Adventists continued the teaching of the shut door until 1851. It was expected by them that Christ’s ministry in the second apartment would extend over a very limited period. It was inferred by some, from the fact that in the type the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sin-offering upon the mercy-seat seven times, that Christ’s ministry in the most holy place would continue for only seven years. After the seven year period had passed, and nothing had happened to marks its termination, the shut door form of the teaching was relinquished, and the doctrine of the sanctuary as it is now held by the denomination was gradually formed.
During the years 1844 to 1851 Seventh-day Adventists taught the shut door emphatically and uncompromisingly. It was an outstanding feature of their message. One of the early brethren, E.P. Butler (father of G.I. Butler who later became president of the general conference) wrote to Brother and Sister White as follows:

“Since I have been converted to the SHUT DOOR, and seventh day Sabbath, I have been out of this town…to try to get off some of the prejudice from other minds, which I so deeply felt in my own. Some have been converted to the present truth, and some prejudice (I trust) removed. I have learned from conversation with others, as well as by past experience, that the Adventists have run their ship, and foundered. They have been running their small boats this way and that way, to see if they could get around it; but have not been able. So they undertake to cover up the ‘land marks’ behind them” …10​

In another letter published in the next issue of the “Review”, the same brother says:

“I have been greatly blessed in meeting with the Seventh day Sabbath and Shut Door brethren. They hold to the past, and define our present position. I believe they have the truth, and God is leading them by his Spirit.”11​

Another of the brethren wrote as follows:

“I have from the presentation of this truth, embraced the seventh day Sabbath, and the shut door, as being my last refuge in this dark and gloomy day. … Hence I embrace the ‘Midnight Cry’, the ‘Shut Door’, and the ‘Third Angel’s Message’ as being my last refuge. …”12​

These extracts show the impression made upon the minds of those who listened to the preaching of the pioneers. The leaders themselves called this the “present truth”. Speaking of one who had at first opposed the doctrine, Sister White wrote, “I saw that in Bro. Rhodes’ mouth there had been no guile, in speaking against the present truth relating to the Sabbath and Shut Door.”13
Joseph Bates in a tract on the Sanctuary, published in 1850, says, “The present truth, then, of this third angel’s message, is, THE SABBATH AND THE SHUT DOOR.”14
In 1850, Hiram Edson, David Arnold, Geo. W. Holt, S.W. Rhodes, and James White, associated themselves together as a committee to print the Advent Review. After four issues of this “Review” had been published, there was a special issue of forty-eight pages, containing much of the matter published in the preceding numbers. The object of this special number seems to have been largely to show that the Adventists as a body had originally taught the shut door; that those who had given it up had departed from the faith; and that Seventh-day Adventists in retaining the doctrine were loyal to the truth. This special issue of the Advent Review quotes George Needham as saying:

“I am, and have been convinced, since the 10th of the 7th month, that our work with the world and the foolish virgins is done. I must deny that glorious movement as the work of God, or I can come to no other conclusion. That I can never do. How can we do them any good? The foolish virgins have gone to their old establishments, where they sell oil, and are crying to us to come after them; and the world are there with them, to buy a little oil, and shall we go to them with the hope of doing them any good? Not least we die!”15​

 

[Adventist Dissident]

J.B COOK ON THE SHUT DOOR

“God never intended that the whole and apparently happy ‘ten’ should enter the kingdom—no more than he intended to take all of Babylon into heaven. He who said ‘Come out of her my people’ has revealed the fact that ‘five of that virgin band had not oil in their vessels.’ Such would want ‘the door’ open after it was TOO LATE.” “The advent cross was large—the tarrying cross was larger, because of the reproach which attached to faith after the time passed. The Midnight Cry was the largest and tallest of the whole. It bore us quite out of the world; we supposed it would have been the last. … The cross has become very sweet, it is worth more to me than words—still the shut-door cross transcends all that have gone before it. The world, the flesh and the devil will not consent to the door’s being shut. It brings JUDMENT TOO NEAR, makes it too CERTAIN.”
“The shut door and the knocking must of necessity precede this answer of our Lord—must be before the actual revelation of the Son of Man. … Those who will not ‘confess Christ’ in the shut door, dare not in the ‘New Commandment’. They are on the popular side, avoiding the cross in these points; and justifying so far the disobedience and unbelief of the church and world.”
“To them the cross of Christ has become irksome. They have believed and obeyed and borne the cross far enough !!! Instead of confessing the Spirit and providence of God in the past and present state of the once virgin band, they confess to the world—-‘draw back’ from ‘present truth’ and yet will have it believed that ‘the door is open still!’”
“Thus it is written, and thus it must be, that one part would wish the door open after it was ‘SHUT’”
“There is a finally, a necessity for the experience connected with the shut door. There is need for the shut-door to separate us finally and forever from the world, preparatory to ascension” … 16
​

JOSEPH BATES ON THE SHUT DOOR

In reading the following extracts from articles by Joseph Bates, it should be borne in mind that our Seventh-day Adventist pioneers spoke of the Advent church as it existed in 1844, and continued in those who held the shut door teaching, as the Philadelphia church. The Adventists who gave up the shut door doctrine were referred to as Laodiceans. The Protestant churches in general were described as Sardis, and regarded as having been rejected. Seventh-day Adventists took strong positions against the other Adventist brethren, who in 1845 gave up the shut door view.

“We believe that this [Laodicean] state of the church exists, and that it is composed of second advent ministers and people who have backslidden and become ‘lukewarm’.” “When and where did this state of the church commence? We believe that it commenced in 1845, at the conference in the city of Albany, N.Y… see the VOICE OF TRUTH… ‘Conference Address’, [J.B. here quotes, disapprovingly] ‘Our brethren, east, west, north and south, are harmoniously (with few exceptions) united in the faith and hope of the gospel, and well engaged in extending their benign influence and blessings to others. They are making preparations for going to work the PREASENT SEASON understandingly, and effectually, for THE SALVATION OF PERISHING THOUSANDS around them.’ [On this J.B. comment thus] …This shows the decided change and departure from the Philadelphia state of the church, were they all professed to be, at the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844. … Undoubtedly they were then in the right state of the church, and holding fast that to which they had attained, viz.: the change from Babylon, or the Sardis state of the church, to the Philadelphia state. When they changed from the Philadelphia to the Laodicean state, we believe they influenced hundreds of honest souls to go with them. These are the ones we are trying to seek out, by this article, and every other possible way. … In their proclamation of an open door for Babylon, and all the world…they prove clearly that they have gained nothing, made no progress… It looks clear that they have acknowledged their Laodicean state of neither cold nor hot… The shut door believers are in the Philadelphia church. The nominal church are back of 1844, in the Sardis state, spiritually dead.” …17
​

“For when the Midnight Cry is made as it was, in the fall of 1844, at the end of 2300 days, then at that time the door is shut… The door must be shut, for our High Priest to open the other door, Rev iii.7, 8; xi.19, and enter into the most Holy Place to cleanse the Sanctuary… This work of cleansing the Sanctuary is this: Jesus our great High Priest, crowned and robed in his royal court dress (just like the high priest in the shadow), rises up, and shuts the door (Luke xii. 25) where he had been the mediator for all the world, and opens the door for the Most Holy Place (or as John calls it, the temple of God), and there appears before God, as Daniel saw him with the whole Israel of God represented on his breast-plate of judgment (like a priest), to plead with God, to blot out the sins of Israel” … “With all this array of argument before them, many of them would say, at times, why I believe it in a part, because it looked too glaring to deny it. We say that God never had this work done in part. It was all accomplished then, and we have just shown how it was affirmed to by the church of God. When they say they believe it, they prove themselves liars; for after the formation of the Laodicean state of the church at Albany, N.Y. April 29, 1845, the greater portion of the lecturers went out through the land, advocating an open door, in direct and immediate opposition to the Midnight Cry. For that work shut the door without the shadow of a doubt” …
“We say then, that here is positive proof that they have been SINNING AGAINST GOD EVER SINCE, in writing, preaching, and various other ways, by opposing and setting at naught the very and identical point in their Advent experience, which was the ‘MAINSPRING’ to the whole vision. Yes, after the Albany conference in 1845, where they organized the Laodicean church, they went out openly and boldly declaring to their hearers, that the door was wide open. They say it was not shut, neither would it be until Jesus came” …
“If by any means whatever, they could prove from all their past six years’ united labor, throughout this land, England, or the West Indies, that they have gained one single convert to God, then would they appear in a hundred fold more heinous light than they now do. For by their own published, standing confessions (as before stated), their Lord Jesus as Master of the house (before described), had shut the door, and no man could open it… This was the last day’s work of the Midnight Cry, where the fullness of the Gentiles came in. (Rom. xi. 25) Now if they have opened the door, then they have gained the victory over the Son of God, and proved him to have uttered a falsehood. In no other way could they get one true Gentile convert.”
“Talk about searching out sinners, that the work of the Midnight Cry left in outer darkness six years ago! He will not save you if you do not quickly flee from the dreadful snare you are in.”18
​

“’Behold I and the children whom the Lord hath given me, are for sings and wonders in Israel.’ Etc. Who are these? The same people. The first wonderful sign by which they were distinctly known from Second Advents, was shut door believers, but the greatest wonder and sign by which they are now known is 7th day Sabbath believers… The shut door and Sabbath, then, are two prominent marks by which they are known… It is a people who are in their trial or patient waiting time for the Lord, having the law and the testimony. The present truth of which is the shut door and the 7th day Sabbath.”19​

“BORNE IN ON THE BREAST-PLATE OF JUDGMENT”

It will be noted from one of the statements of Brother Bates above-quoted, that the pioneers regarded Christ’s entry into the second apartment of the sanctuary as having been made on behalf of “the whole house of Israel”, who were said to be “represented on his breast-plate of judgment.” During his ministration in the first apartment, until a certain day in October, 1844, “he had been the mediator of all world.”
Considerable discussion went on as to just whose names might be regarded as having been “borne in on the breast-plate of judgment.”

“Then on the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844, our Great High Priest, attired in all his priestly garments, having over his heart the breast-plate of judgment, on which is represented the names of all the true Israel of God, rises up and shuts the door … Mark this; here was a literal transaction in heaven, at that time, and all true, shut door believers, so teach.” “Here a question arises, who are meant by the whole house of Israel? We believe they comprise all honest, obedient believers, that had up to that time overcome (Rev. iii. 5) and also children that had not come to the years of accountability.”…20
​

“Therefore we are brought, by the force of circumstances, and the fulfillment of events, to the irresistible conclusion that, on the 10th day of the seventh month (Jewish time), in the autumn of 1844, Christ, did close his daily or continual ministration or mediation in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and SHUT THE DOOR, which no man can open; and opened the door, in the second apartment or Holiest of all, which no man can shut (see Rev. iii. 7,8), and passed within the second veil, bearing before the Father, on the breast-plate of judgment, all for whom he is now acting as an intercessor. If this is the position that Christ now occupies, then there is no intercessor in the first apartment; and in vain do misguided souls knock at the door, saying ‘Lord, Lord, open to us’.” … “But says the objector, does not this leave the present generation, who have passed the line of accountability since that time without an intercessor or mediator, and leave them destitute of the means of salvation? In reply to this objection I would remark, that as they were there in a state of INNOCENCY, they were entitled to a record upon the breast-plate of judgment as much as those who had sinned and received pardon; and are therefore subjects of the present intercession of our Great High Priest.”21
​

In the same number of the Present Truth is the statement:

“On this day of atonement, he is a high priest for those only whose names are inscribed on the breast-plate of judgment.”22​

Hiram Edson writes as follows in “An Appeal to the Laodicean Church”, published in an Advent Review extra in 1850:

“Among those that were borne in, I believe, were some that had not had the light on the second advent doctrine, and had not rejected it, but were living according to the best light they had. And I believe also that there were others who had a sacred reverence for God and his word, and had his fear before their eyes, yet they made no profession of religion, or of conversion, but in the sight of God who sees not as a man sees, they were much nearer a state of justification before God, than very many who made a great profession of religion. Again, children who had not arrived to years of accountability were borne in on the breast-plate of judgment. These three classes are standing heads of wheat to be gleaned…” “Some suppose that if the door is shut, there can be no more repentance unto life, or forgiveness of sins. This is certainly a mistake. All who were born in on the breast-plate of judgment, and have not sinned willfully, may repent and find forgiveness . Jesus says to the Laodiceans, ‘as many as I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent.’”23
​

James White speaks of the same three classes, who might be subjects of conversion.

“Conversion, in the strictest sense, signifies a change from sin to holiness. In that sense we readily answer, that it [the shut door] does not exclude ALL conversion, but we believe that those who heard the ‘everlasting gospel’ message and rejected it, or refused to hear it, are excluded by it. We have no message to such. They have no ears to hear us unless we lower the standard of truth so low that there would be no salvation in it. But there are those who may be converted.

1. “Erring brethren. We believe there are many in the Laodicean church who will yet be converted as the Apostle directs in his epistle to the waiting brethren.”
2. “Children, who were not old enough to understandingly receive or reject the truth, when our Great High Priest closed his mediation in the Holy Place… Their names were borne upon the breast-plate of judgment, and they are subjects of the mediation of Jesus.”…
3. 3.“When Elijah thought that he was alone, God said to him, ‘I have reserved to myself seventh thousand men, who have not bowed to the image of Baal.’ We believe that God has reserved to himself f a multitude of precious souls, some even in the churches. These he will manifest IN HIS OWN TIME. They were living up to the light they had when Jesus closed his mediation for the world, and when they hear the voice of the Shepherd in the message of the third angel they will gladly receive the whole truth. Such will be converted to the truth, and from their errors. But we think we have no message to such now, still ‘he that hath an ear let him hear.’ Our message is to the Laodiceans, yet some of these hidden souls are being manifested.”24

With all this differentiation, the brethren made it clear that no names might be added to the breast-plate of judgment after 1844, although the names of those who refused to accept further light might be erased.

“When the master of the house (the Lord Jesus) rose up and shut the door, all honest believers, that had submitted to his will, and children that had not arrived to the years of accountability, were undoubtedly borne in on this breast-plate of judgment which is over his heart. The names of all that fully keep the commandments are retained. Those who not, will have their names erased before Jesus leaves the Holiest.” … “It is true some persons that are ignorant of this message may, and undoubtedly will be saved if they die before Jesus leaves the Holiest. I mean those that were believers before 1844. Sinners and backsliders cannot get their names on the breast-plate of judgment now.”25
​

 

[Adventist Dissident]

DID MRS. E.G. WHITE TEACH THE SHUT DOOR?

The questions must now be considered, Did Mrs. E.G. White teach the shut door? And if so, Did she teach that doctrine on the authority of visions claimed to be if divine origin? James White answers both these questions in the affirmative. In “A Word to the Little Flock”, published in 1847, he says:

“When she received her first vision, December 1844, she and all the band in Portland, Maine (where her parents then resided) had given up the midnight cry, and shut the door, as being in the past. It was then that the Lord shew her in vision, the error into which she and the band in Portland had fallen. She then related her vision, to the band, and about sixty confessed their error, and acknowledge, their 7th month experience to be the work of God.”26​

“The midnight cry and the shut door as being in the past”, means that both became accomplished facts in 1844, and that from that time the shutting of the door was a past and not a future event. It is clear from this statement by James White, that his wife had at first given up the shut door idea (presumably in common with other Adventist who early changed their minds on that point, as for instance “the band in Portland”, of which Brother White here speaks); but that the Lord shewed her in vision the error into which she and the band of Portland had fallen”, with the result that “about sixty confessed their error.” Brother White says that they then “acknowledged their 7th month experience to be of God.” By this he means that they acknowledged their experience in giving “the midnight cry” and subsequently regarding the door as “shut” in the 7th month (Jewish time) of 1844, to be of God. Joseph Bates (as already quoted) says that it was the work of the midnight cry that “shut the door without the shadow of a doubt.”
Sister White herself, in the same publication, thus relates her first vision:

“While praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell on me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not find them when a voice said to me, ‘Look again, and look a little higher.’ At this I raised my eyes and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the City, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the first end of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path, and gave light for their feet so they might not stumble. And if they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the City, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and they said the City was a great way off, and they expected to have entered before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising his glorious right arm, and from his arm came a glorious light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted Hallelujah! Others rashly denied the light behind them, and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus and fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path one after another, until we heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus’ coming”.27​

The passage printed above in bold type has been omitted from Early Writings; but should appear in that book between the words, “below”, and “Soon we heard the voice of God like many waters”, on page 11 of the old edition, and page 15 of the new edition. The words in bold type were contained in the vision as originally published. This first vision therefore teaches:

1. That the “Advent people” were now separated from “the world”. Sister White looked for them “in the world”: she could not see them there, but found them on a path “cast up high above the world”.
2. The point at which the Advent people were separated from the world, was the giving of the “midnight cry”, in 1844. “They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path which an angel told me was the midnight cry”.
3. To deny the light behind them (the “midnight cry” as “being in the past&#8221 resulted in their fall from among the Advent people “down into the dark and wicked world below”.
4. Such backsliders had no hope of restoration. “It was impossible for them to get on the path again”.
5. The world, aside from the Advent people, is described as “all the wicked world which God had rejected.” It was impossible for them to get on the path” and “go to the City”.

This utter hopelessness of backsliders and of “the wicked world” is all in agreement with Joseph Bates’ statement (already quoted) that “sinners and backsliders cannot get their names on the breast-plate of judgment now.”
The hopelessness of backsliders is strongly emphasized in another passage eliminated from Early Writings:

“And if one believed, and kept the Sabbath, and received the blessing attending it, and then gave it up, and broke the holy commandment, they would shut the gates of the Holy City against themselves, as sure as there is God that rules in heaven above.”28​

This sentence should appear in Early Writings in the chapter headed “Subsequent Visions” on page 27 of the old edition and page 33 of the new, between the words, “waiting saints”, and “I saw God had children”. The vision seems to have been first written in a letter to Joseph Bates, and was published in that form in A word to the Little Flock, p. 19, in 1847. As then published it contained the sentence quoted above, which since been omitted.
On the 21st of April, 1847, Sister White wrote to the Brother Eli Curtis as follows:

“Your Extra is now on the stand before me; and I beg leave to state to you, and the scattered flock of God, what I have seen in vision relative to those things on which you have written... You think, that those who worship before the saints feet, (Rev. 3:9) will at the last be saved. Here I must differ with you; for God shew me that this class were professed Adventists… They will know that they are forever lost; and overwhelmed with anguish of spirit, they will bow at the saint’s feet.” “The Lord has shown me in vision, that Jesus rose up and shut the door, and entered the Holy of Holies at the 7th month 1844.”
“I believe the sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in a vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing, of the Sanctuary, &c.; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that extra, to every saint.29
​

Brother O.R.L. Crozier was among the Adventists who early gave up the shut door view. The Harbinger of March 2, 1853, published his answers to inquiries regarding his position on the sanctuary. Brother Crozier says:

“My Views have been somewhat changed on the subject of the ‘Sanctuary’ since 1845, when I wrote the article on the law of Moses, from which the Sabbatarian Adventists quote so often… The above named persons appear to me insincere in quoting from this article, (1) because they know that it was written for the express purpose of explaining and proving the doctrine of the ‘shut-door’, which they now, I understand, disclaim.”30​

Sister White then claimed in 1847, that the Lord had shown her in vision, more than a year previously, that “Brother Crozier had the true light on the cleansing of the Sanctuary”, in a certain article he had published. Brother Crozier himself states that that article was written “for the express purpose of explaining and proving the doctrine of the ‘shut-door’”, and claims that the “Sabbatarian Adventists” were well aware of that fact! James White maintains that the article referred to “no more goes to prove a shut door than it does an open door”;31 but apart from that question, the outstanding facts remain:

1. That the article was written “for the express purpose of explaining and proving the doctrine of the ‘shut door’”,
2. That the “Sabbatarian Adventists” knew that to be the case; and
3. That at the time and in those circumstances Sister White related a vision in which it was shown her that “Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary”

THE SABBATH AND THE SHUT DOOR

Sister White relates the following, concerning a vision given at Topsham Maine, on Sabbath March 24, 1849:

“Then I was that the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus, relating to the shut door, could not be separated.”32​

In the Present Truth for December of the same year, 1849, Sister White wrote that:

“The ‘Commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ’ are to us the present truth—the meat in due season. The little flock here in this region are established on the Sabbath, and our past Advent experience.” … “I saw that in Brother Rhodes’ mouth there had been no guile in speaking against the present truth, relating to the Sabbath and the Shut Door.”33
​

These statements are in agreement, first with themselves and second with the views held by the brethren at that time. The testimony of Jesus “related to the shut door”, and became, with the Sabbath, the “present truth”, the “meat in due season”. When the little flock were “established on the Sabbath, and [their] past Advent experience”, they were established on “the Sabbath and the shut door”, for the “past Advent experience” had reference to the midnight cry and the shut door proclamation of 1844. Brother White has already told us that Sister White was shown in her first vision that it was an error to give up the view of “the midnight cry and shut door as being in the past”. So Brother Rhodes has spoken “against the present truth”, when he had spoken against “the Sabbath and the Shut Door”; but there had nevertheless been no guile in his mouth in speaking thus.