“But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere.”—Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64
And another:
“Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.” —Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75
These two statements raise three startling claims:
-
Amalgamation of man and beast was the chief sin that caused the Great Flood.
-
It produced confused offspring that corrupted God’s image.
-
This sin didn’t stop with the flood—it supposedly continued into Ellen White’s own day.
So… What Did She Really Mean by “Amalgamation”?
The SDA community has offered various interpretations over time, ranging from benign to absurd. But if we go back to the 1800s, when these statements were written and first interpreted, one thing is clear: many early SDAs—including leaders like Uriah Smith—understood "amalgamation" to mean literal sexual relations between humans and animals.
Let’s face it: Ellen White never clarified these statements in later writings. In fact, she completely avoided the topic after 1871, likely because of strong backlash—especially from Black readers and Southern writers who found it offensive. Her son, W.C. White, later admitted these sections were suppressed due to negative reactions from Black Adventists.
Why Is This a Problem?
Because Ellen White claimed her writings were directly inspired by divine revelation:
“I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision.”—Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 67
So, if she truly received this vision from God, why would she later downplay or remove it? That’s not how biblical prophets acted. Prophets like Jeremiah, Isaiah, or Ezekiel didn’t shrink back when their messages offended people. In fact, they expected it.
If Ellen White removed or walked back her statement because it offended others, what does that say about her claim of divine revelation?
You can’t just erase “light from the throne of God” because people don’t like it.
What Did Early SDA Leaders Believe About It?
Ellen White’s contemporaries didn’t see “amalgamation” as metaphorical. Francis D. Nichol, a prominent White apologist, noted that early Adventists interpreted it as:
“Not only that men and beasts united, but also that offspring resulted from these unions.” —Nichol, Ellen White and Her Critics, pp. 306-307
And Uriah Smith—longtime editor of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald—agreed. In one article, he described groups like the Bushmen of Africa and Digger Indians as examples of "confused races" that might have originated from such unions.
He wasn’t alone. G.V. Kilgore, another Adventist minister, openly defended Ellen White’s statement in a debate and used Johnson’s New Cyclopedia to argue that hybrid human-animal offspring were scientifically plausible.
Let that sink in the official magazine of the SDA church published content defending the idea that some races of people came from human-animal relations.
What’s the Implication?
If Ellen White’s amalgamation theory was referring to literal offspring between man and beast—and early SDA leaders linked that to darker-skinned races like Africans or Native Americans—then the racial implication is devastating.
It reduces entire people groups to non-human hybrids.
This wasn’t just a slip of the pen. These views were endorsed, published, and distributed by the SDA General Conference itself.
Why It Still Matters
Today, many modern Adventists try to reinterpret or sanitize these statements. Some claim she was referring to:
-
Genetic mixing (e.g. chimeras)
-
Symbolic moral corruption
-
Interracial marriages (Setites and Cainites)
-
A metaphor for sin’s confusion
But none of these theories hold when you examine the full historical and textual context.
If Ellen White had truly received this message from God, she would have stood by it no matter how offensive it was. Instead, she backed away from it quietly and never clarified it again.
So, What Are We Left With?
Here are your choices:
-
Ellen White was wrong. Her statements were based on 19th-century pseudoscience and racist ideas, not divine revelation.
-
Ellen White was dishonest. She knew her claims weren’t from God, so she quietly dropped them when public pressure mounted.
-
Or the SDA Church needs to reckon with the fact that their prophet taught doctrines unfit for a movement that claims to represent the remnant of God.
Any way you slice it, this isn’t just a historical footnote. It strikes at the foundation of Adventist authority.
