Many Adventists acknowledge that the following statements are considered to be the most embarrassing ever written by Ellen G. White:
"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 White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64.
"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."Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.
Here are the three key points highlighted in these two statements by Ellen G. White regarding the "amalgamation of man and beast":
- The act of amalgamating man and beast is seen as the most heinous crime that resulted in the annihilation of the human race during the time of Noah's flood.
- The offspring resulting from the amalgamation of man and beast led to the degradation of the image of God in man and the creation of a "confused species" of animals.
- The most heinous crime, the amalgamation of man and beast, did not only happen during Noah's time but also continued after the flood and was still occurring during Ellen G. White's time.
The question we have now is: What did Ellen G. White specifically mean when she mentioned the "amalgamation of man and beast"? Her writings did not offer a detailed explanation of this issue, nor did she revisit this topic in her subsequent writings. In fact, Ellen G. White omitted any references to this pre-flood amalgamation narrative after 1871 until her passing on July 16, 1915, which caused confusion among many SDAs. The Ellen White Encyclopedia discusses a few reasons for this.
“Although Ellen White still used the word “amalgamation” in other contexts, references to antediluvian amalgamation were omitted from treatments of the Flood narrative after 1871 (cf. Patriarchs and Prophets, 81, 82 [1890], Selected Messages, 3:452). W. C. White attributes this to the hostile use made of these quotations by “Southern authors” and the change in Ellen White’s target audience from those personally familiar with her life and special gift to a more general audience (W. C. White, “Some Early Statements—Why Not Reprinted?” DF 316, EGWE-LLU).” [1]
Is it reasonable for Ellen G. White to remove her statements about the pre-flood amalgamation of man and beast simply because of the "hostile use made of these quotations by the Southern authors" or Black authors who were offended when they read her statements on this topic? Why might Ellen G. White's statements have been offensive to Black authors, leading her to decide not to mention them again in her writings after 1871? Didn't Ellen G. White claim that what she wrote about the amalgamation of man and beast was from God? And that the things she wrote did not originate from her but from the Lord? Here is her statement.
"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne." —Testimonies, Vol. 5 p. 67.
If, according to Ellen G. White, her writings were not based on her own ideas but originated from the "precious rays of light shining from the throne" of God, why would she remove them simply because many Black people were offended? Isn't it true that the messages she sent to Israel in the Old Testament were also offensive to them, often leading to death threats and danger to their lives? Do you know of any prophet of God who removed any offensive words of God sent to them to avoid offending those to whom the message was directed? There are no true prophets of God in the Bible who acted this way. They were more willing to die than to save their lives by omitting God's words that they believed were offensive to the people.
God warns in Deuteronomy 12:32:
Deuteronomy 12:32 (ESV) 32: “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."
If Ellen G. White were a genuine prophet of God, it could be considered contradictory for her to abandon the vision she claimed to have had from God regarding the amalgamation of man and beast. This is evident in her omitting of the vision from her later writings, where she offers an explanation for the reason behind God's decision to flood the world during Noah's time.
Taking all these facts into consideration, there are several points that can be made about Ellen G. White:
1.) Ellen G. White is a false prophet.
2.) Ellen G. White is aware that her statements about the amalgamation of man and beasts are her own ideas only, but she presents them as being from God.
3.) Fearing that her life would be in danger if she continued her "amalgamation of man and beast" teaching, which offended many Black "Southern authors," she chose to remove it from her future writings, believing it did not truly come from God.
Let's discuss why many Black people were offended by Ellen G. White's "amalgamation of man and beast" teaching. The SDA standard reference, The Ellen White Encyclopedia, provides four possible interpretations of this teaching that can help us understand why it was particularly offensive to Black people.
“The grammatical construction of these statements, their context, and Ellen White’s general use of the term “amalgamation” allow four possible interpretations: (1) the practice of bestiality, (2) genetic combination of human and animal genomes to create chimeras, (3) corruption of both humans and animals by sin, thus marring God’s original creation, and (4) intermarriage and/or other kinds of union between righteous and unrighteous people, so that the distinction between righteous and wicked is lost. Note that these interpretations are not necessarily logically exclusive; for example, the practice of bestiality (1) might well be expected to mar the image of God in humans (3) as much as any other “base” practice. Much discussion of these statements has its basis either in perceived racism on the part of Ellen White or in the racial views of those using her writings. Positions incorporating race with one or more of the interpretations given above are common.” [2]
Let's analyze what SDA theologians and scholars have proposed as possible interpretations of what Ellen G. White meant by "amalgamation of man and beast":
(1) the practice of bestiality,
(2) genetic combination of human and animal genomes to create chimeras.
(3) corruption of both humans and animals by sin, thus marring God’s original creation and
(4) intermarriage and/or other kinds of union between righteous and unrighteous people so that the distinction between righteous and wicked is lost.
Out of the many SDA apologists who have attempted to interpret Ellen G. White's teachings on the "amalgamation of man and beast," SDA theologians and scholars who compiled The Ellen White Encyclopedia have finally reached a consensus on four acceptable and plausible interpretations. With just four options to consider, we can methodically eliminate them one by one based on their consistency with the context of the "amalgamation of man and beast" statement. Also, it is important to consider the negative impact and reactions from Black people, which was one of the reasons Ellen G. White eventually had to remove her teaching.
Let's begin the elimination based on the criteria we mentioned, starting with the fourth interpretation (4): "intermarriage and/or other kinds of union between righteous and unrighteous people so that the distinction between righteous and wicked is lost."
In this interpretation, only "man" is implicated, not "beast" or animals. According to this view, the heinous crime that led to the destruction of the world during Noah's time by the flood was the "amalgamation of man (righteous people) and beast (unrighteous people)." However, this interpretation does not align with Ellen G. White's entire statement about the amalgamation of man and beast, as she explicitly stated that both man and animals are affected by this amalgamation. Let's revisit her words in Spiritual Gifts Volume 3, page 75:
"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."
There is another theory among the SDAs, still heard today, that "amalgamation of man" referred to Seth's descendants mixing with Cain's descendants before the Flood. This also does not align with Ellen G. White's statement in the same statement: "Since the flood, there has been an amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." Seth's and Cain's descendants were all dead after the Flood and, therefore, could not have been amalgamated thereafter. Ellen White clearly said that the "amalgamation of man and beast" was happening after the Flood, up to her lifetime. Moreover, why were only Black people offended by this if the interpretation was an "amalgamation of man (righteous people) and beast (unrighteous people)"? There are both righteous and unrighteous Black people, after all.
We go next to the third interpretation (3): "corruption of both humans and animals by sin, thus marring God’s original creation."
I don't see any reason why Black people would be offended by this interpretation, as it involves the "corruption of humans and animals by sin." Ellen G. White did not say that only Black people were corrupted by sin; she said that all races of people were corrupted by sin, as were the animals. This is accepted by everyone, both Black and White, so it does not fit the true meaning of the "amalgamation of man and animals."
How about the second interpretation (2): "genetic combination of human and animal genomes to create chimeras."
This interpretation incorporates modern advancements in genetics research and technology. It seems anachronistic to assume that such advanced technology was available in Noah's time before the flood. The phrase "genetic combination of human and animal genomes to create chimeras" refers to the merging of genetic material from humans and animals to create hybrid organisms. These chimeras can exhibit a combination of human and animal traits due to having cells with distinct sets of parental genes¹. In scientific terms, a chimera is an organism composed of cells from different zygotes, which can occur naturally during development (e.g., in cases of vanishing twin syndrome) or artificially through medical procedures. As a result, this interpretation does not align with the context of Ellen G. White's statements about the amalgamation of man and beast. Additionally, it fails to account for the reasons why Black people were offended by her amalgamation statement during her time.
Moving on to the first potential interpretation (1): "the practice of bestiality." Bestiality means "sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal."[3] This interpretation appears to be the most fitting explanation that meets our criteria for understanding the true intent behind Ellen G. White's controversial "amalgamation of man and beast." This understanding aligns with the explanation provided by Francis D. Nichol in his book Ellen White and Her Critics, where he sought to defend Ellen G. White against her critics, including those discussing the "amalgamation of man and beast." Nichol's discussion of the meaning of "amalgamation of man and beast" encompasses the reactions of both critics and supporters of Ellen G. White. It is crucial to consider the interpretations of Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) during Ellen G. White's lifetime, as they differ significantly from the interpretations held by SDAs today. According to Francis D. Nichol, loyal followers of Ellen G. White offered two explanations:
"What Mrs. White meant by these passages has been the occasion of some speculation through the years. Her critics have set forth their view of her words in the charge cited. Those who believe in her writings have given two explanations. Some have held that she taught not only that men and beasts have cohabited but also that progeny resulted."[4]
These "two explanations" are closely related and connected to each other. According to Francis D. Nichol, these are the two explanations they learned directly from Ellen G. White. There is no reason to doubt these "two explanations" as they were taught by Ellen G. White herself while she was still alive. The significant advantage is that they were able to learn and believe from the teachings of Ellen G. White during her lifetime, and it is clear that the "amalgamation of man and beast" refers to the sexual relations between humans and animals, and by this cohabitation, "progeny resulted." These are the recognized interpretations among Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) who remain loyal to Ellen G. White and affirm her status as a prophet sent by God. Their accounts hold more credibility compared to those of numerous SDA apologists today who profess loyalty to Ellen G. White but disavow the early SDA doctrines that assert the "amalgamation of man and beast" refers to actual sexual relations between humans and animals. As per this interpretation, the alleged amalgamation led to the creation of beings that did not bear the image of God, along with animals that gave rise to confused species.
The question now is, if the early believers in Ellen G. White’s writings believed that humans and animals could produce progeny from their sexual relations, how did this offend Black people during Ellen G. White’s time? This is because Ellen G. White's teaching suggested that Black people were the result of literal sexual relations between humans and animals! Is it possible to confirm this from Ellen G. White's writings? While Ellen G. White did not explicitly express this idea word for word, it is possible that she may have conveyed it privately to her followers rather than disclosing it publicly, possibly due to concerns about potential backlash. Although there is no direct statement from Ellen G. White suggesting that Black people were the product of the amalgamation of man and beast, this inference can be drawn from the explanations provided by her close associates. Let's hear it first from Ellen G. White's trustworthy defender, Uriah Smith.
Testimony from Uriah Smith
One example of a faithful believer in the writings of Ellen G. White is Uriah Smith. In 1866, he penned a series of articles in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald to defend and counter the critics of Ellen G. White, specifically B. F. Snook and W. H. Brinkerhoff, who were SDA ministers and close friends of Ellen and James White but left Adventism in the 1860s. In 1866, Snook and Brinkerhoff co-authored a small book titled "The Visions of E. G. White Not Of God, where they claimed that Ellen and James had explained that by "amalgamation of man and beast," she was referring to Black people. They wrote:
"These visions teach that the Negro race is not human. This charge they deny but we will let the reader decide for himself. Here is what she says; “Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species, and in certain races of men.”—Sp. Gifts. Vol. 3, p. 75. But what are we to understand by certain races of men? She has not informed us in her writings, but left us to fix the stigma of amalgamation where we may see fit. But the interpretation has come to light. She told it to her husband, and he made it known to Eld[er] Ingraham, and he divulged the secret to the writer, that Sister White had seen that God never made the Darkey."[5]
The term "darkey" is an offensive and outdated word historically used to refer to Black people. It is widely considered a racial offense and should not be used in modern language. This term is derogatory and reflects a history of racism and discrimination. Uriah Smith countered their statement and affirmed that Ellen White did indeed suggest that certain human races were the product of the amalgamation of man and beast. Smith specifically mentioned "the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians," among others, as examples of those who were believed to have resulted from such amalgamation. Smith said:
"The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, etc. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarcation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was ordained of God in the beginning? "[6]
It is important to highlight that the ethnic groups "the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians" cited by Smith to support Ellen White's claims were all characterized by having dark skin. It is clear that Uriah Smith only opposed the critics' claim that Black people are not human; he did not contest the idea that they were the product of amalgamation or interbreeding of man and beast. This can be seen in his refutation of objection #39 titled "Objection 39. — The Negro race not human." To show that the critics were wrong in their accusation that the product of the amalgamation of man and beast mentioned by Ellen G. White were not human beings, Smith used examples of dark-skinned people such as "the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians," who are still considered "men."
Uriah Smith strengthened his argument by citing the studies of "naturalists," who supposedly affirmed that "the line of demarcation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion." Doesn't this closely align with Ellen G. White's statement that "it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere"?
Even the King James Version, which Ellen G. White frequently used, referred to bestiality as "confusion":
Leviticus 18:23 (KJV): "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."
Based on Uriah Smith's testimony, it is clear that he believed, according to what he learned from Ellen G. White, that the "amalgamation of man and beast" referred to the sexual relations between humans and animals, producing "confused species," or Black people or dark-skinned races. If you belong to a dark-skinned race, wouldn't you be offended by the teachings of someone who claims to be a prophet and messenger of God, like Ellen G. White?
It's important to mention that Uriah Smith's articles were published in the official SDA church magazine, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, with the intention of representing the entire Adventist community. These articles received approval from the General Conference and ministerial before being published. They said:
"Resolved, That we, the members of the General and Mich. State Conference, having heard a portion of the manuscript which has been prepared by Bro. U. Smith, in response to certain objections recently brought against the visions of Sister White, do hereby express our hearty approval of the same. Resolved That we tender our thanks to Bro. Smith for his able defense of the visions against the attacks of their opponents."[7]
The commendation by the General and Michigan State Conference confirms that they endorsed Uriah Smith's defense of Ellen G. White's teaching that the amalgamation of man and beast referred to the sexual intercourse between humans and animals, resulting in dark-skinned races, which she called "confused species." If this was not an accepted belief of the Seventh-day Adventists at the time, it should not have been officially recommended by the General Conference of the SDA church. According to Ellen G. White, the General Conference is regarded as God's highest authority on earth for Adventists, and they are expected to adhere to its consensus and set aside their personal judgment. Eventually, in 1868, these articles were published in a book titled "The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White: A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to Scripture." Following the release of Uriah Smith's book defending Ellen White's prophetic ministry and statements, James and Ellen White personally marketed and distributed 2,000 copies of Smith's book at camp meetings in 1868. This validates that the initial stance and authorized interpretation of Ellen G. White's declaration regarding amalgamation pertained to the physical union between humans and animals, leading to the creation of dark-skinned races, a concept understandably offensive to Black people both in the past and present. It's not surprising that present-day SDA proponents struggle to justify this aspect of Ellen G. White's teachings and often seek to steer clear of discussing this topic.
Testimony from SDA pastor, G. V. Kilgore
The next testimony from a faithful believer in Ellen G. White's writings, which proves that the "amalgamation of man and beast" refers to the physical intercourse between humans and animals resulting in a dark-skinned race, comes from an Adventist pastor, G. V. Kilgore, who boasted that Ellen White’s amalgamation is scientifically true. Pastor G.V. Kilgore proudly stated that he had won many debates defending Ellen G. White. Here is his account in the official SDA church magazine, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald:
"Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, page 78, was referred to and ridiculed by the Baptist minister. He said that what Sister White said about amalgamation of man and beast was utterly impossible. I referred him to Johnson’s New Cyclopedia, pp. 1040, 1042, that he might learn for the first time, if he never knew it before, that “Allied species are capable, as a rule, of pairing and producing offspring;” and that, “under the influence of man, mongrel races readily arise and are indefinitely sustained,” just exactly what Sister White says. The elder said her teachings were worse than Darwinism. But I showed that her teachings were correct (Lev. 18:23, 24), and that his were worse than nonsense."[8]
The Adventist pastor agreed with Uriah Smith's interpretation of Ellen G. White's statement. He supported his viewpoint by citing Johnson’s New Cyclopedia, a secular and authoritative source, which closely mirrored Ellen G. White's words. This, he argued, confirmed the validity of Sister White's message.
Testimony from the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald
Testimony from the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald
In November 1901, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church inquired with the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald about Ellen G. White's teachings regarding the "amalgamation of man and beast." The specific question posed was “Can amalgamated blood be saved?” with reference to Acts 17:26. The full content of the member's inquiry is as follows:
"Also in “Spiritual Gifts,” Vol. III, page 75, it says: “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.” But in Acts 17:26 we read that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” etc. Can amalgamated blood be saved? I would like a little light on this subject."[9]
Here is the implication of the question:
First, for the person asking, it is understood that the belief of the SDA church at that time was that children could result from the intercourse between humans and animals, as that was Ellen G. White's teaching known to them.
Second, the questioner also understood Acts 17:26, which states that God made all nations of men from "one blood" and that He intends to save them.
Third, if children could result from the intercourse between humans and animals, how could these children be included in salvation when their blood would not be 100% human? Their blood would be mixed with the blood of beasts, and therefore, they would not fall under the category of "one blood from all nations of men," as mentioned in Acts 17:26.
If the "amalgamation of man and beast" did not mean the interbreeding of humans and animals, the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald magazine should have corrected this misunderstanding, stating that this was not Ellen G. White's intended meaning. However, Alonzo T. Jones and Uriah Smith, the editors of the Adventist journal, supported and defended the same position and explanation that Adventists have maintained since the 1860s. Here is their response:
"As to statements in “Spiritual Gifts,” page 75, it is not difficult to believe that there have been attempts at amalgamation between man and beast. The difficulty is to believe that the results of such attempts could be perpetuated, and we do not understand the statement to affirm that it could be carried to such an extent as to violate or invalidate physiological law. Thus, if amalgamation could be carried to such an extent as that a human being should beget a beast, such beasts could not perpetuate their species, but might it not be that sufficient results of bestiality would appear as to leave a trace of amalgamation, without destroying the power of generation? The horse and jackass can produce the mule, but mules cannot perpetuate their own species. But the amalgamation of which “Spiritual Gifts” speaks is seen in what is called certain “races of men.” This shows that deterioration was not recognized to such a degree as to eliminate the human, and transform any such offspring into beasts. That objection, therefore, may not be raised against any class of human beings."[10]
The Adventist publication emphasizes that human-animal interbreeding must not violate physiological laws. It states that if "amalgamation" led to a human begetting a beast, the resulting animal would be unable to reproduce. The text also mentions a trace of amalgamation in some humans and affirms that the power of regeneration in these individuals has not been destroyed by "bestiality."
Based on our studies, Ellen White and the Adventists unanimously believed that Black people, Hottentots, the Bushmen of Africa, Digger Indians, Patagonians, and other similar dark-skinned racial groups were the result of the amalgamation of humans and animals.
Is it any wonder, then, why, according to The Ellen White Encyclopedia we cited earlier, one reason Ellen G. White removed this controversial statement about the amalgamation of man and beast from her writings after 1871? The primary reason, according to her son Willie White, was that it offended the "Southern authors" or Black people of the Southern States. However, I have read many rebuttals from SDA apologists quoting numerous positive statements about Black people from Ellen G. White to debunk the claim that she was racist and to argue that our interpretation that she said Black people are the product of the amalgamation of man and beast is incorrect. But is this true? I will share the words of my friend, Rev. E.J. Lauriston, a former Adventist theologian and author of several books critiquing the teachings of the SDA church, about Ellen G. White's motivations for her positive statements about Black people. He stated the following:
"This seemed revolutionary. However, it comes across as altruistic. Bad trees only produce bad fruits. The name of the game becomes one of trying to look good. But what was her motive? They were free now and wage earners. Money was to be had for herself, her church, and its institutions. They were just another brand of cash cows. . . "Her altruistic statements supporting Blacks are brought into question. What changed? Blacks were no longer slaves, devoid of any income or means of gain. They were now free and could populate the Adventist Church, dedicating their lives, talents, energies, money, influence, and focus to the promulgation of Ellen White, her books
and teachings, and the Adventist Church system. This strategy has worked."[11]
I heartily agree with Rev. E. J. Lauriston. Ellen G. White's positive statements in favor of Black people were motivated by selfish interest, so all of that pro-Black advocacy is just a show of hypocrisy. As proof of her hypocrisy, she made statements and gave advice that contradicted many of the ones she made in favor of Blacks six years before her death in 1915. On March 16, 1901, Ellen White spoke to a Black Adventist congregation in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Vicksburg, a Confederate bastion, was a place where Black individuals faced relentless discrimination, persecution, oppression, and mistreatment by White supremacists. This statement exposes the deep-seated racism of Ellen White:
“You are the children of God. He has adopted you, and He desires you to form characters here that will give you entrance into the heavenly family. Remembering this, you will be able to bear the trials which you meet here. In heaven, there will be no color line, for all will be as white as Christ himself. Let us thank God that we can be members of the royal family."[12]
Ellen G. White believed that Jesus was a white man. She thought that in heaven, people's circumstances would change, including their physical appearance. She encouraged Black individuals to keep heavenly hope in mind as they faced their trials, believing that they would be transformed into white people upon reaching heaven.
The last statement from Ellen White on this matter is one in which she advocated for the integration of Black individuals into White Adventist churches and worship services. However, she maintained the belief in the racial inferiority of Blacks and prohibited intermarriage with them, thereby contradicting herself:
"Every effort should be made to wipe out the terrible wrong [slavery] which has been done to them. At the same time we must not carry things to extremes and run into fanaticism on this question. Some would think it right to throw down every partition wall and intermarry with the colored people, but this is not the right thing to teach or practice."[13]
Ellen White believed it was wrong for individuals to "throw down every partition wall and intermarry with the colored people." While she advocated for some level of integration, she did not support full and complete equality. In her view, certain forms of segregation should remain. She maintained that Black people should not be politically, socially, or maritally equal to White people and should remain in their inferior positions. White advised against intermarriage between White and Black individuals, stating that it should neither be taught nor practiced. These statements highlight the extent of Ellen White's racist beliefs.
Footnote:
[1] Fortin, Denis, and Jerry Moon. The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia. Review and Herald Pub Assoc, 2014, p. 1704
[2] ibid. 1695-1696
[3] “bestiality.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bestiality.
[4] Nichol, F. D. Ellen White, and Her Critics. USA, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1951, pp. 306-307
[5] Snook, B. F., and Wm. H. Brinkerhoff. The Visions of E.G. White Not of God. USA, Cedar Valley Times Book and Job Printer, 1866. p. 4
[6] Smith, Uriah. The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, Manifestations of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures. USA, Battle Creek: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868. p. 102
[7] Smith, Uriah. “Objections to the Visions,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, June 12, 1866, p. 16, http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18660612-V28-02.pdf (Date accessed July 28, 2024).
[8] G. V. Kilgore, “Blind Guides,” in Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 28, 1878, p. 170.
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18781128-V52-22.pdf (Date accessed July 28, 2024).
[9] “In the Question Chair,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 5, 1901, p. 721, http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19011105- V78-45.pdf (Date accessed April 13, 2021).
[10] ibid. 721
[11] Lauriston, Elce-Junior. Hiding In Plain Sight Volume 3. Independently Published, 2022, pp. 109-110
[12] White, Gospel Herald, March 1, 1901, par. 20.
[13] White, The Southern Work, p. 15.
No comments:
Post a Comment