Ellen White the Backpedaling Prophet

By Dirk Anderson, March, 2025

"That which I have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been instructed to change that which I have sent out. ... .The straight line of truth presented to me when I was but a girl is just as clearly presented to me now."
(Ellen White, Review and Herald Jan. 26, 1905)

Ellen White—The Backpedaling Prophet

Ellen White was known to reverse her testimonies when SDA leaders, public opinion, or scientific facts weighed against those testimonies. This article will discuss several instances where Mrs. White backpedaled on her testimonies.

Reversed Plain Testimony on Butter

In the nineteenth century, various health reformers such as Sylvester Graham, Marie Louise Shew, and William A. Alcott cautioned against an overuse of butter. As early as 1869, Mrs. White was advising her followers to avoid butter:

We have advised you not to eat butter or meat. We have not had it on our table.¹

In 1870, she wrote of the horrific damage that butter does:

The butter and meat stimulate. These have injured the stomach and perverted the taste. The sensitive nerves of the brain have been benumbed, and the animal appetite strengthened at the expense of the moral and intellectual. ... No butter or flesh-meats of any kind come on my table.²

Imagine the terror SDAs felt when reading this heaven sent testimony! Who would want their stomach injured and the sensitive nerves of their brain benumbed? What loyal SDA, striving for perfection, would want their animal passions strengthened? After reading terrifying testimonies like this, many SDAs followed Ellen White's example and stopped using butter. However, some still allowed their children to eat butter. The prophetess soundly rebuked this practice. In 1870, she insinuated that those who feed their children butter would not have their prayers heard by God:

You place upon your tables butter, eggs, and meat, and your children partake of them. They are fed with the very things that will excite their animal passions, and then you come to meeting and ask God to bless and save your children. How high do your prayers go?³

This testimony no doubt convinced many parents to stop giving their children butter. After all, who wants to have their prayers go unheard?

In 1872, Sister White wrote:

We bear positive testimony against...butter...⁴

She consistently wrote and spoke against butter for three decades. However, in 1901 she sent out a surprising testimony taking butter off the "bad food" list:

When the time comes that it is no longer safe to use...butter...God will reveal this... No extremes in health reform are to be advocated. ... At present we have no burden on this line."⁵

God would reveal when it was no longer safe to eat butter? People must have wondered, if God has yet to reveal when it is wrong to eat butter, then who was telling Ellen White it was wrong to eat butter the last three decades? Who told her parents who give butter to their children will not have their prayers heard? Who told her it injured the stomach? Benumbed the brain? Excited animal passions? In 1872, Mrs. White felt burdened enough to bear "positive testimony" against butter, but by 1901, she had "no burden" to restrict its use. Why the change? In 1869 she discarded the use of butter, but in 1901 she described discarding butter as an "extreme in health reform." Was she teaching extremes in health reform for thirty years? What caused this astonishing reversal in her heaven sent message?

Mrs. White reversed her earlier position because SDA people were suffering health problems from her radical reforms. For example, Dr. D.H. Kress, already a vegetarian, removed eggs and all dairy products from his diet because he believed Ellen White's testimonies were inspired. Little did he realize the consequences of that decision! His health took a serious decline. By his own admission, he was "near death."⁶ When Mrs. White heard of his condition, she decided to have a vision revealing to him that he could now eat some eggs and butter:

Butter should not be placed on the table, for if it is some will use it too freely, and it will obstruct digestion. But for yourself, you should occasionally use a little butter on cold bread.⁷

After Kress re-introduced eggs and dairy into his diet, he made a full recovery.⁸ This is powerful anecdotal evidence of the bad fruit of Ellen White's health teachings.

In addition to Kress, children were encountering serious health problems because their parents unwisely followed Ellen White's extreme and obviously uninspired testimonies. Dr. J.H. Kellogg explained:

The fact is many people were injured by the practice of what they called health reform in those days which was not soundly based. The principal fault was in discarding butter which eliminated vitamin A and lowered the vital resistance and I think led to tuberculosis in many cases. Many people were doubtless suffer from the lack of fat especially fat containing vitamin A...⁹

Butter is a crucial source of vitamin A (retinol), especially for vegetarians. Vitamin A plays a vital role in supporting a healthy immune system. It does this in several ways:

Maintaining Skin and Mucous Membranes: Vitamin A helps keep the skin and the linings of the respiratory, digestive, and urinary tracts healthy. These act as the first line of defense against infections like tuberculosis.
Supporting Immune Cell Function: Vitamin A is needed for the proper function of various immune cells, including those that fight infections.
Antibody Production: Vitamin A is involved in the production of antibodies, which help the body fight off infections.

When SDAs followed the prophet's "positive testimony" to discard butter, they were unknowingly injuring their own immune systems. It is unknown how many loyal SDAs got sick, crippled, or died because of her extreme health reforms. Dr. Kellogg described the victims as "many." This is evidence that her testimonies bore bad fruit and had to be reversed to protect the health of her followers.

Parents as Elementary Teachers

One of the lesser known stories about Ellen White backpedaling is in regards to when children should start attending school. In 1872, she wrote:

Parents should be their only teachers, until they have reached eight or ten years of age. Among the opening flowers and nature's beautiful scenery in the open air should be the only school room for children from eight to ten years of age.¹⁰

This inspired testimony was reprinted in the Review and Herald on July 14, 1885.

Over time, it became obvious this testimony was impractical, and perhaps even harmful to the development of children. In 1904, Mrs. White became annoyed when she observed children wandering around the Battle Creek Sanitarium during the day: "Sharp-eyed, lynx-eyed, wandering about with nothing to do, getting into mischief."¹¹ If patients were also annoyed by the sight or sound of children running around the facility, this could impact the profitability of the Sanitarium. Thus, she decided it was now acceptable for a school to be established to manage children whose parents could not discipline or govern them. She pointed to the Haskell's orphanage in Battle Creek as an model where children were taught "from five years old and upward."¹² When SDAs objected to creating a school for small children because her testimonies instructed parents should to be a child's only teacher until at least age eight, Mrs. White's only response was:

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things.¹³

Apparently, her earlier testimonies defied common sense. Few today would argue with that. Supposedly, some "circumstances" changed which invalidated her prior testimonies. But, what circumstances changed? It is unlikely that parents suddenly became unable to govern their children between 1885 and 1904. What changed was that the absurdity of her original prohibition was exposed. It was impractical for parents to attempt to be their child's teacher until age 8 to 10. What changed was that unschooled children were annoying patients in the Sanitarium which could effect the financial income of that institution. Thus, Mrs. White backpedaled on this prohibition and the SDA sect effectively abandoned it altogether. They established primary educational schools all over the world to educate young children at considerable expense to the parents.

As it turns out, the Haskells were wiser than Ellen White who supposedly got her wisdom from God. The period between the ages of 5 and 10 is absolutely crucial for a child's intellectual development, and the education they receive during these years has a profound and lasting impact. It is not an exaggeration to say it lays the foundation for their future learning and cognitive abilities. Here is why this period is so important:

Brain Development: The brain undergoes significant development during these years. Neural connections are forming rapidly, and the brain is highly receptive to learning. Experiences during this time shape the brain's architecture and influence cognitive functions like language, memory, and problem-solving.
Building Foundational Skills: This is when children learn fundamental skills like reading, writing, and mathematics. These skills are essential for all future learning and academic success. If a child falls behind in these areas during this period, it can be very difficult to catch up later.
Developing Cognitive Abilities: Children also develop crucial cognitive skills during this time, including:
- Critical Thinking: Learning to analyze information and form their own opinions.
- Problem-Solving: Developing strategies to approach and solve problems.
- Memory and Attention: Improving their ability to remember information and focus their attention.
- Language Development: Expanding their vocabulary and understanding of grammar.
- Social and Emotional Development: Education during this period also plays a vital role in social and emotional development. Children learn to interact with others, cooperate, and develop social skills. They also learn about emotions, self-regulation, and building resilience.
- Motivation and Attitude Towards Learning: Early educational experiences can significantly impact a child's motivation and attitude towards learning. Positive and engaging experiences can foster a love of learning, while negative experiences can lead to a dislike of school and a belief that they are not capable learners.

The education a child receives between ages 5 and 10 has a cascading effect on their long-term intellectual development and life trajectory. Children who receive a strong foundation during these years are more likely to succeed academically, have better career prospects, be more engaged citizens, and have better health outcomes. Conversely, children who do not receive adequate education during this crucial period are at a higher risk of falling behind academically, dropping out of school, more limited job prospects, and social and emotional challenges. Once again, Ellen White's original testimony caused more harm than good. How fortunate it is that children running around the Sanitarium annoyed Ellen White enough to reverse her preposterous testimony.

Reversal on Education in Cities

In 1894, Mrs. White laid out her vision for SDA schools.

Never can the proper education be given to the youth in this country, or in other country, unless they are separated a wide distance from the cities. The customs and practices in the cities unfit the minds of the youth for the entrance of truth. ... It is not the correct plan to locate school buildings where the students will have constantly before their eyes the erroneous practices that have molded their education during their lifetime, be it longer or shorter. These holidays, with all their train of evil, result in twentyfold more misery than good. In a large degree the observance of these days is really compulsory. Even persons who have been truly converted find it difficult to break away from these customs and practices. Should schools be located in the cities or within a few miles from them, it would be most difficult to counteract the influence of the former education which students have received in regard to these holidays and the practices connected with them, such as horse racing, betting, and the offering of prizes. The very atmosphere of these cities is full of poisonous malaria. ... Should our school be located in one of these cities, or within a few miles of it, there would be a counter-working influence constantly in active exercise to undermine principles; this influence would have to be met and overcome.¹⁴

Mrs. White wrote that proper education for youth could "never" be given unless a school was separated by a "wide distance from the cities." She then goes on a long rant about how holidays will ruin SDA youth if the school is located near a city. In 1902, Mrs. White urged her flock "to establish our schools away from the congested cities."¹⁵

The SDA school in Avondale (Australia) was lauded by Mrs. White as a "model school...far from the temptations of city life", a school that was located "away from all cities, away from saloons."¹⁶

In May of 1903, in a letter to the General Conference Committee discussing locations for SDA institutions, Mrs. White wrote:

We should not establish this institution in a city or in the suburbs of a city. It should be established in a rural district, where it can be surrounded by land. ...preparation must also be made to fit up a small sanitarium and to establish an agricultural school. We must, therefore, find a place that has sufficient land for these purposes. We must not settle in a congested center.¹⁷

In July, while looking for land to establish a sanitarium and school, the brethren located a 50-acre tract of land near Washington, D.C. The land was purchased later that year and 19 acres were eventually allocated to Washington Training College (now Washington Adventist University [WAU]). The size of the land, being less than half the size of Avondale's 42 acres, did not afford room for much agriculture (currently, WAU does not offer an agricultural program).

Moreover, the land was in Takoma Park, a suburb of Washington D.C. The distance from the property to the District of Columbia border was one mile. It was a mere seven miles to the capital buildings. At that time, The District of Columbia boasted a population of 300,000.¹⁸ This school was not "a wide distance" from cities. It was literally on the border of a large city spewing out the "poisonous miasma" of holiday celebrations. By her own testimony in 1894, this school could "never" provide a "proper education" to SDA youth. However, because the leading brethren liked the location near the capital, Mrs. White blatantly lied about the suitability of the property in 1904:

The location that has been secured for our school and sanitarium is all that could be desired.¹⁹

Was it really all that the prophet desired? Not according to her earlier testimonies! Here is why it was undesirable:

It lacked land for agriculture
It was in the suburb of a large city.

To prove it was not "all that could be desired," a mere two years later, when considering land for a school near San Francisco (population 342,782 in 1900), Mrs. White wrote:

Be assured that the call is for our people to locate miles away from the large cities. One look at San Francisco as it is today would speak to your intelligent minds, showing you the necessity of getting out of the cities. Do not establish institutions in the cities, but seek a rural location. ... The very atmosphere of the city is polluted. Let your schools be established away from the cities, where agricultural and other industries can be carried on.²⁰

Here was a city very similar in size to Washington, D.C. Mrs. White wanted the school to be "miles away" where agriculture could be carried on. This was all that could be desired. She backpedaled on Washington, D.C. because the leading brethren strongly wanted to be located in the capital, not because it was "all that could be desired."

Reversal on Pharaoh's Magicians' Snakes

When commenting on the story in Exodus 7 about Moses and the Egyptian magicians turning their rods into serpents, Mrs. White's early statements mirrored that of the Bible which simply states:

For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents... (Exo 7:12)

Ellen White wrote similarly in an 1862 testimony:²¹

The magicians’ rods did become serpents...

This same phrase was later reprinted in the Feb. 18, 1862 edition of the Review and Herald, and again in 1864 on page 82 of the book Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4b.

Sometime afterward, for unknown reasons, she changed her mind and decided the magicians' snakes were not real snakes. In 1870, she wrote:

They did not really cause their rods to become serpents, but by magic, aided by the great deceiver, made them to appear like serpents, to counterfeit the work of God.²²

At first, she said they "did become serpents." Then, she backpedaled and said they "did not really...become serpents." Which is it?

When the brethren pointed out this glaring contradiction to her, she attempted to explain it away:

This statement, instead of contradicting the former, is simply explanatory of it. There is not, in the Testimony, a full expression of the thought which I wished to convey.²³

Mrs. White makes no admission of any mistake when writing her first testimony. Instead, she claims her thought was accurate, but somehow she failed to fully express it. Thus, she seems to be saying that her contradictory statements are not contradictory because her thought was correct, even thought what she wrote was not correct. Does that make sense? How many of her other testimonies are also incorrect because she failed to write out her thought?

Reversal on Cheese

Like Sylvester Graham, Ellen White took a strong stance against eating animal foods, including cheese. In 1868, she wrote: "Cheese should never be introduced into the system."²⁴ In 1905, SDAs published Ellen's book, The Ministry of Healing,, which was to serve as a comprehensive guide to health and healing from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. In that book, she reiterated her earlier prohibition against cheese:

Cheese is still more objectionable; it is wholly unfit for food.²⁵

From these quotes, any SDA could comprehend that her heaven-sent message was that cheese should never be eaten because it was wholly unfit for food.

When Ministry of Healing was being translated into the German language, great concern was raised by the publishers over her statements about cheese. The publishers wrote and informed Mrs. White that cheese was heavily used in Europe and they argued that many types of cheese were healthy. Mrs. White counseled with her counselor, W.C. White, and he responded in a letter as follows:

...I have given faithful study to the questions you raised. Mother has read your letter , and in harmony with her instruction, I suggest the following for Ministry of Healing:
On page 302, second paragraph, last two lines: 'Strong cheese is still more objectionable.'
This leaves off the sentence, 'It is wholly unfit for food,' and gives 'cheese' a qualifying adjective.

This was apparently acceptable to the Germans, and according to the footnote in Counsels on Diets and Foods, the German translation reads "Strong, sharp cheese" instead of "cheese." Also, the German version dropped "It is wholly unfit for food." This changed the meaning substantially. Instead of being wholly unfit for food, cheese was now acceptable for food, so long as it was not strong and sharp.

Thus, when German SDAs objected strongly to her fanatical health teachings, she backpedalled and modified her inspired words to make them more acceptable to the Germans.

Backpedalled on the Change of the Sabbath

In 1847, Ellen White claimed she saw in vision that the papacy had changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday:

I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.²⁶

While the Whites believed this to be factual in 1847, it was not an accurate statement. Based on historical evidence, no single pope issued a decree that universally and unilaterally changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. The widespread practice of Christian communities meeting on Sunday dates back to at least the second century. The SDA sect's first scholar, J.N. Andrews, researched the Sabbath extensively in the 1850s. In his book, History of the Sabbath, he describes the formal adoption of Sunday observance as the result of a long procession of activities. This began in 140 AD, with Justin Martyr, continued with Constantine's Sunday law in 321 AD, bolstered by the Council of Loadicea (363-364 AD), and reinforced by councils and popes until it became "universal" at the end of the seventh century.²⁷ His research failed to uncover any historical record of one specific pope declaring, "I now change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday."

After Ellen White obtained the facts from Andrews (not God), when the Great Controversy was written in 1888, the story had changed. While omitting the fact of the widespread observance of Sunday dating back to at least the second century, Mrs. White now explained that the change from Sabbath to Sunday was a lengthy process that began in the fourth century and unfolded over several centuries:

Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power, were the steps by which the pagan festival attained its position of honor in the Christian world.²⁸

After Ellen White's death, SDA scholars continued to backpedal on the date of the change. Samuelle Bacchiocchi, the sect's preeminent historian, placed the change around the time of emperor Hadrian's persecution of the Jews in 135 AD:

The conclusion of my investigation conducted over a period of five years in Pontifical libraries and archives in Rome, Italy, is that the change from Sabbath to Sunday came about, not by the authority of Christ or the Apostles, but as a result of an interplay of social, political, pagan, and religious factors. I found that anti-Judaism led many Christians to abandon the observance of the Sabbath to differentiate themselves from the Jews at a time when Judaism in general and Sabbathkeeping in particular were outlawed in the Roman empire.²⁹

This places the change centuries before the first pope, proving that Ellen White's "vision" of the pope changing the day of worship was a false vision.

Philadelphia? Laodicea?

Soon after the Disappointment, the shut door Adventists, led by Joseph Bates and the Whites, began assigning labels from Revelation to various Christian groups as follows:³⁰

All who rejected William Miller's delusion: "Sardis," "Babylon," or "Synagogue of Satan." This group also included "professed Adventists" who at one time believed Miller's delusion but had since recanted.
Open-door (Sunday-keeping) Adventists: "Laodicea," or "nominal Adventists."
Shut-door (Sabbath-keeping) Adventists: "Philadelphia," "Little Flock," or "Remnant."

Shut door Adventists saw themselves as the "good" Philadelphia Church. In her very first vision, Mrs. White advanced the theory that those who rejected Miller's delusion would soon discover their terrible error and would come to grovel at the feet of the shut door Adventists. In 1846, Ellen White wrote out her vision in which she quoted from Jesus' message to the Church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3:9. In this vision, she saw that "the synagogue of Satan worshipped at the saint's feet."³¹ This statement was republished in 1847 in A Word to the Little Flock."

In 1852, it appears she regarded nominal [Sunday-keeping] Adventists as Laodicea because she wrote about them as follows: "The words addressed to the Laodicean Church, describe their present condition perfectly."³² Thus, Mrs. White's understanding appeared to match that of James White and Joseph Bates.

Twelve years after the Great Disappointment, it began to dawn on James White that Christ was not coming anytime soon, which meant that the Sunday-keeping ministers who rejected Miller were not going to grovel at the feet of the Whites. Thus, in 1856, James revised his position on Philadelphia being the Sabbath-keeping Adventists. He called that understanding "a mistake."³³ He then applied the label of Laodicea to Sabbath-keeping Adventists. Ellen White followed suit. Within a few months, she also started using the term Laodicea to describe her own followers.³⁴ In 1860, she wrote: "I saw that the testimony to the Laodiceans applied to God's people at the present time."³⁵ The idea that those who rejected William Miller would grovel at the feet of Sabbath-keeping Adventists disappeared entirely from her writings. She maintained the position that her sect was Laodicea for the remainder of her life.³⁶ To this day, the SDA sect regards themselves as Laodicea.

Conclusion

What kind of prophet needs to backpedal on their testimonies? A false prophet!

Truly inspired words never need to be walked back. As the psalmist said:

All his instructions are trustworthy. They are established forever and ever. (Ps. 111:7-8 CSB)

As a true prophet once wrote:

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Isa. 40:8)

Ellen White's word did not stand forever. It withered and faded. Therefore, it is not the Word of God.

Citations

1. Ellen White, Letter 5, 1869.

2. Ellen White, Appeal to the Battle Creek Church (1870), 79, 81.

3. Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 2 (1885), 361. First published in Testimony 18 (1870), 11.

4. Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 3 (1885), 21. See also Letter 5, 1870.

5. Ellen White, Counsels on Diets and Foods, 353.

6. D.H. Kress, unpublished manuscript, Jan. 6, 1944.

7. Ellen White, Letter 37, 1901

8. D.H. Kress, ibid.

9. John Harvey Kellogg Letter to E.S. Ballenger, Jan. 9, 1936.

10. Ellen White, Health Reformer, Sep. 1, 1872.

11. Ellen White, Manuscript 7, 1904.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ellen White, Manuscript 8, 1894. Later published in Special Testimonies on Education (1897), 87.

15. Ellen White, Letter 143, 1902.

16. Ellen White, The Needs of the Cause in Australia, July 4, 1903. Manuscript 186, 1898.

17. Ellen White, Life Sketches (1915), 392.

18. The land was secured near the end of 1903. According to census reports, the District of Columbia had approximately 295,000 people on 1903-01-01 and 302,000 people on 1904-01-01. See U.S. Census Bureau, "Annual Estimates of the Population for the U.S. and States, and for Puerto Rico."

19. Ellen White, Letter 155, 1904.

20. Ellen White, Letter 158, 1906.

21. Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, 292.

22. Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1 (1870), 184.

23. Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, 697.

24. Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, 68.

25. Ellen White, Ministry of Healing (1905), 302.

26. Ellen White, Broadside, April 7, 1847. See also Letter 1, April 7, 1847, to Joseph Bates.

27. John Nevins Andrews, History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week: Showing the Bible Record of the Sabbath and the Manner in which it Has Been Supplanted by the Heathen Festival of the Sun (Battlecreek, MI: Steam Press of the Review & Herald Office, 1859), 49-71.

28. Ellen White, Great Controversy (1888), 574. The entire chapter describes various events in the rise of Sunday observance.

29. Samuele Bacchiocchi, "From Sabbath To Sunday: How Did It Come About?" Endtime Issues, no. 64 (March 1, 2001), 16.

30. James White and Joseph Bates, "The Laodicean Church," Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Nov. 1850, 8. The Advent Review, vol. 1 (Aug. 1, 1850): 21.

31. Ellen White, "To the Little Remnant Scattered Abroad," Broadside, April 6, 1846.

32. Ellen White, Review and Herald, June 10, 1852

33. James White, "The Seven Churches," Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Oct. 1856, 189.

34. Ellen White, Manuscript 1, Dec. 9, 1856. See also Letter 15, 1857.

35. Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2 (1860), 223.

36. Ellen White, Manuscript 128, 1901: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church must now repent and heed the message to the Laodicean church."