Ellen White's Eugenics Poison

By Dirk Anderson, April, 2025

"The gas chambers taught us where eugenics leads. Any attempt to categorize people as 'fit' or 'unfit' is a step towards repeating history's darkest chapter." (Eva Mozes Kor, Holocaust survivor)

This article will provide evidence that Ellen G. White, prophetess of the Seventh-day Adventist [SDA] Church, adopted proto-eugenic teachings from other "Christian" American health reformers, amplified those teachings, and advocated those falsehoods to her followers as if it was "truth from heaven."

What is Eugenics?

Eugenics focused on the selective breeding of humans to improve the genetic stock of the population. It was based on the belief that human traits—physical, intellectual, and moral qualities—were inherited and could be manipulated through controlled reproduction to increase the prevalence of desirable traits and decrease undesirable ones. Of course, classification of human traits as either positive or negative was based on subjective and often biased criteria.

Brief History of Eugenics

Sir Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics" in 1883, but the ideas that constitute eugenics had been developing for some time before that. Long before Galton, people recognized that certain traits ran in families. Animal breeders had practiced selective breeding for centuries. The idea of inherited characteristics was discussed in ancient and early modern thought. However, the 19th century interest in eugenics was propelled by Charles Darwin. His theory of evolution, published in On the Origin of Species (1859), provided a new framework for understanding heredity. It bolstered the idea that humans, like animals, could be subject to improvement through selective breeding.

In the 19th century, many individuals in America and Europe experienced growing anxieties about the perceived decline of society. Rapid population growth, urbanization, and immigration along with increases in poverty, crime, and mental illness, fueled a desire to improve the population and prevent degeneracy. Social Darwinism, which applied Darwinian concepts to human societies, emerged in the mid-19th century as an answer to these anxieties. It suggested that societies could be improved by favoring certain groups over others.

Therefore, while the label "eugenics" was new in 1883, the underlying concepts had been developing for decades. Galton's contribution was to give these existing ideas a name and a seemingly scientific framework.

Horrific Fruit of Eugenics

The eugenics movement led to numerous disastrous results, demonstrating the dangers of this pseudoscientific ideology. Here are some of the most significant consequences:  

Forced Sterilization - Many individuals, deemed "unfit" due to perceived intellectual disabilities, mental illness, or criminal behavior, were forcibly sterilized. This practice was widespread in the United States and other countries, often targeting marginalized groups, including minorities, the poor, and women.

Racial Discrimination and Segregation - Eugenics provided a pseudoscientific justification for racial discrimination and segregation. It reinforced racist beliefs about the superiority of certain races and the inferiority of others. Eugenicists often used dehumanizing language, comparing Black people to animals, beasts, or other subhuman creatures. The term " amalgamation" was used to express fear and disgust at the idea of racial mixing, as they believed it would lead to the deterioration of the "superior" white race.

Nazi Atrocities - The Nazi regime's implementation of eugenic policies was the most extreme and horrific example of its consequences. The Nazis used eugenic ideas to justify their persecution and genocide of Jews, Roma, disabled people, and other groups deemed "undesirable." Forced sterilizations, and then mass murder, where the end result.  

Institutionalization - Many people who were considered "feeble minded" were institutionalized. This caused them to be removed from normal society.  

Damage to Scientific Integrity - Eugenics corrupted scientific research, as scientists often manipulated data or ignored evidence that contradicted their eugenic beliefs.  

Eugenics was one of the worst nightmares of the twentieth century. The eugenics movement caused widespread suffering, injustice, and death, demonstrating the profound dangers of demonic ideologies that seek to classify and control human populations based on flawed notions of "fitness." The horrors of the Holocaust exposed the devastating consequences of eugenic ideology and led to widespread revulsion against it. The catastrophic outcomes of eugenic practices during World War II, combined with scientific progress and ethical reappraisals, exposed eugenics as a fundamentally flawed and dangerous doctrine of devils, leading to its widespread repudiation.

American Christian Health Reformers Adopt Eugenic Concepts

James Caleb Jackson, M.D.

During the mid 19th century, a wave of American Protestant health reformers emerged who were deeply concerned with the nation's physical, moral, and spiritual decline. They believed that diet, lifestyle, and especially sexual behavior had direct impacts not only on personal health, but on future generations. One of the most influential voices in this movement was James Caleb Jackson,—a popular hydropathic doctor and dietary reformer—who promoted radical lifestyle changes to preserve moral and hereditary purity. He warned that unhealthy habits would drain the body's vital force, corrupt the bloodlines, and doom future children to weakness, disease, and moral failure.

Reformers such as Sylvester Graham, Russell Trall, Orson Fowler, and Jackson issued dire warnings about the dangers of sexual indulgence, overwork, spicy foods, meat, alcohol, tobacco, and stimulants like coffee and tea. These were not viewed as merely bad habits. They were acts of self-destruction, rapidly depleting one’s vital force and inviting disease.

Reformers feared that depleted individuals, especially those weakened by vice or age, could pass on their corrupted essence to the next generation, cursing humanity by causing the degeneration of the human race. In their view, the preservation of the race was a moral duty.

The debate was about more than just personal health. It was about genetic destiny. If the seed of the parent was weakened, the child would be physically sick, mentally inferior, or morally susceptible to a life of crime. Trall warned that "infirm, crippled, deformed, imbecile, or incurably diseased persons" should not reproduce, lest they curse the world by "propagating an inferior race."¹ Jackson believed that only parents of suitable stock should procreate, arguing:

Children can be bred, and improved in all their developments, just as merely animal creatures can be improved by breeding.²

O.S. Fowler, in a book found in Mrs. White's personal library, believed that before procreating, humans should get themselves into the best physical, mental, and moral condition possible, by refraining as much as possible from sexual activity, by eating a vegetarian diet, and by avoiding tobacco, alcohol, tea, and coffee. He wrote:

Immeasurably the best way to improve mankind consists in improving his nativity. These ante-natal [before birth] conditions affect us and our offspring a thousand times more than all post-natal influences combined. Then, prospective parents, as you would have children worthy of your whole-souled affections and efforts, learn how to start their existence upon the highest possible plane of physical and mental vigor and morality.³

Thus, even before the term "eugenics" was coined by Galton in 1883, American health reformers were defining some of its primary principles.

Ellen White Adopts and Promotes False Doctrine of Eugenics

Into this climate, Ellen White inserted herself with her health revelations. Starting in the mid-1860s and deepening into the 1870s and beyond, White began incorporating, and, in some cases, amplifying ideas that paralleled the early eugenic sentiments emerging from the American health reform movement. Her warnings about the dangers of "amalgamation of man and beast," her repeated emphasis on inherited characteristics, and her virulent warnings against sexual excess and diet reflected a worldview that saw physical and moral health as intertwined, inherited, and subject to divine law.

While Ellen White did not use the term "eugenics," many of her statements carry the tone and logic of early eugenic thought: That certain inherited traits, conditions, or even racial mixtures were unnatural, unholy, and dangerous to the human family. These ideas, while cloaked in religious language, helped reinforce a worldview that marked certain people as less than ideal.

While Mrs. White made many statements using eugenic-like language, this article will focus solely on Ellen White's 1870 book, A Solemn Appeal. This book will be unveiled for what it really is: A strong delusion laced with eugenics poison. It will also be demonstrated that the thoughts and concepts of White's book bear striking resemblances to the proto-eugenic teachings of reformers like Jackson, as evidenced in his 1862 book, Consumption. The eugenic concepts proposed by Jackson and echoed by White would later become institutionalized in the darkest policies of the 20th century.

Vital Force and Degeneration

Vital Force Fully Charged at Birth

The 19th century was the golden age of vital force theory. This now-discredited belief teaches that every human is born with a finite reservoir of life energy, like a battery charged at birth. This mysterious force, reformers claimed, governed not only physical vitality, but also mental clarity and even moral character. Over time, this vital force would naturally diminish with age. But far more concerning to health reformers was the belief that poor lifestyle choices could drain it prematurely, leading to sickness, weakness, insanity, and moral failure. To have healthy children, reformers believed it was paramount for parents to bear children while at the peak of their vital forces.

Health reformers of the 19th century, including Ellen White, promoted the idea that sexual activity significantly depleted vital force. They believed that each instance of intercourse, and especially childbirth, drained this vital energy from parents. Consequently, they argued that frequent procreation could lead to the birth of increasingly weakened offspring. In A Solemn Appeal, White warned against having additional children if parents recognized the potential for inherited weaknesses, framing it as a transgression against societal well-being and divine law:

Those who increase their number of children, when, if they consulted reason, they must know that physical and mental weakness must be their inheritance, are transgressors of the last six precepts of God's law, which specify the duty of man to his fellow-man. They do their part in increasing the degeneracy of the race, and in sinking society lower, thus injuring their neighbor.

Everywhere you may look, you will see pale, sickly, careworn, broken-down, dispirited, discouraged women. They are generally overworked, and their vital energies exhausted by frequent child-bearing. The world is filled with images of human beings who are of no worth to society.⁴

This perspective aligns with early eugenic concerns about racial degeneration. The reformers' belief was that parents perceived as weakened should avoid having children to prevent the decline of the human race. For example, Jackson believed "many women have bronchitis as a result of too frequent child-bearing."⁵ He warned:

A tired man and woman, so worn out with labor as to have their physical systems at the lowest point of vigor when cohabitation is had and conception takes place, are more likely to have the offspring they produce under such circumstances predisposed to diseases of the lungs, or of the nutritive system, than otherwise.⁶

White's statements are highly offensive and deeply flawed for the following reaons:

• White's claim that physical and mental "weakness" are inevitably inherited and doom offspring to be burdens or degenerates reflects a misunderstanding of genetics. Modern genetics has shown that while some conditions are hereditary, many are influenced by a complex mix of genes, environment, nutrition, and socioeconomic status. It also ignores the reality of genetic variation and resilience. Children born to parents with health challenges may not inherit those weaknesses at all or may overcome them with proper care.

• While frequent childbearing can certainly take a toll on a woman's physical and mental health, White's statement implies that it necessarily leads to women becoming "pale, sickly, careworn, broken-down, dispirited, discouraged," which is an oversimplification and generalization. Poverty, limited access to medical care, and societal roles had a greater impact than childbearing itself.

• White's statement implies that sickly or disabled people are "of no worth to society," which is ethically and scientifically reprehensible. This logic denies the worth of people with disabilities or chronic illnesses, many of whom live fulfilling, contributing lives. Her idea directly mirrors eugenic theories that judged people's right to live or reproduce by their usefulness to society. This thoroughly satanic statement dehumanizes the weak or vulnerable and contradicts the Christian teaching that every person is made in the image of God, regardless of ability or health. For a Christian, the value of a human life is not measured by its economic or physical productivity.

• White's language about the "degeneracy of the race" is classic eugenics, echoing the belief that society can be improved by discouraging the "unfit" from reproducing. The term "degeneracy" was widely used in the 19th and early 20th centuries to justify racial, class, and disability-based discrimination.

• White places the blame upon parents, labeling them as "transgressors" for having children with possible hereditary issues. She assigns moral guilt to natural, deeply personal decisions. This logic places the burden of societal health on individual reproductive choices, echoing eugenic practices of forced sterilization and birth control policies aimed at the "unfit."

A truly Christian stance is to uphold the dignity of all people, regardless of health or genetics. True Christians value life not because of perceived societal contribution but because they are created in God's image and Jesus teaches redeeming love for all humanity.

Ellen White on Marriage Planning for Superior Children

White warned her followers that love was an insufficient reason for marriage. Of utmost importance was the superiority of children such a marriage would produce. In 1870, she wrote in A Solemn Appeal:

Most of men and women have acted, in entering the marriage relation, as though the only question for them to settle was, whether they loved each other. But they should realize that a responsibility rests upon them in the marriage relation farther than this. They should consider whether their offspring will possess physical health, and mental and moral strength. ...

God will hold them accountable in a large degree for the physical health and moral characters thus transmitted to future generations.

Men and women who have corrupted their own bodies by dissolute habits, have also debased their intellects and destroyed the fine sensibilities of the soul. Very many of this class have married, and left for an inheritance to their offspring the taints of their own physical debility and depraved morals. The gratification of animal passions and gross sensuality have been the marked characteristics of their posterity, which have descended from generation to generation, increasing human misery to a fearful degree, and hastening the deterioration of the race. ...

Sickly men have often won the affections of women apparently healthy, and because they loved each other, they have felt themselves at perfect liberty to marry... Their offspring are compelled to be sufferers by disease transmitted to them. Thus disease has been perpetuated from generation to generation.⁷

White's statements reflect a core eugenic concern, that people should evaluate their biological and moral fitness before reproducing. Reformers believed that reproduction should ideally result in children with "desirable" traits such as health, intelligence, and morality. This focuses reproductive worthiness not on love or covenant but on genetic inheritance. However, what happens when parents who are less than ideal specimens of physical and moral health beget children? White continues:

The misery arising from unhappy marriages is felt by the offspring of such unions. They have entailed upon them a life of living misery; and, though innocent, suffer the consequences of their parents' inconsiderate course. ... Children generally inherit the peculiar traits of character which the parents possess; and in addition to all this, many come up without any redeeming influence around them. They are too frequently huddled together in poverty and filth. With such surroundings and examples, what can be expected of the children when they come upon the stage of action, but that they will sink lower in the scale of moral worth than their parents, and their deficiencies, in every respect, be more apparent than theirs? Thus have this class perpetuated their deficiencies, and cursed their posterity with poverty, imbecility, and degradation. These should not have married. At least, they should not have brought innocent children into existence to share their misery, and hand down their own deficiencies, with accumulating wretchedness, from generation to generation. This is one great cause of the degeneracy of the race.⁸

White's statements reflect several harmful and scientifically inaccurate beliefs prevalent in the 19th century, particularly within the context of early eugenic thought:

• From her moral platform as a prophet, White suggests that unfit parents pass down defects, creating compounded "wretchedness" in future generations. Using language identical to early eugenicists, she warns that reproduction by the "unfit" contributes to the decline of humanity. She implies that some people should not reproduce due to potential harm to society and their offspring. She espouses the theory of hereditary degeneracy, that moral, mental, and physical weaknesses are inherited and worsen over time, unless checked. This language mirrors the 19th-century concern about "tainted" bloodlines and the decline of the human race. The word degeneracy was widely used by early eugenicists to describe the feared decline of humanity due to unrestricted reproduction by the "unfit." White identifies this as a "great cause" of the human race's decline, echoing the same alarm sounded by secular health reformers and eugenicists.

• White claims that children not only inherit parents' "peculiar traits," but become even worse morally and physically. She links poverty and "filth" to inevitable moral failure, reinforcing the idea that certain social classes are biologically and spiritually degenerating. She describes poor families as trapped in a cycle of inherited "imbecility" and degradation, again echoing eugenic anxieties. She concludes that these parents "should not have brought innocent children into existence," reinforcing a eugenic principle that reproduction must be curtailed for the greater good.

• While White did not promote eugenics as a formal scientific policy, her logic aligns with the foundational assumptions of eugenics, that the health and moral worth of future generations can and should be controlled by limiting reproduction among the "unfit." Her concern for the moral and physical quality of offspring, her warnings against passing down "deficiencies," and her use of the phrase "degeneracy of the race" show how religious health reform rhetoric overlapped with secular eugenic ideas.

White's statements sowed the poisonous seeds of eugenics by laying a cultural and theological groundwork that would make the later eugenics movement more acceptable, even among religious audiences.

Caleb Jackson on Marriage Planning for Superior Children

One health reformer who was particularly concerned about the degeneracy of the human race was Jackson—the reformer from whom Mrs. White received her "health message." Jackson devoted an entire chapter to the subject of selecting a proper marriage mate in Consumption. Curiously, this book was in White's personal library.⁹ Oh, how she must have treasured it!

It is important to understand the relationship between Jackson and White. She attended his health clinic. She read his books. She knew him personally. She was in lock-step with Jackson on virtually every health reform she advocated during her lifetime, with few exceptions. When Jackson devised his health insights, White copied them and took credit for them, assuring her followers she never took the wrappers off Jackson's books until after her reforms were written. As Jackson went down the wrong path into eugenic delusion, White followed him blindly. They were two sides of the same coin, with White reflecting virtually every health reform Jackson proposed.

Writing eight years before White, Jackson warned that the utmost effort must be put forth in selecting the ideal marriage partner because it had great ramifications for the future of the human race:

Human beings do go wrong because they are born to go wrong; they do die early because the seeds of death are propagated, along with the seeds of life, in the very act of conception. In the very process of begetting, the elements of disease and decay, as well as of depraved character, are introduced such persons should consider seriously their relations to each other, and therefore their fitness to enter into such a union and to become parents. ... Something else than the pleasures of the imagination are to be considered when one thinks of marriage, if, along with it, he also thinks of reproducing his kind. ... Qualities, either physical, intellectual, or moral, are so largely carried over from parent to child...defects...will carry...over to their child or children.¹⁰

White's and Jackson's statements strongly emphasizes the transmission of qualities from parent to child, which aligns with the idea that human traits were passed down through bloodlines. The concern about "defects" being carried down to children reflects anxieties about the "degeneration" of the human race, a common theme in 19th-century social and medical thought.

The problem with these statements is they reflect a lack of knowledge about DNA, genes, and chromosomal inheritance. The idea that physical, mental, and moral "qualities" are passed on is a simplified and inaccurate representation of how genetics works. "Intellectual" and "moral" qualities are highly complex and influenced by a multitude of genetic, environmental, and social factors. The idea that these qualities are directly passed down is a gross oversimplification. Modern science recognizes that physical health and moral character are distinct domains. Environmental factors play a significant role in shaping human development. The reformers' focus on heredity downplays the influence of environment. They imply a deterministic view of heredity, suggesting that children are essentially pre-programmed for failure by their parents' defective traits or sexual habits. Modern science acknowledges the probabilistic nature of genetic inheritance and the influence of random factors.

The Mother's Mental State

Many health reformers believed the mother's positive mental state was critical in bearing good offspring. Jackson taught that the "mental and moral conditions of married people...reflect themselves upon the physical organisms of their offspring," predisposing them to "disease."¹¹ He wrote:

An unhappy woman, during the time of her pregnancy, inevitably spoils the temper and disposition of her offspring.¹²

Jackson argued, "Mental irritation during pregnancy is, therefore, greatly to be avoided."¹³ He admonished fathers to be more supportive of mothers during pregnancy so that they could have better-quality children:

Her husband should be particularly kind, gentle, and attentive to her...because of the influence which she will and must necessarily exert upon the child to whom she is soon to give birth. If a father wants his child to be amiable and good-tempered, to be generous and wholehearted, to be intellectual and intuitively sagacious, to be robust and free from liabilities to disease, especially from liabilities to pulmonary disease, let him take great care of his wife during the last four months of her pregnancy. I do not think that husbands are sufficiently impressed with the need of looking after and caring for their wives, from the consideration, that as their circumstances during pregnancy are, so, in all likelihood, will be the constitutional predispositions to health and happiness of their children.¹⁴

Mirroring Jackson, White emphasized the importance of the father treating the mother well so that the child would not curse the world with its degeneracy:

The father should bear in mind that the treatment of his wife before the birth of his offspring will materially affect the disposition of the mother during that period, and will have very much to do with the character developed by the child after its birth. It is a crime for such to have children, for their offspring will often be deficient in physical, mental, and moral worth, and will bear the miserable, close, selfish impress of their parents; and the world will be cursed with their meanness.

And if the mother, before the birth of her offspring, had always possessed self-control, realizing that she was giving the stamp of character to future generations, the present state of society would not be so depreciated in character as at the present time. Every woman about to become a mother, whatever may be her surroundings, should encourage constantly a happy, cheerful, contented disposition, knowing that for all her efforts in this direction she will be repaid tenfold in the physical, as well as the moral, character of her offspring.¹⁵

White's statements are both inaccurate and unethical:

• There is no scientific evidence that character traits like "selfishness" or "moral worth" are directly determined by either parent's emotional state. Character and personality develop over time and are shaped by a complex interaction of genetics, environment, parenting, culture, and personal choices—not the prenatal mood of the parents.

• The claim that "offspring will often be deficient in physical, mental, and moral worth" based on the parents' pre-birth condition is a form of genetic fatalism, suggesting that deficiency is inevitable if parents are not morally or emotionally sound during conception and pregnancy. Modern developmental science refutes this. While adverse conditions (e.g., abuse, neglect, severe malnutrition) can increase the risk of developmental issues, many children thrive even in imperfect circumstances through resilience, support, and postnatal care.

• The idea that children inherit "meanness" or "selfishness" from their parents' prenatal attitudes or lack of self-control implies a biological transmission of morality, which is both scientifically unfounded and ethically dangerous. Moral development is learned and cultivated, not biologically stamped like eye color. Parenting style and community influence have far more to do with moral outcomes than prenatal mood.

• Phrases like "it is a crime for such to have children" and "the world will be cursed with their meanness" imply that certain people should not reproduce if they are not emotionally or morally fit. This echoes dangerous eugenic ideology, which seeks to prevent the birth of those deemed "unfit."

• White labels some children as "deficient in...moral worth" and implies they will curse the world with their existence. This is a deeply eugenic perspective. It assigns value to human beings based on their projected impact on society. It denies the Biblical teaching that each person has intrinsic worth, no matter their abilities or disadvantages (Psalm 139:13-14; John 9:1-3).

• The suggestion that "the present state of society would not be so depreciated" if women had better self-control before childbirth shifts the blame for moral and social ills onto women's prenatal moods. This creates unrealistic moral pressure on mothers.

In contrast to White, Christianity teaches that parental health and relationships matter, but no parent perfectly shapes a child's future. God’s grace, community, and education also play powerful roles. Regardless of the circumstances of conception or prenatal conditions, every child is a person made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). No one is a curse. Instead of moralizing or blaming struggling parents, true Christians are called to support families, encourage healthy homes, and extend compassion.

Women to Educate Themselves on Health Reformer's Laws

Health reformers devised various health laws that they expected people to follow so that they could bear high-quality children. Jackson encouraged prospective parents to learn these health laws before having children, warning them that failure to understand and apply those laws would lead them to "produce children who are unhealthy both from constitutional and functional conditions."¹⁶ Jackson believed that the tendency toward scrofula was increased by violating the health laws and that it was passed down from generation to generation. He taught that women who were liable to get scrofula "should utterly refuse to have children," and that before bearing children her husband should consider "whether the woman" whom he "married was of a scrofulous family."¹⁷

Likewise, White wrote:

If mothers had informed themselves in regard to the laws of their being, they would have understood that their constitutional strength, as well as the tone of their morals, and their mental faculties, would in a great measure be represented in their offspring. Their ignorance upon this subject, where so much is involved, is criminal. Many women never should have become mothers. Their blood was filled with scrofula, transmitted to them from their parents, and increased by their gross manner of living. The intellect has been brought down and enslaved to serve the animal appetites, and children, born of such parents, have been poor sufferers, and of but little use to society.¹⁸

White's statements defy both science and the Bible while trumpeting eugenics:

• White's claim that "constitutional strength," "tone of morals," and "mental faculties" are directly and heavily inherited fails to reflect modern genetics. While there are hereditary components to physical and mental health, morality and intellect are not directly passed on like hair color. Genetics, environment, education, and community all shape a child's development. There is no single genetic blueprint for morality or usefulness to society.

• Scrofula is a form of tuberculosis affecting the lymph nodes, historically viewed as a chronic or degenerative condition. White mischaracterized it as a hereditary taint that disqualifies women from motherhood. This reflects outdated humoral and miasmatic theories of disease, where it was believed blood could be "impure" or morally corrupted, leading to degeneracy in offspring.

• The notion that children born to "gross" or physically unfit mothers are "of but little use to society" is a biologically reductionist claim. It ignores the capacity for healing, nurture, education, and personal growth, all of which can help children thrive regardless of birth conditions.

• White labels women as criminally ignorant for not knowing how their health or morality would affect their offspring. The idea that "many women never should have become mothers" is one of the clearest articulations of eugenic logic in 19th-century religious literature. This parallels the rhetoric of early eugenic movements, which sought to prevent reproduction among people labeled as unhealthy, mentally weak, or morally deficient. The implication is that some lives are more valuable than others. Children born to "gross" or morally degraded parents are said to be "of but little use to society," implying a hierarchy of worth based on physical and moral traits.

• Describing people as "poor sufferers" and useless to society strips them of their dignity and humanity. It positions certain people as societal burdens rather than as individuals made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), capable of transformation and purpose.

• White places disproportionate blame on women, holding them responsible for hereditary and moral failures while ignoring male contribution or societal factors such as poverty, lack of education, and social marginalization.

• Scripture teaches that all people, regardless of origin or health, bear God’s image (Psalm 139:13–16) and can be used mightily by Him (see Moses, who had speech difficulties; or Timothy, who had frequent illnesses). Jesus explicitly rejected the belief that physical conditions were the result of parental sin or fault (John 9:1–3). Education, environment, nutrition, social support, and love have just as much, if not more, impact on a child's development than the parent's physical health at conception.

Rather than condemning women for not knowing obscure and oftentimes inaccurate "laws of their being," a redemptive Christian approach focuses on educating, supporting, and uplifting struggling mothers—not blaming them. White's statement reflects a 19th-century mix of faulty medical science and eugenic ideology. It unfairly blames mothers for their children's supposed deficiencies, equates worth with societal usefulness, and disregards the redemptive power of God and the resilience of the human spirit. Scripture affirms the inherent dignity of every human life, regardless of origin or condition.

Sexual Indulgence

Nineteenth-century health reformers generally believed sexual activity significantly depleted the body's vital force. Consequently, they advocated for sexual intercourse primarily for procreation, with varying recommendations on frequency. Some suggested weekly, others biweekly, and some monthly intervals. A central concern was the perceived negative impact on children born to parents engaging in frequent sexual activity. These reformers argued that the depletion of vital force through excessive intercourse could lead to offspring with predispositions to disease. Jackson asserted that disease was transmitted to children due to "exhaustion of vital power...caused by excessive sexual indulgence on the part of the parents."¹⁹ He claimed medical records contained a record of "severe and destructive diseases by means of excessive sexual indulgence...transmitted...to their children...predisposing them to take on...chronic or organic diseases."²⁰ He imagined that "over-sexual indulgence on the part of the parents" debilitates their offspring, impairing their "vigor and health."²¹ He warned parents to "seldom" have sex if they desired healthy children.²²

White repeated Jackson's misguided health warnings about sex, turning them into moral imperatives:

Even [married] men and women professing godliness give loose rein to their lustful passions, and have no thought that God holds them accountable for the expenditure of vital energy, which weakens their hold on life and enervates the entire system.

The marriage covenant covers sins of the darkest hue. Some men and women professing godliness debase their own bodies through the indulgence of the corrupt passions, which lowers them beneath the brute creation. They abuse the powers God has given them to be preserved in sanctification and honor. Health and life are sacrificed upon the altar of base passion. The higher, nobler powers are brought into subjection to the animal propensities.

Imagine, if you can, what the offspring of such parents must be. Will not the children sink lower in the scale than their parents? Parents give the stamp of character to their children. Children that are born of these parents inherit qualities of mind from them which are of a low and base order. Satan nourishes anything tending to corruption.²³

These savage words are fraught with errors:

• White's statements on marital excess are scientifically inaccurate and ethically problematic. The claim that sexual activity, even within marriage, drains "vital energy" and "weakens their hold on life" reflects the outdated vital force theory. Modern biology and medicine have thoroughly debunked the idea of a finite store of "vital energy." Healthy sexual relations do not deplete life force or compromise long-term vitality in the way described.

• White insists that children born from "lustful" or "base" sexual union will inherit a “low and base” character. This claim has no genetic or psychological basis. Moral character, emotional regulation, and social behavior are shaped postnatally by parenting, education, community, and personal choice. These are not stamped genetically based on the passion level of one's conception!

• Asserting that some people "sink beneath the brute creation" through sexual expression reflects an old pseudo-scientific moral hierarchy in which humans who indulge in "base" behaviors are viewed as subhuman. It is reprhensible to grade human worth based on the level of sexual restraint or conformity to Victorian norms.

• The idea that sexual indulgence produces inferior children clearly fits within eugenic logic, where reproductive behavior must meet a certain moral and physical standard to be deemed acceptable. The language used ("base order," "lower in the scale," "stamp of character") mirrors eugenic claims that the immoral should not reproduce because their offspring will degrade society.

• White asks: "Will not the children sink lower in the scale than their parents?" This is a classic eugenic warning of intergenerational degeneracy, portraying a moral and biological descent through impure sexual reproduction. It strips children of dignity before birth, treating them as inherently corrupt because of their parents' conduct.

• The statement that "Satan nourishes anything tending to corruption" assigns satanic agency to God-given human sexual desires, creating a fear-based theology of the body that can lead to shame and repression. It contrasts sharply with a biblical view of sex as a good gift within marriage (Genesis 2:24–25; Hebrews 13:4) when exercised with love and mutual respect. Paul warns against forbidding marriage or sex within it (1 Timothy 4:3) and affirms mutual sexual relations as part of marital duty and joy (1 Corinthians 7:3–5). Condemning even consensual marital intimacy as debasing or dangerous is a direct contradiction to the Bible.

Every person is made in the image of God, whether born of passion, brokenness, or purity. Jesus never taught that one's origin or parentage disqualified them from dignity or salvation (John 1:12–13). Grace breaks generational shame. The gospel gives people hope, while Ellen White gives labels.

White's statements reflect a harsh 19th-century blend of sexual shame, pseudo-science, and eugenic fear. She promotes the idea that marital intimacy, if too passionate, leads to inferior offspring and societal decline. That view is not supported by modern science nor consistent with Biblical teaching. God honors marital love, redeems brokenness, and values every human life, regardless of their origin.

Diet

Health reformers believed dietary practices could reduce vital force. If parents ate foods the reformers deemed to be harmful, they were in danger of imparting permanent harm to their offspring. Jackson explains:

The truth is, that the habits of living of parents essentially determine the constitutional habits of their offspring; and the use of unhealthy foods, and particularly of flesh-meats, is one great provoking cause of the establishment of unhealthy conditions.²⁴

He wrote that when parents eat food that overworks their "digestive organs," it not only harms the parents, but also can also impart "deplorable" health constitutions to their children.²⁵

Ellen White echoed Jackson's warnings about the parents' diet adversely affecting the children:

Men and women, by indulging the appetite with rich and highly-seasoned foods, especially flesh-meats and rich gravies, and by using stimulating drinks, as tea and coffee, create unnatural appetites. The system becomes fevered, the organs of digestion become injured, the mental faculties are beclouded, while the baser passions are excited, and predominate. The appetite becomes more unnatural, and more difficult of restraint. The circulation is not equalized, and the blood becomes impure. The whole system is deranged, and the demands of appetite become more unreasonable, craving exciting, hurtful things, until it is thoroughly depraved.

Men and women who have corrupted their own bodies by dissolute habits, have also debased their intellects and destroyed the fine sensibilities of the soul. Very many of this class have married, and left for an inheritance to their offspring the taints of their own physical debility and depraved morals. The gratification of animal passions and gross sensuality have been the marked characteristics of their posterity, which have descended from generation to generation, increasing human misery to a fearful degree, and hastening the deterioration of the race.²⁶

Mrs. White over-states the affect of diet with unscientific assertions:

• While poor diets can affect health and mood, modern nutrition does not support the idea that meat or coffee inherently lead to moral degradation or "depraved" passions. The suggestion that such foods cloud the mind and "excite the baser passions" reflects an unscientific view that certain foods could incite sexual lust or destroy self. For example, the phrase "the blood becomes impure" hearkens back to pre-germ theory medicine, when illness was thought to stem from imbalanced or "tainted" blood. Science has since proven that the liver, kidneys, and immune system regulate toxins‐not moral character. Diet does not corrupt blood in any spiritual or moral sense.

• The idea that "depraved morals" and "gross sensuality" can be passed genetically or biologically through diet or lifestyle is not supported by modern genetics. Children do not biologically inherit a moral status based on their parents' dietary or sexual choices.

• White's statements represent classic degeneracy theory—the idea that poor moral and physical habits will accumulate and "deteriorate the race." The statement that "gross sensuality...descended from generation to generation" paints entire lineages as morally and physically unfit. This is a foundational argument of eugenics—that the unfit reproduce and spread weakness.

• White portrays foods as not merely health choices. Rather, they are moral symbols. Those who eat "rich and highly-seasoned foods" are portrayed not just as unhealthy but as sinful and corrupt, passing on spiritual and social inferiority to their children. White asserts that offspring inherit the "taints" of their parents' behavior, again reinforcing the eugenic notion of hereditary moral inferiority. It implies that some people's very existence increases human misery and hastens the downfall of humanity. This is a woefully dangerous and dehumanizing view.

Jesus directly refuted the idea that what goes into a person defiles them:

What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them... But the things that come out of a person's mouth, these defile them. (Matthew 15:11)

Based on Jesus' definition of defilement, one who propogates lies about eugenics could be considered defiled, but not one who eats meats.

Food choices may affect health, but they do not determine righteousness. Paul also affirms that the kingdom of God is "not a matter of eating and drinking" (Romans 14:17). White's passage equates dietary habits with moral degeneration and claims that children inherit depraved traits from parents who indulge in rich food and sensuality. These ideas reflect 19th-century pseudoscience and early eugenics. The Bible teaches that moral worth comes from relationship with God, not food, lifestyle, or ancestry. Every person, regardless of origin, is redeemable and valued in Christ.

Jackson on the Proper Age for Procreation

Older Woman with Young Man

The ideal age for procreation was an important topic of discussion among health reformers. Trall proposed his set of parental ages that were ideal for procreation:

The elevation and improvement of the race, therefore, seems to be adversely affected by early marriages. The soundest physiologists and phrenologists regard twenty-two to twenty-five for the female, and twenty-five to thirty for the male, as the most appropriate ages for...participating in the pleasures of matrimonial life.²⁷

Jackson makes two arguments about the ideal age for conception.

First, Jackson warns against men attempting to beget children before they are done growing. According to Jackson, the male growth process was not fully completed until men reached 25 to 28 years of age. He considered it "unsafe...for a man to beget" children before that age.²⁸ Doing so would impart weakness to his progeny. This could become an even greater problem if the woman was much older, because her vital force would be ebbing with age. Thus, his stance was one of opposition towards young men marrying and procreating with older women.

Secondly, while Jackson found it acceptable for an older man to marry a younger woman, he considered old age to be a serious liability for men considering child-bearing. According to Jackson, an older man, with his vital force drained by age, "cannot hope to beget children, without running great risk that they will take upon themselves his own state" and "such offspring will...take on all the worst physical qualities which, at any period of his life, he has ever shown," thus, cursing the child to "partake of the feebleness of the father, arising from advanced age."²⁹

Thus, Jackson's philosophy can be summed up as follows:

• Opposed young men marrying and procreating, especially with older women
• Opposed older men procreating

Ellen White on the Proper Age for Procreation

Young Woman with Old Man

Not surprisingly, White, being an outspoken advocate of vital force, tooted the same horn as Jackson.³⁰ White warned parents of widely differing ages of the terrifying danger of bearing children who would no doubt be physically, mentally, and morally deficient:

Another cause of the deficiency of the present generation in physical strength and moral worth, is the union of men and women in marriage whose ages widely differ. It is frequently the case that old men choose to marry young wives. ... She should consider, if children were born to them, what their condition would be. It is still worse for young men to marry women considerably older than themselves. The offspring of such unions in many cases, where ages widely differ, have not well-balanced minds. They have been deficient also in physical strength. In such families, varied, peculiar, and often painful, traits of character have frequently been manifested. The children often die pre-maturely, and those who reach maturity, in many cases, are deficient in physical and mental strength, and moral worth.³¹

That statement should have dissuaded any sincere married SDA couples with widely differing ages from even considering having children. However, it did not stop her son, W.C. White, who married Ethel May Lacey when he was 40 and she was 21. They had five children born between 1896 and 1915, with the last one, Grace, being conceived when W.C. White was 60 years old.³² Perhaps W.C. felt bold enough to defy the odds because he had an abundant supply of vital force due to his practice of eating vegetarian food when he could be observed in public.

Based on her quote above, Mrs. White's stance can be summarized as follows:

• Opposed young men marrying and procreating with "women considerably older than themselves"
• Opposed older men procreating

In other words, Ellen White took virtually the same stance as Jackson.

The White Estate Spins It

Ellen White enthusiasts place a clever spin on White's statement. Here is how the White Estate explains it:

A cause of generational decline is marriages between men and women "whose ages widely differ." Marriages between "old men" and "young wives" result in men living longer, while the wife's life may be shortened by the burden of caring for an aging husband. Conversely, when young men marry older women, their children may be born with physical and mental weaknesses. This is abundantly documented today. As a woman's age at childbearing increases, the likelihood of birth defects, particularly Down's syndrome, also increases. Remarkably, White also implies detrimental effects to children of older men who father children by younger women. Only long after she wrote was it scientifically established that older fathers also increase the risk of birth defects and autism. On this topic, White’s instruction appears to have been in advance of the scientific knowledge of her day.³³

Without presenting her entire quote, which would lead one to doubt her inspiration, they extract fragments and exult that they have found confirmation of her prophetic calling. Because older parents tend to have slightly higher incidences of Down's Syndrome and Autism, this supposedly demonstrates she was "in advance of the scientific knowledge of her day." However, they omit the credit due to Jackson for informing White on this subject.

What Does 'In Advance of Science' Mean?

The White Estate is careful to say White was in advance of scientific knowledge, not medical knowledge. White's theory (i.e. Jackson's theory) was only ahead of science because science had not rigorously investigated that subject in her day. Scientific investigation into the frequency of birth defects commenced with paternal DNA research in 1998.³⁴ However, just because a scientific study was not performed before White wrote her statement does not mean it was unknown amongst the 19th century medical community. As already noted, Jackson and Trall were aware of it, although they misunderstood the mechanism, falsely attributing it to a parental lack of vital force. Even prior to the reformers, the suspicion that advanced parental age could lead to birth defects was known and discussed.

• Plato's The Republic (Book VI, 4th century BC) contains some of the earliest recorded concerns about paternal age and offspring, with him advocating for societal regulations of marriages involving men over 50, due to his beliefs about the quality of the resulting citizens.

• Well before Mendel's formal studies, Central European sheep breeders developed practical knowledge of inheritance through selective breeding. They observed that older rams tended to sire offspring with degenerate traits, and empirically determined the prime breeding age to be 3-6 years, roughly analogous to human ages 25-40. These observations contributed to contemporary discussions on heredity, despite lacking formal scientific methodology.

• Medical casebooks from the period contain anecdotal clinical observations of birth defects associated with advanced parental age. Aristocratic genealogies sometimes noted health variations among children of older nobility, although these records lacked systematic analysis and were not used to establish causal relationships.

If White was ahead of science, it is only because science had not gotten to the subject yet. For centuries, breeders and physicians suspected older-age parenting carried increased risks. If anyone was ahead of science, it was Jackson and Trall. However, it appears they, along with White, adopted that belief on the basis of vital force—a doctrine that was totally debunked in the early twentieth century.

Despite all the mental gymnastics to turn this into a victory for White, the final sentence of her 1870 statement is seriously flawed:

The children often die pre-maturely, and those who reach maturity, in many cases, are deficient in physical and mental strength, and moral worth.

This statement is a broad generalization. It reflects outdated 19th-century myths, not modern scientific understanding:

• The statement is rooted in now-discredited theories about vital force and eugenics, not in evidence-based science. Modern genetics shows that while parental age can influence certain risks, it does not determine the inherent "physical and mental strength" or "moral worth" of a child.

• The statement makes sweeping generalizations about all children born to older parents, which is inaccurate. It ignores the vast range of individual variation and the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors.

• The phrase "moral worth" is a subjective and culturally biased judgment. It reflects the 19th-century tendency to conflate physical health with moral character.

• Modern prenatal care and medical interventions have significantly reduced the risks associated with older parental age. Many factors contribute to a child's health and development, not just parental age (e.g. folic acid supplementation, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and drug use during pregnancy, eating a healthy diet, regular exercise, and reducing exposure to chemicals/toxins).

While there are some increased risks with age, White's statement turns those risks into near certainty, using words like "many" and "often." That is a gross exaggeration, and according to White, exaggerations are falsehoods.³⁵ Modern genetics recognizes that parental age can influence specific genetic risks, but these risks are generally small. Environmental factors, lifestyle choices, and access to quality healthcare play a much larger role in a child's health and development. White's statement is a harmful and inaccurate generalization that reflects outdated 19th-century beliefs.

Fruit of Ellen White's Folly

John Harvey Kellogg lived in Battle Creek, worked for the Whites, and was closely associated with their publications. Ellen has been described as a mentor to the young man. When he was an impressionable eighteen-year-old, Ellen published her eugenics manifesto. Believing her to be a true prophet, he no doubt read A Solemn Appeal with the greatest of interest.

Like his mentor, he adopted the pseudoscience of vital force. He regarded the sexual act as particularly draining of vital energy. In 1882, in his book, Plain Facts, he wrote about the serious dangers of frequent sexual activity, warning that the offspring of such marriage partners suffer because the "seminal fluid deteriorates very rapidly by repeated indulgence," with the result that the progeny of those parents are often "deformed, scrofulous, weazen, and idiotic children which curse the race, and testify to the sensuality of their progenitors."³⁶ Thus, like White, he incorporated eugenic ideas into his health teachings.

Like his mentor, Kellogg expressed concerns about race degeneracy and the mixing of races, reflecting common eugenic anxieties of the time. He believed in a hierarchical view of races and worried about the dilution of perceived superior traits. In the 1894 (and later) versions of his book, Plain Facts, Kellogg argued that interracial marriages were unadvisable:

While there is no moral precept directly involved in marriage between widely different nations, as between whites and blacks or Indians, experience shows that such marriages are not only not conducive to happiness, but are detrimental to the offspring.³⁷

In 1906, Kellogg founded and funded the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan. This organization explicitly aimed to promote eugenics.³⁸ The foundation's objectives included studying factors that improve or impair "racial or family-stock qualities," immigration, mate selection, and fertility based on these perceived qualities. The Race Betterment Foundation also aimed to establish a eugenics registry to track "socially important hereditary traits" and encourage the reproduction of those deemed to have "good stock" while discouraging reproduction of the "unfit." Kellogg was wary of immigration, fearing that certain groups were "unfit" for American society and could negatively impact the racial stock.

Kellogg advocated for both positive eugenics (encouraging those with beneficial traits to have more children) and negative eugenics (discouraging or preventing reproduction among those deemed unfit, which often included the mentally ill, disabled, and those from marginalized racial and socioeconomic groups). He wrote articles and gave speeches promoting these ideas, arguing that eugenics was necessary to prevent societal decline and create a "new human race."

Kellogg organized the First National Conference on Race Betterment in 1913 at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, bringing together eugenics experts from across America. These conferences included events like "mental and physical perfection contests" where children were evaluated and ranked, further promoting eugenic ideals to the public. Kellogg financially supported the eugenics movement for decades. His involvement in the eugenics movement is a deeply problematic aspect of his legacy. His statements and actions reflect the widespread, yet ultimately harmful and discriminatory, eugenic thinking prevalent in the early 20th century.

Kellogg's influence was instrumental in helping the eugenics movement implement forced sterilizations in America:

Michigan was the first state to propose eugenical sterilization in 1897, although the first sterilization law in the state did not pass until 1923. This law, upheld in court multiple times, led to 3,786 officially documented sterilizations. Seventy-six percent of these were on people deemed mentally deficient, 11% were people considered insane, and the other 13% were sexual deviants, people with epilepsy, or “moral degenerates.” African Americans and poor people were the main targets.³⁹

Apparently, he gave serious consideration to White's counsel about it being "criminal" for unfit people to produce offspring. Ultimately, 60,000 involuntary sterilizations were performed in the United States. That is the bitter fruit of White's visions.

Ironically, White warned her sect against playing sports and enjoying picnics, but she never thought to warn them of the danger of eugenics. While she mentored, counseled, and admonished Kellogg for decades, she never once warned him to stop his involvement with eugenics, even though he established the Race Betterment Foundation while he was still a Seventh-day Adventist. SDAs will no doubt declare that the devil led Kellogg astray, but was it the devil who mentored him in eugenics? Or Ellen White?

Conclusion

Many more "eugenics" examples are available from White's other writings (see below). However, the statements from A Solemn Appeal are sufficient to illustrate that White adopted the ideas of eugenics, amplified them, and passed them along to her followers as light from heaven.

The amount of damage White did with her false statements is unimaginable. White polluted her followers with malignant proto-eugenic theories from the pit of hell. She crossed the line from moral exhortation into eugenic judgment, portraying some people, especially children of the "unfit," as biologically inferior, morally tainted, and burdens on society. The language of "degeneracy," "depraved inheritance," and "lowering the race" reflects a worldview poisoned by eugenic ideology.

The Bible tells a very different story. In Christ, human worth is not determined by bloodline, biology, or background. God does not grade people on physical strength, mental acuity, or moral heritage. Scripture proclaims that every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), that children are not guilty for the sins of their parents (Ezekiel 18:20), and that salvation is available to all through faith (Romans 10:12–13). While the consequences of human choices can echo through generations, grace breaks the cycle. In Christ, believers are not bound by what they have inherited. They are defined by their identity in Christ.

Followers of Christ must be vigilant in rejecting strong delusions that dehumanize, even if they come clothed in religious language or health reform. Believers are called to defend the dignity of every person, no matter their origin or condition, and to affirm that God’s grace is stronger than any genetic or generational burden.

To close, I want to share a personal note to every Seventh-day Adventist:

More Examples

Following are other examples in Ellen White's writings about the hereditary degeneration of the human race:

Sin and vice [masturbation] exist in Sabbath-keeping families. Moral pollution has done more to degenerate the race than every other evil. It is practiced to an alarming extent, and brings on disease of almost every description. Even very small children, infants, being born with natural irritability of the sexual organs, find relief momentarily in handling them, which only increases the irritation, and leads to a repetition of the act, until a habit is established which increases with their growth. These children are generally puny and dwarfed, and are prescribed for by physicians, and they are drugged.
(Ellen White, Special Testimony for the Battle Creek Church (1869), 1; also, 2T 390 and Healthy Living (1897), 216; partially quoted in Review and Herald, Sep. 19, 1899)

It is criminal in the sight of Heaven for parents who are suffering themselves with disease, to risk the consequences of having children. Such should feel that they are excused from perpetuating their race. If reason and conscience controlled this matter, the world would not now be groaning under its weight of physical suffering, deformity, and imbecility. The world is no better for such additions. But this class do their part to hasten the degeneracy in the sinking standard of humanity. They are deficient in physical, mental, and moral worth, and are aiding in the depreciation of the race.
(Ellen White, Health Reformer, Sep. 1, 1871)

In this age of degeneracy, children are born with enfeebled constitutions. Parents are amazed at the great mortality among infants and youth, and say, "It did not use to be so." Children were then more healthy and vigorous, with far less care than is now bestowed upon them. Yet with all the care they now receive, they grow feeble, sicken, and die. As the result of wrong habits in parents, disease and imbecility have been transmitted to their offspring.
(Ellen White, Health Reformer, Jan. 1, 1872; also, Review and Herald, Dec. 26, 1899)

Parents who freely use wine and liquor leave to their children the legacy of a feeble constitution, mental, and moral debility, unnatural appetites, irritable temper, and an inclination to vice. Parents should feel that they are responsible to God, and to society, to bring into existence beings whose physical, mental and moral characters shall enable them to make a proper use of life, be a blessing to the world, and an honor to their Creator. The indulgence of perverted appetite is the great cause of the deterioration of the human race. The child of the drunkard or the tobacco inebriate usually has the depraved appetites and passions of the father intensified, and at the same time inherits less of his self-control, and strength of mind. ... Their children often receive this stamp of character before their birth; for the appetites of the parents are often intensified in the children. Thus unborn generations are afflicted by the use of tobacco and liquor. Intellectual decay is entailed upon them, and their moral perceptions are blunted. Thus the world is being filled with paupers, lunatics, thieves, and murderers.
(Ellen White, Health Reformer, Aug. 1, 1878; reprinted in Signs of the Times, Oct. 17, 1878 and again in Feb. 3, 1890)

All this weight of woe and accumulated suffering can be traced to the indulgence of appetite and passion. Luxurious living and the use of wine corrupt the blood, inflame the passions, and produce diseases of every kind. But the evil does not end here. Parents leave maladies as a legacy to their children. As a rule, every intemperate man who rears children transmits his inclinations and evil tendencies to his offspring; he gives them disease from his own inflamed and corrupted blood. Licentiousness, disease, and imbecility are transmitted as an inheritance of woe from father to son and from generation to generation, and this brings anguish and suffering into the world, and is no less than a repetition of the fall of man.
(Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 4, (1885), 30.

Since the fall in Eden, the race has been degenerating. Deformity, imbecility, disease, and human suffering have been pressing heavier and heavier upon each successive generation, and yet the masses are asleep as to the real causes. They do not consider that they themselves are guilty, in a great measure, for this deplorable state of things. They generally charge their sufferings upon Providence, and regard God as the author of their woes. But it is intemperance, to a greater or less degree, that lies at the foundation of all this suffering.
(Ellen White, Review and Herald, June 6, 1899; April 2, 1914)

Men and women who have corrupted their own bodies by dissolute habits have also debased their intellects, and destroyed the fine sensibilities of the soul. Very many of this class have married, and left, for an inheritance to their offspring, the taints of their own physical debility and depraved morals. The gratification of animal passions, and gross sensuality, have been the marked characteristics of their posterity, descending from generation to generation, increasing human misery to a fearful degree, and hastening the depreciation of the race.
(Ellen White, Review and Herald, July 4, 1899)

Citations

1. R.T. Trall, The Hydropathic Encyclopedia, vol. II (1854), 493.

2. James C. Jackson, Consumption: How to Prevent It, and How to Cure It(Boston: B.L. Emerson, 1862), 44.

3. O.S. Fowler, Life: Its Science, Laws, Faculties, Functions, Organs, Conditions, Philosophy, and Improvement..., vol. 1 (Boston: O. S. Fowler, 1871), 18. Ellen White's version was published in 1871, however, the book was advertised in Fowler's Love and Parentage, published in 1869, so it's conceivable that earlier versions of it were available.

4. Ellen White, A Solemn Appeal, (1870), 110-111. See also, page 122:

It has been one of the greatest causes of degeneracy in generations back, up to the present time, that wives and mothers who otherwise would have had a beneficial influence upon society, in raising the standard of morals, have been lost to society through multiplicity of home cares, because of the fashionable, health-destroying manner of cooking, and also in consequence of too frequent child-bearing. She has been compelled to needless suffering, her constitution has failed, and her intellect has become weakened, by so great a draught upon her vital resources. Her offspring suffer her debility, and thus a class is thrown upon society, poorly fitted, through the mother's inability to educate them, to be of the least benefit.

5. Jackson, Consumption, 264.

6. Ibid., 86.

7. White, Solemn Appeal, 104, 106-107.

8. Ibid., 104.

9. Warren H. Johns, Tim Poirier, Ron Graybill, A Bibliography of Ellen White's Private and Office Libraries, 3rd ed. (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 36.

10. Jackson, Consumption, 26, 30-31.

11. Ibid., 22.

12. Ibid., 47.

13. Ibid., 143.

14. Ibid., 144.

15. White, Solemn Appeal, 117, 123.

16. Jackson, Consumption, 25.

17. Ibid., 57, 145.

18. White, Solemn Appeal, 121.

19. Jackson, Consumption, 83.

20. Ibid., 83-84.

21. Ibid., 90.

22. Ibid., 84.

23. White, Solemn Appeal, 170-171, 174.

24. Jackson, Consumption, 104.

25. Ibid., 142.

26. White, Solemn Appeal, 102, 107.

27. R.T. Trall, The Hydropathic Encyclopedia, vol. II (1854), 446.

28. Jackson, Consumption, 94.

29. Ibid., 98-99.

30. Ellen White mentions "vital force," "vital energy," and "life force" hundreds of times in her writings. Her teachings on sexual activity and stimulating foods and drinks draining vital force mirror those of other health reformers who advocated the theory of vital force.

31. Ellen White, A Solemn Appeal, (1870), 108. See also, Health: How to Live., no. 2, (1865), 93; Review and Herald, July 4, 1899.

32. W.C. White was born on August 29, 1854. Grace was conceived in late 1914 or early 1915.

33. Merlin D. Burt, ed., Understanding Ellen White (Ellen G. White Estate, 2015), 201. It is disturbing how the White Estate twists Ellen's statement about young men with older women to focus on the older women (who get Down's Syndrome) rather than the young men. To be consistent with what other nineteenth century health reformers like Jackson and Trall taught, the primary concern regarding younger men and older women was that the men were too young to have children, not that the women were too old! The Estate tries to turn the focus on the age of the woman, but nineteenth century health reformers placed the emphasis on "young men" who were not fully enough developed to father mentally stable children.

34. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect.

35. Ellen White, Signs of the Times, July 22, 1880.

36. John Harvey Kellogg, Plain Facts for Old and Young (Burlington, Iowa: I.F. Segner, 1882), 240. He also added: "Another reason is the physical and nervous exhaustion which the parents bring upon themselves, and which totally unfits them to beget sound, healthy offspring."

37. John Harvey Kellogg, Plain Facts for Old and Young: or, The Science of Human Life from Infancy to Old Age: An Encyclopedia of Special Knowledge for All Classes on the Hygiene of Sex, (Battle Creek, MI: Health Library Assn., 1894), 151.

38. Rachel Gur-Arie, "American Eugenics Society (1926-1972)," Embryo Project Encyclopedia, Nov. 22, 2014. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/american-eugenics-society-1926-1972.

39. Elizabeth Stout, "'To Rid Society of Imbeciles': The Impact of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg's Stand for Eugenics," Pursuit (University of Michigan), Dec. 12, 2022. https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2022posts/the-impact-of-dr-john-harvey-kelloggs-stand-for-eugenics.html.