Before considering Elena White’s statements, it is necessary to make the following clarifications: 1- This article is not intended to discredit or belittle Mrs. White; but to demystify the image that we have built of her over the decades. Undoubtedly, Elena White was an instrument of God who contributed to guiding and giving coherence to the Adventist movement at a time when it needed it most. However, we must not forget that she was a human being like us, with her virtues and flaws, with her generosity and pettiness, which led her to make mistakes that did not disqualify her from fulfilling the mission that the Lord had entrusted her with. Our church would not be what it is today if she had not existed. 2 – Elena White never claimed to be an authority on history, nor above it. This is confirmed when reading the introduction to the book “The Great Controversy,” where she states: “To this end, I have tried to select and compile events from church history in a way that outlines the development of great proven truths given to the world at various times.” It is important to note that in the early editions of “The Great Controversy,” more than 400 bibliographic references were included, and in some cases, these references were not limited to a sentence, but composed of several pages. Her son William White, in a letter to S. N. Haskell in 1912, wrote the following: “that his mother had never wanted our brothers to consider her WRITINGS AS AN AUTHORITY REGARDING HISTORY… and I certainly think that we make a serious mistake if we… try to elucidate historical facts using my mother’s books as if they were authorities.” It is important to remember that, no matter how well-intentioned and objective a historian may try to be, their version of events will be conditioned by the lens through which they view the narrated events, so biases in their narrative should not be ruled out. 3 – Mrs. White never intended for her writings to be infallible. At one point, when she saw a tendency among some brothers to invest her writings with infallibility, she declared: “Only God is infallible, those who think that they will never have to abandon a favorite position, or have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. ” In 1890, Elena White wrote: “The truth is something dynamic, and we must strive… to acquire greater knowledge and brighter light.” Two years later, she wrote again: “There is no excuse for anyone to take the stance that THERE ARE NO MORE TRUTHS TO BE REVEALED, and that ALL OUR SCRIPTURE EXPONENTS ARE ERROR-FREE. That certain doctrines have been held as true for many years IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT OUR IDEAS ARE INFALLIBLE. Time will not turn error into truth, and truth has the ability to be impartial. NO TRUE DOCTRINE WILL LOSE ANYTHING FROM CAREFUL INVESTIGATION.” In 1894, she reiterated what she had suggested in previous years by writing: “It is a fact that we have the truth, and we must hold fast to our unshakable beliefs, however, WE SHOULD NOT VIEW AS SUSPICIOUS ANY LIGHT THAT GOD SENDS US.” How useful and relevant should be today the previous statements of Elena White, at a time when our scholars have an attitude of denial towards any new idea they cannot refute or have no intention of revising. 4 – The majority of our prophetic interpretation is not based on the Scriptures, as we will confirm later; but on the writings of Elena White. Unfortunately, she transcribed to her books the interpretations of renowned and educated scholars of prophecies from the 18th and 19th centuries; interpretations that were widely accepted in their time, which were ultimately adopted by William Miller and Uriah Smith and embraced by our sincere pioneers, who, due to their limited education, did not see the need to review, much less question, what they were adopting. On the other hand, there is no record, in the more than 2,000 visions and dreams that Mrs. White had, of her receiving a clear and categorical vision where she was given a greater revelation than what is recorded in chapters 7, 8, and 9 of Daniel. In the case of the prophecy of Daniel 8, where the desecration of the sanctuary is prophesied, Mrs. White transcribed to her books the interpretation of Russell Crosier; an interpretation she recommended to the small flock, as it contained the true light regarding the sanctuary’s purifications. A few years later, Crosier retracted what he had proposed, as it lacked biblical and historical foundation; something that our pioneers could not do, as they had recorded Crosier’s interpretation in our inspired books. After the above clarifications, we will proceed to consider the statements that Mrs. White included in her books which are contrary to what is revealed in the Scriptures and history. The first statement we find in the book “The Great Controversy,” page 373, reads as follows: “As the 2,300 days are the only period of time mentioned in the eighth chapter, they MUST constitute the period from which the seventy weeks were cut off; the seventy weeks MUST, therefore, be part of the 2,300 days, and both periods MUST start together… That decree is found in the seventh chapter of Ezra. (verses 12-26).” The main problem with the above statement is that no matter how much we search in the seventh chapter of Ezra for the order to build Jerusalem, we do not find it; what we do find is in chapters 2, 3, 11, and 12 of Nehemiah, which record the authorization given to Nehemiah to build Jerusalem and its walls and the implementation of the measures that fulfilled that order. As mentioned earlier, Mrs. White in the statement under consideration is not only repeating Johann Petri’s erroneous interpretation from the 18th century that the prophecies of the 2,300 evenings and mornings and the prophecy of the seventy weeks began simultaneously, based on assumptions; but also the interpretation that the seventy weeks began in the year 457 B.C., a date that emerged from a posteriori calculation, subtracting 69 weeks or 483 years from the date of the baptism of the Lord Jesus in the year 27 of our era. For more information, please read the article: Three questions that Adventists cannot answer objectively and satisfactorily, related to the prophecy of Daniel 8. Part II and III. Finally, it is necessary to mention that some of our theologians acknowledge that in Ezra 7 there is no mention of the construction of the city of Jerusalem and its walls. William Shea, in the book “Daniel: A Guide for the Scholar,” page 162, mentions the following: “The following decree was given to Ezra personally (Ezra 7:12-26) … This decree does not mention the reconstruction of Jerusalem… .” Marvin Moore, in the book “The Investigative Judgment,” page 269, states: “The problem is that Artaxerxes’ decree, as recorded by Ezra in chapter 7, says nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem… therefore, Artaxerxes’ decree had nothing to do with that.” Based on all this, we conclude that Elena White’s statement mentioning that Artaxerxes’ decree to initiate the construction of Jerusalem is in chapter 7 of Ezra is based on an assumption that lacks the biblical and historical support found in Nehemiah’s account, which records the authorization to build Jerusalem and its walls, and the fulfillment of that authorization. Blessings.
Comments