You are on page 1of 13

1

Part 2- THE “AMALGAMATION” STATEMENTS OF E.G. WHITE, AND THE KEY EXPRESSIONS INVOLVED.
By Derrick Gillespie (*Edited and Updated, Feb. 2014)

Since the penning of part 1 to this presentation (in the latter part of 2013), it has dawned on me that a lot of ‘afterthoughts’ have entered my mind since sharing my findings with the public; thoughts which I find crucial enough to also share, in the ongoing assessment of the “amalgamation of man and [of] beast” statement of E.G. White, as re-quoted below:
“But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him…. Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men”. – E.G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, 1870

In part 1 of my presentation I looked at what are the major blunders of the critics in their treatment of the actual expressions of E.G. White herself, and what makes more sense from the actual text itself (considering context and word usage) as coming from E.G. White herself; not from what others have interpreted her statements to mean (which may just have been incorrect, as well as correct, seeing that the statement does have a certain inherent ambiguity). It is now time for me to expose the further blunders of the critics as it concerns this issue, to also explore and assess the other explanations that have been advanced over time by SD Adventists, as well as submit other possible approaches that could be used in studying out this issue…all of which make for a more open and objective discussion of the issues. IN THIS PART 2 PRESENTATION I WILL BE USING THE QUESTION AND ANSWER APPROACH TO THE ISSUES, with the hope it will make for a more ‘reader friendly’ approach to this controversial issue.

QUESTION 1- Did Mrs. White delete her “amalgamation of man and beast” statements from later editions of her earlier works, or left them out of later works because of the opposition or refutation coming from the science of Genetics? ANSWER: Mrs. White certainly did not include the controversial “amalgamation of man and beast” statements as originally penned in her later monumental work Patriarchs and Prophets (of 1890), for example, and she did not reproduce the statements as originally penned in any succeeding works (except for just a brief period in the 1870-1884 version of The Great Controversy series). In fact she did delete the controversial “amalgamation of man and beast” statements as originally penned from later

2

editions of Spiritual Gifts (the first edition was 1864) and Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1 (the first edition was 1870). Keep in mind that the original E.G. White books from 1864, and from 1870-1884, with the original statements as originally penned, have always been in circulation and have still been available ever since (no “suppression” of past writings ever existed, as critics often charge with some aspects of her writings). You will notice I keep saying and emphasizing “as originally penned” when speaking of her original controversial “amalgamation” statements, and I will come back to my reason for saying that later in answering Question 1. It will get most interesting. But let me say for now that I am convinced that--- based on the raw facts of history that have been often overlooked by critics who charge her with deleting the passage *because of what Genetics had proved, i.e. that human and animal species could not biologically produce offspring, seeing that their DNA are simply incompatible---Mrs. White either left out or deleted the passage as originally penned for an entirely different reason than the misguided critics have charged (a misguided criticism or charge which even certain inside SDA authors have ‘bought into’, without a proper assessment of the true historical facts). Let’s now review the facts, and the eye-opening historical considerations which blow this criticism from the critics entirely out of the water. It was only in the 1920s, i.e. after Mrs. White had died in 1915, that enquiry was made about why later books did not have the controversial statements; enquiry wasn’t made during Mrs. White’s lifetime by “concerned” or agitated brethren (as certain misguided critics falsely claim). After the death of E.G. White, the son of E.G. White, W.C. White (then Secretary of the White Estate), was asked by the renowned SDA Church historian LeRoy Froom why his mother had left out the controversial “amalgamation of man and beast” statements as originally penned (no doubt as part of L.E. Froom’s historical research work on the church). Here’s the proof from a letter (quoted in part), dated January 8, 1928, as appearing in the book Selected Messages, Volume 3 (1980), pgs. 451-3: “W. C. White letter to L. E. Froom, [at that time Elder Froom was an associate secretary of the General Conference Ministerial Association.] January 8, 1928
Dear brother Froom: Yesterday’s mail brought me your letter of January 3 [1928]. In it you present some queries calling for a reply from me…. Regarding the two paragraphs which are to be found in Spiritual Gifts and also in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding amalgamation and the reason why they were left out of the later books, and the question as to who took the responsibility of leaving them out, I can speak with perfect clearness and assurance. They were left out by Ellen G. White. No one connected with her work had any authority over such a question, and I never heard of anyone offering to her counsel regarding this matter. In all questions of this kind, you may set it down as a certainty that Sister White was responsible for leaving out or adding to matters of this sort in the later editions of our books. Sister White not only had good judgment based upon a clear and comprehensive understanding of conditions and of the natural consequences of publishing what she wrote, but she had many times direct instruction from the angel of the lord regarding what should be omitted and what should be added in new editions. . . . Consider for a few moments the chapter in the first edition of Great Controversy, Volume IV, published by Pacific Press in 1884. In chapter XXVII, "The Snares of Satan," you find that about four pages in the latter part of the chapter were omitted from the later editions of Great Controversy. These four pages are to be found in Testimonies to Ministers, pages 472 to 475. The information contained in these four pages is very valuable to Seventh-day Adventists and was very appropriately included in the first edition of Great Controversy, volume IV,

3

which when it was published was like the other volumes considered to be a message especially to Seventh-day Adventists, and to [all] Christian people sympathizing with them in beliefs and aims. But when it was decided that Great Controversy, volume IV should be republished in form for general circulation by subscription agents, Ellen G. White suggested that the pages be left out because of the likelihood that ministers of popular churches reading those statements would become angered and would array themselves against the circulation of the book…. You refer to other letters containing questions which I have not answered. I hope to get at them soon, but not this morning. Yours faithfully, W. C. White”

CRUCIAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Notice carefully that W.C. White (Mrs. White’s own son), in responding to the 1928 letter from the SDA Church’s historian, L.E. Froom (the author of the famous historical work on Adventism, “The Movement of Destiny”, 1971), he gave no specific reasons in that letter as to why the passage was left out by Mrs. White herself, and he gave no indication of any “controversy” being incited in Mrs. White’s time by so-called “concerned brethren” regarding it being left out. If there was this so-called “refutation” of the statement from the science of Genetics, then W.C. White would know and would have mentioned it, and if the brethren were so incensed over it being left out in Mrs. White’s time (as critics often falsely proclaim) it would also have been mentioned by W.C. White…since these ‘happenings’ (if they did occur) were precisely what his response to L.E. Froom would have called for. But notice carefully that W.C. White did not state specifically in this 1928 letter under consideration why his own mother left out the passage as originally penned; he only spoke of what he knew about another case, in an illustratory fashion, about Mrs. White’s “good judgment” in leaving out earlier published statements from later works (such as why certain pages were also left out of the later editions of The Great Controversy). The critics have invented scenarios and reasons for it being left out, simply because of wild speculation on their part… all resulting in giving false information and misleading their readers and followers. Why do I say so? Note now this crucial piece of information—another letter from W.C. White, but written earlier. This 1924 letter archived by the EG White Estate shows William C. White, Mrs. White's own son and A PRIMARY WITNESS TO THE HISTORICAL EVENTS, responding earlier to the issues about his mother's utterances on the amalgamation issue, and he pointed out a few things, as a direct witness to the historical happenings in the pioneering SDA Church: First, he emphatically states that EG White did not teach that the African races were the result of amalgamation; second, that she did not “endorse” Uriah Smith’s interpretation who thought she meant to say that was the case; third, that her LATER omission of the passage was due, at least in part, to persons making racial attacks based on their assumptions about her statements; fourth, that none of the SDA ministers taught what Uriah Smith misinterpreted his mother to saying about the Hottentots (Negroes) and Digger Indians resulting from the “amalgamation of man and beast”. SEE PROOF IN THE FOLLOWING PHOCOPIED PORTIONS OF THIS LETTER (ON NEXT PAGE):

4

2. As it concerns the critics feeling Genetics was the reason for Mrs. White leaving out the passage as originally penned, let me now bring to your attention crucial historical facts which significantly refute the critics even further. Genetics as a science did not exist as a recognized science until maybe after the early 1900s, and even the earliest scientific work on genetics by

5

Gregor Mendel (the pioneer in the field of genetics) took place in the mid to late 1800s, and his work on plants (not animals, mind you), which laid the earliest groundwork for later studies in genetics, was largely unpublished and unknown in America until it was rediscovered by other scientists in the early 1900s. Even the very word “genetics” wasn’t even invented until about 1905. IT IS THEREFORE SIMPLY UNTRUE TO SAY THAT GENETICS AND ITS SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS INFLUNECED MRS.
WHITE’S DECISION TO REMOVE THE CONTROVERSIAL “AMALGAMATION” STATEMENTS FROM HER EARLIER WORKS (STARTING FROM AS EARLY AS IN THE 1880s) BECAUSE GENETICS DID NOT EVEN EXIST AS A COHERENT AND RECOGNIZED SCIENCE AT ALL UNTIL AFTER THE 1900s. IN FACT MRS. WHITE REMOVED THE PASSAGE FROM THE 1871 VERSION OF THE GREAT CONTROVERSY (IT IS MISSING FROM THE 1888 VERSION), AND SHE ALTERED THE PASSAGE (AS ORIGINALLY PENNED) FROM AS EARLY AS 1890 WHEN PUBLISHING PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS, i.e. EVEN BEFORE THE WORK OF THE EARLIEST PIONEER IN GENETICS (GREGOR MENDEL IN THE LATE 1800s) BECAME WIDELY KNOWN, AND EVEN BEFORE IT INFLUENCED THE LATER DEVELOPMENTS AND RESEARCH IN THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS; A SCIENCE THAT ONLY EMERGED AFTER THE EARLY 1900s!!

3. Contrary to the claims of the critics, Mrs. White did not remove the idea or revelation FROM HER LATER WORKS regarding “amalgamation” being the prime cause of the Flood, and that this “amalgamation” “produced the worst results”; that of causing sin to spread like leprosy, and God subsequently sending the Flood!! Surprise!! Surprise!! This has been her consistent message throughout her entire ministry, where she kept saying:

Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men, resulted in apostasy which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood.--Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 93.
Leading up to 1890, long before Genetics arose as a science after the 1900s---with its COHERENT knowledge about DNA and heredity, and about the incompatibility of human and animal DNA sexually (DNA was only IDENTIFIED in 1869 but was much later named DNA, and shown to be specifically connected to genetics only in 1944)---it was BEFORE that Mrs. White first removed the “amalgamation of man and [of] beast” statements as originally penned from the 1888 version of The Great Controversy (it was in the 1871 version) and then later altered/reworded it in her renowned book “Patriarchs and Prophets” (published in 1890). On page 81 she still kept the idea of the “amalgamation” of the sinful “races” of Seth and Cain being the primary reason for widespread sin in the earth, ADDING that it “produced the WORST RESULTS”… i.e. ultimately leading to the Flood being sent to destroy mankind for his sinfulness (Note- this fact explains why earlier I kept referring to her deleted statement “as originally penned”; she reworded the “amalgamation” revelation for at least one of her later works). When one considers that in that same book of 1890, she made the following crucial point FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, then the point am making about marital “amalgamation” between the godly and ungodly “defacing the image of God” in man might become even clearer: “It was Satan's studied effort [in the antediluvian world] to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice.” -Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890, page 338 This reality of 1890 refutes the critics who thought it was bestiality that she initially meant “defaced the

6

image of God”, and it refutes some SDA insiders, such as even certain early SDA pioneers who misunderstood SOME ASPECTS OF her initial 1864 and 1870 “amalgamation” statement. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT CANNOT BE OVEREMPHASIZED THAT THE “UNEQUALLY YOKING” OF THE GODLY AND UNGODLY WAS CLEARLY FORBIDDEN FROM EARLY BECAUSE OF THE INHERENT POTENTIAL TO BRING MUCH DISASTER. Thus amalgamation between the godly spiritual “race” of Seth and the ungodly spiritual “race” of Cain, with its disastrous results of “defacing the image of God in man”, Mrs. White certainly intended to emphasize this as being part of or was the prime reason for the Flood (as Genesis 6 makes plain), and so she reworded her earlier ambiguous “amalgamation” statement to emphasize this point. I already made reference to this fact in part 1 of my presentation, and so let me quote my earlier observations which highlighted her 1890 utterances, showing where Mrs. White simply reworded the “amalgamation” concept (using less ambiguous language), BUT CLEARLY IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT SHE WANTED HER READERS TO UNDERSTAND:
“ONE THING NORMALLY MISSED BY THE CRITICS IS HOW A SIMILAR EXPLANATION OF THE SAME SITUATION IN ANOTHER BOOK WRITTEN BY E.G. WHITE HERSELF, NAMELY "PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS” (1890), CLINCHES HER INTENDED MEANING ABOUT WHAT WAS THE WORST SIN OR ULTIMATE SINFUL ACT OF MAN (PRODUCING THE “WORST RESULTS”) THAT CAUSED GOD TO SEND THE FLOOD. HERE IS THE ENLIGHTENING STATEMENT FROM E.G. WHITE HERSELF (TAKE NOTE OF THE TELLING PHRASES AND KEY THOUGHTS EXPRESSED):

“For some time the two classes [i.e. the descendants of Seth and Cain] remained separate. The race of Cain, spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plains and valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order to escape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and there made their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained the worship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was productive of the worst results. "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair." The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain's descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, "and they took them wives of all which they chose." The children of Seth went in the way of Cain" (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of the Lord. Men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge;" they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:21. Therefore "God gave them over to a mind void of judgment." Verse 28, margin. Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy.” – E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890, pg. 81
NOTICE HER USE OF SYNONYMS LIKE “MINGLING” AND “ASSOCIATION” OF THE GODLY AND UNGODLY, INSTEAD OF USING THE WORD “AMALGAMATION”, AND NOTICE THAT IT WAS THIS THAT PRODUCED “THE WORST RESULTS” (i.e. “SIN SPREADING” ABROAD IN THE EARTH “LIKE LEPROSY”), AND HENCE WAS THE PRIME REASON FOR THE FLOOD. NATURALLY IF EVEN THE GODLY BECAME DEPRAVED BECAUSE OF THE “AMALGAMATION” OF THE GODLY AND THE UNGODLY, THEN HARDLY WOULD THE GODLY CHARACTER OF GOD IN MAN REMAIN PRESERVED IN THE EARTH, AND HENCE WOULD BE “DEFACED” TOTALLY IF THINGS REMAINED UNCHECKED. NO WONDER THE FLOOD WAS NEEDED. THIS PASSAGE IN PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS (PUBLISHED IN 1890) EXPLAINS MUCH, AND SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN!!”

– *Quoted from Part 1 of my presentation (See it online HERE…click link) Is it not strongly suggestive that this is what Mrs. White wanted her readers to understand all along (as seen in the forgoing)? And is it not also strongly suggestive that it wasn’t Genetics as a science (which

7

came later) that influenced her decision to remove the initial statement (from as early as 1888) and then reword (in 1890) the controversial expressions in her earlier “amalgamation” statements, but rather SOMETHING ELSE might have been the cause? But what could that be? And why did she choose by 1890 to focus on “amalgamation” in humans causing the Flood, but did not focus on “amalgamation” in animals as she did earlier? I can only speculate, but within good reason. What is clear to me from my research is that, during the time of Mrs. White both SDA insiders (and a few can be shown) and outsiders to SD Adventism were mistaking her statement regarding “amalgamation of man and [of] beast” to mean that probably the Negro race, and other people of color, were the result of amalgamation of man *WITH beast (despite certain early SDA pioneers did express that Negros were still real men, and not half-beasts). My research does show that the Church was questioned about these E.G. White utterances, and nowhere can it be shown that Mrs. White either personally confirmed or personally denied the explanations in full given on her behalf on this issue during her lifetime. It is therefore futile to argue dogmatically regarding her silence, and what this meant on her part. Such an argumentation is fraught with many pitfalls, since it is simply built on speculation. What is clear is that she chose to remove the statements, or at least begin to reword them by 1888 and 1890, not because of Genetics as a science, which developed much later (by now you know that this had no influence), but because of ANOTHER REASON, which her own son (W.C. White) stated exactly what that reason was; in contradistinction to the vain imaginations of the critics.

Question 2- What could be the possible reasons for Mrs. White neither confirming nor denying what others said on her behalf (and on behalf of the SDA Church) regarding “amalgamation”?

ANSWER: Like I earlier said, any answer given is only speculation, and it is not set in concrete, but nothing is wrong to speculate based on all the known facts. It may just lead to reasonable understanding about issues that we remain unsure about. By now you know dear reader that--- based on the irrefutable facts of history I presented earlier, which makes a certain argumentation from the critics highly unlikely--- it could not be because of Genetics refuting what the original controversial “amalgamation” statements *SEEM to be saying why E.G. White either reworded (in 1890) or deleted (starting as early as 1888) the statements as originally penned. She changed the wording because some SDA brethren, as well as outsiders, were misunderstanding her original statement, admittedly ambiguous by nature, and using it in ‘racially charged’ ways! Consider that indeed some SDA brethren were influenced, either one way or the other, by certain ignorant social views, as existing in America at the time, that the Negro race (and other similar people of color) was somewhat inferior, and that indeed there was ancient “amalgamation” of humans with beasts, resulting in Negros (of course, all of this mentality was coming out of the period of the American slavery system; a system that was abolished only in the 1860s)!! In fact that WAS indeed what science (in its underdeveloped condition at the time) was saying in America at the time, i.e. before Genetics emerged as a coherent science in the 1900s… as my honest research has shown. See this eye opening background being described in, for example, Ronald Osborn’s 2010 research entitled “True Blood: Race, Science, and Early Adventist Amalgamation Theory Revisited” (a research paper done by an SDA

8

theology researcher). It can be downloaded online for free (do a Google search and download it, or request it from me via email at ddgillespie@live.com). While I do not subscribe to all of Ronald Osborn’s opinions expressed while he was commenting on the facts before him (in fact I question some of his pronouncements that are highly speculative and sometimes misleading), yet his historical research is invaluable in helping us to empirically see that indeed SOME early Adventists (like Uriah Smith, probably A.T. Jones, and G.V. Kilgore) indeed, did interpret and explained the original “amalgamation” statements of E.G. White to mean bestiality was involved! I have actually read the evidence for myself from the original writings of the pioneers. See the following photocopies, i.e. as photocopied from actual Xeroxed versions of the Advent Review & Herald, showing evidence of some early Adventist publication certainly subscribing to the bestiality interpretation of Mrs. White’s “amalgamation” statements.

9

The foregoing exhibits, as extracted from a question and answer section of the 1901 Review and Herald (Note- the photocopy is showing the question asked on the left and the answer supplied on the right), it does reveal much about what SOME SDAs might have believed, at least with Uriah Smith and A.T. Jones being editors of the Advent Review at the time. It cannot be denied (once candidly looking at the historical data available) that SOME early Adventists did believe in and expressed the bestiality interpretation of E.G. White’s original “amalgamation” statements!! Early SDA pioneer G.V. Kilgore, for instance, again proves what am here saying, as seen in the upcoming illustration; from a photocopy of page 7 of Ronald Osborn’s 2010 research paper, True Blood):

*Note- I did check/corroborate it in the original Advent Review online. The reference is:

Despite the above described, yet very soon after that Mrs. White started to either delete or alter her statements (starting as early as 1888)!! Think deeply on that, dear reader!! Now here is the crucial question! If, as it is often argued by the critics, that, based on her silence, Mrs. White did seem to agree with these early interpretations placed upon her utterances by SOME about “amalgamation of man and beast”, then why is it that at the same time that SOME brethren were taking her statements to mean what the critics today have charged (i.e. that Mrs. White’s “amalgamation” statement meant that bestiality was the main reason for the flood), with even G.V. Kilgore pointing to seeming support in science books of the day, that offspring was possible from that union, and with even Charles Darwin beginning to teaching at the time that humans and primates had a common ancestor, yet she still set about to delete or REWORD (from as early as 1890) her initial statement, and her later “amalgamation” statement of sorts (as seen in Patriarchs and Prophets, page 81) does avoid ambiguity and does not carry that meaning which was imposed by the early pioneers? And why did she do this even before Genetics (as a fully recognized science emerging after the 1900s) had any bearing on her decision in the matter? Why, despite some science books at the time (in the late 1800s) were indeed being appealed to by SOME SDAs as support for those SDA brethren WHO THOUGHT amalgamation of man WITH beast (i.e. producing resultant offspring) was indeed

10

biologically possible, yet despite all of that she still begun to quietly steer away her Church from that viewpoint by deleting or changing her ambiguous statements? Think long and hard on that for a while. Now, what is entirely possible is that what outsiders to Adventism at the time were opposing/debating was not what E.G. White herself REALLY MEANT by her “amalgamation” statements (remember she herself never explained her controversial statements further), but what SOME early SDA brethren interpreted her statements to mean, and were propagating on her behalf. And it is also clear that some of what some of her brethren were offering in defense of E.G. White’s utterances she never fully accepted, or endorsed them all; despite Mrs. White herself, her own husband and the General Conference in the 1860s DID endorse Uriah Smith’s general response on her behalf of her overall ministry! Uriah Smith did set out to prove one main issue in his defense of E.G. White on the “amalgamation” issue, and he said it this way (inserts are mine):

“The visions [of Mrs. White] teach, says the objector [i.e. those opposing her ministry], that the Negro race is not human. We deny it. They do not so teach….” – Uriah Smith, The Vision of Mrs. E.G. White, “Objection 39- “The Negro Race Not Human”, 1868, pg. 102

Critics fail to realize that the real burden of Uriah Smith’s defense on the “amalgamation” issue in 1868 was to prove that the ministry of E.G. White never taught that the Negro wasn’t human (and this Mrs. White, the General Conference and E.G. White’s own husband could fully endorse, while not necessarily meaning that Mrs. White endorsed what Uriah Smith and others felt was the nature of the “amalgamation” that she initially described). It seems that Mrs. White strove to maintain unity of the young Church at the time by not taking on too many issues that could probably disunite the brethren, but she sometimes quietly wrote on certain issues in the way they SHOULD be understood, even while leaving it to time for the brethren to later understand and be united around these issues (she did this a lot with the controversial issues concerning the true nature of the Godhead). Could this be why she never confirmed nor denied all of what others were saying about her “amalgamation” statements, but instead, by 1890 SHE ALTERED THEM TO GIVE A CLEARER IMPRESSION OF WHAT SHE EARLIER PENNED, WHICH CERTAINLY HAD THE NATURE OF AMBIGUITY IN THE WAY IT WAS EARLIER EXPRESSED? Who knows that this was not the approach she felt was needed, so as to maintain unity? One must remember that the 1860s up to even the early 1900s were the *FORMATIVE years of SD Adventism (formed officially only in 1863), and there NATURALLY were still disagreements on varying issues from 1863 up to even the early 1900s….disagreement concerning even issues we today would consider as fundamental as the personalities and nature of the Godhead. We must remember that even up to the late 1800s and early 1900s there were varying degrees of agreement on the nature of the Godhead, for instance, with SOME, like Uriah Smith and J.M. Stephenson, even earlier publishing that Jesus was originally “a created being” or “a creature”!! Yet this could not be shown at any time to be Mrs. White’s own viewpoint in her own writings, despite SHE HERSELF ENDORSED THE BOOK “DANIEL AND THE REVELATION” THAT EARLIER (IN 1867) HAD URIAH SMITH DESCRIBING JESUS AS A “CREATED BEING” IN THE EARLIER VERSION. She endorsed the general thrust of his book on prophecy; not necessarily every utterance and every explanation given on every issue. This is instructive, and can guide us in understanding how she could have endorsed a book without necessarily accepting everything it

11

says in all its details!! In this ‘young Church’ greater emphasis seemed to have been earlier placed on hammering out certain key issues that the brethren united around from day one, while allowing for early disagreements and varieties of published views on certain other ones, which, of course, would be attended to later as the Church matured. The “amalgamation” issue seemed not to have been high priority for Mrs. White to tackle, and so it turned out she remained “silent” on the issue of how her statement was interpreted right throughout her life…except, of course (in exercising the “good judgment” her son later spoke about), in either later altering or deleting (from as early as in the 1880s) the “amalgamation” statements that were being misinterpreted, and or misused.

QUESTION 3- Is it possible that Mrs. White deleted or altered her earlier “amalgamation” statements because she might have discovered she was wrong?

ANSWER: It is a possibility, and should not be thrown out as an option to honestly consider!! As an Adventist who strives to be honest when dealing with these issues I accept what Mrs. White herself declared, that: "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning".—Letter 10, 1895 Mrs. White went as far as describing herself as not infallible when she responded to an early pioneer who wrote to her this way: "I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word that you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the ten commandments. I held that view with absolute tenacity against innumerable objections raised to it by many who were occupying prominent positions in the [Adventist] cause," wrote Dr. David Paulson to Ellen White on April 19, 1906. Deeply concerned over the nature of Ellen White's inspiration, Paulson wondered whether he should continue to hold such a rigid view. In the process he raised the question of verbal inspiration and the related issues of infallibility and inerrancy. Mrs. White replied to Paulson on June 14, 1906: "My brother…you have studied my writings diligently, and you have *never found that I have made any such claims [to INFALLIBILITY], neither will you find that the pioneers in our cause ever made such claims" With the above established, I am of the view that as it concerns the “amalgamation of man and beast” issue, if what the critics say about Mrs. White is correct (am yet to see that however, but *IF they are correct) I would not see it in any way an undermining of my faith in the inspired ministry of E.G. White, but rather simply recognize it as one of those instances when her humanity and fallibility could be an acceptable factor in the equation. Even Israel of old, God’s true people, they sometimes became misguided (and for a long time too) by the culture and thought patterns of their day (such as engaging

12

in polygamy and practicing slavery), and even leaders in the Bible weren’t exempt (such as Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, et al), and yet they were still used of God to accomplish his purposes in the earth.
BUT BECAUSE I AM YET TO SEE THE CONVINCING/FOOLPROOF EVIDENCE FROM THE ‘NAYSAYERS’ THAT MRS. WHITE EITHER CHANGED OR DELETED HER EARLIER “AMALGAMATION” STATEMENTS BECAUSE SHE WAS DISPROVED BY THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS IN THE LATE 1880s, OR BECAUSE SHE WAS PLAINLY WRONG ON THE REAL/INTENDED MEANING OF HER INTITAL WORDING OF THE STATEMENTS, IT IS FOR THESE REASONS I STILL INSIST ON THE VALIDITY OF MY FINDINGS PRESENTED SO FAR. SHE ALTERED AND CHANGED HER “AMALGAMATION” STATEMENTS EVEN WHILE SHE WAS BEING ‘SUPPORTED’ BY SOME IN HER CHURCH ON THE BESTIALITY INTERPRETATION THAT SOME HAD. SHE ALTERED AND DELETED HER STATEMENTS EVEN BEFORE GENETICS PROVED THE INCOMPABILTY OF DIVERSE SPECIES LIKE HUMANS AND ANIMALS, OR EVEN WHILE GENETICS DID PROVE THAT SEVERAL HYBRIDS FROM DIVERSE SPECIES CAN INDEED STILL BE FERTILE AND PRODUCE OFFSPRING. AND SHE ALTERED AND DELETED HER STATEMENTS EVEN WHILE SCIENCE BOOKS IN HER TIME (AS WELL AS SOCIAL SENTIMENTS IN SOME QUARTERS IN AMERICA) WERE SOMEWHAT ‘SUPPORTIVE’ OF HOW HER INITIAL “AMALGAMATION” STATEMENTS WERE BEING INTERPRETED BY SOME SDAs. THESE ARE CONSIDERATIONS THE CRITICS HAVE TOTALLY MISSED, IN THEIR BID TO UNDERMINE HER MINISTRY. BUT I HAVE NOT MISSED THESE THINGS AS AN HONEST RESEARCHER, AND I SUBMIT THEM, DEAR READER, FOR YOUR DEEP CONTEMPLATION.

QUESTION 4- Is the SDA Church (or at least some in it) being prudent in ‘resurrecting’ the pre-1888 “amalgamation” statements of E.G. White THAT SHE HERSELF DELETED OR ALTERED, and using them to teach new theories like the ancient genetic manipulation of species (i.e. through high-tech laboratorial means), including the production of human-animal ‘chimeras’ or human-animal ‘monsters’ by the pre-Flood civilization? ANSWER: Frankly I am of the view that those engaged in this practice are misguided, and they are not taking an insightful cue from Mrs. White’s efforts (from as early as 1888) to delete and reword her statements. Despite I believe the Church remains God’s true Remnant and “three angels” Messenger for these last days (with a vital core Message), yet by resurrecting the earlier ambiguous “amalgamation” statements to teach new theories (and not seeing the “wisdom” of Mrs. White herself leaving them behind, or rewording them in a way that is not ambiguous), I believe the SDA Church (or at least those responsible) is playing right into the hands of the critics, and, worse, is hedging up its own way with further ‘difficulty’ over the issue. Today, it is popular among SOME SDAs (scholars, authors and certain leaders included) to be teaching a new interpretation of the already deleted and reworded statements--- that the ancients (before and probably after the Flood) had HIGHLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT to practice highly advanced genetic engineering of human and animal DNA combined, and that this was what Mrs. White initially meant by her “amalgamation of man and beast” statements (i.e. human-animal chimeras or hybrids). They even try to read into those statements of Mrs. White that the ancients were very advanced scientifically and technologically for their time (even more than we realize today) , and see this as a reason to believe they could have had technology as advanced and even more advanced than our technological age of the 21st century. But all of this is simply fanciful or speculative thinking, which relies too much on imaginative approaches and even fictional writing. The pre-Flood ancients could not even write, and they did not have books, and yet we have knowledge of their ancient technology as recorded in the early chapters of Genesis. This was because the oral tradition or word of mouth modality was employed to pass on the knowledge of the ancients and their way of life.

13

Nothing in archaeology or recorded history gives satisfactory evidence that the ancients even knew about DNA (a highly complex substance discovered only in the 19th and 20th centuries, which demand super computers and highly specialized scientific labs to manipulate), and nothing historically gives sufficient evidence that humans were that advanced to manipulate DNA to accomplish genetic engineering of the caliber some are purporting in Adventism since the 1940s. Ancients only knew how to do crossbreeding of animals (the ancient/traditional form of “genetic engineering”) to produce hybrids that are indeed “confused species” (see explanation of “confused species” here); not the hightech DNA manipulation known about (and possible technologically) only since the 1970s. It is simply fanciful thinking to presume otherwise, and this presumption lacks plausible supportive evidence. Thus these views should be discarded, especially considering that Patriarchs and Prophets of 1890 (page 81) shows the “amalgamation” Mrs. White REALLY intended to mostly highlight (AN “AMALGAMATION” OF THE GODLY AND UNGODLY) --- the type which was “productive of the WORST RESULTS”, and which caused such a degeneration of the race, in terms of wickedness/sinfulness, that the Flood was inevitable. Going beyond that more reasonable interpretation (or beyond the possible human-induced hybridization of diverse animal species, as prohibited in Lev. 19:19; thus sinful) is wild speculation on the part of these new SDA authors and thinkers, and I call upon them to be wise, and take a cue from Mrs. White herself on the “amalgamation” statements. Leave behind the earlier “amalgamation of man and beast” statements (unless responding to critics who resurrect them for attack purposes), so that the work of the SDA Church will not be hindered by those things in the Church’s past that have been long altered or deleted for wise purposes. A word to the wise is sufficient, I feel.