Ellen White frequently addressed lifestyle issues, particularly dietary practices, and often referred to eating meat as consuming “the flesh of dead animals.” However, there is a significant discrepancy between what she advocated publicly and what she practiced privately. Despite her promotion of vegetarianism following her first health vision in 1863, she continued to eat meat, including types of meat deemed unclean by Scripture, for more than thirty years—up until 1894. Yet she asserted:

“It is reported by some that I have not followed the principles of health reform as I have advocated them with my pen; but I can say that I have been a faithful health reformer. Those who have been members of my family know that this is true.” ^[1]

This raises questions about her consistency. Did she genuinely uphold health reform at all times? Was she adhering to her own standards in the 1870s, when she harshly rebuked others for consuming meat, butter, and even spices?

For example, she wrote about a family, saying:

“One family in particular have needed all the benefits they could receive from the reform in diet, yet these very ones have been completely backslidden. Meat and butter have been used by them quite freely, and spices have not been entirely discarded.” ^[2]

Even during this period of strict critique, she also claimed:

“I do not preach one thing and practice another. I do not present to my hearers rules of life for them to follow while I make an exception in my own case.…” ^[3]

However, her own actions repeatedly contradicted her teachings. Time and again, Ellen White failed to follow the health principles she publicly espoused. Her stance on meat consumption and its connection to Christian living and ministry also diverged significantly from biblical teachings and the historical practices of God’s people.

These inconsistencies have often been obscured or sanitized, leading many church members, ministers, and other church workers to accept a distorted view of Ellen White and her health reform message. Members are often presented with, at best, an incomplete version of the facts and, at worst, an intentional misrepresentation.

The issue in this series of articles is not whether Ellen White was correct about some aspects of vegetarianism. Indeed, before she began writing on the topic, many of her ideas were validated by the experiences of SDA members and supported by prominent physicians in Europe and America. Ample evidence of this is readily available.

One example of this is in the life of Sylvester Graham (July 5, 1794 – September 11, 1851), an American Presbyterian minister and a pioneer in dietary reform. He is renowned for promoting vegetarianism, advocating for temperance, and encouraging the consumption of whole-grain bread. His teachings led to the creation of products such as graham flour, graham bread, and graham crackers. Often hailed as the “Father of Vegetarianism” in the United States, Graham played a significant role in shaping early American dietary practices. [4]

There are countless examples of reformers who worked across various domains, including science, medicine, literature, and advocacy, to improve the safety and quality of food in the United States. Their efforts paved the way for the regulations and standards we rely on today.

• • Harvey W. Wiley (1844–1930)
  • Sylvester Graham (1794–1851)
  • Ellen G. White (1827–1915)
  • John Harvey Kellogg (1852–1943)
  • Upton Sinclair (1878–1968)
  • Mary Gove Nichols (1810–1884)
  • Catherine Beecher (1800–1878)

While there is clear evidence that Ellen White stole the Health Message from other health reformers and propped it up as having divine origins, the real problem lies in how she distorted Scripture to make meat consumption a test of faith for God’s end-time messengers while failing to uphold this standard in her own life as the self-proclaimed “chosen” end-time prophet.

This investigation will first examine whether Ellen White adhered to the dietary reforms she promoted. Did she avoid eating meat, as she advised others to do? Then, we will explore whether her claims about meat consumption align with biblical teachings.

At the end of each article in this series, the reader will be presented with several questions to help engage the raised concerns.  I have also taken the liberty to put the years in bold so that you can trace the historical timing of her statements.  As always, I pray the Holy Spirit will guide your study and research and that His name will be honored in all that is presented.

A Character of Hypocrisy

When Ellen White acted contrary to the advice she gave others, the typical defense is that she was human, and like all humans, even prophets are susceptible to failings. This is undeniably true—prophets are not exempt from sin or imperfections. Paul acknowledged this in Acts 14:15 when he said that he and Barnabas were men of “like passions” as other human beings. However, in Ellen White’s case, particularly regarding her teachings and personal practices about eating meat, the issue extends beyond ordinary human error.

Her defenders often blur the lines between three distinct issues:

1. 1. Personal failings
   2. Theological failings
   3. A combination of both

Maintaining moral consistency is particularly challenging when one’s teachings lack a direct revelation from God or clear and unequivocal scriptural backing.

The underlying reason for Ellen White’s inconsistencies in practicing her own counsel on meat consumption lies in the flawed theological foundation of her teachings. According to the Bible, when a prophet remains true to God and receives instruction from Him, that instruction will not contradict existing teachings or theology found in Scripture, which serves as the ultimate test. Biblical examples of continued moral or theological failure in a prophet often involve cases where the prophet is either false or apostate, as illustrated by the example of Balaam.

For spiritual leaders, including prophets, presenting supposed scriptural requirements for others to follow while failing to adhere to them personally creates a dissonant testimony and burden that is at odds with the truth of Scripture. We can see this in Christ’s condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees.

In Matthew 23:2-4, Christ said:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.” (Matthew 23:2–4, ESV)

Although Christ instructed His listeners to follow the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees when aligned with Scripture (“we ought to obey God rather than man”), He highlighted their hypocrisy and its harmful effects. These leaders imposed rules on others that they themselves did not follow, creating unnecessary burdens that hindered people’s spiritual growth. Their hypocrisy not only barred their own entry into the kingdom of heaven but also obstructed others from entering.

As Christ said in Matthew 23:13:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”  (Matthew 23:13, ESV)

This failure was both theological and moral. When such demands are made by someone claiming direct instruction from God or asserting that the teachings are scriptural, the consequences for followers can be devastating.

Christ captured this danger in Matthew 23:15:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15, ESV)

Keeping these statements from Christ in mind, it is worth examining Ellen White’s statement in 1864, made shortly after her first health vision in 1863, where she claimed: (Emphasis Mine)

“But since the Lord presented before me, in June, 1863, the subject of meat eating in relation to health, I have left the use of meat. For a while it was rather difficult to bring my appetite to bread, for which, formerly, I had but little relish. But by persevering, I have been able to do this. I have lived for nearly one year without meat. For about six months most of the bread upon our table has been unleavened cakes, made of unbolted wheat meal and water, and a very little salt. We use fruits and vegetables liberally. I have lived for eight months upon two meals a day.” ^[5]

This statement suggests that she responded to what she claimed was divine instruction by abstaining from meat for a time. However, the inconsistencies between this claim and her subsequent actions invite further scrutiny.

The first point to note is that Ellen White claimed “the Lord” gave her a vision specifically addressing “the subject of meat eating in relation to health.” According to her own testimony, she followed the divine instruction by refraining from eating meat for “nearly one year.”

When God provides a vision, timing, and significance are always critical. Such revelations are not given without purpose. If abstaining from meat was important in 1863, the same principle should have remained crucial—or even more so—as time passed. Ellen White later warned that the risks associated with consuming meat would increase as the world approached its end, mainly due to the dangers of disease in animal products.

By 1867, health reform had become closely tied to the “three angel’s messages” of Revelation 14, as Ellen White stated:

“The health reform, I was shown, is a part of the third angel’s message and is just as closely connected with it as are the arm and hand with the human body.” ^[6]

Connecting health reform so explicitly to a central end-time warning message, as Ellen White did, implied that unwavering adherence was required until the end. Compromise was not an option. Whether or not Revelation 14:9-10 explicitly supports a health message is beside the point. What stands out is the strict nature of Ellen White’s counsel and the weight of obedience she placed on others, even as she struggled to follow her own guidance.

In 1868, for example, she wrote to parents, condemning their inclusion of animal products in their family’s diet:

“You place upon your tables butter, eggs, and meat, and your children partake of them. They are fed with the very things that will excite their animal passions, and then you come to meeting and ask God to bless and save your children. How high do your prayers go? You have a work to do first. When you have done all for your children which God has left for you to do then you can with confidence claim the special help that God has promised to give you.” ^[7]

Ellen White warned repeatedly that consuming meat could stir “animal passions” and, even worse, prevent prayers from being answered. However, in another instance, she claimed God directed her to recommend eggs—a food she had previously denounced as harmful and spiritually obstructive—for a sick child.

“And eggs contain properties which are remedial agencies in counteracting poisons. And while warnings have been given against the use of these articles of diet in families where the children were addicted to, yes, steeped in, habits of self-abuse; yet we should not consider it a denial of principle to use eggs of hens which are well cared for and suitably fed.…” ^[8]

This inconsistency raises significant questions about the basis of her dietary teachings, which will be further explored as this series progresses.

In Part 2, we will explore the evidence of whether or not Ellen White followed her own ‘divinely’ inspired rigid expectations that she placed on her followers.

In Christian Love,

 

 

 

 

Questions for further study:

1. 1. To what extent can discrepancies between public teachings and private practices undermine the authority of a prophet or spiritual leader?
   2. Does acknowledging her humanity diminish or enhance the value of her health reform message?
   3. What evidence supports the idea that her actions were deliberate compromises versus lapses in judgment or convenience?
   4. How do Ellen White’s teachings on meat consumption align or diverge from biblical principles?
   5. Does Ellen White’s invocation of visions to support dietary reforms strengthen or weaken their validity in light of her inconsistencies?
   6. To what extent should her interpretations of scripture be considered binding on her followers?
   7. If divine instruction does not align with the prophet’s actions, what does that imply about the origin of the instruction?
   8. Can a prophet’s human failings coexist with their divine mission without discrediting their overall message?
   9. How might the selective presentation of Ellen White’s health reform practices contribute to distorted perceptions within the SDA community?
   10. What responsibility does the SDA church bear in addressing historical inconsistencies in Ellen White’s practices and teachings?
   11. To what extent did her position as a woman and religious leader in a male-dominated society affect her ability to enforce her reforms?

References:

^[1] Ellen Gould White, Counsels on Diet and Foods (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1938), 494.

^[2] Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2 (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1855), 485.

^[3] Ellen Gould White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 2 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 302.

[4] “Sylvester Graham,” in Wikipedia, November 18, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylvester_Graham&oldid=1258164896#Selected_works.

^[5] Ellen Gould White, Counsels on Diet and Foods (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1938), 482.

^[6] Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1 (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1855), 486.

^[7] Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2 (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1855), 362.

^[8] Ellen Gould White, Counsels on Diet and Foods (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1938), 204–205.