The book Steps to Christ, supposedly authored by Ellen White, is THE book that an Adventist would hand someone if they wanted to evangelize another Christian or non-Christian. In fact, many have come to know Christ by reading this exact book. Ty Gibson’s personal testimony shares that he used to be agnostic and came to know Christ through reading Steps to Christ! [1]

But is this book really leading someone to Christ? Was it actually authored by Ellen G. White? Or is it something entirely different? I know—this is a rabbit hole many don’t want to go down, but hang tight and check my work.

Dr. Jud Lake is a distinguished scholar and professor specializing in preaching and Adventist studies. Since 1997, he has been a faculty member at Southern Adventist University in Collegedale, Tennessee, where he teaches courses such as “Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White” and “Adventist Heritage.” When my wife and I went to Southern Adventist University, we took some classes from Dr. Jud Lake. In fact, I proposed to Jennifer Colburn in one of Dr. Lakes’s classes! (Don’t judge me… LOL)

Dr. Lake asserts that “all the writing came directly from Ellen White.” [2] However, while critics have conceded that editorial assistants incorporated material from Mrs. White’s earlier books, this does not confirm Ellen White as the sole author. Instead, it indicates that certain passages from her prior writings were integrated into the book by assistants such as Ms. Bolton, Ms. Davis, or others who may have been more involved in the actual composition of the text.  Even Dr. Lake admits to this.

“Steps to Christ is a compilation from Ellen White’s earlier writings. In 1890, Ellen White assigned her top literary assistant, Marian Davis, to compile from her earlier writings material for a book on how the sinner comes to Christ.” [3]

During this era, Mrs. White’s reliance on material from other authors without proper attribution was a source of discomfort among her editorial team. Her assistants were acutely aware of the extent to which she borrowed from non-original sources, a practice that later caught the attention of the SDA Church. The Church devoted substantial time and resources to examining the content of Desire of Ages, a work on which Ms. Davis was the primary editor, and concluded that a considerable amount of the book had been sourced from other non-SDA authors. This scrutiny highlighted the extent of Ellen White’s uncredited use of outside material. (If you want to see Ellen’s literary stealing details, you can watch this great docu-series by Test the Prophet.)

In 1901, Ms. Bolton expressed her frustration in a “confession,” revealing the tension created by Mrs. White’s lack of transparency around her sources:

“I tried for years to harmonize what seemed to me inconsistency in the work with a worldly literary maxim that requires an author to acknowledge his editors and to give credit to all works from which he quotes. In contending that Sr. White was not open and honest about this matter, I supposed myself standing for a principle of ordinary justice and literary honesty…” [4]

Bolton’s words illustrate the ethical dilemma faced by those close to Ellen White’s work. For years, she wrestled with what she viewed as inconsistencies between White’s practice of borrowing from other authors and the established norms of literary integrity.

Ronald L. Numbers (1942–2023) was a prominent American historian of science and medicine renowned for his extensive research on the interplay between science and religion. Born into a Seventh-day Adventist family—his father was a pastor, and his grandfather served as a General Conference president—Numbers was deeply immersed in the church’s teachings from an early age.

In 1976, while teaching at Loma Linda University, Numbers published “Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White.” This groundbreaking work critically examined Ellen G. White, a co-founder and prophetess of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, situating her health teachings within the broader context of 19th-century health reform movements.

Numbers comments on Fanny Bolton’s experience as a literary assistant to Ellen White.  He states that,

“Many of her (Frances “Fanny” Bolton’s) employers’ publications (Ellen White’s writings) were not only paraphrased from other sources but written in their final form by privately hired editors.  The material coming from Ellen White’s own hand she described as being ‘illogically written, full of illiteracies, awkward writing, and often wrong chronology.’ [5] Upon divulging these secrets, she probably lost her job.” [6]

Fanny didn’t know who to turn to since any opposition to Ellen White would bring hostility to her career.  So she turned to Dr. Merritt Kellogg, who was with Mrs. White in Australia at the time of this particular incident. Merritt Kellogg was a friend of the White family and the half-brother of J.H. Kellogg, the Kellogg we all know from our cereal boxes. Fanny came to Merritt one day and said:

“Dr. Kellogg, I am in great distress of mind.  I come to you for advice for I do not know what to do.  I have told Elder [George B.] Starr what I am going to tell you, but he gives me no satisfactory advice.  You know,” said Fanny, “ that I am writing all the time for Sister White.  Most of what I write is published in the Review and Herald as having come from the pen of Sister White, and is sent out as having been written by Sister White under inspiration of God.   I want to tell you that I am greatly distressed over this matter for I feel that I am acting a deceptive part.  The people are being deceived about the inspiration of what I write.  I feel that it is a great wrong that anything which I write should go out as under Sister White’s name, as an article specially inspired of God.  What I write should go out over my own signature,  then credit would be given where credit belongs.”  I gave Miss Boulton [sic] the best advice I could, and then soon after asked Sister White to explain the situation to me.  I told her just what Fanny had told me.  Mrs. White asked me if Fanny told me what I had repeated to her, and my affirming that she did she said, “Elder Starr says she came to him with the same thing.”  Now said Sister White, with some warmth, “Fanny Boulton shall never write another line for me.  She can hurt me as no other person can.”  A few days later Miss Boulton was sent back to America.” [7]

While many Adventist apologists like Dr. Jud Lake will quickly come to Ellen White’s defense and deface the personal testimony of Fanny Bolton, one still must understand the internal struggle these literary assistants dealt with.  They were tasked to write articles that would then get stamped with Ellen White’s name and claimed they came directly from God.  Do you not see the problem with this literary manipulation?

Since Fanny Bolton’s personal testimony is usually belittled and her personal character discredited, I’d like to present a piece of evidence from Edward S. Ballenger, who obtained a signed and witnessed document personally testifying that Fannie was a literary assistant for Ellen White from 1895-97 and that Fannie claimed she was the author of Steps to Christ and that Ellen White took the manuscripts and published them under her own name:

As long as these literary assistants served Ellen White in a way that was positive to ‘the work,’ they were applauded.  In the case of Fanny Bolton, Ellen clearly used her talents in a way that only benefited Ellen’s work.  Once Fanny expressed any concern about the idea of Ellen plagiarising, true to Ellen White, she would have ‘visions’ from God that would condemn Fanny for working against the Lord’s work.

In a letter written to another literary assistant, Marian Davis, Ellen wrote:

“She (Fanny) becomes at times as verily possessed by demons as were human beings in the days of Christ. And when these paroxysms are upon her, many think she is inspired of God. She is fluent, her words come thick and fast, and she is under the control of demons. Then she claims that she has done the very things in my service I have told her in no case to do, that she has substituted her words for my words.” ^[8]

Ellen never truly addressed the root of her issues: her own dishonesty, fraud, and plagiarism. However, she made it abundantly clear that others could not comprehend the significant work of the Lord’s Messenger:

“Should I attempt to vindicate my course to those who do not appreciate the spiritual character of the work which is laid upon me; it would only expose myself and the work to misconception and misrepresentation. To present the matter before other minds would be useless, for there are but few who are really so connected with God [who] see beneath the surface appearance as to understand it. This work is one that I cannot explain.” ^[9]

Steve Daily, in his book Ellen G. White A Psychobiography, rightly points out:

“To talk about the spiritual character of her work, when it was overwhelmingly based on plagiarism and fraud, takes a lot of nerve.  To suggest that others could not understand the nature of her work because they were not enough “connected with God” is even worse and an insult to God. Of course, Ellen could not explain her work, because there is no explanation, justification, or rationalization for literary theft, gross deception, and attributing such things to the Almighty.” [10]

So, did Ellen G. White write Steps to Christ?  Are all the words in this small book, written to lead others to Christ, penned with only the messenger of the Lord’s own words, coming from the throneroom of God?  What would happen to the inspiration of this book and this author if other literary assistants wrote the words, as well as took the words from other books?

The crumbs of evidence point in a common direction.  We don’t have just one or two people claiming that Ellen White borrowed other authors’ writings to put in her ‘inspired’ writings.

George Washington Amadon (1832–1913) was a significant figure in the early Seventh-day Adventist Church, contributing extensively as a printer, editor, and church leader. Amadon dedicated approximately 50 years to the Review and Herald Publishing Association, serving in various roles, including typesetter, printer, and editor. He edited the Youth’s Instructor from 1858 to 1864 and again from 1867 to 1869. In 1861, upon the incorporation of the Review and Herald Publishing Association, he was elected vice president.[11]

George was also a close friend of the White family. In his book The White Lie, Walter Rea shares a recorded interview with Amadon in which he discusses his knowledge of Mrs. White’s literary borrowing. And just in case you might be concerned that George might be lying, the interview was stenographically recorded.

“I knew a large share of it [“How to Live”] was borrowed. … [With reference to “Sketches from the Life of Paul”] I said that Sister White never writes the prefaces to her books; I happen to know that others write them; and I said it has been stated formally in the preface of the book that such things had been taken from other works, that what had been copied verbatim ought to have been in quotation marks, or set in finer type, or in footnotes or something of the sort the way printers generally do ..She never reads the proof ..Sister White never in the Office sat down and read proofs properly …You know in the days of Elder James White how her writings were handled just as well as I do.” [12]/[13]

The list goes on and on.  Well, respective people who knew the Whites and were knowledgeable of how they operated.  Most of these individuals knew the Whites personally:

Arthur G. Daniells

“Minister, administrator; noted as one of the strongest leaders of the Adventist Church; president of the General Conference 1901-22. Close personal friends of the Whites; in Australia:

 

Now you know something about that little book, “The Life of Paul.”  You know the difficulty we got into about that.  We could never claim inspiration in the whole thought and makeup of the book, because it has been thrown aside because it was badly put together.  Credits were not given to the proper authorities, and some of that crept into “The Great Controversy” – the lack of credits … Personally that has never shaken my faith, but there are men who have been greatly hurt by it, and I think it is because they claimed too much for these writings.” [13a]

Benjamin L. House

“College professor of religion; present at the 1919 Bible Conference:

 

But such books as “Sketches [from] the Life of Paul,” “Desire of Ages,” and “Great Controversy,” were composed differently, it seems to me, even by her secretaries than the nine volumes of the Testimonies.” [13b]

Willard A Colcord

“Minister, editor, religious liberty secretary of the General Conference:

 

The making use of so much matter written by others, in Sister White’s writings, without quotes or credits, has gotten her and her writings into quite a lot of troule.  On of the chief objects in the late revision of “Great Controversy” was to fix up matters on this kind; and one of the chief reasons why “Sketches from the Life orf Paul” was never republished was because of serious defects in it on this ground.” [13c]

Camden Lacey

“Professor of Bible and biblical languages at five Adventist colleges; minister.  Personal friend of the Whites:

 

Sr. Marian Davis was entrusted with the preparation of “Desire of Ages” and .. she gathered her material from every available source … She was greatly worried about finding material suitable for the first chapter (and other chapters too for that matter) and I did what I could to help her; and I have good reason to believe that she also appealed to Professor Prescott frequently for similar aid, and got it too in far richer and more abundant measure than I could render.” [13d]

Healdsburg Ministerial Association

“A report in the local town paper of their comparison study of five books from which they determined Ellen White had copied; March 20, 1889:

 

Elder Heale would have the Committee believe that she [Ellen White] is not a reading woman.  And also, ask them to believe that the historical facts and even the quotations are given to her in vision without depending on the ordinary sources of information. … Would not any literary critic, Judging from the quotations advanced and a comparison of the passages indicated, conclude that Mrs. White in writing her “Great Controversy,” vol. iv, had before her the open books and from them took both ideas and words?” [13e]

Ellen White not only used the work of others without giving them proper credit, but she actively tried to hide this, denying it outright. In doing so, she was willing to harm the reputations of others or isolate them if necessary. From an ethical perspective, her actions were highly questionable, and the evidence suggests there is more than enough reason for serious doubt about her integrity.

Mrs. White insisted that if any alterations were made to her writings, God alone directed these changes, presenting Himself as the one who reveals “the condition of things.” ^[14] Ironically, her own words about honesty and openness seem to reflect back on her, as she failed to uphold the standards she expected of others. She appeared to believe that the ethical principles guiding other authors didn’t apply to her. Given her strong assertions about moral integrity and divine law, it’s difficult to justify her own acts of plagiarism, especially in light of her repeated denials of any such borrowing from other writers.

Consider if Ellen White’s own words applied to herself:

“In the Christian world today fraud is practiced to a fearful extent. God’s commandment-keeping people should show that they are above all these things. The dishonest practices which mar the dealing of man with his fellowman should never be practiced by one who professes to be a believer in present truth. God’s people do great harm to the truth by the least departure from integrity.” ^[15]

Ponder on these strong statements published in Sons and Daughters of God: (emphasis applied)

We Shall Not Lie, or Bear False Witness, February 27

 

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exodus 20:16.

 

The ninth commandment requires of us an inviolable regard for exact truth in every declaration by which the character of our fellow men may be affected. The tongue, which is kept so little under the control of the human agent, is to be bridled by strong conscientious principles, by the law of love toward God and man.^A1 

 

False-speaking in any matter, every attempt or purpose to deceive our neighbor, is here included. An intention to deceive is what constitutes falsehood. By a glance of the eye, a motion of the hand, an expression of the countenance, as falsehood may be told as effectually as by words. All intentional overstatement, every hint or insinuation calculated to convey an erroneous or exaggerated impression, even the statement of facts in such a manner as to mislead, is falsehood. This precept forbids every effort to injure our neighbor’s reputation by misrepresentation or evil surmising, by slander or tale-bearing. Even the intentional suppression of truth, by which injury may result to others, is a violation of the ninth commandment.^B2

 

He [Jesus] teaches that the exact truth should be the law of speech. “Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” … These words condemn all those meaningless phrases and expletives that border on profanity. They condemn the deceptive compliments, the evasion of truth, the flattering phrases, the exaggerations, the misrepresentations in trade, that are current in society and in the business world. They teach that no one who tries to appear what he is not, or whose words do not convey the real sentiment of his heart, can be called truthful.…

 

Everything that Christians do should be as transparent as the sunlight. Truth is of God; deception, in every one of its myriad forms, is of Satan.… We can not speak the truth unless our minds are continually guided by Him who is truth.^C3/[16]

Understand that in Ellen White’s supposedly divine understanding, ‘deception, in every one of its myriad forms, is of Satan.’ Do we truly understand the ramifications of this statement?  How should we handle the evidence of a woman claiming to be the messenger of the Lord, not just a prophet but more than a prophet, who plagiarised and then continued to lie about where her content came from?  Claiming that ONLY God had given her this information.

Ellen White deliberately used and even modified the works of other authors without acknowledging them. Given her strong beliefs about honesty and integrity, it would have been easy for her to inform readers that her work incorporated ideas from other writers (alongside insights she claimed to receive from God) and to give those writers the credit they deserved. However, her choice to borrow so extensively from others without attribution strongly suggests that she understood that doing so might lead readers to question how much of her work was genuinely inspired versus adapted from existing, non-inspired sources.

Many Adventists will claim that Ellen White has been exonerated of these old plagiarism charges. The issue isn’t really whether she plagiarized; the evidence convicts her as guilty as charged. As time has passed, more and more evidence has accumulated.

In August 1992, Walter Rea published a letter to his friends, officially notarized by the State of California, entitled, Who Lied Them or Me? The contents of this letter reveal that the SDA Church conceded to almost all of the major points dealt with in his groundbreaking book The White Lie. Here is a portion of this letter. You can read it in its entirety here:

————————————————————————————————–

Dear Friends:

In the December 1991 issue of Spectrum, which calls itself The Journal of the Association of Adventist Forums, there appeared an article by Jerry A. Gladson, entitled “Convert To Scholar: An Odyssey In Humility.” Jerry Gladson is Vice President and Dean of Academic Affairs of the Psychological Studies Institute, an interdenominational graduate school of Psychology and Religion in Atlanta, Georgia. Previous to this he was Professor of Religion at Southern College [now Southern Adventist University], from which he received his B. A. He holds an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Old Testament from Vanderbilt University.

In the article he says “neither have we dealt adequately with the questions raised by Walter Rea regarding Ellen White. Although his claims tended to be overstated, the church has gradually come to concede almost all his major points. In 1990, Fred Veltman reported to the church at large his findings in two articles appearing in Ministry Magazine, “The Desire of Ages Project, The Data” (October 1990, December 1990) careful to point out that he had examined only a small section of The Desire Of Ages, thus making it difficult to generalize, Veltman concluded that Ellen White did use sources without giving credit, and that she, at times even denied doing so. The Desire Of Ages, he noted, was dependent on secondary materials. On the whole, an average of about 31 percent of the 15 chapters was in some way indebted to other material. Worse, her history, chronology, and theological interpretation often cited confidently by Adventists were not always reliable.” Spectrum, volume 21, number 5, December 1991.

While it is true that the church has tried to conceal information from it’s members as to what issues have been resolved by the studies of both Fred Veltman and myself, some of those issues have been admitted and / or resolved. Some of these are:

1. 1. 1. There was massive borrowing on all levels of Mrs. White’s writings. The church had never before either known or admitted such borrowings to the membership or the public, no matter what we continue to read from the Review or other writers. (Glendale Tapes, 1990).
      2. What was written was not always accurate, that is, she made mistakes. It cannot be said therefore that she was always speaking for God. (Robert Olson, Ron Graybill, Glendale and Long Beach Tapes).
      3. Others helped her to do the gathering of material and also to do the writings. (Graybill paper, 1919 Bible Conference).
      4. All of what she said she saw did not come from visions. (Don McAdams, Ron Graybill, Robert Olson Papers, White Estate).
      5. All that came to the church in these writings were not inspired. (1919 Bible Conference, Robert Olson, White Estate, etc.).
      6. She was influenced by others in what she wrote and those that influenced her never claimed to be influenced by God or inspired themselves. (1919 Bible Conference, Robert Olson, White Estate).
      7. White ate meat most of her life and did not take much of the advice she claimed came from God. (White Estate papers, Ron Graybill study.).
      8. She was not as uneducated and unread as we have always been told.^[17]

Later in his letter, Walter Rea references back to a 1980 meeting that was convened at Glendale Adventist Hospital. He writes:

“No one can change history no matter how or why they try, and that history is–that the then President of the General Conference, Neal Wilson, at my urging, asked eighteen scholars of the Church to meet with me and review my material on January 28, 29, 1980, at the Glendale Adventist Hospital. Those scholars were:

1. 1. 1. Ralph Thompson, G.C. Chairman
      2. R. McAdams, College President
      3. W. Olson, White Estate
      4. Jack Provonsha, Loma Linda Minister
      5. L. Calkins, Conference President
      6. L. Richards, Bible Dept. P.U.C
      7. E. Douglass, Pacific Press
      8. Mrs. Ottilie Stafford, English Dept.
      9. E. J. Harden G.C. Education
      10. C. Torkelson, Administration
      11. G. Johnsson, Andrews University
      12. D. Venden, Loma Linda Minister
      13. Harold Lance, Attorney at Law
      14. O. Waller, English, Andrews University
      15. R. Lesher General Conference
      16. Mervyn A. Warren, Oakwood College
      17. Walter D. Blehm, President Pacific Union
      18. J. Wiley, Attorney at Law, U.S.C. Law

At the end of the meeting they made the following recommendations.

• • • That we recognize that Ellen White, in her writings, used various sources more extensively than we had previously believed.
    • That, as soon as possible, a plan be developed for thoroughly informing our church administrators concerning the nature and extent of Ellen White’s use of sources.
    • That immediate study be given to a plan for educating the church in easily grasped steps on the subject of inspiration and Ellen White’s use of sources.
    • That an in-depth study on the writing of the Desire of Ages be implemented.
    • That a person trained in scholarly methodology be asked to work with Elder Rea.
    • To express our appreciation to Elder Rea for the enormous amount of work he has done.

I rest my case. With that kind of endorsement, would any of you have done any differently? It was only when the Church backed out of the Agreement that I then wrote The White Lie so that all who wanted to know could know what the committee had promised they should know. Who lied, them or me? Now that you know we love you all.

[ signed ]

Walter T. Rea^[18]

—————————————————————————————————

Rea’s letter provides strong evidence that SDA leaders have been inconsistent and, at times, deceptive in managing the legacy of Ellen White. While publicly defending her image and the belief that her writings were purely inspired, evidence from the Glendale meetings (1919 Bible Conference held in Takoma Park, Maryland) and subsequent actions suggest that, privately, they admit her work was not entirely original or solely inspired by God. This disconnect has led to ongoing attempts to reframe her work, involving frequent re-evaluation, reinterpretation, and a series of apologetic efforts to keep her image intact.

These leaders seem to recognize significant issues surrounding White’s writings that cannot be ignored. Instead of fully disclosing these complexities to the church community, however, they appear to be subtly distancing the church from her influence. Rather than educating the church on the entire truth, they seem focused on gradually reducing her prominence—almost rebranding her legacy to make her teachings seem less central over time. This approach avoids direct transparency, allowing them to reshape White’s influence without openly addressing the concerns about her work’s originality and inspiration.

Now, we circle back to the original question of this article.  Was Steps to Christ authored by Ellen G. White?  Suppose there was literary theft, poor ethics, and a concealing of the literary borrowing. Can we not logically conclude, based on Ellen White’s own statements, that the work is a work of deception and thus from Satan?

‘Truth is of God; deception, in every one of its myriad forms, is of Satan.… We can not speak the truth unless our minds are continually guided by Him who is truth.” ^[19]

With this in mind and the correct backdrop to the literary borrowing around Ellen White, I’ll leave you with a few comparisons to ponder concerning Steps to Christ:

(The chart below was taken from Walter Rea’s book The White Lie)

Many of Ellen White’s books show evidence of substantial reliance on other authors, especially those published later in her life. Scholars and researchers, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, began documenting her use of other sources. Some estimates suggest that as much as 80-90% of certain works contain material that parallels other published sources, particularly in her historical and devotional writings. Here are some notable examples:

1. 1. The Desire of Ages– This well-known book on the life of Christ is one of the most documented examples, containing passages similar to those in works by authors such as William Hanna and Alfred Edersheim. Studies have found significant portions of the text to be adapted from these sources.
   2. The Great Controversy – This foundational work in Adventist eschatology also draws heavily from earlier religious and historical texts. Ellen White’s assistants confirmed that she used historical sources and that her portrayal of events was often based on other writers’ accounts.
   3. Patriarchs and Prophets and Prophets and Kings – These books, part of a series on biblical history, contain material similar to works by historians and theologians of her time, often paralleling details and language found in these sources.
   4. Sketches from the Life of Paul – This book has documented borrowings from Life and Epistles of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson, among other works, showing a significant dependency on secondary sources for its historical material.
   5. Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing and (as already stated) Steps to Christ – Although more devotional in nature, these books also contain borrowed material, though generally in lesser amounts compared to her historical writings.

The extent of dependency varies from book to book. Some works contain only small, scattered borrowings, while others show extensive adaptation. White and her assistants believed that these sources were used to enrich her messages, but the extent of the borrowing was largely unknown to the public until later studies revealed the scope.

What would you think if your most admired college professor, Biblical scholar, secular author, pastor, or mentor ethically engaged in the same standards as Ellen White did? What if everything they wrote, taught, and preached was stolen from other authors or pieced together from other books? How would this affect your opinion of their writings?  Now, what if this person claimed to have visions and direct revelation from God, that everything they wrote was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  Claiming to be more than just a prophet, but rather the Lord’s Messenger. This is the dilemma we are presented with, Ellen G. White!

“I have had no claims to make, only that I am instructed that I am the Lord’s messenger; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive His word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord Jesus.” ^[28]

A deeply troubling aspect within the church is the presence of leaders—pastors, educators, and others—who outwardly endorse Ellen White’s teachings but secretly work to undermine or diminish her influence. This duality reflects a troubling inconsistency within the SDA Church, as it seems to maintain an outward commitment to Ellen White while failing to acknowledge or address the reality behind her controversial role. The result is a climate of double-talk and, often, unwitting hypocrisy.

The Bible teaches that the gift of prophecy, prophets, should unify and build up the church. Yet, few churches are as divided over how to apply their prophet’s teachings as the SDA Church.

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Ephesians 4:11–14, ESV)

“On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.” (1 Corinthians 14:3–5, ESV)

Two things to notice from the text, with regards to prophets during and after the Apostolic era:

1. 1. The work of a prophet is to equip others for ministry, build up the body, teach the knowledge of the Son of God, encourage, and console.
   2. Paul wished that many would be prophets, not just one lady in the late 1800’s.

Ellen White’s writings have created more disunity, confusion, condemnation, harm, and factions inside the church. Many informed Adventists—whether conservative or liberal—recognize this divide and see selective adherence to White’s teachings rather than full commitment. Even when her instructions are followed, members tend to apply them selectively rather than wholeheartedly.

A concerning symptom of the church’s relationship with Ellen White is evident in the culture of Sola Scriptura. Although the church claims to adhere to the Bible alone as its foundation, in practice, members—especially conservative ones—tend to quote Ellen White more often than Scripture. This pattern creates confusion among members, who sometimes can’t distinguish whether their beliefs originate from the Bible or White’s writings. Members often turn to White’s words for final authority when discussions arise, making her writings the ultimate guide. This exact reality would have been met with direct condemnation from the Reformers, who believed that this concept of Sola Scriptura was not just ‘the Bible and the Bible only,’ but rather, that Scripture was the only infallible interpreter or authority by which you can interpret Scripture. The Bible is the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. While the church may not officially endorse using White to interpret the Bible, in reality, her words heavily influence how Scripture is understood at the grassroots level.

When a single prophetic figure like Ellen White becomes the central voice on nearly every theological issue, the church inevitably evaluates everything against her teachings, giving her voice exclusive authority. This tendency is even evident in SDA Bible Commentaries, which often reflect White’s interpretations on various topics. Ultimately, Sola Scriptura, for many Adventists, effectively means following Ellen White as the primary authority. For some, her role seems to represent the culmination of the Reformation’s ideals—like an Adventist equivalent to the infallible teachings attributed to the Pope. This reality is something I, too, have experienced firsthand, having once relied on her writings as the ultimate interpretive authority.

Interestingly, a growing group within the SDA Church—especially in the educational sector—has become increasingly vocal and bold in its critique of Ellen White’s works. Contradictions are apparent at every level. While Ellen White claimed her mission was to guide people back to the Bible, in practice, even Bible study sessions often end up redirecting readers back to Ellen White’s writings. Seventh-day Adventist members often feel the need to validate their understanding of Scripture by comparing it to White’s ‘FINAL word of authority.’ Nearly every aspect of teaching, doctrine, and practice seems influenced by her, creating a situation where little is left unaddressed by her counsel. And everything must align with what she has written.

This raises an essential question:

Are Seventh-day Adventist members followers of Christ (the living Word) and the Bible (the written Word), or are they, almost by default, disciples of Ellen White?

Paul, who himself possessed the prophetic gift, commended believers in Berea for testing his teachings against Scripture. This example prompts us to consider if SDA practices today truly reflect that same commitment to making Scripture the ultimate standard.

“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV)

In Christian Love,

[1] Seeking What They Sought, “What Is an Adventist? | Ft. Ty Gibson,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_EN_9ucEWw&t=5407s

[2] Lake, “Ellen White Authored Steps to Christ,” http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/answers/steps-to-christ/

[3] Lake, “Ellen White Authored Steps to Christ.”

[4] Bolton, A Confession Concerning “The Testimony of Jesus Christ,” pg. 445

[5] Ballenger-Mote Papers, “Frances E. Bolton to George Mattison, February 24, 1926.”

[6] Numbers, Prophetess of Health, pg. 195.

[7] Kellogg, “Statement,” [1908]. Mrs. White’s side of the Fanny Bolton story is given in W.C. White and D.E. Robinson, The Work of Mrs. E.G. White’s Editors (St. Helena, California: Elmshaven Office, 1933)  Miss Bolton was a talented but troubled young woman, who later spent some time in a state mental hospital.

^[8] Ellen G. White, The Fannie Bolton Story, n.d.

^[9] Ellen G. White Estate, Manuscript Release No. 926: The Fannie Bolton Story (Ellen G. White Estate, 1982), 27.

[10] Steve Daily, Ellen G. White A Psychobiography, pg. 199.

[11] Ellen G. White Estate, “George Washington Amadon (1832-1913) / Martha Dormer Amadon (1834-1937),” https://ellenwhite.org/people/19249

[12] Amadon, “An Authentic Interview, pp. 3336.”

[13] “The White Lie: Walter T. Rea, Chapter 11”

[13a, b, c, d, e] “The White Lie: Walter T. Rea, Chapter 11”

^[14] Ellen Gould White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 3 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980), 64.

^[15] Ellen White, Mind, Character, and Personality, vol. 2 (Southern Publishing Association, 1977), 437.

^A1 Letter 15, 1895.

^B2 Patriarchs and Prophets, 309.

^C3 Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 105, 106.

^[16] Ellen Gould White, Sons and Daughters of God (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1955), 64.

^[17] Walter Rea, Who Lied Them or Me?, n.d.

^[18] Walter Rea, Who Lied Them or Me?, n.d.

^[19] Ellen Gould White, Sons and Daughters of God (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1955), 64.

^[20] Ellen Gould White, Steps to Christ (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1892), 13.

^[21] Ellen Gould White, Steps to Christ (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1892), 14.

^[22] Ellen Gould White, Steps to Christ (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1892), 26.

^[23] Ellen Gould White, Steps to Christ (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1892), 26.

^[24] Ellen Gould White, Steps to Christ (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1892), 100.

^[25] Ellen Gould White, Steps to Christ (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1892), 86.

^[26] Ellen Gould White, Steps to Christ (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1892), 83.

^[27] Ellen Gould White, Steps to Christ (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1892), 58.

^[28] Ellen Gould White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 1 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 32.