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.

 

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 for Part 1:

^[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.

Ellen White’s assertions regarding the dangers of consuming eggs, butter, and meat lack clear support from Scripture. Throughout the Bible, God’s people are depicted eating these foods without suggesting that this action would hinder spiritual growth or divine communication. No biblical warning suggests that consuming such foods arouses “animal passions.” If Ellen White’s claims were indeed divinely inspired, one must wonder why she herself repeatedly risked these supposed dangers by consuming various kinds of meat.

In 1870, she addressed the issue of eating meat “occasionally,” writing:

“Those who digress occasionally to gratify the taste in eating a fattened turkey or other flesh meats, pervert their appetites, and are not the ones to judge of the benefits of the system of health reform. They are controlled by taste, not by principle.” ^[1]

The severity of this statement, like many of her others, imposed significant guilt and pressure on the recipients, demanding strict compliance. Her strong rebuke suggested that anyone who occasionally consumed meat was unqualified to evaluate the benefits of health reform. Given such uncompromising standards, it was essential for the messenger herself to lead by example. If Ellen White ate meat, did that impair her judgment? Was she somehow an exception to her own principles? These inconsistencies highlight a troubling disparity between her teachings and her actions.

Given the lifelong health challenges Ellen White faced, one might expect her to adhere strictly to the health principles she advocated. Yet, during the 1919 Bible Conference, A.G. Daniells, the then-General Conference President and a longtime friend of the White’s, shared a revealing account from 1871. He stated that while in Texas, Ellen and James White ate meat daily:

“When we were down in Texas, and old Brother White was breaking down, (Sister White) just got the most beautiful venison every day to eat, and my wife cooked it; and he would sit down and eat some of that and say, “O, Ellen, that is just the thing!” She did not hold him up and make him live on a diet of starch!” ^[2]

This account directly contradicts her public stance that even the occasional indulgence in meat could corrupt one’s appetite and judgment. Not only was James White consuming meat daily, but Ellen herself was actively involved in procuring it. If one questions whether she personally ate the meat, her 1878 letter to her family leaves little doubt:

“Christmas morning we all took breakfast together—James Cornell; Florence and Clara, their two girls; Brother and Sister Moore and their three children; Sister Bahler and Etta, a girl living with them; and Sister Daniells, our cook, Father, and myself. We had a quarter of venison cooked, and stuffing. It was as tender as a chicken. We all enjoyed it very much. There is plenty of venison in market.” ^[3]

In this letter, not only does she admit to eating meat, but she also describes it in glowing terms, which stands in stark contrast to her public warnings about the dangers of meat consumption. By her own reasoning, such meals would have stirred her and James’s “animal passions.”

Despite her enthusiastic participation in eating meat, Ellen White continued to issue stern warnings to others. In 1871, the same year Daniells described her eating venison, she wrote:

“The apostle Paul exhorts the church, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Men, then, can make their bodies unholy by sinful indulgences. If unholy, they are unfitted to be spiritual worshipers, and are not worthy of heaven. If man will cherish the light that God in mercy gives him upon health reform, he may be sanctified through the truth, and fitted for immortality. But if he disregards that light, and lives in violation of natural law, he must pay the penalty.” ^[4]

Here, she linked health reform directly to salvation, presenting adherence to dietary laws as a requirement for being “fitted for immortality.” Yet, while she declared meat consumption to be spiritually and physically detrimental, she continued to eat it herself.

In another account on September 28, 1873, Ellen White described receiving deer meat from a hunter.  This is the diary entry while she was staying in the Colorado mountains:

“Brother Glover left the camp today to go for supplies. We are getting short of provisions. We got him the best we could for his meals on the way. He was to send Mr. Walling immediately and to get our mail. A young man from Nova Scotia had come in from hunting. He had a quarter of deer. He had traveled 20 miles with this deer upon his back. The remainder of the deer he had left hung up in the woods. He saw six elk but did not try to shoot them as he knew he could not carry them out. He gave us a small piece of the meat, which we made into broth. Willie shot a duck which came in a time of need, for our supplies were rapidly diminishing.” ^[5]

This incident further illustrates the inconsistency between her teachings and her actions. She did not merely stumble occasionally but repeatedly engaged in practices she publicly condemned. This pattern of behavior calls to mind Christ’s rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees, who imposed heavy burdens on others while failing to follow their own teachings.

Her inconsistencies continued even after she and James gave up meat temporarily in 1874. Writing to her children, she described their decision:

“Your father and I have dropped milk, cream, butter, sugar, and meat entirely since we came to California. We are far clearer in mind and far better in body. We live very plainly. We cannot write unless we do live simply. Your father bought meat once for May while she was sick, but not a penny have we expended on meat since.” ^[6]

Although she and James abstained from these foods, including butter—which she had also condemned as harmful—her apparent flexibility regarding May’s illness is notable. This exception contrasts sharply with her earlier admonition to parents in 1868, in which she warned against giving sick children meat and butter, stating that such actions would prevent God from hearing their prayers.

These examples highlight Ellen White’s recurring contradictions between her dietary teachings and her personal practices. While she demanded strict adherence from others, she frequently made exceptions for herself, creating a double standard that undermines the authority of her health reform message.

 

 Questions for Further Study:

1. 1. How can Ellen White’s condemnation of meat consumption be reconciled with biblical examples where God’s people consumed meat without spiritual or moral condemnation?
   2. What scriptural basis, if any, exists for the claim that consuming meat or other animal products arouses “animal passions” or impedes spiritual growth?
   3. Why did Ellen White continue to consume meat and other animal products if she believed they were harmful to physical and spiritual health?
   4. How does Ellen White’s frequent meat consumption align with her claims that such dietary choices impair judgment and morality?
   5. If her actions were exceptions due to health or other circumstances, why did she not make those exceptions explicitly clear to her followers to avoid creating confusion or double standards?
   6. How might Ellen White’s stern rebukes regarding dietary choices have affected the morale and spiritual well-being of her followers, particularly when they discovered her own dietary exceptions?
   7. Could her teachings on strict dietary reform have placed undue guilt or pressure on individuals struggling to comply with her standards?
   8. What is the significance of A.G. Daniells’ account of Ellen White and her husband consuming venison daily? How does this affect her credibility as a health reform advocate?
   9. How do Ellen White’s own written descriptions of enjoying venison and other meats contrast with her public denunciation of meat consumption?
   10. Why did Ellen White equate adherence to dietary reform with spiritual fitness for heaven if she herself appeared inconsistent in following those principles?
   11. Does linking dietary choices directly to salvation overemphasize the importance of physical habits in relation to spiritual readiness?

 

References for Part 2:

^[1] Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2 (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1855), 487.

^[2] General Conference of SDA, 1919 Bible Conference Collection, ed. M. C. Wilcox et al. (General Conference of SDA, 1919), 1220.

^[3] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 1081–1135, 1984–1985], vol. 14 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 318–319.

^[4] Ellen Gould White, Counsels on Diet and Foods (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1938), 70.

^[5] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 1081–1135, 1984–1985], vol. 14 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 353.

^[6] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 1081–1135, 1984–1985], vol. 14 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 322.

Notably, Ellen White did not seem to classify fish as meat. In 1896, she wrote from Australia:

“Two years ago [1894 when she finally gave up meat—not fish—entirely] I came to the conclusion that there was danger in using the flesh of dead animals, and since then I have not used meat at all. It is never placed on my table. I use fish when I can get it. We can get beautiful fish from the saltwater lake near here. I use neither tea nor coffee. As I labor against these things, I cannot but practice that which I know to be best for health, and my family are all in perfect harmony with me. You see, my dear niece, that I am telling you matters just as they are.” ^[1]

Despite this claim, the Whites’ earlier decision to stop eating meat was not consistently maintained. By 1879, Ellen White was consuming beef tea for breakfast, and in 1880, chicken broth. While these were not technically “meat” in the solid sense, they suggest a gradual departure from her initial resolve and a possible progression back toward eating meat fully. Eventually, her diet even included types of meat that Scripture explicitly categorized as unclean.

For instance, in 1880, she reprimanded a young person in Battle Creek for eating oysters. However, just two years later, in 1882, while living in Healdsburg, California, she added “cans of oysters” to her shopping list. In a letter to her daughter-in-law, Mary Kelsey White, Ellen White specifically requested oysters:

“Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them.” ^[2]

According to biblical dietary laws, oysters are considered unclean. Yet the issue here goes beyond simply eating clean versus unclean meat. The more profound concern is Ellen White’s pattern of condemning certain behaviors in others while engaging in those same practices herself.

In 1888, she strongly reaffirmed her commitment to consistency, stating:

“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]

Despite this declaration, Ellen White repeatedly made exceptions for herself. What is particularly troubling is the strong, often dramatic language she used to denounce eating “the flesh of dead animals.” Her words suggested a deep revulsion for the practice, yet she personally indulged in it with apparent enthusiasm. This contradiction highlights the gap between her public teachings and private behavior.

The hypocrisy surrounding Ellen White’s health reform practices became glaringly apparent in 1891 when accusations from her editor, Fannie Bolton, brought significant attention to her inconsistencies. Bolton wrote to E. C. Slawson about incidents involving Ellen White indulging in oysters, “bloody” beefsteak, and shrimp, all of which were directly at odds with the dietary restrictions Ellen herself had promoted. These events reportedly occurred on the day Bolton and Ellen White were sailing to Australia. Bolton described:

“…At the depot Sr. White was not with her party, so Eld. Starr hunted around till he found her behind a screen in the restaurant very gratified in eating big white raw oysters with vinegar, pepper and salt. I was overwhelmed by this inconsistency and dumb with horror. Eld. Starr hurried me out and made all sort of excuses and justifications of Sr. White’s action; yet I kept thinking in my heart, ‘What does this mean? What has God said? How does she dare eat these abominations?’ On the cars out to California, W. C. White came into the train with a great thick piece of bloody beefsteak spread out on a brown paper and he bore it through the tourist car on his own two hands. Sarah McEnterfer who is now with Sr. White as her attendant, cooked it on a small oil stove and everyone ate of it except myself and Marian Davis… I was with Mrs. White for seven and a half years like a soul on a rock, because of all kinds of inconsistencies, injustices, and chicaneries. I have seen Sr. White eat meat, chicken, fish, fowl, shrimps, rich cake, pies, etc. etc. I cannot go into detail but Sr. Daniells told me she herself had cooked meat for Sr. White on the campground. Eld. Horn told me his wife had done the same thing. Sr. Rousseau told me that she too had done so…” [4]

For those familiar with the broader context of the Fannie Bolton story, it’s well known that Ellen White’s defenders have worked tirelessly to discredit Bolton, portraying her as dishonest or unstable. While these efforts are addressed in detail elsewhere, it’s important to note that Bolton’s claims about Ellen White’s dietary habits align with what Ellen herself admitted in letters and other writings. Ellen White had, at various times, acknowledged eating chicken, venison, duck, beef, and even oysters, which lends significant credibility to Bolton’s testimony.

Elder Starr, one of Ellen White’s staunch defenders, dismissed Bolton’s account as outright fabrication. He stated:

“I can only say that I regard it as the most absurdly, untruthful lot of rubbish that I have ever seen or read regarding our dear Sister White. The event simply never occurred. I never saw your mother eat oysters or meat of any kind either in a restaurant or at her own table. Fannie Bolton’s statement that ‘Elder Starr hunted around till he found her behind a screen in the restaurant of the station where she was apparently very gratified in eating big white raw oysters with vinegar, pepper and salt,’ is a lie of the first order… the story of the ‘bloody beefsteak’ spread on a brown paper, and carried into the tourist car and cooked by Miss McEnterfer, is. I do not believe that either. I think this entire letter was written by Fannie in one of her most insane moments…” [5]

However, Starr’s defense raises several questions. If Ellen White herself could misrepresent her adherence to health reform, as has already been shown, why couldn’t one of her loyal followers do the same to protect her reputation? More importantly, many of the items Bolton claimed Ellen White ate are corroborated by Ellen’s own writings, such as her letters detailing her consumption of meat, her shopping lists including oysters, and testimonies from others who prepared or witnessed her eating such foods. These admissions undermine Starr’s dismissal of Bolton’s account as baseless.

Fannie Bolton was an intelligent and well-educated woman known for her skills as an editor and her ability to think critically. It would be uncharacteristic of her to fabricate detailed accusations and name individuals who could potentially corroborate her claims. She mentioned Sarah McEnterfer, Marian Davis, Sr. Daniells, Eld. Horn and Sr. Rousseau—all of whom were either directly involved in cooking for Ellen White or had firsthand knowledge of her eating habits. Notably, Elder Daniells himself confirmed that his wife had cooked meat for the Whites during their visit to Texas in 1871. Despite Starr’s attempts to portray Bolton’s claims as absurd, Ellen White’s own admissions and corroborating testimony from others suggest otherwise.

It is also telling that the investigation into Bolton’s accusations appears to have stopped at Elder Starr, leaving many named witnesses neither formally debunking nor confirming her claims. This lack of thorough follow-up does not negate the substantial evidence that supports Bolton’s account. Taken together, these testimonies, admissions, and corroborating details provide a compelling case that Bolton’s allegations were credible, while Starr’s defense seems exaggerated and unfounded.

An additional piece of evidence comes from Ellen White’s son, Willie, in his response to Elder Starr’s letter. Willie acknowledged:

“I [Willie] went out and purchased two or three pounds of beefsteak and this was cooked by Sister McEnterfer on a alcohol stove, and most of the members that composed Sister White’s party partook of it.” [6]

While Willie did not comment on the alleged oyster incident, as he was not present, he dismissed that part of Fannie Bolton’s account as “an unwarranted fabrication.” Despite this, Willie’s admission confirmed key details of Bolton’s story, including that he bought the beefsteak, Sister McEnterfer prepared it, and most of Ellen White’s party ate it—though Bolton and Marian Davis abstained. This directly contradicted Starr’s categorical denial of any such events.

As we continue to navigate Ellen White’s health message hypocrisy, we can understand the frustration and dissonance in the lives of many early Advent followers. These personal inconsistencies were often the reason so many significant followers left the movement. It wasn’t difficult to see Ellen as a false prophet in the early years, and it certainly shouldn’t be difficult to see her for who she really is today—the same false prophet.

Here are just a few examples of some early Adventist followers who left the faith because of Ellen’s hypocrisy and false teachings:

Name	Role in the Movement	Reason for Leaving
E. P. Butler	Early Adventist leader	Rejected Ellen White’s visions as fabricated.
B. F. Snook	Iowa Conference leader	Denounced Ellen White as a false prophet and left the church.
W. H. Brinkerhoff	Iowa Conference leader	Criticized Ellen White and left the movement.
M. E. Cornell	Evangelist	Expressed doubts about Ellen White’s prophetic claims and distanced himself.
Dudley M. Canright	Minister and evangelist	Authored Life of Mrs. E. G. White: Her Claims Refuted and accused her of plagiarism and inconsistency.
Moses Hull	Evangelist and debater	Disagreed with Ellen White’s authority; later joined Spiritualism.
A. C. Long	Minister	Wrote pamphlets rejecting Ellen White’s prophetic role.
William S. Higley	Minister	Became a vocal critic of Ellen White.
Albion F. Ballenger	Minister and writer	Rejected Ellen White over disagreements on the sanctuary doctrine.
H. E. Carver	Early leader	Criticized Ellen White for alleged inconsistencies and unfulfilled prophecies.
Otis Nichols	Early supporter	Rejected Ellen White’s visions due to doctrinal disagreements.
George Storrs	Millerite preacher	Rejected Ellen White’s prophetic claims and distanced himself.
Miles Grant	Former minister	Wrote tracts against Ellen White and denounced her as a false prophet.
N. N. Loughborough	Early pioneer	Initially expressed reservations about Ellen White but later reaffirmed support.
William Gage	Minister	Turned against Ellen White, citing doubts about her prophetic authority.
Alexander McLearn	Church leader	Rejected Ellen White’s ministry and was disfellowshipped.
Samuel Rhodes	Preacher	Left after rejecting Ellen White’s prophetic claims.
T. M. Preble	Sabbath advocate	Denounced Ellen White and the Sabbath, becoming an opponent of the movement.

This table provides a clear overview of the individuals, their roles, and the reasons for their departure from the early Adventist movement.

In our next article, part 4, we will begin to discuss a prominent figure, John Harvey Kellogg, and his credible testimony against Ellen White.

 

Questions for Further Study:

• How did Ellen White’s personal dietary practices evolve over time, and what factors may have influenced these changes?
• What specific historical or cultural contexts may have contributed to Ellen White’s classification of fish as distinct from “meat”?
• To what extent did Ellen White’s dietary inconsistencies impact the credibility of her broader teachings within the Adventist movement?
• How have modern Adventists addressed or reinterpreted these historical accounts of Ellen White’s dietary choices?
• How did Ellen White’s leadership style contribute to the division or cohesion within the Adventist movement?
• What role did her dietary practices play in shaping her overall influence as a spiritual leader?
• What were the most common reasons for early Adventist leaders to reject Ellen White’s prophetic authority, and how do these reasons compare with her dietary inconsistencies?
• How might Ellen White’s perceived hypocrisy have affected the broader development of the Adventist church?
• How did Ellen White’s dietary practices align with or diverge from biblical dietary laws?
• What theological arguments have been used to defend or critique her approach to dietary reform?
• How common were public-private discrepancies among religious leaders during Ellen White’s time, and how does her case compare?
• To what extent should a leader’s private behavior influence their public credibility?

I pray these questions will further assist your journey in uncovering the true nature of Ellen G. White!

In Christian Love,

Mike Colburn

 

 

 

 

References for Part 3:

^[1] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 1081–1135, 1984–1985], vol. 14 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 330.

^[2] Ellen G. White Estate, Manuscript Release No. 852: The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats (Ellen G. White Estate, 1981), 9.

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

[4] Ellen Gould White, The Fannie Bolton Story (Review and Herald), pg. 108, accessed December 10, 2024, https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/698.921.

[5] Ellen Gould White, The Fannie Bolton Story (Review and Herald), pg. 118, accessed December 10, 2024, https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/698.921.

[6] Ellen Gould White, The Fannie Bolton Story (Review and Herald), pg. 119, accessed December 10, 2024, https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/698.921.

 

Another critical piece of evidence comes from a letter written by John Harvey Kellogg to E.S. Ballenger in January 1936. In it, Kellogg addressed several issues, including Starr’s denial of Ellen White’s meat consumption. Kellogg explained that during Ellen White’s time in Australia, she personally informed him of the circumstances that finally led her to quit eating meat.

According to Kellogg:

“I am surprised that Elder Starr should state that Mrs. White did not eat meat in Australia. He must have been acquainted with the fact that she ate it regularly. She was eating meat when she went there and continued to eat it for several years until she got rheumatism so bad she was not able to walk and had to be wheeled about and sat in a chair while she talked.

 

After a while she gave up the use of meat and wrote me about it. She said that one of her addresses on Christian temperance was attended by a Catholic woman who was president of the W.C.T.U. and happened to be a vegetarian.

 

After the lecture she called on Mrs. White and thanked her for the lecture and remarked, ‘Of course you do not eat meat, Mrs. White.’ Mrs. White replied she did sometimes, whereat the lady dropped upon her knees and with tears streaming down her face besought Mrs. White never again to allow a morsel of meat to pass her lips. Said Mrs. White in her letter to me, ‘I thought it was about time for me to begin my own teaching.’” [1]

Kellogg’s testimony bolsters Bolton’s claims and further undermines Starr’s denials. It also provides insight into Ellen White’s eventual decision to abandon meat in 1894—not as a result of direct divine revelation, but seemingly due to external persuasion and her worsening health. For over thirty years, despite claiming that God had shown her the dangers of eating meat, Ellen White continued the practice while admonishing others for it. Ultimately, it was not God’s warnings but a heartfelt plea from a Catholic vegetarian that prompted her change, alongside the debilitating effects of rheumatism.

In reflecting on this decision, Ellen White later wrote:

“I have absolutely banished meat from my table. It is an understood thing that whether I am at home or abroad, nothing of this kind is to be used in my family, or come upon my table. have had such representations before my mind in the night season on this subject that I feel that I have done right in banishing meat from my table.” ^[2]

It seems almost contradictory that Ellen White, after decades of instruction and warnings against meat, would finally claim to receive divine confirmation of her decision in 1894. For years, she had placed the burden of abstinence on others while continuing to indulge herself. Even after declaring her personal abstinence, she added an exception:

“Yet I would not take the position that meat be wholly discarded by everyone, for instance, by those dying of consumption.^[3]

This prolonged inconsistency has left substantial evidence of hypocrisy in Ellen White’s dietary practices. Starr’s defense of her appears equally unconvincing in light of the overwhelming evidence, much of it from Ellen White’s own words and actions. Defenders may claim that Kellogg fabricated his account, but the sheer volume of corroborative evidence proves the contrary. Ellen White’s words and practices, spanning three decades, reveal a clear pattern of behavior that culminates in the events surrounding her time in Australia and her ultimate decision to banish meat from her table. It doesn’t take much discernment to determine who in this narrative—Starr, Ellen White, Bolton, or Kellogg—is most likely to have misrepresented the truth. The evidence speaks for itself.

In the same letter, John Harvey Kellogg shared additional details about Ellen White’s consumption of meat. Early in the letter, responding to Ballenger’s inquiry on the topic, he wrote:

“Mrs. White ate meat and plenty of it. The next day after she arrived in America on her return from Scandinavia. I took dinner with her at the house of a mutual friend near New Bedford, Massachusetts. A large baked fish occupied the center of the table. Mrs. White ate freely of it as did all the rest with the exception of the hostess and myself. From this circumstance I think Mrs. White began the use of meat during the several years she spent abroad, chiefly in Switzerland and Scandinavia. She visited the Sanitarium frequently during the years that intervened before she went to Australia. When there she always called for meat and usually fried chicken. Dr. H. F. Rand was then the cook at the Sanitarium and had became an ardent vegetarian and he on more than one occasion said to me, ‘It goes very hard on me to have to prepare fried chicken for Mrs. White.’” [4]

Kellogg also described her meat consumption at camp meetings:

“After Mrs. White returned from Scandinavia she visited many camp meetings at some of which I was present. She was then in the habit of eating meat and the fact must have been generally known. I heard J. E. on one occasion, standing in front of his mother’s tent, call out to a meat-wagon that visited the grounds regularly and was just leaving, ‘Say, hello there! Have you any fresh fish?’ ‘No,’ was his reply. ‘Have you got any fresh chicken?’ Again the answer was ‘No,’ and J. E. bawled out in a very loud voice, ‘Mother wants some chicken. You had better get some quick.’” [5]

It is evident that once Ellen White fully committed to abstaining from meat, she became increasingly vocal in her public condemnations of the practice.

By 1898, she wrote:

“The light has come to me for many years that meat eating is not good for health or morals. And yet it seems so strange that I have to meet this meat-eating question again and again.” ^[6]

Her statement highlights an apparent disconnect. For over three decades, Ellen White regularly consumed meat, even while delivering testimonies about health reform as God’s messenger. Then, in 1899, she went even further, claiming:

“…those that do not accept the light that God has given on health reform, who subsist on the flesh of dead animals…cannot represent the truth to others.” [7]

As she got closer to 1900, her tone had escalated. She declared to a pastor this statement:

“No man should be set apart as a teacher of the people while his own teaching or example contradicts the testimony God has given His servants to bear in regard to diet; for this will bring confusion…And your disregard of health reform is unfitting you to stand as the Lord’s messenger. Indulgence in meat-eating, and tea-drinking, and other forms of self-pleasing, is injurious to the health of the body and the soul.” ^[8]

Ellen White’s own words seem to challenge her credibility. If she claimed that individuals were unfit to serve as messengers of God while failing to uphold health reform, then how could she herself reconcile her prophetic role with her long history of meat consumption? Adding to the irony, not long after this statement, A.G. Daniells, who was known to consume meat regularly, was approved by Ellen White to serve as president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

In the next article, we will examine how Ellen White used and abused her faulty interpretation of Daniel to help bolster her Health Reform attempt.

 

Questions for Further Study:

• • What were the prevailing cultural and societal attitudes toward meat consumption and vegetarianism during Ellen White’s era, particularly within the Seventh-day Adventist community?
  • How might Ellen White’s personal circumstances and health challenges have influenced her dietary decisions and the timing of her reforms?
  • What role did external influences, such as the Catholic W.C.T.U. President’s plea, play in shaping Ellen White’s dietary choices compared to her claimed divine revelations?
  • How can the tension between Ellen White’s personal practices and public teachings on meat consumption be reconciled within the framework of prophetic authority?
  • What implications do Ellen White’s dietary choices have for understanding the consistency and authenticity of her health reform messages?
  • Does the apparent discrepancy between her actions and teachings undermine her role as a messenger of God, or does it highlight her human struggles?
  • How do Ellen White’s experiences reflect the challenges of implementing personal reform while advocating for broader societal change?
  • What lessons can be drawn from this account for contemporary discussions on health reform and personal accountability among leaders?
  • In what ways does the evolving narrative around Ellen White’s dietary practices influence the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s approach to health reform today?

In Christian Love,

 

References for Part 4:

[1] John Harvey Kellog, J. H. Kellogg, A Letter to Ballenger E. S. (1936), accessed December 10, 2024, http://archive.org/details/KelloggJ.H.LetterToBallengerE.S.1936.

^[2] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 1081–1135, 1984–1985], vol. 14 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 324–325.

^[3] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 1081–1135, 1984–1985], vol. 14 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 325.

[4] John Harvey Kellog, J. H. Kellogg, A Letter to Ballenger E. S. (1936), accessed December 10, 2024, http://archive.org/details/KelloggJ.H.LetterToBallengerE.S.1936.

[5] John Harvey Kellog, J. H. Kellogg, A Letter to Ballenger E. S. (1936), accessed December 10, 2024, http://archive.org/details/KelloggJ.H.LetterToBallengerE.S.1936.

^[6] Ellen Gould White, Counsels on Diet and Foods (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1938), 413.

[7] Ellen White, Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 14 (1899), accessed December 10, 2024, https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/14064.5068001.

^[8] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 419–525, 1975–1977], vol. 7 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 338.

In 1902, Ellen White used strong language in an article in the Review and Herald to condemn eating “the flesh of dead animals.” She referenced Daniel as a model for rejecting meat, stating:

“God gave Daniel knowledge, superior knowledge, in all matters of difficulty, and the Lord gave him the power to obtain that education that placed him on the highest platform of higher education before all the astrologers and magicians in all the realm of mighty Babylon. Now what is God going to do for every diligent searcher for truth. You see what He gave to Daniel. Daniel would not touch the king’s meat. Who of us are eating meat today? Who have thought that they must live upon the flesh of dead animals? We should not do it. We are composed of what we eat. God has given you those things that will make you healthy. Do not put corpses upon your tables; do not, I beg of you, eat the flesh of dead animals; for there is enough that you can live upon without that.” ^[1]

She later expanded on Daniel and his companions, writing:

“And now as Daniel and his fellows were brought to the test, they placed themselves fully on the side of righteousness and truth. They did not move capriciously, but intelligently. They decided that as flesh meat had not composed their diet in the past, neither should it come into their diet in the future. And as the use of wine had been prohibited to all those who should engage in the service of God, they determined that they would not partake of it.” ^[2]

While Ellen White’s use of Daniel as an example is rhetorically compelling, it does not align with the biblical account. Daniel 1:8 states:

“But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.” (Daniel 1:8, ESV)

This verse explains that Daniel and his companions—Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah—chose to abstain from the king’s food and wine, opting instead for pulse and water. Ellen White extrapolates from this that they entirely rejected meat and wine for life, but the text does not explicitly support this claim. It raises the question of whether her conclusions are based on scriptural evidence or her personal interpretation, which she believed to be divinely inspired. If such insights were from God, they should withstand scrutiny against the Bible’s teachings. (Check out this additional article on this topic)

A closer look at the text reveals that Daniel’s motivation for refusing the king’s food was rooted in avoiding defilement as a Jew. The law did not forbid all meat consumption, only certain types of meat. Therefore, it is likely that the meat served at the king’s table was either unclean, improperly prepared, or offered to idols—any of which would have rendered it unacceptable under Jewish law. If the meat had been clean and prepared according to God’s instructions, eating it would not have constituted defilement. The issue wasn’t meat in general but rather the circumstances surrounding the meat served.

As for the wine, the text does not make it clear whether Daniel and his companions abstained permanently or only during the training period. Evidence from elsewhere in the book of Daniel may help clarify this. In Daniel 10:3, Daniel describes fasting during a vision in the third year of King Cyrus:

“I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks.” (Daniel 10:3, ESV)

This verse shows that Daniel temporarily abstained from meat and wine as part of a fast, indicating that he likely consumed these items at other times. This contradicts Ellen White’s assertion that Daniel permanently avoided them.

Seventh-day Adventist Bible commentators often attempt to reconcile such contradictions by appealing to the original language or by referencing Ellen White’s writings. When faced with challenges like this, they may avoid addressing the inconsistencies directly or rely on her commentary to justify their interpretation, as though her words settle the matter. The handling of Daniel 10:3 in relation to Daniel 1:8 reflects this approach.

Daniel 10:3 explicitly mentions that Daniel refrained from consuming flesh and wine. What kind of flesh is being referenced here? It’s important to note that this account comes directly from Daniel himself, making it a firsthand record of his actions and choices. There is no ambiguity or room for misunderstanding introduced by secondhand sources—Daniel intentionally chose the term he used. To clarify its meaning, let’s examine the Hebrew word for “flesh” in this passage.

The Hebrew word translated as ‘meat’ in the ESV, basar (bāśār), which appears 291 times in the Bible, is a broad term. It can refer to several different things:

1. 1. The soft tissue of the body of a human being or animal, mainly muscle, tissue, and fat.
   2. The flesh of animals used as food.
   3. The physical body of an individual; understood by the body’s soft tissue.
   4. All of the living human inhabitants of the Earth understood according to the common trait of having flesh.
   5. A relative conceived of in terms of flesh; someone who comes from the same flesh and shares the same flesh with another person.
   6. A close blood relative conceived of in terms of flesh; someone who comes from the same flesh and shares the same flesh with another person.
   7. Lastly, something many are unaware of, it can refer to the penis referred to (probably euphemistically) as flesh.

However, in Daniel 10:3, the word specifically refers to food, leaving no doubt that Daniel was referring to abstaining from animal flesh or meat.

Interestingly, the SDA Bible Commentary (1977 edition, Volume 4) does not offer any commentary on this part of Daniel 10:3. It does refer to the ‘pleasant bread’ and ‘anoint myself.’ Still, both the references to meat and wine are conspicuously ignored. If the commentary had delved into the details, it would have had to acknowledge that “flesh” clearly refers to the meat of animals—something Ellen White emphatically stated in her interpretation of Daniel 1:8 would never again be part of Daniel’s diet. However, Daniel’s own testimony contradicts this claim, which may explain the commentary’s silence on the matter.

Turning back to the commentary’s notes on Daniel 1:8, several plausible reasons are given for why Daniel and his companions rejected the king’s food. These include:

“There were several reasons why a pious Jew would avoid eating of the royal food:

1. 1. The Babylonians, like other pagan nations, ate unclean meats (see Counsels on Diet and Foods, 30).
   2. The beasts had not been properly killed according to Levitical law (Lev. 17:14, 15).
   3. A portion of the animals eaten was first offered as a sacrifice to pagan gods (see Acts 15:29).
   4. The use of luxurious and unhealthful food and drink was contrary to strict principles of temperance. ^[3]

The first three points are well-grounded in the biblical context. However, the fourth—avoiding “luxurious and unhealthful” food—is speculative and appears to stem more from Ellen White’s writings than the biblical text.

The commentary also includes a fifth reason:

“For Daniel and his friends there was the added desire to avoid a flesh-food diet (see EGW, Supplementary Material on Dan. 1:8).

 

The Hebrew youth determined to do nothing that would interfere with physical, mental, and spiritual development.” ^[4]

This conclusion, however, is not supported by direct evidence from Scripture and instead relies on Ellen White’s interpretation. After making this claim, the commentary directs readers to her writings, stating, “(see EGW, Supplementary Material on Dan. 1:8).”

Ellen White’s followers may have no issue reconciling Daniel’s testimony with her interpretation because they view her prophetic commentary as infallible. Yet, Daniel’s own record in Daniel 10:3 clearly indicates that he did eat meat in the future, contradicting her claim that he permanently avoided flesh foods. This discrepancy illustrates how Ellen White’s interpretations often override the plain meaning of Scripture.

Regarding wine, the Hebrew word יַ֫יִן (yayin), meaning “wine,” used in Daniel 10:3, is believed to be derived from the ancient Semitic root y-n, which is related to the concept of fermentation. The word appears in various ancient languages, with similar forms in languages such as Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Arabic, reflecting the common Semitic linguistic heritage. The root y-n is associated with the process of fermenting and the drink that results from it.

The connection to fermentation might be why the term for wine has been preserved across many Semitic languages for thousands of years. The term is often associated with banqueting or strong drink. It’s possible that Daniel refrained from fermented wine rather than wine in general, though this is not explicitly clarified in the text. While the main focus here is on the issue of meat, it’s worth noting that Ellen White’s interpretation of the wine abstention may also be flawed.

Interestingly, the principal editor of the SDA Bible Commentary, Francis D. Nichol, was a staunch defender of Ellen White and her teachings. As demonstrated earlier, Nichol’s explanations occasionally fail to address key inconsistencies, which raises questions about his approach to interpreting these texts.

 

Questions for Further Study:

• What historical or cultural factors might have influenced Ellen White’s strong stance on abstaining from meat and wine?
• How does Ellen White’s interpretation of Daniel’s diet reflect broader Seventh-day Adventist health principles?
• What evidence, if any, supports Ellen White’s claim that Daniel permanently abstained from meat and wine?
• How do Ellen White’s writings compare to other Christian perspectives on the role of diet in spirituality?
• What does the term “defilement” mean in the context of Daniel 1:8, and how does it relate to Jewish dietary laws?
• Why might Daniel and his companions have chosen pulse and water as their diet, specifically in the context of Babylonian culture?
• What does Daniel 10:3 reveal about Daniel’s dietary practices, and how might this inform or challenge Ellen White’s interpretation?
• What is the significance of the Hebrew terms (e.g., basar and yayin) in understanding the text’s original meaning?
• How should one approach apparent contradictions between a prophet’s interpretation and the plain reading of Scripture?
• What role does tradition, such as Ellen White’s writings, play in interpreting biblical texts within the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
• How does reliance on Ellen White’s writings affect the interpretation of biblical texts like Daniel 1:8 and Daniel 10:3?
• What are the theological implications of prioritizing extra-biblical writings over direct scriptural evidence?
• What are the practical and spiritual benefits or challenges of adopting a vegetarian or temperance-based diet in modern times?
• How do the dietary practices described in Daniel align with the broader biblical narrative on food and health?
• What lessons can be drawn from Daniel’s example about living faithfully in a foreign culture while adhering to personal convictions?
• What insights can be gained by examining Daniel’s dietary decisions through the lens of historical-critical analysis?
• How does the SDA Bible Commentary’s interpretation reflect broader trends in Adventist scholarship?
• What methodologies can be used to reconcile differing interpretations of the same biblical text?
• How might interfaith dialogue enrich the understanding of texts like Daniel 1:8 that deal with food and religious observance?

In Christian Love,

 

References for Part 5:

^[1] The Review and Herald, n.d., 3083.

^[2] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 921–999, 1982–1983], vol. 12 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 122.

^[3] Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1977), 760.

^[4] Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1977), 760.

One of the strongest arguments against Ellen White’s claims about meat consumption is the testimony of Scripture itself. The Bible provides no credible evidence that eating meat has ever been, is now, or will ever be a test of faith or salvation for God’s people, not even for those living in the end times. In fact, the biblical narrative suggests the opposite.

The Old Testament teachings and practices concerning meat consumption, particularly after the flood, are straightforward. While a detailed analysis isn’t necessary, highlighting key points clarifies the case.

According to Scripture, God’s original plan for humanity’s diet did not include meat. Genesis 1:29 describes a diet of fruits, grains, and nuts as mankind’s primary sustenance. The first explicit instruction from God regarding meat consumption comes after the flood in Genesis 9:3-4. Although it is not directly stated that people ate meat before the flood, certain passages suggest that they might have. For instance, Genesis 3:21 mentions God making “coats of skins” for Adam and Eve, implying the killing of animals. While the text does not specify whether these skins came from sacrificial animals or if the animals were also consumed, many Christians, particularly Seventh-day Adventists, believe Ellen White’s interpretation—that these animals were sacrificed as a foreshadowing of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.

Another early mention of animal use is found in Genesis 4:4, where Abel offers “the firstlings of his flock” as a burnt offering to God. Although the text does not state that Abel or others consumed the meat, it is possible, given the later Levitical practice of eating sacrificial meat, that this was a common practice from the beginning of sacrificial rituals.

If meat was consumed before the flood, it is ironic, considering that the antediluvian world likely had an abundance of superior plant-based foods, making meat consumption unnecessary. Ellen White herself wrote that the pre-flood population was “corrupted through indulgence of perverted appetite.” Whether this “perverted appetite” included meat-eating is unclear, but given the widespread wickedness of that time, eating meat—if considered sinful—would likely have been a lesser offense compared to the other transgressions of that generation.

Additional evidence that meat was eaten before the flood can be inferred from Genesis 7:2-3, where God instructs Noah to take clean animals “by sevens” and unclean animals “by twos” into the ark. The distinction between clean and unclean animals is closely tied to dietary practices, as later clarified in Leviticus 11. This implies that Noah already understood these classifications, suggesting that eating meat, including the distinction between clean and unclean, was known and practiced by Yahweh believers before the flood. Non-believers (those who didn’t worship Yahweh), by contrast, would likely not have adhered to such distinctions.

After the flood, the Bible explicitly records God permitting and even endorsing meat consumption. In Genesis 8:20-21, Noah offers sacrifices of “every clean beast” upon leaving the ark. Following this, God tells Noah that animals are now given to humanity as food, confirming divine approval of meat-eating.

Whether meat consumption before the flood originated from God or humans is uncertain, but post-flood, God clearly sanctioned it. Some may question whether God’s permission was a concession to human sinfulness, similar to how Christ described God permitting divorce due to the “hardness of men’s hearts” (Matthew 19). However, no biblical evidence supports the idea that God allowed meat-eating reluctantly or that it went against His better judgment, as Ellen White suggested. Instead, the Bible presents numerous instances of God condoning, commanding, or directly participating in acts involving the preparation and consumption of meat. These examples must be considered in evaluating the validity of Ellen White’s claims.

The Bible provides plenty of evidence showing that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the patriarchs of the Jewish nation, were all meat-eaters. Isaac, in particular, is portrayed as someone who enjoyed his favorite meat dishes, as seen in Genesis 27:7-9. The practice of eating meat among the people of God in the Old Testament is so well-documented that it hardly needs to be proven. However, to eliminate any doubt, let’s explore a few specific examples.

One notable account is in Genesis 18, where Abraham receives three heavenly visitors, one of whom he addresses as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3). To show his hospitality, Abraham offers them food, specifically a “calf tender and good” (Genesis 18:7). After the calf is prepared, the passage states that Abraham stood by them as they ate under the tree (Genesis 18:8).

“And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.” And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quick! Three seahs of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes.” And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.” (Genesis 18:1–8, ESV)

This narrative makes a few things clear. First, it is evident that Abraham himself ate meat, as he wouldn’t prepare a dish he didn’t consume. More significantly, the heavenly visitors, including the Lord, accepted and ate the meal. As divine beings, they could have survived without eating, yet they chose to partake, showing no indication by word or deed that eating meat was objectionable or offensive. This is an important point, especially in light of Ellen White’s claim that consuming meat, or as she referred to it, “the flesh of dead animals,” is contrary to God’s will. Moreover, as later examples will show, Christ Himself ate meat on multiple occasions.

Another example is found in the story of Jacob, who prepared a special venison dish for Isaac as part of his deception to receive Esau’s birthright.

“Rebekah said to her son Jacob, “I heard your father speak to your brother Esau, ‘Bring me game and prepare for me delicious food, that I may eat it and bless you before the Lord before I die.’ Now therefore, my son, obey my voice as I command you.” (Genesis 27:6–8, ESV)

This further demonstrates that eating meat was a usual practice among God’s people.

Ellen White also used two significant passages of Scripture, Exodus 16 and Numbers 11, to support her argument against meat consumption. These passages recount the Israelites receiving manna and quails during their time in the wilderness. According to Ellen White, these stories illustrate God’s disapproval of eating meat. However, either she misread these passages or interpreted them to fit her agenda on health reform and meat-eating, claiming divine revelation as her authority. A closer reading of these Scriptures, within the broader context of the Bible’s teachings on meat consumption, reveals a different message.

In 1895, Ellen White wrote about this issue in the Paulson Collection of Ellen G. White Letters:

“When the Lord took His people from Egypt, He did not give them flesh-meat to eat till they mourned and wept in His ears, saying, “Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the flesh, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all beside this manna, before our eyes.” Then the Lord gave them flesh to eat. He sent them quails from heaven, but we read, “While the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague.” ^[1]

The debate centers on whether God punished the Israelites because they desired meat or because of their rebellion and constant complaints. Before addressing that question, it’s important to note an inaccuracy in Ellen White’s statement regarding when God provided them with meat. Her account appears to twist the scriptural facts to support her argument against meat eating. A closer reading of these passages raises questions about the accuracy of her interpretation.

Ellen White’s reference in her writings about the Israelites and meat consumption points to the incident at Kibroth-Hattaavah, detailed in Numbers 11, which occurred after they departed from Mount Sinai. However, the first recorded instance of quails being provided as food is in the Wilderness of Sin shortly after the exodus from Egypt, as described in Exodus 16. This inconsistency makes her statement, “When the Lord took His people from Egypt, He did not give them flesh-meat to eat till they mourned and wept in His ears,” inaccurate, as it conflates two separate events.

In Exodus 16, the Lord clearly provided quails for the Israelites shortly after they departed from Egypt. Moreover, as will be discussed further, meat was incorporated into the sacrificial system for the priests, and the consumption of the Passover lamb was instituted as a perpetual ordinance for all Israel. These facts directly challenge Ellen White’s claim that God did not provide them with meat until they complained about missing the foods of Egypt, including “cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic.”

The event at Kibroth-Hattaavah, referenced in Numbers 11, includes details that Ellen White omits. The Israelites’ complaint begins with a longing for “the fish which we did eat in Egypt freely” (Numbers 11:5), followed by their lament for the “leeks and the onions.” While they did ask for “flesh” in general, they specifically mentioned fish as part of their craving. This is particularly notable because, according to Ellen White’s own practice, she continued eating fish even after giving up other forms of meat, seemingly not categorizing fish as part of a carnivorous diet. Ironically, the type of “flesh” the Israelites craved—fish—was something Ellen White herself found acceptable to eat.

Nevertheless, Leviticus 11 clarifies that fish are classified as clean or unclean animals, just like land animals. Verses 2 and 8 define which land beasts can and cannot be eaten, stating:

“These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth.” (Leviticus 11:2, ESV)

 

“You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” (Leviticus 11:8, ESV)

Verses 9 onward specify that fish with fins and scales are acceptable for consumption.

“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat.” (Leviticus 11:9, ESV)

In Numbers 11, the Israelites were not exclusively demanding red meat or quails but sought meat in a broader sense, including fish, which Moses alludes to in his question to God:

“Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, and be enough for them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, and be enough for them?” (Numbers 11:22, ESV)

Ultimately, God sent quail in abundance.

Given that meat was never prohibited in the Israelite diet, that clean and unclean distinctions were provided to Noah, and that the sacrificial system incorporated meat consumption, it raises the question of whether God’s response to the Israelites’ complaints was due to their desire for meat or their overall dissatisfaction and rebellion. Was God attempting to suppress their “animal passions” by transitioning them to a vegetarian diet of manna, preparing them for life in Canaan with an Edenic diet of fruits, grains, and nuts? This interpretation seems unlikely, as Scripture does not suggest such a plan. In fact, priests consumed meat daily as part of the sacrificial system, and God provided clear guidelines for eating clean meat.

Ellen White believed otherwise, as evidenced in her writings:

“God might as easily have provided them with flesh as with manna, but a restriction was placed upon them for their good. It was His purpose to supply them with food better suited to their wants than the feverish diet to which many had become accustomed in Egypt. The perverted appetite was to be brought into a more healthy state, that they might enjoy the food originally provided for man—the fruits of the earth, which God gave to Adam and Eve in Eden. It was for this reason that the Israelites had been deprived, in a great measure, of animal food.” ^[2]

According to Ellen White, God intended to lead the Israelites toward an Edenic diet as part of His preparation for their entry into Canaan. However, Scripture provides no indication of such a plan. On the contrary, God’s connection of meat consumption to the sacrificial system underscores its spiritual significance. Ellen White elaborates further:

“God brought the Israelites from Egypt, that He might establish them in the land of Canaan, a pure, holy, and happy people. In the accomplishment of this object He subjected them to a course of discipline, both for their own good and for the good of their posterity. Had they been willing to deny appetite, in obedience to His wise restrictions, feebleness and disease would have been unknown among them. Their descendants would have possessed both physical and mental strength. They would have had clear perceptions of truth and duty, keen discrimination, and sound judgment. But their unwillingness to submit to the restrictions and requirements of God, prevented them, to a great extent, from reaching the high standard which He desired them to attain, and from receiving the blessings which He was ready to bestow upon them.” ^[3]

For Ellen White, the restriction on meat consumption was meant to refine the Israelites spiritually, mentally, and physically, preparing them for their future in Canaan. She extended this logic to the modern SDA movement, claiming that end-time believers must embrace a similar diet to prepare for their entry into the “heavenly Canaan.” However, the lack of biblical evidence for these claims calls her interpretation into question.

Ellen White supports her argument by quoting Psalm 78:18-21, where the psalmist writes:

“And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people? Therefore the LORD heard this, and was wroth.” (Psalm 78:18–21, KJV)

However, when the psalm is considered in the context of the rest of Scripture, it is clear that the psalmist does not view meat as something that was excluded from the Hebrew diet or permitted reluctantly by God only because of the hardness of their hearts. Instead, the psalm primarily condemns the Israelites for their murmuring and doubt—questioning God’s ability to provide them with meat, water, and bread in the wilderness. This attitude of complaining and disbelief was the real issue, not the act of eating meat itself.

That said, God never intended for the Israelites to overindulge in meat simply because He allowed them to consume it. He provided manna, which was undoubtedly sufficient to meet their nutritional needs, knowing that in the wilderness, a dependable staple food was essential. Moses even alluded to the risk of the Israelites depleting their livestock if they relied on meat for their daily sustenance.

The real problem lay with the Israelites’ dissatisfaction, fueled by the influence of the mixed multitude from Egypt. Manna wasn’t enough to satisfy their cravings—they longed for the luxuries of Egypt, including “leeks, onions, garlic,” and especially “fish,” which Ellen White notably does not mention. While their demands included “flesh” in a general sense, their specific desires extended to foods that were part of their Egyptian diet.

Ellen White’s interpretation of these passages distorts their context, ignoring the broader biblical evidence. She manipulates the Scriptures to support her views on abstaining from meat while failing to acknowledge that she herself consumed meat—including various kinds—for decades after her first health vision. During this time, she also reprimanded others, both laypeople and church leaders, for doing the same.

 

Questions for Further Study:

• How does the Bible define dietary guidelines for God’s people, and how do these guidelines evolve throughout Scripture?
• Aside from speculative interpretations, are there any explicit biblical passages that equate meat consumption with spiritual or moral failure?
• What role did cultural and historical contexts play in the dietary practices described in the Bible (e.g., sacrificial rituals, clean and unclean animal distinctions)?
• How might the dietary habits of surrounding nations have influenced the Israelites’ attitudes toward meat consumption?
• Could the distinction between clean and unclean animals pre-flood signify pre-existing dietary practices, or was it solely related to sacrificial laws?
• What theological arguments can be made for or against the view that diet is connected to spiritual discipline or readiness for God’s kingdom?
• How does the Edenic diet described in Genesis relate to the dietary practices endorsed or permitted post-flood and under Mosaic Law?
• How does Ellen White’s claim that abstaining from meat aligns with God’s will compare with instances in the Bible where God approves or commands meat consumption?
• Are there other instances in Ellen White’s writings where her interpretations appear to differ from a literal or traditional understanding of Scripture? How should such discrepancies be evaluated?

 

In Christian Love,

 

 

 

 

References for Part 6:

^[1] The Paulson Collection of Ellen G. White Letters (Leaves-Of-Autumn Books, 1985), 1.

^[2] Ellen Gould White, The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets as Illustrated in the Lives of Holy Men of Old, vol. 1, Conflict of the Ages Series (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1890), 378.

^[3] Ellen Gould White, The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets as Illustrated in the Lives of Holy Men of Old, vol. 1, Conflict of the Ages Series (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1890), 378.

The evidence against Ellen White’s stance becomes even more apparent in the New Testament. This is especially clear when examining the practices and teachings of God’s people, from Jesus Himself to the early Apostolic Church.

The New Testament opens in a Jewish context, where long-established traditions—including dietary practices—were still observed. One such tradition was the annual Passover celebration, during which the Torah mandated the ritual slaughter and consumption of the Paschal Lamb with bitter herbs and unleavened bread.

Jesus was born into this religious environment, and His parents, Joseph and Mary, were faithful practitioners of the Jewish faith. According to Luke 2:41-50, they took Jesus to Jerusalem for the Passover when He was twelve years old.

“Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.” (Luke 2:41–50, ESV)

It’s likely that during such visits, they may have even spent time with Mary’s cousin Elizabeth and her husband, Zacharias, a priest. In such a setting, it’s reasonable to conclude that Jesus participated in the Passover rituals, including eating the roasted lamb, from an early age.

The Gospels confirm that Jesus continued observing the Passover throughout His ministry. On the night before His crucifixion, He instructed His disciples to prepare for the Passover meal (Matthew 26:19; Luke 22:7-8), a ritual that undoubtedly included the consumption of the lamb, as prescribed by the law God Himself had established.

While the Scriptures do not specify whether Jesus regularly ate red meat outside of religious observances, they do provide ample evidence that He ate fish and even served it to others. Several of His disciples, including Simon Peter, James, and John, were fishermen who caught and ate fish as part of their livelihood. In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus calls these fishermen to follow Him after miraculously filling their nets with fish.

On multiple occasions, Jesus fed large crowds with bread and fish. In Matthew 14:13-21, He fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish, and in Matthew 15:32-39, He fed four thousand with seven loaves and a few fish. These accounts demonstrate that bread and fish were everyday staples, especially for those living near the coast.

After His resurrection, Jesus further affirmed the consumption of meat. When He appeared to His disciples in the upper room, He asked for food and was given “a piece of broiled fish” and a “honeycomb” (Luke 24:41-44). Later, at the Sea of Galilee, Jesus gave His disciples bread and grilled fish, inviting them to dine with Him (John 21:1-13).

It is worth noting that fish was not excluded from the Levitical dietary guidelines. Clean and unclean distinctions applied to fish, just as they did to land animals. Leviticus 11 specifies that fish with fins and scales are clean and permissible to eat.

From the Old Testament through the New Testament, there is overwhelming evidence that God’s people—often under His direct instruction—consumed meat. The Bible consistently affirms the practice, whether it was the lamb sacrificed at Passover, the clean meats outlined in the law, or the fish regularly eaten by Jesus and His disciples. Even in parables, such as the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), the consumption of a “fatted calf” is depicted as a symbol of celebration and acceptance.

The biblical narrative, both in word and deed, is filled with examples of believers eating meat, directly contradicting Ellen White’s claim that it was contrary to God’s will.

One of Ellen White’s recurring and emphatic arguments against meat consumption is her claim that it stirs animalistic behavior and negatively impacts spirituality. She chastised parents for giving meat to their sick children, suggesting it would “excite their animal passions” and render their prayers ineffective:

“Then you come to meeting and ask God to bless and save your children.” ^[1]

As if God would ever ignore such prayers. She further stated that even indulging in meat,

“occasionally to gratify the taste in eating a fattened turkey or other flesh meats, pervert their appetites.” ^[2]

Yet, despite these warnings, Ellen White herself spoke of her enjoyment of eating meat well after her first health vision, writing:

“We had a quarter of venison cooked, and stuffing. It was as tender as a chicken. We all enjoyed it very much. There is plenty of venison in market.” ^[3]

The Bible is remarkably consistent in God’s directives about meat-eating, both in word and action, but Ellen White’s teachings and personal practices reveal a glaring inconsistency and hypocrisy. It’s puzzling why anyone would accept her as a divine messenger when she, while eating meat, could boldly declare:

“Those… who subsist on the flesh of dead animal… cannot represent the truth to others.” [4]

Similarly, she stated:

“No man should be set apart as a teacher of the people while his own teaching or example contradicts the testimony God has given His servants to bear in regard to diet, for this will bring confusion. His disregard of health reform unfits him to stand as the Lord’s messenger.” ^[5]

Ellen White’s argument that eating meat arouses animalistic tendencies and impairs spiritual discernment, making one unfit to be a messenger of God, would logically apply to all people across time, including biblical patriarchs, prophets, disciples, and even Christ Himself. Her argument appears inconsistent, however, unless someone can prove that meat changed significantly after the 19th century.

She herself claimed these principles explained why God didn’t want the Israelites eating meat in the wilderness or why Daniel and his companions refrained from eating the king’s meat. So many questions arise.

• • • But were these biblical figures unconcerned about animal passions?
    • Did the heavenly visitors to Abraham, including the Lord, disregard the example they set by eating food that Ellen White claimed blunted spirituality?
    • Did God fail to consider the implications of incorporating meat into sacrificial rituals meant to nourish priests in His service?
    • And what about Jesus? Was the meat in those times somehow different?
    • If so, why didn’t Ellen White clarify her stance, suggesting that kosher, blood-drained meat was acceptable?

After all, the elders in Acts 21:25 gave the Gentiles such guidance regarding the ceremonial laws.

“But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”” (Acts 21:25, ESV)

Ellen White, however, did not adopt this balanced and scriptural counsel.

This raises even more important questions:

• • • Were biblical disciples and other messengers of God unfit for their roles because they consumed meat?
    • Did the difference lie in the belief that people in Ellen White’s time were living in the end-times?

And yet, here we are in the 21st century, with far more advanced methods of meat processing, packaging, and preservation than in biblical times or her own day. Ancient meat markets were unsanitary and posed a significant risk of disease, a problem still seen in some regions today where meat is sold in traditional ways.

To her credit, Ellen White did address the dangers of diseased meat, and in this regard, she was correct. Even today, outbreaks like mad cow disease and other illnesses linked to contaminated meat confirm her warnings. However, plant-based foods are not immune to contamination either; fruits and vegetables can carry pesticides and other harmful substances unless organically grown. However, these health risks are separate issues. The core question here is the contrast between Ellen White’s teachings and the testimony of Scripture.

So far, no credible biblical evidence supports Ellen White’s position on meat eating. Her practices, which often contradicted her own teachings, further undermined her credibility. However, additional scriptural evidence remains to be examined.

The Bible, regarded as the ultimate and infallible guide for Christian belief and practice (Sola Scriptura), establishes a clear standard against strange doctrines. Nowhere in Scripture is abstaining from meat presented as a test of faith or spirituality. The only instance where meat consumption is addressed within a Christian context is Paul’s counsel to the believers in Corinth. These passages show that Paul was not forbidding meat consumption but rather addressing the potential of being a stumbling block to others by eating meat sacrificed to idols. He emphasizes that mature believers, who understand that “an idol is nothing in this world” and that “meat commendeth us not to God,” are free to eat such meat. However, to avoid offending weaker believers, Paul states that he would “eat no flesh while the world standeth” if it caused others to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:7-13; 1 Corinthians 10:23-33).

Interestingly, Paul’s teachings imply that those who make food an issue in their faith may themselves be weaker in belief. Time and again, Paul reinforces that dietary choices do not define faith. Instead, he calls for consideration of others’ understanding while affirming that what one eats does not inherently impact one’s standing before God. One wonders if Ellen White fully understood this principle, especially in light of her strong statements on health reform and meat eating. Her claims must be tested against Scripture, as Isaiah 8:20 instructs:

“To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.” (Isaiah 8:20, ESV)

If her teachings on health reform cannot withstand biblical scrutiny, how can her authority be trusted?

Even Ellen White herself stated that the Bible alone is the standard of truth. Yet, when her teachings are rigorously examined against Scripture, they often fail to align.

For instance, Paul writes in his letter to the Romans:

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.” (Romans 14:1–2, ESV)

Paul clarifies that the issue here is not physical weakness but being “weak in the faith.” This principle underscores that dietary choices are not the crux of one’s relationship with God.

Paul continues in Romans 14 by stating that both those who eat and those who abstain do so “in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” ^[6] He advises believers not to judge one another over food or cause others to stumble in this regard. In verse 14, he adds,

“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.” (Romans 14:14, ESV)

This affirms that dietary matters are a personal choice based on individual conscience.

The crux of Paul’s argument appears in Romans 14:17:

“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17, ESV)

He reiterates that believers should not let food or drink undermine God’s work and calls for mutual consideration between stronger and weaker believers.

Paul concludes his discourse by emphasizing that eating without conviction is sinful:

“But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23, ESV)

One must wonder which Bible Ellen White relied on to validate her revelations. Paul’s teachings clearly downplay the importance of dietary rules in matters of faith. The Bible, as a whole, supports this conclusion. Moreover, the Bible commands believers to “try the spirits whether they are from God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). This testing must be done using the Bible, not by placing another source, such as Ellen White’s writings, above Scripture. Unfortunately, many Seventh-day Adventists have reversed this process, often testing the Bible by Ellen White instead of vice versa.

 

Questions for Further Study:

• What were the cultural and religious practices regarding meat consumption in the New Testament era, and how did these compare to Old Testament instructions?
• How does the role of dietary practices in the Mosaic Law align with the teachings and actions of Jesus and the apostles?
• In what ways do Paul’s teachings in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 challenge or affirm dietary restrictions as a measure of faith?
• How does Ellen White’s argument that meat consumption stirs “animalistic behavior” align with examples of biblical figures who ate meat?
• Did Ellen White explicitly address differences in meat quality or preparation between biblical times and her era, and how might this impact her teachings?
• If Ellen White viewed abstaining from meat as critical to spirituality, why did she not include specific concessions for kosher practices or other dietary considerations mentioned in Scripture?
• Can abstaining from meat or specific dietary practices be considered a universal spiritual principle, or are these context-dependent instructions given for specific times and groups?
• What are the implications of using personal dietary choices to measure one’s spiritual fitness, especially in light of Paul’s emphasis on individual conscience in Romans 14?
• How do we reconcile the apparent tension between Ellen White’s health reform teachings and her occasional personal practices involving meat consumption?
• To what extent should Ellen White’s teachings be held to the standard of Sola Scriptura, and how does this affect their authority within the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
• What role does consistency play in evaluating a spiritual leader’s credibility, especially when their personal practices appear to contradict their public teachings?
• Is it appropriate to evaluate Ellen White’s authority as a messenger of God through the lens of biblical scrutiny, and if so, what criteria should be used?

In Christian Love,

 

 

References for Part 7:

^[1] Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2 (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1855), 362.

^[2] Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2 (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1855), 487.

^[3] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 1081–1135, 1984–1985], vol. 14 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 318–319.

[4] Ellen White, Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 14 (1899), accessed December 10, 2024, https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/14064.5068001.

^[5] Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6 (Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1855), 378.

^[6] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 14:6.

When evaluating Ellen White’s teachings and practices concerning meat against the Bible, what conclusions emerge?

In Colossians 2:16, Paul addresses legalistic practices and emphasizes that no one should judge others “in meat or in drink.” While this context is not explicitly about everyday diet, it reinforces the idea that food and drink should not be grounds for judgment, even in religious matters.

In 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Paul warns Timothy about deceptive teachings in the latter times, describing them as “doctrines of devils.” Among these false teachings are the prohibition of marriage and the command to abstain from meats.

“Who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods (Greek: brōma) that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:3, ESV)

To ensure clarity, Paul continues in verse 4:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.” (1 Timothy 4:4, ESV)

While some argue that the Greek word ktisma (κτίσμα) for “creature” (sometimes rendered ‘every creature’ or ‘everything created’) might refer broadly to everything created by God, it naturally includes the flesh of animals. Given the Bible’s repeated approval of meat consumption, Paul’s use of “creature” (everything created in the ESV) here is most likely referencing clean animals. But this point can be debated and refuted. At a minimum, Paul’s point is that food created by God as clean is acceptable when received with thanksgiving. One could argue that ALL food is acceptable and that these clean and unclean regulations are no longer important since there are no longer Greek, Jew, circumcised, or uncircumcised. We are all one in Christ. Therefore, these dietary laws are no longer valuable since the sacrificial system is archaic because of the Christ event.

This principle echoes the vision given to Peter in Acts 10. In this vision, Peter is told to:

“Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” (Acts 10:13, ESV)

This request was in relation to a vessel of unclean animals. Peter, adhering to Jewish dietary laws, initially refuses, but the voice declares:

“What God has made clean, do not call common.” (Acts 10:15, ESV)

At first, Peter is confused, but he later realizes the vision was a metaphor for God’s acceptance of Gentiles into the faith, not a directive to eat unclean animals. As Peter explains in verse 28:

“God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.” (Acts 10:28, ESV)

This vision illustrated that God’s acceptance transcended cultural and ethnic barriers.

The Bible clearly communicates that God sees meat differently once the sacrificial system is fulfilled through the ministry of Jesus Christ. Paul’s instruction to Timothy confirms this:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, since it is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer.” (1 Timothy 4:4–5, CSB)

When one examines the overall impact of Ellen White’s teachings on her followers—regarding dress, worship, salvation, diet, recreation, and more—it often leads to fanaticism, exclusivity, and imbalance. Being different from the rest of the world does not inherently equate to faith; instead, extreme behavior often strays from true faith. Oswald Chambers, in his famous literary work My Utmost for His Highest, insightfully remarked:

“Faith in antagonism to common sense is fanaticism, and common sense in antagonism to faith is rationalism. The life of faith brings the two into a right relation. Common sense is not faith, and faith is not common sense; they stand in the relation of the natural and the spiritual; of impulse and inspiration.” ^[1]

Faith and common sense are meant to coexist, as God has given humans the capacity for rational thought. When teachings or beliefs drive people to extremes, the clear, balanced message of Scripture should guide one’s actions and thoughts.

Many of Ellen White’s teachings, when evaluated against Scripture, can lead to impractical or even unrealistic religious practices. For example, her idea that believers would have to live without a mediator (Christ) during the time of trouble, when humanity’s probation is closed, imposes an unnecessary and unbiblical burden. Similarly, her advice to flee cities and move to rural areas has caused significant difficulties for many Adventists who tried to follow this counsel, particularly young families. While living in the countryside can benefit those with the means, the financial and practical realities of modern life often make such a move untenable, especially for those whose jobs require them to live near populated areas.

Ellen White’s counsel to “get out of the cities,” ^[2] delivered more than a century ago, was embraced by many of her contemporaries with a sense of urgency. Families moved to rural areas, and institutions were established far from urban centers. Over time, as cities expanded, many of these once-secluded locations became part of the very urban areas they sought to avoid. Generations of faithful Adventists who heeded this advice are now long gone, yet the promised urgency of her message remains unfulfilled. Her teachings have often inspired extreme or fanatical actions, though many of these ideas might be reasonable if approached as personal choices rather than divine mandates tied to salvation.

The fundamental issue lies in Ellen White’s assertion that her teachings are essential to true Christian living and divinely commanded. This stance leaves little room for individual discretion and burdens her followers with beliefs and practices that Scripture cannot always substantiate. No Bible-believing Adventist should feel obligated to accept her word as authoritative without clear biblical evidence. The Bible alone should remain the standard of belief, free from the influence of additional writings that cannot be supported by a “thus saith the Lord.”

I will remind you of the statement mentioned in the sermon from a staunch Ellen White follower just a few weeks ago: (See Previous Article: Is it Christian to Hold Others Accountable In or Out of the Pulpit?)

“And so when somebody tells you all you need is the Bible. BEWARE… because God wouldn’t have sent us a Prophet if we didn’t need her. Hand in hand.” [3]

For any Adventist hesitant or fearful about relying solely on the Bible without Ellen White’s interpretations, this could signify that her writings have taken an outsized role in their spiritual lives. Ellen White claimed that her testimonies pointed people back to the Bible, but as demonstrated in this analysis, her teachings often overshadow or contradict the Scriptures. Many Adventists may ultimately find themselves saved not because of Ellen White’s guidance but in spite of it. But some Adventists will not find themselves saved because they based their salvation on the writings of Ellen White, as this elder from a local Seventh-day Adventist Church so blasphemously stated during his sermon:

“Yes, we have Scripture. Yes, God will save you through his writings, but God also saves you through the Prophet (Ellen G. White), through ‘The Testimonies.’  We have a purpose.” [4]

The Seventh-day Adventist Church faces an important decision about how to address Ellen White’s legacy. Will her unscriptural teachings continue to be upheld, or will the church quietly distance itself from her writings? Some pastors and leaders are already taking steps to minimize her influence, whether by avoiding mention of her altogether or offering only token acknowledgment to appease traditional members. Time will reveal whether the church collectively takes a bold stand to reevaluate Ellen White’s role. Sooner or later, Adventists will have to confront the truth about Ellen White, and it may be sooner than they expect.

Ellen White’s counsel on meat, particularly in an end-time context, conflicts with these biblical principles. Her guidance is not only extra-biblical but also contrary to Scripture. Furthermore, her personal practices did not align with her teachings, raising the question of why any Christian seeking to live according to Scripture should feel obligated to follow her additional, non-biblical standards.

If someone chooses vegetarianism as a personal health decision, that choice is valid and can be beneficial. A well-balanced, plant-based diet often provides significant health advantages as long as essential nutrients are included. This discussion, however, is not about the merits of vegetarianism but about biblical accuracy. Ellen White’s claims must be evaluated against the Word of God to determine whether they are true or false.

Paul emphasizes in 1 Corinthians 3:16-19 and 6:19 that our bodies are temples of God, but he does not equate eating meat with defiling that temple. Instead, he urges believers to practice moderation and to base their teachings on “sound doctrine” rooted in Scripture (Titus 1:8-9). True temperance involves avoiding extremes on either side, including in dietary practices—a point Paul consistently underscores.

Yet again, when Ellen White is analyzed, she is revealed as a False Prophet. Avoid anything her writings touch, and instead, let the word of God guide and direct your understanding!

Questions for Further Study:

• How does Colossians 2:16 shape our understanding of judgment in matters of diet and religious practices? How does this relate to other Pauline writings?
• What does Paul’s message in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 reveal about the balance between personal convictions and the universality of God’s provisions for nourishment?
• How does the context of Peter’s vision in Acts 10 clarify the distinction between literal dietary laws and broader theological lessons about inclusion?
• To what extent does the fulfillment of the sacrificial system through Christ nullify Old Testament dietary laws, and how do we reconcile this with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:17-18 about fulfilling the law?
• What biblical evidence can be presented to support or refute Ellen White’s counsel on vegetarianism and abstinence from meat?
• How do Ellen White’s views on living “without a mediator” align with or contradict biblical assurances of Christ’s eternal intercession (e.g., Hebrews 7:25)?
• How should one interpret her counsel to “get out of the cities” in light of Jesus’ instruction to be salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13-16)?
• What are the implications of elevating Ellen White’s writings to a level comparable with Scripture in Adventist theology and practice?
• How can Adventists reconcile a sola scriptura (Bible alone) approach with the perceived necessity of Ellen White’s interpretations for understanding Scripture?
• What criteria should be used to evaluate whether a prophetic claim, like Ellen White’s, is consistent with biblical truth?

In Christian Love,

 

 

 

 

References for Part 8:

^[1] Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest: Selections for the Year (Grand Rapids, MI: Oswald Chambers Publications; Marshall Pickering, 1986).

^[2] Ellen Gould White, Country Living, An Aid to Moral and Social Security (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1946), 10.

[3] Stories That Jesus Told: Parable of the Prodigal Son, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsbEmrpCNvc.

[4] Stories That Jesus Told: Parable of the Prodigal Son, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsbEmrpCNvc.