Amalgamation

A Denominational Embarrassment

Esta pagina in EspaÒol

But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75

A Summary of Mrs. White's main points about Amalgamation

1. It was "a sin" serious enough to require "the destruction" of the human race.
2. It was a vile, "base crime".
3. This vile sin "defaced the image of God."
4. It occurred both before and after "the flood."
5. Its effects can be seen "in certain races of men."

Analysis

What was she talking about?

There is no doubt that Ellen White understood her own statements to be describing the sexual union between man and beast. This was a myth that apparently circulated among the uneducated in the 19th century. The myth has no scientific basis. Science has long ago proven that it is impossible for humans and animals to produce offspring.

This leads to the question: If she did not receive the amalgamation statement from God, where did she get it? One likely source is the book of Jasher. Many of Mrs. White's statements about the pre-flood era appear astonishingly similar to statements in the book of Jasher, a fictional account of earth's early history published in 1840. In that book we find that the pre-flood humans...

...taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other...(Jasher 4:18)

---

Which race is a product of amalgamation?

Mrs. White said the results of amalgamation could be seen "in certain races of men." We have been waiting 140 years for Adventist officials to tell us which human race is the result of amalgamation of man and beast.

Stinging criticism of Ellen White in the 1860's forced church leaders to attempt to defend their prophet. In 1868, four years after the amalgamation statements first appeared in print, Adventist leader Uriah Smith (who at that time still professed belief in Ellen White as a prophet) published his defense of Ellen White. In that book he conjectured that the union of man with beast had created races such as the "wild Bushmen of Africa". (See The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, p. 103. By the way, you will not find this book in any SDA bookstores today!) Smith's views reflect the popular notion of the day that crosses between men and animals created a nebulous zone of half-man, half-beasts, including such creatures as gorillas, chimpanzees, wild bushmen of Africa, and Hottentots.

James White "carefully" reviewed Smith's book prior to its publication, and then recommended it in glowing terms to the readers of the church's official magazine, the Review and Herald:

The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures." It is written by the editor of the Review. While carefully reading the manuscript, I felt grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize, which others despise and oppose. (Review, Aug. 15, 1868)

Smith did not publish this book without careful review from the prophet's husband, James White. It is inconceivable that the statements about the Bushmen of Africa passed by James White without notice. His endorsement of the book indicates his approval of the explanation. In fact, because it established Mrs. White's claims, James and Ellen took 2,000 copies of Smith's book with them to peddle at camp meetings that year! By promoting and selling Smith's book the Whites placed their stamp of approval on his explanation of the amalgamation statement.

While Smith may have limited the amalgamation to the Bushmen, some SDA's have gone further. Sadly, as an SDA for 33 years, I know for a fact that behind closed doors in private conversations some white American SDA's believe this "inspired" statement applies to the entire black race.

SDA Scholars take Mental Gymnastics to astounding new heights

While the "Bushmen of Africa" explanation was good enough for the Whites and Smith, it eventually fell out of favor with SDA leaders. It became increasingly difficult to explain these statements to an increasingly educated and racially tolerant denomination.

Despite the controversy, both the critics and supporters of Ellen White agreed that Mrs. White was talking about the union of man with beast. However, by 1947 an Adventist biologist named Dr. Frank Marsh convinced an SDA panel to interpret Mrs. White's statement to mean the interbreeding among species, not interbreeding between man and beast. Dr. Marsh argued convincingly that the union of man and beast is impossible. Despite the fact that James White, Uriah Smith, W.C. White (her son), and D.D. Robinson (her secretary) all indicate that Mrs. White believed her statement to refer to the interbreeding of man with beasts, the mounting scientific evidence made it impossible for Adventists to continue to defend her statement based upon its intended meaning. Thus, they developed a new meaning for the statement, a meaning which was unknown to Ellen White, and a meaning which is extremely difficult to extract from the text of the amalgamation quotes themselves.

One recent Adventist scholar, F.D. Nichols, in his defense of Mrs.White, informs us that the word "amalgamation" was used commonly in the 19th century to refer to intermarriage between the black and white races. He also notes that Ellen White used the word "amalgamation" to refer to the intermarriage between those of different faiths. Nichols argues that Mrs. White's statement was referring to amalgamation between "man and "man", namely, the interbreeding between humans of different races or different religions.

Intermarriage between the races?

This explanation raises more questions than answers:

• How could intermarriage between races deface the image of God in man? How could one human (made in the image of God) married to another human (made in the image of God) deface the image of God?
•  
• If intermarriage between races is a "sin" and a "base crime", then why is it never described as such in the Bible?
•  
• Many Biblical scholars believe Moses' wife Zipporah was a different race. Were the children of Moses an amalgamated species? If so, why did God offer to make the children of Moses into a great nation? Why didn't God destroy them for committing a base crime?

Intermarriage between godly and ungodly?

This interpretation seems to contradict the context of the statement. Gordon Shigley writes in Spectrum magazine:

It was difficult to read the statements within their context without seeing a series of sins, of which the last sin--the "one sin above another"--was obviously the climax. It was not likely that Ellen White was talking about intermarriage since she already had described that sin in an earlier paragraph. ...it is impossible to make the amalgamation of beast with beast or man with man the one sin greater than idolatry, adultery, polygamy, theft, or murder. (Spectrum, "Amalgamation of Man and Beast: What Did Ellen White Mean?", vol. 12, no. 4, p. 11)

Again, this interpretation raises far more questions than it answers:

• Is intermarriage between the godly and ungodly a "sin" or a "base crime?" Interestingly, Mrs. White describes the intermarriage between the sons of Cain and Seth just four pages eariler on page 60 of Spiritual Gifts! She says the intermarriage "displeased God", but she does not call it a base crime! Neither does the Bible! Samson married a Philistine woman over the objections of his parents and the Bible says:
  • But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord... Judges 14:4

  If marrying an ungodly woman was a "base crime" worthy of the destruction of the human race, why would the Bible say that Samson's marriage to a Philistine was "of the Lord?"

   

• How could intermarriage between people of different faiths now "be seen" in "certain races of men?" Which races show evidence of intermarriage between believers and unbelievers?

• ---

White Estate Plays Word Games:

What does Amalgamation mean?

While the current defenders of Mrs. White at the White Estate cannot seem to provide a definitive explanation as to what Mrs. White was talking about, they assure us on their web site that whatever it was that Mrs. White was talking about, it was not the union between man and beast:

No dictionary has ever used "amalgamation" to describe the cohabitation of man with beast. ... Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human relationship. ... The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term.

While dictionaries do not explicitly describe amalgamation as the union of man and beast, they certainly allow for that definition. The word "amalgamation" is widely used in the English language to describe a mixture of two different elements. The word is commonly used to describe:

• Combining different businesses, groups, organizations.
• Combinations of music, art or food.
• Combinations of different technology and equipment.
• It has even been used by science fiction buffs to describe the offspring of the union between human and alien beings!

The use of the word is endless. It is used in thousands of ways to describe the combination of any two elements that are different.

The word comes from "amalgam" which has two primary meanings:

1 : an alloy of mercury with another metal that is solid or liquid at room temperature according to the proportion of mercury present and is used especially in making tooth cements

2 : a mixture of different elements
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated)

How was the word used in the 1800's? Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Amalgamation - The mixing or blending of different things. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

Webster's 1913 dictionary:

A*mal`ga*ma"tion (#), n. [Cf. F. amalgamation.]
The mixing or blending of different elements, races, societies, etc.; also, the result of such combination or blending; a homogeneous union. (Webster's 1913 Dictionary)

---

A "new and alien meaning"?

The White Estate claims that we are under a "burden" to prove that Mrs. White was talking about the union of man and beast because that specific definition never appears in a dictionary. They write:

"The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term."

Is that true? Are we under the burden to prove the word can be used in that manner? Well, let us examine some of Mrs. White's other uses of the word to determine whether or not they appear in the dictionary:

Every noxious herb is of his [Satan's] sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. Selected Messages, Vol. 2, p. 288

...by union with the world, the character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 23, 1892

After reading these quotes the following questions should be posed to the White Estate:

1. No dictionary specifically describes Satan mixing evil properties into herbs to produce tares as amalgamation. Therefore, is Mrs. White giving a "new and alien meaning to the word" in Selected Messages, Vol. 2, p. 288?

    

2. No dictionary specifically describes the union of Christians with the world as a process of amalgamation. Therefore, is Mrs. White giving a "new and alien meaning to the word" in the Aug. 23, 1892, issue of the Review?

The truth is that all of Mrs. White's usages of the word amalgamation clearly fit within the dictionary's definition of the word. The word is used in thousands of ways to describe the union of any two things that are different. How could a dictionary possibly list every potential use of the word amalgamation? It would take thousands of pages for just a single word! Just because a particular usage of a word does not appear in the dictionary does not prove that the usage is incorrect!

For Mrs. White to use the word to describe the union of man and beast is not "new and alien," nor is it without precedent. In fact, the word is used today by science fiction and UFO followers to describe the union of humans with aliens!

"Base Crime" proves White Estate and Nichols wrong

Mrs. White describes amalgamation as a base crime. Why? What is a base crime? What does the dictionary say? First, let us look at Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Base - Mean; vile; worthless; that is, low in value or estimation; used of things. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

Webster's 1913 dictionary:

Base - Morally low. Hence: Low-minded; unworthy; without dignity of sentiment; ignoble; mean; illiberal; menial; as, a base fellow; base motives; base occupations. A cruel act of a base and a cowardish mind.(Webster's 1913 Dictionary)

Here are the synonyms to the word "base" from Webster's 1999 dictionary:

Synonyms: BASE, LOW, VILE mean deserving of contempt because of the absence of higher values.

• BASE stresses the ignoble and may suggest cruelty, treachery, greed, or grossness [base motives].
• LOW may connote crafty cunning, vulgarity, or immorality and regularly implies an outraging of one's sense of decency or propriety [refused to listen to such low talk].
• VILE, the strongest of these words, tends to suggest disgusting depravity or filth [a vile remark].

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated)

A base crime is an act of vile immorality. Mrs. White uses the phrase base crime only one other time in her writings. She used the phrase to describe Potiphar's wife's vile adulterous attempt upon the youthful Joseph. (Signs of the Times, Jan. 8, 1880)

If we are to believe the White Estate and Nichols that the amalgamation was "human with human, and beast with beast," then how could these relationships be described as base crimes? Since when are sexual relations between married human partners base crimes? Doesn't God honor marriage, whether or not both partners are of the same race or religion? How could union between different species of animals be a base crime? Animals have no such moral capacity to commit a base crime!

If the union of human with human is not a base crime, and if the union of animal with animal is not a base crime, then what is a base crime? The Bible is very clear that sexual relations between humans and animals is a vile, base crime. It is condemned in the Bible as an abomination (Leviticus 18:23, 20:16) worthy of the death penalty. The fact that Mrs. White describes amalgamation as a base crime is irrefutable evidence she was describing bestiality, not intermarriage between humans with racial or religious differences.

Genetic amalgamation?

A recent defense of Mrs. White's statement has arisen with the advent of genetic engineering. Some have suggested the ancients performed genetic manipulations in the laboratory. This sounds plausible to those who do not understand the difficulties of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is a very complex process that science is only now beginning to grasp. It requires the use of super-computers and highly advanced technology. There is no evidence that the people before the flood had this technology--although it is not impossible. But Mrs. White says this amalgamation also happened after the flood! There is absolutely no evidence that the advanced technology needed to accomplish this ever existed in any society after the flood.

Is Amalgamation the greatest reason for the flood?

If Ellen White is correct, that the "one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race" was amalgamation, why was that sin never mentioned in Genesis? Moses mentions the sins of corruption and violence (Gen. 6:11-13), but never amalgamation. One would think that if amalgamation was the "one sin above another" that caused the flood, Moses would have at least mentioned it! How could such a grievous sin pass by Moses without mention?

Why were these "inspired" statements removed when the book was republished as Patriarchs and Prophets?

If the amalgamation statements were true, why not leave them in the book? Why remove them? If this sin caused the flood, don't you think people should be warned about it so that they don't repeat it? If the "bushmen of Africa" are the result of union between man and animals, don't people have a right to know about it? Shouldn't we be telling our scientists so that they can begin studying the bushmen? What precedence is there to deleting the writings of a prophet? None of the Biblical prophets had to go back and alter their writings to remove statements. Why should Mrs. White?

We are not the first to ask these questions. People have been asking those questions for over 150 years. The removal of parts of her writings created such a controversy that the White Estate decided it was important for them to provide an explanation for the ommissions. Her son W.C. White writes:

Regarding the two paragraphs which are to be found in Spiritual Gifts and also in The Spirit of Prophecy regarding amalgamation and the reason why they were left out of the later books, and the question as to who took the responsibility of leaving them out, I can speak with perfect clearness and assurance. They were left out by Ellen G. White. No one connected with her work had any authority over such a question, and I never heard of anyone offering to her counsel regarding this matter.

In all questions of this kind, you may set it down as a certainty that sister White was responsible for leaving out or adding to matters of this sort in the later editions of our books.

Sister White not only had good judgment based upon a clear and comprehensive understanding of conditions and of the natural consequences of publishing what she wrote, but she had many times direct instruction from the angel of the Lord regarding what should be omitted and what should be added in new editions. (W.C. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 3, p. 452)

There you have it straight from the prophet's son:

• Did Mrs. White remove the statements because they created a controversy?
• Did she remove them because they were wrong?
• Did she remove them because the brethren faced a predicament trying to explain them to new converts?
• Did she remove them because they made her appear uneducated?

No, it appears she removed them because an angel instructed her to do so. That leads us to our final question:

http://www.exadventist.com

http://www.Bible.ca/sabbath.htm

http://www.truthorfables.com/

http://www.ratzlaf.com http://

www.servant@ellenwhite.org

http://members.tripod.com/~Help_for_SDAs/index.html