Ellen G. White Web Site
you the latest research on Ellen White
false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John
bear the test of investigation"
excellent documentation re the SDA Church Visit this web.
pagina in EspaÒol
Many Adventists agree that these statements
are the most shocking ever penned by Ellen White:
But if there was one sin
above another which called for the destruction of the
race by the flood, it was the
crime of amalgamation of
man and beast which
image of God, and caused
confusion everywhere. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3,
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.
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
- It was "a sin" serious enough to
require "the destruction" of the human
- It was a vile, "base
- This vile sin "defaced the image
- It occurred both before and
after "the flood."
- Its effects can be seen "in
certain races of men."
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
Scholars take Mental Gymnastics to astounding new
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
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
between the races?
This explanation raises more questions
- 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
between godly and ungodly?
This interpretation seems to contradict
the context of the statement. Gordon Shigley writes in
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:
Estate Plays Word Games:
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
- Combining different businesses,
- Combinations of music, art or
- Combinations of different technology
- 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
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 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.
A "new and
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
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:
- 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?
- 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 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!
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
Base - Mean; vile;
worthless; that is, low in value or estimation; used of
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
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
- BASE stresses the ignoble and may
suggest cruelty, treachery, greed, or grossness
- 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
- VILE, the strongest of these
words, tends to suggest disgusting depravity or filth
[a vile remark].
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
- Did Mrs. White remove the statements
because they created a controversy?
- Did she remove them because they were
- Did she remove them because the
brethren faced a predicament trying to explain them to
- 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
didn't the angel instruct her to omit the lines
before they were published?
All the World Wide Web
information and documentation on the SDA church visit these