A Question of Integrity
By ,
Mrs. White’s writings contain numerous recollections of events from her own life. Surprisingly, these accounts sometimes differ markedly from the testimony of other eyewitnesses who were present at the same events. In several cases, her later narratives appear to grow in detail in ways that consistently place her in a more favorable light. When such discrepancies arise repeatedly, they raise a serious question—not merely about memory, but about integrity.
Integrity is not a peripheral matter for anyone claiming prophetic authority. A prophet claims to speak on behalf of God. For that reason, accuracy, honesty, and faithfulness to fact are foundational. If a prophet cannot be trusted to report ordinary events truthfully, confidence in their claims to divine revelation is undermined. Scripture never treats moral credibility as optional in a messenger of God.
The Bible presents integrity as inseparable from truth. “He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit” (Proverbs 12:17). This principle applies with even greater force to one who claims prophetic inspiration. The issue examined in this article is not whether Mrs. White was sincere, but whether her representations of events demonstrate the consistent honesty required of a true prophet. When embellishment, selective memory, or self-justifying revision replaces factual accuracy, her claims to divine authority are brought into question.
Are the Eyewitness Testimonies of Non-Believers in Ellen White Trustworthy?
Over time, these discrepancies have posed a serious difficulty for defenders of Ellen White’s prophetic authority within the Seventh-day Adventist movement. Because many of the contested events were witnessed by multiple people, and because contemporaneous accounts exist outside of her own later narratives, the problem cannot be resolved simply by denying that eyewitnesses were present or that they recorded what they saw. As a result, a predictable set of responses is often employed by SDAs to neutralize contrary eyewitness accounts.
- Questioning the motives of the eyewitnesses. Rather than addressing the substance of the testimony, critics are frequently portrayed as “prejudiced,” “hostile,” or as having “an axe to grind.” This approach shifts the discussion away from what was witnessed to speculative judgments about intent, without demonstrating that the testimony itself is factually false.
- Appealing to Mrs. White’s own denials. Statements from Ellen White rejecting the eyewitness accounts are often presented as decisive, even when those denials are themselves the point under examination. In some cases, these responses include personal accusations against the witnesses, casting doubt on their character instead of resolving the factual conflict.
- Introducing counter-testimony from loyal adherents. Later “eyewitness” statements or endorsements from committed Seventh-day Adventists are sometimes produced to offset unfavorable accounts. Such testimonies, however, are frequently separated from the events by time, filtered through institutional loyalty, or reliant upon Ellen White’s own retellings rather than independent observation.
The Lucinda Burdick Case
Lucinda Burdick was the wife of a pastor. She was a close friend of Ellen Harmon during the mid-1840s, and was an eyewitness to some of Ellen's failed predictions. The two parted company when Mrs. Burdick concluded Ellen's visions were not inspired by God. When Mrs. Burdick provided her notarized testimony of her experiences with Ellen Harmon, Mrs. White, of course, denied everything, and denounced Mrs. Burdick as a liar:
Mrs. Burdick has made statements which are glaring falsehoods. There is not a shade of truth in her statements. Can it be that she has repeated these false statements till she sincerely believes them to be truth?I have never seen any persons crowned in the kingdom of God, only on conditions that if they were faithful they would receive the crown of immortal life in the kingdom of glory. I have never stated that this one or that one was doomed or damned. I never had a testimony of this kind for anyone. I have ever been shown that God's people should shun these strong expressions which are peculiar to the first-day Adventists. These very expressions have been used unsparingly by John Howell, the first husband of Mrs. Burdick. But I never uttered them myself to any living mortal.1
A closer examination will reveal who really has a problem with honesty. First, Sister White said she "never" saw any persons crowned in the kingdom of God except on conditions they were faithful. We do not have every word that Mrs. White spoke, so we cannot evaluate whether or not this is true. There are certainly witnesses who claim she made such statements. However, we do have a couple statements where she saw various people in heaven:
| Claim made by Ellen White | Was she honest? You decide. |
|---|---|
| "I have never seen any persons crowned in the kingdom of God, only on conditions that if they were faithful they would receive the crown of immortal life in the kingdom of glory." |
"We all went under the tree [of life], and sat down to look at the glory of the place, when brothers Fitch and Stockman, who had preached the gospel of the kingdom, and whom God had laid in the grave to save them, came up to us and asked us what we had passed through while they were sleeping."2
"I saw that she [Mrs. Hastings] was sealed and would come up at the voice of God and stand upon the earth, and would be with the 144,000. I saw we need not mourn for her; she would rest in the time of trouble."3 |
Secondly, Mrs. White claimed she never said anyone was "doomed" or "damned." The following written evidence contradicts that:
| Claim made by Ellen White | Was she honest? You decide. |
|---|---|
| "I have never stated that this one or that one was doomed or damned. I never had a testimony of this kind for anyone. I have ever been shown that God's people should shun these strong expressions...I never uttered them myself to any living mortal." |
"Then I saw the Laodiceans [first-day Adventists].... Dare they admit that the door is shut? The sin against the Holy Ghost was to ascribe to Satan what belongs to God or what the Holy Ghost has done. They said the shut door was of the devil and now admit it is against their own lives. They shall die the death."4
"Thomas Paine, whose body has now moldered to dust and who is to be called forth at the end of the one thousand years, at the second resurrection, to receive his reward and suffer the second death, is represented by Satan as being in heaven, and highly exalted there."5 "[At the resurrection of the wicked] there was the proud, ambitious Napoleon, whose approach had caused kingdoms to tremble."6 "I saw that the slave master will have to answer for the soul of his slave whom he has kept in ignorance; and the sins of the slave will be visited upon the master. ...the master must endure the seven last plagues and then come up in the second resurrection and suffer the second, most awful death."7 |
After reviewing this evidence, one must ask themselves: Who lied? Lucinda Burdick? Or, Ellen White?
Integrity Challenges
Throughout her career Mrs. White was plagued with questions about her integrity. Most of the questions involved her habit of taking the writings of other authors and publishing them under her name. In recent years, abundant evidence has surfaced showing Mrs. White plagiarized extensively. However, she claimed the words she wrote were her own:
The words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation.8
Seventh-day Adventist professor Fred Veltman spent eight years, at the expense of the SDA sect, examining the charges of plagiarism in Ellen White's book Desire of Ages. At the conclusion of his study, he wrote this about her habit of copying the writings of others:
It strikes at the heart of her honesty, her integrity, and therefore her trustworthiness.9
Credibility Challenges
Mrs. White's credibility is further shaken by what she wrote of the story of the arrest and trial of Israel Dammon. Mrs. White's story of the event differs sharply from the sworn testimony given under oath by multiple eyewitnesses, both friend and foe, in a court of law. The difference between her story and the eyewitness testimonies is so profound that one is left wondering whether Mrs. White was even at the same event!
Even her private lifestyle denied the mystique she portrayed in her public life. For example,
- She wore jewelry in private, while publicly telling others it was wrong.
- She ate meat in private, while publicly telling others it was wrong.
- She used vinegar in private, while publicly telling others it was wrong.
- She spent money on photography in private, while publicly telling others to devote that money to God's service.
- She publicly told others that phrenology was satanic but privately took her children for readings.
- She publicly warned others against reading fiction, while privately she read fictional books.
- She publicly told others it was wrong for them to be depressed, while privately she was frequently depressed.
Can You Trust Sister White?
When the same measure of judgment is applied to Mrs. White as she used upon others, it can be seen that Mrs. White is the one who suffered problems with honesty, integrity, and credibility. Given her propensity to deceive others, are her writings really trustworthy?
See also