I recently read through Spiritual Gifts, Volume 1 by EGW. A traditional SDA on another website was promoting it as the first (and implicitly the most genuine) version of the Great Controversy.

The last half of the booklet contains several chapters on the events surrounding the 1844 Great Disappointment. I’m sure there wasn’t really anything new here I hadn’t read in more detail in the GC or Early Writings.  But the condensing of the 1844 account in this volume had the effect of making some aspects of what I would call the 1844 mythology stand out in ways that, oddly enough, helped demythologize what went on.

For example. While most of the focus of SDA history has been on October 22, 1844, it is actually the case that there was at least one prior Great Disapointment sometime in 1843 or immediately afterward, 1843 being the year first predicted by the Millerites for the Second Coming, but which as time passed into 1844, obviously needed to be revised.

Nevertheless, despite the failure of this first time prophesy, and the apparent ridicule that accompanied it, the advent believers found reason to extend the prophetic time period into 1844.  But instead of exhibiting some sense of humility about the failure of their prior predictions, and whatever derogatory claims they may have made against the mainstream churches while their first predictions were being rejected, they basically “doubled down” by going on to claim that the mainstream churches were now “Babylon and were fallen”, thus fulfilling the Second Angel’s message of Revelation 14:8 (linked with Revelation 18:4), the First Angel’s message of Revelation 14:7 having already been given in 1843. This second angel’s message was also somehow linked to the Midnight Cry and the announcement that the Bridegroom of Matthew 25 was soon to come.

EGW is not specific in this volume as to when the correction from 1843 to 1844 was made, or at what time the Seventh Month movement, as it came to be known, and the October 22 date it predicted, was adopted by the advent believers. But her writings continue to stress that the mainstream churches that had been right in rejecting the advent believers’ first time prophesy were still in the wrong and earning Jesus’ frown.

But, alas, even this second (or possibly third time setting prediction--again it isn’t clear from this account whether some other period in 1844 had been supported before the October 22 date was finally agreed upon; although EGW doesn’t touch on it in this volume, other writings of this period have suggested that the Spring of the year was the appointed time, so there might have been still a third disappointment.) prediction yielded yet still another disappointment, the Big One.

Nevertheless, after at least two prophetic failures, and after having heaped abuse on other Christians for not following them, the advent believers (at least the ones surrounding EGW) still refused to admit their errors and, I can’t really think of a better word, repent for the way they treated the other believers.

The shortness of this volume also has the effect of highlighting other problems with the traditional account--the appropriation of the “tarrying time” from Habakkuk 2 to “explain” the failure of first believing in 1843 instead of 1844, and in addition, the linking of the Coming of the Bridegroom from Matthew 25 to the Second Angel’s message.

Again, I realize I’m probably not adding anything new here than hasn’t been laid out by others such as Dale Ratzlaf. But the 1844 mythology is a very powerful component of SDA’s legitimacy. Despite the fact that the church’s founders were incorrect (at best) on more than one occasion, and blasphemous at worst in their depiction of the other churches, the 1844 event and its believers are discussed and viewed in a unique spirit of awe (at least for those of us like me who grew up in a more traditional SDA household).

Glenn,

Interesting points you bring up.

It is this story surrounding 1844 that is key in making it impossible for me to be an SDA. By definition, the leadership has said that the SDA church stands or falls on this unique doctrine. I cannot support a church that continues to believe one version or the other of the mythology of 1844. We have an entire denomination founded on a nonevent. If Christ did not go from the Holy Place to the Most Holy in 1844, then the entire house of cards falls down.

This does not mean that there are not good things in Adventism. I highly value my education in Adventist schools. I am thankful to have grown up Adventist, but I can’t be an SDA as long as they hold to such unbiblical doctrines as these. Especially when the very concept of the Investigative Judgment strikes at the very heart of the gospel.

Stan

Just to clarify some things, I picked up some related facts about the time period from Adventist scholar George R. Knight’s Millennial Fever after making the first post.

The first disappointment came after March 21, 1844.  Interestingly, William Miller was reluctant to set a specific date. According to Knight, Miller believed that Jesus would come sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844, although many if not most of the advent preachers during this time regarded the March 21 date as “soft”.

And after the passing of March 21, 1844, Miller did in fact apologize and express his regret for his mistake in the time reckoning. For this reason he was hesitent to attach any significance to any further time predictions.

The October 22, 1844 date, moreover, was not set by Miller, who only came to embrace it in early October. It was established at an advent campmeeting in August of 1844.

Miller also disgreed with Charles Fitch’s “Come out of Babylon” call in July of 1843 and in 1845 wrote that the call to come out of Babylon, as it pertained to the Protestant churches, was one of the advent movement’s greatest mistakes (words to that effect).

Something else interesting about the account in SG1 is EGW’s characterization of the believers in 1844. On page 142 she says of the waiting group--

[quote author="EGW"] A holy solemnity was resting upon them. Angels with the deepest interest had watched the result, and were elevating those who received the heavenly message, and were drawing them from earthly things to obtain large supplies from salvation’s fountain. God’s people were then accepted with him. Jesus looked upon them with pleasure. His image was reflected in them .

The phrase in bold print brings to mind the famous quote from Christ’s Object Lessons, page 69, where she says that Jesus will come when His character (image) is perfectly reproduced in His people.

But later on page 148 she says--

[quote author="EGW"] Said my accompanying angel, They are again disappointed in their expectations. Jesus cannot yet come to earth. They must yet suffer for Jesus and endure greater trials. They must give up errors and traditions received from men, and turn wholly to God and his word. They must be purified, made white and tried .

Maybe this isn’t inconsistent, but it appears conflicting. The saints were first said to be reflecting Jesus’ image, but later that they were still in error on some things and needed to be tried and made pure.

Thanks Glenn for some very interesting insight.

I think it is clear if we judged Adventism and Ellen White in light of “Early Writings” and the early belief system, then it is clear that SDA would be classified in Walter Martin’s book “Kingdom of the Cults” as one of the cults.

William Miller was discerning enough to recognize the early Adventists as a spurious new movement and recognized that the call out of Babylon to the rest of the Protestant churches was indeed false.

William Miller repudiated his work, and died a faithful Christian. Ellen White though did give William Miller a special place in history, even though she knew Miller repudiated the Advent message.

By the grace of God, Adventism has at least tried to move itself back to more orthodox positions, and evangelical SDAs would clearly repudiate much of this early mythology, but, I am still unsure what Ellen White really believed before her death. If she really wrote Desire of Ages, then I would have to be more sympathetic to those who would affirm that she was truly regenerate, as Walter Martin believed. HMS Richards Sr. did apparently know Ellen White, and he certainly affirmed that she was a true believer.

But when I read Early Writings, I get a very uncomfortable feeling about Ellen White, whereas, when I read “Desire of Ages”, I feel differently. Fortunately, I am not the judge.

Stan

Glenn,

Thanks for bringing your insights to our attention.

Lost in all of the 1844 debate is William Miller’s honesty in admitting he was wrong to set a date for Christ’s return.  In my mind, he gets a lot of credit for repudiating his error and returning to his Protestant church.  The early Adventists would have done well to repent along with him instead of coming up with a different story to fit their disappointment.  What was initially a verifiable event (Christ’s return) became a non-verifiable event (Christ moving from one heavenly apartment to another), thereby saving themselves of the embarrassment endured by William Miller.

I recall hearing Desmond Ford speak about this doctrine, and he believed that God may have allowed this error for a particular reason--to keep Adventists together as a group and to renew interest within the Christian church in the second coming.  Raymond Cottrell came to the same conclusion in his Adventist Forum presentation, The Sanctuary Doctrine, Asset or Liability?:

[quote author="Raymond Cottrell"]
The ephemeral umbilical cord is essential to life prior to birth, but totally irrelevant thereafter. May it be that the traditional sanctuary doctrine was a sort of spiritual umbilical cord God permitted as a means of reviving advent expectancy, but should be discarded once it had served its purpose?

I am not sure I agree with this, but I do agree with his conclusion:

[quote author="Raymond Cottrell"]
The presupposition that Daniel 8:14, when given, anticipated events of our time was the basic cause of the 1844 error and the resulting disappointment. Continued disappointment will be inevitable until this error is recognized and corrected, and the historicist principle on which it is based, is abandoned.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]I am still unsure what Ellen White really believed before her death. If she really wrote Desire of Ages, then I would have to be more sympathetic to those who would affirm that she was truly regenerate, as Walter Martin believed. HMS Richards Sr. did apparently know Ellen White, and he certainly affirmed that she was a true believer.

But when I read Early Writings, I get a very uncomfortable feeling about Ellen White, whereas, when I read “Desire of Ages”, I feel differently. Fortunately, I am not the judge.

Stan

Bradford devotes a whole chapter to “The Theological Growth of EGW” in “More Than a Prophet” I believe that EGW was progressive despite her strong dogmatic stances in certain areas. However, she was dogmatic on areas that she changed her mind in too. Many of her quotes also say the same thing: If we aren’t moving forward, we are moving backward and if long held beliefs don’t add up when scrutinized, it’s time to chuck them.

The uber-conservatives refuse to acknowledge this to some extent, being led by a 19th century mindset in all religious aspects of their lives. They reject the Great Controversy 1911 revision (despite this being spearheaded by White), instead clinging to the 1858 version regardless of its glaring errors. If they had their way, they would bring the church back to pre-1888. I believe that were they back then, they would have sided against against Jones and Waggoner. EGW didn’t,however.

Yes, she had her moments. Yes, she said some things that don’t add up (she was only human). Yes, she took a hard line on some things I believe were false. However, I think she was one of the most progressive pioneers we had. I believe (as does Bacchiocchi and Bradford) that were she alive today, she’d have accepted and endorsed many of the changes some of our scholars are making that show our historical interpretation in certain areas needs to be revised. She did this with other areas when shown to be suspect (shut door, 1888 righteousness by faith message), why not these ones?

Thanks Guibox. This thread had gotten lost amid the other threads, but this topic is of utmost importance. What do we make of 1844?

I actually appreciate what Graeme Bradford has written, but the implications of what he is saying is quite frightening to the SDA church. When I made a reference to Bradford on a conservative SDA site, I got roundly scolded. Historical SDA and the myth of an inerrant White would be out the window if Bradford’s conclusions are followed to where they logically lead. The issue would become--what would really be left of original Adventism?

Stan

Lets take another look at “The Great Disappointment”.  This is a subject that was actually prophecied in Matt. 25.  In fact, the Ten Virgin ‘story’ is not a story at all, but a continuation of what Jesus was talking about in chapter 24.  Jesus had been explaining that just before His coming like a thief, (perhaps not the same event as coming in the clouds), ONE person would be in charge of the “Masters House” and that this ONE person would have a choice, just as Adam had a choice.  Hi said that it would be good for this person to be ‘feediing’ the rest of the servants ‘at the proper time’. 

This feeding would be the spiritual food of new truth in order for the bond servants to testify to this new truth during the time of trouble. 

William Miller (and many others)had come to the conclusion that Jesus would come in 1843-1844 because of the prophecy found in Dan. 8:14.  But, what IF their interpertation was the only thing that was wrong, and that what really happened was that the Kingdom of Heaven (that ‘rock’ cut out that lasts forever), was actually set up?  Lets put the puzzel together.

First, the ‘Ten Virgins’ are not the ‘Bride’, but only the servants for the Bride.  It would be their duty to get the Bride READY for the marriage.

Lets take another look at “The Great Disappointment”.  This is a subject that was actually prophesied in Matt. 25.  In fact, the Ten Virgin ‘story’ is not a story at all, but a continuation of what Jesus was talking about in chapter 24.  Jesus had been explaining that just before His coming like a thief, (perhaps not the same event as coming in the clouds), ONE person would be in charge of the “Masters House” and that this ONE person would have a choice, just as Adam had a choice.  Hi said that it would be good for this person to be ‘feeding’ the rest of the bondservants ‘at the proper time’.  This feeding would be the spiritual food of new truth in order for the bondservants to testify to this new truth during the time of trouble. 

William Miller (and many others) had come to the conclusion that Jesus would come in 1843-1844 because of the prophecy found in Dan. 8:14.  But, what IF their interpretation was the only thing that was wrong, and that what really happened was that the Kingdom of Heaven (that ‘rock’ cut out that lasts forever), was actually set up?  Lets put the puzzle together.

First, the ‘Ten Virgins’ are not the ‘Bride’, but only the servants for the Bride.  It would be their duty to get the Bride READY for the marriage.  This group would therefore NOT be a group before, but be formed from out of the Bride, (the rest of the churches).  This group would think that Jesus was going to come and all of them ‘go’ to meet him.  Jesus would not come at that time and they would ALL then go to sleep (spiritually).  All of them think that they are ready, but since they do NOT have the truth (see Rev. 21:8 and 22:15) they believe lies and Jesus can’t come, because the Bride is also not ready.

Now, IF the “Seven Churches” found in Rev. 2 and 3 is the character of the Kingdom of Heaven in the very last days, (and it would be appropriate to say they are), then the fifth church, Sardis, will compare with the Ten Virgin story/prophecy.  Please note that Sardis can only be an entity within the last generation on Earth. 

The last sentence of the ‘warning’ to Sardis states that there will be a ‘few’ that will not be asleep.  These ‘few’ will be the 144,000 that will become sealed before the time of trouble.  They will go through the time of trouble, but it will not be a test for them.  They can be identified by the 6th of the ‘Seven Churches, Philadelphia. 

What is most interesting to former Adventists and those that KNOW that Ellen White was a false prophetess is the description of the Fourth Church, Thyatira, found in Rev. 2:18-29.  Go ahead and read this.  Notice that she was even prophesied about. 

Remember that the good and faithful servant will be feeding the rest of the servants at the proper time?  This food that will be served will be NEW TRUTH.  Notice that this woman in Thyatira has been feeding the people food, but this is food is from Satan, none other than LIES!  Yes, it has led the leaders and teachers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church astray, away from their first love, that is the search for NEW TRUTH!  So, since the SDA Church fits the Ten Virgins to a tee, we need to take a closer look at this issue.