In 1851, Ellen White allegedly had a vision where she claimed, in part:
I saw that Jesus prayed for his enemies; but that should not cause us to pray for the wicked world, whom God has rejected. When he prayed for His enemies there was hope for them, and they could be benefited and saved by his prayers, and also after he was a mediator in the outer apartment for the whole world; but now his spirit and sympathy were withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy must be with Jesus, and must be withdrawn from the ungodly.
Ellen G. White, Camden, New York Vision (June 21, 1851)
If this is accurate, it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of Ellen White’s prophetic claims and the foundation of the present-day Seventh-day Adventist Church. If, as taught in the 19th century, the lost world had been rejected by God, Jesus no longer interceded for them, and His sympathy had been withdrawn, then modern Adventists face the same spiritual predicament as everyone else.
This “vision” occurred during a period when the Little Flock—a small group of disappointed Millerites that later formed the Seventh-day Adventist Church—was teaching that the “door of mercy” had been shut, salvation was no longer possible, probation had ended, and Christ’s return was imminent. Ellen White herself recognized this was believed, only she claims it was only for a small period of time before the Great Disappointment in 1844. We have shown that this is not true here.
But in light of these historical teachings, the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its defenders have sought to either dismiss this vision or reinterpret its meaning. For instance, SDA pastor and apologist Kevin Morgan, speaking on our platform, defended the vision by drawing on other statements within it to support Ellen White’s credibility.
However, the normative defense to this vision is that it wasn’t actually written out by Ellen White and is a forgery by R. R. Chapin, the man credited with copying it. The charge of forgery originated with Arthur White, Ellen’s grandson, and was then regurgitated by the likes of people such as mid-century SDA apologist Francis Nichol’s who, in his book, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, writes:
We are not quoting from a work published by Seventh-day Adventists, but from the writings of the critics, and why? Because they are the only ones to whom we can go for the text of this alleged vision “at Camden, N. Y., June 29, 1851.” The “vision” consists of about 400 words. We have quoted that part of it which the critics quote.
Even if these words were spoken by Mrs. White they could hardly be said to teach differently from John, who says: “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” 1 John 5:16. In order to make this alleged vision conform both to Scripture and to the position taken by Mrs. White, that some had sinned away their day of grace, we need only to understand by the phrase, “I saw that the wicked could not be benefited by our prayers now,” to mean the willfully wicked who had rejected light. But to keep the whole record straight, we challenge the authenticity of this alleged Camden vision.
Francis Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pg. 229-30 (EGWC 229.5)
Nichol firmly denied that this vision could legitimately be attributed to Ellen White. However, even if it were authentic, he argued that she never claimed salvation was entirely closed or that no one else could be saved. Instead, he asserted that her vision referred only to those who had heard and rejected the Millerite and Little Flock message. In other words, we are expected to believe that by using terms like “world” and “wicked world,” Ellen White was referring exclusively to the small portion of the global population that was exposed to the Millerite and Little Flock message and rejected it.
Nevertheless, the defenses one can usually anticipate to hear against it include:
The Context of the Vision: The 1850 vision in Camden reportedly addressed a single woman, not the “wicked world” as a whole.
No Similar Statements in Ellen White’s Published Writings: There are no comparably strong statements supporting the “Shut Door” in her published works.
Discrepancy in Location and Timing: According to her assistant, D.E. Robinson, Ellen White was in Camden, NY, in 1850—not 1851, as alleged.
R.R. Chapin, the individual credited with copying the vision, later left the SDA Church. His departure was acknowledged in the August 22, 1854, issue of Review & Herald in an article titled “Mark Them Which Cause Divisions” where we read:
We are informed that Russell, Case, &c., of Michigan, are determined to make division among the churches in that State; and from different sources we learn that they are uniting with Wyman and [R. R.] Chapin of this State, with a determination to divide the flock, and raise up a party at all hazards. They even talk of starting a paper in which to vindicate their own course, and expose us, especially Mrs. W’s views. From what we know of these men, and their present excited state of feeling, we may expect from them the most gross misrepresentations, and shameful abuse. They have been sources of severe trials to the churches for a year or two past; while their brethren have suffered much from them and have labored patiently and faithfully with them. And now, as they are set aside by the churches, they are determined to injure them as much as possible. They will doubtless be joined and cheered on by the bitterest enemies of the present truth.
Review & Herald, August 22, 1854
This is to say that it was already being circulated by 1854 that Chapin was causing issues for the movement in Michigan due to his vocalized questioning of Ellen White’s visions. This has then been used as leverage to say that he fabricated this vision, attributing it to Ellen White to spite her.
But what does the evidence actually bear out?
Weighing the Evidence
For starters, the claim that language like this vision is anomalous to Mrs. White’s writings is simply not true. She used similar language many times in many other visions. Such as in the August 1, 1849 issue of The Present Truth where she said:
My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it; for the time for their salvation is past.
Ellen G. White, The Present Truth, August 1, 1849
Adventists have argued the “context” of this statement for decades, but irrespective of that, it clearly shows her using language on par with what we find in the Camden Vision.
While praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell on me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not find them—when a voice said to me, “Look again, and look a little higher.” At this I raised my eyes and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the City, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the first end of the path, which an angel told me was the Midnight Cry. This light shone all along the path, and gave light for their feet so they might not stumble. And if they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the City, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and they said the City was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising his glorious right arm, and from his arm came a glorious light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted Hallelujah! Others rashly denied the light behind them, and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus, and fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path one after another, until we heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus’ coming.
Ellen G. White, Word to the Little Flock, pg. 14 (WLF 14.2)
This is from Ellen White’s first purported vision, branded “The Path” vision, from December 1844. In this vision, she claimed that God rejected the world for rejecting the “Midnight Cry”—the proclamation of the Millerite message about Christ’s imminent return in 1843–1844. According to White, God allegedly revealed that those who accepted the reinterpretation of the Midnight Cry (following the failed prediction of 1844) were on the path to heaven. This reinterpretation of the Midnight Cry supposedly illuminated their way to salvation.
However, those who abandoned the message, recognizing it as a deception, were said to have fallen off the path and into the “wicked world,” which God had rejected along with the rest of the world.
Interestingly, Seventh-day Adventist pioneer Uriah Smith, who was closely associated with Ellen White and her family, did not believe this vision manuscript was fabricated. In his 1868 book, The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, Manifestations of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures, he addressed various objections to her visions, including her “Shut Door” statements. The statements of hers he points out and provides defenses for include:
- “I saw that Jesus finished his mediation in the holy place in 1844.”
- “He [Jesus] has gone into the most holy, where the faith of Israel now reaches.”
- “His Spirit and sympathy are now withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy should be with him.”
- “The wicked could not be benefitted by our prayers now.”
- “The wicked world whom God had rejected.”
- “It seemed that the whole world was taken in the snare [of Spiritualism], that there could not be one left.”
- “The time for their salvation is past.”
While his central defense was that these statements are being misunderstood and twisted, he is seeking to defend them and their authenticity as long as they are properly understood. Within that list we find 4 from the 1851 Camden Vision:
- “His Spirit and sympathy are now withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy should be with him.”
- “The wicked could not be benefitted by our prayers now.”
- “The wicked world whom God had rejected.”
- “The time for their salvation is past.”
The last one being the same thing we saw from the August 1, 1849 issue of The Present Truth which was also documented in her books Early Writings and Experience & Views:
I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase, and spread. The reformations that were shown me, were not reformations from error to truth. My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it; for the time for their salvation is past.
Ellen G. White, Experience & Views, pg. 27
Furthermore, Smith outright states in the book that he would only be defending and addressing that which was published under Ellen White’s name, supervision, and authority:
We now come to the teachings of the visions themselves. And it is proper here to remark that very much is reported purporting to be the testimony of the visions, for which they are not at all responsible. As a story in circulation never loses anything it its passage from one to another, but frequently comes out a very different thing from what it was when it started, so sentences spoken in vision, passing from one to another without being committed to writing, have not always been accurately reproduced by memories to which they have been entrusted, and so have come to assume a very different complexion from that which they at first wore. Our only proper course here, therefore, is to confine ourselves to what has been published under sister White’s own supervision, and by her authority, and what appears in manuscript over her own signature in her own handwriting.
Uriah Smith, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, pg. 20 (VEGW 20.1)
Among Uriah Smith’s defenses were statements found in the 1851 Camden vision. If he believed the vision to be a forgery created by an apostate to undermine the Adventist movement, why would he seek to defend it and clarify its meaning? This is especially significant given his claim that he would only defend material that was authentic and officially published under Ellen White’s name. Additionally, evidence from Smith’s book further indicates that during Ellen White’s lifetime, the Camden Vision was regarded as genuine by her and other Adventist pioneers.
The proof?
Smith’s defenses were originally published in a series of articles in the Review & Herald from June 12, 1866, to July 31, 1866, before being compiled into his book. In the June 19, 1866 issue, he addressed the “Shut Door,” and his comments suggest that he assumed his readers accepted the Camden Vision as legitimate.
Secondly, the articles in the Review required the sign off of others involved. Smith was not the lone ranger of this paper. They note their sign off on them in the June 12, 1866 issue where they write:
We commence this week the publication of Answers to Objections against the Visions. It may be proper here to state that this manuscript was prepared before our late Conference ; but its publication was withheld till it could be submitted to the ministering brethren who might then assemble, for them to decide upon its merits, and the disposition that should be made of it. It was examined by them, and received their approval, with a decision that it should be published. The most of the manuscript was also read before a joint session of the General and Michigan State Conferences, whereupon the following action was taken in reference thereto :
“Resolved, That we, the members of the General and Michigan State Conference, having heard a portion of the manuscript read, which has been prepared by Bro. U. Smith, in answer to certain objections recently brought against the visions of Sister White, do hereby express our hearty approval of the same.
“Resolved, That we tender our thanks to Bro. Smith for his able defense of the visions against the attacks of their opponents.” We would further state that in preparing these answers we have had no consultation whatever with sister White, nor received any suggestion or explanation from her on any point.
Review & Herald, June 12, 1866
This would mean that SDA Church leadership would have seen Smith’s defense of the statements found in the Camden Vision and approved of his defenses to them—indicating that they were under the impression that this vision was indeed authentic.
Thirdly, Smith’s articles were defended and promoted in another set of articles by SDA pioneer, J.N. Andrews, who urged that Adventists study them. He wrote:
The series of articles on this subject by Bro. Smith, are well worthy of the attentive perusal of the readers of the Review. I ask those who have not read them, to take time and read them with care, and those who have read them hastily, to give them further attention. I hope we may have these articles in pamphlet form. It is singular how ready the bitterest enemies of the Sabbath cause are to unite with professed Sabbath-keepers, if they will only oppose and revile the visions. It shows that they are well aware that men who take this stand, will do more to injure the Sabbath cause, than they themselves are able to do.
J.N. Andrews, Review & Herald, August 14, 1866
This proves that J.N. Andrews believed the Camden Vision to be authentic and Smith’s defenses to the statements contained within to be valid and in need of study by those in the movement.
One month later, another Adventist leader, C. O. Taylor, also endorsed Smith’s articles and defenses:
I have read with deep interest, the articles entitled The Visions, Objections Answered. There has been no subject in all the Advent message, that I have been so slow to believe as I have the visions. My mind at first was much prejudiced against them, and every advance step was taken with great caution, every point had to be weighed; and I am a believer lot them, because the evidence is so clear and conclusive that I cannot doubt them….
I consider that Bro. Smith has answered every objection, as clearly and plainly, as they could the objections of the Infidel against the Bible. I say again, Read up. Now is the time. Let them be a subject of the Bible Class. Let them have a thorough examination. Truth will stand. Many of those same objections have perhaps troubled you. Read the answers. Read twice, yea thrice, and even more, till you can see the point, and light and peace will be the reward for your labor.
C. O. Taylor, Review & Herald, September 11, 1866
The evidence clearly bears out that the Camden Vision was clearly understood to be authentic by those in positions of leadership and Ellen White was still living at the time that all of this was being published defending her visions. In fact, it can be deduced that Mrs. White was well aware of these defenses from Smith and approved of such considering that she even quoted a lengthy section from his Shut Door answer in The Great Controversy.
Conclusion
We struggle to find any statement from either James or Ellen White denying this vision or alleging that it was fabricated by R. R. Chapin. Furthermore, the path of least resistance would have been for Uriah Smith to simply deny that this vision from Ellen White was legitimate yet he didn’t take such an approach.
The evidence is available for those seeking the truth, and it strongly indicates that this vision was not fabricated by a hostile apostate opposed to the Adventist movement. If this conclusion is accurate, it presents serious challenges for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. With this being the case they obviously feel compelled to develop defenses to discredit the vision as a fabrication.
We encourage you to review the evidence yourself and draw your own conclusions.