Ellen White Judged Mesmerism by Vision, Not by the Bible
Ellen White classified mesmerism by vision, not by Scripture. The Bible commands us to test the spirits and is sufficient to teach and to correct: every revelation is judged by it.
By Rodrigo Custódio ·
The moment
In 1851, James White printed in Saratoga Springs, in the state of New York, a small volume bearing his wife's name on the cover: A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White (A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White). It was the first book by Ellen White, the young woman from Portland, Maine, who since the end of 1844 had been reporting visions to the small group of former Millerites who kept the Sabbath. The pamphlet gathered the story of her conversion and the content of the visions received up to that point. Decades later, the material would be reused in Early Writings (1882).
The visions were not accepted without contest. In 1840s America, mesmerism was in vogue. It was so-called animal magnetism, a technique derived from Franz Anton Mesmer, exhibited by itinerant demonstrators who induced trances with hand passes and a fixed gaze. Critics of the Sabbath-keeping group, including former companions of the Millerite movement, said that the young woman's ecstatic states were exactly that: suggestion, nerves, the influence of an operator. The accusation accompanied the early years of her ministry.
On page 4 of the book, Ellen White narrates one of these confrontations. A physician, whom she describes as a celebrated mesmerizer, asserted that her visions were mesmerism, that she was "a very easy subject," and that he himself could mesmerize her and "give her a vision." Her response came in two parts. First, the declaration that the Lord had shown her in vision the origin of mesmerism. Then, the challenge: she gave him freedom to try. He tried for more than half an hour and gave up.
The passage sustains two things at once. It says where mesmerism comes from, and it says where those who practice it are going: "he would soon be there, with those who continued to use it." The question was about the nature of the visions. The answer was another vision, followed by a sentence.
The absurdity
It is a court in which the defendant, accused of false testimony, calls her own deposition as an expert witness. The physician calls into question the origin of the visions, and the answer is: "a vision told me." The coin in dispute is used to pay the debt. And, into the bargain, the same vision classifies an entire practice as coming from the abyss and announces the eternal destiny of those who use it. No verse enters the room. Here are the exact words:
"I told him that the Lord had shown me in vision that mesmerism came from the Devil, from the bottomless pit"
Source: Ellen Gould White, A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White (1851), p. 4.
Highlighted excerpt from the printed page with the quoted passage, A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White, p. 4.
Why this is serious
Authority changes address. The classification of mesmerism rests on no text. It rests on "the Lord had shown me." The sentence creates a doctrinal verdict that Scripture did not pronounce in those terms and even adds a sentence to it: the operator and his clients would "soon" go to the abyss. The vision legislates, judges, and condemns. The Bible sits in the witness stand, uncalled.
The argument is circular by construction. What was at issue was precisely whether Ellen White's trances came from God or from another source. To answer with a trance is to walk in a circle and call it arrival. If a vision can attest the origin of visions, then no vision will ever be disapproved. The criterion became a mirror: the prophetess examines herself and approves herself.
Then comes the laboratory test, and it too proves nothing. An operator who fails for half an hour demonstrates only that he failed. He does not demonstrate that the earlier ecstasy came from heaven. The absence of an induced trance does not certify a spontaneous trance. But the account presents the physician's failure as a seal of authenticity: the sign comes to decide the question that only doctrine can decide. Scripture warns precisely against this (Dt 13:1-3). The prodigy that comes to pass does not validate the one who announces it.
And the effect on the believer is the most serious. Anyone who wants to know what to think of a spiritual practice learns, by this method, to consult the visionary before opening the Bible. The conscience comes to depend on private revelations, received by one person and recorded in a book that is not the canon. The flock exchanges the Word that everyone can read for a word that only one person heard.
The verdict of the Scriptures
Scripture did not need visionary reinforcement to address the matter. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 already condemns divination, enchantment, and sorcery, and it does so in a public text, open to any reader. The Word is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction" (2 Tim 3:16), so that the man of God may be "equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17). Discerning a spiritual practice is a good work. If Scripture equips perfectly, the vision adds nothing. When it is put in Scripture's place, it displaces it.
John gives the rule without exceptions: "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 Jn 4:1). The rule exempts no one, not even those who claim to have seen heaven opened. The very claim "the Lord showed me" is a spirit to be tested, not a ruler with which to test others. And the apostle explains the reason for caution: "for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 Jn 4:1). The Bereans examined the Scriptures to verify even what Paul preached (Acts 17:11). No nineteenth-century vision stands above that examination.
The biblical criterion is the law and the testimony (Is 8:20), not the result of a session before witnesses. God spoke many times and in many ways, but in these last days He has spoken by His Son (Heb 1:1-2). The faith was delivered to the saints once for all (Jude 3). A vision that classifies, sentences, and dispenses with the text does not complete that faith. It competes with it. And if an angel from heaven were to preach another foundation, Paul commands that he not be received (Gal 1:8).
The believer does not need to live under the verdict of a visionary to know which side he is on before the darkness. Christ disarmed the principalities and powers and triumphed over them on the cross (Col 2:15). The Scripture that points to Him is sufficient to teach, to correct, and to keep. The Christian's assurance does not come from an experience in which the operator gave up after half an hour. It comes from a Lord who conquered and from a Word that anyone can open and verify.