Predictions: Christ Coming in 1845?

The origin of this charge comes from a statement by Lucinda Burdick (to learn about her click here), a nineteenth-century critic of Ellen White. This statement was published in Miles Grant’s periodical, The World’s Crisis, July 1, 1874, and his pamphlet, The True Sabbath: Which Day Shall We Keep? An Examination of Mrs. Ellen White’s Visions (1874; 2nd ed. 1877). In this statement, Burdick claimed:

There were also many failures. She pretended God showed her things which did not come to pass. At one time she saw that the Lord would come the second time in June, 1845. The prophecy was discussed in all the churches, and in a little “shut-door paper” published in Portland, Me. During the summer, after June passed, I heard a friend ask her how she accounted for the vision? She replied that “they told her in the language of Canaan, and she did not understand the language; that it was the next September that the Lord was coming, and the second growth of grass instead of the first in June.” September passed, and many more have passed since, and we have not seen the Lord yet (An Examination of Mrs. Ellen White’s Visions, page 73, 1874 ed.; bold mine).

This old charge can be answered as follows:

1. Within two months Ellen White responded privately to Grant’s July 1, 1874 Crisis in a letter to J. N. Loughborough declaring, “I hereby testify in the fear of God that the charges of Miles Grant, of Mrs. Burdick and others published in the “Crisis” are not true” (Lt. 2, 1874; 8MR 228). She added: “Now the very ones who were deepest in fanaticism cruelly charge upon me that delusion which I had not the slightest sympathy with, but from which my soul recoiled. And I bore a straightforward testimony to condemn these fanatical movements from first to last. 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?” (Lt. 2, 1874; 8MR, 238; emphasis mine).
2. The 1874 statement by Lucinda, along with its 1908 counterpart, is often used by critics to prove that Ellen White’s predictions never came true. It is very significant, however, that decades before Lucinda Burdick wrote her letters, Ellen White addressed the issue of predictions in her first published book, A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of E. G. White (1851). To be fair to Mrs. White, then, we must listen to her side of the story. In the following paragraph, she is writing about the period in 1845 described by Lucinda:
   

   “At this time there was fanaticism in Maine. Some refrained wholly from labor, and disfellowshipped all those who would not receive their views on this point, and some other things which they held to be religious duties. God revealed these errors to me in vision, and sent me to his erring children to declare them; but many of them wholly rejected the message, and charged me with conforming to the world. On the other hand, the Nominal Adventists charged me with fanaticism, and I was falsely, and by some wickedly represented as being the leader of the fanaticism that I was actually laboring to do away. Different times were repeatedly set for the Lord to come, and were urged upon the brethren.– But the Lord shewed me that they would all pass by, for the time of trouble must come before the coming of Christ, and that every time that was set, and passed by, would only weaken the faith of God’s people. For this I was charged with being with the evil servant, that said in his heart, “My Lord delayeth his coming” (A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of E. G. White, page 7; emphasis mine).

   Years later Ellen described the same period, referring to the above statement and providing further clarification (emphasis mine):

     “Some had taken extreme views of certain texts of scripture, refraining wholly from labor, and rejecting all those who would not receive their ideas on this and other points pertaining to religious duty. God revealed these errors to me in vision, and sent me to instruct His erring children; but many of them wholly rejected the message, and charged me with conforming to the world. On the other hand, the nominal Adventists charged me with fanaticism, and I was falsely represented as the leader of the fanaticism which I was laboring constantly to arrest.

   Different times were set for the Lord to come, and were urged upon the brethren. But the Lord showed me that they would pass by, for the time of trouble must take place before the coming of Christ, and that every time that was set, and passed, would weaken the faith of God’s people. For this I was charged with being the evil servant that said: “My Lord delayeth His coming.”

   These statements relative to time setting were printed about thirty years ago, and the books containing them have been circulated everywhere; yet some ministers claiming to be well acquainted with me, state that I have set time after time for the Lord to come, and those times have passed, therefore my visions are false. No doubt these false statements are received by many as truth; but none who are acquainted with me or with my labors can in candor make such report. This is the testimony I have ever borne since the passing of the time in 1844: “Time after time will be set by different ones, and will pass by; and the influence of this time setting will tend to destroy the faith of God’s people” (1T 72; emphasis mine).

   Note several significant points:

   • Fanaticism and time setting were flourshing in Maine during 1845.

   • The young Ellen Harmon could easily have been confused with these time setters.

   • Ellen White’s testimony on time setting is consistent: the Lord showed her it was wrong.

   • From the very beginning Ellen White rejected any time setting since the passing of 1844.

   • One will find after researching the EGW CD ROM of her published writings that she rejected all forms of time setting for Christ’s coming. See, for example, her article, “It Is Not for You to Know the Times and the Seasons” (RH, March 29, 1892), where she cites her writings and categorically rejects any time setting for the Second Coming. See also Roger Coon’s lecture: “Ellen White and Time Setting.”

3. In 1875 Marion C. S. Truesdail (later Crawford), who was acquainted with the young Ellen Harmon in 1845, specifically responded to Burdick’s charges in a public statement signed by herself and five others that corroborate Ellen White’s statements cited above. Regarding Lucinda’s time-setting charge, Marion wrote:
   

   Mrs. B. claims that Miss Harmon saw that the Lord would come in June, 1845, & then after the passing of June, Sept. was claimed as the correct time. If this be true, it is very strange Miss Harmon neglected to mention so important a revelation; and besides, she had a vision during her stay or visit at my father’s (which was in either July or Aug. 1845) and the subject of any specified time, in either that year, or any other, was unmentioned (“A Statement Regarding the Charges of Mrs. L. S. Burdick by Marion C. S. Truesdail;” bold mine).

   To read the entire Truesdail statement click here: “A Statement Regarding the Charges of Mrs. L. S. Burdick By Marion C. S. Truesdail”

4. In October of 1845 Ellen had the “Time of Trouble Vision,” which helped James White and others abandon time setting as they came to realize that there were yet more events that needed to transpire before the Second Coming. James wrote of this experience:
   

   It is well known that many were expecting the Lord to come at the 7th month, 1845. That Christ would then come we firmly believed. A few days before the time passed, I was at Fairhaven, and Dartmouth Mass., with a message on this point of time. At this time, Ellen was with the band at Carver, Mass., where she saw in vision, that we should be disappointed, and that the saints must pass through the “time of Jacob’s trouble,” which was future. Her view of Jacob’s trouble was entirely new to us, as well as herself (Word to the Little Flock, page 22; bold mine).

   As such, one of Ellen White’s visions in 1845 corrected the false concept of time setting for the group that would eventually become the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Unfortunately, however, various individuals would continue to set dates for the Second Coming over the years. But these individuals always received a rebuke from Ellen White concerning this futile practice. See above and Roger Coon’s lecture: “Ellen White and Time Setting.”

5. One side issue is worth noting. Miles Grant, who published Lucinda Burdick’s charge that Ellen White engaged in time setting during 1845, was himself engaged in time setting during 1854. His periodical, The World’s Crisis, had its beginning in trumpeting the coming of Christ in 1854. When Christ did not come, Grant continued publishing his periodical, which would eventually turn on Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventist teaching. See George Knight, Millennial Fever and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1993), page 285; and the Review and Herald Extra, April 14, 1874, page 3. This entire Extrawas a detailed response to the charges of Miles Grant against Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventism. As such, Seventh-day Adventists in 1874 were very familiar with the charges of Miles Grant, Lucinda Burdick, and others.In one section of the Extra, none other than Dudley Canright responded to Grant’s charge (based on Lucinda’s testimony) that Ellen White “saw the Lord would come in June, 1845”:
   

   It is true that sister White has since 1844 opposed the setting of time for the Lord to come; and so have the S. D. Adventist as a people, as all their publications for a quarter of a century will show. But Eld. Grant has been a leading spirit as one of the fanatical timeists, setting and preaching time after time as he had to publically confess in his meeting above-mentioned, held in this city. As questions were asked to draw out his true position as an Adventist [not SDA but first-day Adventist], it was amusing to see him evade the point, and try to keep back his true colors. . . . But about his time-setting, indeed, the false and fanatical time-movement of 1854 gave birth to the World’s Crisis, which has lived on time-setting much of the time since, and this, too, under the editorship of Eld. Grant (RH Extra, April 14, 1874, page 3).

Thus, in light of the above evidence, the Lucinda Burdick charge that Ellen White set dates for Christ to come in 1845 is a “glaring falsehood.”

Jud Lake, Th.D., D.Min.