Falshaw, Mich by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 23, 1864

"Falshaw, Mich."

By Editor

BRETHREN in Michigan, did you ever hear of this strange locality? Can any of you point out its position on the map, or tell in what part of the State it is situated? In what direction shall we go, and how shall we reach it from Battle Creek? We are interested in this place, not because of any present associations with it; for we do not know that anything important is now transpiring there. None of our tents are located there, never have been; we have no church there; nor has present truth ever made, to our knowledge, much of a stir in that section; but in that unknown region, according to one of our opponents, sister White once had a vision! L. H. Chase of Adrian, Mich., in the Gospel Banner of Aug. 15, 1864, purports to give an extract from "Ellen White's book of visions," which opens thus: "The Lord gave me the following view in Palsshaw, Mich." The vision from which he quoted, does read as follows: "The Lord gave me the following view in 1847, while at Topsham, Me." Shall we set this down as an index of the writer's accuracy in quoting from the vision? We hope he does not always become so confused.

But our object in introducing this subject is to refer to the following question which he asks in connection with his quotation from the vision: "Was a single theory taught in the so-called third angel's message, that did not have its origin in Ellen White's visions?"

We chronicle this as another instance of either profound ignorance of our views, or a gross misrepresentation of them. We would ask him or any one else to point to a single theory which we promulgate in connection with the third angel's message, which did have its origin in the visions. Not that we think any the less of them on this account; for this is not, and never has been claimed to be, their province. In addition to this we will ask a question on another point, which a person would be inexcusable for misrepresenting, though he might be misinformed on the other; and that is, Are any of our theories dependent on the visions for support? Do we defend them by the visions? or do we rest them upon the word of God, and defend them wholly by that? All know how this is. They know that we advocate nothing for which we cannot draw support from the word of God. Now for the conclusion: If a theory is found in the word of God; if it is there seen to be clearly recorded, defended and established, what matters it how or in what way it was suggested? And hence if, on the ground of our opponents, our views which we find so amply sustained by the word of God, did originate in the visions, it only proves that the visions and the word agree. Consistency is a jewel not often over-exhibited on the part of the opposition to the truth.

The often recurring question is still unanswered, Why all this opposition to the visions? Why is every opportunity watched to throw out a sneer, a slur, or an insinuation against them? What evil have they done? Do they lead to anything immoral, irreligious, worldly, low or degrading? On the other hand, is not their tendency in every respect just the reverse? Then why is there such commotion against them? If the test laid down by the Saviour still holds good, that by their fruits we are to know them, then those who oppose them damage themselves more than they do the visions.