The years following the starting of The Health Reformer and the opening of the Western Health Reform Institute witnessed a stronger campaign of health education among Seventh-day Adventists than in any previous effort. The ministry stood by their pledge to follow the principles themselves and to use their "best endeavors to impress their importance upon others." They added to their libraries the best current books, and by diligent study qualified themselves to write and to lecture on health subjects. They wrote well-balanced articles for The Health Reformer and made the subject of health reform a prominent feature of their sermons when visiting the churches.
Marching Forward
The experience of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was frequently rehearsed as a journey toward the kingdom, in which the Lord had led and was still leading "step by step." The announcement of the judgment hour, the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus; the abandonment of tea, coffee, and tobacco; organization, systematic benevolence, and now the health reform were listed as definite steps in advance. It was noted that at each step some believers had fallen behind, as others had progressed. One writer, in tracing these steps, contrasted the unhappy experience of those who, failing to adopt the health reform, were remaining in the rear, with the better experience of those who were progressing. Of those who accepted the latest reform, he said:
"They saw no mountain. They marched forward and found it but a vast plain. On it were growing no poisonous nor filthy weed, nor tea nor coffee, pepper, nor hurtful condiments. The animals also enjoyed life. They found that the sun was not veiled, but they basked in its light. The breath of life was not shut out from them, but they enjoyed its free use. These they found were granted unto them freely. They saw that their motto was no longer 'work! work!' that they could enjoy seasons of rest, when they could serve the Creator, and not the creature. As they advanced, they felt their diseases, aches, and pains leaving them, and in return buoyancy of spirit, and glow of health, the greatest earthly blessings. Thus those in front accepted the offered mercies, not given by commandment or way of urging, but to obtain the blessing resulting from such a course of life and habits; by obeying the laws of their being which God implanted, and cleansing the temple for the indwelling of His Holy Spirit; which will be poured more copiously upon those who are ready to receive it."--R. M. Kilgore, in The Review and Herald, September 10, 1867.
Ministers Benefited
Ministers whose health had formerly been seriously undermined, and for whose recovery the period of fasting and prayer had been appointed, were now able to recount the benefits that followed their adoption of the principles of reform. A number of their grateful testimonies were published in the Review and Herald and in The Health Reformer. A typical note of gratitude is sounded by Elder M.E. Cornell, who wrote:
"I believe the reform came up just in time to save me from becoming a complete wreck. Fourteen years of incessant labor, with all kinds of unhealthy diet and but little attention to the laws of life, had nearly used up a strong constitution. Now I hope to recover, by the blessing of God, and endure to the end. My whole being cries out, Praise God for the health reform. Let those who have adopted the reform hold on. And I exhort all others to take hold of it in earnest."--Ibid., January 15, 1867.
Elder H.S. Gurney wrote: "The reform in diet has now become a settled thing with me. I now wish to acknowledge the benefits of this reform, spiritually, physically, and financially." He estimated that he had saved, through discarding "worse than useless articles," more than $50, which he now gladly turned in to various branches of the cause, and regarding which he said, "This is not sacrificing on our part, but on the part of a depraved appetite, which proves very beneficial."--Ibid., August 7, 1866.
Elder John Byington affirmed that a year previous he had been afflicted with a cough so severe that his survival during the winter was considered doubtful. After making proper changes in diet, he wrote thus: "My cough is better. I have gained in flesh, have more warmth in my system, and feel better prepared to endure another cold winter."--The Health Reformer, December, 1866.
"Bless God for the health reform!" wrote Elder J.H. Waggoner. "It is no cross; it is no hardship; it brings pleasure in pain and gives strength in weakness. ... When bearing heavy burdens of body and mind, when all looked dark and cheerless in this world, it has come as a messenger of mercy, strengthening the body, cheering the mind, and refreshing the spirits, and bringing the peace of the Saviour to the sorrowing soul."--The Review and Herald, January 1, 1867.
Joseph Clark, not a minister, but an able and frequent writer for the Review and Herald, wrote enthusiastically:
"Since adopting the health reform, my own health has been so much benefited that I have been at a loss to know whether it was duty to tell others of it, lest they might consider me an enthusiast; but over two years have passed away since we commenced to live out the health reform, and it is proving to be even better than I had imagined at first."--The Health Reformer, February, 1867.
Such gratifying testimonials by ministers and laymen to the benefit of the changes in health habits they had made served to strengthen the conviction of others who, urged by voice and pen, were joining the increasing army of health reformers.
Dr. J.H. Kellogg's Report
Writing reminiscently of the benefits received generally by the adoption of the health reform teachings at that time, Dr. J.H. Kellogg stated:
"Numerous reforms in diet and dress were introduced and quite generally adopted. These reforms were of such a character that, when conscientiously carried out, they invariably produced a decided change for the better on the part of those adopting them. Hundreds who had for years suffered from various chronic ailments were soon relieved of the distressing symptoms which had been endured so long. Many whose cases had been pronounced hopeless were restored to excellent health. Others who seemed to be just on the brink of the grave received a new lease of life and ability for eminent usefulness. The most extraordinary evidences of good resulting from the adoption of health reform principles--results which in many instances seemed little short of miracles--were to be met on every hand. In every community of Sabbath-keepers were to be found those who freely acknowledged that they owed their lives to the light which they had received upon this question."--The Review and Herald, January 5, 1886.
Elder James White was an exception. His constitution was undermined by many years of overtaxing labor, and this condition being climaxed by the paralytic stroke suffered in the summer of 1865, he did not quickly regain his strength. In that respect his experience was quite different from that of most of the workers who had been so quickly benefited by practicing the reform that had been presented to them.
Elder White Restored to Health
Following his return from Dansville, New York, to Battle Creek, Michigan, in December, 1865, he improved in health; but his recovery was greatly retarded because of the suggestion by the head physician at Dansville that either physical or mental exertion would prove to be dangerous and perhaps fatal. Contrary to her judgment, Mrs. White endeavored for a time to carry out the doctor's instructions, but the results only made her more certain that this course was not correct. She believed that an incentive to exertion would prove to be the needed stimulus to arouse his mind and body to resist and overcome disease. Writing in 1867, she said:
"For years past I have been shown from time to time that the sick should be taught that it was wrong to suspend all physical labor in order to regain health. In thus doing the will becomes dormant, the blood circulates through the system sluggishly and grows more impure. Where there is danger of the patient's imagining his case worse than it really is, indolence will be sure to produce the most unhappy results. Well-regulated labor gives the invalid the idea that he is not totally useless in the world, that he is, at least, of some benefit. This will afford him satisfaction, give him courage, and impart to him vigor."--The Review and Herald, October 8, 1867.
In harmony with such principles, in the spring and summer of 1866 Mrs. White encouraged her husband to travel by carriage, as his strength permitted, to visit old friends and to conduct meetings over week ends. This seemed beneficial, but with the coming of the cold winter and his confinement in a heated home, his health again began to fail. With patient fortitude and perseverance his faithful companion had sought to overcome his fears and had hoped to lead him gradually back into service, but now he again lost hope and courage.
By this time, to quote Mrs. White's words, she had "become fully satisfied" that her husband "would not recover from his protracted sickness while remaining inactive." For eighteen months she had devoted herself entirely to caring for him, but now she was convinced that the time had come when she must resume her public labors. She decided to venture with him on a tour among the churches in northern Michigan. Although it was winter, and he was extremely feeble, she felt that "to remain longer from the field" seemed "worse than death," and that should they move out they could "but perish."--Testimonies for the Church 1:570.
Accordingly on December 19, 1866, in a blinding snowstorm, they started in an open sleigh for Wright, Michigan, a distance of ninety miles. No ill effects followed, and soon Elder White united with his wife in spiritual labors for the church, speaking briefly at the Sabbath meetings. And when, on a Sabbath morning, he spoke for an hour "with clearness and power," Mrs. White wept tears of gratitude for this hopeful sign of progress.
Out-of-door Exercise Needed
Mrs. White believed that her husband's health would further improve with out-of-door labor, as his strength would permit, and so it was that in the spring of 1867 they bought a small farm in Greenville, Michigan. With the help of their son William, and with her own hands, she planted, hoed, and pruned, and was gratified to see on her husband's part an increasing interest in the project and a sharing of the work.
One incident indicates the tact and wisdom sometimes needed to persuade Elder White to take needed exercise, when it was against his judgment or inclination. When haying time came, their grass was cut with a machine, and Elder White decided to ask some of his neighbors to help to get it in. But his wife forestalled him. She visited these neighbors first and learned that, although they were pressed with their own work, they would help her husband. But she explained her plans, and her reasons, and secured their co-operation. Accordingly when the call for help was made by Elder White, they one and all told him that it would not be convenient for them to leave their own work, as they would suffer loss thereby.
It was necessary that the hay receive attention at once, and Elder White was bitterly disappointed. Mrs. White cheerfully but resolutely suggested that they could do it themselves. She said:
"'Let us show the neighbors that we can attend to the work ourselves. Willie and I will rake the hay and pitch it on the wagon if you will load it and drive the team.' To this he consented, but how could they make the stack? The farm was new, and they had no barn. Mrs. White volunteered to build the stack if her husband would pitch up the hay, while Willie should be raking for another load. Thus the hay was gathered and stacked, and with great pleasure they surveyed the result of their labor."--Life Sketches of James White and Ellen G. White (1888), 357.
Elder White Active Again
It was two years after Elder White had left Battle Creek as a patient for Dansville that he recorded in his report for the Review and Herald, under date of September 15, 1867:
"By invitation from Dr. Lay, I spoke this morning to the patients and many others at the health institute, giving my own experience. I spoke mainly upon the evil results of inactivity during the first part of my sickness and of the beneficial results of active life as experienced by myself."--The Review and Herald, September 17, 1867.
Such a public advocacy of his change of convictions was deeply gratifying to his wife, to whose care and devotion he undoubtedly owed his life.
As Elder and Mrs. White resumed their public labors after his long period of retirement due to sickness, they united with their ministering brethren in driving home with logic and reason the chief measures of dietetic reform as they were then made known. These included the discarding entirely of tobacco, alcohol, tea, coffee, flesh food--especially pork--spices, and rich condiments; moderation in the use of salt, sugar, and of such animal products as milk, butter, and eggs; and also the use of graham or whole-wheat flour in place of the refined white flour. The two-meal system was quite generally adopted at that time; and for the sisters the healthful style of dress, having the beneficial features of the "American costume," without its immodest brevity of skirt, was recommended.
A summary of one of Elder White's discourses on the subject of sanctification will illustrate the style of his preaching, as does also the force of his arguments in setting forth these principles of health. His text was 2 Peter 1:1-11, and he based that portion of the discourse dealing with the health reform upon the injunction to "add to knowledge temperance." (Verse 6.)
"Why not add patience to knowledge?" he asked, and concluded that it is "because it is impossible for an intemperate man to be patient. ... Who has not seen the impatience of the drunkard?" He set forth the evils of intoxicating drink. Then coming a "little closer," he condemned tobacco as filthy, expensive, and "injurious to the constitution."
"There is but one creature that God has made, who will take tobacco; and that is man! In this respect man does the swine the honor to look up to him as occupying a more exalted position than himself! You offer tobacco to the horse, and he will snort at it. You offer it to the cow, and she will shake her horns over it. While if you offer it to the swine, he would squeal over it. But man takes it as a sweet morsel to roll beneath his tongue."--Ibid., April 9, 1867.
Coming again "a little closer," the speaker asked: "Why send to China or to Java for your herbs? Of what use to the human frame are coffee and tea?" No nutrition is to be found in either. This is made evident by the bees who would gather honey from the clover, but would ignore coffee or tea. The morning headache of the tea drinker places her in "great danger of becoming impatient" unless "domestic matters move very smoothly." In contrast to this experience of the tea drinker, the morning hours are the best "to the well and healthy man or woman."--Ibid.
The Question of Flesh Food
The next step "closer" introduced the question of flesh eating. Here Elder White pointed to man's original diet prescribed by God Himself in Eden. The shedding of blood and the subsequent eating of meat came as a result of sin. He drew lessons from the experience of Israel in the wilderness, when God was trying to "wean man from the use of flesh meats." He met the frequent objection based upon the Biblical statement that "every creature of God is good, if it be received with thanksgiving and prayer," by pointing out that the word "creature" embraces all that the Lord has created, and that "He has as much created wheat and corn and beans and peas and apples and peaches as He has living animals." "How broad will you have the expression?" he asked. The cat, the dog, the rat, or the snake, are creatures. Why should they not be eaten as food, if a blessing were said "over them"? "There must be," he concluded, "a limitation; and God's Word has fixed the boundary in that which is good to eat; and that is, the fruit of the tree, and the fruit of the ground."--Ibid.
By mathematical calculations based upon what farmers had told him regarding the amount of grain required to produce a pound of beef or pork, he pointed out the economic folly of a poor man, if a farmer, in reducing his grain crop by throwing away fourteen parts and retaining "one part for his hungry wife and children"; or if he purchased his food, paying fifty cents for three pounds of beef or pork, which contains as much nutrition as might be bought in one pound of "graham flour or Indian meal" which costs "but three cents."--Ibid.
Coming "still closer," he urged the use of graham flour instead of white. Referring to the sneering remark of some who claimed that it was no more nutritious than sawdust, he asked:
"Then why don't they feed sawdust instead of bran to their cows and horses? What makes the horse so healthful and sleek, and the cow give so much good milk? You have been giving them bran. Why does the farmer go twenty miles for a load of bran or shorts? Because it is one of the best things for his stock."--Ibid.
The Two-Meal-a-Day System
Whatever we today may think of the merits of the two-meal-a-day system, there is no questioning the fact that it constituted an important part of the reform message then. To him who argued that he could not work on two meals a day, Elder White replied:
"Are such aware that it is their custom to work on only two meals, breakfast and dinner, as they are called, and to sleep on their supper? Who needs this meal to sustain them in sleep? Why not let the stomach rest and be refreshed as well as the other portions of the system? Why keep the stomach mill running all night? Why not save this unnecessary wear of this delicate organ, and let it last in good condition as long as other portions of the human organism? In so doing you will save yourself those restless nights, fevered sleep, and unpleasant dreams. And in the morning you will arise refreshed, in good condition to enjoy the blessing graciously given by Providence."--Ibid.
In concluding this portion of his sermon on sanctification, Elder White made an incidental allusion to the dress reform, which is indicative of the progress made in this direction by that time.
"We are happy to report," he said, "that at least forty of the most respectable, devoted, and wealthy of our sisters in our northern churches have on today the dress of which Mrs. White's is a model. In this respect we would join our efforts with those who have the responsibility and toils of the health institution; and we know of no other way of accomplishing the matter, but for all to take hold of it without scringing. We would say to the praise of some worldly men who have Sabbath-keeping daughters, that after seeing them put on this modest, healthful, and convenient dress, they have urged others of their daughters to go and do likewise."--Ibid.
The foregoing statement is corroborative of the fact that Mrs. White was a pioneer among Seventh-day Adventist women in adopting a reform dress, having worn it herself since the autumn of 1865.
The Need for Dress Reform
The physicians at the Health Reform Institute, from the very first, had seen the need for a style of dress that would conform to correct principles, saying that "it was not only desirable, but necessary in the treatment of some cases; and that being so, it would be useless and wrong to receive such cases without adopting what they were assured was essential to effect cures." They also saw that if a healthful dress was not adopted, a certain class of people who most needed the benefits of the institute would be led to go elsewhere where they might be freed from the "cumbersome, prevailing fashion." The Health Reformer, March, 1868.
At first general principles of healthful dress were urged, and the individual wearers might consult their own taste and choice as to the length and appearance of the garments worn by them. While such a diversity had its disadvantages, yet it afforded an opportunity to observe and compare a number of patterns, and thus to select the best features in striving for a uniform style and length.
How this was done is related by Elder J.H. Waggoner.
At his request the physicians at the institute named a number of its inmates whose dresses they considered the best in make and appearance. He then "measured the height of twelve, with the distance of their dresses from the floor. They varied in height from five feet to five feet seven inches, and the distance of the dresses from the floor was from eight to ten and one-half inches. The medium, nine inches, was decided to be the right distance and is adopted as the standard." (Ibid.)
It was the style of costume thus adopted at the Health Reform Institute that had become the prevailing pattern used not only by Seventh-day Adventist women there, but among the churches.
However, Mrs. White did not unduly urge the adoption of the dress reform. "None need fear," she wrote, "that I shall make dress reform one of my principal subjects as we travel from place to place. ... I shall urge none and condemn none. This is not the work assigned me."--Testimonies for the Church 1:523.
Dress Discussed in the Churches
The ministers, as they visited the churches, regarded the newly adopted healthful dress as an important feature of the health reform and gave it a place in their discourses. As they reported their work, they frequently mentioned the favorable reception of this portion of their message. Hence Elder D.M. Canright, in commenting on a special meeting in Portland, Maine, wrote:
"The modesty of the short dress is not the smallest thing to be considered. ... With the reform dress on, all exposure is entirely avoided. After seeing it worn, I think it is the most modest dress I have ever seen, and I am not alone in this opinion.
"All these things were freely talked over here. Nearly all decided in favor of it, and others had but very slight objections to it. ... Most of the sisters resolved as soon as consistent to adopt it. My wife, who wears one, has assisted them in preparing their dresses. They have adopted the health reform quite thoroughly."--The Review and Herald, June 18, 1867.
For about four years or more considerable was written in our denominational publications about the advantages accruing from the consistent use of the health dress. Many willingly and gladly adapted their garb to conform to the principles of health as well as of modesty, which prompted the designing of the "health reform dress." But its acceptance was not general, and there was opposition and criticism. Some, forgetting "that none were to be compelled to wear the reform dress," "sought to control others' conscience by their own." "With extremists, this reform seemed to constitute the sum and substance of their religion. It was the theme of conversation and the burden of their hearts. ... Instead of prizing the dress for its real advantages, they seemed to be proud of its singularity." So wrote Mrs. White, in 1881, in answer to the question, "Why has this dress been laid aside?" And she continued:
"To those who put it on reluctantly, from a sense of duty, it became a grievous yoke. Still others, who were apparently the most zealous reformers, manifested a sad lack of order and neatness in their dress."--Testimonies for the Church 4:635-637.
Consequently, "because that which was given as a blessing was turned into a curse, the burden of advocating the reform dress was removed."--E. G. White Manuscript 167, 1897.
"Adopt a Simple, Unadorned Dress"
Nevertheless she still urged that Seventh-day Adventist women "adopt a simple, unadorned dress, of modest length," and suggested "another, less objectionable style." This consisted of "a plain sacque or loose-fitting basque, and skirt, the latter short enough to avoid the mud and filth of the streets." It was to be "free from needless trimmings, free from the looped-up, tied-back overskirts." Ibid., 640.
Such a dress Mrs. White personally wore during her later life, but she deplored any attempt to urge a uniform style upon others. When in later years a few conscientious sisters in the faith felt that a move should be made to restore the "reform dress," and to agitate for its general adoption, she earnestly counseled against this. She sought to correct a mistaken impression, saying:
"Some have supposed that the very pattern given was the pattern that all were to adopt. This is not so. But something as simple as this would be the best we could adopt under the circumstances. No one precise style has been given me as the exact rule to guide all in their dress."--E. G. White Letter 19, 1897.
By this time, prevailing styles had changed and were more sensible and healthful, and there was no reason for departing widely from established custom in the matter of dress. In view of this fact Mrs. White spoke decidedly against an issue "to divert the minds of the people and get them into controversy over the subject of dress," and she counseled:
"Let our sisters dress plainly, as many do, having the dress of good material, durable, modest, appropriate for this age, and let not the dress question fill the mind."--Ibid.
The Book "Physiology and Hygiene"
In reviewing the health campaign for this period, the issuance of a popular book entitled Physiology and Hygiene should not be passed by. The preparation of this book was undertaken not by a physician or a specialist in the field of medicine, but by a minister, and that, too, while he was serving in executive work as a conference president And here again we have a practical evidence of the seriousness with which the brethren at that time regarded the subject of health reform, considering it as a part of the very warp and woof of the advent message. In announcing his purpose to bring out such a book, Elder Loughborough thus states both his method of procedure and his aim in producing this much-needed instruction:
"As I am not an M.D., I would say that this work will be drawn mainly from such works as Dr. Trall's Cyclopedia, Graham's Science of Human Life, Mrs. Taylor's Know Thyself, Lambert's Physiology, Hitchcock's, Wilson's, Cutter's, Nichol's, etc. Most of these works are too voluminous and expensive for many to purchase or peruse. We therefore design to collect from them and arrange that which we deem to be of the most practical benefit to the reader."--The Review and Herald, November 20, 1866.
With optimism he hoped to have the copy of his manuscript in the hands of the printers by January 1, 1867, and on this basis called for advance subscriptions. Two weeks after the expiration of this date, he published a note of apology to the subscribers and urged that they be patient, assuring them that he was devoting all his leisure time out of meetings to the writing of the book. "I must try to be hygienic myself, while writing," he explained, "or I might write faster. But I do not esteem it my duty to put the work of two days into one, as I have sometimes done in the past."--Ibid., January 15, 1867.
As a matter of fact, the preparation of this book took about a year's time. It had been undertaken by Elder Loughborough at the request of the board of the Health Reform Institute, and when it appeared, it was recommended by Dr. H.S. Lay as "being well adapted to the wants of the common people, and in accordance with the recognized principles of physiology, and of hygienic medication."--Hand Book of Health; or a Brief Treatise on Physiology and Hygiene, p. iv. Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam Press, 1868.
The book took the form of questions and answers. The various systems of the body were considered consecutively, and the suggestions regarding hygiene were blended with the physiology. There were 445 questions in its 205 pages of text.
At the General Conference of 1868 the delegates recognized that although the ministers had been active in their teaching of the health reform principles, the subject demanded "labor and attention," which the preachers could not "bestow in connection with their other arduous labors," and it was voted that Dr. M.G. Kellogg, a recent graduate in medicine, "should labor in that department of the great work of preparation for the coming of the Son of man, by the counsel of the General Conference Committee."--The Review and Herald, May 26, 1868.
Having taken this glance at the nature of the health educational work that was undertaken by ministers and laymen, we now briefly review the development and vicissitudes of the Health Reform Institute during the first decade of its work.