Adventist Origins

Great Awakening

Did you know that early Adventists were sometimes accused of being Mormons, including Ellen and James White? This is because the Seventh-day Adventist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and the Jehovah’s Witnesses all have ties to the Second Great Awakening.

The Second Great Awakening was a religious revival that swept through the United States from around 1790 to 1840. It was a strong reaction by Protestant Christians to the American Enlightenment and people’s growing acceptance of Deism, atheism, and science.

This movement came shortly after the First Great Awakening—Christian revivals in Britain and the thirteen colonies that became the United States. Similar to the Second Great Awakening, the First Great Awakening was a reaction by Christians to the Age of Enlightenment and increasing acceptance of atheism and Deism.

In his 2016 book The First Great Awakening: Redefining Religion in British America, Texas A&M University Professor of History John Howard Smith described the motivations for this religious revival:

A heightened lack of public piety and personal religious devotion led many ministers to worry about spiritual declension, while the educated classes found themselves attracted to atheism, Deism, Unitarianism, and Universalism, thus confirming the clergy's growing concerns. Church attendance and membership among white colonists appeared to shrink dramatically, unable to keep pace with the explosive population growth through natural increase and immigration from Europe. The spread of religious indifference, the popularity of "folk religion," rampant sectarianism, and contentious denominational rivalries led some ministers to call for a renewal of what they believed to be the far greater spiritual devotion of the previous century. (Smith 2)

During both the First and Second Great Awakenings, many educated Americans did not hold traditional Christian beliefs. Instead, many became Deists and had a more secular worldview.

Fearing that society was becoming morally corrupt, Protestant preachers and church members reacted with a renewed, personal, and intense commitment to evangelism. Biblical literalism was also an active and relatively new topic of debate, partly because of the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment.

While some early Christian theologians did not believe all major Biblical accounts should be taken literally, many Protestants did interpret them literally, including William Miller—the founder of the Millerite movement.

When Miller began preaching, the Second Great Awakening was still going strong. New religious movements, including Mormonism, were just getting started. While preachers from mainstream denominations viewed these movements with suspicion or disdain, many Christians were attracted to these new and exciting groups. According to The Oxford Handbook of Seventh-day Adventism:

Whereas the First Great Awakening occurred largely within the established... churches, the Second Great Awakening shifted power away from older confessional churches in favor of quickly growing denominations that fully embraced the revival model—most significantly the Methodists and the Baptists... The first four decades of the nineteenth century, therefore, constituted the greatest period of religious growth and innovation in American history... Widespread commitment to disestablishment, theological populism, common-sense hermeneutics, restorationism, and eschatological fervor provided fertile ground for the creation of new religious groups. (Campbell et al. 8-9)

Many Christians left their older established churches to join the Methodists, Baptists, and new religious movements like Mormonism and Millerism. In other words, the Millerites were just one of many groups that emerged and gained followers during the Second Great Awakening.

New religious groups weren't the only ones gaining followers—the temperance movement in the U.S. also happened during the Second Great Awakening, encouraging people to reject alcohol and eat a healthy diet. Miller claimed drinking alcohol meant you were not ready for the second coming and later Adventists, including John Harvey Kellogg and Ellen White, were influenced by Sylvester Graham's emphasis on being vegetarian.

Great Disappointment

William Miller was an American farmer-turned-preacher who was homeschooled, fought in the War of 1812, and wrestled with his faith because of the war. Despite growing up Baptist, Miller became a deist before eventually returning to Christianity and starting an intense two-year search for answers in the Bible.

In addition to being a deist, Miller was a freemason who "advanced to the highest degree" offered by the masonic lodges in the U.S. According to Miller's own diary, he joined the Morning Star Lodge and eventually reached the rank of Grand Master. Masonic records affirm that Miller likely "became Master of his Lodge."

Even after leaving deism and returning to the Baptist denomination, William Miller remained a freemason until September 1831, when he reluctantly resigned from his local lodge. Professor David L. Rowe wrote the following in his 2008 book God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World:

Miller's Masonic connection could not have gone unnoticed. As a longtime Mason and onetime Grand Master, he found himself on the defensive in the church and community. For fifteen years after becoming a Baptist he had remained a Mason, but in September 1831 he wrote a grudging letter of resignation from the local lodge, not because belonging to the Masons was wrong but "to concilliate the feelings of my Brethren in Christ" and to avoid "fellowship with any practice that may be incompatible with the Word of God among masons." (Rowe 93-94)

Starting around August 1831, just before leaving freemasonry, Miller began to preach about the second coming and initially predicted that Jesus would come back "sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844." Despite pressure from his followers, Miller avoided predicting just one specific date for the second coming.

Some Millerites, not supported by Miller, predicted the date of February 14, 1843. When that prediction failed, they changed the date to April 14, 1843. According to a news report, some Millerites waited on April 23, 1843; even more dates can be found in the book Miller and the Rise of Adventism by SDA historian George R. Knight:

...the less stable elements among the Millerites began to set specific dates in 1843. Some were apparently looking toward April 3 on the basis that Christ was crucified on that day. Others set their hope on February 10, the forty-fifth anniversary of the French victory over Rome in 1798. Still others hoped for February 15 (the anniversary of the abolition of the papal government), April 14 (the Passover), the Day of Pentecost in May, the autumnal equinox in September, and so on. (Knight 109)

Even after Miller's March 21, 1844 prediction failed, many of the Millerites kept their faith and April 18, 1844 was briefly chosen as the new date for the second coming—until that date was also proven wrong.

As each prediction turned out to be false, the Millerites became desperate for answers. Eventually, a Millerite man named Samuel Snow predicted October 22, 1844 as the real date of the second coming (this was called the "seventh-month message" and "true midnight cry").

Before Snow read one of Miller’s books and became "impressed with its truth," he had been a fierce skeptic and said the Bible is "filled with nothing but gross absurdities."

Samuel Snow was an eccentric man and began calling himself "Elijah" in 1845, claiming he had "the spirit and power of Elijah," and that he was called "by the special favor of God… as His Prime Minister." Lest We Forget, a book published by the Adventist Pioneer Library, quotes Samuel Snow on page 119:

By the special favor of God, through Jesus Christ... I have been called and commissioned to go before the face of the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to prepare the way for His descent from heaven.... as His Prime Minister, I demand of all Kings, Presidents, Magistrates, and Rulers, civil or ecclesiastical, a full surrender of all power and authority, into my hands, on behalf of King Jesus the Coming One.... WAR, FAMINE, PESTILENCE, and DESTRUCTION... shall go forth among the nations more and more, till the earth be utterly desolate. Then shall ye know that a prophet hath been among you.

Samuel Snow never accepted the leadership of James or Ellen White and continued in his self-delusion until his death in 1870 at the age of 84. But before and after the Great Disappointment, both James and Ellen White endorsed Samuel Snow's prediction. According to the Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventists:

James White, who would become a Seventh-day Adventist co-founder, observed that the message of Christ’s return in October 1844 was attended by a "power almost irresistible." The vigorous support of George Storrs, a prominent Millerite leader, boosted dissemination of the new message. The foremost leaders, Miller and Himes, viewed the development with caution, but they too eventually embraced the message, and intense expectation focused on October 22, 1844.

An estimated 50,000-100,000 people were part of the Millerite movement, also called Second Adventists. When October 22, 1844 came and went, they were devastated. Outsiders mocked them, and some Millerites were even tortured. Their great disappointment led to intense cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance

In 1956, a group of social psychologists published the book When Prophecy Fails, followed by the publication of the theory of cognitive dissonance in 1957. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that humans experience when we have inconsistencies in our beliefs and actions.

Thanks to advances in technology, the 1957 theory has been supported by fMRI scans in a 2009 study called Neural Activity Predicts Attitude Change in Cognitive Dissonance. This study visually demonstrates the brain’s neural activity in real time as it reacts to the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance.

To better understand this concept, let's explore an example from social psychologist Andy Luttrel. A person who smokes cigarettes may hold the following thoughts at the same time: (1) I smoke cigarettes and (2) smoking cigarettes is unhealthy. Having both of these conflicting thoughts creates a feeling of dissonance.

To resolve this uncomfortable feeling, the person might do any one of the following:

• Change one of their thoughts — They may say, "Smoking is not that bad."
  ‍
• Change one of their behaviors — They may stop smoking because they know it's unhealthy.
  ‍
• Add new thoughts — They may rationalize and say, "My healthy habits offset my smoking."
  ‍
• Trivialize the inconsistency — They may say "Smoking is bad, but I don't care."
  ‍

Cognitive dissonance is not limited to specific groups of people. Anyone can experience cognitive dissonance, especially when learning new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs or behaviors.

When people learn new information and experience cognitive dissonance, they may accept the information and change their beliefs or behaviors. But changing deeply-held beliefs can be extremely uncomfortable, so people often use various coping methods to avoid questioning or changing their beliefs. Here are a few examples:

• Confirmation bias — People may search only for information and other people that will confirm their existing beliefs to reduce the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Confirmation bias can lead to a lack of critical thinking and being closed-minded.
  
  
• Rationalization — People may try to justify their actions or beliefs by coming up with rationalizations or excuses, even if they are completely illogical. This can lead to self-deception and an inability to acknowledge mistakes or wrongdoing.
  
  
• Defensiveness — People may become defensive and resistant to change when their beliefs or actions are challenged, and may even become more committed to their existing beliefs or behaviors. Defensiveness can lead to conflict and difficulty in resolving differences with others.
  ‍
• Proselytizing — People may try to convince and convert others to believe the same things they do. As more people believe the same thing and support each other, the discomfort from cognitive dissonance tends to decrease, resulting in even more proselytizing and evangelistic efforts.

To relieve their cognitive dissonance, many Millerites used some or all of the coping methods we just covered. While some left the movement entirely, many searched for information in the Bible to confirm their existing beliefs. Some came up with various rationalizations, others became defensive and insisted the millennium had already started, and many were proselytizing to convince others of their new theories.

It is undeniable that the Millerites and early Adventists experienced intense cognitive dissonance. The first book written about cognitive dissonance, When Prophecy Fails, prominently features the Millerites and describes how their failed predictions led to greater expectations and more evangelism:

The two partial disconfirmations (April 23, 1843, and the end of the calendar year 1843) and one complete and unequivocal disconfirmation (March 21, 1844) served simply to strengthen conviction that the Coming was near at hand and to increase the time and energy that Miller’s adherents spent trying to convince others... Such conviction naturally prepared men to give a sympathetic ear to the proclamation that the day of the Lord would come on October 22. (Festinger et al. 19)

Even though the term didn't exist back then, William Miller witnessed this cognitive dissonance and wrote about the Millerites who went into "fanaticism of every kind" after the Great Disappointment. Some kept waiting while others proposed alternative dates. Some fanatical Millerites followed an extremely literal interpretation of Mark 10:15 and acted like children, "crawling around their houses, or even sometimes in the streets."

Ellen White also witnessed and experienced cognitive dissonance. Her description of the Millerites' reaction to the Great Disappointment is found in the book Life Sketches of Ellen G. White:

The waiting people of God approached the hour when they fondly hoped their joys would be complete in the coming of the Saviour. But the time again passed unmarked by the advent of Jesus. It was a bitter disappointment that fell upon the little flock whose faith had been so strong and whose hope had been so high. But we were surprised that we felt so free in the Lord, and were so strongly sustained by His strength and grace. (White LS 61.1)

We were firm in the belief that the preaching of definite time was of God. It was this that led men to search the Bible diligently, discovering truths they had not before perceived... The world looked upon our hope as a delusion, and our disappointment as its consequent failure; but though we were mistaken in the event that was to occur at that period, there was no failure in reality of the vision that seemed to tarry. (LS 62.1)

In the very first chapter of When Prophecy Fails, the authors perfectly captured the Millerites' behavior:

Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. (Festinger et al. 3)

This describes the essence of the Millerites' reactions to the Great Disappointment. Some questioned the Bible or Miller’s interpretations, but for many, their convictions grew even stronger. Some were convinced they had the right event but the wrong date; others believed they had the right date, but the wrong event.

All of these are examples of reacting to cognitive dissonance, and they show how the Adventist movement was literally founded on cognitive dissonance. Loren Seibold, Executive Editor of the independent SDA news site Adventist Today, acknowledged this in an article from February 2024:

Adventism started with a failed prophecy. We were given a rationalization that made us continue to hope. Jesus did not return back then, and in fact Jesus has not returned "soon," either. What grew out of the Adventist experience is valuable to us: we have, from that failed beginning, created something quite exceptional. But that chapter in our church’s upbringing left us with a peculiar weakness. Our eschatology is a carrier of that original cognitive dissonance germ. Starting from the fearful eschatology of Uriah Smith and Ellen White, and nurtured into the present by Mark Finley, Doug Batchelor, Ted Wilson and others... It has happened before, and it will happen again and again and again, until we confront the unhealth at the heart of our faith.

Instead of questioning their beliefs, many Millerites attempted to rationalize away their failed predictions. They desperately wanted to keep their belief that something happened on October 22, 1844. In order to numb the pain of cognitive dissonance, they just needed to find evidence that supported their existing beliefs.

Investigative Judgment

One of the most important examples of Millerites rationalizing away their cognitive dissonance comes from three men: Hiram Edson, Franklin B. Hahn, and Owen R. L. Crosier. They studied the Bible together and invented a unique Adventist doctrine that was eventually called the Investigative Judgment.

While this doctrine is foundational to Adventism—and is the only completely original Adventist doctrine—it is also one of the least accepted and most controversial teachings within the SDA church. Understanding its origins is crucial for understanding Ellen White and the theological debates that still continue to this day.

Hiram Edson

Hiram Edson was a farmer and Millerite who lived just four miles away from Joseph Smith's childhood home in Palmyra, New York (Smith was the first Mormon prophet and founder of Mormonism). Hiram Edson claimed to practice faith healing and, similar to Joseph Smith, he claimed to have multiple vision-like experiences. Edson called them "presentments," but for simplicity we’ll refer to them as visions.

During one of these events, Edson claimed he heard an audible voice telling him to heal his sick neighbor. After refusing, he thought the floor beneath him was dropping and saw himself falling down toward hell.

Edson cried out for God to save him, and heard the voice again telling him to heal his neighbor, so he went that night. The neighbor was "deathly ill," but was supposedly healed instantly after Edson placed hands on him and prayed. In a handwritten autobiographical manuscript, Edson wrote: 

God was ready and willing to hear and answer prayer for the sick, and to stretch forth his hand to heal and raise them up, and restore them to health. Since that time, I have shared in, and witnessed many incidents of like character.

In addition to having visions and practicing faith healing, Edson worked with another Millerite named Richard Ralph, who spoke in tongues at a Millerite prayer meeting.

Edson and Ralph traveled together to convince a former Millerite man to rejoin the movement. During their meeting, Ralph spoke in tongues again, assuring the man that God forgave him.

As Adventists, many of us were taught that charismatic practices of faith healing and speaking in tongues are not biblical, but early Adventists (including Edson) were surrounded by and even participated in events like this as they were reportedly common in some areas during the late 1800s.

The Cornfield

On the early morning of October 23, 1844—immediately after the Great Disappointment, struggling with cognitive dissonance and sleep deprivation from awaiting the second coming—Hiram Edson walked through a cornfield and had a vision explaining what happened the day before.

It's not an exaggeration to say Edson was sleep deprived and struggling with cognitive dissonance. In the same handwritten manuscript we quoted from earlier, Edson wrote that "We wept, and wept, till the day dawn" and that he was so shaken he even questioned "Is there no God?"

Our fondest hopes and expectations were blasted, and such a spirit of weeping came over us as I never experienced before. It seemed that the loss of all earthly friends could have been no comparison. We wept, and wept, till the day dawn.

I mused in my own heart, saying, My advent experience has been the richest and brightest of all my christian experience. If this had proved a failure, what was the rest of my christian experience worth? Has the Bible proved a failure? Is there no God—no heaven—no golden home city—no paradise? Is all this but a cunningly devised fable? Is there no reality to our fondest hopes and expectation of these things? And thus we had something to grieve and weep over, if all our fond hopes were lost. And as I said, we wept till the day dawn.

So, while experiencing intense cognitive dissonance and sleep deprivation, Edson said he "distinctly, and clearly," saw Jesus entering the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary. This claim is one of the central aspects of the Investigative Judgment’s origin story, and here is how Edson described what happened:

We started, and while passing through a large field I was stopped midway of the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly, and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, that he, for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that he had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth.

The SDA General Conference article Varieties of Adventists after 1844: Emerging from "fanaticism of every kind" into "the order of heaven" says the following:

What if the sanctuary in Daniel 8 was not a figure for the earth? What if it referred to an actual sanctuary in heaven, on which the ancient Israelite sanctuary had been modeled? …But this implied "that he [Jesus] had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth." What that "work" was, however, needed further consideration.

Hiram Edson’s vision provided a very convenient explanation for why Jesus did not physically come back the day before. Edson's claim satisfied some of the Millerites who believed they had predicted the right date but the wrong event, and this helped relieve their cognitive dissonance.

Group Project

After his vision, Hiram Edson wasn’t exactly sure why Jesus would enter the Most Holy Place. So Edson, Hahn, and Crosier worked together to strengthen the theory. Over one year after Edson’s vision, Crosier published a detailed article on February 7, 1846 which was endorsed by Edson and Hahn.

Edson and Hahn included a note "To the Brethren and Sisters Scattered Abroad" saying if Crosier’s article was "properly examined and understood," it would "settle many difficulties in the minds of many brethren at this time." This is a clear and direct example of attempting to relieve the Millerites’ cognitive dissonance.

Ellen White also used Crosier's article to help relieve the cognitive dissonance of the early Adventists. In a letter dated April 21, 1847, she endorsed the article and claimed God showed her that it contained "true light."

I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint. I pray that these lines may prove a blessing to you, and all the dear children who may read them. (WLF 12.8-12.9)

Edson, Hahn, and Crosier’s theory wasn’t the only one proposed during that time. Other Millerites believed Jesus did actually return, but that it was spiritual—not a literal, physical return. This concept later influenced Charles Taze Russell and the group that led to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Side note:The Millerites aren't the only group that believed they predicted the right date but the wrong event. Jehovah's Witnesses predicted that the resurrection would happen in 1914. That didn't happen, so they now claim that in October 1914, Jesus had an invisible return and started his reign in heaven.

The details of Hiram Edson’s vision are not well-known by all modern Adventists, but this event has been referred to as "the theological birthplace of Adventism." To put it bluntly, this theological birthplace began with a sleep deprived charismatic farmer from the 1800s, struggling with cognitive dissonance in a cornfield.

It is tempting to use clichés and platitudes such as "God can use anyone," or "God works in mysterious ways." But take a moment to really think about the implications of Edson's own written statements. Could such a vision be genuine, or was he just rationalizing away his grief and great disappointment?

If Hiram Edson had been a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, would you believe his story?

Ellen's Visions

Hiram Edson wasn't the only Millerite who had a vision confirming October 22, 1844 as a true prophetic date. Ellen White's first vision also affirmed the date set by Samuel Snow, describing it as "light" from God.

For context, Ellen Harmon was only 12 years old when she and her family first heard Miller preach and later joined the Millerite movement (Ellen's last name was Harmon before she married James White).

As a 12-year-old, Ellen was captivated by William Miller's preaching and she became convinced of his theories. After spending five years in the movement, she also experienced the Great Disappointment and intense cognitive dissonance felt by Hiram Edson and the other Millerites. Adventist historian George R. Knight wrote about Ellen's doubts in the book William Miller and the Rise of Adventism:

With great anticipation Ellen Harmon waited with her fellow believers for Christ to come in 1844. She would later declare that 1844 "was the happiest year of my life." The Second Advent had become the center of her existence. Like her fellow believers, however, she went through a period of disorientation after October 1844. In fact, by December she had concluded that the seventh-month movement and the midnight cry of the autumn of 1844 had been errors. She had given up the idea of a fulfillment of prophecy on October 22, 1844... (Knight 256)

Ellen turned 17 in November 1844 and sometime in December, the very next month, she stopped believing that October 22 had any prophetic significance. In other words, soon after the Great Disappointment, she actually changed her mind and accepted that the prediction had been a mistake.

But later in December 1844, while praying with a group of women, she experienced her first vision and changed her mind again. She now believed that Samuel Snow's "midnight cry" of October 22, 1844 was correct after all, and that anyone who rejected this date would not be saved. Here's how she described her 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 see a strait 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. (White 3)

Although Ellen had rejected the "midnight cry" earlier that month, her vision claimed that everyone who rejected October 22, 1844 had no chance of salvation and would be lost along with the rest of the "wicked world."

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 which left 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 & go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. (4)

Ellen's first vision did not mention anything about the Investigative Judgment. While it convinced her and others that the "midnight cry" of October 22, 1844 was the right date for something, it did not clarify what that was.

The written record of Ellen's first vision comes from a letter she wrote on December 20, 1845 to Enoch Jacobs, a Millerite publisher. She wrote this letter one year after her vision, so her memory of the vision may have changed during that time. In fact, after discovering that Jacobs published her letter, she wrote another letter to add more details that she said were "left out" from her first letter.

My vision which you published in the Day-Star was written under a deep sense of duty, to you, not expecting you would publish it. Had I for once thought it was to be spread before the many readers of your paper, I should have been more particular and stated some things which I left out. As the readers of the Day-Star have seen a part of what God has revealed to me, and as the part which I have not written is of vast importance to the Saints; I humbly request you to publish this also in your paper. (9)

Angels were all about the chariot as it came where Jesus was; he stepped into it and was borne to the Holiest where the Father sat. Then I beheld Jesus as he was before the Father a great High Priest. On the hem of his garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. Then Jesus shewed me the difference between faith and feeling. And I saw those who rose up with Jesus send up their faith to Jesus in the Holiest, and praying, Father give us thy spirit. Then Jesus would breathe on them the Holy Ghost. (10)

This follow-up letter, which appeared to add details to her first vision, actually included details from two other visions she claimed to have in February and October 1845. Her February 1845 vision was also vague and did not show Jesus investigating in the heavenly sanctuary—it only showed Jesus breathing out the "Holy Ghost."

Side note:Ellen's handwritten letter of her first vision has been lost. The earliest remaining evidence comes from a typed copy of her letter, published by Enoch Jacobs in a weekly Millerite paper called the Day-Star. After discovering that Jacobs published her letter, she sent him the follow-up letter quoted above.

Four years passed before Ellen White had a vison on March 24, 1849 that referred to Jesus mediating in the "Holy" part of the sanctuary and not the "Most Holy" as the doctrine states. Like her earlier visions, this vision was vague and gave no description of the Investigative Judgment. Instead, it focused on the Sabbath:

I saw that the test on the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy and He had passed within the second veil... (1EGWLM 166.4)

It wasn't until March 14, 1858—another nine years later—that Ellen had her 2-hour-long "Great Controversy" vision while attending a funeral in Ohio. This time, her vision described the Investigative Judgment in detail:

As the priests in the earthly sanctuary entered the most holy once a year to cleanse the sanctuary, Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation, and to cleanse the sanctuary. (White 1SG 161.1)

I saw that every case was then decided for life or death. Jesus had blotted out the sins of His people… While Jesus had been ministering in the sanctuary, the judgment had been going on for the righteous dead, and then for the righteous living. (197.3)

As Jesus moved out of the Most Holy place, I heard the tinkling of the bells upon his garment, and as he left, a cloud of darkness covered the inhabitants of the earth. There was then no mediator between guilty man, and an offended God. (198.1)

The tinkling bells Ellen White claims she heard are a reference to Exodus 28:31-35. The instructions for creating the robe of the Israelite High Priest included sewing bells on the lower hem of the garment, so he could be heard while walking in and out of the Holy and Most Holy places of the temple.

These bells were an indication to others that the high priest was still alive, because there was a risk of being killed by God if he defiled the sanctuary. With that in mind, why would Jesus need bells on his robe?

Just like Hiram Edson's cornfield vision and note to the Millerites, Ellen White's first vision helped relieve their cognitive dissonance. The book Adventism in America, edited by SDA historian Gary Land, explains the effect that Ellen's first vision had on the early Adventists:

In effect, the vision assured the Advent believers of eventual triumph despite the immediate despair into which they had plunged. (Land et al. 39)

Ellen White's later visions about the heavenly sanctuary show a clear pattern of gradual development. In fact, the core sanctuary and Investigative Judgment doctrine was completed over one year before she had her "Great Controversy" vision. Instead of this vision providing entirely new insights on the Investigative Judgment, it simply repeated what other Adventists had already been writing about, including her husband.

Side note:The earliest published account of this vision is in the 1858 edition of The Great Controversy, now called Spiritual Gifts Vol. 1. Ellen White claimed this vision repeated "most" of the Great Controversy details from a vision she had 10 years earlier, but there are no written accounts of any similar vision. She may have been referring to her March 1849 vision from 9 years earlier, but it did not include "most" of the same details.

Belief #24

Today, the Investigative Judgment is #24 of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church. But very few Adventists realize the amount of time and number of people involved in creating this doctrine.

For over a decade, the early Adventists worked on relieving their cognitive dissonance and inventing this idea. Owen R. L. Crosier’s original article from February 1846 did not use the term "investigative judgment;" Hiram Edson and Franklin B. Hahn didn’t create the term, either.

11 years after Crosier's article was published, a man named Elon Everts took their ideas and published the name "Investigative Judgement" on January 1, 1857. Everts also invented the idea that Jesus began judging the dead on October 22, 1844, while in the heavenly sanctuary.

One month later, James White published his own article titled "The Judgment." 13 months later, Ellen White finally had her first detailed vision of Jesus performing the investigative judgement in heaven. In other words, she only had a detailed vision after the core concepts of the doctrine were already published by others.

Ever since 1858, Ellen White wrote repeatedly about the Investigative Judgment. It is the only doctrine that is fully unique to Adventists and ironically, it is also "one of Adventism’s most controversial doctrines."

According to official church teachings, one reason for the Investigative Judgment is that it "vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus." Would an all-powerful, all-knowing God need a literal sanctuary in heaven to keep track of who is righteous and who isn’t?

Adventists "have always affirmed a real heavenly sanctuary" and reject the idea that it could simply be metaphorical, spiritual, and non-literal. They believe a literal, physical sanctuary exists in heaven.

Aside from the implausibility of using a literal sanctuary for recordkeeping, Christians can point to John 10:14 and 2 Timothy 2:19 which state that God already knows who is righteous and who isn't. Additionally, verses like Romans 1:18-21 and Psalm 19 argue that God's character is self-evident, removing the need for this doctrine.

Another verse, highlighted by an Adventist member in a 2024 article, directly contradicts the doctrine. In the Gospel of John chapter 5—the same chapter where Jesus heals on the Sabbath—the author wrote that anyone who hears the words of Jesus and believes in God will have eternal life and will not be judged:

Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and does not come under judgment but has passed from death to life. (John 5:24)

With a few simple, powerful words in John’s gospel, Jesus puts the Adventist concept of an investigative judgment in serious question. Jesus says, If you are a believer, you will not be judged. Adventist theology says, if you are a believer, you specifically will be judged. These two ideas are irreconcilable. Have you ever heard a sermon on John 5:24 in your Adventist Church or an evangelistic meeting? I would suspect not. (Reifsnyder 2024)

Understandably, various Adventist theologians and pastors have questioned the Investigative Judgment, most notably Desmond Ford in 1979. An estimated 182 Adventist pastors in Australia and New Zealand left the church from 1980–1988. They represented about 40% of the total SDA ministerial workforce across both countries.

Today, many Adventists do not believe in this doctrine and it is not often preached in some SDA churches. Survey results published in 2020 by Adventist professor Robert K. McIver show the Investigative Judgment doctrine is the least accepted of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs among some Adventist teachers.

‍Only 65% of the 90 surveyed teachers within the Australian Union Conference and 75% of the 84 surveyed teachers within the Solomon Islands Mission accept this doctrine. McIver explains this acceptance includes a wide range of possible responses, varying in degrees of certainty and the reason for accepting it:

"strongly agree", "agree", "embrace it wholeheartedly", "accept it because the church teaches it", and "accept it because I think it is probably correct".

While these are very small sample sizes, the results help provide insight on how some Adventist educators view this doctrine. Anecdotally, we've heard of professors working in various Seventh-day Adventist universities who completely reject the Investigative Judgment.

However, this doctrine continues to be defended by the General Conference, partly because Ellen White claimed to see it in a vision and wrote about it extensively. Another reason that Adventists have a hard time rejecting this doctrine is because it's their only original and unique doctrine. Matthew J. Lucio, an Adventist pastor and host of the Adventist History Podcast, described this in a video:

We didn't invent the Sabbath, we got it from the Seventh-day Baptists. We didn't invent quarterly communion. We didn't even invent this idea of the moral government of God, which is kind of the seed for the Great Controversy. We did not invent these things. The only thing that we really truly invented was the sanctuary. The idea of a prophet? Did not invent that. She's not even the only prophet in the 1800s, right? So, I think when we realize we've borrowed from other churches, truth that they had, I think that should help us to realize we don't have all the truth. We would have one truth if it was up to us to create it. Everything else we borrowed, and we modified, obviously.

Inventing the Investigative Judgment was truly a team effort. It was started by Millerites attempting to cope with their cognitive dissonance and went through multiple people and revisions for over a decade. Additionally, Ellen White claimed to have a detailed vision of the Investigative Judgment happening in heaven.

This is the one truly unique Adventist doctrine, thanks in part to Hiram Edson's cornfield vision, and yet it is also one of the most controversial doctrines among Adventists.