In studying the history of the women’s rights movement to which Ellen White referred, we find much fascinating information. The very woman, more than any other, who was responsible for starting this women’s rights movement, was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. We will clearly see how her spirit was incompatible with Seventh-day Adventism, and how it spread in the women’s rights movements to the full development of “gender equality” we see today. In studying history, we learn that Spiritualism played a significant role in the spread of the women’s rights movement.
In an article, Bible and Woman Suffrage, in the Los Angeles Herald, June 9, 1901, an unnamed author, who agreed with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, wrote:
"The greatest block today in the way of woman's emancipation is the church, the canon law, the Bible and the priesthood." That is the dictum of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the venerable exponent of woman's rights. Mrs. Stanton suggests a plan for partly surmounting the block of which she complains. She thinks the Bible should be expurgated, so as to eliminate objectionable allusions to women. She makes specific objection to the idea that woman is responsible for primeval sin, that she is "the weaker vessel," etc. This attitude of Mrs. Stanton is consistent and logical from her standpoint in the van of the movement for the universal uplifting of woman. It is difficult to find fault with it, even from the general standpoint of twentieth century enlightenment. It is a matter of surprise, in fact, that such expurgation as Mrs. Stanton suggests has so long been omitted in biblical revision. Certain teachings of the Bible cannot be reconciled with the cause of woman suffrage, nor with any movement aimed at equality of the sexes. The greatest difficulty in the way of adopting Mrs. Stanton's suggestion is the fact that it would cut a very wide swath through the Bible. It would practically eliminate the work of the most prolific author in the New Testament. Paul was such an inveterate woman-hater that none of his writings would be likely to escape Mrs. Stanton's expurgating pencil. How can an advocate of woman suffrage tolerate this Injunction; "Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection." And again: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." No doubt many thoughtful persons will agree with Mrs. Stanton in the idea that expurgation of the Bible would be desirable in the direction indicated. The Bible has at various times been subjected to changes and revisions. All sorts of corrections have been made as a result of presumed mistakes in early translations. Possibly Mrs. Stanton's protest may start a movement In favor of another revision, releasing woman from the culpability for original sin and saving her from the abuse of the scriptural woman-hater.”
Can you see the incompatibility of women’s rights as defined above with the position of biblical authority? In referring to the Bible, Elizabeth Cady Stanton declared, “I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women.”-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eighty Years and More (1898), page 395. She basically hated the Bible so much that she revised it to suit her own rebellious beliefs in 1895, calling her commentary “The Women’s Bible.”
Let’s consider some more comments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton:
“We must demand an equal place in the offices of the Church, as pastors, elders, deacons; an equal voice in the creeds, discipline, and all business matters, in synods, conferences and general assemblies.”
Does this sound at all like what we’re hearing today, even within our Seventh-day Adventist Church? Elizabeth Cady Stanton demanded “gender equality” before the term was even coined. No doubt if she were alive today she would be invited to be a special speaker at the gatherings of those promoting women’s ordination.
But what of her spirit? She opposed the Bible, especially the writings of Paul, she demanded that women be allowed to be ordained as pastors, and she violated Deuteronomy 22:5 by wearing the “so-called dress reform” which was so similar to men’s clothing that God pronounced it abomination.
If you are interested in knowing just what the American Costume looked like, and how it differed from the dress reform promoted by Ellen White, please refer to the links at the end of this article.
What else did Mrs. Stanton have to say?
“I fully agree with you that woman is terribly cramped and crippled in her present style of dress. I have not one word to utter in its defense; but to me, it seems that if she would enjoy entire freedom, she should dress just like man.” From The Political Thought of Elizabeth Cady Stanton: Women's Rights and the American Political Traditions, by Sue Davis
Does God want women to dress just like, or even similar to men, or is it an abomination to Him? We really do need to study the history of this women’s rights movement in all its details so that we can understand the position God would have us hold on these matters. The history of women’s dress, women’s rights and women’s ordination are all intertwined. These issues developed simultaneously, and all three originated in the minds of rebellious women.
There were also a few men who supported the woman’s rights movement. One of them was Gerrit Smith, the father of Elizabeth Smith, who first wore the pants under a short skirt. Amelia Bloomer and Elizabeth Cady Stanton saw her and copied the style, which came to be called the American Costume. Gerrit Smith wrote a rather long letter to Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1855 for the purpose of explaining to her why he didn’t have more “faith” in the woman’s rights movement. The bottom line was, he said that until women changed their dress to be more like what men wore, they would not succeed in convincing society that women should have equal rights. He said the real battle-ground was women’s dress.
We now know that women did change their dress to be more like men over the years, and the women’s right’s movement has been tremendously successful. He was right, the real battlefield was the dress.
Granted, Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s opposition to the unhealthful and impractical fashions, such as the hoop skirts and dragging dresses popular in the mid 1800’s was also echoed by Ellen White. But, in Stanton’s rebellion against the biblical principle of headship, she carried the dress reform so far as to be an abomination to God. While Ellen White spoke of dress reform during the same time period, she upheld the biblical principles of making a plain distinction between the dress, rights and roles of men and women. God gave Ellen White specific counsel, so clear that she referred to God’s special directions, and said, “I saw . . .” showing that this was a direct revelation.
She received a vision showing her three styles of dress, two which were unacceptable to God, and one which met His approval. {See 3SM 278} The American Costume, promoted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton was shown in the vision to be abomination to God. Thus it was that Ellen White said that those who joined the women’s rights movement, which promoted women’s ordination, and wore the American costume could not really be true Seventh-day Adventists.
I believe that Ellen White’s position on theses sensitive subjects of dress and women’s rights provides evidence of her divine inspiration. While she did not approve of the women’s rights movement, she spoke out against the evils of unhealthful, impractical and prideful fashion. She clarified the role of women in the church, and went so far as to say this about women’s position: “We may safely say that the dignity and importance of woman's mission and distinctive duties are of a more sacred and holy character than the duties of man.” {3T 565.2} It is obvious that she recognized women’s role as distinctively different from that of men’s, but she did not believe it was an inferior and less important role.
Now let’s consider another lady who promoted the American Costume. This one was an acquaintance of Ellen White’s. Dr. Harriet Austin was a physician at Our Home in Dansville, where Ellen and James White went in the 1860’s, before there was a Seventh-day Adventist Sanitarium. Dr. Austin was a strong proponent of the American Costume. She wrote in the California Farmer and Journal of Useful Sciences, Volume 20, Number 10, 16 October 1863:
“Aside from those ladies who have been directly under my care as patients, or who have come to me for examination, simply, I have given advice by letter to thousands. Of late years, my prescriptions invariably include the direction, "Adopt the American Costume." There are at least a thousand women, in the United Suites, wearing this dress to-day, in compliance with that advice.”
Dr. Austin wrote from a perspective of health, and most of what she said was in harmony with Ellen White. However, what did Ellen White have to say about the style she promoted? In 1864 Ellen White wrote, "We do not think it in accordance with our faith to dress in the American costume . . ." {1T 458.2} “We shall never imitate Miss Dr. Austin or Mrs. Dr. York. They dress very much like men.” {5MR 380.4}
You can see actual photographs of these ladies, showing what they wore in a historical presentation that will help you to better understand the counsel given in the Spirit of Prophecy. (See the links at the end.)
The American Costume of the 1860’s, which consisted of a knee-length “short skirt” over trousers eventually morphed into the Bicycle bloomer costume of the 1890’s which consisted of puffy bloomers without a skirt.