“ALL are bound by the most sacred obligations to God to heed the sound philosophy and genuine experience which he is now giving them in reference to health reform. He designs that the great subject of health reform shall be agitated, and the public mind deeply stirred to investigate.”—“Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. III, page 162.
Sound philosophy; a correct knowledge of physiology and of its practical application in hygienic laws,—from whatever source obtained.
Genuine experience: increased health as a result of obeying these laws.
I believe that the context and the general tenor of these writings will justify the definitions given above, and I would ask the reader to read again the paragraph quoted, substituting the definitions for the phrases. Lest some might think the “sound philosophy” refers entirely to the special light sent by the Lord, I call attention to other quotations, showing that the Lord expects us to get our knowledge of the human body from a study of physiology:—
“A practical knowledge of the science of human life is necessary in order to glorify God in our bodies. It is therefore of the highest importance that among studies selected for childhood, physiology should occupy the first place.”—Health Reformer.
“It is best for those who claim to be sons and daughters of God to avail themselves, while they can, of the opportunities now presented to gain a knowledge of the human system, and how it may be preserved in health.”—Medical Missionary.
In order that “the great subject of health reform” may “be agitated, and the public mind deeply stirred to investigate,” we must have strong convictions, born of “sound philosophy and genuine experience;” we must have a good theory, successfully carried out in good practice. We must “be able to give a reason” for our belief. This reason should tell just why some articles, or combinations, or practices are harmful, and why others are not. These reasons should be backed up by the personal experiences of the speakers, who should themselves be examples of what health reform will do for a person.
A tree is known by its fruit. Health reform claims to produce a superior type of people, physically, mentally, and morally; and naturally, people look to health reformers to see whether the claim is substantiated. Are the advocates of this doctrine more free from tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever, malaria, colds, dyspepsia, rheumatism, etc.? Is the death-rate less or the average length of life greater in this class than in those who pay little or no attention to their health?
The promise has been made: “When we do all that we can on our part to have health, then we may expect the blessed results will follow, and we can ask God in faith to bless our efforts for the preservation of health.”—“How to Live,” Chap. 4, page 64.
“A careful conformity to the laws God has implanted in our being will insure health, and there will not be a breaking down of the constitution.”—Health Reformer.
If we, as a people, are not noticeably better in health than the average people who pay little or no attention to health, what is the matter?—Simply a lack of the “genuine experience,” which would have followed the cherishing of a “sound philosophy.”
This is not the result of insincerity. One class of people adopts, or attempts to adopt, “health reform” without taking time to study the foundation principles. They think, because they have left off certain proscribed articles of diet, and made some other changes, that they are health reformers. They have adopted certain changes because others have done so, or because these changes are advocated in certain writings or in the Testimonies, without learning whether these things are adapted to their individual needs or circumstances.
As we are told, “Many have misrepresented health reform, and have received perverted ideas of what constitutes right living.”—Instructor, May 31, 1894.
Their health is no better as a result of their change in habits. It may not be so good as before. They are conscientious, and, believing they are right in observing the “letter of the law,” they keep on in this way, with, perhaps, more or less disastrous results.
They do not realize that the Testimonies give general directions and general principles, but do not attempt to give details for the regulation of every act. They do not appreciate the significance of the statements quoted above, regarding the importance of a knowledge of physiology and hygiene, and the necessity of regulating the life by this knowledge. As a result, their effort to live healthfully is more or less of a failure.
Others see that Brother A and Sister B, who are always advocating “health reform, have as poor health as the rest of us,” and so they make no attempt to restrict their appetites or change their habits. So Brother A and Sister B, in their zeal for the letter of health reform, turn many away from a true spirit of reform. It is a “zeal without knowledge.” In both cases there is a failure to study the “sound philosophy”—the foundation principles.
The writer has no quarrel with true health reform. But he wants to see results. He has little sympathy with the theoretical health reform which has little to show for it except poor health.
It is about time we, as a people, were getting ready to “agitate” the “great subject of health reform;” but before the “public mind” can be “deeply stirred to investigate,” we must be better grounded on true principles ourselves. Some who have not had the light we have are going ahead of us.