Since we know that Ellen White did not follow her own teachings in regard to diet before or after this statement ... then does this disqualify her as a "teacher of the people" or "as the Lord's messenger"?

I've just presently excepted Ellen White to be one of God's messengers and I had the same questions as you did and possibly more. But over time I came to realize a couple of things.

1) Prophets are not perfect, and in some ways are not better people than we are. For example... Jonah was a prophet and by all means was God's messenger, but he had his pitfalls yet God had used him to bring entire nation(city) to repentance. Moses, who wrote huge part of OT and is perhaps on of the central Biblical prophets who was handed the Law... he did commit mistakes... so did Abraham... The point is that humans will make mistakes as every human is a hypocrite to some degree. Being God's messenger does not mean being without fault. Writings of Ellen White are not by any means infallible (although some people hold these that way), and I don't believe she would like use to hold these as such as some of these writings must be interpreted within context of time and place and her own understanding of certain things.

2) Understand that certain percentage of her writing was in fact not by way of visions, but by way of reading different authors and picking out relevant truths. This is neither right nor wrong. That's certainly how we could learn many things about God. So in some cases when she would say "I was shows" does not mean "I was shown in a vision" but truth was revealed through observation of other authors nevertheless. All of the synoptic gospels for example were copied from the book of Mark with important elements that each writer added. Was it to say that other gospels are not word of God? I don't think so, but God worked through writers by way of inspiration. There were other things that these people wrote that did not make it in perhaps because God did not mean for these to be in cannon. So understanding the human element in mrs. White's writings is essential. Here writings are not Bible, they are merely commentary on Bible.

It is disappointing to me to when people treat her as infallible human being who did not make mistakes and make it an issue of their faith being depended on. They defend her writings as infallible and they criticize anybody who would voice opinion of disagreement.

The truth is that you don't have to read a single book by Mrs. White to truly know God and his plan, and the Bible is sufficient enough on its own. Yet I believe there are numerous principles you can take from her writings that you may not see right away when you begin to study Bible. I disagree with adventist-centric study of the Bible (AKA Clear Word) because it assumes that we know unmistakable truth about every Biblical issue. And I think we would only be lying to ourselves that we do. To some things it's better giving multiple meanings and let person decide for him/herself. Some things we simply don't know and can only speculate. Truth seeking can not begin from a point that you already know the truth and then interpreting every single thing that comes up according to that point. You have to examine and evaluate possibilities...and unfortunately this kind of talk is viewed as heresy by church today.

3) Doubt is hardly a negative. Valid doubt in responsible and reasonable individuals leads to reexamination and either strengthening of the faith, or moving further away from the truth. Yet Jesus lets us know that if we keep seeking we will find. So there are risks involved, but if we would not encourage people of taking risk of questioning their beliefs, then we should not really be preaching gospel in the first place. So I appreciate your willingness to ask this question and I hope that you will find the answer, and I pray that my views were of some help.

Someone once said...

"Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith. They keep it alive and moving."

aldona

Thank you.

I agree with all you have said. And I can't often do that ... for I am an independent and disagreeable one. OK. Stop all those AMENs ...

I do think we HAVE to ask and discuss these issues. I appreciate very much the manner in which you articulated your response.

I very much appreciate and agree.

I think follow a general direction(right direction) rather than every detailed steps. A congressman said during his commencement speech at my high school graduation "listen even to a fool, you might find some thing learn from him".

Won

Reply to no one in particular.

If people make mistakes and can still teach us something, what they did she mean by RW's quote?

Gerry

1. Yes, Mrs. White told us that she struggled for 30 years to reach the diet that she taught. But are you not reading too much into this struggle? Mrs. White did indeed follow her counsel. Her counsel continues that we should be easy on those who are struggling with this topic, that it can be difficult but to not give up. Her criticizm was not to those who are working on this, but those who opposed the health message and openly opposed it.

2. Her cousel was not given as a black and white "your'e there or your'e not" spirit, but are guidelines on this is the worst avoid it, this is the best and it's wise to go for it" but between the two is a grey area to at least avoid the least healthy and to encourage the more healthy. Scholars have pointed out the same with the Bible. Non-Adventists scholars say that Moses encouraged vegitarianism, but as the people was not ready for that he gave guidelines to if you are going to eat meats to at least eat the ones that would not make the people as sick as some of the others would. Finally, today with things like mad cow disease etc. and the way things will be getting worst as we approach the end, Mrs. White's diet makes sense.

3. Are you refering to the issue of the oysters? The critics of Mrs. White love having a field day with them. But they neglect the fact that there was open discussion and debate over whether or not shellfish, like oysters were clean or unclean. Satan likes to place demands on people. That spirit is the mark of the beast. God yells when things are urgent, otherwise God likes to lead through his spirit and allow us to make choices based on the evidence and study. You seem so upset at Mrs. White for wanting to follow God's methods instead of following the methods of the beast.

3. Jesus is not on earth physically any more. After he left we had the words of the Apostles. But God's actions are not dead. His Holy Spirit is still working. It was the Holy Spirit who allowed Europe to enter the dark ages to teach what happens when one religion has all the power (in the Old Testament there was tension between the Priesthood of Moses, the Priesthood of Aaron, and the party of Royal Theology. In the New Testament there was the tension between Peter and Paul, with John keeping the early church from splitting.) Then as Protestantism started the Holy Spirit gave us the religious wars in Europe which taught Roger Williams about liberty of conscience, and lead to what has been a thorn in the side to Satan and the European religious traditions as a nation was formed without God or Pope. Were people were free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. All of this came from the testomy of God's spirit as Jesus was ministering to us in heaven and the Apostles were sleeping and working only through their words.

(granted this lamb like beast has become the special target of Satan and the European Religious Establishment, and this government of the people, by the people and for the people, is being taken over by the merchants of the earth who is speaking like a dragon)

But like with Europe and the rise of the United States, the Holy Spirit is willing to work with us where we are and have us press on to the goal. This is what we see with Mrs. White and diet.

Good post here, Kevin H.

I would ask ... Did Ellen White think that oysters fit into a vegetarian diet?



Which Mrs. White's diet are you referring to ? The one that she preached or the one she practiced?

Where this all leads to is .... Do our leaders have to live the life they preach? And to follow up ... what is the definition of a hypocrite? This is not directed at anyone. It is just a question my wife posed to me this weekend. Does a Pastor or Leader in the church have to live up to what they preach perfectly? What happens when they fail? Do we all cry Hypocrite and discount what they say?

Is it possible to know what is right and to preach it ... but in your personal life to meet with failure at times?

Personally ... I would rather have a leader that knows about failure and can help me cope and deal with it by pointing me to Jesus (again). I hate the plastic and fake leaders that have to maintain an IMAGE. Really ... that is ALL it is ... An IMAGE.