The only problem I have with this statement is that it is not entirely true. When we say 'her writings are an authoritative source of truth' this implies that all her writings are an auth. source of truth. And some of her writings clearly do not fit in this category.

I also don’t understand your point about Jon Paulien. I do love his books and commentaries etc. but I don’t think it sounds right to say “The Bible is an authoritative source of truth” and “Jon Paulien is an authoritative source of truth”. And if you say “many would fit in to this classification” why then not mention them all and include them into our fundamentals?

My main concern is that we unnecessarily give non-Adventists the basis to attack this fundamental belief because it sounds that way, as if all her writings are a source of truth, and there’s just no need for this.

I don't follow how you believe the statement implies that ALL of her writings are truth. I don't see that in the statement. OTOH .... her writings are "a" SOURCE of truth. There are many sources that are truth. Many commentaries on the Bible state truth. They are called 'sources'.

You state that some of her writings do not fit the category and I assume you mean 'truth'. I would agree with you and I am most certain that Ellen White would also. She never claimed to be infallible. And she cautioned us not to use her as such. Her purpose was to 'point' us to Truth. We are to find 'truth' in the Bible. That is our job.

But our boy John uses her as the-end-all, be-all of truth. In his legalistic mind she IS the measuring stick of truth and he doesn't mind clobbering folks over the head with quotes from her little red books. That's traditional Adventism in a nutshell!

I believe her to have been a true prophet of God, which I know you do not; and so it stands to reason that I take her words more seriously than you do. When I read her words, I don't think that I know so much more than Ellen White. I pray that God will give me a teachable mind and attitude so that He can speak to me through her writings, just as I do when I read the Bible.

My thinking about Ellen White is in line with the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church regarding Ellen White and the relationship between her writings and the Bible.

She is not the measuring stick of truth. We measure her writings by the Bible, and not the other way around. Never do we allow her writings to make corrections in the Bible. Joseph Smith made many so-called "corrections" in the Bible, and I am glad that we as Seventh-day Adventists have never viewed Ellen White's writings in that way.

I quote Ellen White to you because you yourself often quote her. If you believe in her as an authority enough to quote her, then I believe that I am also able to quote her.

I don't see quoting Ellen White as "clubbing people over the head with her little red books." If I did, or if I thought that is how people I'm talking to view her writings, I wouldn't quote her to them at all. I genuinely love her writings and don't feel the least bit of resentment or dislike of them.

I used to dislike them when I was a kid, so I can understand how some people feel who dislike Ellen White's writings. I know where those feelings come from. I know why people feel that quotes from her are like clubbing people. That is never my intention, and if I thought that is how people see it, I would never quote her or even refer to her. The same with the Bible-- if someone were to tell me they hate the Bible or feel it is like a club, I'd never speak of it to them.

But as long as you quote her to me, I'll feel it is right for me to quote her as well. It sounds to me as if you want special privileges to quote her but that you believe if I quote her, it is somehow "clubbing people over the head with her red books." If you really feel that her books are clubbing people over the head, I am willing to stop using her altogether in our exchanges, but that would mean you would need to stop using her also. I think you can see that it would be hardly fair for you to be able to quote or misquote her, and for me not to quote her at all.

Here's a few important paragraphs from Ellen White:

I think you can see that from the SDA viewpoint, there is something distinct and unique about Ellen White's writings. The very fact that it points to Ellen White in a way that it does not point to any other source of truth besides the Bible, and calls her writings "a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction" shows that the statement of belief is distinguishing her writings from the writings of anyone else.

To say that her ministry and her writings are merely on a par with a good minister or pastor demonstrates that the writer has not fully grasped what is being said in the Fundamental Belief #16. It would be useful to study any book published by the Seventh-day Adventist church on the Gift of prophecy and see exactly how the church regards her writings. They are never simply put on a level with a minister or a talented writer or speaker.

Can you name anyone else in the history of the church since NT times who has received over 1000 dreams and visions from God, and was raised up and commissioned directly by Jesus Christ Himself to give messages to the end-time church?

Please take a close look at 1 SM 16-45.

Ellen's writings are on par with non-canonical prophets (ie. Nathan, Gad). They are inspired and inspiring.

That's the claim, but if all her writings are messages from God, well, God is a very confused Deity. I find some of her writings in harmony with the NT Bible writers and I find some of her writings in harmony with the Old Covenant. If it wasn't for those OC statements (and there are many) then she wouldn't be a problem for me.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend her books because there's too much confusion.

Rob

Agreed that some of her writings are as you have indicated.

Agreed.

But, I still recommend some of her books. I just don't recommend her books as a whole. I invite all to do as she said and to accept the good and throw out the bad according to the 'measuring stick' ... the Bible.

If you honestly did that you would have to say she has unintentional error, which in my book is okay since she didn't claim infallibility. But the minute I make that statement Traditional SDA will be ready to fight. Why? Because they have made her the end all, be all of truth. They have made her infallible. They follow her because they are too lazy to make the Bible their measuring stick of truth. They default to her because to them she is the sum total of truth. And don't try to convince me otherwise because I have seen it with my own two eyes. Been there, done that.