We wanna be just like them...

[Woody]

I hear many many ways people use to discount what our prophet says. I hear things like:

Well ... this is what she 'meant'.

Well ... the times are no longer the same.

Well ... the meaning of the word has changed.

Well ... EGW would never say that.

Well ... it was written for HER time not ours.

Well .... over here she said this and EGW would never contradict herself.

ON and on ... you can add your own 'buts'.

[jasd]

Redaction.

Disabuse me, but was or was not the following subsequently REDACTED from the earliest accounts of EGW’s first vision?

“It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city, as all the wicked world which God had rejected.” [ed.jasd]

Note: the verb tense “had rejected”, which speaks to an already "shut door".

[wayfinder]

Here is an excerpt from a letter written by A.T.Jones, where he questions, if not outright states, that her claims to receiving messages or information from God is spurious.

The following is from the letter written to E.G.White.

And first, of all it is proper for me to state why I have not written before:

1. 1 never received from you, nor in any way by your instructions, any copy of that communication.

2. It was a long time before I obtained a copy. And only then did I get a copy from a brother who had never received any copy from you, although he was named in it; and he had obtained his copy from yet another brother to whom you had sent a copy though he was not named in it.

3. Before I obtained a copy of it, the word came to me that you had called on certain ones, and me amongst them, to write out what difficulties might be perplexing their minds concerning your writings, in order that you might explain, etc., and thus it was only that special point that came to my attention: But upon that consideration I would not write, and never would have written: and this is for the reason that such a proposition in itself surrenders at once the whole ground of the claim in behalf of your writings as the word of God, or as given by inspiration of God. For if the writings were really the word of God -

a. They need no explanation.

b. If the writings to be explained were not the word of God, then I would not want any explanation of them; for I would not care any more for them than for any other writings that were not the word of' God.

Further I knew that the things that could be written, you simply could not explain; and that any explanation would be worse than no explanation. And the event has fully justified this view. For when in honest response to your call, Brother Sadler and Brother Paulson wrote to you in all sincerity their difficulties, in a communication dated June 3rd, 1906, you wrote the following words:

"Sabbath night, a week ago, after I had been prayerfully studying over those things, I had a vision, in which I was speaking before a large company, where many questions were asked concerning my work and writings.

" I was directed by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put into many minds.

When Brother Sadler had his letter to you all written and ready to send, he read it to me before he sent it. And then I said to him, "My Brother, you will never get an answer to that. Any answer would be worse than no answer." And just so it turned out. To this day Brother Sadler has received no answer to his letter: though in acknowledging the receipt of his letter you promised that you would answer. This promise you made it, a letter dated June14, 1906, in the following words:

"As soon as I can I will clear up, If possible, the misunderstanding regarding the work God has given me to do."

To Brother Paulson's letter you did make somewhat of an attempt at an answer on just one point, and this most largely by quoting from "Great Controversy" and from the printed Testimonies, matter with which he was already familiar.

That as relates to Sadler and Paulson: but it is even worse as relates to Dr. Stewart: To Dr. Stewart there was sent a copy of your communication calling for a writing out of doubts, objections, etc., though he was not named in the communication. In response to that call Dr. Stewart wrote a letter to you presenting just what you called for. This letter he sent to you alone, in the confidence of a personal letter. At the same time he sent a letter to W.C. White, your son, in which he asked that an answer should be made to his letter, and that this answer might be received by him within thirty days.

(end of excerpt)

I knew Dr. Charles Stewart Jr., son of the Dr. Charles Stewart in the letter and I know his son Dr. Charles Stewart III, I know that what she said about him was libelous and untrue.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

“It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city, as all the wicked world which God had rejected.” [ed.jasd]

EGW’s first vision, as I recall, was in December of AD 1844. The vision suffered its ‘redaction’ in the year AD 1851 – approximately 7 years after its reception. Those seven years coincided with the segment of the “shut door” dogma which advocated that the seven sprinklings of blood before the altar in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement found its fulfillment in seven prophetic years – a sprinkle representing a year, as it were. Thus, the seven years hiatus – before redactions became policy. (extemporizing here: disabuse me should my memory be faulty)

Secondly, the “shut door” borrowed from Matthew 25:10 – the parable of the foolish and the wise virgins. (…ummm, looking for the justification that allows Matt 25 to be incorporated into a Day of Atonement IJ)

Thirdly, is there mention of a ‘door’ between the apartments of a heavenly sanctuary?

Fourthly, isn’t a hypothesis of a probationary ‘shut door’ truly not in view until the words of…,

Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

(in a rush – and still extemporizing: disabuse me should my memory banks be firing on rust)

Should the above obtain – the first vision of EGW and the formulations attending it – prove, for the Pioneers and their first seven years to be…

articulation.

Articulation. Three bags full.