Leaderboard

There has been over 10,000,000 views on the various youtube alone.

These ideas were developed over the second half of the 1800s in reaction to the rise of evolution and modernism, these discussions were printed in books and the views finally were published in a series of pamphlets during the first decade of the 20th century and lead to a large Bible Conference in the summer of 1919 in Philadelphia. These pamphlets and the movements around them have had a huge effect on Seventh-day Adventism, some of us agreeing with all of them, others agreeing with numbers 3 and 4, and in principle but maybe not the exact same way as the authors of the pamphlets numbers 2 and 5. Number 1 is the one that has caused the most controversy in Seventh-day Adventism. W. W. Prescott appears to have been the first (at least among our leadership) to read one of the early books that shared these ideas. He accepted them and began teaching them, including sharing them with Stephen Haskell. Elder A. G. Daniels also around this time learned this as well as D. M. Canright. When Mrs. White learned that Prescott, Daniels and Canright were starting to teach Fundamentalism, Mrs. White asked them to come and work for her. All three were horrified at the assignments that she gave them to do as they all went against what they were starting to learn and teach. The big problem with Canright was that he could not reconcile what Mrs. White was making him to do with what he was learning from Fundamentalism. Prescott and Daniels was in the same predicament, but they gave up "Fundamentalism" (more or less) instead. Stephen Haskell and Mrs. White were good friends, however they did disagree on this point. Haskell kept pushing what these pamphlets (and the earlier books) trying to get Mrs. White to accept these views. She kept telling him that inspiration does not work this way and that if we were to accept the views of those pamphlets it would misrepresent how she wanted to be used and could be used to cause all kinds of trouble in the church. Mrs. White and Willie White had similar but less cordial letters with different people the names that I remember the most are Elders Washburn and Wilkinson. Prescott, Daniels and Willie White believed that if the ideas presented in these pamphlets were to be accepted by the church that it would destroy the church. People like Haskell, Washburn and Wilkinson believed that the church needed to embrace the views in these publications. They were baffled by Mrs. White opposing them on this topic. While I did not see any first hand documents connecting this, among the followers of Washburn and Wilkinson there were documents claiming that Mrs. White had apostatized, that she was claiming that she was not inspired after all, and blaming her apostasy on the influence of Willie and Daniels and Prescott some even suggested that they were actually Jesuits. They warned people not to listen to Mrs. White's new writings but to have the people such as Elder Washburn and others offer what Mrs. White wrote that came back in the days prior to her apostasy. Mrs. White accused them of taking the popular views of inspiration to edit her writings to teach their ideas.

You're right - this is a terrible translation - or paraphrase as the case may be. The red-letter stuff appears to be someone's private interpretation. There is nothing in the original language that points directly at Obama - but you already knew that. I don't see anything in Daniel or Revelation that even vaguely refers to Obama, even now that I think I know what to look for. Over and out.

AMEN! But admittedly, so can the Bible. One of the reasons I don't reference her is that she is so easily misused - even by the denomination.

I saw last night that Hacksaw Ridge was a "trending" category on the Internet. Cool. (And...the trailer alone is enough to bring tears to my eyes!)

1) The word "fundamentalist" has roots going back before that time when a certain group of them developed such a set of statements. 2) Which of the statements did Adventists reject? From what I can tell, the "fundamentals" list included the following: The inerrancy of the Bible The literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis The virgin birth of Christ The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross I happen to agree with all of the above. That would make me a fundamentalist, per its definition in the early 1900s.

The term "fundamentalist," in Christian, religious, aspects, has generally been understood to apply to one who agreed with a set of "fundamental" statements of belief that were published in the early 1900s. NOTE: I am going completely by memory. So, my date may be slightly off. And, I do not remember exactly the list of fundamentals that were published, or who wrote them. As SDA doctrine generally disagreed with several of those doctrinal statements, Adventists generally rejected the idea that they were fundamentalist. On this basis, we should use caution is describing us as fundamentalist as doing so may confuse people as to what we actually believe.

Appealing to Scripture is not going to be an effective rebuttal to these scientists. We're all here, experiencing this kind of existence because God's authority has been called into question. So, it cannot be taken for granted especially in a case like this. And it's also unhelpful to conflate goodness in the Biblical sense, meriting eternal reward; and goodness in the earthly sense, being the sort of person most people would like as a neighbor under normal conditions. If we can't make that distinction, it's no wonder they think proving people aren't always jerks equates to throwing basic Christian doctrine on its head.

I was going to qualify my post with 'some' but it didn't happen. Really, my post was to show fundamentalism should not be confused with a conservative hermeneutic. The hypocrisy is to accuse conservatives of fundamentalism when many in the liberal camp use EGW in the same incorrect manner of cutting and pasting their own beliefs into her writings.

1) When you mention the four books that she had named earlier in her article, did you overlook the Bible that she had just mentioned in the prior sentence? 2) The lesser-greater light metaphor did not originate with Ellen White. It originated in the very first chapter of the Bible, and is elucidated in the Book of Revelation. Incidentally, Revelation and/or the Bible is the Book originally referred to as the "Spirit of Prophecy." And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Revelation 19:10) Notice that John's "brethren that have the testimony of Jesus" are equated with having "the spirit of prophecy." In other words, Adventists have gotten on the wrong track from the beginning with making a distinction between "the spirit of prophecy" and "the Bible." No such distinction exists. John explicitly tells us, in Revelation 1:2, that he "bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw." Therefore, his writings are part of "the spirit of prophecy." He, like Ellen White, reflected the light God gave him.

In the Bible creatures that are "unclean" are not considered to be food, so "unclean foods" is an oxymoron. God created the unclean creatures, but not as food for humans.

Yep- gonna be good!

Awesome!!!!!

Wow!