Ellen White a false prophet?!?!

[LifeHiscost]

A contrast in ideas.

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" Rev 3:17 KJV

"....apart from me you can do nothing." John 15:5

Regards!

[cardw]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: cardw

Quote:

I am far more satisfied to be motivated by love and empathy. I don't need a Bible or Ellen White to tell me that it is better.

A contrast in ideas.

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" Rev 3:17 KJV

"....apart from me you can do nothing." John 15:5

So, if you claim to be motivated by love, does this apply to you as well?

[John317]

" I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title." EGW SpM 481

Quote:

This illustrates the disinformation around Ellen White. This is a form of Newspeak as identified by George Orwell. The full concept that she puts forward is this...

Not if you read the plain language of Ellen White in 1 SM 31-33 where she explains exactly why she said those words. I've read George Orwell's book 1984, and there is no relationship between what Ellen White wrote and the idea of Newspeak. Ellen White is not deliberately misusing language in order to cause confusion in the minds of people. She is very clear about her meaning. She says in no uncertain language that God called her to be His messenger and that He gave her many dreams and visions for the purpose of giving messages to the Seventh-day Adventist church and to the world in order to prepare a people for Christ's return. There is no reason to be confused about this unless one seeks to avoid her plain meaning.

Whether a person accepts what she says about herself is another matter entirely. That is each individual's choice; but let us at least be clear about what Ellen White is saying. She is saying God gave here visions and dreams and that the angels of God woke her up in the early morning for the purpose of writing what God had shown her in vision. She said that Jesus Christ declared her to be His messenger (1 SM 32).

Quote:

Read 1 SM 31-37 where she says clearly that her work "includes much more" than the name prophet signifies. See top of page 36.

Quote:

So this allows her defenders to state that she never claimed to be a prophet, when if fact she is claiming to be "much more" than a prophet, which includes being a prophet.

This is a form of intellectual dishonesty called disinformation, whether intentional or not. These kinds of tactics are used over and over in the discussion about Ellen White by her defenders. This is why I came to the point where I realized that if I was going to honest, I could no longer defend the idea that Ellen White was a prophet.

Of course Ellen White was not denying she is a prophet of God. No one who has read pages 31 to 35 of 1 SM could possibly believe that she is denying it. She explains plainly why she did not choose to say,"I am a prophet." See near the bottom of page 32: "Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?-- Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies."

Jesus Christ had much the same reason for not going around saying, "I am the Messiah." He did not say this because his words would be misunderstood, and also because there were false messiahs. In other words, the claim to be a prophet is nothing by itself, and so is the claim to be the Messiah. Anyone can say they are a prophet or the Messiah.

Ellen White wrote, "My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there." (1 SM 36).

Who gave Ellen White her "commission"? Hint: it was not any human or any church.

See p. 32, 33 for Ellen White's answer.

Some people may not like her answer or accept it as the truth, but they cannot deny it is Ellen White's answer.

[Guest truthseeker007]

Hey Richard you made a very important point. Religion based on fear and complicated doctrines cannot be from God if God is a God of love that appreciates free love only. I can see in my church that a lot of the people seem to be afraid about their salvation and have totally isolated themselves. I am glad i don t live in a box like that, i rather go to hell than worship a God who wants to scare and force us. I think that people who are not doing things because out of fear, but because out of rationallity are seeing way more things than others do. Ellen White did a lot of harm to her followers when she said that even forgotten sins would result in destination hell. So a good memory becomes salvational. Ellen said a lot of good things, but contradicted those things in a serpent like way. This caused me to serious doubt whether she was a messenger from the Lord.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17--No one denies that both Calvin and Luther did some pretty bad things by our standards. Calvin was responsible for the death of a great scientist simply because he disagreed with what that scientist wrote regarding the land of Palestine and other religious issues. Luther was cruel to a close friend of his because they disagreed over the Sabbath. Ellen White doesn't deny these things.

Can you quote something [in context, of course] from Ellen White about Calvin or Luther or both, showing that Ellen White wrote falsely about these men.

In other words, give us an example of where Ellen White did what you claim she did.

What you are talking about here seems to me to be a matter of opinion rather than a matter of lying or of falsification of the record. Ellen White did not claim that she was writing a biography of these men. If anyone wants to know specifics about the rest of those men's lives, there are hundreds of books containing that information.

Ellen White, then, was writing for the same purpose that the writers of the Gospels wrote their books: to convince people to follow Jesus Christ. Ellen White wrote what she did about Luther and Calvin, not in order to tell all of the facts about these men, but in order to show people how God had led in the Protestant reformation, and convince people that God is still in ultimate control of human history today and that we should trust Him with our lives.

Quote:

Let me ask all of you this question...

What would she have to do that would be the deal killer for you?

What action, writing, etc. would tell you that she wasn't a prophet?

In my experience with this once someone has made their mind up that she is a prophet, no amount of evidence will change their mind and all defenses of her, no matter how spurious, are accepted as true.

There are hundreds of people who used to believe she was a prophet and now do not believe it, so you don't appear to taking all the evidence into account.

Of course I am open to evidence and reason in the matter of Ellen White. I can think of many things that would be "the deal killer" for me insofar as Ellen White is concerned. I apply the same rules to Ellen White that I apply to Joseph Smith and any other writer who claims to be revealing something from God. I apply the same also to Saint Paul.

Joseph Smith claimed that God told him that Sunday is the new Sabbath. That plainly contradicts the Bible.

Joseph Smith claims that the dead do know something. That plainly contradicts the Bible.

Joseph Smith claimed that God got angry with people on this continent when Christ was killed in Jerusalem and that God therefore slew thousands here in North America at that time as a result of Christ's death. That plainly contradicts the Bible's teaching about God.

Joseph Smith taught that God's plan for humans is that they have multiple wives. That plainly contradicts the Bible.

Joseph Smith sent men to destroy the press that printed an article about his view's on polygamy. This is the action that resulted in his arrest and in his being killed by a mob. In Smith's sending his followers to destroy the press, I believe that Smith proved that he was a false prophet because he was plainly going against the Bible.

Joseph Smith claims that a dead man (risen as an angel, named Moroni) gave him the golden plates. That plainly contradicts the Bible.

Joseph Smith claims that the gold and brass plates were taken back to heaven and that if he had allowed anyone unauthorized to see them, he would have been killed. That plainly contradicts how God has worked in the past.

These are all examples of "deal killers" for me as regards Joseph Smith, and so they would be also as regards Ellen White if she were guilty of similar things.

Now let me ask you a question: Have you read carefully and thoughtfully the book by Herbert Douglass entitled, Dramatic Prophecies of Ellen White? I have read it fairly recently and I believe the writer shows some very strong evidence that Ellen White had guidance from God in what she wrote concerning the future.

Also, have you read Arthur White's biography of Ellen White? Or Herbert Douglass' good book, Ellen White Messenger of the Lord?

[John317]

The Bible itself portrays God as sometimes using fear to get people's attention and to teach them the beginning lessons of faith. Parents who love their children do the same in order to help keep their children from harm and danger.

Everything that Ellen White said in that respect is also said in the Bible itself.

Instances: Noah, Moses, and at times, Jesus Himself. Witness: "If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24) See also Luke 10: 11-16. Many other examples could be given.

[Nightingale]

I greatly appreciate you last few posts, John. I know that God will never remove all

room for doubt, but after reading most of the books she wrote I would find it more difficult to disbelieve than to beleive she was a messenger for God. I thank God for the blessing these books have been to me personally.

There is a great book by Rene Noorbergen. Noorbergen was a non-SDA writer who set out to study and write about "prophets", and included EGW in the group. He wrote a very interesting book. "Prophet of Destiny", about EGW and also " Jeane Dixon:My Life and Prophecies." Noorbergen became an SDA after his study.

[Woody]

Quote:

I did not reject her or the Bible because I wanted to do sinful things or "get away" with things.

I simply don't need authority and fear to motivate me. I am far more satisfied to be motivated by love and empathy. I don't need a Bible or Ellen White to tell me that it is better.

Well said. Those who are closed minded ... judgmental and ignorant will try to attack you as wanting to sin. They are simple minded and not open to truth.

I also agree with what you have said in this last paragraph. It is love that should motivate us. Love WON another. Those who strongly support EGW do it from a basis of fear.

Where am I at? Currently , I happen to believe that she was a 'limited' prophet. I believe she had a message. But not every word of hers were from God. Our task (if we want it) is to decide what messages are from God. That can be easy on one hand. Check and see if it matches your understanding of God through the Gospels. And SHE is NOT the NEW Gospel.

I don't blame her for what has happened. I blame US. We want to build her up as the Golden Calf. What a shame.

[Kevin H]

A danger that we have to deal with is that we are living in the 21th century. We have a cultural view of what a prophet should be and use this to color the prophets we read about in the Bible, and color how we judge people who show indications of the prophetic gift. Unfortunetely none of the prophets actually meet our views of what a prophet should be, so we either criticize them for their expirence, or we downplay that aspect of their life.

The problems that arrise are both subjective and objective. D. M. Canright left the church and criticized it because of the objective reasons of living in the early days of fundamentalism. Believing that you had to either be a strict fundamentalist or an unbelieving modernist. Mrs. White's writings did not fit under the strict fundamentalist guidelines, therefore although he loved her as a fine Christian woman, she could not be a prophet.

I see Canright in a very different light than I see the modern skeptic. Canright lived in the early days of the re-discovery of the ancient world, and thus did not have the facts we have today. He was honest, and mostly accurate with his information (except for his belief that the Whites were rich). Canright's criticisms were honest and opened the door for further study, and as more was discovered about the land of the Bible, the writings of the Bible and ancient writings in general, I can see that the Bible does not fit the fundamentalists presupositions. If he was alive today and had the evidence that's been discovered in the years between his and ours he may have made different choices.

An issue on the subjective side would be Stephen Haskell. Haskell loved Ellen White's ministry and was greatly blessed by it. He, like Canright, also believed that you either had to be a strict fundamentalist or an unbelieving modernist, and he kept trying to force Mrs. White into the fundamentalist mode. There was a lot of stress between him, Ellen White and Willie White. He kept trying to convince Mrs. White that she fit the fundamentalist mode and she kept trying to offer a third way of seeing the prophetic gift. His love for how God blessed him through her ministry blinded him to the facts that Canright focused on. Sadly in the rejection of the 1919 Bible conference and in the rebellion of 1923, Haskell's views won out, and has tended to be printed in most of our publications and sermons since.

Since we are trying to push Haskell's view of Mrs. White's ministry, we still have the Canright's facts, and this combination (with refusing to look at the archaeological discoveries) continues to cause the problems today.

As I said earlier, I see Canright in a much different light than I do the modern skeptic. The modern skeptic is focused on the traditions even though the facts that were not yet discovered in Canright's day is with us. As the modern skeptic gives their testimony, they tend to picture themselves as members of the more ultra conservative, critical right wing of the Seventh-day Adventist church, they were steeped in traditions that has developed in the Adventist church. They felt a security in their salvation in works and in having a feeling "I'm one of the choosen few and everyone else is lost" and liked to use Mrs. White as a hammer against non-Adventists. They have accepted the urban legend of what a prophet should be and like Haskell and Canright expect Mrs. White to fit this mold. Sadly people with that mindset have a tendency to want to be more and more exclusionary, and as they band together they keep checking each other in that band to make sure they are worthy and if not they can cause a lot of pain to those not worthy. Many of the critics of the church have been very much hurt by this mindset. Many faithful members of the church has been very much hurt by this mindset. Then they learn the fact of Canright that Mrs. White does not fit their urban legend as to what they think a prophet should be.

Today these modern critics belong to the right wing of the evangelical church, they continue believing the urban legend of what a prophet should be, and they have changed prophets from Mrs. White to Paul (who because of his trackrecord of being accepted as a prophet surely must fit their urban legend)and use him as a hammer against Adventists, as they are steeped in traditions that have developed in the evangelical church. Part of me hopes that these people remain Biblically stupid otherwise they are in for a big dissapointment about Paul and what Paul meant in some of his statements (however we are also in for dissapointments too when it comes to some of our traditions-- we all have things to learn and unlearn)

God tried to give us the truth in the ministry of Ellen White and at the 1919 Bible conference. The church's rejection of this truth, the rebellion in 1923 (in the 1923 General Conference A. G. Daniel's was thrown out of office, W. W. Prescott was demoted, Willie White got to "keep his job" however his office was striped of it's previous power and basically he was fired but alowed to come to his office. They were replaced by either Fundamentalists, or people who were not fundamentalists but who would not oppose fundamentalism in the church they way Daniels, Prescott and White did. The Religion faculty at Washington Missionary College were thrown out, and there were witch hunts for non-fundamentalists in our other schools and churches.)God is punishing us by allowing us to see the logical conclusion of the choices in 1919 and 1923.

This crisis will not resolve until we can come to terms with the questions of both Haskell and Canright.

[Gail]

Quote:

Those who strongly support EGW do it from a basis of fear.

???

I am grateful for her work for what I learned about child education, health and many years ago, alternative healing practises.

I am amazed at how progressive her thinking was!

On childhood education, I raised my children as homeschoolers, having the principles that she laid down in Adventist Home and Child Guidance. All 3 of my kids are honour students and 2 of them were held up as exemplary students by our local academy principal. Dr. Raymond Moore just provided the modern studies that backed up what she offered on the subject. It was easy- once I understood the value of waiting before formal study and providing work experience.

I have more examples of my own life where the wisdom she laid down, besides blessing me in my spiritual walk, have helped me through experiences where I recognized anti-Christian influence.

Fear? I think not!

[Nightingale]

Does it not seem very judgemental to say that everyone who beleives in and supports the

SOP is doing so out of fear!!!!!! I have not found reading any of EGW writings to cause me or

those I know well to be fearful!!! In fact I have found the love of God and the wonderful working out of Gods plan for man to be the main topics.

Certainly the Bible teaches the end of all things and the judgement. Perhaps people find what they are looking for.

If some are truly interested in learning the facts about EGWs life there is a very interesting book. "A Prophet Among You". by T. Housel Jemison. This book was written for college classes and has very interesting chapters regarding most of what has been brought up in this topic.

[Gail]

And in case somebody might wonder (I've mentioned this before), I am not one of those far right types who look and act like EGW is the last word in everything.

I am someone, though, who has benefitted from her efforts.

[Woody]

Quote:

Fear? I think not!

Oh. I am most certain it is not you. But those who "strongly" support her often do it from fear or you can call it legalism. You know ... that hated 'l' word. All you have to do is to look at the off shoots to see it. When the church is not legalistic enough for them ... they leave. The church has safe guards for legalism as it does for the liberal side. Those that want to go down a more strong path of EGW ... frequently feel they have to leave. They form their own fear based belief in her.

Don't forget .... many have not left the church and stay to spread their legalistic view of EGW and JW. I am not saying the 'church' has this belief ... but many of us IN the church do.

[Woody]

Let me add ... like the Bible .... EGW is seen by whatever lense you use to read her.

[LifeHiscost]

"[My purpose is] that you may know the full truth and understand with certainty and security against error the accounts (histories) and doctrines of the faith of which you have been informed and in which you have been orally instructed." Luke 1:4 AMP

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17 KJV

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: cardw

Quote:

I am far more satisfied to be motivated by love and empathy. I don't need a Bible or Ellen White to tell me that it is better.

A contrast in ideas.

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" Rev 3:17 KJV

"....apart from me you can do nothing." John 15:5

So, if you claim to be motivated by love, does this apply to you as well?

God is Love. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Word. All Biblical Truth is of the Word. Ignore the Word (Truth) and nothing is left but a lie.

OTOH what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the above is true for you, all things being considered equal, it is also true for me.

Regards!

[Gail]

Oh. I am most certain it is not you. But those who "strongly" support her often do it from fear or you can call it legalism. You know ... that hated 'l' word. All you have to do is to look at the off shoots to see it. When the church is not legalistic enough for them ... they leave. The church has safe guards for legalism as it does for the liberal side. Those that want to go down a more strong path of EGW ... frequently feel they have to leave. They form their own fear based belief in her.

Don't forget .... many have not left the church and stay to spread their legalistic view of EGW and JW. I am not saying the 'church' has this belief ... but many of us IN the church do.

Thanks for your input on this, Redwood.

I think we all know folks like this, but I have a feeling that there are legalistic people in many circles, like the workplace or home. They may not have an Ellen White book to refer to, but they might have a church manual, a health plan or diet, a philosophy on how to raise children or how to run a business. I wonder how much of that is part of an addictive personality. Certainly it is dysfunctional.

[LifeHiscost]

Well said. Those who are closed minded ... judgmental and ignorant will try to attack you as wanting to sin. They are simple minded and not open to truth.

[Woody]

Quote:

And if we each have a different understanding of God, would that make a different God for every person?

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."Hebrews 13:7 NASB

Jesus is the same. But our understanding of him is different in each person. I know of NO two people who have the same religious understanding. Our different understandings of God ... do not make God different. It is just our faulty understandings that are different. We will not be united in our understandings until we SEE His Face. Until then ... a little tolerance for each other in the Body would be blessed.

[John317]

Naturally no two individuals are going to see eye to eye on every detail of anything, let alone Biblical doctrines. That is not necessary or even desirable, and I am sure it won't even happen in heaven or on the new earth. That is not what Jesus was talking about when He prayed that His church be "one." He was not praying that everyone see everything, down to the smallest detail, in precisely the same way.

He was primarily talking about our love for each other-- the way we treat each other. Especially when we disagree. His followers will be known by their love. Not by our seeing eye to eye on every detail of every doctrine.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

It is a bit like reading all the criticism of the Bible before one reads the Bible or while one is just becoming acquainted with Christ.

Quote:jasd

Upon this point I would expand: a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, one ought to be apprised of that (or those) link(s). The same might be said of a collection of dogmas and/or doctrines – ‘fundamentals’, if you will.

>>Two points at issue:<<

Two, only?

>>1) How reliable are the books that we are talking about, which put Ellen White and her writings in a negative light or present her as a false prophet?<<

Several things follow: it is certainly more feasible to parse the ‘finer’ points of the matter (“the books”) than to immerse oneself, with any true semblance of understanding, in an opus of 30,000,000 words. After having parsed the 'finer' points, it becomes a ‘judgement call’.

Per “writings in a negative light” – I wouldn’t necessarily characterize, summarily, an investigation or critique as negative (at times, identifying the chaff is positive). Any attempt to isolate and identify the weakest link of a chain is inestimably desired (on a removed analogy, note: the many ‘weak links’ imported from Mainland China and incorporated into our multiplied-million$ of dollar$ aircraft, for example: what are the implications?).

Leslie Harding notes that there are basically three definitions of a Biblical prophet – several do not include the ability to ‘prophesy’. Many former and present SDAs view EGW as fulfilling a more pastoral role than not.

The question or surmise that appends “hurt” to the seriously questioning SDA is depreciative condescension. imho

>>Can those books be trusted to give us the truth about her? It would be one thing if they could be trusted to do that, but after many years of study of these issues and reading such books, I've concluded that they can't be.<<

How about an example? Take the matter of exhorting the body church to remember the .org in the individual’s Last Will and Testament. The question follows and obtains; that is, did the good woman do likewise – as she adjured? Seems tah me that,

an adversarial “book” which leads to an investigation of the matter and is thereby validated is – at least as ‘trustworthy’ as a book that adjures to a position which the author, him or herself, fails to practice as well. I think one is correct in observing,

“It goes to credibility.”

>>Therefore, the books that you are suggesting we trust to determine the strength or weakness of a link are themselves weak and defective.<<

Observing that “Therefore” is, seemingly, stance adverbial and arbitrary – and noting that the same might be said of most things, it seems that one is well-advised to study to satisfy one’s own self (and, in turn, Christ-indwelling). Additionally, it is much more feasible that one’s conclusions might be more determinate as to the strength of the ‘chain’

if one identifies the weak or defective links.

>>2) Even if we assume that those books are good and useful, it doesn't mean they are good for everyone irrespective of their experience and knowledge.<<

...goes back to the posit that a road less traveled might benefit from one or more guides. That said, I agree that – should one not care – to be exposed to another point of view in his or her studies – then, by all means, “those books” should not be included in his or her syllabus.

Those truly seeking a skillfully arrived-at denouement which, in turn, forms the pillars of doctrine, investigates the multiple sources available.

>>...those who have not yet been established in the milk are hardly ready to start eating the meat. The meat will only make them sick and throw up because their stomachs are not ready to digest the meat. First the milk, then the meat.<<

Overall, I agree with you; however, meat properly prepared proves beneficial to – even, the nursing child.

[LifeHiscost]

I don't blame her for what has happened. I blame US. We want to build her up as the Golden Calf. What a shame.

I noticed that when God saw His children getting out of line in the Old Testament, He would use His enemies

to add some of the chastisement necessary to bring them back to a better way of living. I'm supposing you don't want to be included as the tool that God uses for chastisement?

"Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" Matthew 18:7 NKJV

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

And if we each have a different understanding of God, would that make a different God for every person?

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."Hebrews 13:7 NASB

Jesus is the same. But our understanding of him is different in each person. I know of NO two people who have the same religious understanding. Our different understandings of God ... do not make God different. It is just our faulty understandings that are different. We will not be united in our understandings until we SEE His Face. Until then ... a little tolerance for each other in the Body would be blessed.

No doubt, and Amen!!

[LifeHiscost]

He was primarily talking about our love for each other-- the way we treat each other. Especially when we disagree. His followers will be known by their love. Not by our seeing eye to eye on every detail of every doctrine.

Uniformly, not uniformity. Hitler wanted uniformity.

Regards!

[cardw]

Quote:

God is Love. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Word. All Biblical Truth is of the Word. Ignore the Word (Truth) and nothing is left but a lie.

This meme sets up a state of belief that is unreachable by reason or evidence of any kind because any evidence outside of the Bible, no matter how reasonable, is considered to be a lie.