Licentiousness- caused in utero?

[Gail]

I read this today:

Quote:

Licentiousness, which means impure thoughts and indulgence in sensual things, may be transmitted to the offspring as a strong tendency because of the indulgence on the part of the parents especially during the time of pregnancy. (See Matthew 1:24,25) This is one of the causes of the appalling immorality and crimes against women we see today.

Now, Matthew 1:24, 25 says this:

"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him to do. He took Mary to be his wife. 25- He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus." GWT

Thoughts?

[Gail]

I always thought that Joseph did not have sex with Mary before she gave birth to Jesus because it was prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

I didn't consider before that to abstain from marital relations would produce a person with purer thoughts.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I read this today:

Licentiousness, which means impure thoughts and indulgence in sensual things, may be transmitted to the offspring as a strong tendency because of the indulgence on the part of the parents especially during the time of pregnancy. (See Matthew 1:24,25) This is one of the causes of the appalling immorality and crimes against women we see today.

Where did you read that?

[phkrause]

Interesting, and like rudywoofs, where did this come from?

pk

[Gail]

I got it from a curriculum that I have hanging around the house. Just was going through it when I saw this.

[melvin mccarty]

A church member way back in my history believed that procreation was absolutely the only reason for sexual intimacies. Any thing else in her books was sin. That quote could be construed that way? ....mel

[Gail]

I wonder what that member thought of the Song of Solomon...

[Stan]

A church member way back in my history believed that procreation was absolutely the only reason for sexual intimacies. Any thing else in her books was sin. That quote could be construed that way? ....mel

Ran into this a couple of years ago.

She told her husband that he could stop his hormonal drive for his sexual desires by fasting and praying.

I suggested to her that she could do the same from her hormonal driven monthly cycle by doing the same thing.

That comment did not go over that well.

[Stan]

What I should have recommended is the book that Nan spoke about, something about Sex begins at breakfast.

I doubt if he was lighting her fire at all.

[Stan]

This is it

Sex begins in the kitchen

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

Licentiousness, which means impure thoughts and indulgence in sensual things, may be transmitted to the offspring as a strong tendency because of the indulgence on the part of the parents especially during the time of pregnancy. (See Matthew 1:24,25) This is one of the causes of the appalling immorality and crimes against women we see today.

Someone will probably get me for this, but I think it's pure blarney. Why would it cause crimes against women? And just *how* did the author do his research, eh? Via Masters and Johnson? Sheesh....

[Gail]

Just thought I'd throw this out there... LOL I enjoy interesting conversations!

Now, if a couple believes that this is true, that sex during pregnancy can be a means of transmitting sexual drive via hormones (or whatever- I don't know!)

It doesn't necessarily mean that the couple doesn't believe in sex. It may be like talking to the unborn child or not taking drugs in order to influence the child.

The context of the comment was in a commentary about Samson. I think the author (whoever that is, cause I don't know) was trying to come up with a reason for HIS moral weakness.

It seems to me that God could have warned against this in His counsel to Samson's mother, the wife of Manoah, while he was giving her the other advice.

[Gail]

And vice versa... If a couple abstains from sex during pregnancy, does that mean that the child comes out without a sex drive, or just a normal one?

[Nan]

The best I can think of saying, is that this is an 'interesting' position.....which sounds

as if it came entirely out of the author's head.

Is there any evidence offered apart from the texts in Matthew, which I would hold to be talking

only of a special case?

[LifeHiscost]

The best I can think of saying, is that this is an 'interesting' position.....

No pun intended, I'm sure.

[TreeOfLife]

This post is better formatted and more readable at this link

What does the word “licentiousness” mean? Or does it not have a meaning? Are we free to use and abuse our words and our language as we please and without consequence? If we come across an unusual word should we attribute at will any meaning what so ever to that word?

Words can and do mean different things, don’t they? Words are used for conveying important feelings, aren’t they?

It is important to learn to effectively share one's feelings with one another. I believe one most important thing that women generally are able to teach men much better than the other way around is how to express and convey feelings. That's one of many areas where I believe women are "an help meet for" their male counterparts in accord with Genesis 2:20.

The Greek language of the New Testament is using at least two words for "to speak." (Actually I get 34 hits when searching Strong's Dictionary for Greek words translated "speak.") The two important words I am thinking of are "laleo" (G2980) and "lego" (G3004.)

When an important message from God is conveyed to the people, then typically the word "lego" is being used. When someone, whether man or woman is using words in a nonsensical manner, though more than likely in order to convey important feelings, then typically the Greek word "laleo" is being used.

Among God's people, that is, in God's church and among God's Sons and Daughters, our objective should always be to speak sensibly such that we convey truth and not lies, error or nonsense talk that may be misconstrued as either outright lies, ignorance, “talking in tongues,” or simply nonsense. This should be true even while our chief objective is to convey important feelings, should it not?

I believe this principle is taught also by Paul, for instance in 1 Cor. 14:32, where the Greek word translated “speak” is “laleo.” In other words Paul is saying nothing in that text about it not being permitted for women to “lego” in church. The emphasis is upon not “laleo” in church, and that should not be done by either men or women, should it?! Also I believe there is a considerable difference between ‘keeping silence’ and ‘keeping silent,’ isn’t there? Keeping the silence and maintaining reverence among God’s people are important responsibilities, aren’t they?

1 Cor 14:34 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;G2980… “

Licentiousness is a most important word. Yet, I believe that all too often too many among us are apt to gloss over that unusual word without giving it much of a second thought. Thus we put ourselves in a position of missing out on whatever messages and concepts may be built into that word.

When I search Strong’s for words meaning “licentiousness” I get only one hit:

“G766… apparently meaning continent); licentiousness (sometimes including other vices.)“

So I learn that the word has something to do with ‘vices.’ Now, intramarital sex properly used is not ever a vice, is it? Sex, not vices, is designed by our Creator from the beginning as one of His tremendous blessings to be used for expressing the finest feelings of love and tenderness between a married man and woman, isn’t it?

Looking up the same word in my e-Sword Webster Dictionary I find this definition:

Licentiousness

LICEN'TIOUSNESS, n. Excessive indulgence of liberty; contempt of the just restraints of law, morality and decorum. The licentiousness of authors is justly condemned; the licentiousness of the press is punishable by law.

Law is the god of wise men; licentiousness is the god of fools.

Thus again the word pertain to something improper, and certainly not to an activity blessed from the beginning by God. Further, looking up the base word I find:

Licentious

LICEN'TIOUS, a. [L. licentiosus.]

1. Using license; indulging freedom to excess; unrestrained by law or morality; loose; dissolute; as a licentious man.

2. Exceeding the limits of law or propriety; wanton; unrestrained; as licentious desires. Licentious thoughts precede licentious conduct.

Aha, another word I need to look up: ‘License.’ What does that word mean?

License

LI'CENSE, n. [L. licentia, from liceo, to be permitted.]

1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license.

2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.

License they mean, when they cry liberty.

LI'CENSE, v.t.

1. To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission; as, to license a man to keep an inn.

2. To authorize to act in a particular character; as, to license a physician or a lawyer.

3. To dismiss. [Not in use.]

Thus, in essence, ‘license’ is “permission to do something otherwise unlawful.”

Now, how many of us have applied for and obtained a license for some purpose or other? But have we ever given a second thought to the nature of whatever ‘unlawful acts’ we are thus seeking to involve ourselves in? And if our intent is not at all to do something unlawful, then why do we look for, or obtain, a license in the first place? Why do we involve ourselves in “licentiousness.”

For instance, why does anyone need a “marriage license?” What’s so unlawful about complying with God’s first words ever “legoed” to man and woman? Cf. Genesis 1:28!

On the converse: Is it lawful, per Genesis 1:28, to transfer the dominion of One's Son or Daughter to anyone else than the true parents, e.g. by registering an infant or a child within the dominion of a State? Or is that why we think we need a marriage license?

One more thought: When we restrain our sexuality such that we prohibit marriage or intramarital sex, aren’t we then disobeying God’s first commandment to men and women? What have the consequences been of such practices, for instance by forbidding priests and nuns from getting married. Isn’t it this practice that has led to untold suffering, untold illicit sexual activities of all kinds, and all kinds of abuse, not excluding wife abuse, child abuse, and perversion?!

[aldona]

Just my random thoughts...

I have often wondered how much of EGW's warnings about "excesses in marriage", "grievous sins hidden under a cloak of holy matrimony" (or similar expressions in delicate 19th century terminology) might be referring to what we in this day and age would call "marital rape".

Was it not that long ago, even in civilised nations like the USA, Britain and Australia, that it was considered an impossible concept for a man to rape or sexually assault his wife? It was long believed that marriage was an implied consent for the husband to do to his wife whatever he wanted, at any time, for any reason, without any right of the wife to say "no."

Some religions still teach something like this today. I won't name which, but one of their clerics caused a media furore in Australia recently by stating just such a position.

How many men in EGW's day would have had this mindset? It would have been something new and radical at the time for Mrs White to proclaim that just because you are married, it is not a total free-for-all, and self-control is needed, as well as consideration for the health and emotional well-being of one's spouse. (Especially since abstinence was the only available form of birth control.)

Because of the circumspect language that was used in those days when discussing these kinds of matters, many of these writings sound strange to us today, living in a more open society. But next time you are reading this kind of material in EGW's writings, just try looking at it through the "filter" of what I have suggested above, and I believe it will make much more sense.

aldona

[cardw]

This idea is basically taken from the following book published by John Harvey Kellog and Ellen White basically takes him as an authority on these matters. You can read the whole ridiculous book here...

Plain Facts for the Old and Young by John Harvey Kellog

[cardw]

Here is a particularly appalling remedy applied to a young girl who was suffering from so called "secret sin".

Quote:

A Desperate Case.—A little girl about ten years of age was brought to us by her father, who came with his daughter to have her broken of the vile habit of self-abuse into which she had fallen, having been taught it by a German servant girl. Having read an early copy of this work, the father had speedily detected the habit, and had adopted every measure which he could devise to break his child of the destructive vice which she had acquired, but in vain. After applying various other measures without success, it finally became necessary to resort to a surgical operation, by which it is hoped that she was permanently cured, as we have heard nothing to the contrary since, and as the remedy seemed to be effectual. It was a severe remedy, and may seem a harsh one, but every other means utterly failed, and the father insisted upon the performance of the operation as a trial. This little girl, naturally truthful and honest, had, through the influence of this blighting vice, been made crafty and deceptive. She would tell the most astonishing falsehoods to free herself from the charge of guilt or to avoid punishment. The gentleman, her father, felt so deeply upon the subject and was so thoroughly awake to the consequences of the sin, that he declared he would take his daughter away into the wilderness and leave her to die, if need be, rather than allow her to grow up to womanhood with this vile blight upon her, and run the risk of her contaminating with the same vice his other, younger children. He felt so deeply that the tears coursed down his cheeks as he talked, and we were most happy to be of service to him in aiding his daughter to overcome the fascinating vice. She seemed willing to try to help herself, but was unable to break the bonds of sin without the extraordinary help which she received.

My guess is that this girl was circumcised which is a barbaric and particularly cruel "solution."

This is the type of thinking to went on within the "best & brightest" of the early SDA church.

[TreeOfLife]

This idea is basically taken from the following book published by John Harvey Kellog and Ellen White basically takes him as an authority on these matters. You can read the whole ridiculous book here...

Plain Facts for the Old and Young by John Harvey Kellog

Dear Cardw,

I see your concern and I appreciate and value every bit of true sympathy and care provided to such as are in need, but…

Would you please provide your basis for your claim that Ellen White is taking John Harvey Kellogg "as an authority on these matters?"

Perhaps you would care also to explain your basis for labeling John Harvey Kellogg's book "ridiculous?"

It seems to me that most everything anyone does when viewed through a retro-spectroscope may seem "ridiculous" in view of later discoveries along our long and sometimes tedious Way towards a better land, the Kingdom of God, Heaven. Yet, if we don't do our best for learning and doing, at the present time, how are we ever to progress on our ongoing journey towards something that is better than that which we are currently used to think and do?

Now, what would have been more "ridiculous" for the father of this young girl to do? 1. To do nothing while allowing the rather severe character traits described to progress unhampered and for all to be forced to deal with the consequences later, 2. to act in accord with the only option he, the girl’s father, saw for himself to do per your quoted passage above, 3. to consult with the most respected medical authority at that time and to act accordingly, or 4. to pray earnestly for a better solution? Perhaps God would even see fit to provide such a better solution through the Pen of Ellen White?

Lastly, aren’t the rampant family destructive propaganda of our day and age, especially in our Western society, more “ridiculous” than most anything described in a book from a century or two ago when fathers and husbands together with their respective mothers and wives did their best for taking responsibility for their loved ones and for the wellbeing of coming generations?

Aren’t we, in our day and age, being considerably more “ridiculous” than they were by delegating each our family responsibilities to over burdened representatives of the State who 1. cannot possibly know the details of any private matter they are given to handle, 2. who cannot possibly love or care for each one of the many little ones whose futures they are given to decide, and 3. who are most likely to act blindly in accord with what may seem to them most expedient while being, at least superficially, in accord with the blind policies of the State – all for the ultimate purpose of allowing their regular pay checks to keep coming?

Are we on a journey towards a better land? Or are we happily closing our eyes thinking Stat(u)s quo and the present way of doing things is the only way to go… while in the meantime things do continue to deteriorate towards ultimate destruction on a grand scale for most every one in our “enlightened” society?

Perhaps we have something little more to learn of great and lasting value from the Scriptures and from the Pen of Ellen Gould White? In particular I am thinking about a very enlightening passage re “ false sympathy.” Perhaps you’ll find something of value by reviewing that link of mine? Perhaps some will even discover eternal and lasting values for themselves by searching the published works of Ellen White for her statements re the term “self-abuse?” Perhaps such a study will even help bringing one or two among us towards a much more personal and direct relationship with our Saviour? I know it has for some…

Perhaps it would have for the little girl and her father as referenced in Kellogg’s book too?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

This idea is basically taken from the following book published by John Harvey Kellog and Ellen White basically takes him as an authority on these matters. You can read the whole ridiculous book here...

Plain Facts for the Old and Young by John Harvey Kellog

Dear Cardw,

I see your concern and I appreciate and value every bit of true sympathy and care provided to such as are in need, but…

Would you please provide your basis for your claim that Ellen White is taking John Harvey Kellogg "as an authority on these matters?"

[TreeOfLife]

:smile:

Dear Richard,

Thanks for your response to my post and for your very valuable references!

Re Trust

An Experience of My Very Own

Re Trust:

I believe it is all about who and what we trust. What we trust has very much to do with our prior experiences. An important part of our experiences is what we have been taught. The very familiar example is the fact that most everyone tends to like their own mother’s cooking the best. Thus even our taste, and what we consider factual re “good” or “bad,” is something that is largely based upon other people and their prior experiences. That is to say, who and what we trust is largely based upon subjective opinion.

Objective truth is more difficult to come by and requires considerable thought and reflection by each one of us. All too often throughout history, and modern teaching is certainly no exception, the majority of people and even the best among scholars keep waving off the obvious as “ridiculous,” “strange,” “weird,” “too good to be true,” etc., etc..

My own experience:

Allow me to share my own experience re the writings of Ellen Gould White:

As a boy my dad used to read some of the writings of Ellen White for evening worship. I used to enjoy that. When I became a little older I sometimes would pick up one of her books to read for myself, but, having read the bible through a number of times before and being somewhat familiar with the Scriptures, I was unable to keep reading more than a few pages of Ellen’s writing. I simply didn’t find cause for trusting her. It seemed to me that she was writing quite a few details re biblical events that simply weren’t in the bible. I felt that although those added details were attractive and beautiful thoughts, I couldn’t at the time perceive how they could be anything but Ellen White’s own thoughts and fantasies. In fact, even when I graduated from Medical School and we were each given a full five volume set of Ellen White’s Conflict of the Ages Series, I valued her writing so little that I was happy to dispose of it to a class mate who expressed an interest in it. Then, after my dad died a few years later and we were splitting up his belongings, I felt that I should save my siblings from the books and teachings of Ellen White, so I accepted those books for myself since I have found great value in having an extensive reference library of my own.

Then, when I was about forty, I was given a book written by a Dutch scholar, Friedrich Weinberg. The title of the book is Roots of the Bible. Because the author comes from a Hebrew speaking background and being also a mathematician, he was able to share in his book very many details re the original Hebrew version of the Scriptures that previous to that I had no idea could exist in the bible. I spent a great deal of time enjoying and learning from his book.

Some time after that I was visiting with a colleague of mine whom at the time I considered as being somewhat of a Ellen White fanatic. Nevertheless, he was enjoying a copy of a newly acquired EGW CD-ROM. Well, just for the fun of it I decided to see what Ellen had written re the Tree of Life and re the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, a subject about which I had learned a number of things from Friedrich Weinreb and which prior to that I would not have believed were being taught in the Scriptures.

To my great surprise and astonishment I discovered that, using her own words and her own way of expression, Ellen White’s teaching re those two trees is exactly in line with what I had learned from my study of Friedrich Weinreb and which I am convinced could not possibly have been acquired without a thorough understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures in original.

Well, having been thus baited with finding a valuable teaching in the writings of Ellen White, I began to look for more unique items from my own areas of special interest that I could test against her writings. Again I was amazed. Every time I tested some fact based upon thorough research of my own I found that Ellen White’s teaching was right on focus and very much correct. As I recall, the second item I tested had to do with the fundamentals of oncology.

As I pursued this line of comparisons my trust in the writings of Ellen White grew tremendously, yet step by little step. Nevertheless, as Ellen White herself makes very clear, there are limits as to the details of her writing that may and should be trusted. For instance, Ellen White is preferentially using the very best translation into English that is as yet available, the King James Version. Even so, the translators of the KJV also had their limitations and there certainly are some things in the Hebrew original that those translators were not able to perceive or translate. As is obviously true for all of us, those translators too were limited by their own prior experiences, and could not possibly avoid filtering their comprehension of the original scriptures through their own glasses of prior experiences.

In conclusion:

Thus each of us is on an ever ongoing journey towards better and more reliable references, towards a better and more correct comprehension of the reality we live in. It was true for Ellen Gould White. It is true for each and every translator of the Scriptures. It is true for me. No doubt it is true for you too?

It is all about trust! Who and what we trust. That which we do not trust we discard. Sometimes in retrospect we may regret our prior decisions, but it is reassuring to know that we cannot ever do anything better than the best we know how at the time. So there is no reason for destructive guilt re that which has been and which we didn’t know of before now.

…

[TreeOfLife]

So, what is the truth re the “ridiculous book…” “published by John Harvey Kellog,” re “Ellen White basically tak[ing] him as an authority on these matters,” and, more importantly, re each of the items considered “ridiculous” within their writings?

I believe a most important ingredient re finding the truth for ourselves is testing it out against each our own experiences, past and future.

In order to find truth value in anything we must first realize the taste of truth for our selves in that particular. If we discard some thing of great inherent value because we believe a priori that it is a falsehood or a lie we are not very likely to ever realize or perceive the value in that particular. We are bound to suffer accordingly.

How could it be otherwise?!

P.S. In the meantime it is always of utmost importance to recognize the importance of respecting each other’s right to be “ridiculous,” “strange,” “weird,” etc. and to make each our own mistakes within the boundaries of that which belong to self alone and in accord with the boundaries defined from the beginning per Genesis 1:28. Just as God respected the choices of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden per Genesis chapter Two.

As did God, we too, owe it to ourselves and to each other to share thoughts and warnings that we find of value.

We must never attempt to force such thoughts and warnings down each others throats. We must allow each other the freedom to accept or reject what we have to offer – even to the point of life vs. death. We must allow each other the freedom to listen or not to what we have to share.

That is sometimes hard when it affects the well being of our most loved ones and those we hold dear. Yet, its essential, isn’t it?!

[cardw]

Quote:

Thus each of us is on an ever ongoing journey towards better and more reliable references, towards a better and more correct comprehension of the reality we live in. It was true for Ellen Gould White. It is true for each and every translator of the Scriptures. It is true for me. No doubt it is true for you too?

With your method, all we have to do is find an "expert" that agrees with Ellen White and call it miraculous. If she was copying other's ideas, these great "insights" would simply come along from whomever she was copying from. And we have overwhelming evidence that she WAS copying other's ideas on a grand scale.

When we look at the specific advice given in both Ellen White's document and Harvey Kellog's book, we find a collection of arrogantly ignorant information. It is presented with supreme authority in both cases.

There is no justification for circumcising a girl for masterbation. It is based on a complete misunderstanding of human sexuality and you will find no Biblical precedent for it at all. It is child abuse plain and simple. It is war against pleasure and joy.

When are we going to wake up to the fact that giving trust to authority without subjecting it to rational evaluation is madness? This "faith based" life program is willful ignorance. I don't care how reliable something has been in the past, I will evaluate its claims every time because no source is perfect.

[TreeOfLife]

Quote:

Thus each of us is on an ever ongoing journey towards better and more reliable references, towards a better and more correct comprehension of the reality we live in. It was true for Ellen Gould White. It is true for each and every translator of the Scriptures. It is true for me. No doubt it is true for you too?

With your method, all we have to do is find an "expert" that agrees with Ellen White and call it miraculous. If she was copying other's ideas, these great "insights" would simply come along from whomever she was copying from. And we have overwhelming evidence that she WAS copying other's ideas on a grand scale.

When we look at the specific advice given in both Ellen White's document and Harvey Kellog's book, we find a collection of arrogantly ignorant information. It is presented with supreme authority in both cases.

There is no justification for circumcising a girl for masterbation. It is based on a complete misunderstanding of human sexuality and you will find no Biblical precedent for it at all. It is child abuse plain and simple. It is war against pleasure and joy.

When are we going to wake up to the fact that giving trust to authority without subjecting it to rational evaluation is madness? This "faith based" life program is willful ignorance. I don't care how reliable something has been in the past, I will evaluate its claims every time because no source is perfect.

Dear Richard,

Perhaps, in my posts above, I am giving you cause for misunderstanding my point?

Re Authority: Who and what is an authority?

Given that I am – and none other - the ultimate authority re that which is my own creation, I, and I alone, have the authority re anything issuing out of me alone. I hope you have no problem with that?

Naturally the same applies to you as well. For instance, if I wish to know your reason for spelling, or misspelling?, the name Kellogg using only one ‘g’ I ask you and none other. That is, if I am careful about knowing the real truth of the matter. If I were to choose anyone or anything else but you for my reference and authority in that particular, I would not be going to the source and I would make myself liable for spreading a false rumor about you for not being able to spell the name Kellogg correctly. I would then in effect be a rumormonger, a slanderer, a traducer, Satan (cf. Strong’s G1228.)

The fact that you and you alone are my authority for that which issues out of you alone by no means makes you my authority re anything else whatsoever.

Do I find support for such a stand in the Scriptures? Certainly:

Deut 5:20 KJV: “Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

Do I find support for such a stand in the writings of Ellen Gould White? Certainly:

“I saw that Satan was working through agents in a number of ways. He was at work through ministers who have rejected the truth and are given over to strong delusions to believe a lie that they might be damned. While they were preaching or praying, some would fall prostrate and helpless, not by the power of the Holy Ghost, but by the power of Satan breathed upon these agents, and through them to the people. While preaching, praying, or conversing, some professed Adventists who had rejected present truth used mesmerism to gain adherents, and the people would rejoice in this influence, for they thought it was the Holy Ghost. Some even that used it were so far in the darkness and deception of the devil that they thought it was the power of God, given them to exercise. They had made God altogether such a one as themselves and had valued His power as a thing of nought. {EW 43.4}”

Notice the highlighted words “believe a lie!” “A lie” to me is the same as ‘any lie,’ not merely one particular lie that we may be left wondering what it is and what lie Ellen is referring to.

. . .

So who is my authority for the correct spelling of the name Kellogg?

You? By no means!

The bible? No, I do not find either Kellogg or Kellog anywhere in KJV of the bible and if the name were to be found in the Hebrew original of the Scriptures it still would not tell me whether or not it should be spelt with one or two g’s.

What about Ellen White being my authority re that particular? On the EGW CD-ROM I get 50 hits for ‘Kellogg’ and 0 hits for ‘Kellog.’ Even so, Ellen White cannot be my authority for the correct spelling of John Harvey’s surname.

The one and only currently extant and valid source for the correct spelling of said name is the writings of John Harvey Kellogg himself. Does that make John Harvey Kellogg my authority re any other matter whatsoever. No, not in and of itself! [bTW, can you help me figure out how to display your link “Plain Facts for the Old and Young by John Harvey Kellog” on my laptop and without a Handheld device?]

By so doing, am I overthrowing the authority of the Scriptures or the messages relayed to us via Ellen G. White? By no means!

The truth stands for itself. It doesn’t need my support. Nor does it need yours or that of any other. All of us need to improve our ability to come ever closer to the ultimate source of any particular. No man, no mere title as granted by man made societies, should be our authority re any matter. Not even Webster’s Dictionary. Yet, Webster’s Dictionary is a most valuable tool for finding the correct spelling and meaning of words used in the English language.

Re “copying” vs. “rational evaluation:”

If I copy or quote the word ‘Kellog’ from a post of yours, does that make you my authority? Am I entitling you as an “expert” by so doing? Yes, but only so far as your spelling of that name as associated with a man named John Harvey Kellogg.

If Ellen White is copying from other sources, and no one I know is contesting that fact, does that give me a basis for claiming that “Ellen White basically takes him [John Harvey Kellogg] as an authority on these matters?” By no means!

On the other hand, and copying (!) your words: Is Ellen White ever truly “giving trust to authority without subjecting it to rational evaluation?” I don’t see that she is. Yet, Ellen White too was limited by her own prior experiences and by her best available references.

As was she, I too am limited by my references. So are you. So is every one! Yet, so far as each our own creations we are all the ultimate authority. And that authority is granted us by our ultimate source, our Creators, God, Elohim, who created each one of us into His / Their image, who created each one of us into being a creator.

A Question:

By the way, I get zero hits on the EGW CD-ROM for each of the words ‘masturbation,’ ‘castration,’ ‘circumcis* fem*’ and ‘circumcis* girl’ (i.e. except for words used by her editors.) So why does it seem to me that you are implying that Ellen White ever gave her support to female circumcision? Isn’t it true that Ellen White’s approach to this matter is distinctly different from a surgical approach?