Ellen Whites doctrinal positions - did it ever change?

[John317]

Quote:

This doesn't mean that God is not involved in their "calling," but it means that it needs to be verified by the church

The church has a Biblical responsibility to confirm a true from a false prophet. Unless they are proven by scripture to be a true prophet ... they are not a true prophet.

Indeed. But the church doesn't "confirm" but simply either accepts or rejects. If it rejects the true prophet, it judges itself, not the prophet. In the same way, individual believers judge themselves if they reject a genuine prophet.

[Kevin H]

Returning briefly to the thought about the 6000 year age of the earth.

I have been looking for any indication that Mrs. White ever distanced herself from that view.

I have not found it, but what I do have now, is a collection of comments from Mrs. White where she uses that 6000 year figure.

I have 30 statements, from the 1860's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 1907, 1909, and then from the 1911 edition of the Great Controversy.

All these statements present the 6000 year view. I find no inconsistency in her work on this point, and find that not one person here has been able to produce one statement to the contrary.

(Of course there are a number of additional statements that refer to the 2000 year span between the creation and the flood. Again there is not a shadow of turning or inconsistency on this point.)

I will most willingly acknowledge inconsistency in her teachings when I am shown it.

Regards,

Stewart.

Knowing that we think like this is why the seminary professor would not read the passage in class but gave us the reference and sent us directly to the White Estate Vault to read it with our own eyes before presenting it in class. And remember this came from the seminary which was in the process of leading towards the next couple of years developing the Adventist Theological Society. It was the future ATS leaders who interpet the "'About' 6,000 years" to mean 7,000 to 20,000. We are not talking about the liberals or even the moderates, but the conservatives. And the reason why the minimum was 7,000 years was due to this Ellen White quote. I wish I remembered the reference, but this was in 1984 that I was in the class.

[Gregory Matthews]

REdwood saild:

Quote:

After Ellen White attended the Seminary ....

[Gregory Matthews]

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

Saturn does not have four moons nor do giants live there. I know she did not explicitly say Saturn, but when everyone else said she was talking about Saturn, she did not correct them.

She didn't know whether it was Saturn or not. She never studied the stars, and the name of the planet was not given in the vision. What she described sounded to Joseph Bates like Saturn. It obviously was not Saturn but then she never claimed that it was. She simply did not know. It's unfair to make an argument from silence.

I will suggest that there is another issues here: When Gkod reveals truth, deoes God reveal it in its sum total in an absolute sense. Or, does Gkod limit the amoutn of truth according to our present knowledge and our ability ot recieve it?

Bates was convinces by what EGW said and based upon what Bates knew at thta time.

If God had shared with EGW the sum total of moons associated with Saturn it would not have convinced Bates of anyting unless it had convinced him that she was a fraud.

[Stewart (SDA)]

The Devil has gradually been accruing an arsenal of “weapons” to use against us in the last great days, I believe.

This was manifest in the early days, when the charges of the “ascension robes” came up.

Even though nobody could substantiate that charge (despite the offer of a significant monetary reward), "mud" has inevitably stuck to the Seventh Day Adventist name.

David Koresh’s (Vernon Howell’s) early connection to the SDA church, and the Jehovah’s Witness doctrines relating to the 144000 and Rev 14, will, I expect, each have their influence on the side of deception. Many such things will be brought forward in the closing scenes.

But for years now, a “leaven” has been working in our church to undermine confidence in the Testimonies. This “leaven” is often an insidious element, but it is a persistent, pervading element, and this undermining has been an advancing work.

Mrs. White makes the claim that "if you lose confidence in the testimonies you will drift away from Bible truth." (5T 98) I echo the assurance -- If we lose confidence in the Testimonies, then we WILL drift away from Bible truth, and from God.

Obviously there are voices of protest that say, "We have cast-off and abandoned the so-called Testimonies, and have only come closer to God as a result." But in the end it will be our lives that will tell. We will be judged according to our works, but included in our "works" will be our influence.

_________

Stewart.

[John317]

If God had shared with EGW the sum total of moons associated with Saturn it would not have convinced Bates of anyting unless it had convinced him that she was a fraud.

Excellent point.

This principle has relevancy in other areas as well.

[John317]

In regard to R.W. Olsen, John 317 said:

Quote:

Hey, that's remarkable. I had him in SOP at PUC also, in 1974. I heard him give his farewell talk in chapel before leaving for the White Estate. He now (at least as of about a year ago) lives only a few miles from me in Cherry Valley.

Isn't he dead? I am asking, please correct me if I am wrong.

Robert Olson is alive and well in Loma Linda. By the way, his wife died not very long ago, but he himself is doing fine so far, at the age of 89.

[Gregory Matthews]

Stewart:

I certainly have not cast off the Testimonies and you did not state that I hvae done so.

YOu made an interesting comment when you said:

Quote:

for years now, a “leaven” has been working in our church to undermine confidence in the Testimonies. This “leaven” is often an insidious element, but it is a persistent, pervading element, and this undermining has been an advancing work.

Mrs. White makes the claim that "if you lose confidence in the testimonies you will drift away from Bible truth." (5T 98) I echo the assurance -- If we lose confidence in the Testimonies, then we WILL drift away from Bible truth, and from God.

Do your distinguish between the "Testimonies" and the "testimonies?" Theere is a difference between the two.

I note that you correctly quioted EGW in 5T98 when you wrote "testimonies." If you followw along in that paragraph from which you took that citation you should see that EGW correctly specified that her reference was "testimonies," which are not the same at the "Testimonies." Yet, in your comment reference a lack of conficence in the Testimonies.

NOTE: In the passage cited EGW used the word "testimonies" to apply to individual counsel given to an individual warning them of wrong doing. Here is where EGW spells out what she meant by the word "testimonies:"

As you now hold the testimonies, should one be given crossing your track, correcting your errors, would you feel at perfect liberty to accept or reject any part of the whole? [/quoote]

The word "Testimonies" (capitalized) is generally held to apply to certain published writings of EGW.

NOTE: I am not attempting tonit-pick at Stewart. I simply believe that the writings of EGW are important enough that careful study should be given to them in an effort tod etermine what she said and meant, and how it should be applied, to whomm and when. I find that people all to often do not do that. Rather thaty take a specific statement, ginvn to a specific person in a specific set of circumstances, ignore revelant context and attempt to make a blanket application to someone else, oftentimes failing to find much in her writings to apply to themselves.

[Gregory Matthews]

Glad to hear it. That man had a skubstantial lmpact on my life, my understandign of SDA history and of EGW.

You know, EGW was a reasonable person, contrary to how many see her.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Thank you Gregory, I am interested in what you've said, and will spend time with this.

Regards,

Stewart.

[Twilight]

The Devil has gradually been accruing an arsenal of “weapons” to use against us in the last great days, I believe.

This was manifest in the early days, when the charges of the “ascension robes” came up.

Even though nobody could substantiate that charge (despite the offer of a significant monetary reward), "mud" has inevitably stuck to the Seventh Day Adventist name.

David Koresh’s (Vernon Howell’s) early connection to the SDA church, and the Jehovah’s Witness doctrines relating to the 144000 and Rev 14, will, I expect, each have their influence on the side of deception. Many such things will be brought forward in the closing scenes.

But for years now, a “leaven” has been working in our church to undermine confidence in the Testimonies. This “leaven” is often an insidious element, but it is a persistent, pervading element, and this undermining has been an advancing work.

Mrs. White makes the claim that "if you lose confidence in the testimonies you will drift away from Bible truth." (5T 98) I echo the assurance -- If we lose confidence in the Testimonies, then we WILL drift away from Bible truth, and from God.

Obviously there are voices of protest that say, "We have cast-off and abandoned the so-called Testimonies, and have only come closer to God as a result." But in the end it will be our lives that will tell. We will be judged according to our works, but included in our "works" will be our influence.

_________

Stewart.

I think we also have to be careful when we start using the SOP to establish doctrine though Stewart.

There is a balance to be found.

For me, it is not the SOP that is the issue, it is the way it is used to further one particular "opinion".

But that is the same way the bible is used I suppose.

I think my initial point was that, could Ellen White's understanding be wrong a times...?

Mark

[Twilight]

NOTE: I am not attempting tonit-pick at Stewart. I simply believe that the writings of EGW are important enough that careful study should be given to them in an effort tod etermine what she said and meant, and how it should be applied, to whomm and when. I find that people all to often do not do that. Rather thaty take a specific statement, ginvn to a specific person in a specific set of circumstances, ignore revelant context and attempt to make a blanket application to someone else, oftentimes failing to find much in her writings to apply to themselves.

Amen. :-)

[John317]

Glad to hear it. That man had a skubstantial lmpact on my life, my understandign of SDA history and of EGW.

You know, EGW was a reasonable person, contrary to how many see her.

Yes, not only reasonable but lovable and very loving, according to all the people who knew her. She wished everyone had common sense and was amazed at how some people misunderstood and misapplied her writings.

[Woody]

REdwood saild:

Quote:

After Ellen White attended the Seminary ....

Granted ... it was a women's "seminary" but I hope you won't hold that against her.

And if you want the refernce for that ... just let me know.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

JOHN317--She didn't know whether it was Saturn or not. She never studied the stars, and the name of the planet was not given in the vision. What she described sounded to Joseph Bates like Saturn. It obviously was not Saturn but then she never claimed that it was. She simply did not know. It's unfair to make an argument from silence.

OK, she did not know it was Saturn. It was a total coincidence that she described a planet so Saturn-like by their present knowledge.

This is just one thing. I mentioned more, and there are even more than I mentioned. If one keeps on bending backward and making excuses no-one will ever be wrong. And we know this is not the real case. All religious groups do this for their special persons. In the end we have an army of prophets, despite their many mistakes.

One person, a longstanding SDA, told me Ellen White was in the religious "business". The Whites did well out of it. A good job, if you can get it. There is no denying, she was good at it and she did not shirk doing her homework.

As for Jonah, before the time was up the prophecy was reversed. Did Ellen White ever reverse the "food for worms" prophecy?

[John317]

One person, a longstanding SDA, told me Ellen White was in the religious "business". The Whites did well out of it. A good job, if you can get it. There is no denying, she was good at it and she did not shirk doing her homework.

Have you read some good, detailed, documented biographies of her and James? The fact is that they both suffered a lot for their faith and they were very poor most of those years (1840s through the 1860s). Have you read their letters, diaries, and what others who knew them wrote about them?

I knew Ellen White's grand-daughter, Grace White, who would talk to us about living with Ellen White from about 1900 to 1915. Grace lived on our street in Loma Linda and taught at the school I went to. My mom's dad, an SDA writer, pastor and evangelist named William Sims, knew Ellen White. Both of my grandmothers heard her talk several times in Los Angeles and St. Helena. She stayed in the 1880s with my great grandmother in Portland, Oregon. So I don't see her as just someone in a book but as a real, living person who loved Christ and loved the people Christ died to save.

Quote:

As for Jonah, before the time was up the prophecy was reversed. Did Ellen White ever reverse the "food for worms" prophecy?

No. There was no reason to, any more than there was reason for believers of the first century to reverse their teaching that Christ was coming "soon."

Ellen White reported what the angel told her.

Here is what she wrote:

Life Sketches of James White and Ellen G. White (1880), page 321, 322

Also in Spiritual Gifts. Volume 2 (1860), page 208, paragraph 2

Quote:

But we were yet to pass through another severe trial. At the Conference a very solemn vision was given me. I saw that some of those present would be food for worms, some subjects for the seven last plagues, and some would be translated to Heaven at the second coming of Christ, without seeing death. Sister Bonfoey remarked to a sister as we left the meeting-house, ‘I feel impressed that I am one who will soon be food for worms.' The Conference closed Monday. Thursday, Sister B. sat at the table with us apparently well. She then went to the Office as usual, to assist in mailing the Review. In about two hours she sent for me. She had been suddenly taken very ill. My health had been very poor, yet I hastened to suffering Clara. In a few hours she seemed some better.

The angel said this in the 1850s. I believe that Christ could have come in the 1870s through the 1890s, when many of the people at the conference were still alive. In about 1905, Ellen White wrote that Christ could have come in the early 1890s and even before if the church had done what God had intended them to do. I believe it. God isn't waiting for a certain time to arrive in order for Christ to return but He's waiting for a certain condition in His church. That condition could have been met long before now.

[oldsailor29]

In about 1905, Ellen White wrote that Christ could come in the early 1890s and even before if the church had done what God had intended them to do. I believe it. God isn't waiting for a certain time to arrive in order for Christ to return but He's waiting for a certain condition in His church. That condition could have been met long before now.

The condition is seen in vision in 1868, "Life Sketches" chapter xxx. Traveling the narrow way, is the title of the chapter in which the church is seen on a road which gets narrow as it goes up around the side of a mountain. This chapter metaphorically describes the path taken by our church and shows us where we are now. Most of us are still near the beginning of the path, where it is wide enough to support all of our doctrines. And there is where we will stay, making no progress. We sit in our vehicles, loaded with our baggage, refusing to toss any away so we can continue on the narrow way. And all the while we cannot see we are on the wrong road anyway.

To find the right road, go back to the vision of 1844, in chapter vii. Compare the narrow ways of these two visions and try to decide what the difference is, in your own mind.

[John317]

Good idea, oldsailor. I hadn't thought of that in that way. You make some very good points.

[Kevin H]

One person, a longstanding SDA, told me Ellen White was in the religious "business". The Whites did well out of it. A good job, if you can get it. There is no denying, she was good at it and she did not shirk doing her homework.

The Harmons and the Whites were middle class homes, but when James and Ellen married they found themselves quite poor. James White however had a fantastic business mind and would invest in small businesses and realestate that brought in a fair amount of income so that they did not need to make a living off the "religious business" but supported their work, and supported the work of others and gave people jobs and gave away most of the money he made. Elder Canright saw this and assumed that the Whites were wealthy and that they were making money off the as you call it "religious business." I have a lot of respect for the research and facts that Elder Canright presents, but this is one that has been shown to be incorrect and a misunderstanding on his part.

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

As for Jonah, before the time was up the prophecy was reversed. Did Ellen White ever reverse the "food for worms" prophecy?

First, one of Mrs. White's presupositions was that all prophecy was conditional to people's responce.

Second, the context of the "food for worms" prophecy was that the church had just planned a major evangelism thrust. This was her approving of this evangelistic thrust and seeing potential in the churches plans. However like many business plans that are proposed in a meeting, when they left the planning session they left their plans in the session. It was never carried out. It was a good idea (at least for that time in history) but it never developed beyond the idea phase. As the idea did not go anyplace the prophecy would have stayed a good idea right along with the lack of implication of the plan that the prophecy was connected to.

[Stewart (SDA)]

As for Jonah, before the time was up the prophecy was reversed. Did Ellen White ever reverse the "food for worms" prophecy?

I differ, in some respects, to others that have responded to your question Epaminondas, but yes, before the time was up, the prophecy against Nineveh was turned away, or "reversed", I agree.

The people of Nineveh turned 'from their wicked way', and God was able to avert the destruction that had come very close.

Of course God explains the principle in a number of places:

"...when I say unto the wicked, ‘Thou shalt surely die’; if he turns from his sin, and does that which is lawful and right... he shall surely live, he shall NOT die. (Eze 33:14-15)

The voice of true prophecy is absolute certainty.

It is sometimes – "You shall SURELY die [at such and such a time]", and if the people continue in their sinful course, then there is nothing surer.

And yet God’s purpose is always the same: "When I say to the wicked 'You shall surely die' [we are then to give him the warning]... TO SAVE HIS LIFE" (Eze 3:18). The church’s role has always been (in part at least,) to turn away the threatenings of God.

Bible prophecy is conditional, in terms of threatenings, and in terms of promised blessings. In my view this is a fundamental point.

[i am aware that this fact opens the way for pretenders to the prophetic office, (I have had dealings with such pretenders in our church), but I believe that the conditional nature of prophecy is nonetheless a fact.]

________________

But you ask, "Did Ellen White ever reverse the 'food for worms' prophecy?" Yes, I believe that she did effectively reverse it.

In a number of places, including the following quote from the Great Controversy (printed in 1888), that prophecy was annulled (effectively reversed). It was not specifically referred to, but the conditions necessary for the fulfillment of that prophecy were shown to no longer exist. Bearing in mind that the prophecy was given in 1856 when the "closing work" might still have been completed in their day...

"If all who had labored unitedly in the work in 1844 had received the third angel's message, and proclaimed it in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Lord would have wrought mightily with their efforts... Years ago the inhabitants of the earth would have been warned, the closing work completed, and Christ would have come for the redemption of his people." (GC 457)

In my view, had the purpose of God been carried out, as it might have been carried out, then the 1856 "food for worms" prophecy would have been fulfilled.

________

Stewart

[epaminondas]

Quote:

In about 1905, Ellen White wrote that Christ could come in the early 1890s and even before if the church had done what God had intended them to do.

Now is it only the SDA church who slacked so much that the second coming was postponed, or all the Christian churches? If only us, we'd better watch out. The Jews suffered pogrom after pogrom, for, so some say, crucifying Jesus. I'd better make myself scarce.

Personally I think God would know better than to rely on any church. I mean, the creator of the universe needs to be hyper intelligent. To rely on a church...

[John317]

[

Personally I think God would know better than to rely on any church. I mean, the creator of the universe needs to be hyper intelligent. To rely on a church...

If the SDA church had done what it should have done, there would have been no WW 1 and no Hitler or WW II. That's a heavy responsibility. Those things need not have happened.

As for God's relying on people, God has always relied on people. He relied on Noah, on Abraham, on the Jewish people, on the Hebrew prophets, and on the early church. He still relies on believers. Is He disappointed? Yes, often, but He has no choice because He's sending people out with His message of love. He's relying on us. Can He trust us? He trusted Job and he wasn't disappointed. Let's pray that we don't let Him down, either.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

[

Personally I think God would know better than to rely on any church. I mean, the creator of the universe needs to be hyper intelligent. To rely on a church...

If the SDA church had done what it should have done, there would have been no WW 1 and no Hitler or WW II. That's a heavy responsibility. Those things need not have happened.

As for God's relying on people, God has always relied on people. He relied on Noah, on Abraham, on the Jewish people, on the Hebrew prophets, and on the early church. He still relies on believers. Is He disappointed? Yes, often, but He has no choice because He's sending people out with His message of love. He's relying on us. Can He trust us? He trusted Job and he wasn't disappointed. Let's pray that we don't let Him down, either.

Amen...

[phkrause]

"The Jews suffered pogrom after pogrom, for, so some say, crucifying Jesus."

That is the kind of statement that has made the Jewish people hate Jesus and christianity the more, and is why they are very hard to work with in accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

pk

[epaminondas]

Quote:

If the SDA church had done what it should have done, there would have been no WW 1 and no Hitler or WW II. That's a heavy responsibility. Those things need not have happened.

As for God's relying on people, God has always relied on people. He relied on Noah, on Abraham, on the Jewish people, on the Hebrew prophets, and on the early church. He still relies on believers. Is He disappointed? Yes, often, but He has no choice because He's sending people out with His message of love. He's relying on us. Can He trust us? He trusted Job and he wasn't disappointed. Let's pray that we don't let Him down, either.

That's a new one. How could the SDA church have prevented the two world wars? I'm willing to blame my church for a lot of things, like wasting money, terrible sermons, drivel in the Record, etc., but not preventing the world wars when they could have done so, no.

Anybody relying on any unreliable entity to perform a critical task, is stupid. Believe me, God is not stupid. Both Abraham and Noah were reliable. Abraham passed the test with flying colours. Any of you know why God tested Abraham? After all, He is supposed to know the future in detail. Which means He should have known the SDA church will fail Him and consequently not "revealed" the "food for worms" prophecy to Ellen White.