Should we witness to smokers?

[Twilight]

So do I.

And I am talking about the intent of the post itself...

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Woody

I don't really find it necessary to do all the reasearch to discover what each one of her millions of words might have meant.

Then quit nitpicking at her writings. If you don't care to understand them in the context of the customs and language of the time, quit posting them here and ridiculing them under the pretense of trying to understand them.

[Tom Wetmore]

Sooo, how does one legitmately raise a question about EGW's writings without risking having motives called into question?

As I have said before, one is able to raise similar questions about a passage of Scripture with less risk of having their motives maligned and being branded a heretic.

If the standard of sacredness is higher for EGW's writings than Scripture, (or for that matter the same as) is it any wonder that our critics still question whether we are a cult or true Christian believers?

Yes, that debate is still alive...

[Twilight]

I don't think anyone is questioning anyone raising issues with Ellen Whites Writings.

But presenting them negatively and then pretending you are treating them positively is another thing altogether.

Don't you think?

[Tom Wetmore]

As to your first sentence - you could have fooled me on that.

And the second - a matter of perception...

And as a result, does it really matter what I think?

[John317]

Sooo, how does one legitmately raise a question about EGW's writings without risking having motives called into question?

What do we call it when someone claims to be a friend of someone but then frequently puts all their words in the worst light? Based on many posts, that's really the situation we're looking at here.

Dr. Kellogg used to do the same thing. He would claim to be supporting Ellen White in one breath and in the very next breath (or maybe even in the same one) he would say things that showed he was attempting to cause people to doubt her.

When Lucifer was in heaven, he did the same thing. He would go around to the angels and act and talk as if he were a supporter of Christ but in reality he was actually Christ's enemy and was trying to cause the angels to doubt Him.

If someone questions Ellen White's prophetic gift or believes she's a false prophet, it would be better to say it straight out rather than present it as if they support her when they don't. It's perfectly OK to have doubts and questions about her or about her writings. In fact, anyone who has studied her needs to go through a period of genuine search and questioning in order to find the answers. But what people object to is when people talk out of both sides of their mouth.

For instance: "She is our prophet and we need to pay attention to what she says. She says that we shouldn't have pictures and bicycles and that we should ignore people who smoke. Yes, we need to obey what she says, if we can understand her. But of course everyone has a different opinion of what she wrote. But if we can ever agree on what she said, we should follow it. I believe in her and accept her as our prophet."

That's an illustration of what I've seen in many of Woody's posts regarding Ellen White, not only on this Forum but on other Adventist forums as well. Many people have noticed it and remarked about it.

Woody has the right to say these things on Club Adventist Forum, but others have the right to comment about it and observe what's happening. There are some forums that wouldn't allow it, but we do allow for it because we believe everyone has a right to express their beliefs even if those expressions aren't agreeable to others.

[John317]

As to your first sentence - you could have fooled me on that.

And the second - a matter of perception...

And as a result, does it really matter what I think?

Yes, it does matter what you think, Tom. I personally take everyone's thinking and views seriously.

Could you please show where you believe people are questioning anyone's raising issues about Ellen White?

How do you perceive the following:

"She is our prophet and we need to pay attention to what she says. She says that we shouldn't have pictures and bicycles and that we should ignore people who smoke and drink coffee. We also need to stay away from movie theaters (although Ellen White went to them.) We also should not eat oysters and meat, although she ate them herself. Yes, we need to obey what she says, if we can understand her. But of course everyone has a different opinion of what she wrote. But if we can ever agree on what she said, we should follow it. I believe in her and accept her as our prophet."

Do you think the language indicates that the speaker or writer of those words is being perfectly straight forward?

[Tom Wetmore]

What do we call it when someone claims to be a friend of someone but then frequently puts all their words in the worst light? Based on many posts, that's really the situation we're looking at here...

Is it really? Or just the point of view of one with a different perspective?

Let's think about that idea of putting things in the "worst light." So what you are saying is that shining a light in the dark corner and thus showing that the corner has dirt in it is somehow a lighting problem? What kind of less worse light would make the corner look cleaner? More darkeness? More shadows to cover up the dirt? A lesser light, perhaps? Does kicking the one that shines the light make the corner clean?

[Gail]

Let's think about that idea of putting things in the "worst light." So what you are saying is that shining a light in the dark corner and thus showing that the corner has dirt in it is somehow a lighting problem? What kind of less worse light would make the corner look cleaner? More darkeness? More shadows to cover up the dirt? A lesser light, perhaps? Does kicking the one that shines the light make the corner clean?

My question is: Do you like it when people do it to you? What benefit is there to focus on the negatives of others?

And I am not even sure that it IS a negative, not knowing the context. But I got the feeling also that how the statement was presented that the intention was negative. I wasn't the only one.

[GreatLakesGramma]

When someone posts something removed from its context, makes negative comments or insinuations about the meaning they assume from a superficial reading, claims they want to understand it, then rejects any explanation of the meaning it would have had when it was written and says they don't need to understand it in its original context, but that they choose to understand it only in the context of modern phraseology, it just seems a bit hypocritical to me. And when that same someone does it again and again and again, it doesn't help change that perception.

[GreatLakesGramma]

From this point on, I have decided to ignore all such topics on this forum. To anyone else who is tired of it, I would suggest you do the same. So long as you respond at all, you are just encouraging it to continue as is.

[Twilight]

From this point on, I have decided to ignore all such topics on this forum. To anyone else who is tired of it, I would suggest you do the same. So long as you respond at all, you are just encouraging it to continue as is.

I have appreciated the fact you have challenged this.

It has also encouraged others to share their concerns on this matter.

I think ignoring it gives it more power than challenging it.

Because once challenged, it has lost its potency to lead those that might not be so settled on the question, away. :-)

[Woody]

Quote:

And as a result, does it really matter what I think?

This is the point. There are as many theories regarding what EGW might mean as there are posters. I am just not going to buy one's cultural and contextual theory ... just because they claim to be an expert. What does it matter what "I" or any one particular poster here thinks.

Yet, you will see some here fighting to the bitter end to defend one theory or another.

As I stated ... the purpose of our prophet was to point us to Jesus and His Word. If here writings do that for us ... we are on the right path. If we get hung up on digesting her specific words and studying her culture and context .... we are not going in the direction that God would have us.

Spend a thoughtful hour on the life of Christ. This is far better than spending it on the life of EGW.

[Twilight]

Quote:

And as a result, does it really matter what I think?

This is the point. There are as many theories regarding what EGW might mean as there are posters. I am just not going to buy one's cultural and contextual theory ... just because they claim to be an expert. What does it matter what "I" or any one particular poster here thinks.

Yet, you will see some here fighting to the bitter end to defend one theory or another.

As I stated ... the purpose of our prophet was to point us to Jesus and His Word. If here writings do that for us ... we are on the right path. If we get hung up on digesting her specific words and studying her culture and context .... we are not going in the direction that God would have us.

Spend a thoughtful hour on the life of Christ. This is far better than spending it on the life of EGW.

Time to come out of the closet perhaps Woody?

[John317]

What do we call it when someone claims to be a friend of someone but then frequently puts all their words in the worst light? Based on many posts, that's really the situation we're looking at here...

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Is it really? Or just the point of view of one with a different perspective?

Let's think about that idea of putting things in the "worst light." So what you are saying is that shining a light in the dark corner and thus showing that the corner has dirt in it is somehow a lighting problem? What kind of less worse light would make the corner look cleaner? More darkeness? More shadows to cover up the dirt? A lesser light, perhaps? Does kicking the one that shines the light make the corner clean?

I have never been opposed to shining light in a dark corner in order to try to solve a problem or clean up a dirty corner. That is not the issue here. When it comes to Ellen White's writings and her life, there is no dirty, dark corner. There are, however, things that people don't understand. When people see those things and bring them out for sincere and honest discussion, there shouldn't be any objection. In fact, those kinds of questions and discussions are necessary and beneficial when it's done with a view to finding answers.

But check out the following and tell if this seems like someone who is merely shining a light:

"She is our prophet and we need to pay attention to what she says. She says that we shouldn't have pictures and bicycles and that we should ignore people who smoke and drink coffee. We also need to stay away from movie theaters (although Ellen White went to them.) We also should not eat oysters and meat, although she ate them herself. Yes, we need to obey what she says, if we can understand her. But of course everyone has a different opinion of what she wrote. But if we can ever agree on what she said, we should follow it. I believe in her and accept her as our prophet."

Do you think the language indicates that the speaker or writer of those words is being perfectly straight forward? (I'm not quoting anyone in the above but am giving the gist of the ideas and suggestions that have often been posted in this Forum as well as in other Adventist forums.)

Do you remember Antony's speech in Shakespeare's Julius Cesaer (Act III, Scene 2, lines 74 to 104)?

Is Antony being straight forward? He is doing the same thing as what we're talking about here. Does his language indicate that Antony really believes that Brutus is noble and honorable?

ANTONY

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus

Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:If it were so, it was a grievous fault,

And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--

For Brutus is an honourable man;

So are they all, all honourable men--Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.

He was my friend, faithful and just to me:

But Brutus says he was ambitious;

And Brutus is an honourable man.

He hath brought many captives home to Rome

Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:

Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:

Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;

And Brutus is an honourable man.You all did see that on the Lupercal

I thrice presented him a kingly crown,

Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;

And, sure, he is an honourable man.I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,

But here I am to speak what I do know.

You all did love him once, not without cause:

What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,

And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;

My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,

And I must pause till it come back to me.

[Gerr]

Sooo, how does one legitmately raise a question about EGW's writings without risking having motives called into question?

As I have said before, one is able to raise similar questions about a passage of Scripture with less risk of having their motives maligned and being branded a heretic.

If the standard of sacredness is higher for EGW's writings than Scripture, (or for that matter the same as) is it any wonder that our critics still question whether we are a cult or true Christian believers?

Yes, that debate is still alive...

Tom, I have no problem with people raising questions either about Scripture or EGW. What I do have a problem with is this attitude:

Woody:

"Ha Ha. I will continue to assume they mean as written. But, I'm not going to go through all the cultural research to determine another person's theory as to what they mean. After all ... I can post them here and you will provide your cultural theory as to what they mean. I'm the question man and you guys are the answer men and women. I'll let you guys do the nit picking with all the possible explanation to approve your pet beliefs."

We are bound to get into trouble if we don't take into consideration the time and place of what is written, and possibly in some cases, also a change in the meaning of a word. That's how we got into trouble about what she said regarding bicyles and drugs and other things.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Woody, you are free to choose what you want to read, and what you want to accept or reject. Nobody here really cares. If you want to read only which points you to Jesus, go for it. But I for one have been greatly benefited from the parts you don't like. The Adventist health message, as given through Ellen White saved my life, literally. And not wanting to raised my children in the same abusive manner in which my mother raised me and my siblings, I found the book Child Guidance a Godsend. There are many other things in the Testimonies that have especially resonated with me at certain times, because they describe the very same issues I've dealt with.

Does that mean I'm basing my salvation and doctrines on the Testimonies? No, but they have certainly helped me to understand and apply what the Bible teaches. I also have never studied the times of Sister White for the purpose of understanding her writings. I'd read enough literature of the same time period, before I ever heard of Ellen White or Seventh-day Adventists, that I never had any trouble understanding the subtle differences in language usage I found in her writings.

[teresaq]

Quote:

"But when such ones form companionship with others who give themselves up to cheap conversation, and who indulge in smoking and in liquor drinking, they are lost unless they repent and become converted." Ellen White in 2SAT 286

Perhaps we should witness through the internet or phone instead of in person?

i used to read ellen white according to certain individuals who "used" her, as well as the bible....now i read her much differently.

the bolded parts are what get my attention. what kind of person am i going to associate with the most? who are my real friends/confidants going to be?

"cheap conversation" bores me even in a church setting like the couple of ladies who were razing some gentleman in the sanctuary of the church last prayer meeting. they sounded a little "high". and no i dont associate with them.

the last two sound like she is talking about partyers, who, i would have to say, sound like those two ladies. who just happen to present themselves as really close to God...

seems to me like we kinda have some cheap conversation and partyer type mentality going on here at times.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, I agree that atttitude is a serious obstacle to a rational discussion of this topic. But that cuts both ways. Those reacting to Woody are showing their attitude as well. But my point is, whether or not Woody is disingenuous is beside the point and just evading addressing the harder question.

EGW is a problem for many Adventists. But most of the EGW apologists do more harm than good in addressing the serious questions and concerns that honest and sincere people have about her and her writings. And attacking and questioning the attitude, honesty, morality of those raising such questions and concerns is just one of the harms.

[Gerr]

Those reacting to Woody are showing their attitude as well. But my point is, whether or not Woody is disingenuous is beside the point and just evading addressing the harder question.

I beg to differ. It IS precisely the point!

Just how honest is a person who doesn't care whether his understanding of a document written 150 yrs ago, or even of a more ancient text like the Bible, takes into account the historical and cultural setting of what was being said?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Tom

Those reacting to Woody are showing their attitude as well. But my point is, whether or not Woody is disingenuous is beside the point and just evading addressing the harder question.

I beg to differ. It IS precisely the point!

Just how honest is a person who doesn't care whether his understanding of a document written 150 yrs ago, or even of a more ancient text like the Bible, takes into account the historical and cultural setting of what was being said?

Exactly.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Tom

Those reacting to Woody are showing their attitude as well. But my point is, whether or not Woody is disingenuous is beside the point and just evading addressing the harder question.

I beg to differ. It IS precisely the point!

Just how honest is a person who doesn't care whether his understanding of a document written 150 yrs ago, or even of a more ancient text like the Bible, takes into account the historical and cultural setting of what was being said?

Again excellent point Gerry.

[cardw]

There is definitely a pattern here, that is for sure.

Negative posts couched in "positivity" when challenged.

Isn't this what Ellen White does?

She states all the things that god will reject you for and then says, "but God loves you."

Have you ever considered that Adventist tend to focus on the negative because Ellen White does?

[John317]

Isn't this what Ellen White does?

She states all the things that god will reject you for and then says, "but God loves you."

She's following the Bible's teachings there, and we believe the Bible.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Have you ever considered that Adventist tend to focus on the negative because Ellen White does?

No. Neither she nor SDAs tend to focus on the negative, although I can completely understand why you think they do.

When was the last time you actually read her books, such as the Conflict Series? Or Christ's Object Lessons?

She wrote about a dream she once had in which a woman she knew was looking at all the thorns on the roses, and Ellen White was looking at all the beautiful flowers. I know her very well from reading virtually all her writings as well as many biographies and by talking to people who knew her. I can tell you that she was not a negative person at all. She was always a pleasure to be around. Her neighbors-- who did not know who she was-- just knew her as a godly woman who loved to talk about Jesus and help her neighbors when they were sick or needed other kinds of help.

Here's my question for you: Have you ever considered how negative you are about SDAs and Ellen White? Why are you that way? (I'm not asking for an answer, but only for you to think about it and answer in your own mind.)

[John317]

And attacking and questioning the attitude, honesty, morality of those raising such questions and concerns is just one of the harms.

I don't think anyone here is questioning anyone's morality and honesty simply for raising questions and concerns about Ellen White. As I said before, it is necessary that everyone study her for themselves and ask many pointed questions that concern them.

But what we are talking about here are persons who don't post such questions straight forwardly, but rather they do what Antony did in his speech about Brutus before the Romans. Since your work requires you to closely analyze language and people's speech, I'm sure you understand what I'm referring to. It's a matter of speaking out of both sides of their mouths. It's saying, "Ellen White is our prophet and we must always obey what she says (if only anyone could be sure of what she says). Ellen White had such good advice to give (such as not eating meat, which, by the way, she ate often, including oysters)."

It's a matter of giving half-truths and dropping lines here and there that cause people to doubt and question Ellen White's dependability and honesty. This is exactly what Satan did in heaven and what Ellen White said Dr. Kellogg did in regard to the Lord's messenger. It is also what she said would be done more and more often as we draw closer to Christ's coming. Instead of people being straight forward about their viewpoints, they often couch their true beliefs in speech that indicates they believe just the opposite of the surface meaning. It's related to the rhetorical device, irony.

People have a right to do this on the Forum, but we also have a right to comment and make observations about it.