Did Willie White Influence his mother?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.

- William Shakespeare

Feeling a bit defensive, miz3? I'm not threatened by you. Nor should you feel threatened by me. It's just that when I sense something doesn't quite hit the mark that is being hyped, I dig way deeper than most people. I look at the roots.

I think John317 is doing a remarkable job in his dialogue with you, considering that your stand seems to be grounded in cement shoes...

**done with miz3...**

[John317]

The link does not attack Ellen White or the SOP.

It attacks her and her writings by making it appear that no one can trust the "red books," and you yourself stated as much.

If the church is changing Ellen White's books, what would that mean? It would obviously mean I can't trust that when I read her books, I am actually reading what God sent through Ellen White.

So, what you are claiming is very serious. If true, it would mean there's no reason to read Ellen White because no one could be sure they were reading Ellen White. I am not buying a book in order to read what anyone else wrote in her name.

I'm hopeful this makes sense to you.

Quote:

It attacks those "brethren" who have tampered and changed the Words God gave her.

Here you are making the same accusation again, even though you have failed miserably to support it with valid evidence.

I have gone through all of the so-called evidence that you posted on the other discussion, and all of it is without foundation. I invite anyone who's interested to check out the posts dealing with your so-called evidence. One of them is nothing but a typo or misprint in Testimonies To Ministers, where my copy reads "son" as does the CD-ROM. Another so-called change is nothing but a compilation that you claim left out parts of the original. Well, all compilations leave out parts of the original, but you can go compare it to the original. No one is trying to hide anything. It is all available for you to read.

Here's the link to them:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post437907

Speaking as moderator:

Here's the thing, miz3: I can't spend all my time responding to all your accusations about the church and about Ellen White, and I'm not going to allow you to just continue to post these lies and empty accusations on the Adventist Forum. No one wants to read through all that trash. It would be different if you had solid evidence in support of what you are saying, but you obviously don't. If you did, we can assume you would have posted it by now, before you posted all the other groundless charges.

So I'm going to ask you to stop posting such stuff. You can post real evidence but not mere accusations and charges against people or agaisnt the church. If I find posts of yours that merely make accusations and charges, they will be deleted. If you want to take part in real discussions or if you have actual evidence that you want to introduce and are prepared to support it with reason and valid arguments, then you are welcome to do it.

[John317]

....You have already taken the link out of context. You have already without looking at the evidence and reading the book made a judgment because you are afraid that such a writing will be TRUE and thus the "precious Church" will be under attack.

You are again writing as if you can read people's motives and hearts. You're wrong about your assumptions. I have looked at the evidence in that book. Remember that you provided some of the evidence from that book yourself, and it was poor evidence indeed. Actually, I do plan to read the book, only not at this time.

I'm not afraid that the church will be under attack. I KNOW and EXPECT it to be under constant atttack. It has been under attack since Christ's day and it will doubtless continue to be under attack until Christ returns. But we sure don't want to be a part of that attack against it. We need to consider that we're actually attacking Christ when we attack the church, His prophet and His people.

[John317]

Miz3, please show where the SDA BC takes the position that ta hagia in Hebrews 9 and 10 refers to the Most Holy Place. Please quote and give the reference.

What edition of the SDA BC are you using?

[miz3]

Alright John317 and others,

Here is the dope (info not the other stuff) on Hebrews 10:19-20.

I got the info from Bible Commentary Vol. 7, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Revised 1980; page 461.

You can read it all in the right column but I will share here a brief part.

When it talks about the words "To enter" it states and I quote:

"Under the old covenant this had been the privilege of only the high priest, and that only once a year. Now every believer has free access."

In addition the BC refers us to Hebrews 9:7 which clearly states that we are talking about the Most Holy Place. The same is true for the reference to Hebrews 9:25.

Notice it cannot be anything but the Most Holy Place! The BC is not ambiguous.

There is more.

When it talks about "The Holiest" it states and I quote:

"ta hagia".

It does not say that ta hagia is a misuse when translated "The Holiest". By omission of anything negative it is clear that they agree that we are talking about the Most Holy Place even with ta hagia. If they had a problem they have stated so.

The BC also references Hebrews 9:8 which again states that we are talking about the Most Holy Place.

It references also Hebrews 8:2 and the work of the High Priest (see verse one). We are never talking about the work of "regular priests" because only the High Priest could go into the Most Holy Place. Thus the "regular priests" were not relevant to anything in Hebrews. It is all about Jesus being a High Priest.

There it is in all its glory. It just the way I stated it was despite you allegations that I was lying.

[miz3]

Wow!

You gave me explanations alright.

1. You wouldn't take the word of witnesses that something was tampered because they might have fudged. You say this even though they had the evidence.

2. You say having a "rubber stamp signature" is OK even though having such opens the person to such a strong temptation to slant things their way. For years Ellen White signed every thing now after the death of James White her son Willie has to have a "rubber stamp signature". How convenient! Poor James White didn't have enough consideration for his wife. Its a good thing that Willie White loved his mother enough to think of this for her convenience. Right? and there is bridge in Brooklyn for sale too!

3. We also gave clear testimony how Willie White withheld testimonies because he thought God's timing was not correct. Yet you brush this aside again with "how can I believe the evidence".

4. You then attribute a single letter change which is very significant because it changes the whole meaning of the passage "just a typo". For years and years this "typo" exists and nobody at the White Estate or anywhere else proofs it. Again, Right?

5. There is a whole slew of examples, I gave only a few, yet you brush them aside with one slippery excuse after another.

Your excuses could be made about anything. If I showed you a picture with "green" grass and you had vehemently always refused to believe the grass could ever be green what would you do? You would deny such by "how do I know you you didn't paint it?"; or "how do you know its not plastic painted green?"; or "how do I know you didn't photo shop it"? Etc. etc.

Anyone could make almost any excuse about anything depending on the intensity with which they hold their "prejudicial" view. In my opinion this is what you have done. I am not saying you are being dishonest, no, just intensely so prejudiced in your view so that it is impossible for you to accept any evidence with a clear unvarnished eye. You might accuse me of the same but it would not be true, in my view because I base my word on the Bible.

I gave you evidence and the opportunity to look at the "whole book". I have also asked questions that give you opportunity to see what the evidence is both "Biblical" and otherwise. I demonstrated from the Biblical Sources in the clearest tones and without ambiguity what the Bible supports and doesn't support. I got in return:

1. Reams of Ellen White quotes (which is not a sin) to support your view. An abuse of the Prophet and her words because you are using them as a club to destroy.

2. You say Ellen White is the "lesser light" but you use her as the starting "light". You don't use the "lesser" to define the "greater" yet that's the way you use SOP. Shining a lesser light on the greater light adds nothing.

3. You then "infer, twist, read into, conceptualize, etc. things into the Bible that are not anywhere in the text.

4. You then belittle my evidence as trivial and should be an example of such for all to see.

5. You state that SOP "interprets" the Bible. Who then is the lesser and who is the greater light? Of course reasonable people would say the interpreter is the greater light because it has to shine brighter. Duh! A lesser light cannot shine anything on the greater light. Get your lights correct. You also brush this aside.

6. I show you evidence from SDA "official" documents, the Church Manuel and the 27/28 Beliefs, with no Biblical backing at all for these "SDA UNIQUE" Doctrines. You could reasonably expect at least two or three clear direct texts. But none exists.

You have one excuse after another. Usually, such excuse making is done because one does not want to face up to the truth and because one is so wedded to their view that nothing can move them. In addition such excuse making is done when one has such flimsy positions as it appears SDA do.

You question me about where and who I am. Then you accuse me being Des Ford to paint me as some "Satanic" minion like you believe Des Ford is.

It should not matter who I am. You only want to know so you can use that as a weapon against me to. No matter who I am the facts are the facts and you lack them and are found wanting. Yet you pretend that I have no case when in fact I have presented a very strong and devastating case (especially from the Bible) that SDA Doctine is not Bible and Bible only! Yet you lie and dissemble both in voice and in print (official and unofficial) that your Doctrines are Bible and Bible only! Come be honest! If Ellen White started the Doctrine than it is not the Bible and the Bible only, is it? If you are reasonable and honest you would have say "no, SDA have NOT been Bible and Bible ONLY". If such a Doctrine was started by the Bible then and only then would you have a case. But by your own admission the Doctrine did not start with the Bible, in fact, without Ellen White it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FROM THE BIBLE!

Again, who I am is not relevant. The only thing relevant is the Truth! The Truth is found in God's Word, the Bible.

You quote to me "to the Law and the Testimony". The Law and the Testimony are found in the Bible yet you hold Doctrines that you state are "vital" yet again they are no where found Scripture. You have Revelation which you correctly believe tells us of things to come. Yet in this Book alone there is no mention, not even the slightest inference, of the SDA Church and its supposed dominant role in the History of Human kind. There is not even the slightest evidence that Revelation refers to Ellen White, yet you pluck a "phrase" out of the blue and say that such phrase is referring to Ellen White. Talk about "flimsy" evidence. Your use of the Bible in this way is the "definition" of flimsy evidence. It insults the human intelligence. It is also SACRILEGIOUS and BLASPHEMOUS.

You state that Revelation chapter 13 is a reference to the United States in Prophecy. Yet it does not even in the slightest say so. Oh, I know the two horns. Well those "two horns" could just as easily be attributed to Islam today since they paint themselves as lamb but they speak and act like a dragon. The passage applies more to Islam than the United States. It also could have applied to the old Soviet Union. Could it also apply to the current communist state of China? How flimsy you are on this one point alone yet you ridicule my evidence. Man is that "rich". Clean your own religious skirt first.

SDA arrogance is and has been very telling. You make excuses for why Christ is in the Most Holy Place for 167 years by stating the Church is not ready. When I see the SDA Church (and I have from the very core), I see the most rotten of garbage in the way SDA conduct their business. Dishonesty and the grab for power is rampant throughout. It is not the picture SDA would like us to believe, which is that most SDA are ready but it is a small minority that are holding up the train. Your leadership from the local church to the GC touts how you prayerfully go over everything and let the Lord lead. Yet your backroom politics has already decided what direction you are going and who will hold power. You PROFANE THE NAME OF GOD BY ASSERTING SUCH! I am not talking about a scandal here and there, I am talking about this disease and sin running through every fiber of Adventism from top to bottom and side to side. Yet you claim to be so highly chosen (even though you are not mentioned in the least in Scripture). God wrote Scripture in the formation of the Jewish people. God did not slink around with ambiguous symbols as to who His people were. God came right out in the open that the Jews were His people.

Why does God use ambiguous (highly ambiguous) symbols and slink around in the secret in the SDA case? Symbols that could apply to almost anyone or anything. The reason is God did not announce the SDA people in the Bible. Your arrogance is stunning. Hmmmm!

You talk about MY evidence being flimsy. The Bible is right when it states you build you house on the sand.

Your very words on this website; "SDA is built on God and the Sanctuary". Its not God alone or Jesus Christ alone. No its Jesus Christ and the Sanctuary. To read SDA stuff you would get the picture that the "Sanctuary" is ahead of Jesus Christ in importance. In addition one would easily gets the impression that the SDA Church is more important than Jesus Christ. You state that the Sanctuary is the fundamental pillar of SDA. I thought the fundamental pillar is supposed to be Jesus Christ and Him Crucified?

The fundamental problem of SDA is their self-arrogance and the Sanctuary Doctrine as you have devised is proof of this. The Sanctuary Doctrine is you IDOL! You have made the Gospel about you (SDA) instead of about Jesus Christ. In your scenario Jesus Christ may be a major player but He is not the center, you have made yourselves the center.

It is time for the SDA Church to shun its arrogant posture and return again to the God which spawned you, not by prophetic utterances, but by working in people to learn the light of the Sabbath when such a Doctrine was in danger of being lost. God raised SDA up to lead the world to better health when the world was dieing because it had so many unhealthful practices. God did not raise SDA up to promote a flimsy Doctrine that can't be supported from the Bible. A Doctrine that does not make Christ the center and everything else but a Doctrine that makes SDA the center.

SDA are not unique because they hold the Sanctuary Doctrine. God's people are never unique because of the Doctrines they hold.

God's people are unique because God is in them ("your body is the temple of God"). Thus, the TRUE SANCTUARY MESSAGE is for God to be in His Holy Temple (us humans). Only those who have God as the High Priest of their lives will be saved. That is the TRUE SANCTUARY MESSAGE!

SDA have missed it because of your arrogance and your reliance on non Biblical Doctrines. You no longer (assuming you once did) rely on God and on Jesus Christ your ONLY Savior!

[skyblue888]

Alright John317 and others,

Here is the dope....

miz3

_____________________________

Who in the world, in the name of Christ, would talk like this!!

sky :)

[Woody]

Alright John317 and others,

Here is the dope....

miz3

_____________________________

Who in the world, in the name of Christ, would talk like this!!

sky

Unfortunately, it often happens when one is treated poorly and without love. :(

[miz3]

Come on get real.

You sling epithets but you don't sling Truth and then you talk about me being unlike Christ.

Clean up your own house before you attack my house.

You discredit yourself by such epithets and then having others say "right on".

By doing such you only make my points stronger!

I am supposed to back off because of your shameful talk about my talk. Only those who want to duck the Truth do that. Jesus Christ never did what you did yet you claim to be a "last day" incarnation of Christs Character (you know the Ellen White statements that say "when Christ's Character is fully reproduced in His people (SDA).........".

Hmmmm!

[miz3]

What I said is true!

You just are so blinded by you idolatry to your Doctrine and your idolatry to the SDA Church that you can see no other way.

If not for Ellen White you would never get the:

1. Doctrine of the Sanctuary.

2. That Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844. (Hiram Edson deserves the main credit).

3. That an Investigative Judgment exists.

4. That the SDA Church is prophesied in Revelation.

5. That the United States is the two horned beast of Revelation chapter 13.

6. That Ellen White is foretold in the Book of Revelation.

7. That the SDA Church is the "last day" church. (Given the 167 years and 6 or 7 generations of last days). How many generations have to die off before it is the last. For Ellen White and the Founders it is not the last generation. Their generation has come and gone. How many generations before we get to to the last?.

None of the seven things above can be demonstrated from the Bible and the Bible only! How can so many things be true and yet not be explicit from the Bible. How can they not be explicit from the Bible and be as vitally important as say they are?

That's an awful lot of "new light" that is not backed up by the "old light"(the Bible).

That's an awful lot of "lesser light" that is not seen in the "greater light"(the Bible).

How can you with a straight face assert what you do and call it credible. Most reasonable humans would clearly be skeptical of your take on things because of, at minimum, the seven things I have posed above.

How many "inferred" things are there in order to make it "explicit". You talk about weak ground. Brother you are on the weakest of grounds.

You certainly are not on the Rock which is Jesus Christ and His Word (the Bible).