DON'T quote Ellen White...

[Stan]

Quote:

"Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now." - Ellen White

Special thanks to Antreations for posting this on facebook.

[Stan]

This was at the 1901 GC, I think it was directed to Waggenor and Jones, but am happy to be corrected.

quote]Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what “Sister White said”—“Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing.” But say, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says. {SpM 167.2}

[Parade Orange]

i grew up with everyone around quoting EGW and it wasnt about the matchless charms of JESUS!

when will the spiritial abuse end?

[ClubV12]

Toward the end there will come many who claim to have new and stunning light. It will MOSTLY be true, as the very best lies are 90% truth with only 10% lie. How will you know what to believe? Even the best bible students and well versed in the writings of the Lords messenger for our time will be hard pressed to discern the error.

The ONLY way you will be able to discern the truth is when the Spirit lives within you. So it is with bible study or reading Ellen White right now. There is little point in quoting either if the Spirit does not dwell within.

[Kevin H]

As Fundamentalism grew and certan views of prophecy began to grow people would take the words of the prophet as the final interpetation. Mrs. White saw her job as to point out some neglected Bible truths, making application of Biblical Principles to the situations she was facing. She did not see her job as exogesis; she believed that is our job to learn and to do. She wanted people to want to learn what we could about the Bible first, then after we have done an exogesis we can look at her applications.

There were people who would not listen to this. She wrote some sharp letters to people who she accused of dispite their massive quoting of her that she felt did not understand her message and was misusing her message, however they tended to come up with excuses to reject her counsel to them (such as blaming Willie's or W. W. Prescott's influence). It is interesting how some of the most conservative among us see's these people as their heros of faith. There were the discussions between her close friend Stephen Haskell, but where Elder Haskell, who was more moderate than some of those others, but who was trying to convince Mrs. White that her expirence of being a prophet still fit the fundamentalist perspective and she kept convincing him that it didn't (it is interesting that, while we don't know details about this discussion itself, during this time period Haskell came to visit her and that night she had a heart attack and needed an angel to come and help her)

This debate over the proper use of Mrs. White went on with about 3 major schools: The school of Mrs. White, her son Willie, A. G. Daniels and W. W. Prescott (Daniel's and Prescott started out more like Haskell, in fact Haskell got his views of what a prophet should be from Prescott. When Mrs. White learned what Prescott was teaching she invited him to take a break from teaching and start working with her. She kept assigning to him, as well as to Daniel's some jobs that they found very uncomfortable, which liberalized their views); The Haskell school and the school of those who got those very sharp letters about not understanding her views and using her writings in their major quoting of her to support their views.

This was Mrs. White's last battle, she died while it was still being fought, probably the stress of this battle played a role in her death. Willie, Prescott and Daniel's continued the fight. Taught it durring the 1919 Bible Conference (Willie had to be out of town in 1919) and in the 1923 General Conference Daniels was kicked out of office, Prescott demoted, Willie White got to keep his job but it was stripped of any authority, in other words, they let him get a paycheck and have an office to spend his day, but basically he was fired. Elder Spicer, the new General Conference President was also seen as a heritic (he believed that there were 2 views of inspiration, he was a fundamentalist towards the Bible and a much more liberal view towards Mrs. White. But unlike Daniel's who believed that Fundamentalism would eventually be disasterous to the church, Spicer was willing to keep his hericies to himself and not impose it on the rest of the church, and the other two schools... those of Haskell and those who got those intense letters from Mrs. White, their views were the two that the church tended to embrace and which still influences us today)

[Woody]

I hate to be a party pooper -

But wouldn't this belong in the "What SDAs Believe" forum?

Well what do I know. That's why I'm not a moderator. Only moderators know these kinds of things.

[Woody]

Toward the end there will come many who claim to have new and stunning light. It will MOSTLY be true, as the very best lies are 90% truth with only 10% lie. How will you know what to believe? Even the best bible students and well versed in the writings of the Lords messenger for our time will be hard pressed to discern the error.

Good Comment.

I agree.

I think that the 90% to 10% ration of truth vs. error is about right for our prophet. The cons of course will try to defend that she is without error. They will make statements like "well she MEANT this" And "she meant that". Or "well that was just for her time and not ours". It seems to me that if she is to be considered our prophet that she needs to speak for our time and if it was just meant for HER time then she would say so.

[Tom Wetmore]

That seems a bit strange to characterize something that's 90% true as being a lie. It seems a rather negative and distrustful view of that which is essentially truthful. It's sort like through out the baby with the bath water. Does a mere 10% error cancel the 90% which is the truth?

An opposite corollary is that the very worst truths are 90% lie and 10% truth. Taking the logic of the premise you stated would mean that this could be treated as truthful. Are you ready to accept that?

As you can see, the fallacy in the logic is that the initial characterization is false. Something 90% of anything cannot simply be labeled as that which comprises the other 10%. There needs to be a more qualitative analysis. It is entirely possible that the relative strength of the minor ingredient could indeed overwhelm and neutralize the major component. But according to your initial premise the lie is 10X more powerful than the truth since at 10% concentration it totally overpowers the remaining 90%. That seems a pretty dim view of truth and a rather profound lack of confidence in the power and strength of truth and its ability to prevail over untruth.

[Woody]

Good Comments Tom.

I have no problem that our prophet has error mixed with truth.

In with the good - out with the bad.

We are to do as she indicated - study her words compared to scripture. And if it is not found in scripture -

TOSS IT

[Pastor_Chick]

This was at the 1901 GC, I think it was directed to Waggenor and Jones, but am happy to be corrected.

My CD ROM only shows this at the beginning of that section in Spalding-Magan.

"Kingly power" was not a problem with the 1888 messengers, so I am not understanding how these EGW remarks would be directed at Jones and Waggoner.

I am open to the evidence.

[Gary K]

That seems a bit strange to characterize something that's 90% true as being a lie. It seems a rather negative and distrustful view of that which is essentially truthful. It's sort like through out the baby with the bath water. Does a mere 10% error cancel the 90% which is the truth?

An opposite corollary is that the very worst truths are 90% lie and 10% truth. Taking the logic of the premise you stated would mean that this could be treated as truthful. Are you ready to accept that?

As you can see, the fallacy in the logic is that the initial characterization is false. Something 90% of anything cannot simply be labeled as that which comprises the other 10%. There needs to be a more qualitative analysis. It is entirely possible that the relative strength of the minor ingredient could indeed overwhelm and neutralize the major component. But according to your initial premise the lie is 10X more powerful than the truth since at 10% concentration it totally overpowers the remaining 90%. That seems a pretty dim view of truth and a rather profound lack of confidence in the power and strength of truth and its ability to prevail over untruth.

The truly dangerous errors are 99% truth and 1% error. The truth sounds so good, that the 1% of error is missed because it sounds like an "aside", or just a very minor adjustment in theology. However, when the entire train of thought is traced out to its logical end the error becomes very apparent for it has caused the entire train of thought to diverge greatly from truth.

Take the current debate on faith and works. Both sides start at the same point. Faith is a must and that works follow after. However, at the end point of the argument one side believes the works must follow faith for they are the evidence of faith, and the other side says that it makes no difference if we keep on sinning because we have a carnal nature, and God forgives sin.

Both sides end up being diametrically opposed to each other, yet both start, seemingly, at the same point. One side must be in error because both positions cannot be true. One side or the other believes something that the Bible cannot teach. Where is that starting point? As often as the two sides go around and around it is very hard to trace its beginnings. It's very subtle.

I'll use Jack Sequira's teachings as an example. I've read a lot of his stuff. It all sounds very good, but when I get down to his conclusions, I disagree with him quite emphatically. Where did we begin to disagree? I'm not quite sure, only the conclusions he draws do not fit with what I see in the Bible. We start at a point that is pretty much indistinguishable. We end up miles apart. Somewhere the paths of thought begin to follow paths that become increasing separate until at the end there is a very large fundamental difference in belief. I can't accept any of Sequira's teachings because I know at the end of his logic that something is wrong.

[Woody]

Quote:

I can't accept any of Sequira's teachings because I know at the end of his logic that something is wrong.

That's interesting. I haven't read anything in it's proper context that I disagree with.His teachings are just the Bible. I would be curious to see you quote a couple of the things you disagree with.

Of course this is off topic. Perhaps you could start a new thread on his errors.

[Woody]

I started the thread for you. Hope you will join in.

[ClubV12]

I suppose one could ascribe what ever percentages he wanted to the truth% vs lie% issue. But here is one example that may illustrate my point, Sunday worship.

It is likely, some future so called "prophet" will preach 95% truth and then mention, oh by the way, that whole Saturday worship thing is no longer a test of fellowship. Or some other critical test of faith that is mixed in with the truth. So cleverly disquised that if it were possible even the very elect would be misled.

Of course, none of "us" would be so deceived by a Sunday vs Sabbath test point. Or,,, would we, depending on the conditions, timing, who and how that message is delivered. Which of course would be 95% true... ONLY the Holy Spirit living within us will keep our feet on the trail.

My comments should not be considered as applying to what Ellen White's counsel on any given issue is considered truth or error. I'm simply making an overall observation about a blending of truth and error in any given format.

Quadifi was recently noted on the news as saying he is hidden somewhere that NATO can't reach him to kill him. The statement is true, but he went on to clairify that "place where they can't reach him" was in the hearts of his people. That even though they should kill his body, he would live on in his supporters. That clairification part was not reported in the broadcast.

[Tom Wetmore]

The real problem with this line of reasoning that would throw out anything unless it is 100% true, correct and right is that it comes out of the heart an soul of the heresy of perfectionism theology. (It has also lead many to reject EGW when they find a mistake in her writings since they cannot accept she could make a mistake. Not surprisingly many rejectors of EGW and Adventism were once hot on the perfectionism bandwagon.)

Here is a truth, a fact of life as we know it here on earth. There is nothing that exists here on earth that is 100% perfect, having no flaw, mistake, error, defect, or that is unadulterated by sin. Nothing. Nada.

But on the same token, there is nothing here on earth, no matter how evil, diseased, corrupted, flawed, or sinful, that does not have at least an atom, one gene, of good left in it.

It is man's way to look for and focus on the flaw, the defect, the imperfection, lose sight of the rest and toss it out as hopeless rubbish.

It is God's way to look at that one last good atom or gene, and say, "I can work with that. I can rebuild from that little bit of good. I can recreate the the entire world from the rubbish of man."

[ClubV12]

My point concerns the end times when false prophets working miracles will come, as angels of light. How you gonna know if what they say or do is from the Lord? I have no doubt that MUCH of what they say and do will be indeed be "truthful", but not all of it. How you gonna know?

[Woody]

My point concerns the end times when false prophets working miracles will come, as angels of light. How you gonna know if what they say or do is from the Lord? I have no doubt that MUCH of what they say and do will be indeed be "truthful", but not all of it. How you gonna know?

I really don't care what they say. I feel the scriptures are sufficient. I'll stick with them.

[skyblue888]

This was at the 1901 GC, I think it was directed to Waggenor and Jones, but am happy to be corrected.

quote]Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what “Sister White said”—“Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing.” But say, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says. {SpM 167.2}

What is SpM?

Directed to Waggoner and Jones at the 1901 General Conference!!! I don't think so. I own a copy of that Bulletin and as far as I know Mrs. White never wrote a message like this to these messengers of God. Waggoner and Jones rarely quoted Mrs. White when they spoke in public. They always quoted the Scriptures. That message could not have been meant for them. Happy to challenge you to prove that it was.

sky :)

[Woody]

What is SpM.

Without looking it up - I would guess Spaulding Materials.

[Woody]

Okay. It's Spalding Magan. So I was close.

[skyblue888]

When one studies the lectures that these men gave at every General Conference, he can readily see that they quoted Scriptures and nothing but Scriptures and very rarely quoted Mrs. White. So Stan, where did you get this idea that the statement you produced was meant for these men, especially at the 1901 G.C.!!!

sky

Spaulding Materials. Was Spaulding a supporter of the G.C. no matter what?

[Woody]

Quote:

Was Spaulding a supporter of the G.C. no matter what?

I dunno. But our prophet was -

" The highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference - Action Of General Conference, 1877 Year Book, 1914 page 255.

I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but surrendered. - Testimonies For The Church, Vol. III page 492 (1875)

God has ordained that the representatives of his church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in his church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of his work." PC 422.

"But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body." 9T 260

"But," say you, "should I follow the judgment of the brethren independent of my own feelings?" I answer: The church is God's delegated authority upon earth. Christ has said: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." There is altogether too little respect paid to the opinion of members of the same church. It is the want of deference for the opinions of the church that causes so much trouble among brethren. The eyes of the church may be able to discern in its individual members that which the erring may not see. A few persons may be as blind as the one in error, but the majority of the church is a power which should control its individual members." 5T 107

[BobRyan]

My point concerns the end times when false prophets working miracles will come, as angels of light. How you gonna know if what they say or do is from the Lord? I have no doubt that MUCH of what they say and do will be indeed be "truthful", but not all of it. How you gonna know?

This is the same question many Adventists had in the 1800's when they were introduced to Ellen White's prophetic ministry. Recall that Joseph Smith had just been in the lime light in the 1830's so nobody really "wanted" to get involved with a modern prophet in those days.

We address this issue by appealing to the Bible tests of a prophet. We do not solve it by claiming that the Bible tells us to ignore prophets.

in Christ,

Bob

[Woody]

The Bible is sufficient.

[Woody]

In all seriousness - I don't need ANY prophet to tell me ANYthing. If I am serious - I will find it in scripture and through prayer.