Prophets and Queens

[John317]

1 Kings 22:22, 23-- And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Are you concluding on the basis of what Ellen White said and on the basis of 1 Kings 22: 23 that God caused lies to be told?

Originally Posted By: cardw

This has nothing to do with what Ellen White wrote.

Read what I already posted.

I read what you posted. Now answer the question, Richard. It is most certainly related to the topic.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: John317

1 Kings 22:22, 23-- And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Are you concluding on the basis of what Ellen White said and on the basis of 1 Kings 22: 23 that God caused lies to be told?

Originally Posted By: cardw

This has nothing to do with what Ellen White wrote.

Read what I already posted.

I read what you posted. Now answer the question, Richard. It is most certainly related to the topic.

This is not a valid question. You are avoiding my question by asking this non related question.

How do you deal with what she actually said?

So far you don't. You create this tangent.

[John317]

I didn't say she wasn't a nice person. I said she was deluded. I don't have any problem with her as a person. I have a problem with her as a prophet.

I'm not saying she was a nice person. I'm saying everyone who knew her, knew her to be a good Christian woman. That is not the same as being a nice person.

What's your clearest evidence that Ellen G. White was deluded?

She gave every evidence of being very much in touch with reality.

[John317]

(quoting EGW): I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand was removed. [THIS APPLIES TO THE CHART USED DURING THE 1843 MOVEMENT, AND HAS SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE CALCULATION OF THE PROPHETIC PERIODS AS IT APPEARED ON THAT CHART. THE NEXT SENTENCE EXPLAINS THAT THERE WAS AN INACCURACY WHICH IN THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD WAS SUFFERED TO EXIST. BUT THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE PUBLICATION OF A CHART SUBSEQUENTLY WHICH WOULD CORRECT THE MISTAKE, AFTER THE 1843 MOVEMENT WAS PAST, AND THE CALCULATION AS THEN MADE HAD SERVED ITS PURPOSE.] {EW 74.1}

I think the problem is that you are assuming that Ellen White meant God put false words in the mouth of the Millerites. This is not what she's saying. God cannot lie, and Ellen White is not claiming that God lied.

Originally Posted By: cardw

....I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them;

I will repeat that it was as God wanted them according to Ellen White. This is premeditated by god according to Ellen White.

Yes, God guided the Millerite Movement. There's no question of that.

But that is different from saying that God inspired them to preach falsehoods. Miller and Miller's followers-- as well as many others around the world who didn't have any connection with Miller-- preached that the Lord was coming to the earth in 1843 and then 1844. It was according to God's will, just like it was God's will that the Bible writers teach 2,000 years ago that Christ was coming "soon." It was also God's will that the disciples not understand ahead of time that Christ would be crucified like a common criminal.

Ellen White is emphasizing that the 1843 chart was right and that the time prophecies it shows were as God intended them to be. There was nothing wrong with the time prophecies-- that is, the 2300 days of Daniel 8: 14; the 1,260 days; and the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. So Ellen White was assuring the former Millerites that God was leading in Miller's preaching that Christ would come in 1843, 1844.

[John317]

How do you deal with what she actually said?

See post#484119, for example. It should be the post right above this one.

Originally Posted By: cardw

So far you don't.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. :-)

Originally Posted By: cardw

You create this tangent.

I asked the question about 1 Kings 22: 22, 23 because it is a similar statement to the one Ellen White made about the mistake which God held His hand over. You believe that Ellen White is saying God lied, but that is obviously false. However, it fits in well with what you want to believe about Ellen White and about God and the Christian religion.

I will leave it to readers of the Forum to decide whether Ellen White wrote that God caused people to preach falsehoods.

[John317]

On your link, this is one of the criticisms:

Quote:

4. From this 'prophetic guidance' they expected His return 'in the spring of 1844', but it failed! So her next 'vision' confirming 'spring' was wrong, it was a false prophecy.

But this is fabrication, because Ellen White never had a vision confirming Christ's coming in 1844. Her first vision was in Dec. 1844. Therefore it's false to suggest that people were being led by Ellen White's prophetic guidance during 1843-1844.

[fccool]

Quote:

By the way, I believe the same thing with regards to Joseph Smith. I don't read anti-Mormon or anti-Smith books in order to know Mormonism or Joseph Smith. Same with getting to know Jehovah's Witnesses.

I don't think that you have an honest view of the critics. You think that all of them are dishonest, because they only seek to disprove what she says, and they have axe to grind.

You don't see them as people who actually read, and even believed for most of their lives that she was indeed a prophet.

You claim that these answers have been answered, but the problem with the answers is that they are simply avoiding the opposite based on assumption.

Assumption 1: E.G.WHite was indeed the prophet

Assumption 2: EVERYTHING that she wrote was inspired by God

Assumption 3: Critics are are wrong, and there's a better explanation when problems arise.

For example, Adventist church generally picks and chooses what to follow and what to ignore from her writings.

Quote:

"Out of the cities; out of the cities!"--this is the message the Lord has been giving me. The earthquakes will

come; the floods will come; and we are not to establish ourselves in the wicked cities. {RH, 07/05/19 06}

The cities are to be worked from outposts. Said the messenger of God, "Shall not the cities be warned? Yes,

not by God's people living in them, but by their visiting them, to warn them of what is coming upon the

earth."--Letter 182, 1902. {Ev 77.4}

As God's commandment-keeping people, we must leave the cities. As did Enoch, we must work in the cities but not dwell in them. {Mar 184.1}

I'm not pulling this out of some Adventist Critics site. This is from people who honestly think that the above should apply to all Adventists who believe that E.G. White was indeed a prophet.

So, the question is, why not follow her Advice as a church?

The answer is simple. Cities in the past were a dirty and crowded hell-holes. She did not see any improvement over time. She really thought that eventually it'll just progressively degrade to savage conditions. Ironically, that did not happen. There was a tremendous improvement in living standards in cities over-time.

Similar things apply to the safety of food. There are numerous inventions that actually made food, and especially animal food much safer. Things like antibiotics, refrigeration, and preservation. Agriculture became so efficient, that it comprises .06% of economy to feed the population.

Quote:

"The light given me is that it will not be very long before we shall have to give up any animal food. Even milk will have to be discarded. Disease is accumulating rapidly."

She did not see the improvements in food safety coming. Has she lived today, she would be thoroughly surprised that cities are much cleaner and that overall life expectancy has improved from 47 when she was alive, to 77 today.

Likewise, much of the superstition that she wrote in and you decide to ignore, was just that. Many times, these were quoted verbatim out of external sources of the time and presented as "Thus says the Lord". Many of these are proven to be wives tales.

Here's an example... a story of lungs pushing into throat, because a girl would wear a corset:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pp_PAAA...p;q&f=false

She would read that, agree with it, and reprint it in "The Health Reformer, December 1, 1871".

There's no way in this world that a corset would push lungs up to someone's throat to cause a lump, but it was a popular wive's tale that was believed to be true, and printed as such, so she took it and ran with it.

Surely, you can justify God inspiring someone to pick truth from other writers.

Yet, how would you justify God inspiring a writer to use something that's so blatantly false?

Later on, she would end up quoting other author that thought that because mothers would compress their bodies with corsets, their babies would be born with deformed figures.

Sorry... she wrote a lot of good stuff, because she would read a lot of contemporary medical and spiritual advice, and compiled it into her advice books, but overall she can't be credited for "coming up" with these things as "from the Lord".

It would be a dishonest statement to say that she was against smoking while doctors prescribed it, when she was indeed borrowing medical advice from contemporary medical journals, that incidentally included quite a bit of superstition that's absolutely not true.

Do you think God works in such a way?

[fccool]

You've mentioned before, that Biblical writers would quote from material that was "uninspired".

Can you give me some examples where such authors would quotes something thinking that it was true, that we now now is blatantly false?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Richard, you totally misunderstood her experience. Yours is merely the opinion of a man who has lost his spiritual bearings.

And yours is only the opinion of a man who doesn't read what I posted.

What makes you think I didn't read the link? I have some news for you Richard, I did read it.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

You forget that when Ellen was going through this ordeal the churches were still wrapped in midnight darkness. She had to find her way through a maze of false doctrines.

She was making this midnight darkness up in her own mind. You can see that she didn't want to live. The human mind is programmed to survive and will make up what it needs to remain alive. Jesus coming was a quick solution to her suffering. She wouldn't have to be ugly and disfigured and could look forward to eternal life.

You forget that she was human just as we all are and that she was very young at the time and inexperienced. God alone can read the heart. God takes us where we are.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

She had to find her way through a maze of false doctrines.

Remember they were absolutely wrong about Jesus coming. They were creating false doctrines.

When you read external accounts you don't find people being cruel to them after the disappointment. You find people helping the Millerites out. Many were given their land back and others harvested their crops for them and others were given food and shelter because they had given everything away.

What you do find is people getting upset because they, including James White, kept setting dates up to 1851 and we know from the Israel Damon Trial that they were telling people to not plant their crops. This was a life threatening issue to these communities because they were interdependent on each other for food and they had already gone through one disappointment.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

And why should you despise suffering as a means to find God?

I don't despise her suffering at all. In fact, I completely understand it. In many ways it was the same thing I experienced when I read her. I took it very seriously and was often praying at my bed in absolute despair, as a child, believing that I was the worst of sinners longing for some evidence of God's forgiveness and acceptance. Only it never came like it did for Ellen White. And even hers was short lived. I thought, like her, that we were in the events just preceding the time of trouble and I longed to be ready for that time.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Even Jesus learned obedience through suffering according to the Scripture. You claim to be free of guilt. I say rather that it is to appease your guilt that you try to convince yourself that Ellen White was a fake because you have felt condemned by her writings.

The only guilt I have is that I taught other people these things. I am making amends the best I can. And what I am accountable to is reality. Ellen White is making up a reality that doesn't exist. That is why her relief didn't last. That is why she was sick most of her life. She was at odds with reality and couldn't face the truth. I can understand why because she didn't have anything to replace it with. Today we have much clearer narratives and much more evidence to draw on.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

I pity you Richard. Your zeal is worthy of a better cause.

I have no cause. I am particularly qualified to talk on this because I come from the inside. I have rigorously worked this out because I was taught this by reading Ellen White. She simply stopped too soon.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

You don't know anything about despair. I was introduced to the writings of the Ellen White at a time in my life I was experiencing despair that I would ever find answers to the questions that haunted me day and night.

There is no way you could know anything about my despair. I also don't want to minimize yours. If Ellen White provides a way for you to survive outside of despair then great. I am a pragmatist at heart. But it is arrogant for you to conclude that this is what everyone needs. You have no way of knowing that.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

I had read extensively before I was providentially led to her writings. I can now say that her writings magnified the Word of God to me and made it honorable.

I can understand why you might feel this way. Her single shift from a belief in an eternal hell would be a significant source of relief. Adventism, within it's own assumptions, has a very neat box of answers if you don't examine them too closely.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

I will make this prediction: The more you attack her writings the more they will shine.

Any more I don't have to attack them. I simply quote them. They show an obvious immaturity.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

It is hard to kick against the pricks.

Well, I really don't like pricks.

Of course you don't like the pricks, Richard, no one does.

Ellen's writings mean a lot more to me than the mere belief that there won't be an eternal hell. There is so much more in her writings that you and I have not even begun to fathom and yet we have access to them on a daily basis if we wish to study them. For me it means to be a student at the school of Christ, to be taught at the feet of Jesus.

I won't have to wait to find out if she was a true prophet or not but for people like you, Richard, only time will show that she was but then it will be too late.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

By the way, I believe the same thing with regards to Joseph Smith. I don't read anti-Mormon or anti-Smith books in order to know Mormonism or Joseph Smith. Same with getting to know Jehovah's Witnesses.

I don't think that you have an honest view of the critics. You think that all of them are dishonest, because they only seek to disprove what she says, and they have axe to grind.

You don't see them as people who actually read, and even believed for most of their lives that she was indeed a prophet.

You claim that these answers have been answered, but the problem with the answers is that they are simply avoiding the opposite based on assumption.

Assumption 1: E.G.WHite was indeed the prophet

Assumption 2: EVERYTHING that she wrote was inspired by God

Assumption 3: Critics are are wrong, and there's a better explanation when problems arise.

For example, Adventist church generally picks and chooses what to follow and what to ignore from her writings.

Quote:

"Out of the cities; out of the cities!"--this is the message the Lord has been giving me. The earthquakes will

come; the floods will come; and we are not to establish ourselves in the wicked cities. {RH, 07/05/19 06}

The cities are to be worked from outposts. Said the messenger of God, "Shall not the cities be warned? Yes,

not by God's people living in them, but by their visiting them, to warn them of what is coming upon the

earth."--Letter 182, 1902. {Ev 77.4}

As God's commandment-keeping people, we must leave the cities. As did Enoch, we must work in the cities but not dwell in them. {Mar 184.1}

I'm not pulling this out of some Adventist Critics site. This is from people who honestly think that the above should apply to all Adventists who believe that E.G. White was indeed a prophet.

So, the question is, why not follow her Advice as a church?

The answer is simple. Cities in the past were a dirty and crowded hell-holes. She did not see any improvement over time. She really thought that eventually it'll just progressively degrade to savage conditions. Ironically, that did not happen. There was a tremendous improvement in living standards in cities over-time.

Similar things apply to the safety of food. There are numerous inventions that actually made food, and especially animal food much safer. Things like antibiotics, refrigeration, and preservation. Agriculture became so efficient, that it comprises .06% of economy to feed the population.

Quote:

"The light given me is that it will not be very long before we shall have to give up any animal food. Even milk will have to be discarded. Disease is accumulating rapidly."

She did not see the improvements in food safety coming. Has she lived today, she would be thoroughly surprised that cities are much cleaner and that overall life expectancy has improved from 47 when she was alive, to 77 today.

Likewise, much of the superstition that she wrote in and you decide to ignore, was just that. Many times, these were quoted verbatim out of external sources of the time and presented as "Thus says the Lord". Many of these are proven to be wives tales.

Here's an example... a story of lungs pushing into throat, because a girl would wear a corset:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pp_PAAA...p;q&f=false

She would read that, agree with it, and reprint it in "The Health Reformer, December 1, 1871".

There's no way in this world that a corset would push lungs up to someone's throat to cause a lump, but it was a popular wive's tale that was believed to be true, and printed as such, so she took it and ran with it.

Surely, you can justify God inspiring someone to pick truth from other writers.

Yet, how would you justify God inspiring a writer to use something that's so blatantly false?

Later on, she would end up quoting other author that thought that because mothers would compress their bodies with corsets, their babies would be born with deformed figures.

Sorry... she wrote a lot of good stuff, because she would read a lot of contemporary medical and spiritual advice, and compiled it into her advice books, but overall she can't be credited for "coming up" with these things as "from the Lord".

It would be a dishonest statement to say that she was against smoking while doctors prescribed it, when she was indeed borrowing medical advice from contemporary medical journals, that incidentally included quite a bit of superstition that's absolutely not true.

Do you think God works in such a way?

fcool, what you are doing here is totally childish on your part. You ignore the bulk of her writings which is spiritually far beyond anything that has ever been published in the history of Christianity, things that you obviously, like cardw, cannot appreciate, hunting for something that hopefully will discredit her as a true prophet of God. I have seen this time and time again. I have no doubt that what you have just posted has been distorted in some way or another and for that reason it is not even worthy of our paying attention to.

sky

[ClubV12]

The only "blatantly false" report here, fccool, is your post!

[fccool]

Quote:

fcool, what you are doing here is totally childish on your part. You ignore the bulk of her writings which is spiritually far beyond anything that has ever been published in the history of Christianity, things that you obviously, like cardw, cannot appreciate,

I can appreciate those things because I know the true source of these things, and it's not "God told me", but it was the hundreds of magazines, books, and publications that she pieced together into a collection of wise sayings. That's why they appear super-human, because these were not written by one person. These were collectively written by hundreds of authors that she draws from, and then claiming that these ideas came from God with not even a mention of their true origin.

Quote:

hunting for something that hopefully will discredit her as a true prophet of God. I have seen this time and time again. I have no doubt that what you have just posted has been distorted in some way or another and for that reason it is not even worthy of our paying attention to.

I'm not hunting for anything. There's nothing childish about my process, because you do it for every single thing that you don't believe in. Those questions are appropriate and they are answered inadequately. I'm simply pointing out that such things can't possibly come from a prophet and be defended as "from God".

No one chooses answer these questions directly for some reason.

Can God give blatantly false statements as "inspired words"?

[fccool]

The only "blatantly false" report here, fccool, is your post!

And your support for that statement is .... ?

[skyblue888]

fcool, your reasoning may sound cool to the ignorant or to those who wish to wipe God off the map but to those who have enough of the Spirit to discern between the work of God and that of man, the writings of Ellen White are more than a collection of bits and pieces that she would have borrowed from other authors.

"A period of great light and the outpouring of the Spirit is quite generally followed by a time of great darkness. Why? Because the enemy works with all his deceiving energies to make of none effect the deep movings of the Spirit of God on the human subject." 1 S.M.130,131.

sky

[ClubV12]

My reasoning for that statement, fccool, is your obvious lack of knowledge concerning diseased animals in the 1800's vs today, and thats the tip of the ice berg.

Your reasoning is SO flawed on the issues you presented it barely warrants a discussion. Do a little reading, some research and get back to us with some reasonably intelligent objections to Ellen White worthy of discussion.

The issues you raise here have been discussed and answered in detail for decades.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

The only "blatantly false" report here, fccool, is your post!

And your support for that statement is .... ?

Because they said so! LOL

I call them the announcers.

If they put enough religious cliches and indignant posturing together in-between their announcements that constitutes evidence.

Oh well....

[cardw]

It is hard to kick against the pricks.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Well, I really don't like pricks.

Of course you don't like the pricks, Richard, no one does.

Ellen's writings mean a lot more to me than the mere belief that there won't be an eternal hell. There is so much more in her writings that you and I have not even begun to fathom...

I think that's not the only thing you don't fathom.

[cardw]

I think the problem is that you are assuming that Ellen White meant God put false words in the mouth of the Millerites. This is not what she's saying. God cannot lie, and Ellen White is not claiming that God lied.

Originally Posted By: cardw

....I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them;

I will repeat that it was as God wanted them according to Ellen White. This is premeditated by god according to Ellen White.

Yes, God guided the Millerite Movement. There's no question of that.

But that is different from saying that God inspired them to preach falsehoods. Miller and Miller's followers-- as well as many others around the world who didn't have any connection with Miller-- preached that the Lord was coming to the earth in 1843 and then 1844. It was according to God's will, just like it was God's will that the Bible writers teach 2,000 years ago that Christ was coming "soon." It was also God's will that the disciples not understand ahead of time that Christ would be crucified like a common criminal.

Ellen White is emphasizing that the 1843 chart was right and that the time prophecies it shows were as God intended them to be. There was nothing wrong with the time prophecies-- that is, the 2300 days of Daniel 8: 14; the 1,260 days; and the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. So Ellen White was assuring the former Millerites that God was leading in Miller's preaching that Christ would come in 1843, 1844.

John, she used the word directed. If god was passive in his lack of intervention it would say allowed, but it doesn't say that.

You are putting different meanings to her words with no basis. How do you know what she meant? You are using conjecture here. You aren't following your own rules.

In fact she says that god directed it so that it would be exactly as GOD wanted it, not the men studying it.

Your point that it was the same all over the world would actually indicate that GOD was making sure they HAD the wrong dates, not the other way around.

[joeb]

To no one in particular and everyone in general:

Quote:

I have beheld angels grieved as the most precious jewels of truth have been brought before men utterly incapable of appreciating the evidences in favor of the truth. Their entire being was at war with the principles of truth; their natures were at enmity with it. Their object in discussing was not that they might get hold of the evidences of the truth themselves or that the people might have a fair understanding of our true position, but that they might confuse the understanding by placing the truth in a perverted light before the people. There are men who have educated themselves as combatants. It is their policy to misstate an opponent and to cover up clear arguments with dishonest quibbles. They have devoted their God-given powers to this dishonest work, for there is nothing in their hearts in harmony with the pure principles of truth. They seize any argument they can get with which to tear down the advocates of truth, when they themselves do not believe the things they urge against them. They bolster themselves up in their chosen position, irrespective of justice and truth. They do not consider that before them is the judgment, and that then their ill-gotten triumph, with all its disastrous results, will appear in its true character. Error, with all its deceptive policies, its windings and twistings and turnings to change the truth into a lie, will then appear in all its deformity. No victory will stand in the day of God, except that which truth, pure, elevated, sacred truth, shall win to the glory of God.

...

God’s ministers should not count the opportunity of engaging in discussion a great privilege. All points of our faith are not to be borne to the front and presented before the prejudiced crowds. Jesus spoke before the Pharisees and Sadducees in parables, hiding the clearness of truth under symbols and figures because they would make a wrong use of the truths He presented before them; but to His disciples He spoke plainly. We should learn from Christ’s method of teaching and be careful not to cut off the ears of the people by presenting truths which, not being fully explained, they are in no way prepared to receive. Testimonies vol 3, page 425 paragraphs 1, 3

[fccool]

Consider how Sabbath came to SDA church.

There's a prior history, but we'll skip to a publication of T.M. Preble in a Millerite newspaper about the issue, and posted the several ideas in "The Hope of Israel, Feb. 28, 1845". He concluded his article by writing, "Thus we see Daniel 7:25 fulfilled, the little horn changing times and laws with the result that all who keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath are the Pope's Sunday keepers and God's Sabbath breakers!"

So, we have these ideas are not originating with E.G. White's visions, but they are integrated externally from various channels and perspectives.

There was a captain called Joseph Bates, who picked up the idea as truth and brought it up with both James and Ellen White.

There obviously was a diverging opinions in the Church as to whether Bates was correct to keep the Sabbath beginning at 6 pm. Many thought that it would be kept from Sunrise, some thought that it should be from Sundown-Sundown.

When disputes arose, Ellen came to the rescue with a vision that confirmed that Sabbath keeping was correct from 6 PM. The Bates was vindicated, and the disputes were dismissed.

Arthur White wrote about the events:

"In that vision she was shown that to commence the Sabbath at sunrise was wrong. She then heard an angel repeat these words, 'From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths.' Brother Bates was present, and succeeded in satisfying all present that 'even' was six o'clock."

Adventist, including Bates and Whites began keeping Sabbath only to find out years later that they've been doing it wrong. As usual, that revelation did not come from God, but from third party person... J.N. Andrews. Andrews was called to a conference to investigate the matter, and found out that Sabbath was historically kept by Jews from Sundown to Sundown.

Arthur White wrote about that:

"The sunset time was now accepted by nearly all present at the 1855 conference. Joseph Bates and Ellen White were exceptions, both holding to the six o'clock position."

When evidence was finally presented to her, she once again miraculously has a vision that confirms that Andrews is now correct, and not Bates. That must have been awkward for Angel to back out of.

"Yes, I know I've said from even to even nine years prior, but you better now listen to what that guy that disproved what you were saying."

So, obviously she had to somehow justify the previous vision and prevent any further question as to why they've been allowed to keep the Sabbath improperly for 9 years

She writes:

"I inquired why it had been thus, that at this late day we must change the time of commencing the Sabbath. Said the angel, 'Ye shall understand, but not yet, not yet.'"

The angel apparently loves to converse in 16th century English

[fccool]

When we examine the evidence, much of E.G. White's writing is derived from various articles, books, magazines, much of which is quoted verbatim without any credit given but to God who gave her these things to show to the world.

It's blatantly misleading . Whenever Adventists quote some health statement that she makes, there's a likely author behind that statement that does not get his due credit.

Generally it's said "She was way ahead of her time"... no she was not . And the articles that she derives her knowledge prove that she was not ahead of her time. That's an issue that you can't just dismiss with "well, the plagiarism was not an issue in her time". The issue is not plagiarism alone, and it was a problem as I will show shortly. The issue is approaching the authorship and origin honestly IN OUR DAY AND AGE , when plagiarism is an issue.

If I wrote a book, and 90% of it was referencing 88 various authors at times verbatim, and then claim that this book is from God... I should be laughed out of any religious congregation and context.

And in fact, she only could do it in the setting where certain authors were not recognizable enough to point fingers and say, hey... that's from so and so. And even in such context it's easy enough to recognize the tactic.

Sure, many authors derived their material from other authors, but the difference is that they did not make claims of divine origin, or that "God showed me in a vision that ...", and then proceed to plagiarize the ideas of some author in a different context that original author intended these words to be placed.

On top of that, I think it's evident that she understood the concept, because she instructed people to make sure that they give her the proper credit:

"Mother instructs me to say to you that you may be free to select from her writings short articles for The Life-boat. Or you may make extracts from these MSS. and from similar writings, in your articles, in each case giving the proper credit." ( W.C. White, letter to Dr. David Paulson, Feb. 15, 1905.)

[fccool]

So to sum up:

1) She understood that "borrowing ideas" without given due credit is not proper.

2) The Adventist Publishing seemed to understand the concept, since they decried people for stealing lines from poems with proper credit. See September 6, 1864 issue of Review and Herald.

3) When Ellen does it, there's a double standard due to established view, even though it really does conflicts with idea that she was "shown" things in visions and wrote them down... especially when MOST of those ideas took origin with other authors.

I think it's fair for her to say that she was describing something else when she wrote:

"Although I am depended upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I'm in receiving them, yet the words that I describe what I have seen are my own, unless they be spoken to me by an angel, which I always inclose in marks of quotation."

http://books.google.com/books?id=UJtrPh5...p;q&f=false

Here's an example of such Angel quoted in a message:

E.G. White's version ( EGW, Testimonies, vol. 3, p.141. Testimony 22 (1872). )

Quote:

I was shown that one areas cause of the existing deplorable state of things is that parents do not feel under obligation to bring up their children to conform to physical law. Mothers love their children with an idolatrous love and indulge their appetite when they know that it will injure their health and thereby bring upon them disease and unhappiness.... "They have sinned against Heaven and against their children, and God will hold them accountable."

Original Version as "borrowed" from L. B. Coles, Philosophy of Health: Natural Principles of Health and Cure (Boston: William D. Ticknor & Co., 1849, 1851, 1853), pp. 144­145.

Quote:

Parents are also under obligation to teach and oblige their children to conform to physical law for their own sakes.... How strange and unaccountable that mothers should love their children so tenderly as to indulge them in what they have occasion to know may injure their constitutions and impair their happiness for life. May many children be delivered from such mothers, and from such cruel kindness.

[ClubV12]

You can find this kind of disparaging talk concerning the prophet all over the web, and the answer to the objections as well. The web, books, the dialog has been going on for a hundred plus years. Nothing new here folks, garbage in, garbage out, not a SINGLE new "argument" presented.

...what else is new? Not much according these parrots of existing web sites.

[fccool]

Based on your reasoning and defense, Mohammed was the true prophet, so was Joseph Smith . They likewise were debated for years, the same questions pop up on the internet, and you can find answers addressing those questions.

... what else new?

Why does it have to be "new" for it to be worthy of discussion, especially when it's dealing with author taking something old, and repackaging it as "new"?

Your question of that it has been adequately answered neglects the answers that are given. But I'll humor you, and dissect some of the most common apologetics.

[fccool]

Quote:

In her time plagiarism was not a pivotal issue.

Not true. She herself wanted credit as an author for anyone who would reference here writings. She herself understood the importance of the issue, but perhaps ignored it for various reasons.

Quote:

Ellen White’s reasons for not naming her sources were similar to Wesley’s: she did not want to “divert the mind of the readers” from the context and purpose of what she was writing

.

The issue is not merely that she referenced other writers and filled the context with her own thought. It's obvious, that as human beings we don't get the "original knowledge". We derive it from somewhere, and we learn to contextualize it as "our ideas".

That's not the issue here.

The issue becomes when one is presented with compilations of these conglomerate of various ideas as "inspired gift of prophecy". When anyone, given a certain view and a library of books can come up with a systematic theology that would "make sense", and that would not contradict the Bible.

If those are two things that would make up a true prophet, all that it takes is to follow those two rules carefully and come up with a systematic theology that binds the two.

I can write, for example a vision of God that shows a red mark on his forehead. And that mark would be the mark of whatever Christian sect that I devise. Of itself that statement does not contradict the Bible. But there's no way to falsify this statement.

And if the condition is given and framed in such a way that your life hangs on believing the vision, then I may gain some plentiful followers. There are enough gullible people in this world, and recent Harold Camping is an excellent example of it. I wonder what excuse will he come up with when the world does not end on Oct 21.

But of itself, the religion is an evolution of evasive maneuvering into the unfalsifiable territory. When all is left are the statemenets that there's no possible way to falsify, I really can't see God of the universe standing and saying "I told you so".

The question is not of "I told you so", but the question is "How could any reasonable person believed you given the circumstances that that revelation is delivered." I told you so, implies personal disclosure.

When "Prince of Zimbabwe" is writing me a letter, promising me incredible riches if I give him my bank account info, I should have all the reasons for distrust, especially if such scenario has been played out before.

Quote:

The repeated accusations of plagiarism have certainly shaken confidence in the writings of Ellen White and her prophetic ministry. In spite of this, the church has benefitted from discussions regarding the role and ministry of Ellen White. The apologetic approach of earlier years (as in Nichol’s Ellen G. White and Her Critics) has been replaced with a more open acknowledgment and discussion of Ellen White’s use of borrowed sources. Far from eliminating the influence of her writings on Adventist thought, a better understanding of how she wrote her books has helped the church to better understand and explain how the process of revelation and inspiration operated in her ministry and how her literary assistants helped her in her work.

I appreciate her writing, not as a prophetic rule, but as an informative rule of thumb. I understand where it comes from, and I understand how it got compiled. I'm not going to throw out baby with the water. There's some good advice, because it was derived from good sources.

But, likewise, there's some terrible advice and views, which were derived from uninformed sources.

The question is, whether it makes your life better and more enjoyable... or dreadful and terrible, as Richard was describing his experience.