Prophets and Queens

[John317]

Good, important point.

[John317]

I still can't get over the fact that angels speak in old King James English in 18th century It's probably because it's more holy.

No, not more holy, but it was the primary English translation of the Bible of that time. So it makes sense that the angels would use that language because it was the language that English-speaking people of that time associated with Bible truth and God's revelation.

[John317]

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.

Yes, this is well known. No one said those things originated from Ellen White's visions. Preble was right. History shows that the bishop of Rome, the little-horn power of Daniel 7 and 8, was instrumental in bringing Sunday worship into the Christian Church.

[John317]

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.

Hundreds of authors?

Are you sure?

Ellen White never denied that she used other people's writings.

It's a fact that she often suggested that people read the very books that she used in her own writings.

The Review and Herald sometimes ran advertisements of a book that Ellen White had used in an article in that same edition of the R&H.

Ellen White wrote in the Introduction of the Great Controversy that she used different authors, not as authorities but because they expressed exactly what she wanted to say.

God showed her things in vision that she saw expressed in various books, etc. Why should she not have used them?

As I said before, Ellen White didn't merely copy those things, but she actually made changes so that they conveyed the message that Ellen White was communicating.

Speaking of "borrowing," it was common for writers of that time and before to use the writings of others. Even such a great writer as William Shakespeare did it, and he never gave anyone credit for all the hundreds of lines that he took from other people's books.

Have you read the article written by the attorney who specialized in copyright laws and, after studying Ellen White's writings, concluded she didn't do anything either criminal or unethical?

[John317]

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.

All this demonstrates is that God showed things to Ellen White in vision and she found statements in publications that expressed exactly what she wanted to say. Ellen White is not claiming that what God showed her was totally new to the human race.

The angel's quote is true. Do you dispute it?

[John317]

When did the SDA church ever say "Ellen White never claimed to be a prophet" for the reasons stated here?

Originally Posted By: cardw

I have heard this argument from a number of Ellen White defenders. And it's true that I haven't heard the SDA church say this. I'm not sure how a church can say anything.

The church says things through its publications and its spokesmen, ministers, elected leaders, etc.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

John, she used the word directed.

"Directed" and "guided" are synonymns.

God directed, or guided, the Millerite Movement and its preaching of the soon return of Christ.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

....And what is really the final nail in the coffin is that his source is the White Estate itself, including Arthur White. LOL

Yes, and Arthur White is correct.

What did Arthur White say that you think is "the final nail in the coffin"?

I'm glad to see that you accept Arthur's White's books to be trust-worthy, as indeed they are.

Have you read his multivolume biography of his grandmother? Everything he says in those volumes is supported by valid documentation.

So if I quote something then I hold it to be completely trustworthy. I've been quoting Ellen White all along. I guess you must think I find her trustworthy.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

....And what is really the final nail in the coffin is that his source is the White Estate itself, including Arthur White. LOL

What did Arthur White say that you think is "the final nail in the coffin"?

[ClubV12]

Looks to me like Arthur either took the same position as Bates, or was simply reporting on how it went down following that vision.

But Sister White's written account is very clear, the angel told her to search the scriptures for the meaning of "even to even". This is consistent with how the early pioneers established doctrine, they SEARCHED the scriptures. It was NOT handed to them on a silver platter. No divine authority of any kind EVER said, "6 to 6", this was the devising of Bates, who had significant influence at the time. As to whether Arthur actually agreed with Bates or was merely reporting the general mood of those listening to Bates is irrelevant when compared to Sister Whites comments on the vision. "Even to even", where do you get "6 to 6" out of that? And who said Bates or Arthur were prophets anyway?

And so it remains today, WE must search the scriptures to know these things for ourselves, as the pioneers had to do.

[cardw]

Looks to me like Arthur either took the same position as Bates, or was simply reporting on how it went down following that vision.

But Sister White's written account is very clear, the angel told her to search the scriptures for the meaning of "even to even". This is consistent with how the early pioneers established doctrine, they SEARCHED the scriptures. It was NOT handed to them on a silver platter. No divine authority of any kind EVER said, "6 to 6", this was the devising of Bates, who had significant influence at the time. As to whether Arthur actually agreed with Bates or was merely reporting the general mood of those listening to Bates is irrelevant when compared to Sister Whites comments on the vision. "Even to even", where do you get "6 to 6" out of that? And who said Bates or Arthur were prophets anyway?

And so it remains today, WE must search the scriptures to know these things for ourselves, as the pioneers had to do.

Oh, the angel was playing charades. I get it. You can't actually say what it is because that would be cheating. ROFLOL!

You guys, this is so transparent. You have to give up these childish attempts at explaining this nonsense.

[fccool]

Quote:

Hundreds of authors?

Are you sure?

Yep, in conglomerate or her work there are hundreds of authors borrowed from.

Quote:

Ellen White never denied that she used other people's writings.

It's a fact that she often suggested that people read the very books that she used in her own writings. The Review and Herald sometimes ran advertisements of a book that Ellen White had used in an article in that same edition of the R&H.

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

Quote:

Ellen White wrote in the Introduction of the Great Controversy that she used different authors, not as authorities but because they expressed exactly what she wanted to say.

God showed her things in vision that she saw expressed in various books, etc. Why should she not have used them?

I don't think you understand how silly you sound right now. If I saw a vision from God, I would not need to run to some book to find words to describe what I saw, especially If I've been writing things for years.

Quote:

As I said before, Ellen White didn't merely copy those things, but she actually made changes so that they conveyed the message that Ellen White was communicating.

I only wonder why people get expelled from Universities for such things

Quote:

Speaking of "borrowing," it was common for writers of that time and before to use the writings of others. Even such a great writer as William Shakespeare did it, and he never gave anyone credit for all the hundreds of lines that he took from other people's books.

Lol, John. Shakespeare was arguably a fraud. Much of historical evidence points in that direction. Many literary historians would argue that he could not have written those plays, given his experience and education, and that more likely these were re-edited, and published under his name for whatever reasons.

Likewise, Shakespeare never claimed that his writings came to him in a vision and inspiration from God.

Quote:

Have you read the article written by the attorney who specialized in copyright laws and, after studying Ellen White's writings, concluded she didn't do anything either criminal or unethical?

Sure, I can believe that there's nothing unethical about it, and we should not set the double-standards on students in Adventist Universities to show where their ideas are coming from.

They can copy all the stuff they want, and then we can just say that they were inspired by God to write incredible amounts of material... and their works should be quoted with their name on it.

Seriously, John. It's common sense. The writers she "borrowed" from had their material footnoted. That's how non-fiction literary legitimacy works. Perhaps this practice could be justified, in case she was not claiming these coming from God, or if she was writing fiction. Non-fiction writing has standards that were established well-before her era. But, since she became the most translated author in the world, bu nature of the religious zeal, I think it would be only fair to give the original sources some credit... and dispel the misleading idea that she had super-human mind and that she Got all of the information from God. Many people do have this impression when they read and quote her.

If I just copy someone, and then claim that it's inspired by God... how legitimate would that be if I don't even provide the sources of the copied material?

If you dissect theology of E.G.White, there's hardly anything that she derived from her own personal discovery. Most of it is someone else's thoughts on the subject that she adopts and then "confirms" with visions.

1) The Sabbath Idea as the MOB came from Bates and prior Millerite and fringe protestant authors.

2) The IJ doctrine came from Edson, Crosier, and Uriah Smith.

3) The proper Sabbath observance came from Andrews.

3) The health message came from various contemporary writers she read.

4) The dress reform likewise came from various contemporary writers.

There is no single unique doctrine of SDA church that originated from E.G.White's vision. Virtually all of her visions seem to serve as a legitimacy vehicles to push through doctrines of new-comers that joined the movement.

I think it would be far more believable that God would show the Sabbath issue before Bates arrived, but visions from God concerning the issue only appear when Bates is on the scene and many people (including Whites) are convinced of the doctrine. I don't see how you can't understand this pattern to be suspicious?

So, it would seem that she used the visions mechanism as a tool to solidify certain competing doctrinal positions, or to convince people that some things are "right", and the other are "wrong". I think it's fairly obvious when you read the account. At the very least, it should be considered as possibility, and not outright denied. Do you believe it can be a possibility?

She was smart enough not to make any specific prophecies, an she played on predictions and ideas of the time. When she did make specific predictions and these did not come true, these were dubbed as "conditional prophecy". It's silly, John.

I think that you have this idea that people are hammering on poor Ellen, because she as a writer borrowed from other people. By no means. Writers always borrow ideas and concepts. I am a screenwriter. That's how we work. The difference is that we don't claim that whatever borrowed material we got came from God. It's absurd.

In case of Ellen, most of her literary ideas attributed and quoted as her writing... originates from elsewhere. That's how she worked. That was her process. If we are going to consider her inspired, why wouldn't we consider the authors who's ideas she borrowed?

[cardw]

"I saw that it is even so: "From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." Said the angel: "Take the word of God, read it, understand, and ye cannot err. Read carefully, and ye shall there find what even is, and when it is." I asked the angel if the frown of God had been upon His people for commencing the Sabbath as they had. I was directed back to the first rise of the Sabbath, and followed the people of God up to this time, but did not see that the Lord was displeased, or frowned upon them. 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." Said the angel: "If light come, and that light is set aside or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes, there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject."

So God would give us his sad face if we reject this conflagration of game playing. How childish can you get?

"You shall understand, but not yet, not yet," said the angel.

What?

How can you endorse this game playing on the part of Ellen White?

These are the explanations of a child talking about their imaginary friend.

[fccool]

I guess, the underlying question would be:

Do you believe that it can be possible that she (or her subconscious mind) would rely on these visions as a mechanism for coping with the disappointment of 1844? If you reject such being a possibility, then you reject the idea of honest truth seeking. You are dismissing the possibility that should be obvious.

I could only imagine how terrible and nerve-wrecking it was. These people invested their lives in that belief. They stopped planting crops, they stopped working. They went around preaching the end of the world, and then it did not come. They were the laughing stock of their community.

Do you believe that in such environment, a young and impressionable girl would begin subconsciously drive herself to a position of justifying certain things that she emotionally invested in? Do you believe that to be a possibility?

I've have an Adventist aunt, who was so upset that her son decided to marry a different woman and not become a doctor, that she began walking around and claiming that she was a prophet, and that Holy Spirit is in her. She would pray for hours in flowery language in front of people. She would give enormous amounts of money to any church she visited. She would get up and speak utter nonsense, and it would get "amens" from people in church. But, it was embarrassing to the family, because it progressively got worse, and culminated in her claims to be the new prophet and holy spirit. They eventually had to give her psychiatric care, and through medication and counseling she became better, and understood what caused such behavior. Ultimately, it was her inability to cope with reality that she could not control, so she subconsciously tried to make up ways to control and cope with the situation.

At times, boldness and claims can pass for spirituality. In those days, it would have been easy to do among people whose minds were coping with severe psychological dissonance. That's when minds tend to be the most suggestible.

If you don't consider it a possibility, then you don't really have a breath at arriving at truth.

I've weighed the realities, precedents, and possibilities... and I've concluded that most likely that's the classic case of mind playing tricks on a severely disappointed human being, and the rest of the people follow the lead, because they need a mechanism to cope with disappointment and some sort of visible support from God to justify their emotional, physical, and moral investment in a religious prediction that turned out to be false.

If we look at these events from historic perspective, Adventists are not the only ones.

1) JWs made predictions, and then modified the doctrine to make it appear to fit their dates. That happened numerous times. "If it's not a), then it must be . The time was right, the event was wrong".

2) Don't have to go too far, with Harold Camping's example. He claim that Jesus did come back on May 21st ... spiritually. Once again, the same pattern. The date was right, and the event was wrong. I wonder what he will tell about October 21st. I guess it will be Spiritual end of the world too.

3) Joseph Smith gathered people in 1891, and told that Christ would come in 56 years. He would later write:

"I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face."

The same pattern here.

[fccool]

Quote:

'From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths.'

WHO said "even to even" was 6 to 6? Certainly NOT Ellen White! Certainly NOT the bible! Certainly NOT this vision!

Yes, you are right, that's why she and the rest of her followers did not keep the Sabbath from 6 to 6? Or did they?

That's the beauty of vague Visions. You give people frame , and they will fill it with just about anything. You can't be wrong, because if people interpret it wrong, then it's their fault. It's called a Forer Effect in psychology.

There's a famous group of people who work that way. I love magic and mentalism, and these concepts work again and again, anywhere you go. This technique is called cold reading, and it's used by psychics and people who write horoscopes.

The way it works.

1) Give general statement that can be applied or mean various things. Sometimes called Barnum Statements.

2) Have people agree to the statement through some general application and interpretation of it that people themselves put forth and fill the generalities with their own specifics.

3) If the statement is wrong, then make people believe that they are wrong, and not the statement.

Example "even to even" statement from the angel.

1) Even to even must mean 6 to 6

2) People agree and follow it for 10 years

3) Andrews finds that Sabbath is sundown to sundown. It's ironic that these Prophet-Guided Bible scholars went through with 6-6 observance for 10 years.

4) Once it was established that #1 was wrong, it was not because the angel said something wrong. It was how people understood it.

So the end result of "smart prophecies" is such, that would end up framing people for being wrong. The prophecy is always right

[fccool]

Quote:

God didn't give Ellen White visions to originate doctrinces. The doctrines are based on Bible study, and then God gave Ellen White visions to either confirm it or to instruct them to keep studying. This is what happened at the Sabbath Bible Conferences as well. There's good reason for this: God wants us to put our faith in the Bible and to test everything by it.

I really don't understand why you are are taking a blind side to the obvious problem here.

ANYONE COULD DO THAT IF HE/SHE WAS CAREFUL ENOUGH IN THOSE DAYS

The key, of course, would be someone who actually believed what they imagined, subconsciously constructed. People actual do that more often than you think. All of us do it in one way or another. All of us lie to ourselves, or construct certain realities that we end up believing in, and filter our perspectives through.

If the visions are only confirming or denying certain doctrinal positions that people bring in, then it's merely a gimmick.

Even in the OT this was not the case. Virtually every doctrinal position was given by God directly, or through Paul's subsequent understanding and interpretation. People would not come to Paul with "look what I found out", and then he would miraculously have a vision that would confirm that the guy was speaking the truth.

ANYONE COULD DO THAT, AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE SEE SO MANY SELF-PROCLAIMED PROPHETS ARRIVING DURING THAT ERA. SO THERE'S NO CERTAIN WAY TO VERIFY IT IF THE LITMUS TEST IS THAT IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE.

If I say that God showed me Jesus, and he has a birth mark on his belly in the shape of the cross. That does not contradict the Bible. If that's your litmus test, then there's quite a bit of material you can build upon, especially if you give people some wiggle room for alternative interpretation.

It was a very vulnerable time. It was a time when Christian fundamentalism was on extreme rise, and when Wesley would run around and preach "Sinners in hands of an angry God". That surely got crowd's attention, and impressionable young people would be terrified to death. In such environment, it would be very easy to have a confirmation prophet that writes enormous amounts of literature by copying other authors.

In today's day and age, she would simply not happen. If, let's say some follower of Harold Camping would start having visions from God, and write books, and have visions confirming certain doctrine... they would be picked apart, and laughed out of the scene. There would not be any time for doctrine to solidify, and tradition to establish.

Back then, it was possible, because it took days to travel mere 50 miles. The information dissemination was extremely slow. Likewise, the comparative information availability was very controlled and channeled. That's why you have quite a bit of sectarian Christianity forming in that era. The doctrines could solidify traditionally prior to major scrutiny and examination. Likewise, a substantial following could be built upon that would filter out any opposition.

If you don't understand the historical context, and outright reject the possibility... what good is your "search for truth" ?

[fccool]

Quote:

"If light come, and that light is set aside or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes, there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject."

I don't think one can fathom the enormous double-standards that are flowing out of this statement.

[fccool]

Quote:

No, not more holy, but it was the primary English translation of the Bible of that time. So it makes sense that the angels would use that language because it was the language that English-speaking people of that time associated with Bible truth and God's revelation.

It would likewise make sense that she understood that people would expect that language to be used as "holy" and used it as "angels speak".

Do you see, or consider such possibility?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

"“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."Matthew 7:6 NKJV

Works both ways

Sorry! Only He Who has holiness in them can give something holy.

"....what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth?...I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God."Luke 4:34 KJV

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest."Revelation 15:4 KJV

"To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."Col 1:27 NKJV

God blesses!

[fccool]

I accept your spiritual superiority of holiness bet, and I raise you with more superior power of the lord claim

For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. 1 Corinthians 4:20

May G-D make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you, and make your life abundant, your household overflowing with milk and honey, and your food satisfying, as if flows through your intestines and digests to bring the benefit to your being.

[LifeHiscost]

ClubV, he's got you here. You asked for evidence and here it is. Are you going to at last admit you are wrong? Probably not.

And what is really the final nail in the coffin is that his source is the White Estate itself, including Arthur White. LOL

What does not seem evident to some here is that Truth granted by God is ongoing and can often be open for tweaking as a result of initial ignorance, ignorance born of immaturity not of rejection when it is revealed, as seems evident in the many posts making effort to downgrade the spokespeople whom God has chosen to reveal His will.

"“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come."

John 16:12,13 NKJV

"But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. "1 Corinthians 2:11 NLT

"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

Amos 3:7 KJV

This truth expressed in the Word above is open to anyone willing to listen to God with the intent of following His instruction. But to the unbelieving majority???

"For the message....is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."1 Corinthians 1:18 NKJV

God blesses!

[John317]

Quote:

Have you read the article written by the attorney who specialized in copyright laws and, after studying Ellen White's writings, concluded she didn't do anything either criminal or unethical?

Sure, I can believe that there's nothing unethical about it, and we should not set the double-standards on students in Adventist Universities to show where their ideas are coming from.

They can copy all the stuff they want, and then we can just say that they were inspired by God to write incredible amounts of material... and their works should be quoted with their name on it.

Have you read the Attorney's explanation of why Ellen White's use of other people's writings does not constitute "plagarizing"?

By the way, what percentage of her writings use other people's writing? I believe the study showed that it was about 8%.

Are you aware that some of the writers she used had themselves copied the writing of other writers without giving them credit?

There's a world of difference between what Ellen White did and what students are doing when they copy other people's writings in a school assignment. One of the main purposes of giving students a writing assignment is to teach them to write and to see how they are making progress in their writing. Students are also told that they cannot copy other people's writings and that they must put other people's writings in quotation marks.

Another important distinction is that the copyright laws were different in Ellen White's day, in the 1800s, than they are today. The copyright attorney speaks to this issue in his article and shows why this is important when considering the case of Ellen White.

[John317]

Speaking of "borrowing," it was common for writers of that time and before to use the writings of others. Even such a great writer as William Shakespeare did it, and he never gave anyone credit for all the hundreds of lines that he took from other people's books.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Lol, John. Shakespeare was arguably a fraud. Much of historical evidence points in that direction. Many literary historians would argue that he could not have written those plays, given his experience and education, and that more likely these were re-edited, and published under his name for whatever reasons.

What we're talking about in terms of the use other people's writings goes far beyond Shakespeare. He is only one example. There are many others in his day and afterwards, right up to the 19th century.

No, Shakespeare was no fraud. What he did was common in his day. You need to read more in the history of sixteenth and seventeenth century English literature, especially in the plays of Shakespeare. All literary critics of Shakespeare know that he used other sources, but they don't call Shakespeare a fraud.

What you've given here is a mere theory similar to ones about Shakespeare being a woman, etc.

I earned my BA at California State University in English Literature and studied Shakespeare and literary criticism extensively. I've read almost all of his plays and poetry as well as the writings that he used. It's ridiculous to claim that Shakespeare couldn't have written his works.

Quote:

Likewise, Shakespeare never claimed that his writings came to him in a vision and inspiration from God.

Ellen White never claimed that her writings came from God. God didn't dictate the words to her. He gave her visions and dreams and left it up to her to put it in writing. Ellen White had only a third grade education, and she was always conscious of her lack of formal literary training.

Therefore you are making a claim for her writings that she herself never made. In fact, she specifically rejected your claim. God inspired her thoughts and ideas, not the very words she used. The Holy Spirit did, however, guide her in her choice of words and in her choice of other people's writings. She used great discrimination in her selection of other people's writings and she also changed their writings in such a way that they became a part of the distincive message that she was communicating.

[John317]

If you dissect theology of E.G.White, there's hardly anything that she derived from her own personal discovery. Most of it is someone else's thoughts on the subject that she adopts and then "confirms" with visions.

1) The Sabbath Idea as the MOB came from Bates and prior Millerite and fringe protestant authors.

2) The IJ doctrine came from Edson, Crosier, and Uriah Smith.

First of all, Ellen White was not a theologian and did not write from the perspective of a theologian.

You forgot quite a few other people, including her husband, James. James is the one who coined the term "Investigative Judgment." But these people did not come up with the idea of the Investigative Judgment. The idea is found in the Bible itself. The Bible itself teaches a judgment that precedes the second coming of Christ. See Matt. 22: 1-14 about the man without the wedding clothes. See also the judgment scene in Daniel 7, a scene in heaven that takes place prior to the second coming of Christ.

There's also the message of Rev. 14: 7 that the "hour of His judgment is come," and this message is given to the whole world just before the second coming of Christ. The next scene after the judgment message is given is Christ's coming in verses 14-16.

Rev. 11: 19 is about judgment, and you will notice that just before this judgment scene, it says, "The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged..."

When Christ returns, He brings His rewards with Him (Rev. 22: 12), and therefore there must be a judgment before He returns.

Quote:

3) The proper Sabbath observance came from Andrews.

3) The health message came from various contemporary writers she read.

4) The dress reform likewise came from various contemporary writers.

There is no single unique doctrine of SDA church that originated from E.G.White's vision.

You're exactly right that no doctrine held by SDAs is based on Ellen White's visions. They are based on the Bible. All of our Fundamental doctrines are supported by Scripture.

SDAs have never claimed otherwise. However, her visions played a key role in the end-time context of these doctrines. That is, Ellen White's visions were essential in terms of placing these doctrines and concepts in the context of the great controversy between Christ and Satan.

Quote:

Virtually all of her visions seem to serve as a legitimacy vehicles to push through doctrines of new-comers that joined the movement.

This is your explanation and opinion, and you have a right to believe this if you choose to.

[fccool]

Quote:

Have you read the Attorney's explanation of why Ellen White's use of other people's writings does not constitute "plagarizing"?

John, I've already answered this issue, and just don't get it.

It's not the borrowing itself that's in question. All writers borrow material, especially when it relies on history.

Quote:

By the way, what percentage of her writings use other people's writing? I believe the study showed that it was about 8%.

Adventist-lead study, or independent study? It would make a difference.

On top of that, many of the sources are obscure. I think once known pattern is emerged, we can see her writing method relied heavily on thoughts of other to compile her books... which are then lead to be called "inspired". It's an amalgam of doctrines and interpretations of various men of her time. I think to say that these are "revelations from God" would be to lower standards revelations from God and why in the world God would need to call people up the mountain and write and dictate the laws and ordinances to people like Moses, and then tell other OT prophets where to go and what to say.

He could have just used the contemporary tales and then revealed in visions that these are correct. That's how God seems to work with Ellen.

Quote:

Are you aware that some of the writers she used had themselves copied the writing of other writers without giving them credit?

1) Did these writers claim that

"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne."

How many of these writers did that?

2) Is it right to steal from the store with idea that some of the products in the store are likewise stolen?

She knew proper procedure of giving due credit, and instead she chosen to give credit to God

It's a modern version of doctors performing amazing surgery to save a life of a person, and then he would stand up and say "I thank the Lord for performing a miracle and healing me from this disease"

It's truly sad.

Quote:

There's a world of difference between what Ellen White did and what students are doing when they copy other people's writings in a school assignment. One of the main purposes of giving students a writing assignment is to teach them to write and to see how they are making progress in their writing. Students are also told that they cannot copy other people's writings and that they must put other people's writings in quotation marks.

Perhaps you've skipped the first day of your college writing courses . Just check why and how standards in any University. The primary reason is not merely to help students write better. People can write much better when they rely on amalgam of ideas and thoughts. Majority of non-fiction writers do just that.

Plagiarism is not merely copying something. That act does not constitute plagiarism. Plagiarism relies on taking the ideas of someone else, and claiming it as your own.

http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml

Quote:

What is Plagiarism and Why is it Important?

In college courses, we are continually engaged with other people’s ideas: we read them in texts, hear them in lecture, discuss them in class, and incorporate them into our own writing. As a result, it is very important that we give credit where it is due. Plagiarism is using others’ ideas and words without clearly acknowledging the source of that information.

How Can Students Avoid Plagiarism?

To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you use

another person’s idea, opinion, or theory;

any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge;

quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words; or

paraphrase of another person’s spoken or written words.

Quote:

Another important distinction is that the copyright laws were different in Ellen White's day, in the 1800s, than they are today. The copyright attorney speaks to this issue in his article and shows why this is important when considering the case of Ellen White.

Once again, I'll repeat, capitalize, bold, and underline it for you, so you don't make this silly claim again.

THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT LEGALITY OF THE MATTER. THE ISSUE IS TAKING THE WRITTEN IDEAS OF SOMEONE ELSE AND CLAIMING THAT IT COMES TO YOU AS A REVELATION FROM GOD