The 1844 Sanctuary Prophecy & Public Revelation

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

PART of Miller's message was false.

From what I've read Miller was unapologetic about preaching about repenting and getting ready but regretted claiming knowledge of the specific timing. One of Miller's last recorded statements about the movement was that it had become Babylon and true believers needed to remove themselves from it. 

 

I appreciate your honesty Gregory!  

My point was only that the 1844 Prophecy  eventually was claimed to be pertaining to an event other than what it was initially advertised. 

[B/W Photodude]

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

O.K.  You never herd that Edson has a vision in a cornfield:  That was taught for many years.  In actual fact, there is a well known painting that depicts him having that vision surrounded by stalks of corn.

It may have been taught, but apparently not to me. I do not doubt that some taught it. People say a lot of things about what they did back then, but perhaps they didn't. When I read the accounts of Edson's "vision," it varied significantly from the way EGW was when she was in vision. He report that his companion, Crozier, had gone ahead of him, that Crozier called back to him and he was able to respond to him. It really sounds like someone deep in thought. Kind of a great place to be sometimes when you can just fall back into your thoughts and everything around you fades away, but it isn't really a vision!

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Another well known myth:  The one of EGW, holding a Bible above her head, while she traced the verses with a finger.  The evidence is lacking to substantiate that story.  That also has a painting to support it.

Using the word myth to describe an even where you note the evidence is lacking to substantiate is not acceptable. The Bible that EGW held is still around and people present reported seeing her do it. FWIW, the Bible in question, which weighs about 18lbs, used to get brought to camp meetings when I was in juniors. I was even permitted to pick the Bible up. I was impressed that EGW held it and read from it as reported.

The term "The evidence is lacking to substantiate that story" is used a lot to try and discredit even Bible stories. There is little to no credible historical reference material or historical record to substantiate the story of Jesus other than the New Testament. Of course, some deny the word of the apostles, because they all know his body was really stolen from the grave while the solders slept.

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Perhaps you should spend less time on Adventist hater websites and more on sites like these.

Actually, in trying to rundown the source for some of the info for stuff posted here takes me to the "hater SDA" sites. I do not go there first. Secondly, it is good to know what is on those sites because I am finding many people that I want to talk to regarding the gospel and my own personal beliefs and of my church are carrying impressions gained from these sites.

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

You're telling me you've never heard of the 1844 Sanctuary Prophecy! You seriously don't expect me or anyone reading this to take that statement seriously, do you?

I don't really care what you take seriously! And the only place I have ever seen the term "1844 Sanctuary Prophecy" is right here in this thread. It does not occur in EGW's writings. I am not really into having another "name" argument.

Now, if we want to be more correct to history, I do know very much about the "Great Disappointment of 1844" as I have heard that story all my life.

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

My point was only that the 1844 Prophecy  eventually was claimed to be pertaining to an event other than what it was initially advertised. 

The students of Scripture in the time of 1844 had calculated that something was going to happen, ( i.e., Jesus was coming back). The fact that He did not in no way meant that the time calculations were wrong. It was simply a matter of going back and studying Scripture to see what other explanations for 1844 could mean.

Unfortunately, it is too easy for some to cast ulterior motives to the early believers who were studying, struggling to understand, and praying for guidance. So your point was not fair to the people who were trying their very best to find truth for themselves and to warn the world and/or give them hope for the future.

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

"It need not be replied that it was convened to deliberate respecting, and if possible to extricate ourselves from the anarchy and confusion of BABYLON in which we had so unexpectedly found ourselves." William Miller https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/1009.2127

This comment seems to have been pulled out of context and really has nothing to do with this thread.

[Gregory Matthews]

Photodude said in the quote below:

*  I do owe you an apology.  I use the word "myth"  in a manner that is often misunderstood.  I know that and typically, when I use that word, explain how I use it.

*  I use the word "myth' in a manner that it is used by sociologists and some others.  In this use it references a story that   is a common and  major part of the   culture of a people group.  As used in this context, it may be true, or it may be false.  The use of the term "myth" does NOT imply that it is either true or that it is false.  

*  Within this context, and my use of the word "myth,"  I apply that term to stories that I believe are true as well as stories that I believe are false.   

Quote

Using the word myth to describe an even where you note the evidence is lacking to substantiate is not acceptable. The Bible that EGW held is still around and people present reported seeing her do it. FWIW, the Bible in question, which weighs about 18lbs, used to get brought to camp meetings when I was in juniors. I was even permitted to pick the Bible up. I was impressed that EGW held it and read from it as reported.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As to the following:

An 18 lb. Bible held above her head:

*  My quote in the post above as to what Photodude states he experienced related to the story of EGW holding an 18 lb. Bible above her head, is true s to how that story has been told in Adventist culture.  This is exactly what I mean by calling that story a myth.   It has been an important part of the SDA Culture.

*  A major source for that story is from John Loughbrough, in his book, Great Second Advent Movement, pages 236 & 237.  It should be noted that today, John Loughbrough is not considered to be a good historian.   He is known ot be inaccurate in what he wrote.

*  The basis for this story is generally from sources that tell it some 45 years after the alleged fact.  This calls into question the accuracy of the story.   My biological sister and I are building a new relationship.  The stories that she tells about our growing up together often differ in some points from my telling of those stories.  That is to be expected.  The passage of  40 - 50 years, or more, changes peoples memory of the event.  Sometimes probably my sister is more accurate than I, and at other times, I may be more accurate. 

*  The bottom line is:  Regardless of that fact that this story has been told in Adventist circles for many years, it can not be documented.  It may be factual.  It may not be factual.  But, it can not be documented as actual fact in any form similar to  how it has been told.

 

Hiram Edson and a vision in a cornfield:

*  This is another story that has been circulated in Adventism for many years.   The popular version of that story is that Edson was walking through a cornfield when he had a vision he saw Christ in Heaven, in an actual sanctuary similar to that which Israel had on their journey away from Egypt.   That version has been popularized by a painting.

*  A revised version of that story present Edson and an unnamed number of people spending time in a barn, on Edson's farm, in prayer over the failure of Christ to come at the predicted time. 

*  After what was probably several hours the group broke up, left the barn and most returned home.   Edson and Crosier  decided to visit some people who had not met with them in the barn.  As they started out they walked through a field of corn which was planted on Edson's farm.

*  During this passage through the cornfield, Edson continued to reflect on the failure of Christ to return and of their time of prayer in the barn.   In that reflection, he came to a conclusion as to what the Bible taught on that subject.  

*  It was this understanding of the Biblical teaching that became the basis of the Adventist teaching on what was called the sanctuary, at that time.

*  While this understanding may be considered related to a cornfield, as that story has been told in Adventism, it is without documentation.  The idea that Edson may have received a vision in which he saw Christ in heaven is simply without foundation.

 NOTE:  Owen Russell Loomis Crosier also spelled his last name a Crozier.  Both spellings are correct and reference the same person.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Notes on sources for information related to SDA history:

For many years those writing about

SDA history have not been trained historians.  John Loughbrough  was one who wrote.  In more recent times A. L. White wrote a six (6i) volume set of books about his grandmother and early SDA history.  both have value.  I consider White's work to have great value.  However,   Their works should be considered to be a hagiography.

  The 1976 SDA Encyclopedia is an advance over previous works.  The 2013 Ellen G. White Encyclopedia is a further advance.  So also are the following:

*  Ellen  Harmon White:  American Prophet,  Oxford University Press, 2014.

*  Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream, 2nd Edition, Harper & Row 1989.

*  The World of Ellen G. White.  Review & Herald, 1987.

Some of the trained historians who have written on Adventism include:

Malcolm Bulll & Keith Lockhart.

*  Terrie Dopp AAmodt,

* Gary Land

*  Ronald Numbers

Jonathan M. BUtler

*  Ann Taves

* Graeme Sharrock

*  Ronald "Graybill

* Arthur Patrick

* Jerry Moon

* Floyd Greenleaf

*  Fritz Guy

*  Douglas Morgan

*  Benjamin McArthur

*  Eric Anderson

  *  Laura Vance

*  Joe Willey

*  Gilbert Valentine

*  Paul McGraw

NOTE:  I have actually included in the above a couple fo theologians.

 

 

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

This comment seems to have been pulled out of context and really has nothing to do with this thread.

Did he not say that at the last conference he participated in, after the great disappointment? I realize that comment is quite the opposite of what you said about Miller and I can appreciate the struck nerve. I'm afraid you're gonna have to accept it. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer:    Gustave is openly hers as a devout Roman Catholic.  As such we can expect that he will disagree with many things about the SDA denomination.  He is attempting to    engage in civil conversation on some subjects of common disagreement. Let us engage him in that.

Your response to him above, constitutes a personal attack that is beyond what we desire in a civil conversation.  Please  do not engage in such.  Disagree with him on the issue, if you wish.  Please do not attack him as a person.

 

[Gustave]

4 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

There has been no "nerve struck" here. Posturing yourself as the great "nerve-striker" of Adventists just begs for more spilt milk to cry over. If you want a decent discussion; try having one.

As with BWD, I’m not responding “in kind”.

As for me pulling material off of anti-SDA websites i thought I had established (to several folks satisfaction ) that I am one of the rare people who don’t rely on those tactics. 

William Miller put forth a definite time for the return of Christ & claimed it was resultant from a Prophecy.

when Jesus didn’t come several other “prophetic explainations” were offered until it was settled that the October 1844 event had been misidentified as the 2nd Coming as Christ when it should have been the Sanctuary Prophecy.

Somehow, my calling it the 1844 Prophecy generates statements like “I’ve never heard of it” etc.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me.  You do that on a regular basis.   :)

However, regardless of your disagreement with me, pleas tone it down.

 

 

[Lone Ranger]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Somehow, my calling it the 1844 Prophecy generates statements like “I’ve never heard of it” etc.

FWIW, when I was growing up in Adventism I heard this phrase ("1844 Prophecy") in discussions, school, church, etc. Not often, but it generally seemed to be used interchangeably with "Miller's Prediction," "the Great Disappointment" and other such terms.

[Gustave]

15 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

FWIW, when I was growing up in Adventism I heard this phrase ("1844 Prophecy") in discussions, school, church, etc. Not often, but it generally seemed to be used interchangeably with "Miller's Prediction," "the Great Disappointment" and other such terms.

I admit readily I could be wrong here but isn’t the 1844 Prophecy the same thing as the Sanctuary Prophecy? I thought the general conclusion was that it was the event they got wrong (as in they kept the schema) and reassigned the event to be Christ cleansing the Sanctuary.

[NOTE:  I am posting a response to your question on the next page of this thread--"GM.]

[B/W Photodude]

14 hours ago, Gustave said:

Did he not say that at the last conference he participated in, after the great disappointment? I realize that comment is quite the opposite of what you said about Miller and I can appreciate the struck nerve. I'm afraid you're gonna have to accept it. 

You flatter yourself, Gustave. I have no "struck nerve".  I do not have to accept anything.

On 12/16/2018 at 9:48 PM, Gustave said:

"It need not be replied that it was convened to deliberate respecting, and if possible to extricate ourselves from the anarchy and confusion of BABYLON in which we had so unexpectedly found ourselves." William Miller

Again, you took about the least important sentence in the whole page you referenced to post here. There were some really good comments made in the paper. But then you couldn't have used them to try and make someone else look bad!

[Gregory Matthews]

[NOTE:  A response to the question that Gustave raised on the preceding page--GM.]

Gustave, I believe at this time, in order to respond to your question related to SDA belief on the Cleansing of the Sanctuary, I should talk to you about  our 27/28 Fundamental Beliefs.

In 1988 The General Conference published the book: Seventh-day Adventists Believe:  A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines.  That book has been revised to now consist of 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

In those books, a chapter was devoted to each belief.  Each chapter began with a short statement, often one paragraph, which was the actual voted belief.  That was followed with a discussion of the belief, which was not the actual voted statement of belief.  Those chapters attempted to explain, to some degree, the diversity of SDA Belief.  However, I would consider them today to often not fully explain that diversity.

As you probably know, SDAs have a long history of being against a SDA Creed.  So, from Day One, those books denied that they were in any sense a creed.

Notwithstanding those denials, today those beliefs are being used as a creed by many conservative Adventists.

As published in the 27, your question involved Belief # 23.  As published in the current 28, it involves Belief # 24.

The following, as explained above, are the 28 voted statements of SDA Fundamental Belief.

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/

The following is Statement # 24, in the current listing of 28.  It begins with:  “There is a sanctuary in heaven, and ends with the Biblical texts

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/restoration/christs-ministry-in-the-heavenly-sanctuary/

The following is a 2006 article by Kwabena Donkor as to why the SDA Church should have a statement of belief and the role that it has in the life of the SDA Church.   Donkor was a  theologian and an official with the SDA Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference.   This article was published in the Perspective Digest, which is publication that is representative of conservative SDAs.

http://www.perspectivedigest.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=301&journal=1&type=pdf

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In a previous post, I used the word "hagiography" to describe certain writings of people who wrote about Ellen White.  The Wanderer commented that he had never heard that word used before in any connection to Ellen White.

I understand that.  I was probably the first person many people reading in this forum have ever seen that word used to describe certain writings of people who wrote about Ellen White.

I continue to stand my by statement, as applied to the specific works that I mentioned.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, your question below is confusing to people reading this thread.  The term "1844 Prophecy" is not a term that is generally used in Adventism.    When you use it, we begin to wonder exactly what you as a Roman catholic mean when you use that term.  Do you use it to refer to the claim of William Miller and his followers that the 2nd Advent of Christ was about to occur?  Do you use it to refer to some vision of Ellen White that occurred in 1844?

It is out of this confusion that I and others, have struggled to understand and to respond to the question that you are actually asking.

It is on this basis that I and others may have gone off point in responding to you and brought up issues that were not the focus of your question.  To the extent that we have done this, we apologize.

WE, as Adventists, when discussing religious issues with you as a Roman Catholic face an important issue:  the terms that we use may not have exactly the same meaning in our respective communions.  Therefore, we may misunderstand what the other is saying.

In an attempt to give you a brief response to your question:  The SDA Belief in regard to the Millerite movement is that  Miller generally got the time correct, but was wrong as to the event.  IF we can stop at this point, this is probably an excellent answer to your question.

However, when you become more specific and if the event that actually happened was the Cleansing of the Sanctuary, your question becomes a bit more problematic from the standpoint of communication.    The several doctrines involve include:  the 2300 days, the cleansing of the sanctuary, and the investigative judgement aka as the pre-advent judgment.  With that, we are not certain as to what you understand about those three doctrines and therefore we are uncertain as to  how to respond to your question.    

IN an attempt to respond to you, some, like me, may have gone off point in talking about those three doctrines.  If so, we are trying to be helpful to you in understanding us.  But, we may not always understand you when you ask a question.  In addition, we may not give you an answer in terms that you understand.

 

 

Quote

I admit readily I could be wrong here but isn’t the 1844 Prophecy the same thing as the Sanctuary Prophecy? I thought the general conclusion was that it was the event they got wrong (as in they kept the schema) and reassigned the event to be Christ cleansing the Sanctuary.

 

[JoeMo]

Excellent response, Gregory.  It is difficult for me to isolate the specific fundamentals you mentioned - they are intertwined.  So much so that when I question one (e.g., 1844, which is substantially based on the "day for a year" premise applying to all [or at least most] eschatology), I can't help but question the others.  As an aside, I doubt that understanding 1844 or the Sanctuary Message is crucial to salvation.  It might help some people in their understanding of things, but it is not a salvational issue (IMHO).

[B/W Photodude]

JoeMo said:

As an aside, I doubt that understanding 1844 or the Sanctuary Message is crucial to salvation.  It might help some people in their understanding of things, but it is not a salvational issue (IMHO).

---

I might take an exception to this assertion. I would base it on this: We are encouraged to search Scriptures for "in them we think we have eternal life." Paul said those who are saved are "scarcely saved." He also noted that all scripture is given for instruction. (All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17) The Sanctuary Message is a parable of the whole plan of salvation. And don't forget "But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul." Deuteronomy 4:29

Given all those points and probably many more could be added, if you are seeking God with all you heart, searching Scripture which can help make you perfect, searching Scripture can show you what you need to do to demonstrate to God that you do love Him with all your heart, and the Sanctuary Message is actually a diagram of how God is going to save us, ... how would a person not think it to be crucial?!

I do remember (not where though!) where EGW stated we would be accountable for what we could have learned but neglected to do so. I realize that this is going to crimp the usual lifestyle of many people. One conference worker lamented that Scripture reading occurs little among church members and less than 2% of members even read SOP.

Now, I do wonder, sort of, how people who do not have the intellect to comprehend get saved, until the day I decided that many developmentally disabled people are the natural citizens of heaven!

[Gustave]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 3:19 PM, The Wanderer said:

PART of Miller's message was false.

It was the false part of the message that Christians were repudiated for rejecting. 

[Gustave]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:47 PM, B/W Photodude said:

You flatter yourself, Gustave. I have no "struck nerve".  I do not have to accept anything.

Again, you took about the least important sentence in the whole page you referenced to post here. There were some really good comments made in the paper. But then you couldn't have used them to try and make someone else look bad!

Do you find that the body of work I quoted from showed that William Miller supported the group that became the SDA Church or do you find that William Miller was negative of the group of people who became the SDA Church? 

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

We are encouraged to search Scriptures for "in them we think we have eternal life." Paul said those who are saved are "scarcely saved." He also noted that all scripture is given for instruction. (All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I agree with your assertion here; but there are many occasions where I may search the scripture and come to one conclusion; and you may search the same scripture and come to a different conclusion.  Some may find the Sanctuary Message crucial to salvation, others may put it in the "nice to know but not salvational" category; many will be completely ignorant of the message.  I'm not God, but I can't say people who reject, misunderstand, or are ignorant of the message are bound for destruction.

Additionally, I fail to see anything in the sacrificial system that would lead the Israelites back then to think "Oh yeah! This illustrates the way a coming Savior is going to redeem us!"  Sure - it's easy for us to look back with 20/20 hindsight to see the Sanctuary Message as a type of the plan of salvation.  They obviously didn't see it, or else they wouldn't have crucified Jesus.

14 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Now, I do wonder, sort of, how people who do not have the intellect to comprehend get saved, until the day I decided that many developmentally disabled people are the natural citizens of heaven!

Love that !!

[B/W Photodude]

19 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I agree with your assertion here; but there are many occasions where I may search the scripture and come to one conclusion; and you may search the same scripture and come to a different conclusion.

This is a good reason to spend time in group Bible study! You should be comparing what you discover in your personal reading/studying with what others find, be it in group study, church periodicals, fundamental beliefs , etc. Don't be an island!

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; lineupon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Isaiah 28:10

19 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Additionally, I fail to see anything in the sacrificial system that would lead the Israelites back then to think "Oh yeah! This illustrates the way a coming Savior is going to redeem us!"

We receive the descriptions of the sacrificial system, but I suspect that the people did discuss meaning and knew well what the significance of the Sanctuary service was. I really do not think God really wanted them following blindly a series of services that they had no comprehension of. 

Most Christian faiths understanding of the Sanctuary service stops at the alter of burnt offerings and little is ever discussed about what went on inside the temple. I contend that God does not waste symbols and without understanding those symbols, they are the same as wasted! So, it is good to know that Christ died for our sins, but go inside the temple and see what else He is doing for us!

BTW, His death on the cross does not save us!  "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:10 I would submit that that saving life comes thru the Sanctuary services.

[Lone Ranger]

45 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Additionally, I fail to see anything in the sacrificial system that would lead the Israelites back then to think "Oh yeah! This illustrates the way a coming Savior is going to redeem us!"  Sure - it's easy for us to look back with 20/20 hindsight to see the Sanctuary Message as a type of the plan of salvation.  They obviously didn't see it, or else they wouldn't have crucified Jesus.

JoeMo, I completely agree with this viewpoint. I have found nothing in my study that indicates that the average Hebrew/Israelite/Jew viewed the sanctuary and its operation as pointing forward to Christ and his sacrifice for their sins. IMO that viewpoint (albeit mostly true) is the result of reverse engineering. Hebrew religion/salvation hinged on the law and the sanctuary, as opposed to "saved by grace" illustrated by the meaning and symbolism of the sanctuary.