The Role of the Chruch Manual

[Daryl]

10 minutes ago, Daryl said:

Can you give me a reference or quote that I can use to verify what you posted here???

I noticed that you said that it was oysters instead of clams, therefore, disregard this while I do some research using the word "oysters".

[Daryl]

On 6/16/2020 at 5:10 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Daryl, I may have misspoke when I said clams,  I am thinking that it was oysters.

I found the following in relation to what you said here and in your earlier post:

ONCE WHEN ELLEN WHITE WAS ILL, HER SON, W. C. WHITE, REPORTS THAT SHE WAS ENCOURAGED TO DRINK A LITTLE OYSTER BROTH TO SETTLE HER STOMACH. SHE IS SAID TO HAVE TRIED A SPOONFUL OR TWO, BUT THEN REFUSED THE REST. THERE IS HOWEVER, EVIDENCE THAT AT ONE POINT IN HER LIFE MRS. WHITE MOST LIKELY ATE SOME OYSTERS. IN 1882, WHEN SHE WAS LIVING AT HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA, SHE WROTE A  LETTER TO HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, MARY KELSEY WHITE, IN OAKLAND, IN WHICH SHE MADE THE FOLLOWING REQUEST: "Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so.  We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them."  {MR852 2.3}

This is interesting and causes me to wonder why she did that unless she didn't realize at that time that oysters were considered as one of the unclean meats.  Thoughts???

[Gregory Matthews]

Daryl;A  The issue of EGW eating oysters has been addressed in more than one publicaationl

I will refer you to MR 852, published by the E. G. White Estate in 2017, and written by Ron Graybill.

Here is an interesting paragraph:  [NOTE:  Generally as you have quoted it.]

NOTE:  The entire MR 852 is available on the Internet and may be accessed.

NOTE:  If you look for it you can also find  times when EGW  ate ducks.

  Once when Ellen White was ill, her son, W. C. White, reports that she was encouraged to drink a little oyster broth to settle her stomach. She is said to have tried a spoonful or two, but then refused the rest. There is however, evidence that at one point in her life Mrs. White most likely ate some oysters. In 1882, when she was living at Healdsburg, California, she wrote a letter to her daughter-in-law, Mary Kelsey White, in Oakland, in which she made the following request: “Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them.”

 

[Daryl]

On 6/21/2020 at 5:37 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

In 1882, when she was living at Healdsburg, California, she wrote a letter to her daughter-in-law, Mary Kelsey White, in Oakland, in which she made the following request: “Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them.”

I noticed this is dated "in 1882" so my question is:  When did EGW receive the message pertaining to clean and unclean meat???

[Daryl]

In a desire to answer my own question, I came across the following quote:

Quote

IN 1883 W. H. LITTLEJOHN, IN A QUESTION AND ANSWER COLUMN IN THE REVIEW, SAID HE WAS NOT SURE WHETHER OYSTERS WOULD PROPERLY COME UNDER THE PROHIBITION ON UNCLEAN MEATS FOUND IN LEVITICUS 11. IF THEY DID, HE SAID, IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME NATURAL REASON. IT WAS ALSO JUST AT THIS TIME THAT URIAH SMITH EXPRESSED HIS STRONG DISAVOWAL OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MOSAIC LAW IN THIS MATTER, AS MENTIONED ABOVE.  {MR852 3.2} 

This would explain why EGW thought  it OK to eat oysters when she asked for some in 1882 per the previous quote.

Seems like we are deviating from the topic of this thread, therefore, if you would like to move these posts into a new and separate thread, please go ahead and do so.

[Gustave]

On 6/23/2020 at 8:26 AM, Daryl said:

In a desire to answer my own question, I came across the following quote:

This would explain why EGW thought  it OK to eat oysters when she asked for some in 1882 per the previous quote.

Seems like we are deviating from the topic of this thread, therefore, if you would like to move these posts into a new and separate thread, please go ahead and do so.

 

It doesn't explain it very well.

 

Ellen White said, in 1863: "No butter or flesh meats of any kind come on my table. Cake is seldom found there. I generally have an ample supply of fruits, good bread, and vegetables."

 

By 1880 Ellen is churning out anti Oyster statements: "A Youth is sent from a distant state to share in the benefits of the college at Battle Creed. He goes forth from his home with the blessings of his parents upon his head. He has listened daily to the earnest prayers offered AT THE FAMILY ALTAR, and he is apparently well started in a life of noble resolve and PURITY. His convictions and purposes when he leaves home are right. In Battle Creed he will meet with associates of all classes. He becomes accounted with some whose example is a blessing to all who come within the sphere of their influence. AGAIN, he meets with those who are apparently kind and interesting, and whose intelligence charms him; BUT THEY HAVE A LOW STANDARD OF MORALITY AND NO RELIGIOUS FAITH. FOR A TIME HE RESISTS EVERY INDUCEMENT TO YIELD TO TEMPTATION; BUT AS HE OBSERVES THAT THOSE WHO PROFESS TO BE CHRISTIAN SEEM TO ENJOY THE COMPANY OF THIS IRRELIOIOUS CLASS, HIS PURPOSE AND HIGH RESOLVE BEGANS TO WAVER. HE ENJOYS THE LIVELY SALLIES AND JOVIAL SPIRIT OF THESE YOUTH, AND HE IS ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLY DRAWN MORE AND MORE INTO THEIR COMPANY. HIS STRONGHOLD SEEMS TO BE GIVING WAY; HIS HITHERTO BRAVE HEART IS GROWING WEAK. HE IS INVITED TO ACCOMPANY THEM FOR A WALK, AND THEY LEAD HIM TO A SALOON. OYSTERS AND OTHER REFRESHMENTS ARE CALLED FOR AND HE IS ASHAMED TO DRAW AWAY AND REFUSE THE TREAT.HAVING ONCE OVERSTEPPED THE BOUNDS, HE GOES AGAIN AND AGAIN. A glass of beer is thought to be unobjectionable, and he accepts it BUT STILL, WITH ALL, THERE ARE SHARP TWINGES OF CONSCIENSE. HE DOES NOT TAKE HIS STAND ON THE SIDE OF GOD AND TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. 4T 435-2

This is 2 years before Littlejohn discusses the matter in the RH that you referenced. If the youth's consumption of Oysters caused "sharp twinges of conscience" and is classified as taking a stand APART "from God, truth and righteousness" because eating Oysters flew in the face of what this youth learned "at the family altar" then its reasonable to conclude that prior to 1883 Ellen White certainly understood Oysters were part of the Luciferian system - and obviously frowned upon. 

The other thing to remember was that it was only a few short years prior (on August 29, 1878) that Ellen White said that Jesus was NOT God. Recognizing this might illuminate what else this hypothetical youth described by Ellen was taught "at the family altar". Phad Thai is a fairly common (and tasty) Thai dish - even tofu Phad Thai is made with Oyster sauce - would someone WITHOUT gnostic or supernatural instruction to avoid Oysters  feel "the twinges of conscience" while eating Phad Thai - would they feel that they took a stand against God, truth and righteousness? I don't think so. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave has stated that Ellen White taught that Jesus was not God.  This is a common claim that has been stated on the Internet and is actually complex.  The basis for this claim is based  on several statements that Ellen White made.  And there are different dates for those statements.  As such, there may be valid differences in understanding as to the meaning of the statement that she mad, as she may not have been totally clear.

*  On one statement it has been suggested the EGW was actually stating the Jesus was not God the Father. 
*  On one statement it has been suggested that EGW was stating that Jesus in his human life on Earth was living as a human and not as God.  However, i will acknowledge that if this is accurate, it remains a problematic statement for other reasons.

There is a bottom line here:  Ellen White was a human being.   She developed spiritually just as all of us must do.   As such, her spiritual views changed over teh years.  God gave her to this developing denomination as a gift.  But, that gift was not to replace the Bible.  She was not the ultimate spiritual authority.    She was wrong in some of her spiritual beliefs.   

In her earlier years, Ellen white did not hold to a Trinitarian belief.  But, over time she moved toward a Trinitarian belief.

So, I am not interested in debating the details of what Gustave has said about her belief as to the nature and being of God.  OUr stand today should be on what we understand the Bible to teach, and not on what we think EGW taught.

 

  

 

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave has stated that Ellen White taught that Jesus was not God.  This is a common claim that has been stated on the Internet and is actually complex.  The basis for this claim is based  on several statements that Ellen White made.  And there are different dates for those statements.  As such, there may be valid differences in understanding as to the meaning of the statement that she mad, as she may not have been totally clear.

*  On one statement it has been suggested the EGW was actually stating the Jesus was not God the Father. 
*  On one statement it has been suggested that EGW was stating that Jesus in his human life on Earth was living as a human and not as God.  However, i will acknowledge that if this is accurate, it remains a problematic statement for other reasons.

There is a bottom line here:  Ellen White was a human being.   She developed spiritually just as all of us must do.   As such, her spiritual views changed over teh years.  God gave her to this developing denomination as a gift.  But, that gift was not to replace the Bible.  She was not the ultimate spiritual authority.    She was wrong in some of her spiritual beliefs.   

In her earlier years, Ellen white did not hold to a Trinitarian belief.  But, over time she moved toward a Trinitarian belief.

So, I am not interested in debating the details of what Gustave has said about her belief as to the nature and being of God.  OUr stand today should be on what we understand the Bible to teach, and not on what we think EGW taught.

 

  

 

I'm positing that the General Conference in session said Jesus wasn't God and that multiple statements from Ellen would appear to support that. I'll try and explain.

 

https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/GCSessionBulletins/GCB1863-88.pdf

If you open the above document and go to 202-GCS 63-33 at the bottom of the page you will see the December 12, 1881 Meeting Minutes of the General Conference Session. The General Conference is HOT on getting Uriah Smith's book into the hands of people - a canvassing committee was formulated. 

If you next look at 302-GCS 63-88 you will see General Conference Resolution #14 which orders the execution of the plan:

"RESOLVED, That this Conference earnestly recommend the extensive circulation of that important book, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation; first, because it covers a large field in the great system of present truth, introducing many important doctrines in a clear and interesting manner, well calculated to favorably impress the reader; secondly, because there is in the public mind a desire more or less strong to understand the meaning of these prophetic books, which are supposed to be so mysterious, of which desire we should take advantage to bring before them the great truths of the message; thirdly, because we have no book better calculated to reach intelligent, influential, business men, who cannot find time to attend courses of lectures and long series of meetings, but who would purchase such a book and read it at home; fourthly, because such a book, bound in an attractive manner, presenting the truth in a permanent form, retaining its place on the center tables and in the libraries till the Lord comes, will command the attention of many persons in the aggregate, and has some advantages which the presentation of the truth in periodicals, tracts, and pamphlets does not possess; and finally, because our past experience has demonstrated beyond all dispute the usefulness of the canvass on Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, and that we cannot afford to neglect it."

The General Conference repeatedly gave accolades to this book between 1883 to 1905. The positive statements can be summarized by reading what the General Conference said on 31 October 1899: 

"When the two books, " Thoughts on Daniel " and "Thoughts on the Revelation" were published, no one thought of them as subscription books, or that they would circulate anywhere but among our own people. Brother King suggested that the two volumes be bound together and sold by subscription; another original idea. His plan was adopted, and that admirable book has reached a sale of many thousands, with a continually increasing sale, bringing more people into the truth than any ,:other subscription book published." Pages 1 & 2 of https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/GCSessionBulletins/GCB1889-12.pdf

The General Conference goes on to describe how successful the book "The Great Controversy" & other "Testimonies" from Ellen White were in getting people interested and reading publications like "Daniel & the Revelation" - even goes so far as to say that:

"God has revealed to us through the Testimonies the importance of getting our publications before the world."

Ellen's books & articles that were contemporary to Daniel & the Revelation were not in contrast to Uriah's book - they were complimentary.

Daniel & The Revelation was an undisputed anti-Trinitarian book.

 I'm not posting this to split theological hairs but to show the validity of your position - i.e. that Ellen White was human, she made mistakes and some extremely incorrect (and heretical) theological affirmations - as did "the General Conference in Session". It is for reasons like these that I agree with you that the "Church manual" of SDA shouldn't be viewed as "Holy Spirit" inspired teaching. Its also because of reasons like these that the Oyster Incident wasn't Ellen taking a stand against God, truth, righteousness & everything learned at the Family Altar of worship - it was just a person who had a hankering for some GOOD OYSTERS. 

  

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

It is well substantiated that the SDA Church  supported the distribution of the  book on Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith.

I would not challenge a statement that the Church officially supported the distribution of that book. 

A fair question that must be asked is:  What was in the mind of the people who supported the distribution of that book?

My response to that question is:  That book was supported in distribution because of what it proposed as to understanding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.  

I will suggest that any Trinitarian issues that may have been in that book were not in the minds of the  people who wanted it distributed.  They just were not theologically inclined.

Therefore, I do not consider it to be a fair statement to the effect that voting to support the distribution of that   book equates to a vote  in favor of Smith's ideas as to the Trinity.

It is also known that Uriah Smith did not have  a Trinitarian view of God. Probably others who supported the distribution of that book also agreed with Smith as to the Trinity.  Again, theire vote to distribute the book, I believe, was based on   his understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, and not on the Trinity.  Absent a specific comment in the vote to tthe effect that the book should be supported due to a position that Smith took on the Trinity, I continue to se it as I have stated.

It should be noted, as I remember it, Smith's views on the Trinity, I believe were edited out of later publications of the book.

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

It is well substantiated that the SDA Church  supported the distribution of the  book on Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith.

I would not challenge a statement that the Church officially supported the distribution of that book. 

A fair question that must be asked is:  What was in the mind of the people who supported the distribution of that book?

My response to that question is:  That book was supported in distribution because of what it proposed as to understanding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.  

I will suggest that any Trinitarian issues that may have been in that book were not in the minds of the  people who wanted it distributed.  They just were not theologically inclined.

Therefore, I do not consider it to be a fair statement to the effect that voting to support the distribution of that   book equates to a vote  in favor of Smith's ideas as to the Trinity.

It is also known that Uriah Smith did not have  a Trinitarian view of God. Probably others who supported the distribution of that book also agreed with Smith as to the Trinity.  Again, theire vote to distribute the book, I believe, was based on   his understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, and not on the Trinity.  Absent a specific comment in the vote to tthe effect that the book should be supported due to a position that Smith took on the Trinity, I continue to se it as I have stated.

It should be noted, as I remember it, Smith's views on the Trinity, I believe were edited out of later publications of the book.

 

Yes, long after Ellen had passed away the book was edited. My point was that those positions on the Trinity were "baked in" to the denominationally directed publications and that there wasn't a rebuke or outcry  of these teachings from anyone within the organization - from the top to the bottom. It was only when these teachings started to change and move into more Orthodox positions that the discomfort or squabbling began, at least to the point that the squabbling was actually documented.