You are not logged in.
Sorry for popping in here but the phrase without the blood of Jesus plays a big part in the end time scenario outlined by EW. When Christ leaves the Most Holy compartment to come to earth, there is no more intercession by Christ and those on earth have to stand before the judgment without an intercessor, sooooooo, they have to be perfect without the blood of Christ.
Offline
Don wrote: None of this mental activity would take place if there were no apparent contradictions of concepts. We are to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other people's thoughts. This applies to the thoughts evident in the EGW writings, too.
Yet in all these years you have not been stimulated enough by the contradictions to see Ellen as ever being theologically wrong. That Don is far more than cutting someone some slack. There are tons of people we can use to stimulate our thinking, we hardly need a church determined authority on truth for that.
Offline
Look guys, if he adopts what you want, I may have to put Don up, along with his wife while he finds another profession. I won't say cut him some slack but I'm not ready for some new tenets!!!
Offline
Isn't there something wrong with that? Lose your job if you don't agree with someone who died close to a hundred years ago. Does that sound Biblical to anyone?
Offline
Who's talking Biblical, we're talking EGW and denominational beliefs, aren't we????
Offline
Maybe I was wrong, EGW, is the posters of ATomorrow.net's favorite topic.
Could we exist as a church without her. What else possibly could we talk about? No other ideas around!!!!
Offline
I said:
None of this mental activity would take place if there were no apparent contradictions of concepts. We are to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other people's thoughts. This applies to the thoughts evident in the EGW writings, too.
Ron, I have invited you to list the EGW errors as you see them. You have decided not to do that.
All I can do, is describe my thinking. As I read the Bible; as I formulate my own personal beliefs and doctrine; as I read Ellen White's writings.
The suggestion that my job is on the line based on what I say here, and that that clouds my thinking, is unsupported, unsupportable.
My views are unique. Some here have told me that I am not really an Adventist because of my stated views while others say that I am being careful to protect my job. This is why I like this atomorrow community; the ideas are never boring.
http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif
Ron, long ago I learned to appreciate your vise-like insistence on Biblical thinking. The first discussion I recall was regarding Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and Lucifer.
I believe in this kind of careful exegesis of Scripture. No matter what Ellen White says about extra-Biblical stuff, one needs to be ever so vigilant to acknowledge what the Bible says and what it doesn't say.
My students make certain statements about the Bible. Sometimes they speak of things we discuss here. As a matter of course now, I ask them to show me where the Bible supports what they assert. This creates some wonderful Bible searches, Strong's Concordances and all.
I serve as a teacher float at our Sabbath School. I'm teaching tomorrow. The people in my classes seem especially appreciative that I address some of the issues, such as we talk about here.
Now regarding Ellen White:
1. I am convinced that Ellen White was a faithful Christian who loved her Lord.
2. I am convinced that she applied her Christian faith to improving the church to which she belonged.
3. I am convinced that her prophetic gift was a manifestation of what Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians. As I examine the trend of her ministry, I am content that she led her church closer to Christ and the Bible.
4. I see no need to view her works as inerrant, or infallible. They provide thoughtful guidance to the reader. As an educator, her ideas help mellow my soul toward my students. Her cautions help lead me away from the edge of extreme liberalism or rampant fundamentalism.
5. I am convinced that literalists and perfectionists must be especially careful when making use of her writings. Her writings were not intended to provide a systematic theology or a strictly formulated manual for church administrators. Yet, she wrote volumes of useful counsel; much food for thought.
6. The Conflict of the Ages series seeks to give a devotional overview of the Great Controversy motif. I believe it is unnecessary to make a doctrine out of her extra-biblical material. I don't view that material as some new revelation from God. Her goal, her inspired goal I believe, was to present the story to help the church understand the issues.
7. From a historical viewpoint, I have noted how the leadership of the late 1800's and early 1900's took her administrative counsels as authority, yet they did not follow her slavishly. She encouraged independent actions of faith and spoke against those who sought to exert "kingly power" on those in their charge.
Offline
Offline
If that link doesn't work, here's another:
http://.www.ellen-white.com/Contradictions.html
Offline
Don wrote:
Ron, I have invited you to list the EGW errors as you see them. You have decided not to do that.
I did give you two and of course you already know about the several involved with the Lucifer myth.
The range is vast from complete theological misrepresentation of God (Christ suffered the death that sinners will suffer at the end of time as they are separated from God) to the simply Biblical errors such as saying that Judas was not chosen by Christ but insinuated himself into the disciples or her claims that when Peter was walking on the water he looked back at the other disciples with pride and thus sank.
Just so you realize it is not because I can't think of any examples it is because you have already said you don't mind the extra biblical info, by that logic anything goes...so what is the point.
Also for many years now I did not even bother with Ellen White but since it is the subject of this quarter's lesson and because I had to step down from helping to lead our Earliteen class because I did not believe the Bible to be inerrant and because I do not hold Ellen White to be a prophet. Actually that last I have modified since I now agree with Luther that every Christian is a prophet. We have just made some bad assumptions about what a prophet is. See:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/02/all … phets.html
I don't think that will help at my local church though.
Offline
Elaine,
I am interested in an interactive discussion, not in just a list of stuff from some website. I think it is important to know what the "Truth or Fables" people point out. But, I'd rather focus on stuff that another person raises as a personal concern.
The whole exercise may feel like a waste of time. I think that is Ron's point; not sure. From my perch, I find it helpful to look at obvious issues and try to sort them out. I don't usually get very far arguing with myself about what a web page has published.
Offline
I had to step down from helping to lead our Earliteen class because I did not believe the Bible to be inerrant
There is a story here, if it is wise to tell it. Is your local church notably conservative; or are your views out of step with most Adventist thinking?
The inerrant issue needs to focus on obvious errors. The liberal higher critic probably considers most stories of miracles to be errors. I think, when we discuss why we don't believe in Biblical inerrancy, we need to use examples which create an Ah, now I see it response.
Ron, you have mentioned my willingness to allow for extra-biblical information. Yes, I am tolerant of such, but it helps my thinking to know the examples. You bring to the table a strong awareness of contradicitions and errors; a looking at things as a skeptical believer. I personally gain from interaction with you and hope you don't consider your ideas to be without influence.
I believe that interpretation of scripture is necessary, but we gain from admitting when we do so. Eg. The passage, Take eat, this is my body has been interpreted by the Roman Catholic church to mean that the communion wafer is actually Jesus body. This is a literal interpretation. It is impossible to prove the view wrong. All one can do is offer an alternate understanding and hope that reason will prevail.
Another area of thought:
Have you studied Ellen White's counsel to move forward in matters of doctrine as a group. I think she used the term, Running ahead of the Lord.
The idea, for me, behind this, is to present one's views to trusted friends and then seek to demonstrate the truth of our beliefs with those who are interested. Thus, the church moves forward on difficult matters.
Message edited by Don on February 27, 2009
Offline
Don wrote:
The idea, for me, behind this, is to present one's views to trusted friends and then seek to demonstrate the truth of our beliefs with those who are interested. Thus, the church moves forward on difficult matters.
Or in my case I put the ideas out on my blog. The article which was the primary reason for their complaints was the article I wrote for the Adventist Today magazine but they only put in on the website, entitled Why I am Still a Progressive Adventist.
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2008/07/why … h-day.html
I put up most of the posts dealing with the experience here, so that people can see them in order, which is the opposite of how they appear on the blog since it goes by date:
Offline
I certainly agree Sirje. So much emphasis is placed on Sabbath and the unclean food laws that the law of love is shoved into the confines of the 10 commandments. Jesus never intended for the 10 to explain the law of love.
Offline
Why, even if hte Sabbath School class is spending so much time on EGW do we allow our selves to be drug away from the Bible as our guide. If EGW doesn't say what the Bible says, she can not be trusted, and we move on. It will be a long time before the SDA church will take her out of the 28 fundies. If Ted Wilson ever gets in as GC President it will even be longer.
Offline
Maggie Bockmann said: Luther rediscovered "The just shall live by faith," almost 500 years ago. The SDA's, who were spurred on by Ellen White and the Brethren (and the fear they promulgated), fell back into legalism. Therefore, IMO, Adventism did not carry the Protestant Reformation forward, as claimed, but rather created a retroversion to a pre-Reformation type religious system.
Tom replied: The Advent movement is Protestant. This is not up for debate. They also made serious and fundamental corrections to Protestant eschatology that still stands to this very day. The fact that there were errors in their theology is hardly news. Even the Apostles held error as they started the church. Then they also "fell back into legalism." (See Galatians).
Thus, Christian truth is a progressive phenomenon, even as error is always present at every step of the process. The development and progression of the Gospel Story is a forward moving paradigm. The SDA's are no different from any others that have been used in the past to move church forward.
Yes, they have advanced truth, but they have also embraced much error, so much so that they are no longer able to move forward, much less proclaim the Gospel correctly. This happened to the Jews, and then the Church, long before the SDA's.
Today, it is obvious that the Advent Movement has very little, if anything, to offer the world. They are full of myth, error, and corruption; clueless to how the Gospel Story will unfold. They are great sinners, especially their incompetent and dishonest leaders that specialize in double-talk and schism. This is why they need help and reform. This is why there must be a Gospel Reformation within the Advent Movement. This is why Dr. Ford must be welcomed back into Adventism, even as those that have deceived the church are escorted out the door.
Maggie, why would any former SDA, such as yourself, protest Gospel Reform within the church? Why would you not want to see the myths removed and the many false doctrines repudiated? Why would you not want to see the real Ellen White come to life, and to hear Dr. Ford preaching the Gospel, on the Gospel Sabbath, from the pulpit?
So I don't understand where you are coming from? Do you?
The SDA church represents the 3rd Angels Message. Thus they were pushing Miller's Protestant Reforms even further. The fact that they did the very same thing as the Jerusalem Church and became legalistic is beside the point. Why? Because this is normative. Sad. But normative.
So I fully admit that the SDA's have followed in the faulty steps of Peter and James. I agree that they have followed the wrong path, just like the Jews and the apostolic church that soon morphed into the RCC. But guess what? The same cure that worked on the 1st century legalists, and later on in the Reformation, will still work for the SDA's today.
The cure for the self-destructing SDA's is Pauline theology. But the man that understood it best, Dr. Ford, was exiled from the church. Dr. Ford understood the secret to fame and fortune for the SDA's, but the leaders were blind to the Gospel, church history, and the progressive development of prophecy.
Only the Gospel of Paul will save the SDA's. They must not only embrace Paul's Gospel, but those other reformers that have been sent to them over the years. Thus they need to understand and listen to E. J. Waggoner, and Ellen White, as well as Dr. Ford in our time. Both of these men, and Ellen White as well, stood up and represented Paul 's Gospel in the context of the Adventist Apocalyptic.
Only the Protestant Gospel will save the dishonest and self-destructing SDA 's. Only this doctrine will allow the Gospel Sabbath to emerge for all to see.
Maggie said: That it took Ellen White four years longer than the Israelites wandering in the desert of old to figure out what Protestantism meant does not auger well for the stuff she put forth before 1888, which she never repudiated, confounding this movement hopelessly.
Tom said: Your focus on Ellen White is obsessive, strange, and wrong. She does not represent the Advent Movement, nor did she invent it or lead it. So you need to step back from your twisted worldview that places Ellen White at the center of everything.
Ellen White was not the leader of the SDA's--when she was alive that is. This is just Arthur White's propaganda and fiction pretending otherwise.
So if you want to blame anyone for the SDA's problems, why not start at the top? James White was the real leader of the SDA's. And when he suddenly died in 1881, other men took over his position and Ellen White was pushed aside. She had to force her way back into relevance, and when she did, they exiled her.
So you don’t have any of this history correct. But yet you think you do, and you think that Ellen White was something that she never was. And then you attack this historical fabrication.
But Ellen White was not the SDA Moses, even though this is how she was promoted to all in the 20th century. She was never the leader of the SDA's when she was alive.
This discussion about Adventist Reform is based on historical facts, not on the myth of Traditional Adventism, of which we were all indoctrinated.
So you need to stop mischaracterizing history. It was never Ellen White's claim, intention, or duty "to figure out what Protestantism meant." She was not a theologian, but an uneducated apocalyptic, within the newly forming Adventist Movement. Which means she was focused on prophecy and eschatology, all within a Protestant, populist, context. Which also explains why they were all so anti-Catholic. Because they were Protestants.
Maggie said: Why would God lead people backwards into legalism when He really wanted to lead them forward to Righteousness by Faith and the Eschaton?
Tom said: God no more led the SDA's back into legalism then he led Peter and the early church back into legalism. This is the work of God's enemy. Why would you think otherwise?
Maggie said: The Protestants who never took that detour (you know, the "Fallen Churches") were arguably in a better position than the Adventists.
Tom replied: Ha! Show me any Protestant church that has no error? There is no such thing. Which Protestant denomination is poised to develop the final Gospel Message that will complete the work of the church?
Which is why the LM condemns all, and demands repentance from all. All denominations and churches are judged guilty in the Pre-Advent Judgment of the Church, which is the LM.
However, when it comes to eschatology, the SDA's are still far ahead of all others. This is why they correctly reject such false doctrines as the Secret Rapture, the immortal soul, and dispensationalism.
Too bad that they have failed to develop their Apocalyptic properly. Too bad that they have failed to update their eschatology for the 21st century. This is what they must do. And when complete, the last Advent Message will shock the world and the church, just like in the days of Miller. But such a grand conclusion must be understood and developed in stages, over time. In other words, only those that understand the Three Angels Messages correctly have any chance to go forward and the develop the 4th.
So the SDA's, because of their history and eschatology, are much closer to developing the 4th Angels Message of Rev 18 than all others. If only by default. The last Message must be built on the previous ones, which gives the SDA's a clear advantage.
Too bad that they have refused, as yet, to take advantage of their historic prophetic position.
Too bad they no longer know the meaning or definition of the Three Angels Messages.
Too bad that they don't even care to find the last Message or correct the previous ones.
Don Sands said: I think Ellen White progressed in her views, as we all do. I have been posting on this forum for one or two years now, just one or two years, but my views have developed considerably.
Tom Norris said: Ellen White did progress in her views. After the death of James White, she became more aware that the SDA's needed reform. This is why when the Gospel debate broke out between Waggoner and the leaders, in 1886, she was very slow to shut it down, and in fact never did. She had been shown that a change was needed, and that one was coming. Young Waggoner was that change. Thus she was primed for change and Gospel Reform because of her Spiritual Gifts.
By contrast, Uriah Smith became more entrenched in his legalistic interpretations. He did not grow or mature. Which is why he was terminated from the Review at the end of his long career for legalism. He died a confused, rejected man.
Moreover, because you represent Tradition Adventism, it is refreshing to see your views grow. This is a good sign. I was not sure such a thing was possible. But you need to move faster, as well as specifically repent for one false doctrine after another. The true church in the last days will be a repenting church.
Rev. 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
Rev. 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
Jesus is calling the SDA church to confession and repentance. If they are zealous for him, they will do what he commands.
Don said: When a person accepts, or submits, to Jesus as their Lord and Savior, I believe the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit takes on a new role in that person's life. They are no longer happy, or content, in their sins (failings).
Tom said: Don, you are on dangerous ground here.
The search for truth is necessary to find the Gospel. This attitude can make all the difference between finding eternal life or not. Once the Gospel is found however, all should rejoice in their salvation, regardless of their sins and failings that follow.
Thus the real Gospel brings "contentment" all during the Santification process. Here is great Gospel instruction from Luther, that all need to embrace.
"The other word of God is not Law or commandment, nor does it require anything of us; but after the first Word, that of the Law, has done this work and distressful misery and poverty have been produced in the heart, God comes and offers his lovely, living Word, and promises, pledges, and obligates himself to give grace and help, that we may get out of this misery and that all sins not only be forgiven but also blotted out and that love and delight to fulfill the law may be given besides. "
"See, this divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of his is properly called Gospel. And I say again and yet again that you should never understand Gospel to mean anything but the divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of sin. For this is why hitherto St. Paul's epistles were not understood and cannot be understood by our adversaries even now; they do not know what Law and Gospel really are. "
"For they consider Christ a Legislator and the Gospel nothing but the teaching of new laws. This is nothing else but locking up the gospel and obscuring everything. For "Gospel" is Greek and means "good news," because in it is proclaimed the saving doctrine of life, of the divine promise, and grace and the forgiveness of sins are offered. Therefore works do not belong to the gospel; for it is not laws but faith alone, because it is nothing whatever but the promise and offer of divine grace. "
"He, then, who believes the Gospel receives grace and the Holy Spirit. Thereby the heart becomes glad and joyful in God and then keeps the Law gladly and freely, without the fear of punishment and without the expectation of reward; for it is sated and satisfied with that grace of God by which the law has been satisfied." Luther
The Gospel is not a trick to get us to focus on the law, nor is it ever subordinated to JBF. The Gospel saves sinners. Completely and fully. Those that think it their duty to live above all sin, and to strive for such a state of holiness, fail to understand the Gospel correctly. They are in danger of falling into the same legalism as did Peter and the early church.
"Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing. Through faith it is instantaneously enjoyed, not in part, but all"
http://www.atomorrow.com/cgi-bin/discus … &page=4122
Moreover, after a person embraces the Gospel, the Holy Spirit does not now become a cheerleader for the law. It does not promote the Old Covenant, nor work to condemn the believers conscience. Rather, the Spirit will feature Christ's Righteousness and Gospel Teaching.
John 16:12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
John 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
John 16:14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
John 16:15 “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
Salvation is not granted to us because we no longer sin, or make mistakes. As if we can make a deal with God to save us, if we agree to obey. No. That would be an OC way of looking at the Gospel. This is a great SDA error that goes all the way back to the Judaizers in the early church.
"Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing. Through faith it is instantaneously enjoyed, not in part, but all. "
"Truly is it plain, then, that faith alone affords such blessings of God, justification and salvation--immediately and not in process as must be the case with works--and constitutes us children and heirs who voluntarily discharge their duties, not presuming to become godly and worthy by a servile spirit."
"No merit is needed; faith secures all gratuitously--more than anyone can merit. The believer performs his works gratuitously, being already in possession of all the Cain-like saints vainly seek through works and never find--justification and divine inheritance, or grace…"
"Plainly, then, in the sight of God no one by works can accomplish anything toward his salvation. Salvation must be obtained and enjoyed before works are begun. Having salvation, works will follow spontaneously, to the honor of God and to the benefit of our neighbor. They will not be in any wise prompted by fear of punishment or expectation of reward. This is implied in the words: "If a son, then an heir through Christ."
"Now we have made it sufficiently plain that faith alone, faith before any works are done and without them, constitutes us children."
Luther Continues:
"If it makes us children, it makes us heirs; a child is an heir. When the inheritance is already possessed, can it be first secured through works? It is an inconsistent conclusion that the inheritance bequeathed through grace is already possessed, and at the same time is still to be sought and obtained first through works and merits, as if it were not present or not given."
"The inheritance is simply eternal salvation. We have frequently asserted that through baptism and faith the Christian instantaneously possesses all, but does not yet behold it visibly. He possesses it only in faith."
http://www.atomorrow.com/cgi-bin/discus … &page=4135
Santification does not eclipse JBF, nor is there any salvation associated with our behavior. Thus we are saved by faith at every stage of our lives. Our behavior is not the basis for our salvation, which is why the Spirit does not push us forward in a futile attempt to reach perfection.
Which means that if a person can never give up smoking, and he knows it to be a sin, he is still saved if he has faith in the Gospel. His inability to stop smoking, and his or her many failed attempts to quit, are covered by the Righteousness of Christ. This is what the Gospel does for sinners. It gives them the means to not only pass the Judgment; it gives them Eternal life here and now. It is not contingent upon our Santification.
The SDA's do not understand this point.
Paul fought the Judaizers by explaining that the Gospel is given as a free gift in spite of our sins, which will never stop, this side of the resurrection. We are indeed saved because we are sinners, not because we have reached, or will reach, some level of obedience to the law or the teachings of Jesus.
1Cor. 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
1Cor. 3:10 According to the grace of God, which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
1Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one, which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Cor. 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
1Cor. 3:13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1Cor. 3:14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
1Cor. 3:15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
In other words, those that embrace the Gospel are saved regardless of how well their lives turn out. For some, their lives amount to little. Paul compares them to worthless hay, and some others to wood, and so all the way up to the gold standard. But each person, no matter their level of Santification, no matter their failures, mistakes, and sins, are saved.
Don't you think the Holy Spirit knows this Gospel fact? Of course it does. So the HS is not trying to promote perfectionism or super Santification from the church. Rather, it is trying to get the church to comprehend the genuine Gospel of the NT.
The Gospel must become clearer to the SDA community. They do not understand what either Jesus or Paul is teaching. They don't even understand the work of the HS correctly.
Don said: I believe that Ellen White's love of Jesus rescued her from herself, much as my love for Jesus has done that for me, or for anyone who follows Him. I recall reading how reverently exciting she and her help found their preparation of the Desire of Ages.
Tom said: There is no doubt that Ellen White was a sincere Christian who loved Jesus. However, she was never any great sinner. She grew up in a sheltered NE Christian home. She was dedicated to the Advent Movement as a teen and never looked back, even as she stayed true to her gifts and later suffered persecution by her SDA friends. She was a remarkable woman.
However, her grandson turned out to be an uneducated buffoon. A delusional man with cultic intent. He has ruined Ellen White and the SDA church that she so loved. He must be repudiated and the record corrected.
No one will know the real Ellen White until the White Estate corrects the record and tells the complete story. This is what they were supposed to do all along. They need to get busy.
Don said: I have only been writing my views at ATomorrow for a very short time, yet the experience has influenced me and developed me profoundly. Imagine the influence of writing volumes and volumes and essays and letters, etc, had upon EGW.
Tom replied: Ellen White was a prolific writer. She spent her entire life immersed in Adventism. Her story has not been correctly or honestly told. Her best work was hidden and covered up. And her writings have been taken horribly out of context, made to say the opposite of what she really meant on a number of important points of doctrine.
Don said: Ellen White certainly was not perfect.
It is tragic that such a point even has to be made. Ellen White never claimed perfection, nor did any of her contemporaries think such an absurd thing.
Tom said: But it must be said because the White Estate has taught otherwise. They are the ones the promoted Ellen White as if she were an infallible, OT prophet that spoke for God and wrote scripture. Many people hate Ellen White because of how the White Estate portrayed her. They had no idea that Arthur White was perpetrating a theological and historical fraud. Shame. Shame. Shame.
This great error must be corrected.
Don Sands asked: Tom, can you direct us to a repudiation statement. I don't recall ever reading where EGW admitted that she was in error. Even when she changed practice, such as when to start the Sabbath, the giving up of pork, etc., I don't recall her coming right out and saying, "I was wrong."
Tom said: I did not go into the White Estate to research this point. However, the Andrews situation forced James White to admit, in the Review, that she was wrong. Here is some of that previous discussion:
Don said: In the February 25, 1868 article, James White does not say that EGW was wrong about the Sabbath time.
Answer: Wrong. Of course he is saying she was wrong. Listen to him again:
“But the question naturally arises, if the visions are given to correct the erring, why did she not sooner see the error of the six o'clock time?"
Note the word "erring" and "error." James is saying that Ellen White, in spite of her visions, was still wrong. She observed the Sabbath, like Bates, from 6 to 6. SO SHE WAS WRONG. Thus he asks the question: "why did she not sooner see this error?"
I don't know how the English language could be clearer?
Don said: He points out that her vision was taken to mean 6:00 but she actually reported from even to even. This helped the group reject the idea of sunrise being the time.
Tom said: Regardless, she was still wrong. Bates had taken the word "even" to mean 6 pm, and he convinced Ellen White about this point. Which means she was still wrong. She was observing the Sabbath incorrectly. Period. And no one could deny this fact.
Listen to James White on this point:
“Mrs. W. has in two visions been shown something in regard to the time of the commencement of the Sabbath.
The first was as early as 1847, at Topsham, Me. 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.’
Bro. Bates was present, and succeeded in satisfying all present that ‘even’ was six o'clock.
Mark this: The vision at Topsham did not teach the six o'clock time. It only corrected sunrise time.”
James White— Review and Herald, Feb. 25, 1868, p. 168.
-------------------
Tom said: So while the "vision" did not teach the 6 o clock error, Ellen White embraced this error regardless. Thus there is still no way to pretend that Ellen White was not WRONG. She was.
Don said: There is no admission by James White that EGW was wrong.
Tom said: While James White admitted that they had all been too busy to investigate this point prior to 1855, and that the 6 o clock time had never been "taught among us by direct manifestation of the Holy Spirit," he still admitted that Ellen White was wrong.
What choice did he have? The 6 o clock position was wrong and that is what Ellen White had practiced for a decade. So she was WRONG. What else is there to say? Wrong is wrong.
Listen to James White:
“Equatorial time, or from six o'clock to six o'clock, has been observed by the body of Sabbath-keepers. The truth is, the subject has not been fully investigated till within a few months.
We have never been fully satisfied with the testimony presented in favor of six o'clock. While the various communications received for a few years past, advocating both sun-rise and sunset time, have been almost destitute of argument, and the spirit of humility and candor. The subject has troubled us, yet we have never found time to thoroughly investigate it….
“When in Maine last Summer we stated our feelings on the subject to Bro. [J. N.] Andrews, and our fears of division unless the question could be settled by good testimony. He decided to devote his time to the subject till he ascertained what the Bible taught in regard to it, and his article in this No. [of the Review and Herald] is the result of his investigations.
Some have the impression that six o'clock time has been taught among us by the direct manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This is a mistake. ‘From even to even,’ was the teaching, from which six o'clock time has been inferred.
We now rejoice that Bro. Andrews has presented the Bible testimony on this question, in his accustomed forcible, candid manner, which settles the question beyond all doubt that the Sabbath commences not only at even, but at the setting of the sun.” James White—December 4, 1855, p. 78.
----------------------------------------
While James White makes it clear that the visions did not teach the 6 o clock error, per se, he admits that it was an error to "infer" that this is what the vision meant. So she was still wrong because she misunderstood her own vision and followed false doctrine for almost a decade as a result.
Don Sands said: James White said that Bible Study comes first. Figure it out from the Bible. God uses the spiritual gift (of EGW) to help unify the church on the Biblical conclusion of the many.
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1231052766
Tom said: How could James White admit that Ellen White was wrong about the Sabbath, if Ellen White had not already admitted it to all? I would like to know the details. I do know that they had a debate about the issue and that papers were written etc. Also note James White reference to the forcefulness of Andrews's position, which means that he was pushing very hard to show that Ellen White's position was wrong. No doubt Ellen White was right there.
So at the end, they all voted and agreed that Bates and Ellen White were wrong. What do you think Ellen White did? Run out the door in tears? I doubt it. She had to admit the outcome and change her views, which she obviously did, and so too did they all. Too bad that such an important part of SDA history has been ignored and suppressed. Too bad we don't know the details of how Ellen White confessed her error. It would be a good point to research.
However, we don't have to guess about how she reacted. Why? Because she later addresses this issue, and makes it clear that she is not infallible, nor does she have any doctrinal authority. Listen to Ellen White:
Investigation of Doctrine:
There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation…
The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increase with goods, and have need of nothing."
How to Search the Scriptures:
How shall we search the Scriptures? Shall we drive our stakes of doctrine one after another, and then try to make all Scripture meet our established opinions? or shall we take our ideas and views to the Scriptures, and measure our theories on every side by the Scriptures of truth? Many who read and even teach the Bible, do not comprehend the precious truth they are teaching or studying.
Men entertain errors, when the truth is clearly marked out; and if they would but bring their doctrines to the word of God, and not read the word of God in the light of their doctrines, to prove their ideas right, they would not walk in darkness and blindness, or cherish error. Many give the words of Scripture a meaning that suits their own opinions, and they mislead themselves and deceive others by their misinterpretations of God's word.
As we take up the study of God's word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside. Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible.
It was the unwillingness of the Jews to give up their long-established traditions that proved their ruin. They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their expositions of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. This was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago. . . .
We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.
Counsels to Writers and Editors, pages 33-42
Perhaps there are more specific confessions of error, no doubt there must be. But these are the kinds of things that were censored. The last thing the White Estate wanted people to know is that Ellen White did not have doctrinal authority, and that she claimed the SDA's had embraced much error and tradition. So they taught the opposite and hide the facts that they did not like.
So one day, when the White Estate becomes an honest Archive, it would be worthwhile to make such a study to see the back-story about the Sabbath debate between Andrews and Ellen White. I can assure you that Arthur White would not want or allow anyone to make a study about how often Ellen White was wrong. Much less to find the specific letters from her confessing error. This is why no one has ever seen such material. This is why few SDA's even know that Andrews proved Ellen White wrong in front of the entire Battle Creek church. And that James White was glad about it. This is also why 1888 was hidden.
But the Andrews story alone turns TA upside down and proves, in a practical manner, that Ellen White had no doctrinal story as we were all taught and the church still teaches to this very day. It proves not only that she was wrong, but everyone in Battle Creek knew it and accepted it.
Ryan Van Dolson asked: Tom, Please clarify:
1) You say that the Review and Pacific Press published the 1888 materials that you discovered in the White Estate. Are these what are called the Manuscript Releases?
Tom said: No. Do not confuse a MR with the materials that were found in the White Estate.
While there is good information contained in what had already been released, what I found had never been released for publication. This was the point of my research in the White Estate. I was granted the rare privilege to see the censored material that had never been released.
But I was not allowed to release or publish what I found without specific permission from the White Estate. In fact, I had to sign documents that prevented me from publishing the material I was researching. Had I refused, I would not have been allowed inside either the Archives or the White Estate.
Here is a post on All Experts, which explains this:
By the turn of the 20th century, the aging Ellen White had amassed a large database of published and unpublished manuscripts. This collection also included many private letters and documents about the great 1888 debate that had destroyed the Battle Creek Empire and sent the General Conference headquarters and the Review in full retreat to Takoma Park, Maryland.
It was Ellen White's wish that after her death these materials, especially those about 1888, would be published for the benefit of the church. But after her death, the General Conference gained control of her documents and refused, over the protest of her son W. C. White, to honor her last will and testament in this regard. In fact, rather than publish this large database and explain to the church Ellen White's involvement and view of the 1888 debate, the General Conference President, A.G, Daniels, instituted a very rigid policy of censorship that was intended to suppress a large portion of Ellen White's writings and keep the controversial history of 1888 hidden from the church.
So from the very beginning of the White Estate the church leaders were suppressing a large portion of Ellen White's writings.
However, by the middle of the 20th century two SDA missionaries by the name of Weiland and Short accused the White Estate of not being forthright and honest about the contents of Ellen Whites large database that was housed in the Takoma Park. They accused the White Estate of suppressing Ellen White's writings about the 1888 debate and embarked on a lifelong campaign to set the record straight and make sure that no SDA ever forgot the importance of this critical period in church history that Ellen White has said was so important to understand.
In an attempt to deal with the growing criticism from these two missionaries, the White Estate slowly released more information about the infamous 1888 debate that had captured the fascination of both Weiland and Short. But these two critics were still not satisfied with the less than forthright release of Ellen White's materials, and thus they continued to accuse the White Estate of withholding documents.
They became so persistent in their criticism that by 1971 they goaded LeRoy Froom into writing his epic tome about 1888 called Movement of Destiny. This work was meant to silence their criticism and set the record straight about Ellen White and the 1888 history. But it only made things worse.
However, it was in this official work that Froom acknowledges that Daniels had indeed suppressed Ellen White's 1888 materials. And that as President, he had explained the cover up to the young Froom in the "spring of 1930" and charged him with the responsibility to fully explain the 1888 history when the time was appropriate, that is, after Daniels and many others has passed from the scene.
So there is a published admission about the official cover up of Ellen White's writings on the record for all to see in Movement of Destiny. And thus it is a fact that Daniels hid the record of the 1888 debate in the White Estate and other places, and suppressed thousands of Ellen White's documents in the process.
But the problem became more complex because Froom failed to end the cover-up as Daniels had instructed him. His explanation about 1888 fell flat, and so too did his source material, some of which he dishonestly claimed no longer existed. In fact, although Froom had full access to the White Estate vault, he failed to honestly deal with the large collection of Ellen White's unpublished materials, and virtually ignored thousands of documents that did not fit with his version of things. Thus he refused to tell the truth about this divisive Gospel debate, leaving the original cover-up in place, along side a second one of his own making that made matters even worse.
Not surprisingly, Froom's fraudulent account of 1888 did nothing to stop the growing criticism from Weiland and Short, which by now was gaining traction within the church. Thus Froom's official attempt to resolve the questions about Ellen White and 1888, along with the associated issues about "Righteousness by Faith," solved nothing, even as it generated more debate and confusion within the church.
Consequently, his book set the stage for the divisive Righteousness by Faith debates that consumed and polarized the Adventist Community for the next decade until the church leaders called a halt to the discussion at Glacier View in 1980. This Machiavellian trial is where the church forced all to either support the denominations version of 1888 as well as the Ellen White's theology as promoted by the White Estate, or leave the church. This was the beginning of a large schism that has seriously divided and crippled the SDA Community to this very day.
Although Weiland or Short never gained access into the secretive White Estate vaults, an independent researcher by the name of Tom Norris received permission to go where no critics had ever been allowed. Why? Because Arthur White had recently retired, replaced by Robert W. Olsen as the new CEO of the White Estate. And because Norris had made some stunning discoveries about 1888 in the newly formed General Conference Archives, right down the hall from the White Estate. Moreover, to the surprise of everyone, this authentic account in the Archives was in sharp contrast with what Froom and the White Estate had been promoting about Ellen White and her 1888 theology.
Consequently, Dr. Don Yost, and others, concluded that these new discoveries required further research and verification. Therefore, over the objections of the now retired Arthur White, an independent researcher, for the first time in church history, was given full access into the secretive vaults where Ellen White's material has been so zealous guarded and kept hidden from all but a handful of loyal church workers.
To make a long and exciting story short, Tom Norris discovered that Arthur White had been hiding thousands of documents about the 1888 debate that told a very different story from what Froom and the White Estate had been teaching. In fact, there was a completely different version of church history hiding in the vault that was in sharp contrast to the official 1888 story, and thus the discovery in the Archives was confirmed in the White Estate. Furthermore, some of the actual documents from the 1888 debate that Froom, the White Estate, and the Review had claimed no longer existed, were found residing in the files.
More than that, there were thousands of rare Ellen White documents from the 1888 period that were discovered hidden in the White Estate. Here was a large and stunning collection of 1888 materials that had been deliberately hidden from the church all these years. No wonder Arthur White tried to keep the White Estate off limits to any researchers or scholars. He, and Froom, and others, had been perpetrating a massive fraud on the Adventist Community.
Although this historic discovery took place in 1978-79, just before Glacier View, the leaders were in no mood to admit that such a major scandal was taking place. Besides, the conservatives were in control and such a discovery would destroy their agenda to eliminate the evangelicals and promote their legalistic version of Ellen White's theology that they had so badly misunderstood.
So a third cover-up of Ellen White's 1888 materials took place as the leaders concealed this astonishing discovery in the White Estate from the Adventist Community. The General Conference failed to publicize what had taken place so that they could go forward with their conservative program to use Ellen White's writings as the means of removing Dr. Ford and the evangelical minded SDA's. And that is what happened at Glacier View in 1980, shortly after the discovery of this hidden collection in the basement of the church headquarters. Neither the Adventist Community nor the scholars were informed about this new discovery of Ellen White's 1888 materials that would have shed great light on all the disputed points under discussion. The leaders kept this critical and important information hidden.
Following Glacier View, and the exile of the Gospel minded scholar Dr. Ford, the legalistic conservatives went on a rampage to purge the church of the SDA evangelicals that refused to submit to the official 1888 theology of the White Estate and the Review. The leaders also, for the first time in church history, developed a creed called the 27 Fundamentals, which they now required all to support or leave the church. Ten's of thousands of the best and brightest members left the denomination in anger and confusion because there was no room for questioning, or debate, much less for the Protestant Gospel. The conservatives had taken control of the denomination. And they did so in the name of Ellen White.
After the first wave of schism emptied the church of the most educated and evangelical minded things became more subdued and quiet. The debates about doctrine and church history were over and most everyone knew that Glacier View had been a great blunder. But there were more backlashes to come. In fact, by 1982, many of the conservatives, thanks to Walter Rea and his book "The White Lie," had been stunned to learn that the White Estate had not been honest about Ellen White's method of writing or her authority. And this damaging news sent a second wave of schism through the church as the conservatives now questioned everything that they had been taught by the White Estate. The SDA church was now in a full-blown crisis of identity as both the evangelicals and the conservatives were confused, disoriented, and disappointed with Adventist theology and history. Here was a major crisis that parallels the great Battle Creek debacle that had ruined the church in the last century.
The church leaders were understandably fearful that if something were not done, the church would once again collapse. Subsequently they adopted a plan to try and regain both the evangelicals and the conservatives and to quietly back away from Glacier View theology that had misused Ellen White as the basis for its authority and credibility. Although the leaders refused to admit that they had made any mistakes, this new policy called "pluralism" was an admission that Glacier View theology was not credible and that forcing the evangelicals out of the church was a serious mistake.
During the decade following Glacier View, the White Estate knew that they still had a serious problem. Although they had now backed away from using Ellen White as an authority to promote legalism, what were they to do about the hidden 1888 documents that were still unexplained in their vault? After all, a number of denominational employees, including an independent researcher, knew that these hidden materials were there. How much longer could this secret be kept? Something had to be done because every day that passed risked discovery. So they came up with a plan to dump these materials on the church in an obvious attempt to exonerate themselves from the fraud of Arthur White. And this is what they did.
Almost a decade after Glacier View, while the church was still dealing with the aftermath of Walter Rea, the White Estate saw the perfect opportunity to publish the hidden 1888 materials without calling attention to the long running cover up. Thus the 1888 Centennial became the perfect opportunity to clean their hands of this hidden scandal that was far larger than anything that Walter Rea, or anyone had envisioned.
So in 1987, the Review and the Pacific Press published the 1888 materials that Tom Norris had discovered in the White Estate. Here for the first time, thousands of hidden documents about 1888 were made public. But it was too late to save the church from years of misguided debate and painful schism. And besides, the White Estate was not confessing to anything, nor did they even intend to inform the Adventist Community about the meaning or the contents of this new collection of Ellen White documents that had suddenly and inexplicably been published so many years AFTER Glacier View.
The White Estate had no intention of setting the record straight and teaching the church about the true history of the 1888 debate. Thus they admitted that this new collection of 1888 materials was not meant to be a "compendium on the subject of righteousness by faith." While it did include "those sermons in which reference was made to the Minneapolis conference," it ignored many other Ellen White materials about "justification and sanctification by faith in the years following 1888."
The amount of hidden materials was so large that it required 5 large volumes. This more than 2,000 page collection was organized chronologically, as each document was identified "by date, reference, and title or addressee." There was even "a listing of persons addressed in this collection" along with their official "position held during the time of the communication and an index to document location." The dates covered, and the page numbers of the first four volumes are as follows:
Volume 1: Feb. 18, 1887 to Oct. 1889, p. 1 - 446
Volume 2: Oct. 1889 to Mar. 1891, p. 447 - 916
Volume 3: Mar. 1891 to May 30, 1895, p. 917 - 1368
Volume 4: June 6, 1895 to Nov. 23, 1910, p. 1369 - 1812
http://www.rhpa.org/index.php/products/ … 33000.rhpa
While the collection contained some published material, it was primarily comprised of the original manuscripts and letters that were "copied directly from the file drawers where they were housed, hence misspellings have not been corrected, nor have the documents been improved in any other way for publication." In fact, the White Estate admitted, "most of the materials in this collection have never been released or published in any form." In other words, this material was being hidden from the church for decades, and this is the first time that it had ever been made public. (The E G White 1888 Materials, Vol. 1, page 4, Oct., 1987.)
In addition to these four volumes that were published by the Review, there was another large volume published by Pacific Press. It was "issued as an adjunct to the four volume set of books." This fifth volume of almost 600 pages contained more suppressed materials about 1888. In fact, this publication contained numerous previously hidden letters written to Ellen White, as well as some "eyewitness accounts" from the delegates and church leaders concerning the 1888 General Conference. Thus the publisher declared that this volume included "selections from personal and official correspondence, eyewitness accounts written in later years," as well as "notes made during the conference by two delegates" about this great Seventh-day Adventist debate."
Of course this material should have been used by Froom and included in his work about 1888, and the fact that it surfaced so long after his claim to fully settle this issue is proof positive that his work was an obvious fabrication. But the White Estate made no reference to Froom, or to any of the debated points about 1888 or even to Glacier View that had so recently polarized the church and cost many denominational employees their careers and reputations. In fact, the White Estate did not really want the Adventist Community to understand this material or the fact that the church had been hiding 1888 all along, just as Weiland and Short had alleged.
Therefore, in the preface to the 5th volume, White Estate made it clear that "no attempt had been made to include all the material relating to such topics as righteousness by faith, the human nature of Christ, eschatology, or the ten kingdoms, or other theological issues which may have been discussed at the 1888 conference. Nor is this a comprehensive collection of everything our church leaders wrote at that time concerning the Minneapolis meeting." In fact, because the White Estate was well aware of Norris' research they admitted that there were a number of other significant documents that were not included in this volume because they were "housed in the General Conference Archives, not the White Estate."
The late publication of this large collection of 1888 materials from the White Estate proves that they were hiding and suppressing Ellen White's writings, and acting in bad faith all during the Righteousness by Faith debates of the 1970's and even during Glacier View, and beyond. Arthur White was indeed guilty of misleading and deceiving generations of SDA's, including the scholars and the critics about Ellen Whites Gospel theology and her role in 1888. And thus the SDA leaders have been caught perpetrating a massive fraud about Ellen White and the fundamentals of Adventist theology.
Here is the largest scandal that the denomination has ever faced, and yet few today are even aware that such a scandal exits because it has never been acknowledged, much less confessed or explained. And thus this massive fraud is still ongoing in nature even though the White Estate managed to publish the hidden documents some time ago.
In fact, the release of this large and incomprehensible record in 1987 made no impact within or without the church. Why? Because no one really comprehended what this new collection of Ellen White material contained or represented, much less how it fit into the contemporary debate about Righteousness by Faith and Glacier View. Thus, instead of correctly explaining the 1888 story, and confessing to the church for dishonestly manipulating Ellen White's writings and for misrepresenting her theology to the Adventist Community, the leaders only showed contrition for the poor quality of the materials that they had rushed into publication for the 1888 Centennial.
Listen to their apology that only covered the poor quality of the documents that were so difficult to read that they were virtually useless: "We regret that a number of pages are barely legible, but these are the best copies that could be made from the documents as they exist in our files. We feel it is better to make these materials available now, in their present condition, then to wait till some future date when grammatical editing and retyping can be done." (Ibid. page 4 & 5.)
But of course the White Estate had no excuse for these documents to have been hiding in their files for so long. These aging and original documents should have been fixed up for publication decades ago and given to the church in a legibly and historically accurate fashion. In fact, this is what the White Estate had been doing for decades; they were presenting Ellen White's manuscripts to the church in a very readable and professional manner with hard cover bindings and study guides, complete with explanations, footnotes, indexes, and table of contents. But of course they only did this for the documents that they wanted to promote, while the ones that they didn't like were left unused, unwanted, and hidden in the vault. So this idea that they did not have time to make these critically important 1888 documents readable for the church is ludicrous.
In fact, if these Ellen White documents had been presented to the church in the proper format like the White Estate had done with her other pre-1888 materials, Glacier View could not have taken place. It would have made no sense to anyone because the hidden record would have demonstrated that Ellen White could never have supported Glacier View theology as the leaders dishonestly claimed. Which, of course, is why this material was hidden in the first place.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … uments.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … Estate.htm
I hope this is clear.
Ryan Van Dolson asked: Tom, Please clarify:
2) Do you claim that the White Estate, GC Archives, or both are still hiding documents?
Tom said: First off, the GC Archives was never dishonest. They are the heroes in this story. They were so professional and helpful, that it was a pleasure to work there as a researcher for over a year. They did not hold back anything, even as they paved the way for me to enter the White Estate for a few months of additional research.
Second, the Archives viewed themselves very differently from the White Estate. They had no agenda. Thus the Archives did not publish anything, or promote anything. Nor was it their duty to do so. They were there to preserve church history for serious researchers.
Consequently, they saw no reason to publish any of my research, like the White Estate had done. Thus, the materials that I discovered in the archives were never published. But they are well aware of what Tom Norris discovered, and this same information is available to any serious researcher. And one day, that information will be discussed and included. But this collection in the Archives, is not to be confused with what was found in the White Estate. That was an additional collection of documents.
Third, the White Estate, to my knowledge, is not hiding any documents now. They can say this because they published the hidden collection that I found in 1979, in 1987. But the fact of the matter is that they released this so late, and so dishonestly, that the material was unreadable and ill prepared for publication. So to this day, no one really knows what that collection contains or what it means. Only if you follow this discussion will you discover the truth.
Fourth; although the White Estate is, (technically) no longer hiding documents, they still refuse to admit what Arthur White has done and confess. They are living in denial and pretending that they have not misrepresented Ellen White, when that is all they have been doing.
Thus, they deny any charges of wrongdoing and refuse to address the issues or answer any questions. They refuse to correct the record and admit that most everything they have been teaching about Ellen White is wrong. In fact, they have made a few attempts to discredit my story, but it did nothing to help their case.
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1231052766
So the White Estate today is still covering up Arthur White's crime. They are actively trying to cover-up of his massive fraud that Tom Norris has uncovered. They have no explanation or excuse for what they have done, and it is only a matter of time before they are going to be forced to tell the truth and correct the record.
Let me speak bluntly to the White Estate, because they are monitoring this discussion. If a full confession does not come from them shortly, legal action will commence.
More than that, the State will be brought in to shut down this arrogant criminal enterprise. A trustee will be appointed by the court to clean up this den of dishonesty. What an embarrassment that will be? Is this what they want? Do they really have to be forced to do the right thing? Do they really have to be humiliated in front of the world?
This is the future for the White Estate. They stand at a crossroad. They need to be very careful, because they are subject to criminal prosecution for what has taken place. The GC, including their legal department, has been informed of this fraud, in both private meetings and public discussions. Neil Wilson has long known of this situation, and so too Paulsen, and yet they have both failed to do anything to stop it.
So they are all subject to criminal prosecution for aiding and supporting, and hiding, this ongoing fraud. The civil and criminal damages could be in the millions of dollars.
This idea that the church is above the law is absurd. I suspect the tears will flow when the depositions start. Then everyone will try and pretend that they knew nothing about all this.
Too bad that Tom Norris will testify that he has informed the leaders about this crime, over and over. The record will show that they have long known of this crime, and yet they refused to do anything about it, except continue to support it. Thus making many guilty accomplices to Arthur White's great fraud.
I hope it will not come to legal action. But it might. Why? Because the White Estate is still hiding from the facts and purposely covering up their crime. They pretend to be innocent, but the facts show otherwise. Those that embrace criminal behavior rarely confess unless they are caught and forced. So be it. They have been caught, and now it is time to force the issue. If legal action takes place against them, it is because they refuse to tell the truth and repent. So it is going to be their own fault.
Last edited by tom_norris (03-28-10 9:12 pm)
Offline
quote from above:
To make a long and exciting story short...
...sigh.....
http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/11/683.gif
I do have one observation to add.
the 6 oclock to 6 oclock sabbath was still in optional use 25 yrs ago in Alaska....
when the sun set on friday afternoon at 2:30...
and your job required you to work til 5 pm.... you either lost your job, or took the optional 6 pm start/stop time of Sabbath unofficially endorsed by the local conferences, probably on the basis that unemployed members would be unable to pay much tithe.
Out in the salmon fishing grounds of Bristol Bay where I worked 7 summers, the SDA fishermen had interesting solutions to the late summer sunset issue.
The Ak Dept of Fish and Game, in attempting to protect the fishery, would open and close the fishing periods at random times during the season, often conflicting with traditional Sabbath observance.
There were two types of SDA fishermen...those from the lower 48, and local AKans...who were used to dealing with the problem.
When one was fishing on fridays, with sundown not coming until 11:30 at night, both the outsiders and the locals would fish right up to astronomical sundown, deliver their fish, and after sundown, assemble in flotillas of boats to have worship...and recount their blessings how many fish caught!!....and plan where to go next day to receive more blessings.
however, if the fishing season was still ongoing over Sabbath, the locals would convince the outsiders that the Conference accepted the 6 PM rule, and after resting over the sabbath morning and early afternoon, everybody would leave their base or flotilla , around 5PM on Sabbath eve, and motor out to the fishing grounds, and there hold a vesper,sunset service, and immediately at 6PM drop their nets in the water, hours before the astronomical actual sunset time.
So whichever sunset rule offered the most fishing time, was the one chosen by almost all of the believers
the biggest problem which had resulted in the
unofficial 6 PM sunset came out of the occasional late fall way up north Barrow, when sometimes the sun would go down at almost midnite on a friday, and not come up again for months!!!
so what do you do? keep the next two months as sabbath? or do you not have a sabbath for two months until the sun comes up again?
all this seems to suggest that even tho it is claimed that the ;Sabbath was made for man, that no provision was made for either extreme latitudes or the man made dateline, because it was ancient flat-earth believers who made the rules to honor their God...ignorant of the problems of life on a round globe.
Even a later Jesus or his biographers should have known that tho the devil took Him to a high mountain, that you could NOT see all the kingdoms of the world from there!!!
Couldn't/wouldn't an omniscient Deity have included exceptions and clarifications to the rules in the laws to accommodate later round earth problems?
http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/11/684.gif
just why this Deity out there somewhere beyond the hole in orion??? required His favorite tribe of nomads to worship Himself upon pain of death starting precisely at a time measured by the rotation of our minuscule earth lost in the vastness of space escapes me.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
John, it only illustrates so much better, how idiotic to transport ancient ideas of days and rest for former slaves and presume to "modernize" it to the known round world which we all know we now occupy.
However, there is nothing whatsoever in the Fourth Commandment other that resting, and how it or work is defined. SDAs define work as anything other than "necessary" which is again redefined to "taking care of my medical or other important needs."
Thankfully, some have realized that living in the modern world of work that is often 24/7, and not grazing sheep, that life goes on and the entire world does not come to a screeching halt at sundown, wherever it is in the world.
The Commandments were never given to anyone but the Israelites: not to the Gentiles--who were even prohibited from observing any of the Jewish laws unless they had first been circumcised (the reason the Gentiles never adopted Jewish customs). Yet today, modern SDAs say they "observe" the Sabbath but only by their own self-designed rules.
One cannot, nor ever observe the Jewish laws unless he first becomes a Jew. Who was more clear than the first Christians who so clearly said that? Yet today there are millions of SDAs who try to straddle both worlds: Gentile and Jew and never fully become either.
Questions you should ask:
Why is the fourt commandment itself not repeated even once in the New Testament?
Why is it that nowhere in the NT is Sabbath-breaking condemned as sin?
If Sabbath-keeping is so important for a follower of Jesus, why did Jesus not mention it in his Sermon on the Mount or in ANY of his teachings?
Why did not Jesus, the apostles, or Paul command Sabbath keeping?
Why is the Sabbath not mentioneed in Revelation if the Sabbath will have such significance in the end time?
Jesus did not command the Sabbath. He said He was the Lord over the Sabbath and that we are to come to him and find rest. Neither did Paul instruct the Gentiles and the new churches about the Sabbath nor condemn Sabbath-breaking, but he "esteemed all days alike."
Jesus is out Sabbath-rest 24 hours a day, all week long Heb.3,. Our focus should be on Jesus and not on a day. The Bible never says that "Sunday-keeping" is the mark of the beast or that the Sabbath is the seal of God.
Offline
Sorry for popping in here but the phrase -without the blood of Jesus- plays a big part in the end time scenario outlined by EW. When Christ leaves the Most Holy compartment to come to earth, there is no more intercession by Christ and those on earth have to stand before the judgment without an intercessor, sooooooo, they have to be perfect, without the blood of Christ.
Sirje, we are what we are. We, by coming to the Lord under the Holy Spirit, can become more in tune with the will of God and more compassionate towards our fellow man, but we will never reach a state of perfection where will be able to stand alone without the covering of His blood; His rightousness. That concept is absurd and has driven many to being highly judgemental of others and failing to realize their own selfishness and also driving many to despair trying to reach such an unbelievable standard. Only God is good.
The tree of life depicted in Revelation has leaves for the healing of the nations which is correction for those who recognize the goodness and love of God in his co-operative social structure and have the hearts that desire to obey; walk after the spirit as Paul showed in Romans 7.
The 12 manner of fruit that the tree gives every month is for our greater understanding and character development in our association with God, our fellow redeemed and all of the other heavenly beings.
Offline
David,
I guess you don't know me well enough to understand my position. I certainly agree that we will never be good enough or perfect enough not to need Christ.
My post was a reply to Don who was wondering where in SDA teachings there is perfection of character without the blood of Jesus and I simply gave him an example. I don't prescribe to that view myself.
Offline
<b><font color="ff0000">Standing Before God Without a Mediator</font></b> <BR> <BR>
I hope to examine this teaching in more detail, but for now, here is an observation and a link to a sermon where the pastor teaches this doctrine. <BR> <BR>
My Observation:
At the Second Advent we will stand before God without a mediator, won't we. How is the experience of the Last Generation so different?
Anyway, this a mere observation, not intended to be a defense of the teaching.
Here is: http://www.your-church.com/pastor-dennis-smith.php
Pastor Dennis Smith's presentation of the teaching. I have not studied it in detail but have noted that the script of his sermon presents the Bible passages and Ellen White's statements supporting the teaching.
http://www.your-church.com/sermon-witho … diator.php
Living Without Christ as Mediator
Offline
To bad we can't study the Bible on these topics instead of what she said. Eh???
Offline
Oops,Oh goodness!!!
Sirje, I certainly do know where you stand on the perfection issue. I should have typed
"Sirje, I agree, we are what we are.... "
I was agreeing and just taking the opportunity to expound with my "two cents".
Sorry
Offline
Well Don, if there's a way to make "standing before God without a mediator" sound like "always standing before God with Christ, our mediator" you're the guy to do it.
Offline
Sirje, throughout eternity we will be forever grateful to Christ for His mediation.
Consider
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=50
24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,
Both now and forever.
Amen.
Everything we become as believers, we do so because of Jesus and what He did for us and does in us. If there ever is a time when we do not sin, it will be the result of God's work for us and in us.
I hold to the teaching that my assurance of salvation is totally in Christ outside of my own experience and that, as I cooperate with God He works in me, giving me the desire and the power to do what pleases him.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=51
If I only need a mediator when I sin, then if I don't sin, I don't need the mediator any more.
However, if I need a mediator because my very nature is corrupt, then even if I don't commit sin, I still need the mediatorial work of Christ.
If living without a mediator simply means living without committing sins, then the Bible teaches that such a life can be lived, moment by moment. But the starting point is always the transformation from sinner to saint. We all need the constant mediation of Christ for sins done.
I really haven't tried to organize my understanding on this systematically before. This discussion provides a fresh incentive.
Offline
