An Ellen White Reality Check..., something long overdue... Options

[awesumtenor]

In another thread, Watchbird mentioned the articles and papers written by Dr. Arthur Patrick, a noted Adventist church historian/theologian and one time Director of the Ellen G White/Seventh-day Adventist Research Center that serves the South Pacific Division, on EGW, her writings and the necessary perspective we need to have today in order to properly understand and apply the counsel handed down to us through the Testimonies.

Dr. Patrick had a series of 4 interviews with the editor of the Record which were published in the South Pacific Division Record and which are available to be read at http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/patrick/egw-surfing.htm
and the editor of the Record wrote an editorial in the issue containing the first of the articles that carried the title of this thread.

I would encourage anyone interested to read them; I feel this is a dialog we need to have and while I recognize that some are unwilling and others are unable to deal with such a topic at this point in their walk with Christ, that cannot prevent the remainder of us from looking at this in an objective fashion, parking the preconceived notions of what we may have been taught in order to see EGW and her ministry as she saw it rather than how others chose to paint it after her death...

So... once more into the breach, dear friends...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Clay]

one mo agin......

[Clay]

when did we abandon this position?

Most Seventh-day Adventists are well aware that White affirms Scripture as the church's only rule of faith and practice, the foundation of faith and the test of Christian experience.12 As she reflected on her role during the church's formative years, she indicated that often it was to confirm steps already taken on the basis of prayerful yet diligent Bible study. She also describes her ministry as a "lesser light" leading to the "greater light" of Scripture.13 It is instructive to observe the way in which she refused to settle theological debates even when her legitimacy was, thereby, brought into serious question. Her lifelong attitude is well illustrated by the occasion in 1901when she quite bluntly counselled assembled leaders to lay her writings aside until they understood the Scriptures.14

http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/patrick/egw-scripture.htm

[Clay]

this is a BOMBSHELL!!!!!!!

White states that "scenes," "views" and "representations" were disclosed to her mind in prophetic visions and dreams. Her son, William White, who more than any other person associated with her during her long literary career, described these experiences as "flashlight" or "panoramic" scenes. If her 1858 Great Controversy vision was like a two-hour video of the war between righteousness and sin, subsequently reinforced by flashbacks and similar experiences, there was every reason for her to explore and select from the multiple sources she used in writing on the Old Testament, New Testament, Christian and Adventist history. There was rationality in her reliance on literary assistants, advisers and editors in the initial process of preparing her writings for publication and in the subsequent revision of such works as the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy. When Bible and history teachers met with administrators during 1919, the recorded discussion makes it clear that such processes were remembered within the group quite adequately. However, obscurantist impulses were so apparent at the time that the records of the 1919 discussions were packaged, stored and lost to the memory even of the church's thought-leaders. So, during the next six decades, the entire Adventist community largely forgot the vibrant lessons offered by this aspect of its past. It moved White's writings away from their historic role toward making them the definitive and authoritative encyclopaedia of Adventist thought and practice as her authority in the church increased markedly after her death.

how significant is this???? VERY!!!!!


http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/patrick/egw-scripture.htm

[watchbird]

when did we abandon this position?
http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/patrick/egw-scripture.htm

"We" didn't. But there have been those in the church ... even some in leadership positions ..... from the very beginning, who elevated the "gifts" above scriptures. James White met this in some rather pointed articles very early on, taking the position that scripture was always above the gifts mentioned in scripture. The two lines of thought have continued within our church all through the years..... and the elevation of Ellen White was especially strong in the years immediately after her death, and remained so until the 70's when one thing and another forced the "brethren" to take a closer look at their own position statements.

Patrick was one of the leaders in taking a new look at Ellen White, though the GC Archivist, Bert Haloviak did some very fundamental work from his position as the primary reader through the unread material in the GC vault. It was Bert, in fact, who introduced the readers of today to the 1919 Bible Conference papers, via publication in Spectrum Magazine. His articles on that topic are also on the At Issue website, as well as on the GC Archives articles page.

this is a BOMBSHELL!!!!!!!
how significant is this???? VERY!!!!!
http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/patrick/egw-scripture.htm

Are you saying that Patrick's statment was a bombshell, or that the things said about the 1919 Bible Conference were a bombshell?

And does you statement merely for effect, or does it indicate that this is your first exposure to these concepts?

If the latter, you'd better don your best suit of armor as you continue on through the articles on the At Issue website .... for there are similar things scattered all over the place.

Enjoy

This post has been edited by watchbird: Sep 25 2006, 03:46 PM

[västergötland]

I think transcripts of the meetings refered to in Clays last quote are aviable online, maybe the WallaWallaU archives or something like that. Someone else may know more.

---------------------------

This link appears to be relevant LINK


This post has been edited by västergötland: Sep 25 2006, 02:02 PM

[watchbird]

I think transcripts of the meetings refered to in Clays last quote are aviable online, maybe the WallaWallaU archives or something like that. Someone else may know more.

---------------------------

This link appears to be relevant LINK

They are also here: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/1919bc/index.htm , along with an article by Bert Haloviak, "In the Shadow of the 'Daily': Background and Aftermath of the 1919 SDA Bible and History Teachers' Conference", and Chapter 38: "1919 Bible Conference/History Teachers Council", from the book, Messenger of the Lord. The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White , by Herbert E. Douglass.

This post has been edited by watchbird: Sep 25 2006, 04:03 PM

[PrincessDrRe]

Folks ain't gonna read this in detail. I will be ignored.

Why?

Because it refutes many of the beliefs that many hold within the SDA Church!

OOOoooo!

[simplysaved]

I have said this for about a year and a half...the church does not put EGW over the Bible...a few extremist do.... So Watchbird!!!!

That has nothing to do with her messages not being inspired...

"We" didn't. But there have been those in the church ... even some in leadership positions ..... from the very beginning, who elevated the "gifts" above scriptures. James White met this in some rather pointed articles very early on, taking the position that scripture was always above the gifts mentioned in scripture. The two lines of thought have continued within our church all through the years..... and the elevation of Ellen White was especially strong in the years immediately after her death, and remained so until the 70's when one thing and another forced the "brethren" to take a closer look at their own position statements.

Patrick was one of the leaders in taking a new look at Ellen White, though the GC Archivist, Bert Haloviak did some very fundamental work from his position as the primary reader through the unread material in the GC vault. It was Bert, in fact, who introduced the readers of today to the 1919 Bible Conference papers, via publication in Spectrum Magazine. His articles on that topic are also on the At Issue website, as well as on the GC Archives articles page.
Are you saying that Patrick's statment was a bombshell, or that the things said about the 1919 Bible Conference were a bombshell?

And does you statement merely for effect, or does it indicate that this is your first exposure to these concepts?

If the latter, you'd better don your best suit of armor as you continue on through the articles on the At Issue website .... for there are similar things scattered all over the place.

Enjoy

This post has been edited by simplysaved: Sep 25 2006, 05:35 PM

[princessdi]

No, not a few extremists. it is as basic as SDAs believing that a no meant diet is the only preferred, and carried some favor with God. Why do I say that? Because, the case cannot be made this his reasoning from the Bible, but is always made from EGW writings about the future state of meat, and the compiled writings of her advice for which we are not given the questions or particular situations, etc. We have made doctrine from it to the point hat it is an issue about eating/serving it on church/institution grounds. In that instance you[general] EGW's writings above the Bible, because they are not pointing to any "greater light" in the Bible. You[once again, general] have made doctrine from something she said, but has no biblical basis.

Another example is that recently there was thread started about the Bible not contradicting itself. The OP contained one Bible text and at least 4 EGW quotes. Ok about the Bible not contradicting itself? It read more like EGW not contradicting herself, or the Bible.

So, it is not a clear and concise proclamation as it is our actions. We give lip service to the fact that we don't place her writings equal or above the Bible, however, whenever we cannot make our doctrinal case from the Bible and the Bible only, in using her writings to complete that case, you have given them at least equal status. Let me just say that I do believe that she was inspired to write, but like the Bible writers not dictated what to write. So, her writings are also subject to her understanding of whatever revelations she was given. Had there been two people writing at that time we would probably have the same basic message, but from two different perspectives. The four Gospels were written by men who saw the same things happen at the same time and yet the perspective is different. The basic message is[The Good News], however, still there.

Also if it were only a few extremist, SDAs would not be widely known as a cult that follows EGW more than the Bible. That is a reputaion that has stuck for as long as I can remember. If it was only a few extremist, it would have died with them. Instead it is so prevalent the label did and still stands today. It is, I believe, one of the reasons churches are "encouraged" to have Rev. Sems. in other places than our churches, the literature for them does not identify them to be SDA in origin, etc. to spare us the first impressions. I do realize that many are held at churches and full disclosure is made, but as those who claim to have "The Truth" the practice should not be acceptable as business as usual. So this mean we are fully aware of this less than stellar reputation.

It is not a few extremist, it was and is the impression we give to the world. The only way to stop it is for us to truly understand, as a denomination, and just not in lip service the true place of her writings, as she asked. We are not of one accord on this, because we have failed to make it crystal clear from the beginning. As she said herself, her writings are for "after" you understand the Bible on it's own. It actually had meaning before she started to write several centuries later. We see the danger in trying to get that initial understanding through her writings.

[simplysaved]

Any denomination that is not mainstream is considered an cult...for SDA's it begins with keeping the Sabbath and then the Sanctuary, State of the Dead, etc....our beliefs are different w/o EGW....

Fortunately, that belief (of SDA being a cult) is the exception and not the rule in 2006.

No, not a few extremists. it is as basic as SDAs believing that a no meant diet is the only preferred, and carried some favor with God. Why do I say that? Because, the case cannot be made this his reasoning from the Bible, but is always made from EGW writings about the future state of meat, and the compiled writings of her advice for which we are not given the questions or particular situations, etc. We have made doctrine from it to the point hat it is an issue about eating/serving it on church/institution grounds. In that instance you[general] EGW's writings above the Bible, because they are not pointing to any "greater light" in the Bible. You[once again, general] have made doctrine from something she said, but has no biblical basis.

Another example is that recently there was thread started about the Bible not contradicting itself. The OP contained one Bible text and at least 4 EGW quotes. Ok about the Bible not contradicting itself? It read more like EGW not contradicting herself, or the Bible.

So, it is not a clear and concise proclamation as it is our actions. We give lip service to the fact that we don't place her writings equal or above the Bible, however, whenever we cannot make our doctrinal case from the Bible and the Bible only, in using her writings to complete that case, you have given them at least equal status. Let me just say that I do believe that she was inspired to write, but like the Bible writers not dictated what to write. So, her writings are also subject to her understanding of whatever revelations she was given. Had there been two people writing at that time we would probably have the same basic message, but from two different perspectives. The four Gospels were written by men who saw the same things happen at the same time and yet the perspective is different. The basic message is[The Good News], however, still there.

Also if it were only a few extremist, SDAs would not be widely known as a cult that follows EGW more than the Bible. That is a reputaion that has stuck for as long as I can remember. If it was only a few extremist, it would have died with them. Instead it is so prevalent the label did and still stands today. It is, I believe, one of the reasons churches are "encouraged" to have Rev. Sems. in other places than our churches, the literature for them does not identify them to be SDA in origin, etc. to spare us the first impressions. I do realize that many are held at churches and full disclosure is made, but as those who claim to have "The Truth" the practice should not be acceptable as business as usual. So this mean we are fully aware of this less than stellar reputation.

It is not a few extremist, it was and is the impression we give to the world. The only way to stop it is for us to truly understand, as a denomination, and just not in lip service the true place of her writings, as she asked. We are not of one accord on this, because we have failed to make it crystal clear from the beginning. As she said herself, her writings are for "after" you understand the Bible on it's own. It actually had meaning before she started to write several centuries later. We see the danger in trying to get that initial understanding through her writings.

[Green Cochoa]

when did we abandon this position?
http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/patrick/egw-scripture.htm

I'll abandon that position right now. It has a false statement in it. Can you find/prove to me that Ellen White said her writings were the lesser light leading to the greater light of scripture? That is heresy.

[princessdi]

No Sarah, in 2006, you can still walk into a bookstore and find us listed under cults..........everywhere. itis more the rule than the exception. Our name would be on the Rev. Sem. literature, in 2006. It is rule enough, in 2006, for GC to continue to do damage control. those actions speak louder than your words any day.

No, any denom that is not mainstream is not called a cult. True we have no problem making these doctrinal cases from the Bible only, but it does not go for all of our belief, such as our approach to the health message. We took our cue from EGW writings, tried to make it biblical, and then tried to( and still do) one's salvation. We lost our credibility in this area because there was no biblical support for it being of salvific value. That is the epitome of putting EGW's writings above the Bible.

Any denomination that is not mainstream is considered an cult...for SDA's it begins with keeping the Sabbath and then the Sanctuary, State of the Dead, etc....our beliefs are different w/o EGW....

Fortunately, that belief (of SDA being a cult) is the exception and not the rule in 2006.

[Green Cochoa]

... Let me just say that I do believe that she was inspired to write, but like the Bible writers not dictated what to write. So, her writings are also subject to her understanding of whatever revelations she was given. Had there been two people writing at that time we would probably have the same basic message, but from two different perspectives. The four Gospels were written by men who saw the same things happen at the same time and yet the perspective is different. The basic message is[The Good News], however, still there.
...

You said it! She was inspired. Well, then? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

[princessdi]

EGW's writings are not scripture. In fact, a whole lot of folks were writing when the Bible writers as we know them now were writing, I am sure at least some of them were inpired to write, they just didn't make the cut by the catholic priests to compile the Bible as we know it. However, no one, except for Moses, with the Ten Commandment were told "what" to write. God actually dictated to him what to write. The rest just recorded history as they saw it, including Moses before and after the writing of the !0C. They were just told "to" write. It does not change the fact that their writings were subject to their education, comprehension skills, belief systems and culture at the time of their writings.

Am I missing your point here?

You said it! She was inspired. Well, then? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."