| Author | Message | ||
     Carlos Gilbert Medley (Cgmedley) member Username: Cgmedley Post Number: 133 Registered: 3-2002 |
James Nix, director of the Ellen G. White Estate at the Seventh-day Adventist World Headquarters, delves into the very sensitive question of the relevance of Ellen White in a postmodern society. He explores reasons why some Adventists want to abandon her writings. You can read his moving article on the Adventist Review website. http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1530/story2.html | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) member Username: Roca88 Post Number: 1573 Registered: 2-2002 |
After reading this last night I was thinking how similar it would be to anybody else who thought they had a modern prophet. So here is an example from the official LDS site. Kind of similar in nature. Lord, I Believe; Help Thou Mine Unbelief President James E. Faust Second Counselor in the First Presidency James E. Faust, “Lord, I Believe; Help Thou Mine Unbelief,” Ensign, Nov. 2003, 19 This morning I would like to bear a humble testimony to those who have personal struggles and doubts concerning the divine mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many of us are at times like the father who asked the Savior to heal his child with the “dumb spirit.” The father of the child cried out, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” 1 To all those with lingering doubts and questions, there are ways to help your unbelief. In the process of accepting and rejecting information in the search for light, truth, and knowledge, almost everyone has—at one time or another—some private questions. That is part of the learning process. Sustaining faith can be the ultimate comfort in life. All of us must find our own testimonies. A testimony begins with the acceptance by faith of the divine mission of Jesus Christ, the head of this Church; and the prophet of the Restoration, Joseph Smith. The gospel as restored by Joseph Smith is either true or it is not. To receive all of the promised blessings we must accept the gospel in faith and in full. However, this certain faith does not usually come all at once. We learn spiritually line upon line and precept upon precept. Joseph Hamstead, a lecturer at London University, had talked about the Church and its youth and family programs to fellow lecturers at that great university. One of them said: “I like all of this, what is being done for families, etc. If you could take out that bit about an angel appearing to Joseph Smith, I could belong to your church.” Brother Hamstead replied, “Ah, but if you take away the angel appearing to the Prophet Joseph, then I couldn’t belong to the Church because that is its foundation.” 2 Like the professor at London University, many people see the sheer wonder of this Church and are persuaded that it has great merit and substance. They appreciate what the Church can do for its believers. However, they lack the spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith actually saw in vision the Father and the Son and that an angel delivered to Joseph Smith the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Coming to know God is the principal spiritual gift that can come to any man or woman. Joseph Smith received this knowledge of God firsthand. Many years later, still pondering the impact of that and other happenings in his life, Joseph himself said: “I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself.” 3 No one was with the boy Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove in Palmyra, New York, when God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared. Yet even those who do not believe it happened may find it difficult to explain away. Too much has happened since it occurred to deny that it ever took place. For those of you who, like the biblical father, say, “I believe; help thou mine unbelief,” you can have a confirmation by following the direction of the Book of Mormon, which challenges us to ask “God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ,” regarding the truth that can only come by faith in Christ and by revelation. However, there are two indispensable elements. One must “ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,” and then God “will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” 4 Strong evidence besides the Book of Mormon corroborates the claims of Joseph Smith. To begin with, the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses, who handled the plates and saw the engravings, testified that the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God. Members of Joseph Smith’s family, who knew him best, also accepted and believed his message. Among the believers were his parents, his brothers and his sisters, and his uncle John Smith. His older brother Hyrum proved his complete faith in Joseph’s work by giving his life along with Joseph. These reliable witnesses all confirm the Prophet’s testimony. .... Gospel topics: Holy Ghost, Book of Mormon, faith, Joseph Smith, temple work, testimony © 2004 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q=smith%20reasons%20believe$xhitlist_x=Simple$xhitlist_s=relevance-weight$xhitlist_d=$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef | ||
| Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 718 Registered: 2-2002 |
Many of the positive things Nix mentions that may have been lost in the Adventist church without Ellen White puzzles me. For MANY of those things are held by scores of denominations. For example. Nix gives the impression that the full Diety of Christ being accepted by Adventist is the work of Ellen White. How did the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians etc come up with it? Indeed, many of the views of early Adventists would be rejected by the Baptists of the 19th century. Uriah Smith, for example, was a full blown LEGALIST. Also not a few of the positive things Nix mentions about the teachings of Ellen White are found in large numbers in the writings of Billy Graham. Nix says one can't read Ellen White very long in any of her writings without reading about Jesus. Well the same with Billy Graham and John Wesley. And Nix mentions how much Ellen White loved Jesus. And I'm sure she did. But did she love Jesus more then Billy Graham or Mother Teresa? I suggest the answer is NO. With all due respect to EGW, it does seem that many Adventists have a view of Ellen White that is over the top. Nix admits that Adventist should never test the Bible with Ellen White...just as it says in Questions on Doctrine. Well that means that you can't get down your Ellen White books and let them decide what the Bible says. I say..either study the Bible for yourself or use the scholars. But make sure you use conservative scholars rather then people at say the Jesus Siminar, and use a variety of them so you can get a good balance and avoid a denominational leaning. | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) member Username: Roca88 Post Number: 1575 Registered: 2-2002 |
For example. Nix gives the impression that the full Diety of Christ being accepted by Adventist is the work of Ellen White. What is interesting is the fact that it is becoming more and more common for the leadership to acknowledge the Arian views of the SDA pioneers. Which I think is good, though it will also be supportive to the TSDA's who want the church to move back to those Arian views. Still the leadership and the TSDA do have that strong supportive view of EGW which may be a bit confusing.} | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 1112 Registered: 1-2002 |
Marsha, perhaps you can furnish evidence for your statent that the Christian canon preceded the Jewish canon. Since the Jewish canon is complete with the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) how can the Christian canon be formed before that? | ||
| Marsha A. Adams (Dragonlady) member Username: Dragonlady Post Number: 335 Registered: 2-2002 |
Elaine: It was something I read, I'll have to look the book up. The reason the Jewish canon did not exist before the Christian canon is that they never got around to forming it. The Hebrew Scriptures existed, but no one ever formally said that the Sacred Writings included these books. Some Jews thought some writings were sacred and other Jews thought some other writings were sacred. Remember the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and the Pharisees did. The reason for the difference in opinion was that the Sadducees only accepted the Penteteuch as being sacred and the basis for doctrine. The Pharisees accepted the Penteteuch and the writings of the prophets. Different Pharisees accepted different writings. What constituted the formally accepted Hebrew Scriptures did not become an important issue until after the fall of Jerusalem. It happened that the Church formed the official canon before the Jews did. Now both the Church and the Jews pretty much knew what they considered constitute the Sacred Writings, before they formalized the Canon. So I'm not saying one day the two groups got together and said, "Gee, we ought to decide what books should go in the Bible/Torah." Though both groups did have some borderline writings. For example, the Book of Esther was very nearly excluded from the Hebrew Scriptures as was Song of Solomon. Marsha | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 1115 Registered: 1-2002 |
Marsha, the Septuagint which the NT writers used was the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the third century B.C. It is called that because 70-72 Jewish scholars completed this translation (supposedly in 72 days) on the island of Pharos. It is also true that neither the Old or New Testaments were "canonized" before the fourth century. It seems to have been a gradual process. I have the Jerusalem translation which includes the Wisdom books including Judith, Tobit, etc. | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 1116 Registered: 1-2002 |
It appears the Mormons are experiencing difficulty with another book by a Mormon scientist who is using DNA to show that the "Lost Tribes" which are part of the Book of Mormon and their doctrine, is now being contradicted by DNA which fails to show what the church has claimed. Beware of scientists bearing proof! | ||
| Carol Manzano (Carol) member Username: Carol Post Number: 318 Registered: 2-2002 |
We who have been brought up on a diet of Ellen White amalgamated with scripture are like children who have been brought up on tea. They have watched their mothers go to the faucet, and draw up water. She put it in a pot, added some leaves, and after a bit she serves up a tasty drink. She can call it water, which basically is what it is, but it is not pure water. Likewise, when we add the "leaves" of Elle White to scripture, it is no longer the pure word of God. As an example; Mr Nix states, "He created Adam and Eve, clothing them with a covering of light." Now how many on this forum even questioned that statement? We all have known that was true since cradle roll in Sabbath School, haven't we? Well, God left that information out of the Bible. That fact is either true or it is false. What test shall we put it to to Judge? If we truely judge EGW by the Bible, she fails this time. Backing up a lttle to the actual taking of the forbidden fruit, we know that Adam actually disobeyed first, because he allowed Eve to go out into the garden alone, against God's admonition. Patriarchs and Prophets, chapter 3. But does scripture back up this account? It does not. In fact Gen 3:6 tells us that, "she gave it to her husband WITH HER." This is how it goes all throughout the Bible. Even after our mother no longer adds the "tea leaves" we add them mentally. In other words, by the time we are grown, we are steeped in Ellen White. In the academy I was taught what the tests of a true prophet are. I must admit that I have forgotten all but one. That one is "does she agree with scripture?" If the one judging the self proclaimed prophet comes to the testing with a background in pure scriptue, he is a worthy judge. But if one who has been permeated with that "prophet's" own teachings comes to the table, how can he be a worthy judge? As to the question, where would the church be without EGW. It wouldn't be. EGW created the SDA Church. That is why it can not back away from her. Rev. 22:18 states that, if anyone adds to these things, God will add unto him the plagues. Verse 19 states, that if anyone takes away from the words of this book, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life. That is serious business. | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) member Username: Roca88 Post Number: 1579 Registered: 2-2002 |
I noticed it Carol, but it is typical of SDA EGW thumpers so it does not seem to matter if anyone objects. At least the LDS site began their supportive article on Joe Smith with "help thou my unbelief" which is transferred from a belief in the power of God to a belief in the authority of their prophet. But manipulation of the Bible or manipulation of EGW's comments is still just manipulation. All in all it never works to tell someone that their prophet is not a prophet. That is why I thought the best reply is to show that the things that the SDA think are supportive of their prophet and thus their church are used by other groups to prove their prophet and their church are right. | ||
| Glen Davidson (Glen) member Username: Glen Post Number: 402 Registered: 1-2002 |
I liked Nix's exploration of "why some Adventists want to abandon her writings". Thanks to EGW's inspiration, he knows that they're simply doing the work of Satan. Well, what did anyone expect? But the reason I bring it up is that some comments (on other forums) being made regarding the article are that EGW should be used "positively". Since the reactions of Nix and EGW are nearly the opposite of doing anything constructive or positive with her ministry, being content merely to bad mouth anyone who would question the mortal EGW, I think that we have little to go on to make her "positive" in any way. At least the Mormon piece Corson brought up was less scurrilous than Nix or Nix's usage of EGW. I think it's safe to say that Nix's attitude comes close to Goldstein's, never answer the questions raised, but rather suggest something tawdry or immoral about one's opponents. This was not a piece to deal with any legitimate questions one might have, it was put out simply to delegitimize any opposition in the eyes of the unquestioning. The movement away from appropriate intellectual enquiry continues, at least at the Review. (Message edited by glen on July 25, 2004) | ||
| Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey) member Username: Boblackey Post Number: 720 Registered: 2-2002 |
I think Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick's web site Great Controversy is a good place to see how the writings of EGW have been elevated to the same level of Scripture. Often on Kirkpatrick's site, he used will write " lets turn to the pen of inspriration" or " the words of inspriration" AND FOLLOWING A STATEMENT LIKE THAT WE GET QUOTES SOMETIMES FROM SCRIPTURE AND SOMETIMES EGW OR BOTH. Some places Kirkpatrick will have MANY quotes from EGW to prove a point of doctrine. In some articles Kirkpatrick will be critical of other Adventist writers and point out how a certian position taken by another Adventist write is out of step with EGW. And finally, Kirkpatrick actually comes right out in one article and clearly states that the Bible contains the Word of God but NOT ALL THE WORD OF GOD. The writings of EGW also contain the Word of God. Kirkpatrick also really trashes the book Questions on Doctrine and thinks the Adventist church should NEVER water down truth just to get the approval of people in other denominations. Questions on Doctrine is wrong, according to Kirkpatrick, on the atonement, the human nature of Christ, the writings of EGW and other things. No doubt if Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick had been leading the meetings with Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin back in the 50's, Barnhouse and Martin would have walked out. And Kirkpatrick makes it clear that would have been fine with him. | ||
| J. R. Layman (Daneanderthal) Moderator Username: Daneanderthal Post Number: 1095 Registered: 1-2002 |
Awe come on, Pastor Larry is a fine example and proponent of Traditional Adventism! (TSDA). Indeed, he's actually not a bad guy personally. An if I want a TSDA viewpoint on any subject. He's about the best there is in expressing it, without sounding like a complete nut. FWIW, I believe that Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is a honest and faithful witness to Traditional Adventism. And while he may be wrong in his beliefs (in some of our opinions) I think that he deserves the respect for expressing his views, without pulling any punches......in the interest of political correctness (in a religious sense) re:"No doubt if Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick had been leading the meetings with Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin back in the 50's, Barnhouse and Martin would have walked out. And Kirkpatrick makes it clear that would have been fine with him." No doubt.......but so WHAT! Barnhouse and Martin were not Adventist Leaders...and the denomination had no legal nor moral obligation to satisfy Barnhouse's or Martin's concerns about Adventist Theology! FWIW.....do you consult the Pope of Rome on your religious beliefs, and receive his approval for what you believe? Don't get mad, get even! |
