Hi everyone,

I just ran across some very troubling letters that Ellen White wrote to her children, and they created a feeling of Dejavu with regard to some of my own upbringing in Adventism. These letters were posted on FAF at this link:

http://64.227.85.187/discus/messages/11/5239.html?1172262518

For those of you who are SDA and who believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White, I would ask you if you believe Ellen White really understood salvation by grace at all?

There is a point where we really have to face some very troubling things about Ellen White. After reading Woodrow Whidden’s interview on another thread, and reading other recent Ellen White apologists, I have to ask how they would explain these letters written to her own children that are filled with so much fear of losing one’s own salvation? Where is the gospel?

Here is one excerpt:

“God loves honest-hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest. Be obedient, dear children. God has been very merciful to you and to us. Your parents have to travel from place to place among the people of God to try to do them good and save souls. And the Lord has inclined sisters Jenny and Martha to come into our family, to feel an interest for you, to love you, and to care for you, that we may leave home feeling free. They are not related to you. They make a sacrifice. What for? Because they love you. When you grieve them you grieve your parents also. It is not a desirable task to have the care of children if they are ungrateful and disobedient. If you perseveringly try to do right, you will make them happy, and they will feel it a pleasure to deny themselves to have a care for you. When asked to do anything, do not say, “Wait a minute, till I do this.” It is unpleasant to repeat to you the same things. Now, dear children, obey because you love to, not because you are driven to. I shall have confidence that you will do as I wish you to. I shall confide in your honor, your manliness. {AY 42.2}
Many times I ask myself the question, Will my dear children be saved in the kingdom? I cannot bear the thought of their being shut out of the City with the wicked. I love my children, but God says that only the good and holy can be saved. And if you will overcome your wrongs, love one another, and be at peace among yourselves, the Lord will bless and save you. You cannot be good, or do right, in your own strength. You must go to God and ask him for strength. Ask him that his grace may influence your hearts, and make you right. Believe the Lord will do it; trust him to do it. You can be little Christians; you can love and serve God. {AY 43.1}
Be good to Willie. Love him. Teach him right things. If you do wrong, you not only sin yourselves, but you teach him to sin. When you do wrong, you teach him to do wrong; so double sin rests upon you.”
------------------------------------------------------------

This statement:

“but God says that only the good and holy can be saved. And if you will overcome your wrongs, love one another, and be at peace among yourselves, the Lord will bless and save you.”
------------------------------------------------------------

I realize that letter was written in 1858, so I really hope she came to understand the gospel later, but the above statements are contrary to the gospel. How can one have any joy and assurance by hearing this gospel? I remember as an SDA growing up that I lived in this mindset all the time. Fortunately my parents have repented from this kind of parenting, but it had a profound effect of fear and guilt while growing up. I can’t blame my parents entirely, but they were just following the example of a prophetess of God.

But, I still don’t understand today when I see progressive SDA blogs defending Ellen White by passing over all her writings they don’t like, but picking and choosing what they do like, and then saying that Ellen progrssively came into further truth.

Imagine the confusion I had growing up when I would go to an SDA campmeeting and hear the gospel of grace preached very clearly by good SDA pastors (some who have since left Adventism), and then I would read Romans and John’s gospel and see that they agreed. But I would come home from the campmeetings and then be subjected to the “gospel” that Ellen White stated in those letters.

What do you think?

Stan

Stan,

I think it’s a miracle that you found the gospel, or rather, the gospel found you.

Those are truly horrible quotes.

Greg

[quote author="Stan"]I have to ask how they would explain these letters written to her own children that are filled with so much fear of losing one’s own salvation? Where is the gospel?

I don’t know, but I wonder how the children of Israel felt and how the children of Christian and Jewish parents feel upon learning that God killed the first born males of Egypt or how the children of Korah, Dathan and Abiram felt when the earth swallowed them and their families up because of their fathers’ rebellion (Numbers 16) or how the children of Achan felt when they along with their father were stoned on account of Achan’s sin (Judges 7) or how the children of Israel felt when they and they families were destroyed by a plague because King David numbered the people (II Samuel 24; I Chronicles 21).

These stories sound as disturbing to me as anything EGW wrote to her children. I’m not saying I condone the latter. But if you wonder how progressive SDA’s relate to EGW, it is in the same way we’ve learned to relate to scripture itself--again, not that EGW should in any reading be considered scripture.

[quote author="Stan"]For those of you who are SDA and who believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White, I would ask you if you believe Ellen White really understood salvation by grace at all?

I’m not sure I’d count myself as one who believes in the prophetic ministry of EGW in the sense that she should be regarded as the, or even a, authority on scripture--although I can value the sincerity with which she tried to lead, and tried to coax others to lead, a sanctified Christian life. In fact, I’m not sure her ministry was all that different from that of William Wilberforce--who is the subject of another thread--in the sense that both called their listeners to a non-superficial, authentic Christian experience (EGW of course did nothing about slavery, but then again, neither did she hold any elected office). True, EGW harped too much on Sabbath observance and health reform; but she was impressed, as were other SDA pioneers, that a reform in these areas would help resusitate a primitive, less-worldly, and beyond-reproach Christian experience and witness.

Did she understand the gospel of grace? At times she seemed to get it. Unfortunately, much of her writings too often stress a Jonathan Edwards, “sinners in the hands of an angry God” mentality. There is some evidence that her views evolved over the years.  Alden Thompson makes this case in his book, Escape from the Flames, and in a series of articles in the Adventist Review (http://people.wwc.edu/staff/thomal/writings/reviews/sinaiwip.htm).  See Parts 1-5. And while her comments to her children were not necessarily admirable here, it’s compelling I think that she once believed in eternal hell fire and feared God, even as a child, because of it, only to later revise her views on this subject to a position that for her and many in the SDA church permit a more, loving relationship with God to take place. You may not agree with her views on that subject, and she might in fact, not be right, on the basis of the Bible evidence alone. The evidence I admit is ambigious. But her conclusion is certainly one of a more loving God.

At the same time, it’s too bad EGW made so little use of Martin Luther’s writings. Perhaps she didn’t have access to them (outside of what appear to have been the two histories of Protestantism she relied on for writing the Great Controversy). I recently finished reading The Freedom of the Christian, Martin Luther’s “letter” to Pope Leo X in 1520 and think it the clearest treatment of Justification by Faith I’ve read (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/cclib-2.html).

Nevertheless, I’m willing to cut EGW some slack and extend her the grace her fears often prevented her from recognizing or extending to others. But I do wish her ardent defenders, conservative, progressive and otherwise, would take a more humble, less defensive approach to her writings and ministry.

Some Adventist writers, like Alden Thompson and Graham Bradford have taken steps in that direction. Meanwhile, new SDA pioneers in the pulpit are indirectly trying to help the church return to a more balanced approach to EGW’s life work and are emphasizing EGW much less if at all (a source of concern, of course, to our more “historic” bretheran).

In the meantime, might I suggest for the FA community at large that the best means of bringing about a more grace-focused, non-cultic SDA church that can work with you in Christian ministry would be to affirm those of us who are working for change, even if in the process what we are doing appears to just be “picking and choosing” from EGW. Change, particularly drastic change, is difficult. Given the unpleasant exposure you had to EGW--a hallmark of many FA’s--I hope you can recognize that for SDA’s still in the church, choosing the better from EGW and leaving the rest is at least progress.

Thanks Glenn for your thoughtful post.

I think you know by now that Greg and I take a more moderate approach to Ellen White than a certain group of former SDAs who can do nothing but damn her as evidenced by this recent quote from a former SDA web site:

“The Desire of Ages is filled with heresy and blasphemy throughout. It preaches another Jesus, a different spirit, and a different gospel (see 2 Corinthians 11:2-4).”
----------------------------------------------------------

This kind of rhetoric saddens me because I know of many people who have come to know Christ by reading “Desire of Ages”. In fact I have a medical colleague in the medical group I work for who knew nothing about Christianity when she came to Loma Linda as a medical student. Someone handed her the book DA, and through reading it God brought her to faith unto Himself, but He also led this woman to a more mature faith in Him. This physician is now the president of the Southern Calif section of the Christian Medical Association, and she now attends an evangelical church on Sunday. But even though she didn’t ever become an SDA, she to this day recognizes the value of her experience at Loma Linda, and she was really surprised when I told her that I posted on a web site that called Ellen a false prophet and all kinds of other names that I will refrain from repeating now. But she couldn’t believe there was as much vitriol and anger against Ellen White. It is true she did not know about the legalistic books such as “Messages to Young People” that are really lacking in grace.

It looks like Glenn, you have already found a way to deal with her, and it seems like she has no real authority over your life. But if someone claims that all her writings are directly from God, then it is really hard for me to explain the entire phenomenom of Ellen White.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the way Graeme Bradford deals with the White issue. I am much more comfortable of the way Fred Hoyt of La Sierra University dealt with her writings, by outright being honest and saying that the church should apologize for the issue of plagiarism and stop justifying it. Because by continuing to sweep it under the rug, or try to explain it away like Bradford, will just make the problem fester and not go away. The quotes from the Fred Hoyt Spectrum forum presentation in San Diego are posted on another thread.

Glenn, I am glad you liked that Martin Luther article. Maybe you would like to post that on the progressive SDA blog for Ron Osborn to consider. Osborn just tore Luther to shreds on that one Whidden thread. If we get back to the very basics of the gospel that Luther taught on Justification by faith alone, as this IS the heart of the true gospel, then all denominations who clearly teach this doctrine can all have a common bond of fellowship.

Stan

Thanks, Stan,

I have posted a link to the Luther article on Christian Freedom at the other site. 

[quote author="Stan"]It looks like Glenn, you have already found a way to deal with her, and it seems like she has no real authority over your life. But if someone claims that all her writings are directly from God, then it is really hard for me to explain the entire phenomenom of Ellen White.

This is one area I must say I think my parents handled exactly right. They weren’t always exemplars in many areas, including the religious one, but here they managed to convey the right balance for me growing up. So I believe I owe my “relation” to EGW’s writings and role largely to them. I’d also have to add that many of my spiritual mentors through the years have also held very balanced views of EGW, providing another factor that’s help me to use her writings in helpful ways.

There are a couple of keys to this from my experience.

One is not to “force” her writings on anyone. My parents, particularly my late mother, read a lot from EGW for her own devotions and EGW books were plentiful in my house. And I ended up reading through many of them, early and often growing up. But it there were no guilt trips for not reading them and neither was I expected to implement each and every word of them. They were optional but helpful aids to Bible study.

And, second, my parents were always very clear both in word and in deed that EGW was not a complimentary authority to the Bible but completely subservient to it.

Third, my parents example was to emphasize the Conflict of the Ages series, with little to no focus on her other writings (although, again, there were other EGW books in the house). So this was my experience with EGW growing up. In that capacity, before I necessarily recognized the theological tilt to these books, reading them made the Bible come alive for me (as did another tool my parents made plentiful for me, the Bible in Living Sound records--I’ve now purchased these in CD form).

So, all in all, I didn’t have the same negative experience with EGW as many others have, unfortunately.

Glenn, I’d say you are fortunate to have had a “balanced” view of Ellen White from a very early age.  I think what we’ve seen from many people’s experiences is that her writings are used as a filter to interpret the Bible and as a commentary on social and dietary practices.  Her works are quite polarizing, as she herself says–either they are from God or from Satan.  In her prophecies, she assumes the role of God’s spokesperson, which again is troublesome when you start to see her internal contradictions.

Some of her books, such as the Conflict of the Ages series or Steps to Christ, have a devotional quality to them that as Stan said, have indeed led people to Christ.  Reading the Testimonies, Early Writings, and many of her personal letters gives a different and more disturbing picture.  As the folks over at the progressive SDA site have said, the same could hold true for Martin Luther and others, but the key difference is in what those writers claimed for themselves and how their writings are effectively used by those who hold them in high regard.  Ellen White fostered an “all or nothing” approach to her own work that paralyzed the men at the 1919 Bible Conference, for instance, and her work still has that effect on many today.

My own experience was very different than either yours or Stan’s.  Ellen White’s books occupied the shelves but were rarely, if ever opened, except for perhaps the Desire of Ages.  I also remember listening to the Bible in Living Sound as well as Your Story Hour.

Those in my grandparents’ generation read Ellen White much more faithfully.  I recently came into possession of my great uncle’s EGW book collection which contains all of the notes he wrote to himself in the margins and inside the front cover.  Needless to say, this makes for interesting reading.  Over the course of his life, he became convinced she was speaking on both sides of many issues, which was one of the factors that ultimately drove him from the church in an era when this was exceedingly rare.

Greg

from Greg
Ellen White fostered an “all or nothing” approach to her own work that paralyzed the men at the 1919 Bible Conference, for instance, and her work still has that effect on many today.

I’m going to have to disagree here. A.G. Daniells who knew EGW personally for 30 years completely felt at ease and not heretical or disparaging of EGW in the way he felt her writings should be used.  He made no bones about the fact that her writings should be put in the proper place and used in the proper context and continually quoted Ellen White’s own opinion to bolster his own.

Daniell’s problem was being forced or strongly encouraged) to meet the proper status quo on those who held to verbal inspiration. The man lost his job over the whole issue and if it were left up to him and others like Prescott, the whole matter most likely would not have been buried as it was.

So my question is this:

If Daniells, Prescott and others had the same writings as us, the same ‘speaking out of both sides of the mouth’, and the same issues as us, yet still knew EGW personally and still felt EGW would have supported their liberal opinion on her writings and roles…

then is it possible that it is us in this modern church that we have misunderstood the whole issues and are making much more out of it then it needs to be? Is it possible that we have put EGW (or taken her out) in a place that we were never intended to be..that if we had the right perspective then these discrepencies and errors could be easily explained and accepted without ‘Whitewashing’ justifying or rationalizing them?

Some might say, ‘Gui, it don’t matter what Prescott, Daniells or Bradford says, EGW says this about her writings....’yada yada yada’ etc, etc.

This proves my point. These gentlemen knew her. Perhaps they understood EGWs rationalization for saying what she did. Perhaps they have a clear context in knowing the woman that we do not because we merely have her writings.

This is why I feel that Bradford’s book is so important. To me he is getting back to the spirit of 1919 and trying to take both viewpoints of current SDAs and former-SDAs and say, ‘Listen, what you grew up with, the view that you were raised to take on the prophecies, the problems you’ve encountered...this was not the way it was supposed to be’

I think that both sides seriously need to re-evaluate their opinions as they have been tainted by layer after layer of misconception.

We need to get back to the real EGW.

Hey Guibox,

Just two quick points before I turn in for the night.  Ellen White played an active role in creating the perceptions others had about her.  Remember she said the testimonies contained “not one heretical sentence” and she told her followers that her testimonies were either from God or the devil.  She was therefore instrumental in establishing the way others viewed her.  Do you think that it’s at least possible the opinions of the men you mentioned might have been clouded by the claims she made for herself?  Perhaps it is easier to think about this if we look at the many religious and political movements with charismatic leaders making similar claims.  I’m sure you would agree that some of those leaders are simply misleading their respective flocks.

Second, men such as Kellogg, Canright, Stewart, and even her own family members knew her personally and did not believe in her prophetic gift like Daniells and Prescott did.  So we need to be careful in basing all of our conclusions on what these church leaders believed.  From the standpoint of fostering church stability, these men had everything to lose by being open about their assessment of her.  They were able to talk freely behind closed doors, but it appears that sharing their concerns with the laity carried too high a cost.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"] From the standpoint of fostering church stability, these men had everything to lose by being open about their assessment of her.  They were able to talk freely behind closed doors, but it appears that sharing their concerns with the laity carried too high a cost.

Greg

Being a worker in the system and seeing some of the abuses for the more freer thinkers, I can’t really say that I blame them. However, whether they spoke out or not does not negate the truths of their views or their perspectives.

As far as comparing these gentlemen to guys like Canright and Kellogg, I would say that there could be a significant difference. To me, someone who knows someone intimately, sees their faults, can come clean on a view that goes against the accepted norm, knows what is what and STILL believes in the inspiration means more to me in terms of validity than someone who finds fault and dismisses it. Do youreally think Canright understood EGW and her role as much as Daniells?

I personally don’t think so but I can’t say for sure. As far as Kellogg goes, he doesn’t hold much stock with me. The man was basically a quack who already had his many unorthodox views on Christianity nevermind a willingness to accept an inspired prophet of a newly formed religion.

Guibox, let’s take a step back for a minute and examine what you are saying.  You are saying that, on the one hand, Kellogg is not to be trusted because of his many flaws.  But in the same breath you are saying how Daniells and others should be trusted because they saw the flaws of Ellen White and still sustained her publicly.  I’m having a little trouble following the logic here.

It seems to me that it would be best to weigh all of the evidence without appealing to one or two people as “the ones” who “really know the truth”.  We should also look at the motivations behind these individuals’ statements.  Were Daniells and Prescott motivated to be honest about Ellen White or did they have a church structure to protect?  On the other side, were men like Kellogg, Canright and others motivated to disparage Ellen White?  Canright returned to White’s side on numerous occasions as he struggled with whether or not the Advent movement should be supported, finally leaving as a matter of conscience.  He had a long career as a Baptist minister after this and suffered tremendous attacks from Adventists who wanted to discredit him.  I don’t think we should dismiss his voice so easily.

About Kellogg, I think you might be interested in what the physician Charles Stewart wrote to Ellen White in defense of him.  Dr. Stewart, as you will recall, was one of the men who took Ellen up on the challenge to bring their concerns to her, but ultimately these concerns were not answered.  Again, this is more data from which we can make an educated assessment about Ellen White.  Here’s what Stewart wrote in a 1907 letter to her regarding her treatment of Kellogg:

During the spring of 1901 when you stated before a large audience in the College library that God was in the medical missionary work and that he called Dr. Kellogg “My servant” and appointed him as “His physician,” you also at this very time (April, 1901) recommended that Dr. Kellogg be ordained to the ministry, and in a testimony to Dr. S------, dated October 12, 1901, stated as follows:

quoting Ellen White:
“I hope you will not refuse the invitation which Dr. Kellogg has given you to go to Battle Creek which Dr. Kellogg has given you to go to Battle Creek and spend some time there....  I hope that you will go to Battle Creek; for I must tell you that the counsel the Lord has given me for you is that you should be associated with other physicians....  The counsel given me by the Lord for you is that you should connect with the physicians at Battle Creek, regarding yourself as one who needs additional qualifications to those you now have.  I have a deep interest in you, and I greatly desire your success.  But you can not be what you should be in all lines until you associate with other competent, trustworthy physicians.  God says of Dr. Kellogg, ‘He is my physician.  Respect him and sustain him.’”

During this period Dr. Kellogg was preparing the Living Temple, the teachings of which you, two years later, claimed the Lord showed you would “sweep away the whole gospel economy.”

Is it possible that the Lord would so fully endorse a man and his work as you claim that the Lord did that of Dr. Kellogg, when he was engaged in preparing a work that would tend to undermine the principles of the Christian religion?

Ellen White claimed to receive visions from God endorsing the work of Kellogg, but later she denounced him.  Say what you want about Kellogg, but at least we should consider Dr. Stewart’s analysis of the situation and the contradictory “God-ordained” signals sent by Ellen White as significant red flags.

Greg

Also it is a fact that Kellogg was accused of teaching pantheism when he was not. The SDA hierarchy has tried to discredit any one who would dare question their authority.

An example of this is the situation with Canright. Walter Martin, when he was investigating Adventism exposed a bald-faced lie that the SDA church was circulating about Canright. There was a story going around, that Canright on his deathbed, told someone named Jasper “Stick with the truth Jasper, I am dying a lost man.”
Well this story was debunked by Walter Martin by contacting Canright’s daughter who gave a sworn affidavit that that story was patently untrue, and that Canright died faithful to the Lord and resting in his salvation.

Despite Walter Martin proving this story false, well guess what--this story was resurrected again by the lawyer, Lewis R. Walton, in his book of the early eighties, “Omega”, where he repeated this false story, and Desmond Ford called him on it.

All you have to do is look at all the godly men such as Louis Conradi, Albion Ballenger, Desmond Ford, Raymond Cottrell--all men who have in some way been slandered, discredited, or banned from the church. No one dared criticize the pope of Rome, and no one got away with challenging Ellen; and the Ellenolatry, just like the Mariolatry of RCC is still present today.

Again, I am not judging Ellen’s salvation, as she wrote many good things, but there are some historical realities that have to be faced. I have not seen any evidence for any change of official position on Ellen White or the IJ, by the SDA hierarchy.

I still am not clear why there is such a fierce attempt to defend Ellen White, even by people who’s lifestyle is not even close to what Ellen White taught.

If the Adventist church just puts her in the background, and advocates diligent Bible study, then Ellen White would become progressively irrelevant. But I see her defended today more aggressively than ever. But I suspect this is because of all the anti-EGW sites out there, that go to the other extreme, and totally demonize everything about her, and this is also wrong.

Stan

[quote author="Stan"]But I see her defended today more aggressively than ever. But I suspect this is because of all the anti-EGW sites out there, that go to the other extreme, and totally demonize everything about her, and this is also wrong.

Yes, I think that has a lot to do with it.  Of course Adventism’s hands are not clean either with criticizing other churches and their icons, so this tends to be something that goes round and round and all probably to no saving good for anyone in any denomination.

[quote author="Stan"]I still am not clear why there is such a fierce attempt to defend Ellen White, even by people who’s lifestyle is not even close to what Ellen White taught.

Part of it has to do with the Ellen White criticism as you noted. Most of us on the progressive or evangelical side of Adventism wouldn’t otherwise pay the issue much mind.

But another aspect of it is the role that identity plays in our religious affections, apart from issues of doctrine. The progressive sda site has had posts on Tuesdays and Thursdays exploring this phenomenon.

The way things are going, the polarization of the Adventist church into “White” and “non-White” segments seems inevitable.  There will always be a remnant who believe the “continuing and authoritative source of truth” line in fundamental belief #18 and there will be others who say “so what?” It is curious that “evangelicals” or “progressives” aren’t more vocal about these problems, but apparently maintaining Ellen White in some way is needed by both the “White” and “non-White” Adventists in order to preserve their cultural identity.

The question is, when will there be enough “non-White” Adventists to move from the back to the front of the bus, and where will the bus be headed at that time?  Maybe two buses are needed.  Maybe one of them will be a short bus.

Greg