Drat! I really need to proof my posts before submitting. I meant to say in my original post that my experience regarding scripture at LSU has been similar to my experience throughout Southern Californian Adventism. Granted, there are some bizarre thinkers here and there, but I find them more the exception than the norm.

Hi Scott,

I’ll jump in before Stan and mention that a lot of what he’s referring to occurs when defenses for Ellen White are made.  In order to explain (excuse) lapses in her writings (plagiarism, historical/scientific errors, etc.), many EGW apologists highlight similar things in Scripture (without further investigating Scripture).  In other words, the bar for inspiration of Scripture is lowered in order to accomodate EGW’s inspiration.

Some of these things can be read in Dale Ratzlaff’s articles in the Jan/Feb issue of Proclamation magazine and in the Nov/Dec issue.  The latter one is in response to many things Jud Lake and other presenters spoke of at the recent EGW conference, where a lot of the undermining of Scripture was again reinforced.

I wish I had paid closer attention at LSU and could remember more, but I heard similar highlighting of inconsistencies in Scripture several times from more than one teacher (I think Bailey Gillespie was one?).  It was to the point where some more fundamentalist Adventist friends came out of class discouraged by the many highlights of Scriptural problems they were being taught.  Ironically, one looked at me (as he resolved to hold onto his fundamental SDA faith) and said, “Ramone, don’t change your theology.” It was quite a gauntlet at that time.  That was before the CORE program was removed, though.  I think it might’ve possibly toned down a little after that.  And moreover, I think that you have a good “God” filter—in other words, you hold onto what is God, and you let go of what is not.  I think some things might’ve sailed past you. 

For the fundamentalist Adventist, Scriptural inconsistencies are a real problem, because they believe in the inspiration of Scripture (and the inspiration of EGW).  For progressive/liberal Adventists however (in general), Scriptural inconsistencies aren’t that big of an earthshaking thing, just like problems in EGW aren’t that big of a thing, either.  The belief in inspiration is higher among the fundamentalists than it is among the progressives (in general).  Conference apologists tend to be somewhat liberal in their view of inspiration—not as fundamentalist as the students I spoke of.

There is a third option about Scriptural inconsistencies—acknowledge them, hand them over to God, do not lower the bar of what “inspiration” means, and stand back & marvel as He resolves them and reveals Himself in them.  For me, I learned this after leaving Adventism.

Blessings,
Ramone

P.S.  If you register, you can edit your comments.

I would like to make a comment here about SDAs bringing down the bible to support EGW.

I can’t speak for what goes on in SolCal or liberal ADventism, but I think there is a difference between socializing and making completely human the scriptures, and pointing out simple truths that may not fit our paradigm of scripture.

Graeme Bradford points this out quite clearly in his book ‘More Than a Prophet’ that the way we have viewed prophets is a bit skewed. He points this out straight rom scripture and one is forced to reject or accept it strictly on biblical grounds.

I feel that this is viewed as ‘tearing down of the authority of the Bible’ simply because many formers absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility that EGW was a ‘messenger’ in any way, fashion, or form (accept as some of our more eloquent former brethren have put: ‘guided by demon familiars’

You see, most formers like most conservative Adventists have one view: keep her all in her ‘glory’ or throw her out completely.

Any deviation either justifying by using the scriptures to show a biblical mode for prophets, or tearing down by pointing out errors and inconsistencies is viewed by the other side as apostasy or demeaning the authority of the scriptures.

Sorry to say but both sides are wrong. Bradford makes a very compelling case for EGW in his book but not the EGW that both sides are used to.

Thanks everyone for your comments!

Phen,

It looks like my position on Ellen White is questioned both from the left and right (big smiley)

This is great. I will only make a distinction beween Ellen White and Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy. The latter two false prophets taught absolutely nothing being even remotely Christian. Yes, I was highly influenced by my close association with Walter Martin for five years. We discussed these distinctions at length. His contention was that Ellen White did teach that Jesus had come in the flesh as eternal God in human flesh (1 John 2), and therefore she cannot be classified the same as Joseph Smith and Eddy. Ken Samples also has studied Ellen White carefully and has come to similar conclusions. I will just refuse to say that Ellen White is a lost soul, because I don’t know for sure. But I do know for sure that Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy are lost souls, because they did not believe that Jesus was God, and therefore had a different Jesus.
I contend that regardless of what you believe about Ellen White, she is totally irrelevant to both Adventists and the rest of the Christian world. So maybe Phen, you think by my position on Ellen White, that I am still holding on to a “family altar”? I would appreciate both Phen and Ramone’s comment on my position with regard to Ellen White stated above.

Scott,

Welcome to 4TG! I posted my views on Dalton Baldwin’s presentation on the “Sunshine Road” thread, and plan to post more as time allows, nowever, today I am on a very busy hospital service, so I will try to reply in detail later. Also my email is if you would like to communicate that way. But I promise to elaborate further on this thread or the Sunshine Road thread further as to what I mean. I am also a big fan of Smuts Van Rooyen, and he is still an SDA pastor in Glendale Vallejo Drive church (this is also to answer Barbara’s question). Some former SDAs say that Van Rooyen is compromised since it is clear he does not believe in 1844 or the IJ either. I can’t answer for him on that. He may be reaching a lot of Adventists for the gospel, and the Lord may want him there still.

More later,

Stan

Zane,

I also want to answer your comments when you get back online--thanks so much for your concerns, as a lot of them are valid, but I would like to clarify a few things you said.

Stan

Hey everyone,

I want to belatedly welcome both Zane and Scott to 4TG–your voices are very welcome here and I hope we can learn from each other.

Scott, now that you have registered for an account, you can edit your posts after they have been posted by clicking on the “edit” link.

Also, Scott, I think my upbringing in Adventism was similar to yours.  I spent most of my years in Southern California in less “bizarre” church environments.  It was only after leaving Southern California for the Midwest that I found out that what happens on the West Coast is probably the exception to the rule rather than the other way around.  Out here, Adventist eschatology and the prophetic “planks” of the Sanctuary/IJ doctrines are seriously studied.  Ellen White is allowed to settle doctrinal arguments and is quoted liberally from the pulpit under the euphemisms of “my favorite author,” “the greatest Christian woman author,” “the pen of inspiration,” etc.  It certainly was an eye-opening experience for me to see the official church teachings be openly proclaimed, and it ultimately began my journey out of the church.

Guibox, you said:

[quote author="guibox"]
You see, most formers like most conservative Adventists have one view: keep her all in her ‘glory’ or throw her out completely.

Any deviation either justifying by using the scriptures to show a biblical mode for prophets, or tearing down by pointing out errors and inconsistencies is viewed by the other side as apostasy or demeaning the authority of the scriptures.

Sorry to say but both sides are wrong.

Guibox, there are three inescapable conclusions you are asking us to make in holding up Graeme Bradford as the final authority on Ellen White’s prophetic “gift”:

1) Historic Adventists are wrong because they actually trust Ellen White at her word when she said “not one heretical sentence” is contained in the testimonies.

2) Former Adventists are wrong because they realize Ellen White actually did teach heresy, dispensing with her writings at her own insistence (since she said that her writings were either from God or the devil).

3) Ellen White herself was wrong because she actually did teach falsehood and compounded the problems by misunderstanding her own “gift”.

All this confusion could easily be done away with if we would allow the Bible to be the final measure of truth and the final arbiter of the prophet’s professed “gift”.

Greg

Agreed, Greg.  The Bible is the final interpretor of whether or not someone is a prophet or not.  As I wrote in the article above, I think there are some very simple criteria by which we may measure if someone is hearing from the Holy Spirit or another spirit.  The criteria is, in short, the Gospel message.  If the Gospel is not being proclaimed, if it is rather being undermined, and if a prophet’s revelations are condemning people who cling to the Gospel, then I believe we can safely deduce that it is not the Holy Spirit who is speaking to the prophet.

Stan, I agree with how you broke it down about EGW & the other prophets.  I think it makes good sense.  I tend to think that EGW was deceived.  I have known a few friends who have had contacts with spirits which seemed to be the Holy Spirit, but the things they heard were not biblical.  The problem is that it’s easy to get addicted to spiritual revelation, and at the beginning maybe something happens that seems like spiritual intimacy or good fruit.  So you cling to that voice which spoke to you, and as it continues to speak, the intimacy seems to deepen.  And it makes it all the harder to let go of the spirit. 

By the way, I didn’t link the best Proclamation article about undermining Scripture, which can be seen here:

http://rtinker.powweb.com/Proclamation2006_MayJun.pdf

Earlier Zane wrote:

First, and most importantly, I think we agree on the centrality of Christ and the gospel to any Christian system of theology. I affirm, as the Adventist church does, a Trinitarian conception of God, and the divinity of Christ (as well as his humanity). This is very important not as an end in itself or some abstract doctrine but because it shapes how one looks at everything else, especially the nature of salvation. Either God himself comes “down” to save us through and in Christ (gospel), or Christ is a moral exemplar and we work our way to God through out works (legalism).

I cannot speak for others, i.e. historic/progressive Adventists. I think these truths are central to Christianity and Adventism. You apparently do not think they are central to Adventism. You think that Adventism’s center/foundation is Ellen White and the Sanctuary message.

Must run.
Resting in Christ,
Ramone

Hi Guibox,

I wanted to respond to your comment:

Graeme Bradford points this out quite clearly in his book ‘More Than a Prophet’ that the way we have viewed prophets is a bit skewed. He points this out straight rom scripture and one is forced to reject or accept it strictly on biblical grounds.

I feel that this is viewed as ‘tearing down of the authority of the Bible’ simply because many formers absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility that EGW was a ‘messenger’ in any way, fashion, or form (accept as some of our more eloquent former brethren have put: ‘guided by demon familiars’

You see, most formers like most conservative Adventists have one view: keep her all in her ‘glory’ or throw her out completely.

Any deviation either justifying by using the scriptures to show a biblical mode for prophets, or tearing down by pointing out errors and inconsistencies is viewed by the other side as apostasy or demeaning the authority of the scriptures.

Sorry to say but both sides are wrong. Bradford makes a very compelling case for EGW in his book but not the EGW that both sides are used to.

The problem is that Bradford (and others) are setting out from the start to find criteria to accept EGW as a prophet.  That is, it is inductive investigation of Scripture, not deductive.  The conclusion has been set (she was a prophet) and evidence is sought to support the conclusion, rather than the other way around (where evidence is gathered and then a conclusion is later formed on the basis of the evidence).

The result of this is that the most obvious Biblical criteria for verifying a true prophet is not applied: the Gospel of God’s grace (see Galatians 1:6-12).  The spirit (essence/heart) of prophecy is to testify (witness) about Jesus.  God continues to give His testimony—which is about His Son (1 John 5:9-13), i.e., the Gospel.  This is the grand and greatest test of a prophet, how we know true from false.  And as shown above, the early Adventists not only taught and believed anti-Gospel doctrines, but they also opposed other churches that still taught the Gospel, urging people to leave “Babylon” (Gospel-following churches).

You see, when one sets his or her concerns on the Gospel, things become much simpler.  We don’t have to worry about the pressure to “be balanced”—meaning that we often feel it is “wiser” to not go to the “extreme” of throwing out EGW or completely endorsing everything she said.  Such things sound like wisdom, but the issue of the Scriptures is very clear: the Gospel.  It is the testimony of God, it is the Message, the Good News, the Bashar, the cry of His heart, the Word of Salvation.  It is the reason we are called “Christians” and our entire reason for being so.  It is our central core and our proclamation.  It is the light in the darkness of the world.  It is the hope of sinners, and the Gospel is the glory of God.  In the Gospel God had revealed Himself.  Before He was only known in shadows, in various incomplete parts.  But now in His Son --His love, personality, character, sacrifice and resurrection-- God has made Himself known.  The Son is the exact representation of God (Hebrews 1:1-3).

This is the criteria for testing a prophet.  The prophets of old spoke in various parts, in shadows, of the One who was to come (Luke 24:44, Romans 16:25-26).  And prophets in the New Covenant (the days from the resurrection until now and the end) continue to prophesy about Christ.  Old Testament prophecy looked forward to the Gospel, and New Testament prophecy (including prophecy today) is also to look to the Gospel, to the centrality of the Cross.

This is the criteria which does not match the first 40+ years of Adventism and Ellen White’s ministry.  These are the things which her visions undermine.  And it was in the place of rejection of these things that Adventism “set up camp”.  Later on, some phrases of the Gospel began to cause a stir (in 1888), but the Light was not fully allowed in—instead attempts were made to harmonize the phrases of the Gospel with the pre-Gospel Adventist foundation.  In other words, attempts were made to graft the Gospel onto the root of the Adventist foundation.  But the Gospel is the “message” of God.  How can God send a “messenger” who contradicts His Message?  The Scriptural answer is clear: He doesn’t do that, so hold fast to the Gospel and test all “messengers” by it.  If we attempt to harmonize anti-Gospel things with the Gospel, the effect is to weaken the power of the Gospel (and the Gospel is our salvation!) and obscure how good the Good News really is.  In a word: confusion.

As for the “to keep or not to keep EGW” question, in the end, we have everything we need in Jesus Christ Himself (Colossians 2:9-10).  It takes effort to harmonize EGW/early Adventism with the Gospel.  Things must be overlooked and ignored.  You cannot take what is said for what it says.  It must be read to mean something else.  Rationales must be formed to explain away things or justify alternate explanations for what is written.  For some people, such efforts have the appearance of wisdom, of being “balanced”, not “too extreme”.  But if we take God at His Word, then we are indeed complete in Jesus Christ and lacking nothing (2 Peter 1:3, 1 Corinthians 1:4-9, Ephesians 1:3).  If we are complete in Jesus Christ alone, what are we missing by letting go of Ellen G. White? 

The Scriptural answer is clear: we are lacking nothing.  And we are certainly being spared the enormous effort involved in the exhausting attempt to harmonize her writings with Scripture and the Gospel, which has been quite a task for the last hundred-fifty years and continues to be quite a task.  By letting go, we have not only become free of the need to harmonize that which clashes, but we have also been freed to take the Word to mean what it says—to take God at His Word.  The result is that a lot of things have cleared up!  Things are much less confusing and contradictory than they used to be.  The Bible has become easier to read, and yet deeper.

I digress for now.  The in-a-nutshell version: We simply test prophets/messengers by the Gospel.  If we seek to keep a prophet/messenger who doesn’t have (and even contradicts) the Gospel Message, then of course we will have to ignore some Scriptures in order to keep the prophet/messenger’s messages “in the house”.

I hope I’m not sounding too strong… ((slightly worried look))

All blessings in Jesus,
Ramone

My brother has a computer so I decided to check things out!

Agapetos,

No, you have not come on too strong. It was very eloquently put. I just want to tell you that other than Stan and maybe Rio_b, your comments on FAF were the only ones that actually held any weight with me. The people who weren’t quacks on that forum were few and far between. I felt you were one of the few.

In my opinion and something both Bacchiocchi and Bradford brought out, the role of the NT prophet was to edify and uplift the church, exhort people to uplift Jesus. Their words were to be sifted and weighed. The people were to hold fast to what was good and discard the rest.

I will say that, being human, perhaps EGW overstepped her boundaries or misused her role.  Though you are more generous than some of the aforementioned quacks that believe she was led by demon familiars and at this moment is burning in Hades - goodness, where did these people learn their theology??). However to call her ‘deceived’ is still a bit harsh.

EGW was not only a product of conservative 19th century Methodist theology, but also a product of 19th century culture and medicine. I don’t think a prophet is not going to be influenced by such things or is supernatural to transcend what they are not familiar with. Were that the case, then Moses should have talked about balck holes, dwarf stars and many other scientific phenomenon to describe the cosmos and weather than ‘the windows of heaven were opened’

I still firmly believe that it is the fault of the church that misunderstood the role of EGW (and perhaps even EGW herself). This doesn’t negate the fact or role of inspiration.

Again, it is hard to look at this from this perspective unless you really choose to see that view point. If you haven’t already looked at Bradford’s book (I believe there is an online link to access it), I encourage you to do so.

Thanks Guibox for your remarks, and I really appreciate the spirit of your dialogue that you bring to 4TG.

But again, I have to ask you about this quote above:

“In my opinion and something both Bacchiocchi and Bradford brought out, the role of the NT prophet was to edify and uplift the church, exhort people to uplift Jesus. Their words were to be sifted and weighed. The people were to hold fast to what was good and discard the rest.”
--------------------------------------------------------

So how do you practically use Ellen White’s writings in your experience? How do you know for sure what she is writing is inspired of God, and what isn’t? She did claim the office of Old Testament prophet at times, and even said that everything she wrote came from God.

Stan

Bro Guibox,

I fully understand the desire to not be condemning of EGW.  I don’t judge her.  God brought me (and many others) to a point where I had to forgive her.  She did not know the Gospel, and she was very mistaken for more than 40 years in her preaching.  I say “deceived” because the visions that she had did not contain the Gospel, but urged her to condemn those who did have the Gospel.  Such a spirit is not the Holy Spirit, because Christ said the Spirit would testify of Him and convict us of His righteousness.  The Spirit is given to show us the Gospel (all that we freely have in Jesus Christ - 1 Corinthians 2:12).

I’ve known people who heard from spirits but did not speak the words of the Gospel.  For them, I would pray for them.  I would agonize for them to know the Good News of Jesus Christ and His provision of His righteousness.  I.e., the Gospel.  Looking at the historical literature and evidence, if I were to meet young Ellen Harmon or Ellen White, I would pray and agonize for her to know Him in the very same way that I would for someone exhibiting the same traits today.  What good is it to hear from “angels” if they don’t tell you the Gospel?  What good is prophecy if it is missing the spirit of prophecy--the Gospel?  Paul had strong words for such visions and angels.

As for the “testimonies” that such a person would give—how could I wrestle with the question of explaining them, offering rationale for them, or attempting to find redeeming value in them?  I would be too busy praying for the person.  And knowing that the person did not know the Gospel, I would not recommend their prophetic “testimonies” to others just as I would not recommend other non-Gospel prophets’ testimonies.  The effort of trying to hold onto these testimonies and the Gospel at the same time would only bring a lot of confusion and diminish the power of the Gospel.  I would pay the person’s testimonies no heed, and would continue in prayer for the person.

Since Ellen White is not alive today, I can no longer pray for her.  But her children (so to speak, those raised on her “testimonies") are still here today.  I know they want to hold onto her, just as I once did.  I know they don’t want to dishonor her, just as I didn’t want to dishonor the parents who raised me.  Yet I cry and agonize for them to know the Gospel, and looking through Gospel-eyes, I want them to know that she did not know the Gospel either.  They don’t have to hate her; instead looking through God’s heart, they can love her as He loves us when we don’t know Him.  But we must see things clearly, just as He sees us clearly.

Japan.  Japanese people.  My brothers & sisters in Japan.  They love their parents, they love their families.  I want them to know Jesus.  For some, knowing Him and following Him will mean that they have to throw out a family altar.  But it doesn’t mean that they have to hate or throw out their families.  But they do need to see things clearly.  They need to learn to love one another and love their parents with God’s love and with His burning desire for them, that they would come to know and rest in His Son’s righteousness. 

The lie of the enemy is that the family altar is your family.  When parents die, their pictures are placed in the butsudan.  The other day Yoko and I saw an ad on the subway for a modern-style butsudan.  The picture showed sunlight pouring in through a window into a simple, modern but beautiful room with a modern butsudan on the right.  The caption read, “Spring is here, father.” They believe that their “father” is in the butsudan (even a modern-styled one; the old one having been replaced).

In Adventism we didn’t want to dishonor our heritage, our spiritual parents—Ellen White, James White, Joseph Bates, Hiram Edson, etc.  We are emotionally afraid that if we say they were clearly wrong (thus throwing out the altar) we would then be disrespecting them and unappreciative of who we are today.  But because of this feeling, we are unable to simply see them through God’s eyes—that they didn’t know His Gospel of grace, and that they were in desperate need of rest in Jesus, just as we are.

This love can become Adventism’s new identity; a vision seen through Gospel-healed-eyes, that loves people even while admitting they are wrong.  God can see the darkness in us, but He loves us anyway.  It is the same as the process of forgiveness.  Forgiveness means that we extend love to the one who wronged us, but it does not mean that we pretend like no wrong ever happened.  That would be to deny a very real wound that needs medical attention.  We still need healing after being wounded.  But we can choose to forgive the one(s) who wronged us and give them God’s love.  That is what God did for us.

Part of us has been afraid of admitting the darkness of the first 40+ years of Adventism because we didn’t know how to show loving respect for our spiritual parents.  But through God’s love, through the Gospel, we can love people whether they are right or wrong.  We don’t love them simply because they got it right.  We don’t find our own worth in our special message, or in that we are somehow “right” in an area that others are not.  Rather, we know that we are all dark, and that God has loved us in spite of that darkness. 

It is no sin to walk into the Light and see that we have been in darkness.  But it is another thing for us to try to take with us testimonies made in the darkness (without the Light of the Gospel).  If we tell ourselves that there is light without the Gospel, we’re only confusing ourselves as John wrote.  But if we let the Light shine on us and cleanse us, if we don’t fear our own darkness but let Him expose it, it is the most wonderful, cleansing thing we can imagine or hope for.  And in this way we can see things more clearly than ever, that God has loved us.  And from Him we can learn how to love others while they are in darkness.  We can testify, “Look! I was once blind, but now I see.  He brought me out of darkness.  My family did not know Him, but He has revealed Himself to me today: believe in Him.”

Blessings in Him,
Ramone

Brother Ramone,

That was the best denial of EGW’s role as a prophetess I have ever seen come from a former-SDA.

If the rest of the ‘former’ brethren took your stance, what peaceful and rational dialogue could be opened up between current and former SDAs and the bitter, illogical and irrational diatribe that permeates many former-SDA websites would die a quick death.

Sadly, your thoughtful and well thought out post above is definitely not the rhetoric one sees when going on websites such as FAF.

Well done, my friend, and thank you for your comments.

Posted anonymously by: Phen

Again,miss a weekend of discussion- read a lot.WOW!

Stan, yes, I think you are still holding on to your “family altar.” (smile)
Seriously, for me when I saw the real Jesus and compared it with what I used to hear and understand in my former church, I had no choice.
I saw the inconsistencies in the “prophet” and I chose to hold on to Jesus especially when I read John 5:43,44 that says, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not:if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”

To Guibox, I just have to say that all people are different. We approach things from a different perspective. When one realizes that there was a lot of deception (and if you are honest you know this) that went into making sure that people stay in a certain mind set no matter what, some people walk away, some explode and some just want to tell everyone they contact and yet others do something totally different.
My question to you is, Aren’t you being just as judgemental?

The favorite word of current SDAs when they hear of anyone leaving the “truth” is that they are “bitter” or your other words above.
The “former” SDA is not personal attacking the individual SDA church member,(except for those who perpetuate the deception in an administrative role) and so I wonder why there is always such a drastic response.
I wonder how you are going to react when you study the bible minus the “SOP” for maybe six months just believing all that Jesus said, just reading the word and getting filled with Jesus and only Jesus. When you finally “get it” because I know you will; how will you react my brother/sister?
I think that one can always sit back and make a harsh judgement about something that “seems” to threaten ones foundation, but when one really “gets it” then one understands.
I just pray that you and all current SDAs who read this will understand that the people who you see as “bitter, illogical and irrational” are people who were just like you who had a hard nosed view of anyone who in their view, went against anything SDA.
They called other denominations “babylon” and designated those who worshipped on Sunday as people who have the “mark of the beast,” and thought they were justified in making these harsh judgements because their “prophet” said so.
We all, on both sides, just need to put on the other persons’ moccasins, and walk a while.
I pray that we would all allow the spirit of Jesus to perfume us with his “spiritual” smell instead of our “fleshy” smell. May Jesus Christ be praised.

[quote author="Phen"]
The favorite word of current SDAs when they hear of anyone leaving the “truth” is that they are “bitter” or your other words above.

My friend, I am not trying to classify all formers as bitter. But when I see the negative and trashy comments SOME formers give, that is the only conclusion I can come to as far as they are concerned. They feel deceived and it shows in much of what and especially ‘how’ they make their arguments. They feel taken and are angry for allowing themselves to have been so.

Such feelings and the backlash that ensues can only be called bitter.

However, there are many that are not bitter and it also shows in their comments. Fortunately, there is a forum here full of those kinds of people.

[quote author="Phen"]I wonder how you are going to react when you study the bible minus the “SOP” for maybe six months just believing all that Jesus said, just reading the word and getting filled with Jesus and only Jesus. When you finally “get it” because I know you will; how will you react my brother/sister?

It would be ‘brother’, just to clear up any confusion.

My friend, just as the former gets tired of hearing the ‘bitter’ argument applied to them, so does the SDA tire of hearing the “quit interpreting the bible through EGW ‘glasses’” argument.

There are many (and that includes this SDA right here, thank you very much’, who have never allowed EGW to do their interpreting and believe it or not, don’t believe anything in the Bible unless the confirmation falls from her lips like manna from heaven.

There are SDAs that...’gasp!’.. have actually come to the biblical conclusions they have strictly through the bible! :o

I’m sorry, Phen if my sarcasm is coming through but it just bothers me that so many formers when they feel that they were deceived by a false prophet that every other SDA must be deceived the same way they feel they were: that EGW was the ‘be all and end all’ of their theology.

I’m sorry that perhaps you were part of that experience. Understand that there are many SDAs who don’t feel the same way you do about EGW and her role in biblical interpretation and can actually study the bible for themselves.

[quote author="Phen"]I just pray that you and all current SDAs who read this will understand that the people who you see as “bitter, illogical and irrational” are people who were just like you who had a hard nosed view of anyone who in their view, went against anything SDA.

And perhaps this is why this occurs and why some of us are trying to take things from a different perspective. Obviously the ‘cultic mindset’, the ‘be all and end all’ the ‘take all of her or leave all of her’ mindset hasn’t worked for anybody in the SDA faith.

Too many have grown up with the extreme that it inevitably backlashes. This is wrong. This is not the way it was supposed to be. THe fault lies with the church and the abuse of EGW and her writings that created the situation we are in today.

This is why there are progressive SDAs who are trying to find a balance. Sadly neither the former-SDAs or the historic SDAs feel this is possible and both sides feel they know better. IMO, it is this resistance and attitude to allow those of us who like our church to try and make changes that is causing more problems with the church.

[quote author="Phen"]We all, on both sides, just need to put on the other persons’ moccasins, and walk a while. I pray that we would all allow the spirit of Jesus to perfume us with his “spiritual” smell instead of our “fleshy” smell. May Jesus Christ be praised.

I agree brother. It also behooves each side to realize that not everybody views each others experience the same way and that some of us are happy and have a clear, logical view of the position we take either in or outside the church.

I have to say, I’ve not seen current and former Adventists behave in such a charitable and caring manner toward each other when it comes to discussing Ellen White.  You are all to be commended.

I am disappointed that so many people make Ellen White the test of fellowship, whether they are for or against her.  The real test of fellowship is Jesus Christ, who transcends everything and anyone who may or may not have the prophetic gift.

Greg