Post Number: 8159
|Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 2:25 pm: || |
As I read some of the story on D.M Canright I really felt sorry for the old gent. His back and fourth efforts to be guided by truth left him in the least, very distraught for so many years. A series of doubts and trials I would not wish upon a dog, much less a man or woman. Yet his trials of doubt and unease of mind over the Adventist church are the same feelings of doubt that modern Adventist of today have when the confidence in the rightness of that church begins to crumble, and in finality, end up at their feet as if shells of walnuts being cracked in the winter months. His own sense of humility, and self doubts would win over, and he would go back for another shot at it, until evidence would again reign superior, until finally, he was able to leave it behind him once and for all.
It is easy enough to think that the whole experience might have plagued him right up to the time of his death, and so I pray for the complete healing of those who are leaving today.
So it seems to me Canrights story is told over and over again in the hearts of the leavers, and the crushing of those hearts go right on in the same manner as it did of Mr. Canright.
Canrights doubts, and attempts to leave the Adventist church behind seems, from the history of them, in the extreme, and yet, in the frightful fight in the hearts of those today carries the very same pattern as that of Canright.
It is sad to me that the same pattern the Whites took to try to discredit and crush the spirit of Mr. Canright still is being carried on today, and so the people who are faced with the same doubts today, or so closely resembling them that it doesn’t matter, are faced with the same thing that Canright faced.
As the old saying goes. “The more things change the more they remain the same.”
Post Number: 32
|Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2014 - 10:48 am: || |
I feel badly for him as well, he was a Godly man who did so much for the early Adventists and struggled with losing friendships when he left, it must have been very painful for him. Then of course he was treated badly by the members of the SDA church when he left. Like you said the same still happens today, especially to those in positions of influence like pastors and other leaders.
Post Number: 14916
|Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2014 - 4:39 pm: || |
Very true, River...and I do hope that the fruit of his writing his experience will surprise him at the Bema seat. His books have yielded fruit posthumously. He will probably be surprised when he learns one day how many people were helped to see truth because he told the truth.
Post Number: 88
|Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2014 - 7:42 am: || |
Canright 's book is the first I read about six months after leaving adventism. I bought it in the kindle version and read it through nearly nonstop. It was a great help to me and easy to read.
Post Number: 14940
|Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2014 - 6:05 pm: || |
I agree about Canright. His books are some of the clearest I've encountered that reveal what it was like to experience James and Ellen White first-hand during the formation of the Adventist organization. Canright is one of the "must reads", as far as I'm concerned. He really rounds out the picture.
Post Number: 1582
|Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2014 - 4:46 pm: || |
D. M. Canright really got down to the "nitty-gritty" regarding the self-righteous
heavy handedness of Ellen, especially; She even going so far as to dictate (from GOD's mouth
to her ear)! the proper under garments an
adventist woman should be wearing to be in
'right standing' with GOD!
Post Number: 1465
|Posted on Monday, October 06, 2014 - 4:44 pm: || |
I can't tell you all, after over 16 years in the SDA educational system, what a shock it was to read a book I found on sale for maybe $1.25. I bought it just about the same time that a friend at the SDA church I was attending shared the real gospel with me. Canright had been so demonized in both church & school, that I thought of him as a very horrid & devil-influenced man. When I read "The Case of D.M. Canright" by Norman Douty, I could not believe it! This is an objective book, written by a Christian man who had some contact with SDAs & wondered why they recoiled at the mention of Canright's name. The 1st chapter is going through Canright's ancestry & shows Douty to be a meticulous researcher, but I tell you, the book gets more & more interesting & if you can find it on Amazon, I highly recommend it. He was a Christian minister until his death. The SDA church lies & lies about this man. Apparently going to church on Saturday nullifies the commandment about not bearing false witness.
Post Number: 49
|Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2014 - 2:27 pm: || |
"The Case of D.M. Canright" by Norman Douty can be found here:
Post Number: 1591
|Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2014 - 4:32 pm: || |
Thank-you for the link~
Post Number: 322
|Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2014 - 7:29 am: || |
Oh my word!
I just read the Douty link from above, and it demonstrates with horrifying accuracy the base ignorance of Adventism's approach to the law. I was struck very very hard that the SDA church is irremediably legalistic and teaches a false Gospel, besides being incredibly ignorant about the law. If there ever was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Adventism is a non-Christian cult, the following is it:
"F.D. Nichol, the editor of Review and Herald, has listed some elementary rules, which for centuries have been used to ensure that an accused person is accorded a fair trial. In a volume of over 500 pages, devoted to the defense of the character and conduct of William Miller an his followers, including James White and Ellen G. Harmon, Mr. Nichol says:
"The accused is to be considered innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He has the right to bring in character witnesses. If the testimony of these witnesses clearly shows him to be a man of good character and reputation in the community in which he resides, that fact may rightly be stressed by counsel for the defense as a piece of presumptive evidence bearing on his innocence. The accused has a right to be heard in his own defense, and if his character witnesses have established his standing as a reputable citizen, his personal testimony is entitled to great weight. Hearsay and rumor are inadmissible as evidence." (The Midnight Cry, p. 14)"
Given that I am a retired attorney and Nichols had no discernible background in law.
Christianity is unconditional forgiveness and reconciliation humanity to God. The Cross made it a done deal, once and forever. So where did Nichols come up with this utter garbage about "character witnesses" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt?" REALLY? You make this statements in regard to how you smear and slander a Christian brother? This utter nonsense stemming from Adventism's cruel cult doctrine of the "Investigative Judgment" is legalism run amok. I make the following observations:
1). Neither Canright nor the Whites were on trial for a crimes. Therefore their "innocence" was not in questions - EVER - nor does the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" apply to civil disputes, which manifestly describes the issues between Canright, the Whites and Adventism.
2). Nichols flat out lied about the role of "character witnesses;" their admissibility and when they can be called. Character Witnesses do NOT amount to "presumptive evidence bearing on innocence," but rather are introduced to "rehabilitate" a witness whose credibility has been "impeached." There is no such thing as "presumptive" evidence in a Criminal trial! Innocence or guilt have NOTHING to do with Character Witnesses. Nichols said "If his character witnesses have established his standing as a reputable citizen, his personal testimony is entitled to great weight." WRONG! A person already has the presumption of truthfulness and a "presumption of credibility" until and unless their credibility is "impeached." Character witnesses are NEVER used to establish a witnesses' "standing as a reputable citizen" BEFORE their testimony is given "great weight."
3). Nichols lied when he claimed "Hearsay and rumor are inadmissible as evidence." I would guess that several thousand court hearings each day in the United States are determined by the fact that Hearsay IS "admissible as evidence."
Here you have it: Adventists frequently gloat over the fact that they believe they are experts in "the Law," and preen with oily self-righteous glee of their alleged legal superiority over mere "sunday-keeping" Christians. With his absurd and false statements on the law, here, Nichols establishes that he would have swiftly flunked out of law school within the first few weeks. Nichols and Adventism know absolutely NOTHING about the law, how it works and how it is applied. Given Nichols frequent grotesque misrepresentation of the law, anyone leaving Adventism can rest assured that NOTHING that Adventism proclaims about the law can possibly be true.