| Author | Message | ||
| Plain Patti |
BOMBSHELL! (Or it was for me, anyway!) There is a gay SDA in Australia that is posting things on another forum raising the question that Ellen White may have been lesbian or bisexual. He uses the following quotations from Ellen's letters to and about her companion, Lucinda Hall, to support his claims. WDYT? I will wait for other comments before I share my own thoughts... She wrote: "I wish I could see you, Lucinda. It always does me so much good to see you and talk with you. You take so sensible a view of matters all around. How I have missed you on this journey! Not but that I have friends, but you are nearest and dearest, next to my own family, and I feel no difference than that you belonged to me and my blood flowed in your veins." [10MR 33] My confidential companion is gone; We miss Lucinda everywhere. But I must say that Mary [NINETEEN-YEAR-OLD MARY KELSEY MARRIED W. C. WHITE ON FEB. 11, 1876.] takes her position nobly, she goes ahead like a general and you would think had been used to this kind of labor all her life. But my confidential companion is gone; not one now to counsel with, not one to converse with upon matters that everyone cannot understand, and if they did, could not help me. But I am glad Lucinda has gone with you, for I feel so much better about you; and again it is her right to see her mother and be at home some. But I miss Lucinda just as I thought I should." [Letter 63, 1876, pp. 2. To James White, March 25, 1876. 10MR 34-35] Ellen White's Dream About Lucinda Hall: "Sister Hall: Last night I had a dream that made quite an impression on my mind. I thought that the young man who has often appeared to me and instructed me came in the room where I was and inquired, "Who is helping you in your work?" I said, "No one." Said he, "The Lord gave you one to be with you and help you. He gave her wisdom and tact to be your helper. Why was she separated from you?" I tried to think about it and answered, "It was thought best for her to connect with the office upon the Pacific coast." Said he, "God fitted her to be your helper. Be careful whom you select to connect with you. It is God's work. He has made your hearts one. In her is the help you want. She will not be sustained in the work in which she is now engaged, for it is not the work God has given her to do. God raised her up for you. She should have been with you, her interest and yours one. Draw her to you again. The Lord will impress her heart. She has not the education of schools, but God has given her wisdom to help you in your work. You should be as one heart and one soul. God has bound you together. Let no influence divide you." [10MR 37] She wrote this to another friend: "I prize my being all to myself unless graced with your presence. I want to share my bed only with you. Lucinda is an exception. She seems to be a part of myself as I can make no other one." Was anyone else unaware of this as I was? Do you think there is any merit to this man's claim, or just another ruse to justify his orientation? | ||
| Lynn W |
I didn't see anything in the highlighted parts of your post to make me think she was gay. But THIS is a bit hard to excuse away: "I prize my being all to myself unless graced with your presence. I want to share my bed only with you. Lucinda is an exception. She seems to be a part of myself as I can make no other one." I'd also like to know when it was written, before or after she was widowed? Or possibly during her separation from James? | ||
| Timo K. |
Plain Patti, in my opinion it is more useful to study what is right and wrong with Mrs. Whites theology than her sexual orientation. I am glad Patti that you didn't accuse Mrs. White of the wrongness of possible being lesbian. If I understand homosexuality right, it is a tendency deep inside that might be impossible to get rid of. Of course we can do changes in behavor, but I am not sure if we can change sexual orientation in every case. Of course I am not limiting God here; for God nothing is impossible. Since I am not gay, I dont know in detail how some of us are homosexuals and most are heterosexuals. This might be a very complex process. In my opinion homosexuality is not sin or defect in character. I know Romans 1:st chapter speaks hard words about "men with men; and women with women" etc., but is Paul talking about tendensies or lustful acts? Lustfulness is also bad with heterosexual relationships. I still have hard time understanding homosexual acts. I have more guestions than answers about homosexuality. timo | ||
| Lynn W |
The Bible has much to say about the sin of homosexuality if you check it out. Why do you think Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed? "Lustfulness is also bad with heterosexual relationships." This is true - ALL sexual sin is sin & one is not worse than another, but it's still sin. Don't hate or reject the homosexual, love them & pray for them. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Plain Patti, I agree with Timo that we need to be very very careful what we say on a public forum about EGW's sexual orientation. I know there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press in this country, protected by the First Amendment. But when you say something on a public Internet forum it is precisely like publishing it in a newspaper or saying it on a national TV news show. There is NO legal difference. And there is NO "private communication" defense. Your privacy is out the window like a 100 MPH draft. And courts are notorious for lacking any sense of humor whatsoever. Posting on this forum is NOT like writing a letter to your Aunt Martha in Dubuque. Now suppose some of EGW's living descendants don't like what's being said about her and sue you in court for a million dollars for libel, saying your public words have done irreparable damage to their own children, EGW's great great grandchildren (and who knows, there may be scores and scores of them) who are being teased and shunned and humiliatetd and maybe even beat up in school, because "everybody thinks" their famous ancestor, of whom they are sooooo proud, was a lesbian. And don't think the SDA church wouldn't be salivating to sink millions of dollars of tithe money into prosecuting you, especially if you said something like that -- and I'm not accusing you of leveling that accusation -- on formeradventist.com. Neither think the SDA church is not monitoring this site on a 24-hour-per-day basis. If I were a Las Vegas bookie, I would give you ten-to-one odds on it and chuckle behind your back because I would think I had taken you to the cleaners. Are your pockets deep enough to fight the church's deep pockets? Mine aren't. Public Internet forums are a potential gold mine for libel attorneys, and all because people think it's like the telephone or e-mail or even snail mail. Trust me, it is not. Furthermore, the forum would be liable too -- just as a newspaper publisher is liable for what their columnists and editorialists write or a TV network is liable for providing a "soundstage" for what the people who appear before their cameras broadcast. If you did make such an accusation, and if the $500/per-hour GC attorneys decided to pursue you, you would have to prove in court -- since demonstration of absolute truth is always an absolute defense against libel -- that she was one. Could you convince twelve jurors of your peers? If I could not -- and I cannot, nor would I want to -- then I would tend to be very very circumspect with my words here. And even if I could, there is the whole matter of the gospel of Christ to consider. How does talking about this matter advance the kingdom of God on earth? Are we not just giving people like Dr. Tazz more and more ammunition? Let the Australian dude take the risk and any consequent heat. Do you know who's behind him and who may be financing him and why? Your erstwhile "friend" on the EGW website is correct in at least one assertion: In this world things are seldom what they seem, especially where there's some $$$ to be made. And you know the old saying, "There is something safer than being just annoyed, and that's being a paranoid." Okay, so it isn't so funny the second time around. But there's a grain of truth in it. In my humble opinion it is far better to stick to what she herself has published. There's plenty there to unmask her as being out-of-sync with Scripture, which is all we're really concerned with here, is it not? Again, I'm not saying you have said anything wrong. I don't think you have, not yet. But I like you and respect you enough to want to warn you. Really and truly in your corner, Patti, Jude | ||
| Lydell |
Timo, I'd have to agree with you. When discussing EGW the focus should always be that she was a false prophet because what she said contradicts the Bible on some extremely important points. Jude, what I want to know is, if the GC is monitoring this site, then how come they won't take me off their stupid mailing lists?! Attention GC: TAKE ME OFF YOUR STUPID MAILING LIST! What do you think? Will it work? | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Lydell, You started me to laughing so much with that last post I'm still laughing as I write this. What a therapist you are! Many years ago I tried to get my name removed from the Review mailing list. They always ignored my pleas. Finally I got to sending the same little notice. I'd just copy it and change one thing: "1st request," "2d request," "3d request," ... "Nth request." Finally it stopped coming! Do I think your e-req will work? Good question. Picture a teen e-nerd with earphones trying to read a matrix of 144 computer screens simultaneously, scanning scanning scanning for something to report to his bosses, who are attorneys. He may himself be a pre-law student at CUC. Remember, if he finds something that looks like libel, he reports immediately and becomes a hero. Reward: Maybe, just maybe, a job clerking for one of the legion of GC attorneys after he graduates from law school 3, 4, 5 years hence. Now, do YOU think he'll bother with your request? You decide. Thanks for the laugh, Jude |
