Archive through February 8, 2000 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 1 » Ellen and Lucinda? » Archive through February 8, 2000 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Lynn W
Posted on Monday, February 07, 2000 - 1:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Timo: "To have a homosexual orientation is also sin in a sence of original sin, but the same is true with having heterosexual orientation."

True, and that's what I said in my post: "ALL sexual sin is sin & one is not worse than another, but it's still sin."

Jude: "In other words, if salvation is relational, then sin is also relational."

Good point. Or as our pastor used to say, "the Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of right relationships."

Susan & Colleen, well put. Ditto on everything.

Maryann, great testimony! That's God for you.
From one computer illiterate to another: Try typing on your word processor. Then highlight the part to move - either by clicking & dragging the mouse or click "select all" on the "edit" pull-down menu, then click the icon between the scissors & the clipboard for copying. When you open up here, use the edit pull-down menu to click "paste," and...presto!
Allenette
Posted on Monday, February 07, 2000 - 6:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

W O W !!! Everybody on here has as yet tapdanced around Plain Patti's original post.....wonder why?
Her posit was: is there a possibility that Ellen G. White, was attracted to...found someone, a female, who....
was equally attracted to...her. And it was not so impossible that they found each other as soul mates enough that EGW wrote to her husband that he had to understand their attraction? This is so common amongst people who get into public limelight that I am snickering about you guys repulsion! So....since Patti i nowhere to be found, I will post this and wait for the incoming.
Colleentinker
Posted on Monday, February 07, 2000 - 9:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi, AllenetteóI don't think you're sensing repulsion; I think you're sensing that we pretty much all acknowledge that such a relationship is highly possible. It's just that after the level of deceit and dishonesty we've already acknowledged about her life, an attraction to a woman doesn't seem shocking or unlikely at all.

Since, however, there's no proof for such a relationship, we can't take it as more than what it is: a new idea. Refusing to speculate does not equal repulsion.
Lynn W
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2000 - 7:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, I couldn't have said it better. But to add my comments, I think if EGW was gay, that would explain a lot of what she wrote about marital sex. Ellen W. seemed to have extreme revulsion to the heterosexual relationship. Many women have chosen homosexual sex because of revulsion to men.

The other thing to remember is, IF it could be proven beyond all doubt that she was gay, so much so, that even the Adventists couldn't possibly deny it, I think it's a given that they would simply find some way to make excuses for it - idolatry demands it.
Jude the Obscure
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2000 - 10:30 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Allenette,

I've neither tapdanced nor felt repulsion. My attitude is, So what? I don't need an unprovable scandal to show that EGW contradicts the Bible and therefore disqualifies herself as any kind of authority. Thus, having strong and convincing evidence, what need have I for weak and "iffy" evidence?

Can you give me three good reasons why I should bother to react to EGWs alleged more-than-Christian-love scandal with some long-dead woman named Lucinda? Two, then? How about just one?

Jude
Jude the Obscure
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2000 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Allanette again,

You wrote, "What Patti posted above ... was to the best of my knowledge, found by the man who wrote "Prophetess of Health" years ago, during his research at the White Estate."

I have that book, "Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. WHite" by Ronald L. Numbers (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), lying open in front of me right now. I've read it thoroughly. There is only one reference to Lucinda Hall. And that is an excerpt from a letter from EGW to Lucinda Hall dated April 5, 1860. Here it is:

"The cause of God is a part of us [James and Ellen]. Our experience and lives are interwoven with this cause. We have no separate existence. It has been a part of our very being. The believers in present truth have seemed like our children. When the cause of God prospers, we are happy. But when wrongs exist among them, we are unhappy and nothing can make us glad. The earth, its treasures and joys, are nothing to us. Our interest is not here. Is it then strange that my husband with his sensitive feelings should suffer in mind?"

EGW here seems to be rationalizing her husband's depression, also called "nervous breakdown" back then. The context of the letter involves the apparently failing efforts of James to establish a "church on earth" among Adventist believers who were looking heavenward over the shoulders for Christ to come any second. (Salvation by terror?)

Writes Numbers, "By the early 1860s the sabbatarian Adventists numbered thirty-five hundred members scattered over the territory east of the Missouri River and north of the Confederacy. Since Christ still had not come, some of the brethren -- led by James White -- now turned their attention to establishing a church on earth. Resistance to such a move was great, however, and as a result James grew 'desperately discouraged.' He and his wife had invested their lives in the Advent movement, and it was difficult for them to take a detached view of things. Ellen esxplained their feelings in a poignant letter to her friend Lucinda Hall." Numbers then quotes the excerpt as I have reproduced it above.

More to the point, Numbers did not uncover that letter, but got it from Paul Gordon and Ron Graybill, "Letters to Lucinda," Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, CL (August 23, 1973), pp 6,7.

So, again, Ron Graybill turns out to be the one with the key to the truth. And he is denominationally employed. This knowledge may serve as his job security. I.e., if they fire him he will "spill the beans;" if he "spills the beans" they'll fire him. (Sanctification by terror? Or mutually assured destruction?)

But, Allenette, any idea of yours -- that "most ... former SDA's would QUAKE at the idea of worrying about EGW's sex life! LOLOL. That mental picture is just tooooo painful" -- is just ludicrous.

Won't you let us get up off the floor?

Jude
Allenette
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2000 - 1:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jude: sure, here, let me give you a hand....I assume you were ROFLY***O? Nuff said, ok? Sometimes I forget that the people on here are NOT SDA sympathetic, unlike the only other SDA-related forum I venture into :-)

I first "heard" the story a year or two ago from SDAnet, which mentioned Ron Numbers in connection with the letter. Perhaps I should have said that he was aware of the information, not that he discovered it. Mea culpa....wish you could see me beating myself with my keyboard! ;-) ow ow ow!!

Extending the olive branch of peace, I retreat to my glass house :-) No harm intended, honest. Patti started it, mom.... GGG

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration