Archive through July 7, 2000 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 2 » HERESIES YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN THE SDA CHURCH » Archive through July 7, 2000 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Max
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 10:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ellen said Jesus' divinity was "quiescent" while he was dead. Webster's Tenth: quiescent | to become quiet quiet, rest. 1. marked by inactivity or repose: tranquilly at rest. 2. [I LOVE this one!]: causing no trouble or symptoms {quiescent gallstones}.
visitor
Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Del Star,
I found your post interesting. I have only recently rejected adventism and many of these ideas are new to me. I always thought that Jesus rested in the tomb (on the sabbath). But I do remember reading that verse somewhere recently. And being perplexed by it. I will have to learn more about this. A visitor
Ray
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2000 - 7:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From Early Writings, Page 86 we read... "I SAW that the mysterous knockings in New York and other places was the POWER OF SATAN, and that such things would be more and more common, clothed in a religious garb so as to lull the deceived to greater security and to draw the minds of God's people, if possible, to those things that cause them to doubt the teachings and power of the Holy Ghost." This view was given in 1849, nearly 5 yrs. since. Then spirit manifestions were mostly confined to the city of Rochester, known as the "Rochester Knockings."
For 35 years I have been taught by the SDA church that what the Fox sisters did was not the result of trickery but according to EGW was the DIRECT WORK OF THE DEVIL. Not only this, havent you seen in SDA publications a picture of the Fox sisters home in which was a plaque saying "Spiritualism began in this house?"
Now from Grest Controversy, page 553 we read.. "Many endeavor to account for spiritual manifestations by attributing them wholly to fraud and sleight of hand on the part of the medium. But it is true that the results of trickery have often been palmed off as genuine manifestions, there have been, also, marked exhibitions of supernatural power. The mysterous rappings with which spiritualism began WAS NOT the result of human trickery or cunning, but was the DIRECT WORK OF EVIL ANGELS, who thus introduced one of the most successful of soul destroying delusions. Notice that this "inside information", supposedly from God was written down by EGW on paper as an "I SAW."
In a newspaper of the time in 1888, the New York World, October 21, 1888, published a "Confession" from the Fox sisters, stating that it all had been only cunning and trickery on the part of 2 young kids! Simple mischief and no more. They traveled all over the U. S. and England displaying their fraud. To read the entire newspaper article and their confession from 1888, go to the following web site to read it. Ellen G. White was totally wrong and delivered false reports to the Church in the name of God from "Vision."
http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/Foxtxt.htm
May the Lord guide you into all truth,
Ray Pitts
Ray
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2000 - 8:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In the 1868 version of Life Sketches we read this from the pen of James White.. "She (EGW) could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do not contain such thoughts.... If Mrs. White gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case, she has in a thousand cases, and GOD HAS NOT SHOWN HER THESE THINGS THAT SHE HAS WRITTEN."
By the way, this statement was deleted from the 1915 edition. I wonder why?
Ray
Steve
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2000 - 9:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good point, Ray.

As the senior pastor here at the La Sierra University church of SDAs said in a sermon this year, she apparently borrowed form sources.

Even though he couched that statement carefully, it is apparent that in some of the more liberal churches it is freely admitted that she borrowed.

Of course, in light of James White's statement, she therefore borrowed in a thousand cases and "God has not shown he these things that she has written."

As you so well show, it's good to go to the source. EGW has fallen, and all the Queen's pastors and all the Queen's men could not put EGW together again.
Breezy
Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2000 - 9:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

IF...she took these thoughts.
Steve
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 11:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Breezy,

James White said "If . . ." Many within the leadership of the SDA church (and some at the White Estate, if there's a difference!) now admit that she "borrowed" or "used sources."

For me it's interesting that most of those that she quoted from were in her personal library, or easily available to her.

Why doesn't she use sources that weren't easily available to her? Or did she?

Steve
Susan
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 1:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Sherry, thanks for your wonderful testimony! Wow, could I relate. I grew up with tons of guilt, worry, anxiety and fear. The "guilt" emotion is mentioned frequently with formers. "I could never measure up" is ALWAYS stated. But with Christ, there should be no fear or guilt. So many of us were exposed to spiritual abuse. That's really what it was/is folks! It truly breaks my heart that so many are deceived. The focus shouldn't be on us and what we can or can't do. Our focus should always be on the cross and what has ALREADY been done. This will lead to praise and overwhelming joy. "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." 1John 4:10, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear." 1John 4:18
By the way, have you found another church yet? You're surrounded by CRC's (Christian Reformed Church) in Grand Rapids. There are differences in each local church, but I've found the denomination to be a wonderful, bible-based, friendly place to worship. I'll be praying for you and your family as you make this huge transition out of Adventism.
God bless! Susan
Djconklin
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>For me it's interesting that most of those that she quoted from were in her personal library, or easily available to her.

What's more interesting is noting what she didn't copy. Another interesting fact is that some people who point out all of this alleged copying play games with the data!
Djconklin
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 2:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's some material from Rea's book that people don't tell you about (from the egwestate at Andrews):

"Ellen White is not the only object of attack in The White Lie. Ministers of all faiths are repeatedly characterized as "supersalesmen" or "salesmen of the psychic." The theme pervades the book:

All supersalesmen sell the advantages of their particular name brands. In the cults and sects, it's the brand of their saint and what is required by that saint to be saved. In the larger and longer established forms of religion, it's the Clan Plan, mother's religion, the faith of the fathers, the true light. [3][*]

Christian beliefs are ridiculed:

Who tagged all of us with sin? Was it God, or that snake in the grass that came in when Adam was down on the south forty? Or do we get it from our ancestors of past eons? Or is the Devil, like Santa Claus, our dad?[4]

Heaven is scoffed at:

Not very often, if ever, is one dealing with pure truth, either small or large, in religion. One is dealing with truth as filtered, expanded, diminished, bounded, or defined by the I-saws of all the Ellens of Christendom with a lot of help from the divines. What does emerge from all the froth is that the map for this life and the one to come, if indeed it does come, is drawn by the clan--and thus becomes the Clan Plan. Heaven becomes the main gate to isolation, where all the bad as we conceive of it (which in humanity's case means other people) is snuffed out, and only us good guys go marching through. Thus we make our own ghetto.[5]

Religion is deemed little more than a word game:

In most libraries, the religion department is under the subject heading of philosophy--and that is what it is, the defining and redefining of terms and ideas that have defied defining for centuries.[6]

The ways God has dealt with His people are scorned:

Freethinkers have always gotten [p. 2] into trouble. In the time of Moses, if anyone started a fire on his own to enjoy a cup of hot herb tea on Sabbath, he was stoned, and not in the modern sense of the word either. If he wandered around in the local swapmeet on Sabbath in the days of Nehemiah he might run the risk of having his beard pulled or his toupee disrupted. Even in the New Testament times, if Ananias kept out a few shekels from the tithe to pay the rent, he was told by the local divine to drop dead--which he did. [7]

Nevertheless, in spite of the book's emotion-laden attacks on Ellen White, on the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and on Christian beliefs in general, it does provide an opportunity to illuminate some interesting corners of Seventh-day Adventist history. Because the Seventh-day Adventist Church is growing so rapidly, there are always many new members who may not be well acquainted with Ellen White's life.They will appreciate having positive answers to some of the questions raised by the book. Then too, since the volume has received attention in the popular press in the United States, our fellow Christians in other denominations deserve a calm and candid evaluation of the book."
Steve
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 6:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Whether Walter Rea is even a Christian is not the point of his book. Although he raises many issues in that book, plagiarism is the one that specifically concerns EGW and her work.

The issue that I would like to see dealt with is the issue of plagiarism. Even Dan Smith, senior pastor here at La Sierra University SDA church admits she used sources. Is he wrong?

I've seen Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, fall to plagiarism, copying Solomon Spaulding's fictional work. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, copied. Even the theology of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses copies the theology of Charles Taze Russell (even though they officially claim otherwise). These have been well documented.

Now that EGW is caught doing the same thing, should we hold her to a lesser standard?

Just because Walter Rea goes "off" on some fundamentals of Christianity, does that mean that we throw out his research regarding plagiarism? There are MANY non, or even anti-Christians out there in the scientific world. Should we throw out their research and scientific method because they deny Jesus Christ?

Steve
Djconklin
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 8:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>Whether Walter Rea is even a Christian is not the point of his book. Although he raises many issues in that book, plagiarism is the one that specifically concerns EGW and her work.

<snip>

Just because Walter Rea goes "off" on some fundamentals of Christianity, does that mean that we throw out his research regarding plagiarism? There are MANY non, or even anti-Christians out there in the scientific world. Should we throw out their research and scientific method because they deny Jesus Christ?

The point I'm making is that you need to consider your sources of information very, very carefully. And when someone like Rea goes off the deep end such as he has that makes me wonder "Why?" What else is there about his thinking that is warped and in error? Will I be able to pick out which is real and which is nonsense? Or, will I accept some bits and pieces of error accidently? That's why I use the compare and contrast method in my studies. I have yet to meet/read of any work about Christianity, the Bible, relgion, or anything else of similar nature by any non- or anti-Christian that I was able to use constructively.
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 9:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let me tell you why...He was embittered with what he found out. It's part of the grieving process... he had found out stuff he never knew and was shocked, and then angry....you know the grieving process? Yes, the book does have an edge...and it is because of that. When you invest years into a ministry and a church, and then find that it betrays you or lies to you, it hurts deeply! If you talk to him today, you will find a gentler Walter Rae. He probably wrote the book in his time of anger with the church. His material and comparisons from book to book to book cannot be denied. He did a thorough job. But I bet there's even more borrowing going on then even what he discovered. There is a point where you have to let go, and move on with your life though. And he has done that. I know I was shocked, then angry, and then came acceptance. I cried many tears over what I learned. Even from the Veltman's material itself. Here she borrowed from even fictional sources for "Desire of Ages" yet every word was written as fact. That is wrong, wrong, wrong!! And that was from an SDA paid by the Conference to check out that piece of work specifically. That lacks integrity most certainly. And it hurts when you put faith in someone and find out they have acted deceitfully.
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 9:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Susan, Hey there! Yes, many CRC's. And I've been to them too. Maybe this is just me, but I find it frustrating that so many churches eliminate Sunday school during the summer months, and I want to find something substantial for my kids to be a part of too, not just play time. I am doing this on my own as well, as my husband is still sda. Thanks for asking. Just praying for God to give me peace on where to go.. a sense of...this is my church family....maybe I'm expecting too much? Maybe not...
Patti
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2000 - 4:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have been out of SDAism for 20 years. As a church musician, my career has taken me into most of the mainstream denominations. I would encourage you (plural) not to look for the "truest" church or the one with the most accurate theology, because no human organization can begin to contain the Truth of Jesus Christ. I urge you to "shop around" and look for a congregation that is warm and open and a minister that preaches grace; and, if you have children, one that will meet their needs. What is on paper is not nearly as important as what is in the atmosphere. Granted, you will have to look for a denomination that is not legalistic nor exclusive. The mainstream churches--Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Disciples, UCC, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.--are neither legalistic nor exclusive, although you will find ministers and members in each who still think that we have an active part to play in our salvation. But it is the individual congregation that is important. I have seen back-biting and hateful Methodists and Disciples, and I have seen those who were loving and grace-oriented. For me the most important thing is if the minister preaches grace. I would drive a long way each Sunday just to hear a grace-centered sermon.

As for the Sunday school situation, unfortunately, what you say, Sherry, I have also found to be true. One thing the SDAs do right is children's Sabbath School, and I have seen nothing to compare in the mainstream churches. I would suggest that you volunteer to serve as either teacher or Sunday School coordinator and make some gradual changes in the right direction. They are always looking for Sunday School teachers.

When my children and I were members of the Disciples church, I sent them to a Disciples summer camp. When we picked them up, I asked them what they had done. Basically all they did was swim in the pool and take hikes in the un-woods. (South Texas--my kids were taller than the trees!) So I immediately called the Arkla conference of SDAs and got them registered to go to Camp Yorktown Bay in Hot Springs, AR. Another thing SDAs do right is summer camp. My daughter went to Yorktown every summer thereafter. (My son was a Boy Scout and went to summer camp with them for one or two weeks a summer.)

Anyway, my main points are this:
1. There is no "right" church, IMO, but there are some "wrong" churches.
2. Sabbath school for young children is far superior to anything I have see in the mainstream churches. But that is not to say we cannot make a difference in our own church of choice.
3. It is not the denomination that counts as much as the individual congregation. Don't be afraid to "shop around."
Cindy
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2000 - 6:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patti,
Interesting observations from one who's been around other places for awhile. Thanks!

I agree with you that a grace-centered sermon is something I desire a lot! The Presbyterian (PCA) have really had many of those...I remember conferences on 'The Theology of the Cross' and one on 'Amazing Grace' both up at Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia, both wonderful... Sometime I'd like to post some of the thoughts shared in those talks.

Always under Grace,
Cindy
Maryann
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2000 - 8:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Y'all,

Since understanding the "cults/cultics" a little better, such as the JW, LDS, UPC, SDA etc, I've come to a conclusion. If we, as "CHRISTIANS" would put half the effort into endoctrinating and decipling our children as the above do, the world would be afire with the gospel from corner to corner so fast our heads would spin.

We aught to hide our faces in shame (generalizing) when we look at the ignorance of our children!!!!!!!!

The UPC and LDS in particular, take their children and make SURE they have a zillion mandatory classes to attend. These kids CAN defend their belief! How many of our kids can????

The Churches need to be agressive with the kids, BUT, us parents need to really look at ourselves and ask, "our WE preparing OUR OWN kids?"

For myself, I'm typing this with a bag over my head in shame as I've REALLY shirked my responsibility with my kids. That's changing though, quick! ;-)

Well, I better shut up and cut bigger holes in the bag so I can see while I'm driving home;-)

BTW, hats off and a big salute to all you parents that ARE preparing and training your kids! I know some and you have been an inspiration to me. Thank you.

Maryann
Djconklin
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2000 - 12:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>>He was embittered with what he found out. It's part of the grieving process... he had found out stuff he never knew and was shocked, and then angry....you know the grieving process? Yes, the book does have an edge...and it is because of that. When you invest years into a ministry and a church, and then find that it betrays you or lies to you, it hurts deeply! If you talk to him today, you will find a gentler Walter Rae. He probably wrote the book in his time of anger with the church.

Has he printed a retraction for the wild accusations?

My problem with some of these claims is several fold:

1) Claims about copying from a fictional work are made--I have yet to see the evidence presented.
2) Unless the person making the claim was there and looking over EGW's shoulder while she wrote they cannot prove that she actually copied or did it from memory.
3) Jusat because she used the word "Waldensians" in a passage doesn't mean that she copied it from a source--like one web page claimed.
4) Then there was the web page that claimed EGW copied from Harris' book "Great Teacher" and in the evidence they presented they cut off part of the sentance from Harris's book and didn't even have a complete paragraph (which would have dramatically reduced the "impact" of the alleged copying).
5) And finally, these people need to show that EGW had the book in her library or used it from somewhere else--which none of them do.
6) I've seen the Veltmann report and it isn't anywhere near as bad as some people (like on some of the anti-EGW/SDA web pages) make out.
7) I've also seen the Ramik report which the above either ignore or mis-represent.

Given then, all of the above I'm not impressed in the argument. Of course, I wasn't raised in an environment of blind belief in EGW nor one of "verbally inspired by God as to what to write." That may have affected me when the news about all this came out--that and I'm a skeptic who doesn't believe in all wild claims in the first place and I don't believe in everything the pastors ever said (most of them that I met didn't have the mental wherewithall to impress me--like when the education secretary would come to the church and sing the praises of and SDA education (I always wondered "If it's so good then how come you aren't?").
Sherry2
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2000 - 1:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Veltman made the claim to parts being taken from fiction. Read the report again.

If you are content and happy with SDAism, then stay there. What exactly are you looking for on a site that is directed at and for former adventists, djconklin? I find it amazing to understand why you can look at Rae's work and see the copying side-by-side. But I am more curious with why you are here? That is good that you don't believe all the wild claims. You are called to compare everything with Scripture and see what is true or not....and not be carried off with every strange doctrine that comes along. That is right. Who is Jesus to you, djconklin? What is salvation? What is the gospel?
Djconklin
Posted on Friday, July 07, 2000 - 4:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry: You wrote: "Veltman made the claim to parts being taken from fiction. Read the report again." I only have a copy of the summary but if you happen to know the page I'll look it up.

You also wrote: "If you are content and happy with SDAism, then stay there."

Well, as a matter of fact I'm not "content" which is one reason why I don't go to church.

You asked: "What exactly are you looking for on a site that is directed at and for former adventists, djconklin?"

I'm comparing and contrasting to see if there's something to this--so far all I have found is that most, if not all, of you have been seriously mis-led about what constitutes "SDA'ism".

You also said: "I find it amazing to understand why you can look at Rae's work and see the copying side-by-side."

I have Rea's (correct spelling) book--but not in hand. All I have seen so far about the copying is what I ran across on the web--and as I said before I wasn't impressed--too many unanswered questions and too many games being played with the evidence.

"But I am more curious with why you are here?"

Answered above

"That is good that you don't believe all the wild claims. You are called to compare everything with Scripture and see what is true or not....and not be carried off with every strange doctrine that comes along. That is right. Who is Jesus to you, djconklin? What is salvation? What is the gospel?"

My personal faith is my own business--especially when one considers that each of these question would require, I think, the equivalent of a doctoral dissertation to answer (and that for only small portions of each)--at least if one doesn't want to get chewed up one side and down the other for mis-stating things.

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