| Author | Message | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 746 Registered: 11-2005 |
http://www.whiteestate.org/search/search.asp On that next walk in the woods be sure to wear your gas mask, and take lots of garbage bags. Gilbert Jorgensen It has been 162 Years, 10 Months, and 17 Days since October 22, 1844 | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2126 Registered: 10-2004  |
Yep, and she also condemned compost piles for the same reason.  Jeremy | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 747 Registered: 11-2005 |
Jeremy, this one was so funny it brought tears to my eyes! In an attempt to say at least something about almost everything, Ellen White had the previous quote to say about trees. This would suggest that a walk through the woods would be rather detrimental to one's health. Mrs. White thinks that God has things so ordered that leaves from His trees are poisoning the atmosphere. It seems she had many questions as to how God is running things. Gilbert Jorgensen It has been 162 Years, 10 Months, and 17 Days since October 22, 1844 | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1043 Registered: 10-2002  |
Wouldn't this make those Sabbath afternoon "nature walks" incredibly dangerous, especially in the autumn? | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4284 Registered: 3-2004  |
Now I know what happened to me. I took my son for walks in the woods/parks on sabbath in the spring, summer and FALL!!! Shame on me. My brain got poisoned from God's nature!!! LOL!!! I am so glad our awesome God has a sense of humor. Diana | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 324 Registered: 7-2005  |
EGW would be correct, though, if the fallen leaves were from poison ivy plants. We have a lot of that around here in the Midwest, and the vines grow all up and down the lovely shade trees. To remove those leaves, one would have to treat them like hazardous waste, because even burning them can be life threatening. The smoke can get into the lungs and cause internal swelling that can kill those who are especially sensitive. Don't you see? The little lady was right again! Honestwitness | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1049 Registered: 10-2002 |
LOL, but don't forget she said shade trees... maybe the poison ivy was bigger and more powerful in her day?  | ||
| Zjason Registered user Username: Zjason Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2005  |
Now just a minute. She knew what she was talking about here. I have personally been attacked by vicious elm and maple leaves. They fall on my head, practically knocking me unconcious this time of year. What about when they get wet with the fall rains and you are racing your horse and buggy and go around the corner too fast and your buggy wheels skid and you go top over tea kettle into the creek? I don't feel I have to mention(tho I will) when they are raked into a pile and you and your children jump into them, the cruel dry leaves crumble and get into your shorts, leaving you irritated, inflamed, and itchy--distracting you from the higher thoughts you should be thinking. Yes. She was wrong about many things. But she was right about the wickedness of leaves. The truth about leaves must be told. | ||
| Olga Registered user Username: Olga Post Number: 84 Registered: 11-2005 |
I've read several of the latest "Exposing Adventism" threads and I've have quite a few good laughs. Thanks for these 'jewels' coming straight from the mouth of the prophet. I'll have to re-read these anytime I'm tempted to doubt my leaving the SDA church (I actually don't anymore). How could I have been so blind??????? | ||
| Olga Registered user Username: Olga Post Number: 85 Registered: 11-2005 |
These quotes would have been great in a Saturday Night Live skit; one that comes to mind: "And Now, Deep Thoughts by" E.G.W. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 214 Registered: 5-2007 |
Decaying leaves produce methane, and fungus. I assume bacteria in its various forms would be included. If there is a lot of this decaying matter in close proximity to a home, I can see where it could affect one's health overtime or under certain calm air nights. For people with lung problems, this could very much be a problem. I doubt walking in the woods in open air would be an issue for most folks. Since one is not disturbing the bio mass. However in a yard where the owner is trying to preserve the grass. Raking decaying leaves can be unhealthy due to mold if they are allowed to rot for too long before removal. Almost every website on asthma advises against raking leaves for those sensitive. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1061 Registered: 8-2004  |
I'm told that the SDARM Doctors at the Curitiba (Brazil) Sanitarium rake all fallen leaves from the fruit trees in their back yard on a daily basis, so that no untoward health effects will arise. Jim, I agree that there are instances where decaying leaves can be a health issue for some people. | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 172 Registered: 5-2007  |
The point of posting this thread is to expose ridiculous statements from someone who is thought to be speaking wisdom directly from God. The fact that a few people, under certain situations, might be harmed from being around the decay process is not the issue. Since I live in a forested area, the idea of "cleaning up" the fallen leaves on the ground seems to be extremely absurd. I might just as well as to go down to the nearby Puget Sound and pump out the water because the tide might rise to high. Somebody might drown if they just stand there and forget to move to higher ground. Although there are many other byproducts resulting from the decay process, methane gas is one that is non toxic and not a poison. It is only a danger when it displaces oxygen in enclosed spaces such as the room of a home. Therefore, it is a good idea to clean up any and all decay products from around your house. Plant life, especially trees, are well known to be purifiers of our atmosphere, not polluters, and the decay process is a vital step in the life cycle of all living things. Without the decay process, life on this planet would be impossible, which is what makes Ellen G. White's statement seem so wacky. Phil | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 173 Registered: 5-2007 |
The following is the full quote. Placed in context, it reads different. So, lesson learned here is to be sure state the original meaning. Otherwise, we are "proof texting".
Reading the full statement, within its context, I have no problem with this quote. Phil | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 164 Registered: 5-2007 |
Another instance of the cultic fingerprint of a "time-lie". sda's in general have been cursed with time distortions, being their particular focal point of Millers 1843-44 was a time-lie. egw claims these leaves "poison" the atmosphere. I wonder just where we are to remove all these leaves to, that will not poison the air?
Rays directly from the throne indeed. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1062 Registered: 8-2004 |
In context it does read more palatably. Even so, there are things in it that do not square with what we understand to be reality: Say what? | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 166 Registered: 5-2007 |
Mary, consumption in those days meant tuberculosis. Maybe during wet seasons infected people were more easily able to share the TB germ? That would be my guess. But do not forget this other maxim from the throne:
| ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1063 Registered: 8-2004 |
Yes Larry, It did mean TB, and there are a number of ways to rationalize this paragraph into some semblance of coherency. However God is not the Author of sibylline prophecy - utterances that must be deciphered by the initiated and may be interpreted so many ways as to almost always fit what comes to pass in some (often stretched) way. Let's evaluate this statement part by part:
Is this a:always true b:usually true c:sometimes true d:never true e: other I would take C. I understand that trees and shrubs planted right up against a house in a damp, swampy area (which in fairness is referred to later in the paragraph), but the statement is made as if it were universal - therefore I would evaluate this portion of the statement as not accurate to the facts. Trees and in lesser degree shrubs can be a danger to houses for other reasons i.e. they can fall on houses in thunderstorms or high wind situations, they can permit the egress of tresspassers with good or ill intentions, shrubs hugging a house can help mold develop on the siding, etc, etc. But they are not always a danger to houses because "they prevent a free circulation of air and shut out the rays of the sun". In fact they contribute much to the healthful qualities of the air that circulates in the house, and shade is a wonderful boon to health in some climates and seasons. In dry, hot climates they not only provide shade, but add moisture to the air which acts as a natural 'air conditioner' (this is why lying under the shade of a tree is more comfortable than huddling in the shadow of a large building). Now let us move on.
Is this a:always true b:usually true c:sometimes true d:never true e:other Here I'd have to say E. This starts of with the statement that wet seasons create damp sleeping quarters. This much is true - especially if there are no air conditioners, heaters, dehumidifiers, etc available. But it therefore follow that this is the cause of "rheumatism, neuralgia, and lung complaints which generally end in consumption" of the occupiers? Lets unpack this sentence. Rheumatism is mentioned, and is known to be worse in poor weather. But is it the poor weather that causes it? Is it, specifically, wet bedrooms?" Is not damp climate or humid weather an aggravator of the pain of rheumatism no mater where the person sleeps? What about Neuralgia? According to About.com's article on Nerve Pain - Neuralgia, causes of nerve pain can vary greatly, however, injuries, nerve degeneration, inflammation, compression, and many diseases including many types of arthritis, can lead to nerve pain. Ok, since arthritis is one of the contributers to neuralgia, damp weather could conceivably contribute to worsening pain in some types of neuralgia. Is damp sleeping quarters then a cause of neuralgia? Ok, now to lung complaints: We know that there is bacterial tuberculosis. What are its causes? According to EmedicineHealth.com's Article Tuberculosis "passed from person to person via droplets. When someone with TB infection coughs, sneezes, or talks, tiny droplets of saliva or mucus are expelled into the air, which could be inhaled by another person." Nothing here about damp places - whether bedrooms or otherwise. Can we squeeze a little harder and at least credit her with finding one of the risk factors? The same article quoted above has this to say about risk factors: "Risk factors for TB include the following: * HIV infection * Low socioeconomic status * Alcoholism * Homelessness * Crowded living conditions * Diseases that weaken the immune system * Migration from a country with a high number of cases * Health care workers" Hmm. Not there. Doesn't even mention "lung complaints" as a contributer, though I can agree that the early TB symptoms may manifest themselves as lung complaints.
Is this a:always true b:usually true c:sometimes true d:never true e:other Hmm. I think D fits best here. It is true that decaying green matter, including leaves, can develop molds and such that can cause problems for people with certain conditions - allergies and athsma being two easy ones to think of. However, except for poison plants (which are harmful to humans comfort even when alive) I can think of no leaf that will immediately upon touching the ground begin emitting poison.
Is this a:always true b:usually true c:sometimes true d:never true e: other I think I'd go with B on this one. It is true that many people gain enjoyment and benefit from having trees somewhere nearby (though I've known an oddball or two who preferred graveled areas with rock designs to herbage of any kind in their immediate surroundings). I would even agree that most people, at least in my culture, would prefer to have their houses 'high and dry'. But does this make it a principle? Is it something that must be done "if possible"? What about boat people? Are their housing choices subjecting them to (likely deadly) diseases"? What about the Innuit in Alaska, who build their houses on stilts in swampy areas near rivers? And there are others.
Is this a:always true b:usually true c:sometimes true d:never true e: other I would have to choose E here. This, along with the 'night air' idea EGW debunks in the next paragraph, was a common understanding in the 19th century. It was thought that some poisonous substance arose from damp areas to cause sickness. In fact, IIRC, this was one of the supposed causes of malaria (the 'fever and ague' of the quote) - the part of the mosquito not yet being understood. This idea carries on even today in the superstition that 'going out with your head wet' is a recipe for a cold. EGW did correctly note that there seems to be a connection between damp places and certain diseases, even if she got the correlation right. Now, the quote having been looked at in it's constituent parts, let's stand back and consider. She did get some things right: It's true that trees and shrubs 'right up next to a house' can contribute to problems. It's true that wet weather and damp lodgings can contribute to pain and suffering, especially with people suffering from certain conditions. It's true that decaying matter can contribute to the discomfort and/or poor health of certain people. It's true that trees properly situated can add to the enjoyment of a house. It's true that people living in damp, swampy areas are more likely to suffer from certain ailments, though just damp and swampy are not the only risk factors - malaria also requires a warm enough climate to survive. BUT, the following have been found false, or not even applicable: That trees and shrubs prevent free circulation of the air, or that shade from the sun is always bad in a home. That damp sleeping quarters are the cause of, or necessarily even a contributer to "rheumatism, neuralgia, and lung complaints which generally end in consumption". That "leaves, which, if not immediately removed, decay and poison the atmosphere." That "Dwellings, if possible, should be built upon high and dry ground." That "fever and ague, sore throat, lung diseases, and fevers" are the result of a "poisonous miasma arises" from around houses that are not sufficiently dry. What then are the possible conclusions? Is the statement as a whole then a:always true b:usually true c:sometimes true d:never true e: other I would have to go with E. She does have a good dose of 'true' facts here, such as are consistent with the scientific 'common knowledge' of her day, but there is no evidence in this passage of a grasp of universal truth, even in her day, and certainly no grasp of what would be found in the future. So far as I can see there is no 'precious truth' to be gleaned from this statement that could not have been gleaned from many other contemporary sources of her day. And there are many untruths even in this small passage that have been shown to be false in the ensuing time between her and us. Blessings, Mary | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 757 Registered: 11-2005 |
Hi Phil, You are right in that the full context reads: At the risk of appearing obtuse, I don't see the context changing the effect of the sentence Superficially it might appear that it does. I propose that in this case the context serves as "noise", to make it appear that she has a new insight to share with us. Unfortunately this is a technigue that she uses over and over when she presents spiritual "insights", fortified with "I saw", "I was shown", "My angel showed me", "The sweet and lowly Jesus said to me", etc. For me it is just another classic example of Ellen White's liberal use of obfuscation. It seems she thought if she surrounded a thought with enough meaningful words that anything would appear legitimate! Let's look at the full statement in more detail. In my opinion, it can be divided into three parts. The first thought would read So far, so good -- except perhaps for her prognosis about rheumatism, neuralgia, and lung complaints generally ending in tuberculosis. (See http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/mdd/v05/i02/html/02timeline.html) I am not so sure that I would want her for my doctor. It seems to me the general thrust is the commonly held understanding that good air circulation is needed around living areas. Having lived in western North Carolina, I can appreciate that. There were times when there was so much rain that it would have made no difference how many trees were outside. The very ground itself was saturated. In fact it is for that very reason that we moved to Utah where we frequently have a 10% humidity instead of 100% humidity! Whether the house has a basement, a crawlspace, or is built on a slab will also be a factor. So it really has very little to do with whether trees with live leaves, or dead leaves on the ground, surround the house. The point is that adequate air circulation is needed, inside and out, otherwise the living area will stay damp. Next, let's look at the other side of this "Oreo sandwich". To my way of thinking, the second half basically restates the same thing that the first half is saying. There is nothing revolutionary here, and presumably nothing that required "divine inspiration" for her to arrive at these common-sense conclusions. What is startling, once the two outer layers of this "Oreo sandwich" are removed is the resulting statement, This statement, on its face, it pure nonsense! This is a style of writing that Ellen White uses over, and over, and over again to bewitch so many of her Seventh-day Adventist adherents. She produces a non-original statement that almost everyone agrees with, and thin inserts some (usually religious) nonsense into the middle of it. How many hours have we expended trying to point out that because 90% of what she wrote sounds right, that the other 10% negates the validity of what she wrote? That is precisely why our task is so difficult. Seventh-day Adventists prance around pointing to the portion that is valid, and saying "See! It is Biblical." At the same time they ignore the 10% that is baloney. Back to the only really original statement in the quote above. Since most shade trees "cast of many leaves", be they broadleaf or needles, I think we can effectively distill this statement to its basic message Now that we have removed all the extra layers of this "Cochina doll", the utter foolishness of this statement becomes much more apparent. To further clarify what happens when we do have "many leaves", a condition that a few of us may have encountered during our lifetimes, we can safely distill this statement to its core "truth" - the nugget that Ellen White, with her "pen of inspiration", wishes to alert us to. There we have it. Have we changed the core "truth" of this statement? I think not. It is only when we "peel away" all the layers of obfuscation, that the utter ludicrousness of this statement shines forth in its full glory. It is that: 1. When leaves decay they poison the atmosphere. 2. More leaves decaying do even more damage to the atmosphere. 3. Was this an "oversight" in the design process? Next, let's take a moment to imagine how many leaves are decaying at any given moment on this planet. And every one of these leaves are poisoning the atmosphere? Perhaps we have a bigger problem than global warming -- that of decaying leaves poisoning the atmosphere! What will these people ever do when then "flee to the mountains" during the Time of Trouble? Bring gas masks with them? (Secret info: If the all move to the much drier climate of Utah or Nevada first, they won't have to worry about as many tree leaves.) And prior to the impending "Universal Sunday Law", as they "move to the country" to get away from the coming persecution in the cities, Should they ask their real estate agents to locate country properties with a minimal amount of "decaying leaves"? I appreciate your bearing with me as I entertain myself for a little bit. I just felt this statement at its core, exposes more of her effort to address every conceivably known problem to man. Have a great day! Gilbert Jorgensen It has been 162 Years, 10 Months, and 19 Days since October 22, 1844 | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 215 Registered: 5-2007 |
Well it looks like we had to actually think through the running jokes as it were. EGW , for better or worse, attempted to convey health information that was known in her day to people who had no idea of medical terms or used terms that are antiquated today. Sometimes in the attempt to discredit the source, (EGW), we throw out common sense in the process. We risk assuming that we are now at liberty to abandon all health advice and frolic with glee. What is this propensity to make the Christian workers of our past the subject of scorn and amusement? Does that build us up? Does it futher our convictions? Does it embolden? Or, are we simply looking for accomplices in this stone throwing contest? I can accept or reject EGW's doctrine, even her messages. But I draw the line at judging and jesting about her sincerity. It is a question of respect. This is not a situation of simply seeking the truth. It has become a sport. |
