A Sledgehammer taken to the dishonesty of Ellen White?
- Thread starter pythons
- Start date
I'm sorry, the fact is she certainly did.
If you take two minutes to think about it this is EXACTLY the way she confirmed everything. Remember, Ellen White didn't create a single doctrine in the SDA Church, she only AFFIRMED the Doctrines others fabricated were true - by her supposed Spirit of Prophecy Charism.
Thus, when the Pioneers militantly hammered away in the Sabbath Herald that Father God had EVERY member and part of a perfect man that would include a small & large intestine AND yes, a RECTUM.
I can understand how it would be embarrassing to acknowledge how the SDA Church, during the time Ellen White was alive, very publically, rebuked every Church who said God was spirit and DIDN'T have a body or parts claiming those Churches were "Babylon" because they affirmed the Trinity Doctrine. This is something SDA's have to reconcile with themselves.
Yep, it is just one of many, many heresies in the SDA church which need explanation because they cannot standup to the rigors of exegesis.
Icyspark
Active member
Hi pythons,
I really find it rather pointless to continue this line of thought. That you have no direct quote from Ellen White where she says, "God has a rectum," which is what you claimed, is the fact of the matter. Now that you've been caught in your misinformation campaign you are trying to spin your comment to mean that she implied that God has a rectum. The mere fact that you selectively chose to speak of God using this term is salacious (or for John t's benefit, obscene or grossly indecent) as well as totally irreverent and sacriligious.
I'm totally willing to be wrong on this account. If God doesn't have a body then please show me from the Bible why I should believe that. So far everyone who has commented on this line of thought has been expressing personal opinion and outright rejecting what the Bible itself has to say about God. In the above narrative God Himself acknowledges His:
- Face
- Hand
- Back
Also, in your attempt to disparage Ellen White--since she never specifically said, "God has a rectum"--why didn't you choose a less offensive aspect of a body such as, oh, I don't know ... a face, a hand or a back? Bizarre how that works, huh? You chose to be intentionally obscene when speaking of God.
I pray this helps.
Claiming great Apes mounted and bred human females, which in turn produced confused fruit 9 months after the mating event is salacious. Ellen White did just that and her contemporaries DEFENDED her position in the Sabbath Herald! I've posted this material before so I'm fairly sure you know about it.
If it's any easier for you to take I could say that Ellen claimed Father God had testicles or I could start at the other end of the "BODY" and say she claimed Father God has and always had an esophagus - it could be said Ellen White claimed Father God possessed ANY member, part or organ OF A PERFECT MAN.
I don't recall any claims Steve Daily made about Ellen in his book that could be considered salacious. There is some stomach churning quotes however that would make the average bear run for a vomit bucket.
Circa 1845 Ellen instructed the people of God not to breed - some people had kids anyway. One couple lost their kids and here is how the prophet reacted.
"When you really [believe] this message the effect upon you will be to separate from the world, live out your faith, sell that you have, give alms, and lay up for yourself a treasure in the heavens. God has come very near unto you when you were a great distance from Him. HE TOOK TWO IDOLS FROM YOU THAT YOU MIGHT DRAW NEAR UNTO HIM AND THAT GOD ALONE MIGHT BE EXALTED AND TO REIGN SUPREME IN YOUR HEART, AND THAT YOUR EYE MIGHT BE SINGLE TO HIS GLORY. THESE CHILDREN WERE SNATCHED AWAY FROM YOU TO SAVE YOU AND HER....." Ellen White, Letter 1, 1857 (this letter was FORCED into publication by the White Estate Hack). Page 143 of Steve Daily's book.
As the book I pulled this from clearly established - Ellen was quite clear that the flock was NOT TO BREED - there wasn't time for this - some of the flock disobeyed and garnered the frown of Christ and Ellen. The book has quite a few quotes like this - the point I'm making is that the points are NOT salacious at all.
Icyspark
Active member
Hi pythons,
I can pretty much guarantee you don't have a quote that says this. This is like an atheist taking a text from the Bible and mangling it to mean something it doesn't say. Pretty much like what you've been doing with the God has a rectum sin-ario. But please, let's see your evidence for this one.
It's fairly apparent that when a critic persistently avoids an issue I bring up that the critic privately acknowledges that their position is weak and untenable.
In my last post I wrote the following:
Also, in your attempt to disparage Ellen White--since she never specifically said, "God has a rectum"--why didn't you choose a less offensive aspect of a body such as, oh, I don't know ... a face, a hand or a back? Bizarre how that works, huh? You chose to be intentionally obscene when speaking of God.
Your comment above (highlighted in red) is so offensive I can't even retype it. It just validates my point that you manufactured the most rude and obscene word picture you could imagine (who does that?) and then attempted to pin your rudeness onto Ellen White.
Now you're back to being not only sacrilegious, but the rudeness is being amped up. I find it ironic how you attempt to find fault with Ellen White and with Adventists in general, yet you post such glaringly obscene comments about my holy God. The name of God is so holy we're commanded not to speak it needlessly (i.e. in vain), yet here you are speaking of God in reckless and intentionally offensive terms.
Furthermore, another aspect of my post that you ignored--again--is this:
I'm totally willing to be wrong on this account. If God doesn't have a body then please show me from the Bible why I should believe that. So far everyone who has commented on this line of thought has been expressing personal opinion and outright rejecting what the Bible itself has to say about God. In the above narrative God Himself acknowledges His:
- Face
- Hand
- Back
Again I ask, show me where [Exodus 33] went from a literal narrative to being metaphorical.
ATTN. LURKERS: The critics of Adventism can't respond to this line of thought because should they honestly do so they'd have to admit that their point of attack is in fact point-less. Catholics are not looking strictly at what the Bible says. They elevate their tradition above divine inspiration and are in no position to be critical of those who adhere to what the Bible actually says. [In the Exodus 33:20-23 narrative] we read that God has a FACE, a HAND, and a BACK. Elsewhere the Bible says He has a waist, loins, eyes, eyelids, nostrils, ears, mouth, lips, tongue, breath, and feet. If one is going to be critical of a belief in God having a body, shouldn't one be able to articulate why the Bible is clearly incorrect in all it's bodily descriptions for God? And why doesn't the critic attack the Bible?
Last edited:
Christian SDA
Member
There is nothing obscene about a rectum.
It is a necessary part of every human body.
Humans, quite rightly, get very concerned and worried when the rectum ceases to work properly.
I prey this helps.
Well if God has literal hands, a back and face He is humongous.
When Solomon was dedicating the temple he said this in 1 Kings 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built.
Of course, I have one for you. Let me guide you through it.
As you know Ellen - functioned as a shot caller for the small gang of Millerite anti-Trinitarian separatists...
...Her job wasn't to fabricate / create Doctrines but to identify truth from error.
...In other words, if you wanted the truth, you went to Ellen!
...SHE was the source of truth for the Trinity slanderers.
Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"
As you can see being devoted and busting hard core sod on the Bible didn't crack the nut of what was truth and what was error! Companies of those anti-Trinitarians would literally search the Scriptures and EARNESTLY beg God for a bone BUT the mechanism which ushered in truth was Ellen White - operating under the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, back to your Great Ape question.
Everyone knows Ellen White claimed that after the flood beasts had been amalgamated with people. This isn't that shocking given in the 19th century the uneducated commonly believed a Gorilla or Orangutan could snatch woman, pack her off into the bush and mate. Later on, the ladies would bear fruit (of the confused sort).
edit image violation
When Ellen made her Amalgamation statements some Baptists took her to task, publicly!
...This generated a back-and-forth debate of sourts in the Sabbath Herald.
...It's here that Ellen White's apologists defend her ape/human hybridization teaching.
Please notice that above apologetic is CONFIRMING the belief that Apes bred human females! This is what Naturalists of that time and prior asserted repeatedly.
To make my point clear I'll quote again from the Sabbath Herald where apologetics are again applied to Ellen's "VISIONS" that claimed Apes bred human females.
"Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, page 78, was referred to and • ridiculed by the Baptist minister. He said that what Sister White said about amalgamation of man and beast was utterly impossible. I referred him to Johnson's New Cyclopedia, pp. 1040, 1042, that he might learn for the first time, if he never knew it before, that "Allied species are capable, as a rule, of pairing and producing offspring; " and that, " under the influence of man, mongrel races readily arise and are indefinitely sustained,"—just exactly what Sister White says. The elder said her teachings were worse than Darwinism. But I showed that her teachings were correct (Lev. 18:23, 24), and that his were worse than nonsense." Sabbath Herald November 28, 1878.
I'll insert the actual section below so you can see I'm not making stuff up and that the Apologetic actually said that was EXACTLY what Sister White [ I'm pretty sure that's Ellen ] says. Furthermore, at that time it was believed by the uneducated that Hottentots were a sub race of humanoid that was part Orangutan. The Digger Indians were thought to breed with bigfoot and possibly Black & Grizzly bears. The article QUOTES the Levitical text:
"neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."
edit image violation
So yes, Ellen White indeed claimed there was hanky-panky going on in the jungle. In her defense this was commonly believed by the uneducated masses both in America and in Britan. The problem Ellen had was that she swore God confirmed Apes (an allied species to mankind) was buggering wanton girls.
I've posted this information before and it always stuns me when SDA's later (and I believe honestly) forget all about it. There is no way out of admitting Ellen believed and taught through the visions that Apes mated with humans and produced confused species. But have no fear, as long as there was still a dop of "ADAMIC BLOOD" in the creature it was still to be considered a man.
Hopefully this clears things up a bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did the plan of salvation come after man sinned? Ellen wrote that it came after. Scripture says before. Is Ellen really the last word on scriptural meaning?
Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost ... I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded His Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with the Father.... Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen.... He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself ... Jesus bade the heavenly host be reconciled to the plan that His Father had accepted... Early Writings, pp. 149-151.
Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost ... I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded His Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with the Father.... Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen.... He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself ... Jesus bade the heavenly host be reconciled to the plan that His Father had accepted... Early Writings, pp. 149-151.
In Adventism "the Lord's portion" means the tithe. Scripture tells us that it was the grower of crops and/or animals that paid tithe. The tent maker, candle maker or anyone else not associated with farming would not have come under the tithing system. Also, the tithe was never paid in shekels. Yet we find the following from the pen of inspiration:
The man who has been unfortunate, and finds himself in debt, should not take the Lord's portion to cancel his debts to his fellow men. He should consider that in these transactions he is being tested, and that in reserving the Lord's portion for his own use he is robbing the Giver. He is debtor to God for all that he has, but he becomes a double debtor when he uses the Lord's reserved fund in paying debts to human beings. "Unfaithfulness to God" is written against his name in the books of heaven. He has an account to settle with God for appropriating the Lord's means for his own convenience. And the want of principle shown in his misappropriation of God's means will be revealed in his management of other matters. It will be seen in all matters connected with his own business. The man who will rob God is cultivating traits of character that will cut him off from admittance into the family of God above. (6T 391.1)
Here Ellen, the judge?, is condemning a "double debtor" to Hell,
The man who has been unfortunate, and finds himself in debt, should not take the Lord's portion to cancel his debts to his fellow men. He should consider that in these transactions he is being tested, and that in reserving the Lord's portion for his own use he is robbing the Giver. He is debtor to God for all that he has, but he becomes a double debtor when he uses the Lord's reserved fund in paying debts to human beings. "Unfaithfulness to God" is written against his name in the books of heaven. He has an account to settle with God for appropriating the Lord's means for his own convenience. And the want of principle shown in his misappropriation of God's means will be revealed in his management of other matters. It will be seen in all matters connected with his own business. The man who will rob God is cultivating traits of character that will cut him off from admittance into the family of God above. (6T 391.1)
Here Ellen, the judge?, is condemning a "double debtor" to Hell,
Icyspark
Active member
Hi Christian SDA,
When one uses the word in a sensationalistic and intentionally inflammatory manner when they could've chosen any other aspect of the human body then yes, speaking of my holy God in such manner is obviously intended to be obscene.
Christian SDA
Member
Expression of your fallible and inferior to God human opinion here within the limits of the rules of CARM is your right
Icyspark
Active member
Hi Christian SDA,
I'm taking it that your language here indicates that your screen name is no longer applicable?
Christian SDA
Member
I’m taking that you selectively apply your screen name.
I stated nothing different than the words expressed by another.
Icyspark
Active member
Hi Christian SDA,
Ha! I thought you sounded similar to SDAchristian. Yet according to your supplied quote box, that isn't anything he said. So actually it is different.
Christian SDA
Member
Thanks for acknowledgement of the similarity.
Icyspark
Active member
Hi Christian SDA,
I guess the saying is true, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Here's my question again, stated in a different manner: Are you currently or have you ever been a Seventh-day Adventist?
Christian SDA
Member
Hi Christian SDA,
I guess the saying is true, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I have a question for you: Are you currently or have you ever been a Seventh-day Adventist?
I find that we SDA’s are often easily flattered.