This column is quite timely. Alita Byrd just interviewed Ron Numbers since a new version of Prophetess of Health was just released, and I'll be posting some of the classic reviews of this book. His book certainly looked at EGW's health/medical advice in light of her contemporaries.

We just found out last week that we're having a girl--I had already told my husband that I wasn't sure if I would want to circumcise a boy, and now knowing that a big reason why this practice gained such widespread popularity was because it was thought to curb the "solitary vice"....yikes!

Wasn't it Dr. Kellog who recommended pouring carbolic acid over the genitals to curtail or stop this "horrible habit"?

Because EGW was right about some things, is like a broken clock: it's right at least twice in 24 hours. What havoc some of her medical advice has done is immeasurable. She was a product of her time just like every other writer; only she was called a "prophet of God" by her followers and every word she said was "shown in vision" with threats of hell and damnation to those who did not accept and follow her advice.

Let's lead the dead lie buried.

So, the test of a prophet is if they are less offensive, or less wrong than their contemporaries?

Happy Tuesday

The prophet must rely on his or her followers. Simply calling someone a prophet is insufficient unless there are enough followers who agree. If someone is a prophet and no one follows the advice, is it like a tree falling in forest and nobody hears? Hearers and followers are necessary for a prophet.

David,

Doctors have continued to perform clitoridectomies (more recently clitoral recessions) into the present time on intersexed children. These surgeries are not done to discourage masturbation but rather to give a more "normal" look to clitoris.

I was subjected to this procedure myslef in 1974. I can attest to the fact that it reduces sensitivity.

Elaine:

Read Acquired or Inspired by Don McMahon and you'll see that, at least in regards to her health advice, Ellen White was right a good deal more than 1/12 of the time.

http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/

So is there a magic number of percentages of being right that defines a prophet? Is it 20%, 30%, or even 50%, the latter being the odds of tossing a coin. That doesn't give any more significance than the bets makers.

On scientific and medical matters, as well as biblical and historical accuracy, there are far better sources than a self-designated seer of 150 years ago.

Even the Bible prophets had a message for their time, but certainly it should not be considered relevant or timely for today when situations are entirely different.

BTW: I found nothing on the site that spoke to EGW.

In my view, Ellen White's counsels on matters of health and sexuality appeared at a time when she was under pressure to exert her authority in a new way. Ron Numbers has detailed in Prophetess of Health how contemporary written sources appeared in her visions and writings in the 1860s, suggesting she was reading much more widely of contemporary developments in health sciences. I also consider that after Adventists began losing some ground to Spiritualists such as Moses Hull and early 'mind-cure' advocates, White felt herself in a cultural war against what she saw as a crisis in physicality; she wanted to affirm the role of the mind without undermining the 'biological' or 'natural law' basis of her views on health. There is some evidence, beginning in the 1860s and 1870s, that she felt a distinct rivalry with Mary Baker Eddy and her disciples. After all, SDA's embraced a physicalism against soul-spirit theories of human personality, so she and James may have felt it their calling to articulate the SDA position and grabbed upon allies from the popular presses, as they did in "An Appeal to Mothers' and other publications. In our own times, we have seen how various sexually-related concerns have come and gone: abortion and the status of the unborn, the pill and sex as pleasure and recreation, abstinence theories, anal sex, the AIDS crisis, the recovered memory phenomena of the 1990s, and the current Viagra craze. The deeper reasons why masturbation, the sexual flavor of the day, should receive such focus by the Whites, is possibly buried in family history as much as it was printed in medical periodicals and touted as an evil by lecturers seeking to explain the apparent moral decay of the younger generation.

Elaine:

The website in my signature line is my home on the internet. For more about Acquired or Inspired you can go to http://www.acquiredorinspired.com/.

For me, percentages do not define a prophet, but the percentages that McMahon discusses in his book have helped me conclude that Ellen White did indeed receive messages from God and that although they were delivered in a culture vastly different from mine, there is still an aspect to them which is relevant today.

http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/

I checked a medical book I have in my library about this topic and discovered that, according to the author, one way of preventing an enlarged prostate in old age is to engage in an active sexual life. My question is: If sexual activity contributes to the preservation of health, then how come the "solitary vice" is unhealthy and responsible for such horrible diseases?

I also wondered about those Adventist soldiers who are away on duty for extended periods of time. How can they protect themselves from eventually becoming victims of an enlarged prostate short of doing what other soldiers do: visit local prostitutes. Is it a sin for them to relieve the tension which results from a natural build-up of testosterone by means of a quick self gratifying activity?

Could it be that Ellen White was talking about self abuse as oppossed to self use? I'll use food as an example. In order to stay healthy we must eat. Nevertheless, gorging one self by overeating is condemned in the Bible as glutony. Which means to me that use is necessary and healthy, but abuse is harmful to our health.

When I was a teenager, I read Harold Shryock's book. The title was "On Becoming a Man," if my memory serves me right. He warned boys that sooner or later they would discover that they had experienced an orgasm while asleep. He advised them not fill guilty because of this. They had not sinned, since this was an involuntary experience. The implication was that, a voluntary orgasm was sinful. No wonder young people felt really sinful!

I do not think that waking up in the middle of the night to discover that an orgasm had taken place, and feeling the yucky substance all over you, was a pleasant experience, especially since taking a shower at three o'clock in the morning would wake the entire family. Of course, there was a way of preventing this demeaning experience by a little bit of self gratification, but this would require to engage in wilfull overt sin.

I am glad that our early pioneers did not declare that emptying the bladder was sinful as well!

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

I understand that when the Bible says that Joshua made the sun stand still, it might not have. But the Creator of Time did somehow give them extra hours. Something wonderful happened, even though the inspired writer’s explanation of the details was likely wrong.

In the 1860’s Ellen White saw children with “imbecility, dwarfed forms, crippled limbs, misshapen heads, and deformity of every description.” So do you. In your church, in your town, in your hospitals you have children with these problems. We call it autism, hyperactivity, attention deficit syndrome, hydrocephalus, microcephalus, leukemia, lymphoma, or retinoblastoma. But the truth is that we and our present day medical science don’t really know the cause or prevention of most of them either. We have our theories, but few of them have been proved. We are better at treating these diseases than in Ellen White’s day, but not much better at preventing them.

Unfettered sexuality has always been a temptation, but it became a foundational dogma in the mid 20th century. It’s social weaknesses and dangers have since been recognized by thoughtful 21st century minds. But no firm link between hyper-sexuality and any physical illnesses has yet been made. However I am not certain that possible pathological consequences of hyper-sexuality have been rigorously disproved as much as pooh-poohed?

Until we can really explain what causes childhood “imbecility, dwarfed forms, crippled limbs, misshapen heads, and deformity of every description,” perhaps it would be most honest to say, we don’t think Ellen White’s attribution to sexual excess was right, but really we don’t know that for sure do we?

In the 1970’s as a medical student I was embarrassed that Ellen White wrote that alcoholics passed on deformities to their children, because at that time our understanding of genetics could not accommodate that possibility. Only later did not only the fetal-alcohol-syndrome became widely recognized, but also the astounding discovery of transmittable DNA changes caused by environmental toxins is now firmly established.

Learning restraint in the expression of our sexuality is a virtue we have all had to learn and we can help our children learn it too. We may be able to do this in our culture better than Ellen White was able to do it in her time, but for the moment I would say wait a little before you fully accept that she was absolutely wrong in her counter-cultural advice. Or that there is not a kernel of practical truth under a 19th century disguise.

Elaine

Kellogg was sexually severe, as you say. I don't thing EGW was as drastic.

I don't say that to prove that she was a prophet and he wasn't or anything like that. I just think that the more we know about the past the better we can live today.

Perhaps you can explain to me that why so many SDAs seem so angry at EGW. When it comest to her life and thought, isn't it enough to sift, sort, use the best and shelve the rest? And isn't that exactly what Scripture invites us to do (I Thessalonians 5)? So what's the problem?

Daneen

I'm looking forward to your material from Ron Numbers. It's been a while since I've looked at this, but I think that somewhere he suggests that expressions like "self abuse" may have applied to more than only masturbation.

Looking forward to the arrival of your daughter!

Niemand

Whether of not we call EGW a prophet means little to me, particulary because it was not the way she liked to describe herself.

It does matter to me that all Christians know as much as possible about their own pasts. History matters!

Carlitas

Thank you for helping us to learn from your education and experience!

I take it that the decreased sensitivity of which you speak was not the purpose of the surgical intervention but one of its unavoidable side effects.

If the patient provides free, informed and mentally competent consent, I have no ethical objection to this. But I do have moral reservations about making a decrease in sensitivity the purpose of the operation.

David

I am one of those who is baffled by the McMahon approach. The entire project strikes me as methodologically and theologically perplexing.

For instance, the distinction between the "whats" and the "whys" and such things leave me wondering what is going on.

Setting up the question as to whether EGW's knowledge was "acquired" or "inspired" also stumps me.

Have we not settle years ago that even in Scripture it is never one or the other but always both in some complicated and varying mix?

I'm not questioning you, only the McMahon project as I understand it.

Thank you!

Dave

Mary Gove (Nichols) published a small volume in 1839, about the same size as Mrs. White's "An Appeal to Mothers Relative to the Great Cause of the physical, Mental and Moral Ruin of Many of the Children of Our Time." Mrs. White's publication appeared almost thirty years later in 1864. Mary Gove's booklet was entitled "Solitary Vice. An Address to Parents and Those Who Have the Care of Children." The Mary Gove booklet was published in Portland, Maine. This is, of course, the same town where Ellen White grew up and it could be Ellen Gould saw or read Mary Gove's booklet as a young girl. There are many similarities in form and statements between Gove's early publication and Mrs. White first entrance into health reform writing on solitary vice. It is also surprising that in the notes on the far-reaching health reform vision of June, 1863 there is absolutely no mention of solitary vice, meat eating, coffee and tea avoidance, fresh air, and other general factors considered in health reform. The June 1863 vision mostly concerned her husband's overworked and discouraged health status, and ministers of bad behavior.

Mary Gove Nichols was one of the most influential reformers in America writing on the health risks of corsets, masturbation, the benefits of cold-water cure and above all the importance of happiness. She was a national figure during the 1840s and '50s giving anatomy lectures to thousands of women in which she openly discussed the needs and desires of the female body. Often she was considered too radical and mercurial by fellow reformers. It would be most interesting to know if Mrs. White's first health reform publication was influenced by Mary Gove's volume. One reason why Don McMahon's percentages appear to be higher than other earlier reform writers is that he fundamentally excludes Mrs. White's "An Appeal to Mothers" from his data. If you read this first work by Mrs. White you can understand why he would not want to enter some of her bewitching statements into his findings. They would lower the percentages. When McMahon first started his study, he claimed a validity of significant health statements from Mrs. White at 26 percent in 1960. Continuing to re-score his data his findings rose to 56 percent in 2000 and is now up to 70 percent in 2006. By leaving out White's "An Appeal to Mothers" and the later "Solemn Appeal" along with "How to Live" (because Mrs. White relied on the writings of other health reformers in "How to Live"), he was able to improve validity percentages. It is probably likely that "An Appeal to Mothers" was influenced, (or even literary dependent) upon Mary Gove (Nichols) as well as Sylvester Graham's works on solitary vice. It continues to be somewhat disheartening to see how much health reform writings were already present during the time Mrs. White claimed to have a unique vision on the topic. There were no new reforms in her writings. To get to the truth of matter about the origin of "An Appeal to Mothers," this needs further historical research by someone trained in nineteenth-century health reform literature without an apologetic bias to distort reality and truth.

In a famous essay on “The Ethics of Belief” William K. Clifford wrote, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

What's the point of continuing to debate whether EGW was inspired?

If we say she was, does that mean we should endorse everything she said and wrote? No. If we say she wasn't, does that mean we should reject everything she said and did? No. So, again, what's the point?

I think that most of all we need the kind of information that Graeme and TJoe just presented. The more we know about our own history, the better.

Amnesia is no better for a group than it is for an individual.

Many thanks!

Dave

Dave...

Seems like we've all had this discussion before. What's the point?

The point is that our denomination, as one of its fundamental beliefs, beliefs that people entering must agree to, upholds the inspiration of EGW. It may be something that those of us who have been around can parse and sift...but the DENOMINATION insists on a buying of the whole ball of wax in order to enter.

And what difference does it make whether what EGW wrote was "acquired or inspired," so to speak? Absolutely none when held up to the way the process of biblical inspiration works. Luke is a prime example. Your point is well taken.

But it makes a huge difference when the "inspired" person is claiming to have recieved what he/she wrote, totally in vision and not from any other written sources...and then the claim is found to be extremely suspect when compared with written sources that are contemporary. It's further exacerbated by apologists like the ones that T Joe describes above, who ignore evidence to further bolster claims of veracity and uniqueness of content, and thus inspiration.

Dave, I'm not saying that I reject out of hand the claims that EGW was inspired... mostly because of the way I believe inspiration works. I agree that whether or not she was, does not change that what is wise counsel is wise counsel; what is helpful is helpful; and what is not is not. Test all things, like the Bible says. I can personally live with that.

But, I can understand why others can't. I can understand why others have thrown out the "baby with the bathwater" because of excessive claims and biased apologetics that often sound like a cover-up. I can understand why so many are disillusioned because of the backlashes that have happened through our history because of people daring to question or re-evaluate the position and claims of the denomination concerning EGW. I can understand why so many have thrown up their hands because of the all or nothing presentation that has often been made of her and her writings.

The participants in the 1919 Bible Conference already saw all this, but didn't act. The fallout, because of such inaction, began 55 years later. Maybe this helps explain the anger of so many that seems to leave you so puzzled.

So, we're back to the familiar ground, that a denominational reevaluation seems to be in order. Prophets in the Bible were not always morally virtuous in all their behavior. Maybe its time that we admit that EGW was simply human, and because of this actually made some poor choices as well. Maybe it's time to come face to face with where she and her contemporaries made excessive claims, what they were, and how we, as a denomination, can stop perpetuating such.

Such honesty would be refreshing, and would do more for EGW's credibility as well as that of our church. People like Alden Thompson and Graeme Bradford have made real headway along these lines.

Denominational-wide? I'm not holding my breath...

Thanks...

Frank

Charles Scriven

Harvard scholar Armand Nicholi, in his "The Question of God" (about C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud) notes that the very eminent, twentieth-centurty psychiatrist warned his sons of the “ ‘dangers’ of masturbation,” and believed masturbation could lead to “permanent reduction of potency…,” and could predispose a person to many “ ‘neuroses and psychoses.’”

The idea of Ellen White as infallible can be nothing, anymore, but fodder for ridicule. But as Dave points out, it weakens the temptation to feel superior to her to recognize that others of substantial reputation held similar views.

One of them was the flawed but still iconic Sigmund Freud.

As for Joe Willey's worry that Ellen said nothing new, let's keep this in perspective, too. Good science, for example, practically entails dependence on others. And even Jesus expressed a vision substantially mined from previous discourse. My point is not to say deny Ellen White's weighty ego. My point is not to deny, in a word, her sinfulness. It is just to say (what Joe knows better than most of us) that even the best of thinkers stand on others' shoulders.

Thanks, Dave, for reminding us that it is too easy to demonize people--even a prophets--just because they are fallible or unoriginal.

One of Kierkegaard's points in the great little book, "The Present Age," was that "docents" (or puffed-up, minor academics) tend to feed cynicism by belittling people or ideas for flaws that are not fully germane to the main point.

One of the main points, for me, is that Ellen White was a startling feminist and a memorable leader whose words and life had prophetic force.

(She was also messed up. So she wasn't...Jesus Christ.)

Chuck

"As for Joe Willey's worry that Ellen said nothing new, let's keep this in perspective, too. Good science, for example, practically entails dependence on others. And even Jesus expressed a vision substantially mined from previous discourse. My point is not to say deny Ellen White's weighty ego. My point is not to deny, in a word, her sinfulness. It is just to say (what Joe knows better than most of us) that even the best of thinkers stand on others' shoulders."

Chuck...

Agreed. But the real problem comes when one claims divine originality, when the picture is crafted of not standing on any human shoulders, and that everything is recieved in direct pipeline from God.

The admission of human dependence, from EGW and her contemporaries cannot now happen. And maybe for those who have already made up their minds negatively because of such problems, a denominatinal reevaluation would be too little, too late.

Thanks...

Frank

Dave:

I think McMahon's work suffers from the Adventist and evangelical habit of conflating the concepts of revelation and inspiration (Revelation being the process by which God reveals information to a prophet and inspiration being the process by which the prophet communicates that information). When McMahon was "inspired" what he usually talking about is revelation. What he helps to show, in my opinion, is that inspired messages include information acquired by revelation and from the prophet's culture.

The question of Ellen White's inspiration matters to me because I believe that if she did receive messages from God, she would have more authority in my life than the rest of church tradition.

T. Joe:

I understood that McMahon used the health vision in Spiritual Gifts and Ministry of Healing for his study because they represent Ellen White's broad thinking on the subject at two different points in her life, thus providing the basis of statistical comparison.

http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/

It's already time to be honest. We, believers, don't have to fear the truth. Ellen G White was completely wrong about the physical consequences of masturbation, and it’s about time we recognize it. And that therefore, she was not inspired when she wrote this.

Is it so difficult to open our minds to the truth? Or are we to maintain our traditional wrong position when all the evidence is against it? Of course there is a great inconvenience in admitting that IN THIS occasion, she was wrong. What is it? Obviously we could then ask: What security can we have that other E.G.White’s writings were inspired?

But, going back to our subject, it isn't serious at all to try to defend E.G.White'inspiration when she wrote those unreal things about masturbation's consequences, saying that, AFTER ALL, "she helped to establish Loma Linda University". Establishing Loma Linda University has nothing to do with being inspired when one writes about some medicine subject.

It isn't serious either, to say that, AFTER ALL, many doctors in her time maintained the same wrong ideas. We musn’t forget that those DOCTORS DIDN'T PRETEND TO BE INSPIRED!!! BUT SHE DID!!!!

I wonder what is the difference between us and, for example, the catholics, if sistematically we choose to close our eyes to the truth every time the evidence shows us that some of our beliefs are wrong. Do we really want to discover the truth, or, on the contrary, do we prefer to stay comfortably in our "private truth"?

abaezaparra@hotmail.com

David, T. Joe, and all the others:

Thanks for the useful and illuminating information provided through this blog. It's not an easy subject, and many prefer to stay aloof from it, but I am convinced that it must be dealt with for every new generation of Adventists.

When I first learned that Ellen White had borrowed profusely from other authors while denying her dependence on what others had written, I was devastated. I felt like someone had insulted my own mother. Later on, I reasoned as follows:

If what she has written seems to have been inspired, and if it contains useful spiritual information for the upbuilding of my soul; if reading the material draws me closer to Jesus; if it inspires me to serve humanity and to get ready to meet my Maker; then what difference does it make whether she was the one inspired by God to write this, or whether those she borrowed from were the ones who received this from God?

I decided to put her writings to a test. If they looked like gold and pass the test as being gold, then what difference does it make whether it was borrowed or even stolen? All I needed to do was to give credit to whoever had originated those gems of thought, and use it for my own benefit and the benefit of humanity. There is no reason for me to discard her books and throw them into the thrash bin. I have not discarded nor sold my collection of red books.

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

For all of the apologies, spins, and self-justifications, the fact remains that Fundamental Belief 18 of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists emphatically states that "her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth.." Making the Gift of Prophecy co-equal with the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Well it just won't wash not even with Dial Soap!

The SDA Church is built upon EGW not Jesus Christ the Chief Corner Stone! Neither time nor apologetic briefs will change that fact.
Tom

David, you asked:

"Perhaps you can explain to me that why so many SDAs seem so angry at EGW."

Several have already answered your question, but mine will be similar. When such plagiaristic advice as the "health message" is promoted as coming from revelations from God it packs a real wallop on young minds; and when it is consistent, never-ending it becomes spiritual abuse, clear and simple.

She not only wrote about masturbation but that never should a wife tempt the "animal passions" of her husband, which is insulting to both to label normal sexual intimacies in such a degrading fashion. Many have supposed they were her personal sentiments, but to lay such a burden of guilt on others is monstrous, especially in the name of religion.

Also, as science has continued to show about all the human body: "use it or lose it" is applicable.

My late husband collected old medical books and one is "Vitalogy" which is a term used by EGW on sex and she describes that a person is allotted so much vitality in sex, and if overused it becomes a drain on the entire system often leading to an early death.

There is much, much more of her own position on health (much copied from contemporary writers) which she purported to have received in direct revelation from God.

If one cannot determine the world of difference between old medical studies of a century ago and find them laughable with what is now known, why are we not allowed to view her positions as equally ludicrous since she used them for her writings?

Would anyone today refer to century-old medical advice from books to diagnose his symptoms and follow the recommended treatment? Why should she be considered any different at all? If something was good then and is still appropriate today, it doesn't take a visionary prophet to make that decision, but our common sense that God gave us.

It seems that the question as to the veracity of Mrs. White’s comments on masturbation is merely conjecture. What is missing is evidence. I would suggest that the LLU School of Public Health conduct a study. Select some 2,000 infants (more subjects if possible) with similar characteristics and backgrounds and match them in two groups; 1,000 of whom will regularly practice masturbation and 1,000 who will refrain from such practice. Of course, the researchers will have to rely on the truthfulness of the participants—and therein lies a problem. In 50+ years we will have the answer. End of discussion!
Ludicrous? Certainly, but no more so than the positions that are taken today. As unfounded as Mrs. White’s comments appear, we really do not know if, and what, the effects of masturbation are on the human body. She may be right; she may be wrong. Only science can answer the question. Any volunteers for the study???

Since subjective answers to such a question would have to rely on the participant's truthfulness, why not take a study asking 25-year old individuals today? Should we expect to see a group of normal individuals or a certain percentage of feeble-minded, sickly, even imbecilic among a group of 100, 1,000?

Today, most agree that it is a normal occurrence and part of growing up and discovering one's sexuality. As such, if it led to such disastrous results as EGW said, surely, we would find a much higher percentage of sickly and imbecilic individuals among us today. Where's the current evidence? Why a study when there is almost universal acknowledgement of its practice?
And how is that different from normal orgasmic intercourse on the body?

I have a full set of the EGW Conflict of the Ages Series. I frequently consult them in my study. Not that I accept the assertion that they are the result of direct communication with God or one of His Arch-Angels but because they are a well edited Reader's Digest type version of contemporary scholarly work on the topics. I have read a number of EGW's original sources and I must say her editors did a much more readable version. Never-the-less, for this old man, the Jacabian English of the King James Version is still the literary gem of Scripture.

The problem is that all of the EGW collection was and is promoted as being written by an "embedded" observer/reporter.
As such is not only instructive but authoritative. That assertion is patently false.

The issue of her views on masterbation is basically a side show of the real issues of her authority. While her assertions are unsupported by objective evidence, the debate may be carried too far. While self sexual satisfaction may be considered practically universal it would be a type two error to suggest or recommend its use as a God intended practice.
Tom

Frank said,
"...But the real problem comes when one claims divine originality, when the picture is crafted of not standing on any human shoulders, and that everything is recieved in direct pipeline from God.

Thanks...

Frank

Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 08 August 2008 at 5:04

What I have found is the idea of because God told her, or impressed her, and she said it came from him, that it has to be propritarty and no one else could ever have the same idea or be inspired by God in the same area. Or even worse that it has to be new information never ever before revealed on this planet or the assumption that because he did talk with her at times, that EVERYthing was direct from God.

You refered to or framed your thought according to some of those terms.
Quote "But the real problem comes when one claims divine originality...."
"...and that everything is recieved in direct pipeline from God."

Originality as in point of origin, not exclusive idea that no one else could ever have.

Have we forgotten how God communicates in Many different times and Many different ways like it says in Hebrews for instance?

Greetings Walt...

I attended an Adventist academy (in fact Upper Columbia Academy in the'50s) during a very impressionable period of my life. Each fall the boy's dean gave his annual customary worship talk about vital force and how with each self-abuse "event" a quart of blood was destroyed with every teaspoon "lost to the ground." I remember during the talks he carefully picked out certain passages from Mrs. White's "Solemn Appeal" to reinforce his presentation. I surely took serious what Dean Wisbey had to say, especially the parts he read from "Solemn Appeal" coming from an inspired pen. So there you have your control group; assuming Wisbey's worship talks were effective using a study comparing non-believing or unaware abusers attending non-Adventist high schools. Not everyone at UCA came away changed by the worship talk, of course. One of my friends walking out of worship leaned over and said to me, "I'm a walking dead man." But at least he got the message.

Take a few hundred of these '50s students (at random) who came out of Adventist academies when we were convicted that the Spirit of Prophecy was reliable and gather the data that you need to compare other American high school students growing up at the same time. Check for such psychological things as "gloomy sadness or frequent exhibition of a morose temper." Measure the number of "crippled limbs, misshapen heads and imbecility and wasted energies, cancers and complicated diseases." It would especially be instructive to study females because they possessed less vital force than males, although, come to think of it, they might practice self-abuse less often (based on the Kinsey Report). Girls who attended American high school should show more "weakness in the back and loins, affections of the spine and heads that often decay inwardly."

It seems to me Walt, that before applying for a federal grant from NIH it would be important to develop better working hypotheses by conducting this preliminary research project. It would not cost very much to do...before embarking across a generational study that could cost a lot of tax payer's money. It might be discovered that Adventist longevity is not related to absence from tobacco or the practice of vegetarianism, but to a significant reduction in self-abuse growing up. If you found that none of these things seem to correlate very well you would save the School of Public Health a lot of effort and time.

I don't know, just some thoughts from an old "worn-out" scientist who has to use reading glasses to see what I wrote here.

T Joe Willey
I thought that was you. Heard many entertaining stories about you and Bill Millers exploits!

Hi Everybody!

AUTHORITY. Whenever we tell people that they have to believe or do something because and only because someone said so, we create justifiable anger.

Arbitrary formal authority is never acceptable in any line of inquiry or action. Never!

REVELATION, INSPIRATION AND DISCERNMENT: If we believe someone is inspired by God, we are likely to give what that person says more attention and importance. But I don't think that this eliminates our responsibility to practice wise Christian discernment.

For example, McMahon and company establish to their satisfaction that EGW was more accurate on some important matters than a number of her contemporaries. But even they don't claim that she was correct 100% of the time, do they?

So we still have to discern as best we can when she was right and when she wasn't. We still have to think for ourselves, albeit never by ourselves.

DENOMINATIONAL CHANGE: I frequently find myself debating with friends whether denominational change should use the "seep" or "splash" method.

I almost always come down on the side of the "seep" approach because I think it is less likely to evoke a hostile defensive reaction that will make lasting positive change even more difficult to achieve.

For example, I think that we should distinguish between (1) absolute authority and (2) presumptive authority and make clear that with respect to EGW we mean the second.

This is far more likely to be effective, in my view, than vigorously insisting that Belief #18 [is that it?] be rejected replaced.

JESUS CHRIST, TOM ZWEMER AND DAVID LARSON: Tom, with whom I have recently agreed on another thread, writes:

"The SDA Church is built upon EGW not Jesus Christ the Chief Corner Stone! Neither time nor apologetic briefs will change that fact."

I respect this as a true testimony about Doctor Zwemer's experience as a SDA. It isn't mine.

In deference to the Third Commandment, I don't toss around the words "Jesus Christ" as frequently and casually as some do; however, I also would like to make my testimony.

It is that the SDA church in which all my life I have lived and moved and found my being is most assuredly founded on Jesus Christ and nothing else. That this has been my experience is impossible for me to doubt

I respect Doctor Zwemer's testimony. I request that he respect mine too.

Many thanks!

Dave

From my experience I would share some resources that a seeker might find enlightening. Sex-Aholics anonymous and the groups for the families of sex aholics anonymous would reveal some insight into the agony this type of problem is and the addicts side effects. There is a book on the shelves of a prominent book sellers on this subject. There are 14 resources I could site because of the great need for education on this topic. There is a study on the zinc depletion during this addicting practice, and the possible brain consequences. Most interesting to me was a book called Affair of the Mind and the relational deficits that occurred. Suffice for now.

Michael...

I'm not the one putting these tight parameters of inspiration in place. If you read my earlier post, and others I have written on the same subject, you would see that I hold to the type of working of inspiration that you describe. If EGW did not have a single original thought and borrowed everything she ever wrote, it is not proof that she is not inspired...agreed.

My problem is with the fact that she (outside of the forward to the GC), and those around her, like her husband, made claims to make it appear that there was NO DEPENDANCY ON HUMAN SOURCES for the things she wrote. The church administration has done a good job over the years of also making it appear that way. They have either downplayed her "literary dependancy," or they have ignored it altogether.

Why do you think people like Ronald Numbers and Walter Rea came along and wrote what thay did? Rea labored for years under the illusion of the "party line," that it all came on a direct pipeline from God...until he made his discoveries. And when people like him did begin to point out the problem, the stonewalling began. Hence, the anger that so many have felt.

This was a concern of the participants in the 1919 Bible Conference. Many were her contemporaries. If you read any of the minutes, you'll see that these types of issues were already being raised...within four years of her death. Unfortunately, the minutes were shelved until their accidental discovery in the 70's.

We've been living in the fallout zone...or in denial.

Thanks...

Frank

frank7
You're right. We've inherited a pot of problems. What should WE do about it?
Dave

Dave

I have a very high regard for you and certainly give you the freedom to believe and express your beliefs, which you do quite ablely.

I recall the story that Edward Heppenstall told on himself while he was on the faculty at La Sierra. He and a colleague in the Department of Religion had opposing views on a unnamed issue. After the faculty meeting the colleague caught step with Dr. Heppenstall, put his arm around his shoulder and said: "Ted, I can see it now as plain as day, as we walk through the pearly gates you will turn to me and say: "You were right after all." To which Dr. Heppenstall replied; "I see exactly the same scene, except you will be turning to me and saying: "Ted, you were right!"

By the By I have great respect for the third commandment as well as the other nine.

Have you ever counted the times Paul or EGW used the name of the second person of the Trinity?

Thanks and best wishes. I trust we will enter the pearly gates by the same means by Grace alone. Tom

Dave...

"We," to me is apparently different than it is to you. We includes you, me, all of us at the grassroots, and CHURCH ADMINISTRATION. It's the priesthood of ALL believers.
And until we have an administration that comes on board, and openly and publicly begins to acknowledge the problems, and begins to revisit this issue in light of all that has been discovered and debated, then I'm afraid that that seriously hamstrings what the rest of "we" can do.

Productions like "Redbooks" are great. Dialogue like this is good. But the "we" that mobilize in such efforts is limited in number, and recognized authority, by the body at large.

The church is already working by the "seep" method, as you have put it. And what we have are many who have seeped out of Adventism as a result, and a wide variety of beliefs that range from absolute trust in every word that EGW wrote, to dismissal of indifference towards her writings from those that remain.

Healthy? Maybe. Fragmented. Also maybe. "We could use some "splash" as well as "seep."

Thanks...

Frank

Frank,
When you talk about Walter Rea and those in that generation and their experiences, and then you talk about a current decleration that the church should make for whatever particular people in or around the turn of the century did.

To what extent is it functional. What I am referring to for example is John Paul II’s letter of June 15, 2004 addressed to Cardinal Roger Etchegaray on the occasion of the release of the “Report of the International Symposium on the Inquisition.” In it, he reiterated the apology he made in his Apostolic letter Tertio millennio adveniente. He also repeated the petition of forgiveness he offered on the year 2000 Day of Forgiveness (March 12). This apology, he stated, would be “valid” for the “dramas linked to the Inquisition as well as for the wounds they have caused in the memory.”

Is there anyone alive to take comfort that experienced the Inquisition? Who was driving this?

I wonder many things about the "SDA church should apologize or make a statement concerning EGW's inspiration" position.
It's like the Pope making a statement for the Inquisition. He didnt do it. No one currently employed did it. No one in the Catholic church currently was harmed by the Inquisition.

Please point me to the most current SDA official statement claiming every syllable that EGW ever uttered was a devine command. I mean at some point you have to quit living in the past.

For example we have often heard Tom, in his list of grivances with the church, name the shut door theology that some believed between 1844-1854. This is about as current an issue as inventing the wheel. Would the current leaderships apology for what some people personally believed 160 years ago resolve this issue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shut-door_theology

I am asking questions of the concept of some sort of apology or statement as you as well as many others have suggested.
What is the practical use? Or is this part of the postmodern gobblygook of political correctness?

Michael...

How in the world can you compare the irrelevance of something that took place centuries ago within Catholicism, with something that not only took place within the past generation, but with those who were so affected still alive, and with the issue itself still being a live one? And the proof that it is still a live issue is the overall discussion that the above article has generated from everyone...and others like it on this site. Go check Raymaond Thompson's "EGW: Paragon of Adventism" article...probably about 200 posts.

This is not about asking for a declaration of forgiveness...I never said that. It's about the denomination taking a fresh look at the problems, debates, and misuse of EGW's writings..something that only scattered individuals have done up till now...sometimes at there own peril.

It's about leadership participating in the process. And what leadership does, or does not do, can make a big difference. Look at what happened with the leadership of the WWCG after Armstrong. Their study, honesty and transparency about their mistakes and errors...whether we agree with all the results and conclusions or not...sent that church in an entirely new direction, away from cultism and into Christianity.

Why would a fresh, transparent consideration of this issue in question be a bad thing? The truth never suffers from investigation. In the long run, neither would we.

Thanks...

Frank

Michael

My use of the Shut Door position of the early SDA church was to make the point that while that view has been long disavowed; the triumphalistic under pinnings remain. Particularly in public evangelism. It is an exclusiveness that is pervasive in its soteriology and its eschatology.

"Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." No where is there an asterisk following which reads: (See 28 Fundamental Beliefs)

Dave

Just an additional question: Did you intend to suggest that my use of the name of the second person of the trinity was profain?

Tom

"such as catarrh, dropsy, headache, loss of memory and sight, great weakness in the back and loins, affections of the spine, [and] the head often decays inwardly."
~~

It's possible that EGW saw these characteristics and atrributed it to masturbation, not because they were caused by it, but caused by the mental effort required/guilt produced as a result of selfish gratification...perhaps if we spent a lot of time in this activity we might be physically tired, lose sleep, become unable to concentrate if you fantasize...think about it...

Anyways...not saying it's right or wrong...but maybe it wasn't literal...yes this brings up a whole new discussion on interpretation of EGW...but like the bible, we look for the principles, right?

Frank said,
"How in the world can you compare the irrelevance of something that took place centuries ago within Catholicism, with something that not only took place within the past generation, but with those who were so affected still alive, and with the issue itself still being a live one?"

I refer you to my question.
Please point me to the most current SDA official statement claiming every syllable that EGW ever uttered was a divine command.

Define the timeline. The issue still being a live one is irrelevant to those with standing. AfroAmericans still advocate for reperations to be paid them for injury suffered by their ancestors or countrymen.

Appoining a commission to look into whatever still has an end game doesnt it? To publish a statement or make an apology or whatever right?

In response to the question why would anyone be angry at EGW, I may have an insight. I was born a third generation SDA--grandfather a minister and father on the faculty at an SDA university. I went through the system from kindergarten to university and received a thorough background in EGW. Young children believe what they are told by parents, teachers, and authority figures until they have the background to think critically. I was taught that EGW was the interpreter of the Bible for "our time", sort of a screen through which the truths of the Bible were made relevant. These included observing the Sabbath from sundown to sundown to the second, and the list of things not to do on the Sabbath of the wade but don't swim variety was endless. I was practically afraid to move on the Sabbath so as not to loose my eternal life. Dancing was out, movies unless they were dog films shown in the school cafeteria were out, makeup and jewelry were forbidden, hamburgers were a sin, and I could go on and on. This may seem odd to current SDA's but EGW went into great detail and my teachers may have interpolated a bit. Later I joined a small fledgling SDA church, became a deaconess, and was really into church development and activity. Then the church was disolved. I don't know all the details, but there were complaints that we had Spectrum like discussions instead of studying the Sabbath School Quarterly, our service was too liturgical, and we questioned the use of EGW. I think the last was the killer. I'm not angry at EGW but I can see how some could be. I'm no longer a member of the SDA church for reasons of policy and doctrine, but I enjoy lurking and reading the Spectrum blogs as I am a Christian and am challenged by reading and discussing matters of spiritual life. I meant for this to be a simple note, not an autobiography!...God bless.

Michael

How you like to beg the issue. Why not every letter of the alphabet or every gesture, or tone of voice, or size of print?

By and large the volume of her writings are "Selected Messages" to a specific persons or issues from which a general principle is deduced. Implicit was the messages were not her opinion but God's.

Is that not what Fundamental Belief 18 states: "a continuing and authoritative source truth." So why do you insist on a time-line if the source is continuingly authoritative?

The problem is not Ellen White. The problem is the compelling need to accept her as the Lord's messenger in the unique sense of a "prophet" (Note the title of Fundamental Belief 18.

I am perfectly willing to accept Ellen White as a child of God with a passion for souls ready to meet their maker and redeemer. Her work speaks for itself--she used what ever source and means available to her to make her point. The problem is in the explicit preamble "I was shown" a clear implication of direct divine instruction.

Other than her word and the word of her apologists there is no substantial evidence to support her claim. On the contrary, the evidence indicates she was a child of her time and circumstances but with a passion for souls and control of their every thought, deed, and action.

I thank her for introducing me to Jesus, to John, to Paul, and to a host of reformers. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg of her agenda and that of the church which supports her claims. Tom

Tom

I did not mean to imply that your use of the words "Jesus Christ" is profane.

I do object to what some call "Second Person Unitarianism."

It is also my view that the Word made Flesh is not my kissing cousin but rather the One through whom and by whom and in whom all things great and small find their being and purpose.

So a little more awe and a little less chumminess than what I often hear these days would suit me.

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify this, Tom. I appreciate it!

Dave

I must say that it hurt just reading about all those 19th century techiniques to prevent masturbation, the spiked penis rings especially. You brought up an interesting point that EGW was a moderate in terms of preventing masturbation. She was a product of her times, that much is certain. Of course that is to be expected. The concerns of a 19th century woman are sure to be different than the concerns of a 21st century man or woman.

"The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Prov. 29:18. Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony. He will bring in spurious visions, to mislead and mingle the false with the true, and so disgust people that they will regard everything that bears the name of visions, as a species of fanaticism; but honest souls, by contrasting false and true, will be enabled to distinguish between them. {FLB 296.6}
"When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction." {FLB 296.7}THE FAITH I LIVE BY

Dave

An excellent observation. However it is also true there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we might be saved.

Graham Maxwell, in a parapharse of EGW on prayer, define prayer as a conversation with a person well known.

To one in constant pain, Jesus is a person well known--I want others to know him like I do.

Sorry if I offended you.

Tom

Your Friend

Did you ever stop to consider that EGW anticipated that what Canright et al knew would soon be validated so she placed one last curse on any doubters, gainsayers, and skeptics.

Certainly we wouldn't want to put Fred Veltmann, Don McAdams, et al under that curse or some apologists within the White estate circle.

I don't make EGW of none effect. I just place her in a proper effect, a fallen human being with a zeal for her view of the Salvation story. Sometimes she did it quite well other times her zeal consummed her judgment. Thus more like us that a messager carrier direct from God. The curse should have been expanded to include those who major in the minors of her statements. Tom

The way an idea occurs to us is irrelevant to its truthfulness, This must be determined on other grounds.

We should never believe something merely because someone says that he or she "was shown" it by God. We should test it, and the more unexpected the idea is the more rigorous our tests should be.

This applies to the unusual experiences of Ellen White just as much as they do to everyone else's. In and of themselves these experiences prove nothing.

Once we get clear on a few fundamental points like this one, the anger we feel from thinking that we must believe or do things that don't make sense decreases and our feeling of personal responsibility for what we believe and do increases.

In other words, we start to grow up! It's a good feeling!!

Tom

You haven't offended me and I regret that I have not expressed myself in a way that makes that clear.

I was trying to make a more general point about how I often hear the words "Jesus Christ" used these days.

Also, I was trying to say that I cannot generalize my fairly positive experiences of Adventism to all times and places and likewise for those who have had negative ones. But we have reached agreement on this matter.

Again, I apologize for my lack of clairity. I value your friendship and do not want to wound it.

Dave

WHERE'S PAT?!

Tom said,
"By and large the volume of her writings are "Selected Messages" to a specific persons or issues from which a general principle is deduced. Implicit was the messages were not her opinion but God's."

And so specific input to specific people. agreed.

"Is that not what Fundamental Belief 18 states: "a continuing and authoritative source truth." So why do you insist on a time-line if the source is continuingly authoritative?"

So thats what it gets down to? 6 words in a general statement concerning as you said, no longer person specific but general principals one can apply to their own lives as the situation may or may not apply?

The timeline that you are asking and having difficulty with is the transition between specific instructions to specific people, and general principals for general audiences. This is where the mis application occurs.

I would respectfully disagree with Dave's comment that the SDA church is built on Jesus Christ and nothing else. For many years I have taught a SS Class that included non-SDA and new SDA members. It is always interesting when EGW is used as an expanded authority on a subject by a life-long SDA. The newer, or non-SDA want to know where the information is found in the Bible. Of course, EGW is always presented as giving new light to the Bible. I agree with MMH - I was also taught that EGW was the interpreter of the Bible. I believe the majority of SDAs still hold to the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. However, if there is a doubt between the Bible and EGW, EGW wins. One example of this is the doctrine of the investigative judgement.

Michael

The point is that there is a quite general misuse of EGW in the SDA church. In recent times the leadership has refrained form any "official" declaration that her every "syllable" was inspired BUT they have done NOTHING to combat the fact that that view is commonaly held. In other words, just as in the 1919 bible conference, while they may not agree, and may recognize that a problem exists, they are FULLY COMPLICIT in the problem, becuase they do nothing to stop it.

Bottom line, a large portion of SDA still misuse EGW, with no opposition from official leadership. This is the situation that MUST change if we are to make progress on this issue as a church. There continues to be huge misunderstanding of the true nature of inspiration/revelation, both with the bible and with EGW.

And I agree with Frank, there is only so much that "we" can do, if "we" does not include the official leadership. Dave seems content to let the "seep" continue, but while the "seeping" is going on, many are still being turned off to the church and to Christ. It is easy for those of us who know better to carry on unscarred, but there are so many who dont have a clue, and I think it is criminal that the leadership of our church just lets it go on, just as it was criminal for the 1919 participants to let it slide.....

Fair enough hypothosis Charles. Since the issue is misapplication what would a sample addressing of this issue look like.

We know some of you out there are mis applying EGW statements to persons within your midst. PLease stop it?

FYI I do agree with the greatest parts of yours and Franks posts.

"You're right. We've inherited a pot of problems. What should WE do about it?"
Dave

Suggestions: Let EGW RIP. Remove the hidden assumption in Fundamental Beliefs about EGW as being "authoritative." Eliminate the confusion caused by attempting to explain how "authoritative" doesn't mean what it would imply.

Simply remove all references to her in the official SDA publications: the consistent ads from the ABC selling more and more compilations in the constant "book-making" enterprise; the almost weekly article written by her in the Reviews; the many footnotes attributed to her in articles in SDA publications. She will die an honorable death, eventually, and we should not continue to prop her up and issue statements from a dead woman; statements that have harmed as many as they have helped. Untold, as well as told, damage has been done by the overabundance of her statements as the last word on most any subject. These began with Canright and a whole host of Christian leaders who've been assassinated by her and her teachings. This is a blessing? To have lost such stalwart Bible scholars as Des Ford, with an accompanying of hundreds of ministers and members who were able to see through the transparency of the woman behind the curtain?

Anyone in a SS class or discussions with SDAs knows well how any question will suddenly stop when someone speaks up: "But Mrs. White says--- and then quotes a statement that either endorses or refutes the position.

Younger SDAs may not recognize this fact, but anyone who is older than 50 has been living in a
very different SDA environment if unfamiliar with this situation.

We do not memorialize and repeatedly publish and read other SDA pioneers; and for many SDAs her writings are the only ones with which they are familiar, not having been introduced to the excellent works of non-SDA Christian writers who are far more eloquent and helpful.

The test of her validity is found in what has been mentioned above: her imprimatur on the Investigative Judgment. If that can be proved, conclusively, from the Bible alone, would that individual please step forward and please explicate?

Michael

For starters they could say clearly
"Not everything that EGW wrote was inspired. Much of what she wrote was her own opinion at best, and much of it was clearly mistaken. Please use your commonsense, the evidence of current science and medicine, and your best understanding of spiritual matters from your study of scripture and the movings of the Holy spirit on your own soul to discern what is truth from what is in error. Furthermore, never should a "thus says EGW" be used as an authoritative statement of forbidding any practice in the church or of other church members. Her views should be considered as (at times) helpful advice and no more."

I cannot imagine official leadership saying anything even REMOTELY close to the above, and thus the problem remains......

I have actually heard that many of the higher up Adventists know the truth about EGW but they do not speak up. They don't want to shake things up, or lose the traditional members.

Also, just because they claimed to have a vision means nothing. During the first crusades, many of the crusades claimed to have visions of the apostles riding with them into battle(This was at Antioch).

Eventually in this thread I hope we get back to sexual ethics and the problems of sexual addiction and abuse that we have in our time. Not that this is what EGW had in mind, of course. But our own selective retrieval and different application of some things she wrote about sex might be a good thing. But I am happy to postpone that for a while longer.

I agree with everything everyone has said about how we as a people have misused EGW. Without detracting anything from any of that, I would like to add the following from my perspective:

1. Tom can confirm or disconfirm this, but I think it was Elder Heppenstall who used to say that it is better to crowd out than to stamp out wrongdoing. I think that applies in this case.

2. I am very reluctant to "forget" EGW and the other pioneers because I think every group needs a critically appreciative understanding of its own history so that it does not keep making the same mistakes.

3. I really do believe that WE have an opportunity and responsibility to do something postive instead of waiting for "church leadership" to move forward.

I need to remember that it deals with a huge and growing membership, a very significant percentage of which can neither read nor write.
Just to make it possible for our new brothers and sisters to be literate is an unimaginably big task.

So,those of us who are at a different place in our spiritual journeys must be more proactive in taking care of our needs.

4. Here is something concrete we can all do: make financial contributions to the small but growing group of well trained scholars in Adventist Studies who want to increase, not decrease, our understanding of the past by doing objective research. But this takes money. All good research does.

My wife and I contribute $1,000.00 per year to the LLU Adventist Studies Project. That is so small I that I am embarrassed to mention it. But it is what we can do at this time.

I hope and pray that others will also do what they can to make good scholarship about our past an actuality.

Please make out your checks to LLU School of Religion Adventist Studies Project and mail them to Julius Nam, School of Religion, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350.

Similar opportunities are available at Andrews, Oakwood, Newbold, Avondale and other schools.

Someone out there may think I am jesting. I'm not. It's time we take charge of our own spiritual needs in a positive way.

God bless!

Dave

Jim

I don't doubt for a moment that what you say is true of your situation. It is not so of mine.

I take from this that we might all want to be cautious about generalizng from our own experience to the whole of SDAism.

I fear I sometimes do this in reverse by generalizing from my situation to the whole of the denomination, something that tempts me to be impatient with all the complaints I hear from afar about EGW, etc.

That's a problem and I admit it.

Thank you!

Dave

"because I think every group needs a critically appreciative understanding of its own history so that it does not keep making the same mistakes."

That is difficult to do when so much has been hidden for so many years. How many knew of the revelations discovered and discussed at the 1919 Bible Conference? How many are even aware today?
Ignorance of one's history allows repetition.

Will the church be willing to disclose the findings of the 1919 Bible conference to the general SDA public, possibly by a Review set for just that purpose?

As for the illiteracy of the larger SDA population today, they must rely on what they have been taught, if they cannot determine by reading. This was the reason the Roman Catholic church was able to threaten and excommunicate its members when they were largely illiterate.

This has always been detrimental to any institution that has relied on the vulnerability, even gullibility of those who cannot read. The ability to read has always wrought great changes in any institution: the ability to think for themselves.

As to donating for SDA scholars, why not trust the multitude of Christian scholars from whatever background? It is still a closed society when it relies only on its apologists. We need to read what other scholars have written.
Granted, the trained theologians do so, but even the history of how the scriptures were written and compiled is unknown by the larger part of the literate SDA population, I would venture to say.

It would seem that understanding the origin of one's sacred texts would be of far more importance than recent doctrinal interpretations.
We know now how untrained and unschooled in theological studies were the SDA pioneers, and yet the church still has approved their interpretations, regardless. The conclusions at which they arrived are suspect from the beginning when a comparative study is made. They were not even the best of biblical scholars of their day and their proof-text method has long been cast aside by theologians; yet it is still being used to a great deal by evangelists who have their largest successes within so-called Christian groups--few who have sufficient biblical knowledge to question the validity.

It appears that most of us agree that the list of evils resulting from masturbation mentioned by Sister White was a common accepted belief of her times. But she went further than that. She had visions seeing Brother "X" who was a Sabbath school leader, and she was shown that he engaged in that "solitary vice", and she accused him of being an instrument of the devil and so on. The book "Solemn Appeal" is full of those kinds of examples (young and old), and when I read it when I was 18 years old, I was absolutely devasted. I thought that I may have committed the "unpardonable sin" because I had done it "so many times." I felt that I was a "puppet in the devil's hands. All the euphoria that I had felt after reading "The Desire of Ages" was literally down the drain. On a break from Avondale I reprimanded my parents for not sharing that information with me, because I was, as Sister White wrote, "a slave of the devil." No teacher at Avondale taught us to "contexualize Ellen White." Instead, there were copies of "Solemn Appeal" in the college library for the students to read. (That was in 1967.)

Ellen White before she died, requested that the historical errors found in her book "Great Conversy" be corrected, and she invited members of the church to come forward and help in the work of making the corrections. She had an open frame of mind to make changes and progress. (See Samuele Bacchiocchi's eloquent article about this at: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html)

I believe that had she lived long enough that she would have requested the same in regard to correcting some of the statements about health and disease, and she was open to doctrinal changes so long as they were based on the Bible. "We have many things to learn and many many things to unlearn." She always admonished us to go to the Bible for our answers.

Recently I read about a devoted Avondale faculty member who kept his kids out of school until they were 8 years old in accordance with the counsels from Sister White. (See Milton Hook's most recent book.) However, it's very interesting to see how Ellen White herself applied those same counsels when she was associated with the formation of the "Healdsburg Sanitarium." There was a discussion between her and her son Willy over this very issue, because Willy suggested for the kids to be kept out of school until they were at least 8 years old in harmony with his mother's counsels. But Ellen White suggested to Willy that the kids 5 years old be in school, and she said that Willy should have used "his common sense" because the parents of the children were working in the hospital and that if the children were not in school they would "get up to mischief." What an insight into how Ellen White expected her followers to use her writings! Yes, common sense, was to be used in preference to things that she had written. Will we in the SDA church ever learn this lesson that Ellen White tried to teach her son Willy and use "common sense" when dealing with things that she has written? (Source available at the Ellen White research centre at Avondale College.)

Almost two decades back, I attended Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church early enough to browse through their library. I found a paper back entitled "Our Confessional Heritage". Of course it contained the Westminster Confession. However, the final chapter was entitled A Declaration of Faith produced by the 1977 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA. I began reading and became enthralled. I asked if copies were available, I was graciously given a copy by the pastor. I took it home and read it very carefully. I then photocopied several pages.

Later in the day I gave the photocopy to my wife and asked her to guess the author. She read it and responded Graham Maxwell, I said sure sounds like him but no. She then said, H.M.S. Richards, I again said no. Her final guess was Edward Heppenstall. I said surprise it is a complilation of the work of the 1977 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.

No Christian should be without a copy. One source is Materials Distribution Service 341 Ponce de Leon Ave. N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30308.

Dave I strongly suggest that your study committee members each have a copy. What an outpouring of faith, hope, and love.

It puts the Apostles Creed to work. Tom

Michael,

You seem to believe that there are no practical benefits for apologizing for the mistakes of our predecessors. How about benefits for doing so? Do yo think that the Catholic church was harmed or helped by the many times John Paul II apologized for the past mistakes of the church?

How about the recent publich apology of the German and Austrian leaders of the SDA Church admitting that the SDA church had morally failed for its cooperation with the Nazi regime while the Jewish genocide was taking place.

Was it wrong for these SDA leaders to apologize for this lack of moral fiber during a terrible time of crisis?

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Nic,
I inquired as to the practical benafits.
When the German and Austrian leadership said they didnt resist the Nazis hard enough, who felt better? Why?

Your last sentance is key.
"Was it wrong for these SDA leaders to apologize for this lack of moral fiber during a terrible time of crisis?"

Tell me, did the ACTUAL leaders from the 1940's make personal apologies for their actions? No current leadership did.

If your neighbor across the street came over to your house and smacked you in the mouth 20 years ago, then dies this year and the new people who bought his house come over and apologize does that make you feel better? Does it have the same weight? How shallow would you have to be to think someone could apologize for what someone else did 20 years ago? How shallow would you have to be to actually feel better when someone who never did anything to you makes a substitute apology 20 years later?

Or is the real story how you have let the last 20 years grind on you, cause ulcers and bittereness because you either enjoy dwelling on it or you dont want to forgive.

Charles, Your suggestion of a statement reminds me of this list I came across.

On Sears hairdryer:
Do not use while sleeping.

On a bag of Fritos:
You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside.
(The shoplifter special!)

On Marks & Spencer Bread Pudding:
Product will be hot after heating.

On packaging for a Rowenta iron:
Do not iron clothes on body.

On Boot's Children's cough medicine:
Do not drive car or operate machinery.

On Nytol sleep aid:
Warning: may cause drowsiness.

On Sainsbury's peanuts:
Warning: contains nuts.

On an American Airlines packet of nuts:
Instructions: open packet, eat nuts.

On a child's Superman costume:
Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly.

Micheal,

It is not even close to the same thing as your sample list, funny as many of those are. And in your all of your examples you keep referring to people or organizations apologizing for things from the past, which is also not the same thing.

We can have another discussion another time about the benefits (or lack thereof) of apologies for things your "group" was responsible for in the past, but that is not what is under discussion here. We are talking about a CONTINUED pattern of misuse. And to be more specific, (in comparison to your list), of instructions that would only apply to REALLY stupid people....well unfortunately, we have a lot of REALLY stupid people when it comes to the area of using common sense versus just blindly following what was read in an EGW quote or even the bible.

The fact of the matter is, if you are a pastor or bible teacher and you publicly express anti EGW sentiments, to the effect that you do not hold her as an unquestioned authority, even if they are balanced thoughts that still express appreciation for EGW as a person, you will, in most places, find that you are out of a job, or certainly not treated as nicely by those above you in the church leadership.

Quiet censorship at best, much worse at times. Is it any wonder that the ignorant church members still stumble around beating each other over the head with EGW quotes? And is it also any wonder that many of those who know better either leave the church or go into other areas of work than ministry? I know that it discouraged me from following that track.......

I am not sure what the answer is, most of the time it seems like too big a problem to change. It doesnt bother me personally as I am not employed by the church, and am not bothered if someone tries attacking me with an EGW quote, becuase I know better....but to put it frankly, I do not feel at home in the SDA church, and this matter of inspiration, both of EGW and the bible is probably the biggest reason why......

Dave, writes

"Eventually in this thread I hope we get back to sexual ethics and the problems of sexual addiction and abuse that we have in our time. Not that this is what EGW had in mind, of course. But our own selective retrieval and different application of some things she wrote about sex might be a good thing. But I am happy to postpone that for a while longer."

I too think this would be an interesting topic, but seems outside the scope of both the original article and the following discussion. Perhaps another article is indicated to get that topic going on its own right?

Chuck

hi mr larson
i dwell here on brazil and i have read this article
which speak about masturbation,i have trasnlated to my
own language togheter my son who has 13.i read the article and
him my son wrote in portuguese,my son bring out an article which a magazine published here in brazil,in this article
which this magazine published here in brazil said who child
inside of the mother's belly making masturbation.maybe you
have seen some article about this aroud,there are some questions about masturbation,for example,what will a boy or girl do to avoid to practice masturbation. because the spermatozoon of boy bearing all the time,never stop bearing sperm.do you know some one who never has did mastubation?if a person never has did masturbation;what will happen to his sperm which has been borne?i did masturbation before i get
married,because i did not know the truth , today i know ,it
is wrong,then mr larson,i should like to see your answers
about these questions what i have done.
thank you
laercio

Oh that this much effort, conviction and passion would be channeled into the streets, malls and neighborhoods to say to the people but one thing - GOD LOVES YOU. Simple? - Yes But when all this fat is boiled away the message that Jesus gave was and is GOD LOVES YOU. We are all members of a fallen race and that includes EGW. The question here is not about the credibility of EGW or her dated stance on masturbation. The question here for me and every other individual centers around the credibility of our individual relationship with Jesus Christ. This critical relationship is all that counts. What good does it do to argue whether the dog had fleas or ticks if the animal is dead from cancer? I am first a Christian then from there you can label me a Presbyterian, Methodists, Lutheran and/or SDA with a bit of Jewish flavor. All contribute understanding and encourage my relationship with Christ. But none as much as my one on one time with my maker and His guidelines for living, the Bible. Through your credible, soul deep relationship with Jesus Christ, what does He tell you. Do His bidding first. The rest will find it peace within the understanding between you and the Christ. Now, go tell someone GOD LOVES YOU...

David,

With reference to your comments made on 09 August 2008 at 6:25, I would like to say the following:

When we read from someone who is a recognized authority by the community assert "things that don't make sense," it is difficult and sometimes almost impossible to exercise one's independent judgment. One's common sense becomes clouded, and the individual tends to grant the writer the benefit of the doubt. This is especially true when a person is young with an impressionable mind.

Take the case of the "solitary vice," which happens to be the main topic of this blog. Why would an orgasm in a private setting be so harmful, while when experienced with his/her spouse be an acceptable and healthy activity. From a common sense perspective there should not exist such an extraordinary disparity in the health consequences resulting from these alternative ways of dealing with the desire for gratification.

If someone were to argue that with company the experience is more pleasant and more enjoyable, the argument would make sense; but claiming the worse kind of diseases resulting from self gratification doesn't seem reasonable. It seems to me that the puritan climate existent then, posibly influenced religious leaders to resort to scary tactics to protect the perceived purity of youngters and adults alike. This same approach was used by revivalists who preached hell with the objective of enticing hearers to seek heaven.

By the way: Does the Seventh Commandment prohibit self sexual gratification? Is sexual pleasure, when experience alone, a violation of the Decalogue? Is it condemned elswhere in the Bible? Is a soldier who is away from his wife commiting adultery if he opts to relieve his sexual urge by himself instead of doing this in the company of a prostitute?

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

I remember coming home from college in the mid 1980s and picking up my teenaged brother's SS paper for that week (called Insight maybe?). There was an article about masturbation calling it a sin and arguing that it can lead to mental illness. In the 1980s for goodness sake. I mentioned it to my brother who luckily was enough of an independent thinker to just roll his eyes (he's now a Unitarian). I was pretty upset that teenagers were being taught such things in an official church publication no less. So it's not really just that EGW thought this way back when. Clearly, enough people still thought it bad enough to warn teenagers just 20 years ago. The most over the top EGW language of head shape distortion or whatever has been changed but the underlying premise that it is wrong, evil and dangerous to your mental health remained.

Elaine

I am happy that at least half a dozen well-prepared young SDA scholars around the world have dedicated their lives to developing "Adventist Studies" as a credible academic discipline.

I am particularly pleased that they are working with the American Academy of Religion and other professional societies to ensure that not only SDAs are active in this emerging discipline and that its research be as objective as humanly possible.

SDAism is by no mean the only form of Adventism. There are many other apocalyptic movements that also deserve study and are increasingly receiving it.

Ronald Numbers, by far the most accomplished historian of North Amerian religion and medicine at any university today, is being exceedingly helpful to our young academics as things develop, as are other scholars in and out of the denomination.

I hope that the rest of us will do what we can to be as supportive as well.

laercio

It is my understanding that while we are still in our mother's wombs we human beings stimulate our genitals. Whether or not we should call this "masturbation" depends upon how we choose to use the term.

It is also my understanding that the bodies of human males eventually discharge any serious over abundance of spermatoza, often in nocturnal emissions. For some boys and men who are not sexually active, this takes care of things. For others, waiting for this to take place is too uncomfortable and distracting to be a viable option.

Your thirteen year old boy is entering a stage in life in which he will be physically able to be sexually active but in our cultures today not financially, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually ready. He has more than one way of dealing with this challenge and one of them might be masturbation. All things considered, this might be his best option.

Having said that, we must swiftly add that sexual addiction is an ever present danger, and all the more so today when such exceedingly provocative material is so readily and privately available on the Internet.

Your son will not need this additional sexual stimulation and he would do well to make every effort not to become trapped in a very dangerous web of sexual addiction.

Tom

Thanks for the reading recommendation!

I have happy memories of being an ecumenical visitor to a PCUSA conference on abortion some years ago.

I was invited because that denomination had modeled its own conference on the one the LLU Center for Christian Bioethics had held earlier.

These Presbyterians studied and liked what we did, decided to do something similar and invited me to participate. We had a great time!

Nic

You write: "When we read from someone who is a recognized authority by the community assert "things that don't make sense," it is difficult and sometimes almost impossible to exercise one's independent judgment. One's common sense becomes clouded, and the individual tends to grant the writer the benefit of the doubt. This is especially true when a person is young with an impressionable mind."

Exactly so! I don't know of any solution to this problem except to encourage our young people as early as possible always to think for themselves but never to think by themselves. I know I've said that before; however, I don't know what else to say.

My experience in teaching where I do is that in general my SDA students are more analytical and critical--in the best sense of the term--than are many of my students who are Christians with equally conservative backgrounds. .

So, to a greater degree than we may sometimes think, SDA young people pick up the idea that they are to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of the thoughts of others. May this increase!

Many thanks!

Dave

Jim,

I have to agree with the following statement you made on 09 August 2008 at 8:06:
*********
"I believe the majority of SDAs still hold to the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. However, if there is a doubt between the Bible and EGW, EGW wins. One example of this is the doctrine of the investigative judgement."

*********
The Bible makes it crystal clear that when Jesus ascended to heaven he sat at the right hand of God, but we have been teaching that this happened in 1844 because "It is written" in the red boks that this is the way it happened. Who won the debate? Ellen White! Who lost? The Bible!

Most SDA Bible scholars believe the Bible version of these events, but they opt to keep quiet for fear of rocking the boat and loosing their livelihood and retirement benefits. A few elected not to compromise and are no longer with us.

Elaine,

You stated the following:

*********
"Simply remove all references to her in the official SDA publications: the consistent ads from the ABC selling more and more compilations in the constant "book-making" enterprise; the almost weekly article written by her in the Reviews; the many footnotes attributed to her in articles in SDA publications."

*********
There is no need to go to such extreme. She does not deserve such a harch measure. She always advised leaders to hold the Bible as supreme. Those who misused her writings and placed her writing above Scripture thus making her pronouncements infallible are to blame. They are the ones who replaced a "Thus said the Lord," with "Thus said Ellen White." She even stated that only God is infallible.

Michael,

I agree with you that ideally the guilty individual should be the one to apologize. Nevertheless, I have a question for you. Did John Paul's repeated apologies hurt or help to heal the pain inflicted by the church on the alleged "heretics" during the inquisition?

Your hypothetical illustration of the new owner coming to apologize for the ill treatment by the former owner is defective, I believe. How about the son of the person who did the harm apologizidng for his dad's rudeness? Would not said action help re-establish the good relationship between the two families?

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Dear David,

the topic you revitalized in 2008 is quite hot (as we have seen in the comments above).

The matter can be traced through the milleniiums, if you take a view on Catholic ethics. It became really popular in Western world since about 1700 (I did not need Laqeur to know this), frightening, embarassing, threatening, even on the stage in Vienna about 1870 in a tragedy by playwright Anzengruber. Mrs. White joined these horriofying views with two publications ("An Appeal to Mothers" in 1864 and almost the same text in "A Solemn Appeal" in 1870) - in the latter the sentences that could be read as r