A Response to Alden Thompson on Conditional Prophecy

In the most recent issue of Adventist Today (Fall 2011) Alden Thompson has an article entitled Conditional Prophecy and Last-Day Events. I had mentioned to a friend that he seemed to waste a lot of the article on talking about the Sabbath. My friend who knows Alden and thus I suspect has a bit more insight into his thinking, but is also a bit less critical of what he actually said, suggested that the underlying reason for the Sabbath inclusion in the article was to develop subtly the idea that the Sabbath is not an end time Seal of God and the conditional prophecy was a method of planting those ideas into the reader.

Thus I had to re-read the article to see if I could see those subtle connections as my friend explained it. If there I thought I would be in substantial agreement though likely not with his conditional prophecy position.


Alden Thompson introduces us to his subject after explaining through the process of some rather gratuitous assertions the solid foundation of the Sabbath and that “the New Testament is equally clear pressing the question of how to keep the Sabbath but never quarreling over the fact of the Sabbath.” True enough but what does the “fact” of the sabbath really mean. That the New Testament acknowledges the Sabbath is true but does not in any way seek to endorse it as a continuing obligation, leaving it up to the conscience of people (Rom. 14:5). But when someone says the fact of the sabbath to an Adventist I think they often have a different understanding, the fact to them being the continuing obligation of Seventh day Sabbath keeping as their proof of true commandment keeping. I will come back to that after I cover the next area of Thompson's article where he recounts the conflict of 1888 through Ellen Whites perspective.
The article covers an area of all or nothing thinking which he seems to want to use to develop his concept of conditional prophecy. He recounts this incident from the 1888 Ellen White Materials page 220 I will give the full two paragraphs:

I told them I had been shown that some of our brethren had educated themselves as debaters. The process of this education and the mold received by such an education were not after God's order, neither did they meet the approval of God. In many respects men trained in this kind of school unfitted themselves to become pastors of the sheep and lambs; and in combating an opponent, as in the way of discussions, usually harm is done with but little good results. The combative spirit is raised in both parties, and a defiant, hard spirit becomes habitual when their track is crossed. They become criticizers and do not always handle the Scriptures fairly, but wrest the Scriptures to make their point.

The remark was made, "If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith." I said, "Brethren, here is the very thing I have been telling you. This statement is not true. It is an extravagant, exaggerated statement. If it is made in the discussion of this question I shall feel it my duty to set this matter before all that are assembled, and whether they hear or forbear, tell them the statement is incorrect. The question at issue is not a vital question and should not be treated as such. The wonderful importance and magnitude of this subject has been exaggerated. For this reason--through misconception and perverted ideas-- we see the spirit that prevails at this meeting, which is unchristlike, and which we should never see exhibited among brethren. There has been a spirit of Pharisaism coming in among us which I shall lift my voice against wherever it may be revealed." Full 1888 materials in PDF

The brother who says we don't have the third angel's message is on the side that says the law in Galatians is the Ceremonial law (which by the way is an entirely artificial designation the Jews did not separate the law as moral or ceremonial). The brother was working against the position of Jones and Waggoner that the law in Galatians was the moral law (by which Adventists mean the 10 commandments, again a fictional law division).

Thompson then begins on the Conditional prophecy portion by saying that the Adventists had two pillars which can be found in the simple covenant that Adventists first signed when they formed as a church in 1861. “covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ [Rev. 14:12] Central to the commandments is the Sabbath;”

So even though Ellen White thought the brother was exaggerating his thinking, that if the law in Galatians was our school master to lead us to Christ and then fade we can't be correct in our statement of the third angel's message which is that last part of the verse in Rev 14:12. Thus the brother's offering is not really all or nothing but the recognition that if our faith is in our understanding of the Seventh day Sabbath observance as our special mission (to preach the third or three angel's message) the position would be in error and faith based on error is not terribly useful. Ellen White is not even able to refute the brother but threatens to, as we continue to read that letter we see she never deals with the issue only criticizes the spirit of those involved. Which by the way is usually a truism when any two or more people get together and argue strongly held views religious or otherwise.

Alden Thompson's conclusion to the illustration of history is:

“Let's be clear: whatever we do with conditional prophecy or end-time events does not move a pin from those landmarks, the ones reflected in our name Seventh-day Adventists.”

That would not be the conclusion I would draw from the illustration from Adventist history of this event. But then I don't see the brother as giving an all or nothing position either. He seems quite rational and deserved a bit more rational response then he received. I might accept the conclusion that from our history we accept certain pillars as unmovable because we ignore any reasons to move them. Which strangely enough seems to be Thompson's case, as he continues:

“I hope the long preamble makes it clear that there is no point in going further unless the Adventist landmarks are in place. When they are secure, however, we can begin to nibble on “conditional prophecy” in bite-size chunks.”

He then covers some of the ideas of the “last days” as being a nebulous term that does not fit all that well with the New Testament and contemporary interpretations of Christians. That some see conditional prophecy as things that must be fulfilled in the last days such as the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem etc.

Next he points to the article The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy (I did an Internet search to give you a link to this article but being an important article it appears to not be anywhere on the Internet). Alden writes:

“All Adventists know about the Sunday law. But very few know how the Bible, the Great Disappointment, and Ellen White come together in this remarkable article that takes “conditional prophecy” seriously in exploring God's original plan for Israel.”

His next point is to direct our attention to Ellen White's own all or nothing statement:

The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional. Selected Messages Page 67 from MN 4 1883

Notice her position is either the Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped or God failed. No possibility for the messenger being presumptuous or making something up quite apart from anything God ever said or simply wrong interpretations. After all it had been nearly 2000 years since those New Testament last day prophecies. It does seem a little presumptuous in the 19th century to assume they are all talking about her century. This would be a good example of all or nothing thinking. But if one did believe that the promises and threatenings of God are conditional and you have to admit there is an implied “all” in that statement. In fact the implied “all” would make the statement fall in the category of a logical fallacy known as the false generalization (sweeping or hasty generalization). 
 
The whole possibility of the second coming becomes conditional and may never happen. What are the conditions, who knows? A conditional prophecy without the conditions stated somewhere is worthless. Now ancient Israel had loads of prophecies and from the start of the nation state there were conditions set for all the prophecies. (Read Deut. 28) Is it really logical to assume the same conditions for a ancient nation to modern people in so many different nations? If one accepts that all promises and threatenings of God are conditional and the conditions are not stated then whenever anyone makes a prediction that fails to come to pass they can say the conditions of God were not met and most likely after the fact they will name some conditions. In this way people like Harold Camping could continue setting dates for Christ's return and continue to create excuses for the prophetic failures. The so called prophet could never be shown to be wrong, if something comes true it will show them as a prophet if it does not it shows nothing except conditions were not met.


Alden Thompson continues by saying:
“It was the 1844 Disappointment that forced Adventists to come to grips with conditional prophecy—reluctantly.” Going on to say that Ellen White never published her statement about conditional prophecy while she lived, it was in the form of a letter defending herself from certain charges.  I would ask should the letter be taken as inspired or the statement as inspired? Did Adventists come to grips with 1844 as a conditional prophecy? Well no it was assumed that the date was correct but the event was wrong and 1844 became integral to the novel SDA only doctrine known as the Investigative Judgment. He then moves on to Jonah, a favorite of Adventists who want to assert all prophecies are conditional. You can read a response to that position in my article Ellen White's Food for worms, Is it Conditional.


He finishes back with the Sabbath:


“Anywhere and everywhere Adventists can preach that the beast of Revelation 13 is coercive and deceptive. Anyone who coerces and deceives is in league with the beast. Today, however the great threat to our Sabbath is not coercive Sunday legislation, but secularization. Almost no one takes sacred time seriously anymore.”

So here at the end I grant my friends observation is probably correct. But all along the way I see numerous problems with the article's positions. But if this is the only way we can get Adventists to leave behind the 19^th century theology of Ellen White and realize that so far she has been wrong on most every prediction she made, I guess I will have to say Amen. Though I wish we could be more honest with ourselves. But I am not an all or nothing person so it is not either lie to ourselves about conditional prophecy and Ellen White or continue to accept Ellen White and teach the outdated prophecy scenarios, I think honesty demands more. There is a place for subtleness but even being subtle with incorrect facts is not really a winning formula.

Gauging the Intelligence of our leaders

Here is a quote from a recent article on Spectrum magazine online Reflections on Annual Council and the Association of Adventist Women Conference President Ted Wilson invited a testimony of a Dentist by the name of Carla Lidner Baum. She said the following according to the article:

“Why is there not more of an outcry about the erosion of our beliefs,” she asked?

She said she was worried that our leaders, who in their efforts to be tolerant, instead end up being like Eli or Aaron.

"Because of my gratitude to God, I can never bow down to golden calves."

Next she talked of the “enlightened ones” who seem to suggest that they understand the Gospel better than other people. But the poor people will never be able to understand their gospel. Yet, she suggested, the enlightened ones say they are being attacked.

“I’ve fallen in love with the Adventist interpretation of Scripture,” she said calling it “beautiful, powerful, and close enough to get us through to the end.” Were the ideas about evolution true, “when Jesus came to earth He could have set the record straight,” she maintained. He could have told us that God only gave names and gave order.

So Jesus would have set us right on evolution though no one knew anything about the concept. By that rational should not Jesus set us right on diseases and germ theory and the nature of stars and planets and the destructive nature of slavery and recreational drugs?

Now this might not have deserved mention except that the article also pointed out this:

The next day, Dr. Baum also flew back to Southern California. While it was never mentioned before or after her presentation to Annual Council, she was a member of the Board of La Sierra University. She arrived in Riverside just in time to find out that she had been voted off the Board.

Baum was on the Board of La Sierra University! With a mind like that, an intelligence so uncritical and lets just say it foolish; she was on the Board of a major Adventist University. Somehow I feel only relief that she was removed from the board. But I am equally concerned that she was there in the first place.

We can do better and we must and we must by expecting those in important leadership positions have the intellectual ability to think critically. Being a successful professional does not mean that these people are in any way worthy of positions of leadership. That she spoke as she did at the behest of our Adventist President Ted Wilson says a lot about his intelligence also, sadly.

Raising the dead and other Christian problems.

I am constantly amazed at the things I read in the Adventist media. It is astounding the things some people say, some of them thankfully don't get wide distribution, sort of like me only read by a few, though I wish I got a little more readers and some of them even less. But none the less I am going to point you to their material because if nothing else I want my readers to learn something. It may be silly but silly ideas taken as true can cause a lot of trouble. So with no further ado here is my latest excursion into Adventist media foolishness.

This is taken from the Pacific Union Conference publication the Gleaner Online, it has a blog by Mike Jones which begins with the following:

Is it crazy to suggest we start casting out demons and raising the dead?

If you think I’m not in my right mind asking such a question, I would remind you that in Matthew 10:8, Jesus instructed His disciples (and presumably you and me) to “heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons” as an integral part of sharing the gospel message.

What do you see there, a serious question that we don't ask too often and then an interpretation that goes against the context of the text he quotes. The instruction is to Jesus' disciples it is not presumably to you and me. Just read the text if you are uncertain of this fact:

Matt 10:5-11

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. 11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. (KJV)

Not going to the Gentiles or any Samaritian cities only go to Israel heal the sick raise the dead cast out devils take no money or extra clothes. It sounds kind of specific to the disciples right? But somehow Mike Jones can find this to presumably be directed at you and me.

Well maybe if he was not making such presumptions he would have a better reason to understand why there is not a lot of raising the dead going on around by us Christians. He would not have to resort to one of the often less then factual missionary books found at the Adventist Book Center, Jones writes:

And since Matthew 10:8 references raising the dead, does that only mean those who are dead in their sins?  If you think so, please read Greg Rudd’s One Miracle After Another, the story of Pastor Pavel Goia and some of the incredible events of his early life.  You’ll be amazed at the story of the boy who died beneath the wheels of Pastor Goia’s car who came back to life after being pronounced dead and his body sent to the hospital morgue over night.  What happened the next morning when the keeper of the morgue arrived for work will amaze you.  Contact your nearby ABC for this wonderful book.

But that is not all, much of the article is about casting out demons who he sees as the cause of homosexuality and various other mental disorders. Mike Jones states the following:

In one horrifying sentence, the Bible says the natural man (unconverted, in other words) can be “taken captive by (the devil) at his will.”—2 Timothy 2:26 (KJV).

Now that is scary, the devil can take any unconverted person at his (the devils) will. If you think about it that is everyone...because there had to be a point where one became converted and any time before that point they would be unconverted.

Fortunately for humanity Mike Jones has once again presumed too much. Unless of course he is one of the King James Only advocates who holds the strict and wooden literalness of the KJV. Though if he was reading a modern language Bible or even the Authorized Standard Version he would not need such an interpretation.

2 Tim 2:24-26

24 And the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing,

25 in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will. (ASV)

As the Expositor's Bible Commentary says:

25,26 And so Paul goes on to say that the good minister must "gently instruct" ("in meekness") "those who oppose him"-- tous antidiatithemenous (only here in the NT). He does this in the hope that God will give them "a change of heart" (metanoia, "repentance"), leading to "a knowledge" (epignosis, "full knowledge") of the truth. He hopes that "they will come to their senses and escape" (v. 26). This is all one word in the Greek: ananepsosin. The verb (ananepho) literally means "return to soberness." Thayer says that this passage indicates "to be set free from the snare of the devil and to return to a sound mind [`one's sober senses']" (Lexicon, p. 40).

Still if you think that diseases or genetics or chemical imbalances etc. are really demonic manifestations I suppose it can make some sense to believe that such things are done at the will of Satan. After all there is the mythology of the ancient Israelites that diseases were caused by demons in the wilderness so he does have that on his side. So if he can ignore the context of verses and the meaning of the words and hold to ancient superstitions I suppose I can see where he is coming from.

And hopefully so can you, and avoid such things.

Deceptions in the name of Christ

I have for years been skeptical of the professed claims of the amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt. To me he seems to have claimed to have found the most significant things the Christian church has always wanted to find. He found Noah's Ark, he found the place where Moses parted the sea and some of the remains of Pharaoh's army. He found the Ark of the Covenant. All of those things would be very impressive and if found should have some kind of evidence to establish their discovery. But he seemed to provide no evidence.

Then I was doing some web wandering since my local church has an amazing discovery/prophecy seminar going on. I wanted to see what people were saying about the presenter of the programs, since the Advertising Leaflet that the church sent out to local residents says nothing about the Seventh-day Adventist church and the presentation was offered at a local high school theater rather then the church. After all this is the Internet age, if you are interested in something it takes very little effort to find out about it by searching the Internet, I see no reason to keep trying to hide the identity of the Adventist church in these things, if they are going to present their version of the truth then be up front about it. I searched the name of the evangelist, of course I found out he was an Adventist hired by the Washington conference and I even found out about his previous presentation last year from some discussion on the website rational skepticism. You can read it for yourself overall the guy sounds pretty accurate in his evaluation of the program. But it brought me to some links to Ron Wyatt.

What I did not know about Ron Wyatt is that he had claimed to have found the dried blood of Jesus Christ on the covering of the Ark of the covenant. That would be commonly called the mercy seat. How do we know it is the actual blood of Jesus Christ? Well according to Wyatt it has 23 chromosomes instead of 46, the normal number for living human beings. You can even look at a you tube video of some sort of laboratorian scrape out some of his dried blood and place it in some sterile water. strangely you will see that she does not wear gloves either. He then shows some poor resolution video microscopy of moving objects, which to my eyes which are quite used to looking at things under the microscope appears to be Brownian motion and the natural movement of a freshly mounted water based slide. (see also the You Tube of brownian motion). Wyatt when seeing this motion says that the blood is still alive.

But why is the blood of Jesus Christ on the mercy seat? Well according to Wyatt at the crucification there was an earthquake as the Bible records (Matt. 27:51), apparently the one that opened the graves and opened a fissure from the post hole of the cross down to the hidden Ark of the Covenant, the ark still hidden from the days of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem.

What is most interesting to me aside from the sheer hubris of the man to make such claims with no evidence to back him up, oh also he talked to angels who told him that the Ark and the Ten commandments on tablets of stone will be revealed when the mark of the beast is applied as they were there when he discovered it prematurely it seems. A bit too late according to Adventist mythology about probation closing with the mark of the beast. What is it in his and apparently Adventist thinking that makes them think that God needs to perform a miracle so that Christ blood falls on a disused mercy seat hidden away. At one time the Ark of the Covenant was the symbol of the presence of God, but was it the focus of the presence of God hidden away for hundreds of years that needed the blood of the incarnated God to be sprinkled on it?

It becomes another of the symbol over the substance excuses popular today. When the substance was here Wyatt feels that the symbol must be involved. The blood of Christ brought to symbolically to God so that God can forgive. But Christ is God, God does not need blood to forgive. The whole point was that God does forgive even to the point of His enemies rejecting and killing Christ. He still forgave and even after death rose to show the power of God even over our greatest enemy death. As the book of Hebrews says.

Heb 10:19-22 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. (NIV)

Symbols to express the reality, in many ways people like Ron Wyatt have their theology completely backward. Thus they invent things to make their version sound good. But as in this case it shows how little they really know and how little their followers know. Ultimately as with any false information they bring disrupt upon themselves and Adventism and Christianity.

One of the myths about forgiveness

A friend brought to my attention the following article from the religion section of the Huff Post. First I would say that if you get your religion ideas from the Huff Post you are probably in trouble. But since it gets wide readership I thought I would reply to one of the sections of the article. The article is entitled 5 Myths About Forgiveness in the Bible by Maria Mayo M. Div., M.A.

In my response to my friend I think I disagreed with all but one of her 5 points. The one I agreed with was point 5 Forgiveness sets you free. Which I don't even think is a widely held view by anyone, but I would like to focus on her third point for this article: 

          3. Jesus forgives his attackers from the cross.

Luke's depiction of Jesus on the cross is often cited as the quintessential example of unconditional forgiveness. As he is being crucified, Jesus cries out, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). Readers often take this to mean that Jesus forgives those who are attacking him. However, a closer look at the syntax reveals that Jesus is not, in fact, forgiving his attackers; rather, he is praying that God might do so.
It is possible that the lack of repentance from his attackers prevents Jesus from forgiving the men directly, since he has taught his followers that repentance is a requirement for forgiveness. Also, earlier in the Gospel of Luke Jesus instructs his disciples to "pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:38). While his prayer from the cross is a perfect model of this teaching, it is not an explicit act of forgiveness.

This is troubling because of its confusion about who Jesus Christ is. Most readers of the New Testament have recognized that Jesus not only claimed to be the son of God, but that He was One with God, such as:

John 8:58-59 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (KJV)

This equality with God was it seems a heavy emphasis in the Gospel of John. He began the gospel with:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. n him was life, and that life was the light of men. (NIV)

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NIV)

It was of course not just the writer of John that felt this way the author of the book of Matthew seems to be of the same opinion with his use of Emmanuel, God with us. There are very clearly strong biblical reasons why Jesus is considered to be God, it is why the early church derived the doctrine of the Trinity as a way to explain God who was in fact at multiple places at one time. It seems people have no problem with the idea of God as omnipresent but they get a little bogged down when physicality is involved. As if such a thing as a human body should stop God from being God. You can imagine the confusion if Jesus had said I am God right here and now pray to me. The physicality of God would become the issue and they would be even more confused when the physical God was no longer around, where did He go and where was He before He was born on earth. There are ideas that take time to develop and that explains why Jesus prayed to God the Father, as an example of how man should pray to God, but not in a way that was for Himself or separate from God. Even when troubled by impending horrors the concern for His physical comfort took second place to the will of God which was also His will. Not only did Jesus say to pray for those who abuse you but to forgive them.

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (NIV)

The book of Matthew also points out that Jesus demonstrated His ability to forgive sins:

Matt 9:6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." (NIV)

What Jesus did on the cross was far more then to ask God to forgive sins but to demonstrate that through love sins were forgiven even to the extent as Peter preached:

Acts 3:13-20

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see."Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you-- even Jesus. (NIV)

The forgiveness was there offered for all, but forgiveness is of little value if you still are an enemy of God, if you don't accept the forgiveness you remain in a state of animosity of your part. There is no renewal, no refreshing just our anger and rebellion, no healing. At the cross Jesus is not asking God to forgive, it is God showing us what forgiveness is like, that love reaches out even to those who reject God even while they reject God with cruelty and hatred. God was reaching out, He is still reaching out.

The Great Controversy and Canadian Law

On the Spectrum website there is an article by a pastor formerly pastoring in Canada. Pastor Eddy Johnson says the following about the distribution of the Ellen White book the Great Controversy in his article entitled: Will 'The Great Controversy' Project Harm Adventism?

“The saddest part was the reaction of those who had initiated the “evangelistic” dispersal of the book. Upset when the conference asked them to stop, they accused the leadership of cowardice, apostasy, and bowing to the pressure exerted by the “agents of Catholicism that infiltrated the church.” The incident taught me how difficult it was to explain to determined believers that not every action was Biblically timely or wise. Instead they found comfort in their understanding that good people were always going to be persecuted, even by their own church at times. I believe that the action of the conference was instrumental in protecting the Adventist church from what might have been a very nasty court action (we all know the frenzied appetite of the press for such occurrences).”

Currently the Adventist denomination is promoting a mass distribution of the book The Great Controversy with the Great Controversy Project. One of the concerns of some people seem to be that the book will be looked at as hate literature (in fact that is one of the claims of the Great controversy Project though it is bogus, but apparently has some legs as this will be my second article on the subject). As one of my previous commenter said of previous related article on this blog:

“Yet I have concerns about the core message of GC, for our culture, which appears to me some will perceive it as hateful speech or at least unfounded and harsh accusations.”

Canada has one of the tougher hate law legislations in North America, but does the publication of this 1888/1912 book by the Adventist claimed prophet Ellen White equate to hate speech? First I will put forth the disclaimer that I am against all hate crime legislation. A crime is a crime for it's action it should be dealt with for the action not deemed worse because the motive was something other then emotion or avarice or cruelty. See the article from Reason Magazine for further explanation of the problem of hate crime legislation.

Aside from what should be we have to deal with what legislation has been passed. In this case does the Canadian law open the Adventist church up to a nasty court action. Well first you can have a nasty court action for anything whether you are in the right or wrong. So we as a church or as individuals are always open to that, frivolous lawsuits are all too common. But under Canadian law the publication of the Great Controversy book does not fall into the category of section 318 or 319 of the Canadian criminal code. Hate Propaganda 318 Advocating genocide 319 Public incitement of hatred. As 318 requires the advocacy of genocide of some group"

“Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

 Criminal code 319 allows: 

          “(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)...

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;”

Since the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has in their fundamental beliefs that Ellen White the author of the Great Controversy is:

“As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction...” (18. The Gift of Prophecy)

The Denomination has a legal defense against the charge of hate propaganda in the law itself.

The legal or criminal/court threat is of no concern at this time, though the potential for ill considered hate crime legislation may someday create more problems as such crimes restrict constitutional freedoms. The real consideration should be; is this book correct, helpful and wise to distribute. The article by Eddy Johnson goes on to give some further reasons it is ill considered to spread this book throughout the country or world. I am in agreement with the article on some of his objections. Though I would raise a few different objections.

Update from a conversation on Spectrum David Read brought up the problem of the Human Rights Commission of Canada, to which I responded as follows:
---
David Read is correct, Canada has problems with free speech issues because of their human Rights commission which appears to be corrupt and inept. It appears to be an outgrowth of those who believe in hate crime legislation but could not get the legislation into the law. If the Adventist church got involved somehow with that group and the other high profile authors who are being frivolously tried by the human rights commission I would say go for it because they would win this issue in the end and be heralded for protecting Canadian free speech rights.

From an article on the subject:
---

“Canada’s ‘human rights’ laws are abominable,” he said, “especially Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, which criminalizes any speech that makes a person feel uneasy. So it’s not a matter of truth, or evidence, but of feelings.”

Section 13.1 prohibits speech, including speech on the telephone, or writings on the Internet, that is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”[4] Whether this is “likely” to happen soon, or in the distant future, the law does not specify. Nor does it define speech that is “likely” to do this. In practice, “human rights” commissions have allowed plaintiffs to define it, based on their subjective feelings.

“Now, finally, there is quite a stirring against the human rights commissions—at least among the newspapers,” De Valk said. “We hope this is beginning to change the environment.”

Canadian newspapers have been increasingly critical of “human rights” commissions since complaints were brought against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Maclean’s magazine. Levant, when he was editor of the now-defunct Western Standard, fell afoul of the “human rights” regime when he published the notorious “Muhammad cartoons” to illustrate a news story about them. Maclean’s, Canada’s most widely circulated magazine, published excerpts from Steyn’s book, America Alone, that discussed the growing Muslim influence in Western Europe.

But Levant, Steyn, and Maclean’s have vigorously defended themselves. Their high-profile cases have led to calls for investigation of the commissions’ procedures and even for repeal of portions of the Human Rights Act—first by newspaper, and lately by members of Parliament. Meanwhile, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have launched their own investigation of the commissions.

“The Canadian government has got to be convinced to act,” De Valk said. “We have a Conservative government and a Conservative prime minister; but it’s a minority government, so the Conservatives can’t go forward without support from the other political parties.” http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/canadian-human-rights-commissions...

And Jesus said Don't Eat Cheese

As you read the Adventist media and conversation sources (magazines blogs etc) it is often possible to see some of the truly cultic thinking that inhabits Adventism. One good example is the new blog article at Atoday.com. In an article entitled Annoying Vegans...an article which predominately decries the use of cheese, we read the following:

Many of us have heard the testimonies: “Cheese stops-up my system.” “Cheese makes my arthritis flare-up.” “Cheese disturbs my sleep.” Anticipating these problems, Jesus gave the gracious counsel: “Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach.”^1
1 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 368.

Whether or not we experience any symptoms, it should be enough that Jesus has spoken on this matter. It is an insult to His grace, to presume that His message is not clear enough. While church members debate the meaning of this subject, outsiders suffer.

You notice of course that Jesus never said one word about cheese, the quotes used are from the Adventist prophet of the 19^th century, Ellen White. When challenged on this use of Ellen White as Jesus the author Adam Hendron said in the comments section (proving the article was not actually a joke or satire):

The Testimony of Jesus—not Ellen White—is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10).  When God's prophets served their role, "the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when it testified" 1 Peter 1:11.  Two chapters later, we read that Jesus preached to the antedeluvians through Noah (vv 18-20).  Noah was the spokesperson, but Jesus was the preacher.  Whose message is it?  Christs!  His Spirit testified through the human agency.  

Then his next comment

First, no one is equating EGW with Jesus.  That's a straw-man argument.  Next, her writings are no more "erroneous" or "contradictory" than the Bible itself.  (Critics make the same sort of arguments about both.)  Now, are you questioning the inspiration of Peter's epistle?  If the Bible is not trustworthy, you put yourself in the position of God as the final aribiter of truth.  You ask why the writer of Genesis did not mention that Noah preached?  Well, why did Moses not mention a plethora of other details that later biblical writers added to the periods he wrote of, for that matter?  Paul, for example, says the rock that followed Israel through the wilderness was Jesus.  And how could Moses himself write authoritatively about events that took place long before he was born? 

Intriguing isn't it, how completely confused the traditional Adventist is to the Bible and it's statements. The testimony of Jesus is those who testify of Jesus, it is not the words of Jesus, it is the inspiration that allows us to profess that Jesus is Lord. We don't do it on our own it is the Spirit of God that inspires us to accept and proclaim that Jesus is God. (see this article on the misuse of the term Spirit of Prophecy)

Rev 19:10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Of course this does not make every statement of a Christian the word of God, or Jesus nor would it even make every word of our fellow servants even if we assumed them to be prophets to be the words of Jesus. As Jesus said to Peter:

Matt 16:15-17

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (KJV)

The strong play of the fundamentalist is their assertion that their reason and no other reason is acceptable. We see it here in the attempt to make it seem that Jesus spoke to those before Noah, the supposed spirits in prison. But anyone with any knowledge of Christianity knows that there are many different interpretation of that verse. But the art of confusion is the art of the dogmatic fundamentalist. And the above blog author is very much and Adventist fundamentalist, and in my view one who holds to a very cultic understanding. Of course he also asserts that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible despite the numerous facts that lead one to doubt that assertion, you know writing about his own death, differing creation accounts etc. Jewish Tradition is not the same as facts. What about the rock that followed Israel through the wilderness being Jesus? That again is they typical lie of the fundamentalist, to distort and confuse as you can see from the actual verse:

1 Cor 10:1-5

1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.

2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

3 They all ate the same spiritual food

4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. (NIV)

So Hendron ignores the spiritual parts of the statement to make a totally fictitious case. It bothers me that these kind of people are in the Adventist church, I do suppose it is helpful that Adventist Today posts their foolishness for all to see. I do wish they had a more balanced group of bloggers however, maybe not so many traditionalists and maybe even a few political conservatives.

Ah well I guess that is what you find on this blog.

Media plays us for fools and fools believe media

What happens when the news media fails us? When they report not what was said but what they want to distort for their particular agenda. It is something I have seen frequently though I admit I rarely comment on it. The reason is, to understand something sometimes a great deal of information is needed, so to correct a media distortion the truth and the context of a media quote have to be presented. People don't like that, they want the easy answer the solution of the now common news sound bite. The equally troubling thing is that this news bite analysis and repetition is being called research. I had this experience recently on Spectrum Magazine's website. Alexander Carpenter had an article on the Norwegian murderer entitled Is the Killer a Christian. Alex who is very much a Political liberal/progressive took the familiar tract that the killer was: “In this case, the terrorist thought of himself as a Christian and that identity fundamentally fed his politics.” You can see the word phrasing involved was an attempt to as many left leaning blogs were writing an attempt to portray the killer as a fundamentalist Christian, his Christian “identity fundamentally fed”, you see the technique which Alex uses, and elsewhere when he attempts to imply a list of conservative ideas as not responsible, but of course the list is meant to make them seem responsible. “And while those who wish to conserve a more capitalist, closeted, male dominant, creationist past are not responsible for this violence; fundamentally, Breivik is us.” I am sure there are a whole lot of other ideas that are not responsible that Alex could have mentioned some good and some bad but you can see what he is trying to do. Though the creationist part has nothing at all to do with Breivik but then neither does Christianity as a personal religion. As RealClearReligion's Rod Dreher points out:

But readers of Breivik's manifesto will see that he is not a Christian in any meaningful theological sense. Rather, he sees the faith much as the Nazi leadership did: as a European tribal religion that can be instrumentalized to provide the basis for an ethno-cultural war against the Other - in this case, Muslims. Breivik writes:

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.

To be even more specific the manifesto directly precedes the above Breivik quote by saying:

“A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative

Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?”

A large portion of the manifesto is dealing with Muslims and with much history of the Muslim and Christianity conflicts, but you have to also remember that Norway has a flag that is derived from the Crusader Flag, he is not really dealing as much with personal Christianity as a cultural identification and historical power struggles.

But back to the story, I posted the following message under the comments section in response to both the article and other comments on the thread.

Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:27 Anonymous wrote:

"(See Glen Beck's outrageous comments today comparing the Norwegian young victims with Hitler youth.) "

This is probably the biggest problem going on here. Too many people don't know what they are talking about. Beck did not compare the victims to hitler youth. He was saying he would not send his children to a Republican summer camp that political indoctrination is not good, the hitler youth was an example of such indoctrination. But the author above does not know that because he only hears the critics distorted version and assumes it is truth.

Much as the orginal article assumes the murderer is a Christian when he does not even claim to be a Christian in anything more then a cultural historic Eurpoean sense. He cares nothing at all about a personal relationship with God...something much different from what we think of as a Christian.

But truth is often the first victim to propaganda and that is what much of the comments and the orginial article seem to be about.

To this the anonymous author of the comment I referred said:

r.c--do your homework. Are you a Glen Beck apologist?

Here's a quote from Norway's own Torbjørn Eriksen, former press secretary to Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg about Beck's comments:

"Torbjørn Eriksen, a former press secretary for Norway's prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, told The Daily Telegraph, 'Young political activists have gathered at Utoya for over 60 years to learn about and be part of democracy, the very opposite of what the Hitler Youth was about. Glenn Beck's comments are ignorant, incorrect and extremely hurtful.'

"He also described the comment as 'a new low” for Beck, who many see as one of the most divisive characters in the media.'"
Read the entire article here:
www.christianpost.com/news/glenn-beck-compares-campsite-of-norway-shooti...
The coverage is pretty consistent about what Beck "said."
You have every right to defend Beck. He's just off base, way off base, in my opinion.

The plot thickens now. I who heard the Glenn Beck broadcast, albeit I listen to it one day later since I record radio to listen to at work the next day, which saves a lot of listening to commercials by the way. I need to do more research because what I heard appears to not be what numerous media outlets publish, some I saw without even using one full sentence quotes. The Christianpost article uses at least a full quote thought nothing of the context. You can tell he is recounting his thoughts from earlier hearing about the shooting, which after all if you hear about a shooting at a political camp you must wonder about what kind of camp is centered on politics and it is disturbing to many people. But you can tell that he is not equating the camp to Hitler Youth, it is clearly not even the main part of what he has to say about the camp. That comes a half hour later when he says:

“I would never send my kids to a Republican summer camp. Never in a million years would I send my kids to a Republican Party summer camp what are you nuts? That's what this thing was a Labor Party summer camp I don't know why you would send your kids to that. I see that as, you know my problem with the Nazi youth is that was a Party the Nazi's were the National Socialists Party, is Europe not going to learn stop with the Parties, stop indoctrinating you kids with the Parties.”

Besides the context think about how the media works with the news. Do you think that the former press secretary to the Prime Minister quoted in the so called news article listened to the Glenn Beck show, did the reporter present that half hour's worth of monologue? Or did he or she simply make the claim like the headline of the article says: “Glenn Beck Compares Campsite of Norway Shooting to 'Hitler Youth'” But in context did he not also compare it to a Republican Party camp? But the media appears to have found someone rather like the commenter on the Spectrum blog, a person who accepts what a reporter says as simply truth and accepting the report is research.

What someone actually heard and knows by context becomes of less importance then what someone at a supposed news organization says. Of all the material below that I have transcribed from the Glenn Beck show how many of you would walk away with saying Glenn Beck Compares Campsite of Norway Shooting to 'Hitler Youth'? Does anyone really think that was the main thrust or the overall intent of Glenn Beck's commentary?

The popular media is playing us for fools and far to many people are foolishly laping up distortions and propaganda and worse yet clinging to it as if it were truth.

--

Transcript from the Glenn Beck show Monday July 25 2011

At the opening of the second hour show of his show Glenn Beck said (underlined part used in ChristianPost article):

So Saturday I was uhh following the news of the shooting in Norway and the explosion which happened what on Friday? ( Pat: yes the explosion was and then we left the air and then he went to you know the camp) When we heard the explosion everybody was willing to say it was muslim extremists its muslim extremists, I don't think we made a comment on it because we didn't know other then there was a bombing that happened. And as the thing started to unfold and then there was a shooting at a political camp which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth or whatever I mean who does a camp for kids that is all about politics, disturbing. But anyways so there is this political camp and some crazy man goes and starts shooting kids. I get up Saturday morning and I write to Scott Baker at the Blaze and I said I haven't seen this yet anywhere and I can tell you exactly what's going on and somebody just needs to follow the story. And what is going on is exactly what I said would happen I warned that this would happen last fall. Can we find and see if we can find the audio of me saying it, it's actually a kind of famous monologue because I made a ah complex theory and you make one error in it and it sounds like you are blaming it or agreeing with or whatever. It's the monologue where I spoke about Geert Wilders I think I only spoke about Geert Wilders on Fox one time, I think I had Geert Wilders on CNN Headline news its just the clips of all the things they are saying. I think he went as far to say that Islam is evil which I don't believe that Islam is evil I believe Islam the way it is being practiced by 

Ahmadinejad and millions of people around the world that believe in the same things that

Ahmadinejad believes in that's evil. Absolutely 100% that's evil, but there are a lot of good Muslims as well they need to be strenghened and the way to strenghten them is to say, this kind of understanding of Islam is evil period and strenghten the ones that say thats not what we want to do we don't want to kill our daughters in honor killings we don't want to stone people to death, we don't want our husbands to have you know what is it hourly marriages, we like to call it prostitution here in the United states that Sharia law does not have a place in todays world period... [more on Europe going into financial trouble and trouble with radical Islam and multiculturalism for the rest of the half hour]

The second half our of the second hour of the show begins:

You know we were just talking in the break about how devastating, how devastating this news in Oslo is 93 dead, mainly children now one thing that you have to umm take into account is in Norway at least on this island no one had a firearm no one this guy walked onto this island with a firearm no one else had one. No one could stop him no one had one. Remember when I said a couple of weeks ago the police cannot prevent a crime they can only come and investigate what happened. Occasionally if they happen to be there yes that's why in Newark New Jersey they are saying if you own a Pizza shop and you want to be open after 9 o'clock you have to hire a policeman an armed guard to be able to have your business open because that way somebody can protect you. Excuse me, I have a right to protect myself, nobody had a firearm nobody could stop this mad man and 93 people later he stopped. It takes the police, how long did it take them 90 minutes (Stu: yea 90 minutes to respond) 90 minutes this was going on people where these kids were swimming across the lake trying to get help, neighbors were coming and getting in their boats and coming and rowing across the water to be able to grab these kids out. This guy was an absolute and total monster a monster you know as much as you, maybe it is just me I would never send my kids to a Republican summer camp. Never in a million years would I send my kids to a Republican party summer camp what are you nuts? That's what this thing was a labor party summer camp I don't know why you would send your kids to that. I see that as, you know my problem with the Nazi youth is that was a Party the Nazi's were the National Socialists Party is Europe not going to learn stop with the Parties, stop indoctrinating you kids with the Parties. But as much as I don't want to send my kids to a a Labor Party or a Republican Party or an Obama summer camp whatever it is I am not going to send my kids there. But can you imagine the monster that it takes to say, you know the best way to stop this is to kill all the children. Monster total and complete, monster, so don't listen to anyone who says that first left and right is different in Europe remember that, they had kings... [Explains the difference between left and right in America vs. Europe. Communist left and Fascist right while America it is Communist left and no government right]

In Depth, Ellen White as lesser light

For quite some time there has been the idea in the Adventist church that Ellen G. White is the lesser light meant to lead us to the greater light of the Bible. This view is largely based upon a heavily edited quote that certain compilers made when apparently trying to sell more Ellen White books. Wikipedia notes: “During her lifetime she wrote more than 5,000 periodical articles and 40 books. Today, including compilations from her 50,000 pages of manuscript, more than 100 titles are available in English.” That means that there have been 60 compilations compared to 40 original books.

Compilations give the editors a way to take what they consider to be important quotes from Ellen White's unpublished material and it also allows them to restate her original material possibly to carry a different sentiment then the original in context. With regard to the lesser light and greater light issue most Adventists will refer to the compilation rather then to Ellen White's original published article. In the 1953 compilation book entitled Colporteur Ministry, we read: http://egwwritings.org/

Sell Books That Give Light—The Lord has sent His people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. Oh, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth. {CM 125.2}

You can also find it in the other compilations Evangelism and Selected Messages. The White Estates new search engine lists the Evangelism (1946) quote as:

--The Greater and Lesser Lights—Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.—The Colporteur Evangelist, 37. (1902) {Ev 257.1}

What one notices when searching the Ellen White writings is that most of the references seemed to be only found in compilations. Looking through White Estate search engines for Colporteur Evangelist the book is displayed but it does not give a date. One website has a version as a PDF which indicates that the Colporteur Evangelist is a compilation, though PDF version is dated 1950. As it turns out the Coporteur Evangelsist is not from 1902 but selected from another compilation the Manual for Canvassers, (see here )

“Through the years, guidance in publishing and circulating our literature has been given through the pen of Ellen G. White. In these counsels the selling of our truth-filled books and papers is elevated to a work comparable to that of the gospel ministry. The seller of books is seen as a colporteur evangelist.”

“In 1902 A number of statements from the pen of Mrs. White relating to our colporteur ministry were assembled and published in Manual for Canvassers. Subsequent Ellen G. White counsels on our literature ministry led to an enlargement of this work, and in 1920 the much loved Colporteur Evangelist appeared. This little work has been published in many languages and has been widely circulated.”

Of all of these compilations: Colporteur Ministries , Evangelism, and the earlier Colporter Evangelist only Selected Messages Book 3 listed the actual reference to the published quote where Ellen White presumably sets herself as the lesser light (there are also a few lesser known compilations but they also do not list the source). If she intended to be thought of as the lesser light it is strange that other Adventist writers of her time did not refer to her as a lesser light.. It appears to be a product of the editors of the compilations an attempt to redirect possible critics of Ellen White by the compilations. All compilations are the work of the White Estate as per Ellen White's last will and testament.

The Ellen G. White® Estate, Incorporated, is an organization created by the last will and testament of Ellen G. White to act as her agent in the custody of her writings, handling her properties, "conducting the business thereof," "securing the printing of new translations," and the "printing of compilations from my manuscripts." Her will, dated Feb. 9, 1912

It turns out that the quote came from The Review and Herald, January 20, 1903 (also published in some other Adventist periodicals within a year or two):

Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been awake to the importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their responsibility to circulate them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an effort to circulate these books? and will you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's Object Lessons"? In selling this book many have learned how to handle the larger books. They have obtained an experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field.

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in his hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take his loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth.

My brethren and sisters, work earnestly to circulate these books. Put your hearts into this work, and the blessing of God will be with you. Go forth in faith, praying that God will prepare hearts to receive the light. Be pleasant and courteous. Show by a consistent course that you are true Christians. Walk and work in the light of heaven, and your path will be as the path of the just, shining more and more unto the perfect day.

We can see from the quote in context that Ellen White is claiming that she did not originate these books but that she is presenting the God given instruction she received. Further it is God who declares that these books should be scattered throughout the world. The instruction is attributed to God as is the instruction to scatter the books, it is not instruction she received from the Bible. It is instruction she received during her lifetime from God Himself, according to her own writing.

But in the contemporary Adventist world which is careful to try and not appear to be a cult they have thought to redact the quote into the idea that Ellen White is a lesser light meant to lead us to the scriptures. As the following quote from Tim Poirier was used in the article Ellen G. White and Sola Scriptura Merlin D. Burt in dialog with the Presbyterian Church USA (Seventh-day Adventist Church and Presbyterian Church USA Conversation Office of the General Assembly PC (USA) Louisville, KY August 23, 2007)

Ellen White used analogy to describe the relationship of her writings to scripture. She wrote that “little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.”20 The “greater light-lesser light” comparison suggested that “just as the moon derives its light from the sun and reflects only what that source emits, so her messages are seen as deriving their authority from scripture, serving only to mirror the principles presented therein.”21 (21 Poirier, “Contemporary Prophecy,” 16)

To get to that point however you have to forget about the rest of the context of the quote. In context the greater light...the source of light would be God, Ellen White would be reflecting the light she received from God thus her writing become a lesser light, the greater light being God. For example she wrote:

Christ makes no apology when he declares, "I am the Light of the world." He was, in life and teaching, the gospel, the foundation of all pure doctrine. Just as the sun compares with the lesser lights in the heavens, so did Christ, the source of all light, compare with the teachers of his day. He was before them all; and shining with the brightness of the sun, he diffused his penetrating, gladdening rays throughout the world. (Youth Instructor.1897-09-16.004)

Anyone that receives light from God and then processes it through their speaking or writing would then be a reflector of the light of God. That is the obvious implications of the quote in context but what of the idea that her writings derive their authority from scripture and therefore are meant to point us back to scripture?

We don't have to go very far to test that idea we can do it directly from the material we saw in the Review and Herald quote. So let us ask the question where in the scriptures do we find God telling us to scatter the writings of Ellen White throughout the world? Of course we don't so what about scattering the writings of any Prophet to the world? Again the answer is no. Paul passed his writings on and some of the other New Testament writers likely distributed their letters to several places. But again that was not some instruction of God recorded someone in the New Testament. One could say that scattering the books is simply spreading the gospel therefore scattering the books of Ellen White or anyone else who talks about God or claims their writings lead people to God should have their books scattered throughout the world. I would like my writings to be scattered throughout the world also, but I can't say that is what the Bible tells me to do or that it is what the Lord has declared.

A second test we could use is found in the King James quote Ellen White uses from Isaiah:

Isaiah 28:8-13 NIV:

All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. "Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule ⁿ; a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen. So then, the word of the LORD to them will become: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there-- so that they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured.

This verse in context is not a description of how to study the Bible or any of the component parts of the Bible. As the Expositor's Bible Commentary states:

9-10 As the prophet declared the word of God in this drink-dominated setting, his hearers made their response. The NIV is probably right in treating both these verses as a quotation of the words of the drunkards. They felt insulted. Were they not themselves spiritual leaders, well able to teach others? What right had this man to place them in the classroom and teach them the spiritual ABC's? There is some thing ironic about the reference to milk (v. 9) in such a context.

Many commentators have been puzzled by v. 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol -impregnated atmosphere that surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that might just as well have been a foreign language.

See an article on the myth of precept upon precept line upon line

We can grant that Ellen White held to a Christian tradition with her use of the precept by precept quote but it is something that has been taken out of context and given a meaning that is not really true for how to study anything let alone the Bible. In fact if one does that they can simply take from here or there a precept or a line and add it to another line or precept. Context or meaning would just be obstacles we overcome with a bit of editing here and there.

Ellen White has several quotes on the importance and use of the Bible. Like most all other Christians she affirms it should be the standard for faith and practice. In fact she claims it is because people don't study their Bibles that they need her writings:

I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God. Here, said I, the cases of nearly all are met. The sins they are to shun are pointed out. The counsel that they desire can be found here, given for other cases situated similarly to themselves. God has been pleased to give you line upon line and precept upon precept. But there are not many of you that really know what is contained in the Testimonies. You are not familiar with the Scriptures. If you had made God’s word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies, calling your attention to the words of inspiration which you had neglected to obey, and urging you to fashion your lives in accordance with its pure and elevated teachings. (Testimonies for the Church Volume 2 page 605)

If one thought that people were not studying their Bibles and the Bible was the central source for truth should not the emphasis have been upon the Bible rather then further testimonies? Do we really need Ellen White to mis-define the Bible for us or to add vast quantities of information that the Bible never mentions. Consider the picture on the Sabbath School Lesson Study guide for the first quarter of 2003, a painting of Adam and Eve offering a Sacrifice. Is that a story found in the Bible? Of course not, it is widely held by Christians however and as such one of the many additions that Ellen White writes about as if it was found in the Bible. Traditions added to the Bible by Ellen White are still only traditions, they don't become Bible truth...or they should not but as we all know for many Adventists once Ellen White said something it becomes as good as Bible truth.

Still we find a bit of a conflict within Ellen White herself when she talks about her writings. In a Manuscript Release published well after her death we read this quote:

How can the Lord bless those who manifest a spirit of “I don’t care,” a spirit which leads them to walk contrary to the light which the Lord has given them. But I do not ask you to take my words. Lay Sister White to one side. Do not quote my works again as long as you live until you can obey the Bible. When you make the Bible your food, your meat and your drink, when you make its principles the elements of your character, you will know better how to receive counsel from God. I exalt the precious word before you today. Do not repeat what I have said, saying, “Sister White said this,” and, “Sister White said that.” Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands.—Ms 43, 1901, p. 10. (E. G. White talk in college library, April 1, 1901.) {5MR 141.1 Manuscript Releases Vol 5}

Or more acurately as the Spalding Magan collection states:

(Verbatim report of remarks by Mrs. E. G. White, at a meeting held in Battle Creek College library, April 1, at the General Conference of 1901.) {SpM 162.3}

Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what “Sister White said”—“Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing.” But say, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says.

Christ says, “I do the works of my Father. The works that I saw him do, I do.” Now the works and the sentiments and the principles that we have seen, that God has manifest in dealing with one another, the the purchase of the blood of Christ - only think of it {SpM 167.2}

In one place she says that her “testimonies” were intended “because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies...”(1871) and much later saying don't quote Sister White until you can obey the Bible (1901). Of course there will be apologist who seek to reconcile the statements just as there are apologists for politicians who present conflicting ideas at different times. Then there is the question of what does it mean to obey the Bible? Is obeying the law the same as obeying the Bible and which law is required to be obeyed?

Notice the next line, it was a talk or sermon so it may or may not be another paragraph of thought or a continuation but she says; Christ says, “I do the works of my Father. The works that I saw him do, I do.” If you know your Bible you will realize that nowhere is that quote or idea found. The closest Bible verse is John 10:37 and it is not that similar When you read Ellen White you can't help but wonder is she leading you to the Bible or trying to lead you to her interpretation of the Bible. Her understanding being what she thinks God has instructed her somehow through her lifetime. Because honestly you don't get many of the things that Ellen White proclaims from the Bible. Read the first few chapters of the book Patriarchs and Prophets with your Bible and see how most of what she says is found nowhere in the Bible.

The final point is one that I have asked a few people, if Ellen White is meant to lead people to the Bible and people already agree that they should be getting their doctrine from the Bible why would they need Ellen White at all? If I choose not to accept Ellen White as a prophet but accept the Bible as God given inspiration why is it a problem to disagree with Ellen Whites writings or ideas? If I believe the Bible why do I need to believe her additions to the Bible? If her purpose was to lead to the Bible why would she need to be thought of as the Adventist fundamental belief 18 states: “As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction...” Because frankly Ellen White's writings don't really make it clear that “the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” After all she is not even claiming the books are from her but are from God. Was God so confused when inspiring the Genesis and Exodus stories that he could not tell us how God taught Adam and Eve how to make sacrifices and that the sacrifices were to be a symbol of the coming Messiah, let alone forget all about it on the more technical books that describe in details sacrifices and temple rituals and equipment? It does not seem likely, it seems more likely that God led people with ever increasing knowledge, a progressive process, which is much different from the regressive process which would have to exist if all these early Bible characters knew all the things that Ellen White says they knew.

If you claim she is a lesser light, you can't possibly mean a lesser light to the Bible with all the additions and explanations she adds to the Bible, it simply makes no sense, at least if you hold her as a continuing and authoritative source of truth. It might be conceivable as a lesser light if one held her as a commentator fallible and subject to errors of interpretation and over emphasis on traditions, but that is not how Adventism treats Ellen White at all. After all what other commentator claims that their writings are from God?