You are taking her way out of context Red. She never said it was a sin nor did she condemn. She simply said you cant have your prayers answered if you are going against nature. She never said it was a sin dude - period.

You can't be a serious student of EGW and take her out of context.

 Quote:

Since Ellen White ate meat most all her life ... I am sure she was very busy repenting

Perhaps you meant it in the context that more than half of her life was over, but if you meant it in that Ellen White did not put into practice what she taught on health reform -- here are the statements from Counsels on Diet and Foods. Ellen White gave up meat eating as soon as God gave her the Health Message vision, and there was no need to repent over something that she did not know!

It was on June 6, 1863 that the first Health Reform vision was given. In 1864 she wrote,

"But since the Lord presented before me, in June, 1863, the subject of meat eating in relation to health, I have left the use of meat...I have lived for nearly a year without meat...I have applied myself to writing the most of the time above a year. For eight months have been confined closely to writing... Our plain food, eaten twice a day, is enjoyed with a keen relish. We have no meat, cake or any rich food upon our table." CDF pp 482, 483.

And a word from James White in 1870, "While tobacco, tea and coffee may be left at once, one at a time, however, b y those who are so unfortunate as to be slaves to all, changes in diet should be made carefully, one at a time. And while she would say this to those who are in danger of making changes too rapidly, she would also say to the tardy, Be sure and not forget to change. The plainest facts possibly deman a change from the common habits of life, but let them not be made so fast as to injure the health and constitution." CDF p. 495, Appendix II.
Review and Herald Nov. 8, 1870.

God bless

Beryl

Hmmmmmm ???















"The light God has given on health reform is for our salvation and the salvation of the world." C.D. 461




I can get more for you. But it would hardly seem necessary. And this was even done at Christmas dinner.

Right on MM. There is a persistent tone of mockery from this individual, and mockery doesn't get high marks in the Word.

Thanks,


oG

I stand behind my interpretation. Just the plain facts.

But I promise not to characterize your interpretation as "mockery". And I promise not to say that your belief doesn't get high marks with God. That is my commitment to you Olger.

God Bless you. Honestly, I think he will bless you despite your attacks on me. And He will bless you despite your differing belief of scripture and Ellen White. Love is far more important than knowledge my friend.

That quote in context:

Thank you for this entire quote Amelia. I think that it provides a good contrast between what you have stated below and what Ellen White states. She states not watching what we eat is a sin. You have stated otherwise at least from how I read your statement below ...



Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of what you have said and what Ellen White has said. From how I read her ... the Health Message remains and is alive and well.

What book are you getting your quotes out of Red - surely you are not looking these up yourself. Books abound that take EGW out of context and are dedicated to making her out to be a liar.

EGW always said that when she was away from home or visiting others homes who ate meat she would always eat what was placed before her as the scripture states - she never complained. The oysters was a development that would come later in the churches fuller understanding of the health message. The fish for the workmen were given by a local market that had an oversupply and she regularly said that no food should be wasted no matter what sort it was. She even made chicken broth for a sick woman once when she did not eat chicken herself.

Another thing was that sometimes people would be staying at her house who did not take well to the vegetarian diet and she regularly provided for their needs but she didn't eat those things herself.

You have aproblem dude if you are a baptised SDA. If EGW has lied or deceived or been a hypocryte then she is no prophet period. If she is no prophet then all her visions were false - "if a prophet comes to you and says tomorrow this shall happen and the thing does not come to pass, I have not sent him says the Lord" - OT.

I have no issues with EGW and therefore have no dilemma with her contradicting, plagerising or whatever - context dude. You however will run into problems and the question will need to be asked - "is the SDA church founded on lies"? EGW was quite instrumental in guiding the church to wherte it is today. This is quite serious and don't come at the old -" but it's the closest I can find to the truth" line either.

Why are you a member if you have serious issues with EGW - "baptismal vow" - I believe in the Gift of Prophecy and the ministry of EGW???????

Adding on to what I have already posted, and to answer to some extent the suggestions of EGW's apparent inconsistencies, I would like to post, in two parts, a much longer reply that I sent to a C/A member several years ago, which cleared up some wrong thinking at that time.

Here is part 1.

You have raised things that are, indeed, legitimate concerns, and my answer is not intended in any way to criticise the fact that you have raised this matter, but to bring to you the results of research by minds much more learned than mine.

When we study the life of EGW, we find a growth in her own knowledge of Jesus and the salvation that He offers. We find evidence of God’s gentle leading as the group studied and prayed together.

Perhaps the spiritual journey of EGW can best be seen in the compilation and writing of the Conflict of the Ages series in contrast with the Testimonies, which were written very early in her experience.

Early Adventists had come from a Methodist background, and did not believe in the Trinity. Let me quote from Alden Thompson , Professor of Old Testament Studies at the Walla Walla College. “When linked with a strong free will impulse in the Arminian-Wesleyan tradition, as it was in Ellen White’s case, non-trinitarian theology can be deadly, and it was very nearly so for Ellen White. In short, a high and holy deity is one step further removed from the realm of struggling humanity. When viewed from the perspective of such a theology, Jesus is still the Father’s representative, but the God He represents is a severe one. Jesus cannot demonstrate the love of a God who empties himself and takes the form of a servant, for Jesus is only someone sent from God, not God incarnate.

“In a sense, Ellen White and many of her early Adventist contemporaries, had the worst of both worlds – Calvin’s sovereign and holy God – but a God who comes with an Arminian-Wesleyan free-will agenda. The result is a painful and self-denying asceticism, a desperate grasping after perfection in order to satisfy the nearly impossible claims of a distant and austere deity….Early in her experience, Ellen White had neither the security granted by a gracious sovereign, nor the attractiveness of an eager and loving Father.

“By the 1890s, however, she was joyfully basking in the goodness of a gracious God. And the movement from fear to joy can be traced in her writings….”

This is just part of the article which can be found at http://homepages.wwc.edu


Beryl