In Ellen White's day there were two very strong moral issues -

1. Value of Human life: Slavery
2. Right to privacy: Prohibition.

In the case of prohibition the argument is whether individuals have the right to consume alcohol in their own homes or in establishements specifically set apart for that purpose - as they may see fit.

Today no SDA would vote for slavery -- and would consider it a moral issue --

Today FEW SDAs would join with Ellen White in political activity for the moral issue regarding prohibition.


Yet the statements from Ellen White about God' very strong interest in those issues and the moral obligation to contribute to the cause that was inline with the moral position of scripture - were unmistakably strong.

Today we have the SAME moral issues confronting the church - and the church is nowhere near as engaged on them as it was in Ellen White's day.

1. Value of Human life: Abortion
2. Right to privacy: Gay rights. Gay Marriage etc.

The point I would like to discuss is just the moral one -- not political parties.

in Christ,

Bob

Could you describe what you believe would be Ellen White's position on those two issues? I mean her position as the "messenger of the Lord" rather than her personal beliefs or feelings. In your understanding, would Ellen White be urging the church and individuals to take a particular position publicly?

Random thoughts...

Is gay marriage a right to privacy issue? I would have thought it a request for public acknowledgement of what would otherwise be a private issue. Of course that is only a subtopic in the gay rights debate.

Why do you think few SDA's would join in political advocacy for prohibition - because it has been shown not to be effective, or because few feel so strongly anti-alcohol consumption?

I would normally pay little attention to the church's position on the gay rights issues, because I believe a person's sexual orientation is his own business. However, I'm drawn to speak out on what our church (at least our Pacific Union Conference) is doing, which I believe is wrong.

The PARL [religious liberty department] leader of our Union Conference has written extensively in the current Pacific Union Recorder that we should vote FOR the bill requiring marriage to be only for one man and one woman. He then goes on to spout off all the radical rightwing arguments [which are mostly imaginary, and are scare tactics, IMHO]:
1) Churches that rent facilities for wedding or other groups to use will have to permit same sex weddings;
2) public school students will be taught that same sex marriages are moral and good;
3) colleges will be required to conform not only hiring and admissions policies, but curriculum and instruction, or lose accreditation and access to Cal Grants;
4) property tax exemption will be challenged for institutions that hold onto 'outmoded' notions of marriage and sexuality;
5) clergy may lose the right to perform state sanctioned weddings;
6) students from Christian schools may be denied admission to public universities;
7) doctors (including all businesses and all professionals) cannot refuse treatment or services on the basis of their conscience [e.g., artificial insemination to a gay person].

Well, in my opinion, these are all imaginary -- possible future events -- and have not yet come to pass. I think our PARL director has been reading the scare propaganda put out by the radical right wing.

This does not represent the God I know and love. That God created us with free will -- allowing us to make our own choices as to our lives (even if we choose something which is against our own best interest). I hate to see Seventh-day Adventists coming out in public, publishing our beliefs that we should FORBID people of the same sex to marry.
We should not make other people's decisions FOR them!!

Even though I don't understand homosexuality, nor do I wish to ever have an abortion -- but the RIGHT to those practices should never be prohibited to ANYone, in our free society.
Especially not prohibited by a church which promotes separation of church and state!

I'm actually aghast that the editor of the Pacific Union Recorder would allow such a piece to be published.

So you agree that it is a "right to privacy issue".

As in the case of someone choosing to consume alcohol at home or choosing to purchase it at the store.

in Christ,

Bob

Before this question is answered ... could you please share with us how you can know which is which? Do we assume that her words are just her words unless she says "I was shown"?

I've tried to nail you on this question many times before and have yet to have received an answer.

BTW the thing that got me started on this is Clifford Goldstein's book "One Nation Under God" where he points us to Ellen White's positions on these two moral issues that deal with the right to privacy and the value of human life.




Before the Whites came onto the grounds in Iowa, an action had been
taken at the business meeting, leaving out the words "by vote." Apparently
Ellen White's Sunday afternoon address-- which, if it ran true to form, was
on temperance--led to a reopening of the question, and the call upon Ellen
White for counsel.

BTW - some have heard our own Relig Liberty guys argue that we are not a Christian nation -- I found one and tipped them off to the fact that Ellen White would beg to differ.



Apparently they were unnaware.

BTW - Republicanism in her terms does not refer to a politcal party.

I have to confess that I have mixed thoughts and feelings about gay marriage. I actually believe on the basis of Scripture that the SDa church itself should not perform or recognize any gay marriages. However, I do believe that the state should allow them.

I believe this because of the separation between church and state. I don't think the state should support church beliefs. The state's laws must be for all people and not just Christians. Gays should be allowed in secular society all of the same rights and privileges that are extended to heterosexuals.

We have close friends who are a lesbian couple, one an SDA, who taught at the Loma Linda U School of Health. She is "married" to a Catholic social worker, and together they have adopted a little girl and are raising her.

I myself nearly got married to a man. I almost seem to myself to be a different person from the one I was when in that relationship. God has brought me so far, I can hardly believe it. I never thought it was possible, but it's been a day at a time, and there has been lots of struggle and temptation, but God is winning. I have not fallen into it once in the last 3 years, and am really losing my desire for those things. Less than 4 years ago, I was on hormone therapy and headed toward SRS. So I know from experience that it can be done and that God does have the power to change us completely if we are only willing to walk with him day by day.

Would sure love an answer to this one. I have waited for so long ....