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 ....

Upholding the Law of God and the value of human life was a strong theme for Ellen and James White



We have not drifted far at all from the problem of doubting the value of human life that they had back in the 1800's.

in Christ,

Bob

I think the Republican Party while not intended here ... could also be used in the same breath. I think the Republican Party does hold the key to prosperity for it is based on good Biblical principles. But that is for another forum. We should not breath a word of politics on this forum.

My point is that if the right to privacy and the separation of church and stated were not sufficient to dictate policy when it came to prohibition - then even less so when dealing with the much larger moral issue of the topic you listed.

in Christ,

Bob

Hence my added statement in that post that "Republicanism" in that context that Ellen White used it was not a reference to any political party -- it was a reference to the National form of government -- we are in fact "a Republic" not a pure democracy.

The reason I listed the quote however is not for the "Republicanism" statement it is because of the "Protestantism" statement.

in Christ,

Bob

In the subject we're talking about-- abortion and gay marriages-- Ellen White would naturally have her own personal feelings or beliefs. But those personal feelings are not necessarily related to what she would have been told to write.

For instance, there was one time when someone asked her if they should construct a building. She gave her opinion in the positive, not as the messenger of the Lord, but simply as an individual, much as she might tell someone that a certain tree should be planted in a certain location. Later, she received a vision in which God showed her that the building should not b constructed after all.

That is what I mean by Ellen White's having private ideas and thoughts as an individual.

I think the first quote box at this post link is helpful in that regard -

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...of_h#Post190568


The vision - or dream mentioned there is this one - I think




in Christ,

Bob

So what gave you and those at her time ... the clue that the first statement was her own opinion? Did she state it clearly that it was such?

The point is that history shows that both James and Ellen White were strong political activists (directing the early SDA church into activism on very specific topics -- not all political topics are moral issues ) when it came to clear moral issues regarding Alchohol and the slavery.

Slavery was the issue of property - vs the value of human life.

Alchohol was the issue of right to privacy - vs the moral issue of a kind of health abuse.


Today we have the same issues only the moral offense is even greater in the case of institutionalized killing of infants and government sanctioned immorality (both of which are listed in Lev 18 as being among the abominations for which the non-Hebrew - non-Bible nations were expelled from their lands prior to Israel).

The point is to call for prayer and awarness of Christians so that we might be like Daniel confessing before God our own sins and the sins of our nation. (Dan 9:1-4)

in Christ,

Bob

She states it as an example of the Holy Spirit taking action in that quote block section highlighted in red. I did not get from it that she was saying "this is just a hobby horse of mine". (so to speak).

in Christ,

Bob

Praise God He is a just God ...

Exactly. We are a representative democracy, which means we elect officials who make our laws and who elect our president. We cast a popular vote but it is the Electoral College which actually decides the general election. It is theoretically possible for the people to vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers, but for McCain or anyone else to be elected.

This is actually a good thing.



There is no question of the fact that the US began as a nation and people whose views on virtually everything was based to a large degree on the Bible or on the Protestant view of the Bible. I don't know of any of the congress or leaders who were not extremely influenced by the Bible. That includes Thomas Paine. (He rejected it as the inspired word of God, yes, but all his moral views and his view of man's rights came out of-- yep, the Bible.)

What do you believe should be the government's and the state's view of gay rights (in society, of course)? Should gay people in the society at large be afforded equally all the rights and privileges of heterosexuals?

Where do you see James and Ellen White coming down on that issue?

It looks like a much greater moral issue to me than drinking alcohol and the opposing argument to taking action is the same "right to privacy" which was overcome in the case of Alcohol and so would be even more devastated by the much greater moral problem of the gay activism.

Recall that in Lev 18 God does not give any leeway on this one for godless pagan nations. It is interesting that in Lev 18 he does not charge the pagan nations with Sabbath breaking, or lying, or lack of tithing, or lack of social work, or coveting or worshipping idols or taking God's name in vain. (All of which they were also guilty of -- but did not get them wiped out).

The moral issues that he charges them with - for which he will not tolerate their continued existence included only very specific moral issues including this gay issue and also killing infants.

Notice that in the quote were EGW promotes working together with the temperance movement - she later points out that these are the very guys that will be promoting Sunday legislation and YET she says that on these key issues SDAs were to JOIN WITH them!

How surprising is that?!!

in Christ,

Bob

Well, it didn't take long for the truth to appear.

ALL of the above allegations are false, misleading, or based on faulty logic. A document has now been published by an LDS scholar, Morris A. Thurston, entitled RESPONSES TO SIX CONSEQUENCES... IF PROPOSITION 8 FAILS. This document gives the legal history to each of the "consequences" promoted in the original [ anonymous ] document of "consequences" -- showing that the allegations are totally false or misleading.

I'm not skillful enough with "cut and paste" to post the entire 4-page document here. I'll work on getting it referenced to this post, hopefully later on today.

My thesis for this post, however, is that I totally disavow any of the so-called "consequences" for failure of Prop. 8. In other words, Proposition 8 SHOULD fail. It's not needed, in order to support traditional marriage, and it totally misstates the law, plus it makes SDAs look like we're in the pocket of the radicals if we try to promote PASSAGE of such a law. I do not think our PARL director was thinking logically when he wrote his articles in the recent RECORDER.

If we take the issues they were facing - slave owners and those who sell and consume aclohol.

They argued that these practices should be illegal and that this was not a political statement - but a moral one.

in Christ,

Bob

The cite I referred to can be found here:

Adventists Against Prop 8 <aaprop8@gmail.com>

They have a link to the document "Responses to Six Consequences if Prop 8 Fails" (containing an itemized truth-check of each of the allegations for Proposition 8).



Here again: This has nothing to do with whether I prefer marriage to be between one man and one woman; this relates to whether we as Adventists should legislate this issue. (I think we should not.)

I understand. That is why my focus on pages 1 and 2 was on the history of the Adventist church not only activism for voting -- but for voting to CHANGE the constitution to make the selling of alcohol illegal as well as working to abolish slavery. Calling it sin AND calling for changes in government.

As you point out - Adventists ALSO viewed Sabbath breaking as sin - but we have no example of Adventists ever trying to push for legislation to endorse our view of Worship.

The issues were basic.

1. Moral issue: The value of human life -- Civil issue - right to property.

2. Moral issue: drug abuse (alcoholism) -- civil issue - right to privacy.

We see the same issues today with abortion and the gay rights agenda where moral issues have their own civil issue counterpart arguing against taking a stand in support of a moral issue.

My argument is that we should be clear on what sin is -- and we should not do anything to promote it. And in cases where we are talking about mans-duty-to-man (the last 6 commandments) we need to be very very careful NOT to promote sin in that area.

in Christ,

Bob

I have no disagreement with any of the above, Bob. It should be added, however, that the moral issues for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed included oppression of the poor and needy. These latter sins were the result of self-indulgence in sins of the flesh which were displayed so plainly on the night God destroyed Sodom.

Here are some differences:

1) Slavery is obviously an issue that the state has a legitimate reason and right to be concerned about-- it concerns the issue of whether citizens have a right to own other human beings in that society.

Although there are moral and religious reason to be opposed to slavery, there are good, solid reasons to oppose it from the viewpoint of the state, reasons which are completely apart from any religion whatsoever.

2) Alcohol is also of legitimate concern to a state because of the destruction and death it causes to tens of thousands of its citizens every year. This includes all the state money that is spent on those who abuse and are addicted. Therefore clearly the question of alcohol consumption and abuse is a cause of great interest to the state apart from any spiritual or moral consideration.

3) On the other hand, when we come to the question of gay marriage, the only argument that I can see supporting opposition to it is from the Biblical standpoint. Except for the religious argument, I don't see how it is a concern to the state to prevent two men or two women from getting "married" or from being united in a legally recognized relationship. In fact, it could be argued that it is an advantage to have it recognized by the state.

(I say this while acknowledging that homosexual practice is a sin. However, remember that breaking the first four commandments of God's law is also a sin, but we do not advocate that the state pass laws enforcing them.)

The moral issues regarding marriage, adultery, prostitution, and the definition of family affect both the church and the state.

In Lev 18 - the "state" is destroyed for taking a certain position on the sin regarding homosexuality. God argues that he will destroy non-Bible non-Christian - pagan states for this specific sin -- and does not wait until the second coming to do it.

He does not argue that in the case of breaking Sabbath or coveting or lying or dishonor to parents or taking God's name in vain or worshipping false gods or eating unclean meat or failure to pay tithe or divorce etc. By contrast - Killing infants and homosexuality are both listed there.

Lev 18 is not a chapter on "what is sin" it is a chapter with some key sins identified for which God will "destroy the state".

Alcoholism and Slavery are not listed there either - and YET Ellen White urged activism even in these apparently lesser areas -- as she claimed God WOULD judge the state for not acting in some cases there as well.

The family is the basic unit of the state - corrupting that definition will destroy the state over time. The homosexual issue gained general acceptance in Rome before it's fall.

in Christ,

Bob

To hit a far off target, you have to shoot over the target. Every archer knows this.

We need to see the good results of the Prohibition, and we need to see what countries are like that never had a prohibition.

In the Philippines, cigarettes and alcohol are dirt cheap. 1/10 the price as in the US. And hard liquor is sold everywhere. Every little convenient store, and there are alot of those, and every grocery store sells hard liquor.

There are no restrictions on these items. There is no tax. I would even say that it would not be in the interest of these industries to restrict these items. I would want to investigate to see if the political system has been taking contributions from these industries.

As you can imagine, there are alot of alcoholics. Probably at least twice as many as in the U.S. The children sit around taking shots of hard liquor until they are drunk. The other day, I saw a pack of kids age 8 - 12 smoking cigarettes.

And everywhere you go, there are drinking parties. And the people are very poor. The people don't get involved in government or protests or anything. They are just get drunk and forget their poverty. The government does not tax the people, but the corporations pay the bills, so the laws are passed on behalf of the very wealthy. So these companies can put people to work for $1 / day in the province, and $2 / day in the islands, and $4-$5 / day in the cities.

It is most miserable. And the children are getting drunk and smoking cigarettes, instead of pursuing their education. An uneducated nation is going to be a poorer nation. I would say.

But our government has exercised wisdom, and has put restrictions on these things. And we probably have alot less alcoholics, and we are probably better off.

Thanks to Ellen White and other activists.

God in His wisdom probably knew if Ellen White said the state can't pass laws against alcohol, then the result would have been very bad. I think God knew the issue would have to be "over-shot", in order to work.

------

Think about this. God wanted Ezekiel to cook with dung, so he over-shot and said human dung. Ezekiel complained and God gave him cow dung. So the result was that God was able to get Ezekiel to cook with dung.

God even said He was going to kill all Israel and make a nation out of Moses. That's the worst thing that can happen. Moses prayed and God killed only those who would not repent. So, in over-shooting, God was justified in killing some. It could have been worse, right?

If you sell a car, and you need to get $4000 for it, you might ask for $5500, knowing they are going to talk you down to about $4000. Another example of over-shooting.

So, in the prohibition, the people who took alcohol for granted moaned. They said anything is better than this. OK, tax our alcohol and tobacco.

So, as a result of this "over-shooting", we have restrictions on these things. And we've seen what countries are like that have no such restrictions.

If you think about it, the same civil rights that allows people to drink also allows us to keep the Sabbath.

You might say that is blasphemy, but that's the only think I can say. Has there ever been a nation on earth that made alcohol illegal? Is there any evidence that alcohol was illegal in Israel? No. There is no law against alcohol in the books of Moses.

We would have to put Noah in jail.

I'm not saying alcohol is good. I never touch the stuff.

If the issues were severe enough to argue for changing the Constitution of the United States to make Alcohol illegial (no matter the issue of right to privacy) --- severe enough so EGW argues for "voting on Sabbath" and severe enough that she is given a vision about the SDA church needing to be the "head and not the tail" in that movement...

And if the issues were severe enough regarding the value of human life to engage in civil war...

Then what about the issue of "value of human life" today?

What about the issue of the Lev 18 sin in the gay agenda that causes the downfall of nations -- even though it too involves the right to privacy for the individual?

Are these not far GREATER moral issues though in some respects the SAME moral issues faced in the 1800's?

in Christ,

Bob

So, you agree with my "over-shot" theory, then?

-----



Slavery was an issue in the 1800s, and Ellen White said conditions would be worse than slavery. Scoffers say that slavery was abolished and there are not conditions worse than slavery in the world today.

But they have probably never been to 3rd world countries where the government is owned by industries that want to exploit the country for cheap labor. They got these people working for a few dollars a day. That's not enough to live on.

The black slaves in American lived like kings compared to these poor souls. They had all the food they could eat. Their lodging was paid for and clothing provided, and they probably had an allowance that was probably better than the wages in the 3rd world countries. And they got the gospel.

So if we want to talk about "value of human life" issues, like slavery, then unless these homosexuals are starving to death, I don't think that would be a more important concern than those who are now starving to death, and working for nothing, in conditions worse than slavery. And the problem is government corruption.

Duet. 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

1. Value of human life -

Conservatively -- about 1.4 million infants are killed in America each year - (Avg 3700 / day)

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/ABORAMT.HTML

The value of human life is one of THE TWO moral issues where Ellen White pushed for church action at a voter level.

From 1790 to 1860 the slave population grew until it reached about 3.9 million total.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

America kills that many infants every 2.5 years. (45 Million killed world wide each year)

And of course - it is listed in Lev 18 as an issue for which the state is placed at Risk of being judged by God prior to the second coming.




2. The gay agenda issue is the other item listed in Lev 18 that we face today.

Both of these represent moral issues that do not deal forms of worship.

both of them are a call to repentance, prayer and confession as we see Daniel doing in Dan 9:1-4.


in Christ,

Bob

Let the people do whatever they want with their eggs, sperm, and embryos. If they want to use birth control, or morning after pill, or get an abortion, it's their right. It's none of our business.

I will retract that if you can find something from Ellen White. All I have is this:

[color:#BF0000]Prov. 29:16 When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth...[/color]

You can't outlaw homosexuality. But there's no need for the state to recognize gay marriage.

My concern is for those who's condition is worse than the slavery that existed in the U.S. This is an issue the church should get involved with. We need to figure out a way to free the slaves from the evil corporations that control their corrupt governments. That's a worthy missionary work.

And don't try to say there are no evil corporations and corrupt governments. There are. I'm tired of all the ignorant skeptics that scoff at every conspiracy theory.

So who's willing to sit down and talk about what can be done about the poverty? Don't say it's outside of our power. Somebody has the power. Just what would it take? It would involve everyone on earth.

By contrast we have the social moral issues of Ellen White's day being clearly addressed - with activism in our chruch and by Ellen White hereself.

1. The value of human life - vs right to property -- slave owners argued for the right to property -- argued that churches should keep out of their business.

Ellen White did not agree.

2. The moral issue of drug abuse -- vs the right to privacy -

Businesses argues for the right to sell acholol and citizens to buy and drink it -- and that churches should stay out of their business.

Ellen White argues for a constitutional ammendment to stop them.

------------------------


Today -- the extreme left argues for the right to kill infants and they argue this is a right to property -- and right to privacy that the church should not interfere with -- Church argues instead for the value of human life.

Today -- the extreme left argues for the right to promote abominations identified in Lev 18 regarding gay rights -- that God says will place the State at risk. They argue this is right to privacy.

Same moral conflicts -- different contexts.

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...of_h#Post190590

in Christ,

Bob

We don't need to keep going on about this. The prohibition has done it's work. Alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed and heavily regulated and the nation is better for it. If you want to keep pushing for another prohibition, you will be wasting your time and everyone else's. Just talking about it is a waste of time. There has never been a nation that made alcohol illegal. So it's unrealistic.

Ellen White said lawmakers should prohibit alcohol. And they did. And the result of that was good.

The production of alcohol, along with everything else, has been commercialized, due to modern advancement of technology and industry. That's why alcohol, along with everything else, can be produced and provided for a very low cost, unlike when it took alot of work to make it. That's why it's necessary to regulate it. But pushing to regulate it, wouldn't have worked. It needed to be over-shot.

And the abortion band wagon doesn't do anyone any good. The only thing you have going is that late term abortions do seem rather barbaric, which can be seen as a degradation to civilization. But so does teaching our children they are animals, because that causes them to think of themselves as animals, so they kill each other and get each other pregnant. But we can't do anything about that, either. That's the kind of secularism the Muslims are fighting to resist, and we are fighting to push it on them.

What did Ellen White say about abortion, now? Nothing? I can't find the word "abortion", "abort", "fetus", "terminate pregnancy" in Ellen White's writings. I'd say if we focus on these things, then we're getting distracted. From a legal perspective, not from a moral perspective. Of course if you want to teach a church body that they should not drink or have mid to late term abortions, then that's OK. But to push such legislation will backfire and hurt us. The same principle of freedom that allows for things we don't agree with protects our right to keep the Sabbath and to publish that the Pope is the Antichrist.

I think it's more important to abolish slavery in 3rd world countries. To me, this is a worthy cause. It says God hears the cries of the poor and afflicted.

Neither Ellen White nor SDAs ever argued for a constitutional ammendment to "tax smokers" or "Tax drinkers".

The issue I am addressing is the moral issues faced by early SDAs -- their activist solutions and then the same moral (value of human life... etc) and right-to-property and right-to-privacy issues that surface to day



Your efforts to keep missing the point are noted.

But simply ignoring the problem raised is not a kind of solution to the problem being stated here. (Hint - I am not arguing for another constitutional ammendment)



This is the same "value of human life" issue that Ellen White faced with the issue of slavery and in that day she also confronted Christians in many denominations arguing that slavery should be allowed for those who wanted to engage in it -- and talking about it was not doing anyone any good.

Perhaps they too thought it would be better to solve world hunger than free the slaves.

So nothing new there --

Which is my point - we have the same issue and we find people who might otherwise claim to value human life when it came to slavery -- are swallowing the camel when it comes to killing infants.

in Christ,

Bob