Featured Ellen White's Amalgamation of man and Beast Revisited

vooks · May 9, 2015

BobRyan said: ↑

The answer to your childish prank is actually in the post that you are not reading...
Click to expand...

page 7 of Amalgamation Revisited.
Let's look at Uriah Smith's defense of amalgamation more clearly

based defense of amalgamation theory—poses a great challenge to Adventists today who might wish to minimize the importance of his words. Individuals who are determined to stand for truth though the heavens fall will not shrink, however, from openly and directly wrestling with these historical facts. Minimally, Smith’s article is clear evidence of the influence White’s statements on amalgamation had on the thinking of the other pioneers on questions of race, science, and origins. Smith’s words also remain the most important historical evidence we have as to what White herself believed and meant to convey in 1864.

Apologists for White’s amalgamation passages might nevertheless point to another important fact included in the notice cited above. As far as the prophetess herself was concerned, Smith and the other editors had pursued “no consultation whatever with sister White, nor received any suggestion or explanation from her on any point.” Instead, they had prided themselves, they declared, in applying a common sense, plain reading approach to her writings. This approach was in principle open to all and was the same approach the early Adventists advocated for reading Scripture itself. “We take the visions as they are published, and base our explanation of any apparent discrepancy, on the language as it stands.”11 The fact that a common sense, plain reading of White’s statements on amalgamation could lead early Adventists to views on race, origins, and science that (hopefully) all Adventists today would emphatically reject raises the question: is a common sense, plain reading of Scripture always the best approach to biblical hermeneutics? In any event, the possibility that White remained unaware of Uriah Smith’s interpretation of her words throughout her life, or that she disagreed with them, begs credulity in the light of later historical facts.

IV. “The Elder Said Her Teachings Were Worse than Darwinism”: Holding Fast to the Proclamation of Animal-Human Amalgamations
Had Smith’s scientifically spurious and racially disturbing defense of White’s amalgamation passages only appeared in 1866 we might still have hoped that it was an embarrassing mistake by a single individual that was quickly forgotten if not rejected by the larger Adventist community and perhaps even corrected or silenced by White herself (the close reading and ringing endorsement that Smith had received for “Objections Answered” from the General Conference in session notwithstanding). But throughout Ellen White’s life, amalgamation remained a minor yet recurring theme of Adventist creation science, invariably presented in Smith’s racialist terms. White did not offer any known objections, clarifications, or corrections to these declarations, which reappeared several times in the church’s official journal alongside articles she had written. And she maintained her silence despite the fact that the Adventist understanding of amalgamation theory that she had inspired was a source of both ongoing criticism from non-Adventists and ongoing public confidence among church members in her authority even on scientific matters. As tentative as any argument from silence must be, then, her silence was by every indication a form of tacit acceptance if not approval.

In 1868, two full years after his initial apologia for White’s inspiration in her amalgamation declarations first appeared in print, Smith’s defense of amalgamation theory was published yet again in its entirety by the church as part of an evangelistic tract
Click to expand...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxrT0F-mwJf1M3ZzU1lEYVZmSUU/edit?usp=docslist_api

Amalgamation themes were never opposed by EGW yet they were quite frequent in SDA paraphernalia throughout EGW's life alongside her articles

vooks · May 11, 2015

Page 7. Let's look at Review and Herald closely

entitled The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White: A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to Scripture. James White offered a glowing review of the book for the Review and Herald beneath the heading, “New and Important Work.” “While carefully reading the manuscript,” he wrote, “I felt very grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views which they so much love and prize, and which others despise and oppose. This book is designed for a very wide circulation.”12 Readers of the Review and Herald were encouraged to order The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White at a cost of 20 cents for the book and an additional 2 cents for postage. James and Ellen White, Shigley documents, personally distributed 2,000 copies of Smith’s book—its race-centered defense of White’s inspiration on the subject of amalgamation included—at campmeetings that year.13

In 1878, G.V. Kilgore described in the pages of the Review and Herald how he had successfully vanquished several critics of Adventism in debate, including a Baptist minister who “said that what Sister White said about amalgamation of man and beast was utterly impossible.” “I referred him to Johnson’s New Cyclopedia,” Kilgore wrote:

“…that he might learn for the first time, if he never knew it before, that ‘Allied species are capable, as a rule, of pairing and producing offspring;’ and that, ‘under the influence of man, mongrel races readily arise and are indefinitely sustained,’—just exactly what Sister White says. The elder said her teachings were worse than Darwinism. But I showed that her teachings were correct (Lev. 18:23, 24), and that his were worse than nonsense.”14
(The Leviticus passage that Kilgore referred to is the prohibition in Mosaic Law on humans having “carnal relations with any beast.”)

In 1901, the Review and Herald published (together with a front page article, “Judge Not,” by Ellen White) a letter from a concerned Adventist asking the question, “Can amalgamated blood be saved?” The editors (now Alonzo T. Jones and Uriah Smith) replied that persons with amalgamated blood were certainly not beyond salvation and further that the amalgamation spoken of by Sister White did not “violate or invalidate physiological law.” The difficulty was that science showed that hybridized creatures, such as mules, were infertile and could not perpetuate their species. However, they continued, “might it not be that sufficient results of bestiality would appear as to leave a trace of amalgamation, without destroying the power of generation?” The amalgamation spoken of by White “is seen in what is called certain ‘races of men.’ This shows that deterioration was not recognized to such a degree as to eliminate the human and transform any such offspring into beasts” (emphasis in the original).15

In so many words, the flagship journal of the Adventist church at the turn of the century was simply upholding the church’s long-held understanding based upon White’s statements and Smith’s vigorous if not authoritative interpretation and defense of them nearly four decades earlier. The assurance offered to concerned members in 1901 as in
Click to expand...

BobRyan grab a hold of Review and Herald 1901 November, page 721 and see AMALGAMATION interpreted as BEASTIALITY. Will share the specific copy right here
http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19011105-V78-45__B.pdf

Remarks;
1. The standard and lame excuse that she spoke of 'amalgamation of man and beast' and not 'BETWEEN man and beast' is blown out of the water. Note the word BETWEEN.
2. Beastiality is mentioned in the context of amalgamation. Why would this be the case if she spoke of godly and ungodly seed?
3. The amalgamation is said to cause deterioration but not to the extent of men becoming beasts seeing 'certain races of men'. Again how could godly and ungodly seed yield this?

vooks · May 11, 2015

Page 8
What Review and Herald had to say about negroes of Africa leaves little to imagination

the 1860s was: 1) that White spoke authoritatively not only on religious but also on scientific matters; and 2) that amalgamated persons might still qualify as human beings and subjects of philanthropic concern so long as they had at least some of Adam’s blood in their veins, regardless of whether or not that blood had been tainted in the ancient past with the blood of animals.

At the same time, the 1901 article seems to reflect a growing concern for the scientific difficulties posed by White’s statements and an attempt to couch the idea of amalgamation in more convincing scientific language. This coincides historically with the birth of modern genetics, which Adventists may by then have had an uncomfortable and growing awareness of. One year before, the experiments of Augustinian priest and scientist Gregor Mendel had been rediscovered and independently confirmed by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns. Mendel’s groundbreaking 1866 paper, “Experiments on Plant Hybridization,” was translated into English in 1901 for the first time.

But the fact that some races were degraded or “lower” than others as White had alluded and as Smith had plainly declared was still taken as self-evident by most Adventists, as it was by most Americans and Europeans of their day. The Hottentots of Southern Africa, who Smith had cited as quintessential examples of “amalgamated” beings, were the subjects of some particularly sensational commentary in the Review and Herald throughout the nineteenth century. In 1861, John N. Loughborough quoted Benjamin Franklin saying that Hottentot men prove their manhood by beating their mothers. This illustrated, according to Loughborough, that those who “follow nature as a guide” in reality “follow self,” which was the source of their “gross errors, and wickedness.”16 In 1868, the magazine reported (to illustrate a Bible verse) that the Hottentots’ way of drinking was by stooping down and lapping up water like “dogs.”17 In 1890, the journal wrote that Hottentots are “excessively dirty, lazy, and gluttonous.” Its women “are especially ugly,” the article continued. “They besmeared themselves with grease, which, when the sun was hot, trickled down their naked skin.”18 In 1891, the magazine informed its readers that the Hottentots believe themselves to have been long ago “cursed” by God and that more than other tribes they tend to inexplicably lapse back into heathenism even after being educated by Europeans and baptized into the civilizing Christian faith.19

V. “We Must Not Carry Things to Extremes”: The Racial Conservativism of the Pioneers
These facts should not be taken as evidence that Smith, White, or the other Adventist pioneers were racists within the spectrum of widely held racial views of their time. It is important to note that amalgamation theory played no central role in White’s theology or in her later writings on Genesis. Many early Adventists (including most notably Joseph Bates) were deeply sympathetic to the abolitionist movement. They leaned toward
Click to expand...

vooks · May 11, 2015

Page 9
This is all to interesting. EGW was not alone in espousing these. But she was 'inspired' and she claims her writings are Spirit of Prophecy. This is why she must be held to a higher standard over and above her contemporaries who held similar attitudes.

radical egalitarian thinking. There was no place within Adventism, White declared in 1863, for individuals with pro-slavery views. “We must let it be known that we have no such ones in our fellowship, that we will not walk with them in church capacity.”20 White went even further, endorsing defiance of a Federal statute, the Fugitive Slave Law, which required Northerners to hand escaped slaves back to their owners. “When the laws of men conflict with the word and law of God,” she declared, “we are to obey the latter.”21

In 1867, one year before Smith published his defense of White’s words on amalgamation, Tennessee clergymen Buckner H. Payne published (under the pseudonym “Ariel”) the second edition of his book, The Negro: What is His Ethnological Status? (I have not been able to discover when the first edition appeared, whether before or after Spiritual Gifts.) Payne used a vocabulary of “crime” and “confusion” very close to White’s to explain Noah’s flood. God could not tolerate “the crime of amalgamation,” Payne wrote, that is, the sin of “association with beasts” that had produced various races. “For this crime God had destroyed the world, sown confusion broadcast at Babel,” he declared. “It is a crime that God has never forgiven, never will forgive, nor can it be propitiated by all the sacrifices earth can make or give.” But whereas Uriah Smith argued in defense of White’s prophetic authority that amalgamated blood is no worse than the blood of any sinner and that Christians must “labor for the improvement” of the “lower races,” Payne heaped vile abuse on those working to raise the political and social standing of African Americans. “The states or people that favor this equality…God will exterminate,” he said. “You cannot elevate a beast to the level of a son of God.”22

When placed alongside Payne’s racist screed, some might argue, Smith’s defense of White’s statements on amalgamation thus represented a significant advance in racial thinking for the time. For one thing, Payne does not assume that animal-human amalgamations produced African Americans. He assumes that blacks were created “beasts” to begin with, so that black-white “amalgamations” were in fact the original animal-human amalgamations. Payne’s use of the term “amalgamation” should dispense once and for all with F.D. Nichol’s claim (repeated by a number of Adventist writers since) that in mid-nineteenth century America the word was not used to describe animalhuman combinations. It clearly was. This is precisely why White was immediately understood by both her critics as well as Smith to be saying that racial differentiation was the result of animal-human hybridizations. It is nevertheless significant that Smith, in contrast to Payne, viewed non-European races as the corrupted products of animal-human relations but as humans nonetheless. Does this not show that the Adventist pioneers were far ahead of the rest of the country on questions of racial equality in their day?

Such a reading of early Adventism would, unfortunately, be historically misleading. Although White and the other Adventist leaders, as good New England Yankees, held progressive views on race and condemned the sin of slavery in ways that all Adventists can celebrate as a vital part of our heritage, they were not collectively as
Click to expand...

vooks · May 11, 2015

Page 10

radical or forthright in their defense of racial equality as William Lloyd Garrison and others who most courageously championed the abolitionist cause as a matter of religious duty. Garrison, who was also a devout Christian, had been arguing for complete political and biological equality of the races from the 1830s on, going so far as to publicly burn a copy of the U.S. Constitution to protest its pro-slavery provisions during an abolitionist rally that included Henry David Thoreau and Sojourner Truth as speakers. But prophetic action for racial justice, especially after the Civil War ended, was typically subordinated by White and the other pioneers, Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart document, to advancing “the work”—that is, to recruiting and baptizing more members without challenging America’s racist social order.23

On more than one occasion, for example, White spoke against interracial marriage on the grounds that it would be cruel to produce mixed-race children but more importantly would sow controversy and “confusion,” distracting from evangelizing efforts. In an 1891 speech to church leaders at Battle Creek, she spoke strongly against discrimination and urged churches to open their doors to all races. “At the same time,” she declared, “we must not carry things to extremes and run into fanaticism on this question. Some would think it right to throw down every partition wall and intermarry with the colored people, but this is not the right thing to teach or to practice.”24

In a series of 1970 articles in the Review and Herald, Roy Branson (relying primarily on research by Ron Graybill) argued that White’s more uncomfortably segregationist statements were made not only out of pragmatic concern for church growth but out of concern for the safety of African Americans themselves in response to “the Crisis of the Nineties,” in which newly converted black Adventists in the South faced angry white lynch mobs. White endorsed separation of the races, Branson wrote, as a provisional move to protect believers from physical harm.25 Yet the Crisis of the Nineties had not yet begun when White made the statement quoted above against interracial marriage. It would in fact be another three years before Edson White sailed down the Mississippi on the Morning Star to evangelize among African Americans in the South. But by 1894 there were still only 50 baptized African American church members.26

And as late as 1912—three years after her then home state of California had expanded its “miscegenation” laws to prohibit marriages of whites with persons of Japanese descent (in addition to blacks and “Mongolians”)—White repeated her opposition to interracial marriage as a source of “confusion” and obstacle to the spread of the Gospel. “No encouragement to marriages of this character should be given among our people,” she wrote:

"Let the colored brother enter into marriage with a colored sister who is worthy, one who loves God, and keeps His commandments. Let the white sister who contemplates uniting in marriage with the colored brother refuse to
Click to expand...

Point is EGW views on intermarriages were way 'behind' her time. This is as recently as 100 years ago. And never forget, she died without recounting these. That's why they PERSISTED long after her death.

And note again SDA dishonesty. They claim she was 'protecting' the the believers from physical harm LONG before they were exposed to any harm. As usual, SDAs are revisionist; ever attempting to cook history to justify EGW

vooks · May 11, 2015

Page 11

take this step, for the Lord is not leading in this direction…The taking of such a step will create confusion and hindrance. It will not be for the advancement of the work or for the glory of God.”27

Here, by contrast, is what Garrison—sounding much more like the prophets Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah—said, in the face of constant threats to his life, during his 1831 campaign more than nine decades earlier to repeal laws barring interracial marriage:

“If He [God] has ‘made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,’ then they are one species, and stand on a perfect equality; their intermarriage is neither unnatural nor repugnant to nature, but obviously proper and salutary; it being designed to unite people of different tribes and nations…Come, thou sagacious discriminator of skins, define thy boundary line! Let us know the exact shade and particular curl of the hair which justly deprive a man of his right of choice!”28

VI. “Lost in the Forests Dank: Apes Are Degenerate or Hybridized Men”: The Legacy of Early Adventist Amalgamation Theory 

Tragically, Shigley as well as Ronald Numbers show, the view that African Americans and other races were the result of animal-human amalgamations remained perhaps the dominant Adventist view well into the twentieth century. In 1931, George McCready Price, concerned that White’s statements on amalgamation were appearing less and less scientifically plausible, first proposed inserting the word “of” into the vexing passage to indicate that two separate “amalgamations” had occurred: “Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and (of) beast.” His suggestion provoked a storm of criticism. D. E. Robinson, who had been White’s personal secretary for many years, pointed out that Price’s reading did violence to the plain, literal meaning of the passage when read in context, went against what Adventists had long believed, and failed to provide a suitable Adventist explanation for the clear evidences of common ancestry. “Mrs. White’s statement, if accepted, will solve the problems connected with the close physical resemblance between man and some of the apes,” Robinson declared. “Any one who observes the chimpanzee, the gorilla, or the orang, would not find it difficult to believe that they have common ancestry with the human race.”29

In fact, Price himself—the founder of Adventist creation science—does not seem to have had any strong objections to the view that some humans might be the close relatives of primates. He could find “no clear and positive evidences from paleontology” that apes existed before the flood. Present day “anthropoid apes may be just as much a product of modern conditions as are the Negroid or the Mongolian types of mankind,” he wrote in The Phantom of Organic Evolution in 1924. It was entirely possible (though not certain), he speculated, that “apes are degenerate or hybridized men” with “the Negroid”
Click to expand...

Note in 1831, Llyod was advocating for intermarriages while 84 years later Ellen White was still against it.

vooks · May 11, 2015

Page 12

being an intermediate species or link between them.30 Price’s preferred explanation of the origins of the races placed greater emphasis, however (following Lamarkian evolutionary theories), on the role of the environment and “soft inheritance.” This, in any case, is the picture he conveys in following rhyme, which he penned to explain where “the Negroid” came from:

“The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank.”31

Arguably the most traditional, orthodox, and literalistic Seventh-day Adventist approach to questions of origins thus includes the idea that humans and apes might very well share common ancestry—provided only that the ape is seen to have devolved or “degenerated” from the human and not the other way around. If an unbroken sequence of fossils were ever discovered linking humans and chimpanzees, this would simply confirm what Uriah Smith, D.E. Robinson, and George McCready Price took to be a scientific fact: that (in Smith’s words) “It is impossible to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins.” And they took this belief from their understanding of the clear scientific evidences for organic evolution, which they did not deny but instead reinterpreted through the lens of White’s writings as well as their own assumptions about the first verses of the book of Genesis.

Early Adventist amalgamation theory—offered in enthusiastic support of biblical truth, doctrinal purity, Ellen White’s prophetic authority, creation science, and literalistic hermeneutics—may therefore help, at least partially, to explain other uncomfortable facts of Adventist history. For example, why in 1944 a black woman, Lucy Byard, was turned away from Washington Sanitarium for the color of her skin, dying as a result.32 Or why the General Conference cafeteria remained racially segregated until at least 1957.33 Or why four Adventist students were reprimanded by the administration of Pacific Union College in 1965 (which had racially segregated dorms) for having marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Alabama.34 Or why the North America Division’s 1977 Manual for Ministers advised against marriages where “there are different racial backgrounds” (counsel that was only removed in 1992).35
Click to expand...

Interesting that as late as 1977, interracial marriages were ADVISED against.
Here is the 1976 Review and Herald stating thus all for avoidance of doubt
http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19760715-V153-29__B.pdf
Go to page 10 and you see that interracial marriages are 'inadvisable' over 140 years since Lloyd advocated for the same!

BobRyan being a third generation SDA should give me a good reason why barely 35 years ago, interracial marriages were advised against, if this is still so today and if not, what has changed

BobRyan · May 11, 2015

I may have already posted this ... but the points are pretty significant given the value of human life, what an instructive "contrast" in these facts of history.

BobRyan said: ↑

[FONT=&quot]Before the flood[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“confused species” of animals existed – according to Ellen White. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GMO pre-flood marred the image of God. EGW[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man’s great sin – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bible says “All Flesh Corrupt” Gen 6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the flood[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EGW never talks about “confused species of man” either before or after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of marring the image of God via amalgamation after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention that the many races of man after the flood marred the image of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of amalgamation of animal species after the flood being sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious facts from science today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More species of animals today than could have been on the ark.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More races of man today than got off the boat in Noah’s day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mixing humans and animals results in new species if it were to happen – not new races of man.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

Odd ball evolutionist and Vooks-text rants.
" EGW,the was busy teaching how negroes descended from apes "

how sad that vooks-text

In real life we have:

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."
1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]
Click to expand...

BobRyan said: ↑

[FONT=&quot]"God is punishing this nation for the high crime of slavery[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. He has the destiny of the nation in his hands. He will punish the South for the [FONT=&quot]sin of slavery[/FONT]... At the Roosevelt conference, when the brethren and sisters were assembled on the day set apart for humiliation, fasting and prayer, Sabbath, Aug. 3, the Spirit of the Lord rested upon us, and I was taken off in vision, and shown the [FONT=&quot]sin of slavery[/FONT]."[/FONT] -Review and Herald, Aug. 27, 1861

[FONT=&quot]God is punishing this nation for the high crime of slavery[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. He has the destiny of the nation in His hands. He will punish the South for the sin of slavery, and the North for so long suffering its overreaching and overbearing influence.{1T 264.1}[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At the Conference at Roosevelt, New York, August 3, 1861, when the brethren and sisters were assembled on the day set apart for humiliation, fasting, and prayer, the Spirit of the Lord rested upon us, and I was taken off in vision and shown the sin of slavery, which has so long been a curse to this nation. The fugitive slave law was calculated to crush out of man every noble, generous feeling of sympathy that should arise in his heart for the oppressed and suffering slave. It was in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ. God’s scourge is now upon the North, because they have so long submitted to the advances of the slave power. The sin of Northern proslavery men is great. They have strengthened the South in their sin by sanctioning the extension of slavery; they have acted a prominent part in bringing the nation into its present distressed condition.{1T 264.2}[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."
1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"'You have never looked upon slavery in the right light, and your views of this matter have thrown you on the side of the Rebellion, which was stirred up by Satan and his host. Your views of slavery cannot harmonize with the sacred, important truths for this time. You must yield your views or the truth. Both cannot be cherished in the same heart, for they are at war with each other. . . . Unless you undo what you have done, it will be the duty of God's people to publicly withdraw their sympathy and fellowship from you, in order to save the impression which must go out in regard to us as a people. We must let it be known that we have no such ones in our fellowship, that we will not walk with them in church capacity.'"[Ref 5] Testimonies, vol. 7. , pp. 359, 360

[FONT=&quot]============================== then

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]then remind us all how you pra[FONT=&quot]is[FONT=&quot]e this --

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptisthistory.org/sbaptistbeginnings.htm[/FONT]

The meetings of the three Baptist national societies in the 1840s brought angry debates between Northerners and Southerners. These debates concerned the interpretation of the constitutions of the societies on slavery, the right of Southerners to receive missionary appointments, the authority of a denominational society to discipline church members, and the neglect of the South in the appointment of missionaries. The stage was set for separation.
In 1844, Georgia Baptists asked the Home Mission Society to appoint a slaveholder to be a missionary in Georgia. After much discussion, the appointment was declined. A few months later, the Alabama Baptist Convention asked the Foreign Mission Society if they would appoint a slaveholder as a missionary. When the society said no, Virginia Baptists called for Baptists of the South to meet at Augusta, Georgia, in early May, 1845, for the purpose of consulting "on the best means of promoting the Foreign Mission cause, and other interests of the Baptist denomination in the South."
Thus, on May 8, 1845, about 293 Baptist leaders of the South gathered at the First Baptist Church, Augusta, Georgia, representing over 365,000 Baptists. They concluded, with expressions of regret from their own leaders and from distinguished northern Baptist leaders, that more could be accomplished in Christian work by the organization in the South of a separate Baptist body for missionary work. The Methodists in the South had already separated over the issue of slavery, and southern Presbyterians would do so later.
Click to expand...

looking forward to your insightful reply.

vooks · May 12, 2015

You know Bob,
No amount of screaming in colored fonts changes these simple facts;
1. Ellen White VIOLENTLY opposed interracial marriages
2. SDA opposed interracial marriages as recently as 1977
3. Lloyd advocated for interracial marriages as early as 1831
4. Ellen White taught that beastiality/amalgamation gave rise to Negro

If you could disprove any of these I can assure you I'd resign from this board after an unqualified apology. As a bonus, I'd become an Adventist:smilewinkgrin:

vooks · May 12, 2015

BobRyan said: ↑

I may have already posted this ... but the points are pretty significant given the value of human life, what an instructive "contrast" in these facts of history.

looking forward to your insightful reply.
Click to expand...

Did Ellen White OPPOSE interracial marriages and call them FANATICISM?
Did SDA 'advise' against interracial marriages as recently as 1977?
What was AMALGAMATION as understood at the turn of the century? Refer to the R & H 1901 November edition page 721

You know my brother the intellectual dishonesty you exhibit in approaching these questions is the same you exercise in your bible study? You keep on suppressing any truth that contradicts the lies you run into in Adventism

BobRyan · May 12, 2015

irrefutable facts

BobRyan said: ↑

[FONT=&quot]Before the flood[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“confused species” of animals existed – according to Ellen White. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GMO pre-flood marred the image of God. EGW[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man’s great sin – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bible says “All Flesh Corrupt” Gen 6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the flood[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EGW never talks about “confused species of man” either before or after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of marring the image of God via amalgamation after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention that the many races of man after the flood marred the image of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of amalgamation of animal species after the flood being sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious facts from science today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More species of animals today than could have been on the ark.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More races of man today than got off the boat in Noah’s day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mixing humans and animals results in new species if it were to happen – not new races of man.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

Odd ball evolutionist and Vooks-text rants.
" EGW,the was busy teaching how negroes descended from apes "

how sad that vooks-text

In real life we have:

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."
1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Irrefutable facts about the formation of a number of denominations in the south - including the Southern Baptists

BobRyan said: ↑

[FONT=&quot]"God is punishing this nation for the high crime of slavery[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. He has the destiny of the nation in his hands. He will punish the South for the [FONT=&quot]sin of slavery[/FONT]... At the Roosevelt conference, when the brethren and sisters were assembled on the day set apart for humiliation, fasting and prayer, Sabbath, Aug. 3, the Spirit of the Lord rested upon us, and I was taken off in vision, and shown the [FONT=&quot]sin of slavery[/FONT]."[/FONT] -Review and Herald, Aug. 27, 1861

[FONT=&quot]God is punishing this nation for the high crime of slavery[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. He has the destiny of the nation in His hands. He will punish the South for the sin of slavery, and the North for so long suffering its overreaching and overbearing influence.{1T 264.1}[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At the Conference at Roosevelt, New York, August 3, 1861, when the brethren and sisters were assembled on the day set apart for humiliation, fasting, and prayer, the Spirit of the Lord rested upon us, and I was taken off in vision and shown the sin of slavery, which has so long been a curse to this nation. The fugitive slave law was calculated to crush out of man every noble, generous feeling of sympathy that should arise in his heart for the oppressed and suffering slave. It was in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ. God’s scourge is now upon the North, because they have so long submitted to the advances of the slave power. The sin of Northern proslavery men is great. They have strengthened the South in their sin by sanctioning the extension of slavery; they have acted a prominent part in bringing the nation into its present distressed condition.{1T 264.2}[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."
1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"'You have never looked upon slavery in the right light, and your views of this matter have thrown you on the side of the Rebellion, which was stirred up by Satan and his host. Your views of slavery cannot harmonize with the sacred, important truths for this time. You must yield your views or the truth. Both cannot be cherished in the same heart, for they are at war with each other. . . . Unless you undo what you have done, it will be the duty of God's people to publicly withdraw their sympathy and fellowship from you, in order to save the impression which must go out in regard to us as a people. We must let it be known that we have no such ones in our fellowship, that we will not walk with them in church capacity.'"[Ref 5] Testimonies, vol. 7. , pp. 359, 360

[FONT=&quot]============================== then

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]then remind us all how you pra[FONT=&quot]is[FONT=&quot]e this --

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptisthistory.org/sbaptistbeginnings.htm[/FONT]

The meetings of the three Baptist national societies in the 1840s brought angry debates between Northerners and Southerners. These debates concerned the interpretation of the constitutions of the societies on slavery, the right of Southerners to receive missionary appointments, the authority of a denominational society to discipline church members, and the neglect of the South in the appointment of missionaries. The stage was set for separation.
In 1844, Georgia Baptists asked the Home Mission Society to appoint a slaveholder to be a missionary in Georgia. After much discussion, the appointment was declined. A few months later, the Alabama Baptist Convention asked the Foreign Mission Society if they would appoint a slaveholder as a missionary. When the society said no, Virginia Baptists called for Baptists of the South to meet at Augusta, Georgia, in early May, 1845, for the purpose of consulting "on the best means of promoting the Foreign Mission cause, and other interests of the Baptist denomination in the South."
Thus, on May 8, 1845, about 293 Baptist leaders of the South gathered at the First Baptist Church, Augusta, Georgia, representing over 365,000 Baptists. They concluded, with expressions of regret from their own leaders and from distinguished northern Baptist leaders, that more could be accomplished in Christian work by the organization in the South of a separate Baptist body for missionary work. The Methodists in the South had already separated over the issue of slavery, and southern Presbyterians would do so later.
Click to expand...

vooks said: ↑

You know Bob,
No amount of screaming in colored fonts changes these simple facts;
Click to expand...

vooks · May 12, 2015

BobRyan said: ↑

irrefutable facts

Irrefutable facts about the formation of a number of denominations in the south - including the Southern Baptists
Click to expand...

IRREFUTABLE facts;
1. Ellen White , your godess rabidly opposed black-white marriages and she dismissed them as fanaticism no confusion
2. William Llyod America's most famous abolitionist preached interracial marriages in 1831
3. SDA advised against interracial marriages as recently as 1977

Now BobRyan,
Am not a Baptist, not even sure what a Baptist is:laugh: and I don't know what your posts have to do with this. Do they refute these facts, or are you too eager to deflect from EGW racial conservatism? What's your point because I believe you are a middle aged adult of sound mind and not just a juvenile keyboard warrior?

BobRyan · May 13, 2015

Ok so you don't know what a baptist is -- do you know vooks? -- because in the example below - vooks seems to have a problem with actual facts of history

=======================================

Originally Posted by BobRyan

[FONT=&quot]Before the flood[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“confused species” of animals existed – according to Ellen White. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GMO pre-flood marred the image of God. EGW[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man’s great sin – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bible says “All Flesh Corrupt” Gen 6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the flood[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EGW never talks about “confused species of man” either before or after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of marring the image of God via amalgamation after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention that the many races of man after the flood marred the image of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of amalgamation of animal species after the flood being sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious facts from science today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More species of animals today than could have been on the ark.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More races of man today than got off the boat in Noah’s day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mixing humans and animals results in new species if it were to happen – not new races of man.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

Odd ball evolutionist and Vooks-text rants.

" EGW,the was busy teaching how negroes descended from apes "
Click to expand...

how sad that vooks-text

In real life we have:

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."
1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

vooks · May 13, 2015

BobRyan said: ↑

Ok so you don't know what a baptist is -- do you know vooks? -- because in the example below - vooks seems to have a problem with actual facts of history

=======================================

Originally Posted by BobRyan

[FONT=&quot]Before the flood[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“confused species” of animals existed – according to Ellen White. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GMO pre-flood marred the image of God. EGW[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man’s great sin – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bible says “All Flesh Corrupt” Gen 6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the flood[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EGW never talks about “confused species of man” either before or after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of marring the image of God via amalgamation after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention that the many races of man after the flood marred the image of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of amalgamation of animal species after the flood being sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious facts from science today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More species of animals today than could have been on the ark.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More races of man today than got off the boat in Noah’s day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mixing humans and animals results in new species if it were to happen – not new races of man.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

Odd ball evolutionist and Vooks-text rants. how sad that vooks-text

In real life we have:

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."
1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]
Click to expand...

You know BobRyan
I never wrote this

'Amalgamation BETWEEN man and beast', 'beastiality','power of regeneration', 'deteroriation'..any two-bit marine invertebrate knows what's going on. But not BobRyan

Nor

Any reason why SDAs advised against negroes marrying whites less than 35 years ago?

And no amount of infantile rants can erase them from history

BobRyan · May 13, 2015

vooks said: ↑

You know BobRyan
I never wrote this
Click to expand...

You never noticed this --

[FONT=&quot]Before the flood[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“confused species” of animals existed – according to Ellen White. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GMO pre-flood marred the image of God. EGW[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man’s great sin – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bible says “All Flesh Corrupt” Gen 6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the flood[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EGW never talks about “confused species of man” either before or after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]llen White never mentions "Amalgamation between man and beast" producing any "races of man" at all - not even before the flood much less afterwards.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White never mentions "Amalgamation between man and beast" at all.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of marring the image of God via amalgamation after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention that the many races of man after the flood marred the image of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of amalgamation of animal species after the flood being sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious facts from science today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More species of animals today than could have been on the ark.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More races of man today than got off the boat in Noah’s day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mixing humans and animals results in new species if it were to happen – not new races of man.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

vooks · May 13, 2015

BobRyan said: ↑

You never noticed this --

[FONT=&quot]Before the flood[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“confused species” of animals existed – according to Ellen White. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GMO pre-flood marred the image of God. EGW[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man’s great sin – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bible says “All Flesh Corrupt” Gen 6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the flood[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EGW never talks about “confused species of man” either before or after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]llen White never mentions "Amalgamation between man and beast" producing any "races of man" at all - not even before the flood much less afterwards.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White never mentions "Amalgamation between man and beast" at all.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of marring the image of God via amalgamation after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention that the many races of man after the flood marred the image of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of amalgamation of animal species after the flood being sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious facts from science today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More species of animals today than could have been on the ark.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More races of man today than got off the boat in Noah’s day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mixing humans and animals results in new species if it were to happen – not new races of man.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

Click to expand...

How many pages of this article have you pored?
Notice too neither did she say AMALGAMATION of man and [of] beast.
What is clear and irrefutable is her contemporaries understood her words to mean amalgamation BETWEEN man and beast and propagated this through out her life, and when the topic was heatedly debated, instead of 'correcting' this grievous error by explaining GMO and other retarded excuses, they leaned towards beastiality.

Now BobRyan,
1. why would a woman who believed all men are equal before God OPPOSE interracial marriages as 'light from the Lord' and denounce them as fanaticism?
2. Why did SDA for years up to 1992 ADVISE against interracial marriages in the US?

BobRyan · May 13, 2015

vooks said: ↑

her contemporaries understood her words to mean amalgamation BETWEEN man
Click to expand...

why don't you start a thread titled "every contemporary of Ellen White was inspired by God according to Vooks"??

Or "why Vooks imagines that Ellen White was in charge of correcting any of her contemporaries that might misspeak on some point"

So then no more of your bait-and-switch on this thread - you could have a thread totally dedicated to the only source you have.

in Christ,

Bob

vooks · May 13, 2015

BobRyan said: ↑

why don't you start a thread titled "every contemporary of Ellen White was inspired by God according to Vooks"??
Click to expand...

Ellen White churns garbage and her contemporaries understand and propagate it IN HER life with her full knowledge and they never bother correcting it. Note it was published in SDA literature, the same place you would expect a truth seeker to turn for the truth. Her silence tells it all:thumbs:

Or "why Vooks imagines that Ellen White was in charge of correcting any of her contemporaries that might misspeak on some point"
Click to expand...

If it only happened once, we could have excused it but it ran for 60 years throughout her death. It was only in 1930s that somebody attempted to REVISE the meaning. They inserted 'of'. AMALGAMATION of man and [of] beasts. That was as retarded as they come.

Now, if SDA can't understand their godess, why should I trust them to understand her now? Why should I trust your understanding on anything?

So then no more of your bait-and-switch on this thread - you could have a thread totally dedicated to the only source you have.

in Christ,

Bob
Click to expand...

I will continue with the article amidst your tantrums:laugh:

BobRyan · May 14, 2015

Originally Posted by BobRyan
You never noticed this --

[FONT=&quot]Before the flood[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“confused species” of animals existed – according to Ellen White. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GMO pre-flood marred the image of God. EGW[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man’s great sin – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bible says “All Flesh Corrupt” Gen 6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the flood[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EGW never talks about “confused species of man” either before or after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]llen White never mentions "Amalgamation between man and beast" producing any "races of man" at all - not even before the flood much less afterwards.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White never mentions "Amalgamation between man and beast" at all.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of marring the image of God via amalgamation after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention that the many races of man after the flood marred the image of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of amalgamation of animal species after the flood being sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious facts from science today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More species of animals today than could have been on the ark.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More races of man today than got off the boat in Noah’s day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mixing humans and animals results in new species if it were to happen – not new races of man.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]=============================[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]And what would the r[FONT=&quot]acist r[FONT=&quot]esponse be to that [FONT=&quot]stat[FONT=&quot]ement that all races are equ[FONT=&quot]al in the sight of God??[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

vooks said: ↑

Ellen White churns garbage...:laugh:
Click to expand...

I say we leave them to their tiny world

vooks · May 14, 2015

BobRyan said: ↑

Originally Posted by BobRyan
You never noticed this --

[FONT=&quot]Before the flood[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“confused species” of animals existed – according to Ellen White. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GMO pre-flood marred the image of God. EGW[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man’s great sin – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bible says “All Flesh Corrupt” Gen 6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the flood[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EGW never talks about “confused species of man” either before or after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]llen White never mentions "Amalgamation between man and beast" producing any "races of man" at all - not even before the flood much less afterwards.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White never mentions "Amalgamation between man and beast" at all.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of marring the image of God via amalgamation after the flood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention that the many races of man after the flood marred the image of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No mention of amalgamation of animal species after the flood being sin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious facts from science today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More species of animals today than could have been on the ark.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]More races of man today than got off the boat in Noah’s day[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mixing humans and animals results in new species if it were to happen – not new races of man.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ellen White argues that all races of man are equal in the sight of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Christ came to this earth with a message of mercy and forgiveness. He laid the foundation for a religion by which Jew and Gentile, black and white, free and bond, are linked together in one common brotherhood, recognized as equal in the sight of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1 Testimonies, vol. 7. P. 225[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]=============================[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]And what would the r[FONT=&quot]acist r[FONT=&quot]esponse be to that [FONT=&quot]stat[FONT=&quot]ement that all races are equ[FONT=&quot]al in the sight of God??[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

I say we leave them to their tiny world

Click to expand...

I have asked this question before;
1. Between BobRyan and James White , EGW's hubby who endorsed Uriah' book, between you and Uriah Smith the editor of Review and Herald in 1866 and 1901, who is more credible?

2. How could somebody who believed in race equality preach against interracial marriages?

3. Why did SDA advise against interracial marriages in 1976 and only in 1992 did they receive new light on this matter?

Featured Ellen White's Amalgamation of man and Beast Revisited

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

Useful Searches

Featured Ellen White's Amalgamation of man and Beast Revisited

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

vooks Active Member