Featured The Brain Injury that Spawned SDA

About the Bible or "emotionalism"???

I meant to emphasize these details -- for "serious conversation"

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

A graduate student working on an advanced degree at Teachers’ College, Columbia University, in 1959 discovered a copy of Ellen White’s Education in the personal reference library of Florence Stratemeyer. Stratemeyer, a leading educator and professor of education, was invited to give an address before a convention of Adventist teachers in Washington, D.C. In it she said, among other things: “Recently the book Education, by Ellen G. White, has been brought to my attention. Written at the turn of the century, this volume was more than fifty years ahead of its times. And I was surprised to learn that it was written by a woman with but three years of schooling.

Six years earlier Professor Tsunekichi Mizuno of Japan’s Tamagawa University (and formerly head of the Tokyo Museum of Science and director of social education for the Japanese Ministry of Education) recommended Education to parents, teachers, and students. He called it “most profitable reading in our understanding of the ‘New Education.’”

The minister of education of a southern European country had been studying at Teachers’ College, Columbia University. He had come to the United States for the newest and best in educational policy and program of his newborn state. Upon his return to southern Europe, Raja R. Radosavlyevish “authored” a work on religious and moral education. It was written in the Serbian language, published by the state university press, and acclaimed by that institution as the “best book” on religious education in that language. When Adventist church leaders in Serbia read the work, they recognized it immediately—it was a translation of Ellen White’s Education, with an introduction written by the Serbian minister of education. Eighty percent of the new book came directly from Ellen White’s pen! Was it plagiarism? Who knows the good man’s motivation? If Charles Caleb Colton is correct in his dictum (“Imitation is the sincerest [form] of flattery”), then Adventists should indeed feel flattered!

Those are all non-SDAs looking "at the text" --

In 1960 Paul Harvey, American Broadcasting Company news commentator and United Features syndicated columnist, wrote a 16-paragraph article featuring Ellen White. It began:
“Once upon a time, a hundred years ago, there lived a young lady named Ellen White. She was frail as a child, completed only grammar school [actually, she never really finished the third grade], and had no technical training, and yet she lived to write scores of articles and many books on the subject of ‘healthful living.’ “Remember, this was in the days when doctors were still bloodletting and performing surgery with unwashed hands. This was in an era of medical ignorance bordering on barbarism. Yet Ellen White wrote with such profound understanding of the subject of nutrition that all but two of the many principles she espoused have been scientifically established.” Harvey then pointed out how she was correct about the preference for olive oil over animal fat in the diet. We recognize now her wisdom in scoring refined white flour as lacking in nutritive value. Her warnings concerning the dangers of overuse of salt and irregularity in eating have proved correct.
In 1960 there were two unverified statements from her pen: the use of multigrains instead of merely whole wheat in breadmaking, and vegetarianism.

Nine years later columnist Harvey did an update on Mrs. White for his newspaper readers across America. After citing the low incidence of strokes, respiratory diseases, and cancer among Adventists, he continued: “It has tended to reaffirm the faith of the faithful to discover that the most advanced scientific findings support what was written and taught by this amazing little lady, Ellen White, more than a century ago. If future scientific findings continue to support hers, let’s see what tomorrow’s doctors will be prescribing: “Ellen White advised against overeating. Also against crash dieting. (‘Do not go to extremes.’) Minimal sweets. (She said that sugar is not good for the stomach.) “She recommended grains, vegetables, fruits—especially apples. (‘Apples are superior to any fruit.’) “She recommended against meat. Coffee, and tea. And, sorry, no hot biscuits. “If some of her recommendations sound extreme, imagine how they must have sounded in 1863. Yet modern science continues more and more to say, ‘She was right’!”

 

Out of curiousity I went to www.sermonaudio.com and found an interview of 2 ex-Seventh Day Adventists.


They mentioned their beliefs were shaken when they discovered she was accused of plagiarism.

I did the Google search "plagiarism ellen.g.white site:.edu"

Amongst results were
Ellen G. White And Her Ghost Writer Book Shop Basic Version


On pages 5-6 especially her personal account makes it sound like she was incapable of doing any serious research by herself. I cannot believe her work is taken so seriously by her defenders.

If she was truly receiving spiritual revelation she would not have required personal assistance to write her works.

Here is sermon link. Cult of Ellen G. White #1: Beginnings of the 19th Century Religion

Information about plagiarism starts approx 10th minute.

 

Actually under Calvinism it could be argued that God directly "ordained" her visions the means by which ordinary or miraculous are insignificant.


No matter how bad you insult the SDA's or their prophet, Fact remains the Calvinist version of God is so evil compared to the SDA's version of God. I believe your mental capacity is more questionable then someone with severe blow to the head from a rock.

What example are you putting here? You spam multiple threads that are Anti-SDA. You just need one.

 

If God had ordained Ellen White's visions they would have been 100% correct.

Deuteronomy 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Compare: Does Mrs. White Pass the Biblical Tests of a Prophet?

 

I'm not familiar with what your faith is Jo, I think if you word it if God ordained her to be his legit prophet.

Sure false prophets are real, maybe even worst wicked "true" ones like Balaam.


But If you are a Calvinist you can't subscribe to the idea that:

"Neither God or the Devil had anything to do with her "visions"."

Because the idea is God's fingers are in everything.

 

They are 100% correct and she passes with flying colours, and I have the answer for Test #1 [so-called], but will you read it, as the answer lies in scripture [KJB] itself. I prayed about this one, and studied, and God gave me the answer over a period of about a year, piece by piece, having patience, and shelving it at times to reconsider it in more detail. The answer is so simple.

 

My policy is to keep on thread's topic.

The words which were truly White's were rambling, disjointed and lacking in spiritual substance that the bible's writers always had (because they are genuinely God's Word).

The words which had some value were usually plagarised.
HOW THE SEVENTH—DAY ADVENTIST ‘SPIRIT OF PROPHECY’ WAS BORN

Up to 90% of some of her works(?!!!) too.

 

Good thing they were

 

I meant to emphasize these details -- for "serious conversation"

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

A graduate student working on an advanced degree at Teachers’ College, Columbia University, in 1959 discovered a copy of Ellen White’s Education in the personal reference library of Florence Stratemeyer. Stratemeyer, a leading educator and professor of education, was invited to give an address before a convention of Adventist teachers in Washington, D.C. In it she said, among other things: “Recently the book Education, by Ellen G. White, has been brought to my attention. Written at the turn of the century, this volume was more than fifty years ahead of its times. And I was surprised to learn that it was written by a woman with but three years of schooling.

Six years earlier Professor Tsunekichi Mizuno of Japan’s Tamagawa University (and formerly head of the Tokyo Museum of Science and director of social education for the Japanese Ministry of Education) recommended Education to parents, teachers, and students. He called it “most profitable reading in our understanding of the ‘New Education.’”

The minister of education of a southern European country had been studying at Teachers’ College, Columbia University. He had come to the United States for the newest and best in educational policy and program of his newborn state. Upon his return to southern Europe, Raja R. Radosavlyevish “authored” a work on religious and moral education. It was written in the Serbian language, published by the state university press, and acclaimed by that institution as the “best book” on religious education in that language. When Adventist church leaders in Serbia read the work, they recognized it immediately—it was a translation of Ellen White’s Education, with an introduction written by the Serbian minister of education. Eighty percent of the new book came directly from Ellen White’s pen! Was it plagiarism? Who knows the good man’s motivation? If Charles Caleb Colton is correct in his dictum (“Imitation is the sincerest [form] of flattery”), then Adventists should indeed feel flattered!

Those are all non-SDAs looking "at the text" --

In 1960 Paul Harvey, American Broadcasting Company news commentator and United Features syndicated columnist, wrote a 16-paragraph article featuring Ellen White. It began:
“Once upon a time, a hundred years ago, there lived a young lady named Ellen White. She was frail as a child, completed only grammar school [actually, she never really finished the third grade], and had no technical training, and yet she lived to write scores of articles and many books on the subject of ‘healthful living.’ “Remember, this was in the days when doctors were still bloodletting and performing surgery with unwashed hands. This was in an era of medical ignorance bordering on barbarism. Yet Ellen White wrote with such profound understanding of the subject of nutrition that all but two of the many principles she espoused have been scientifically established.” Harvey then pointed out how she was correct about the preference for olive oil over animal fat in the diet. We recognize now her wisdom in scoring refined white flour as lacking in nutritive value. Her warnings concerning the dangers of overuse of salt and irregularity in eating have proved correct.
In 1960 there were two unverified statements from her pen: the use of multigrains instead of merely whole wheat in breadmaking, and vegetarianism.

Nine years later columnist Harvey did an update on Mrs. White for his newspaper readers across America. After citing the low incidence of strokes, respiratory diseases, and cancer among Adventists, he continued: “It has tended to reaffirm the faith of the faithful to discover that the most advanced scientific findings support what was written and taught by this amazing little lady, Ellen White, more than a century ago. If future scientific findings continue to support hers, let’s see what tomorrow’s doctors will be prescribing: “Ellen White advised against overeating. Also against crash dieting. (‘Do not go to extremes.’) Minimal sweets. (She said that sugar is not good for the stomach.) “She recommended grains, vegetables, fruits—especially apples. (‘Apples are superior to any fruit.’) “She recommended against meat. Coffee, and tea. And, sorry, no hot biscuits. “If some of her recommendations sound extreme, imagine how they must have sounded in 1863. Yet modern science continues more and more to say, ‘She was right’!”

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

Sorry for the inconvenience of these details as they refute the OP speculation and accusation

 

Well lets quote the OP and stay on topic:
"Neither God or the Devil had anything to do with her "visions". The "true church" rest"

I believe that notion is false if logically you believe God ordained her to have those true or false visions.


I'm pretty sure the thread is name "The Brain Injury that Spawned SDA"

"Not the Plagiarist Prophetess"

 

good point.


===============================================================
from the book; Patriarchs and Prophets

So long as all created beings acknowledged the allegiance of love, there was perfect harmony throughout the universe of God. It was the joy of the heavenly host to fulfill the purpose of their Creator. They delighted in reflecting His glory and showing forth His praise. And while love to God was supreme, love for one another was confiding and unselfish. There was no note of discord to mar the celestial harmonies. But a change came over this happy state. There was one who perverted the freedom that God had granted to His creatures. Sin originated with him who, next to Christ, had been most honored of God and was highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of heaven. Lucifer, “son of the morning,” was first of the covering cherubs, holy and undefiled. He stood in the presence of the great Creator, and the ceaseless beams of glory enshrouding the eternal God rested upon him. “Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering.... Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” Ezekiel 28:12-15. {PP 35.1}

Little by little Lucifer came to indulge the desire for self-exaltation. The Scripture says, “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness.” Ezekiel 28:17. “Thou hast said in thine heart, ...I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.... I will be like the Most High.” Isaiah 14:13, 14. Though all his glory was from God, this mighty angel came to regard it as pertaining to himself. Not content with his position, though honored above the heavenly host, he ventured to covet homage due alone to the Creator. Instead of seeking to make God supreme in the affections and allegiance of all created beings, it was his endeavor to secure their service and loyalty to himself. And coveting the glory with which the infinite Father had invested His Son, this prince of angels aspired to power that was the prerogative of Christ alone. {PP 35.2}

Now the perfect harmony of heaven was broken. Lucifer’s disposition to serve himself instead of his Creator aroused a feeling of apprehension when observed by those who considered that the glory of God should be supreme. In heavenly council the angels pleaded with Lucifer. The Son of God presented before him the greatness, the goodness, and the justice of the Creator, and the sacred, unchanging nature of His law. God Himself had established the order of heaven; and in departing from it, Lucifer would dishonor his Maker and bring ruin upon himself. But the warning, given in infinite love and mercy, only aroused a spirit of resistance. Lucifer allowed his jealousy of Christ to prevail, and became the more determined. {PP 35.3}

To dispute the supremacy of the Son of God, thus impeaching the wisdom and love of the Creator, had become the purpose of this prince of angels. To this object he was about to bend the energies of that master mind, ...

The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng—“ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to the Father, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God’s plan, but would exalt the Father’s glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}

The angels joyfully acknowledged the supremacy of Christ, and prostrating themselves before Him, poured out their love and adoration. Lucifer bowed with them, but in his heart there was a strange, fierce conflict. Truth, justice, and loyalty were struggling against envy and jealousy. The influence of the holy angels seemed for a time to carry him with them. As songs of praise ascended in melodious strains, swelled by thousands of glad voices, the spirit of evil seemed vanquished; unutterable love thrilled his entire being; his soul went out, in harmony with the sinless worshippers, in love to the Father and the Son. But again he was filled with pride in his own glory. His desire for supremacy returned, and envy of Christ was once more indulged. The high honors conferred upon Lucifer were not appreciated as God’s special gift, and therefore, called forth no gratitude to his Creator. He gloried in his brightness and exaltation and aspired to be equal with God. He was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host, angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wisdom and glory above them all. Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He shared the Father’s counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. “Why,” questioned this mighty angel, “should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?” {PP 36.3}

 

I had replied with the above, and asked a specific question to you brother [?] JoChris.

So be it then. Brother [?] JoChris, you issued a website challenge in regards prophecies of sister White. The very first one, "Test #1", in regards the "Food for Worms" vision of 1856, may be shown from scripture [KJB] to be truth, and not false. I responded to the 'challenge' [it is not much, really], and asked you a specific question, on whether you wanted to see/read that evidence of the visions validity, for yourself, which God had given to me over a period of about a year, through prayer and study.

However, before I simply show the website you had posted to be in error [at every point], I am going to ask you, as the one who instigated the assault, will you consider the evidence even for "Test #1", or will you not? If yes, I will share with you and all, and if not, perhaps you may reconsider simply posting websites that do not do thorough research and misrepresent the facts of the matters [I do not exaggerate].

I too can post hundreds of counter websites, which, frankly, are for more thoroughly researched [and I will just post a single one, which lists them, and feel free to peruse them, as they address every single so-called issue people bring up about sister White, visions, statements, the gift of prophecy, etc]:

Ellen G. White

I await your response, in kind, in either an affirmative that you will hear me out, and give me the opportunity to show the meaning thereof; or in the negative, that you do not desire to even consider evidence which will give rise to truly understanding the "Food for Worms" vision of 1856 and its validity.

If you choose the negative, I will declare from this point forward, and make the statement that you did not want, and never did want, evidence for understanding, but rather simply wanted a platform to mock at what you do not care to know about.

I pray you choose the affirmative, and show me the integrity of a faithful and godly Christian, who is commanded through the scripture [KJB] to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good, and to despise not prophesyings. I can then say, that you did give opportunity for consideration in the matter.

Therefore, please choose, one or the other. If this response is ignored and you refuse to so choose, you automatically default to the negative.

It is easy to post something such as a video or link to a poorly written and researched website and not consider counter evidence in actual discussion and prayerful bible study, and yet it is far more difficult to consider counter evidence, and if the original claim is proved to be in the wrong and to openly admit as such, as much as the original was openly avowed.

This is not a game. It is life and death.

 

This was not inspired revelation, but someone trying to write a fairy tale....

 

I assume you have more "quotes of you" to back that up.

 

Did Ellen White EVER state that taking Sunday worship was the mark of the beast? Did she state EVER that God showed her that one can lose eternal life after death, by not following Sabbath keeping and not obeying and heeding her words as being from God?
Right on one thing, really is a matter of spiritual life or death!

 

Jesus pronounced the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ONLY upon the Apostles living of that time, and paul, when did Jesus appear to EW then to commission her ?

 

"taking sunday worship"???

In your efforts to "quote you" - the result is phrases that are "unique to you"

 

Until you read the actual Bible in places like 1 Cor 12 and 1Cor 14.

Or you could simply "quote you"