Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
B/W Photodude

The Days of Wine And Roses

Recommended Posts

B/W Photodude

The Days of Wine And Roses

"Dan “crooner” Jackson, in the midst of his now famous not-so-charming fulmination, bursts into Sinatra’s song, and then, without missing a beat, rightly declares our old days of Wine And Roses and Legalism over.  But the theme song lingers.  Jackson owns it.  And he owns the updated, refined, sensitive, cultured version of Laodicea-La La Land.""   

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2019/1/11/the-days-of-wine-and-roses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

Kevin H

Elder Jackson is their latest villain. He gets to join the list that includes the post 1888 Mrs. White, Willie White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and others. Of course they have a history of as time goes by they end up baptizing their villains saying that they were actually good historical Adventists and attack the new villains of the time they are living in as the ones who started to cause the problems. So if time were to last and this sub-group of Adventism were to remain true to their past history, in about 100 years Elder Jackson will be painted as a strong supporter of the ideas of Folcrum7 and that the problem's did not start until later as they give their new list of villains.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
On January 12, 2019 at 2:29 AM, Kevin H said:

Elder Jackson is their latest villain. He gets to join the list that includes the post 1888 Mrs. White, Willie White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and others. Of course they have a history of as time goes by they end up baptizing their villains …

Oh Pulease! Who has been the villain of the liberal left of the church ? Who even has a well known Adventist writer comparing him to Hitler?! Sorry, Jackson does not get to join any such list!

Seriously,  it is well past time for the Wilson haters to do some serious Biblical study on the concept of "lawlessness."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudywoofs (Pam)

from Fulcrum7's article:

Quote

All hail the shaken booty’s of the Hallelujah Hooey Hop

 

LOLOLOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
8 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Oh Pulease! Who has been the villain of the liberal left of the church ? Who even has a well known Adventist writer comparing him to Hitler?! Sorry, Jackson does not get to join any such list!

Seriously,  it is well past time for the Wilson haters to do some serious Biblical study on the concept of "lawlessness."

I'm sorry B/W but this is Adventist history. I read some books such as "With Cloak and Dagger" which complains about how ideas came in to the church in the 1950s. Also those who are critical of the trinity has a quote spreading around the internet saying that the trinity was brought into the church in the 1950s by Froom.

Yet when I was at Andrews, in the White Estate I read similar complaints of ideas that "With Cloak and Dagger" said came in the 1950s, only these complaints were written in the first decade of the 20th century, 50 years too early, for "Cloak and Dagger" and of course the villains  from the complaints written in the early 20th century was whining about these heresies being brought in by the post 1888 Mrs. White and people such as Willie, Prescott and Daniels.  Much of what I read in "Cloak and Dagger" was a repeat of the complaints of the early 20th century, only the names and dates changed.

Also, that statement that the anti=trinity statement is saying about Froom, is almost (if not identical) to a quote from the first century of the 1900s only instead of blaming  Froom for brining in the trinity in the 1950s, it blamed Prescott for brining in the trinity in the 1890s.

The minister's who's views grew into what became the so called "Historic Adventists" and who's views are reflected in Folcrum7,  have a history of spreading a gospel of the good news that the church is going to hell in a handbasket and that they are the only true and faithful Seventh-day Adventists. And if you read these publications they started out with the list of heretics bringing in a new, false theology, starting with blaming the post 1888 Mrs. White, and the other names I repeat. But as time goes by they no longer have the post 1888 Mrs. White as a heretic bringing in these ideas but pretend that the ideas they are criticizing are newly coming in and the people who their great grandparents criticized as horrible heretics, are later pictured as faithful to this train of thought. If time was to last and history were to repeat itself in about a century Historic Adventists would hail Elder Jackson as a firm supporter of the ideas of Folcrum7 and have a new person to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
22 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I read some books such as "With Cloak and Dagger" which complains about how ideas came in to the church in the 1950s. Also those who are critical of the trinity has a quote spreading around the internet saying that the trinity was brought into the church in the 1950s by Froom.

Yeah, I got the book laying on my desk that I will get to one of these days. Might be an interesting read.

However, not sure where the rest of the post was from as the thread started out regarding the behavior of Dan Jackson. I know some are in his corner and few will address the issues of:

The vote at the GC was a vote of delegates from the worldwide church, regardless of whether the NAD and a couple of other divisions are getting their knickers in a twist over it. Elder Wilson has the job of implementing the voted motions that pass at the BC convention. While true, he may support those votes, it is not his doings. Jackson is not in charge of the church regardless of how much temper tantrum throwing he does.

Jackson's conduct in telling those who disagree with him to "buzz off" was conduct unbecoming a pastor and especially one who is leader of an entire division. What is that teaching your children? Telling people to "buzz off" is about as close as he dare come to giving the proverbial "one finger salute" without actually going there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
22 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Most who say they are "historic" Adventists, are in fact something else. They don't know what they are talking about when they parrot ancient complaints and try to insert those into current issues. 

I would say there are people on both sides of the controversy that just love a good fight. Both sides of this "discussion" need to be aware of the Adversaries efforts to take captive those not on their watch.

22 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I agree; F7 is a bunch of hooey. lol

F7 is only one of many good websites out there that are not trying to bring in deceptions into the church. However, there is one or two that post very unChristian stuff on that site and I am surprised they allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pierrepaul

I have a different opinion on Fulcrum7. They usually remind me of the sorts of people who are never happy unless they are complaining about something, and are often on the look out to find or dream up some reason to be offended or outraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudywoofs (Pam)

I agree with some of what Fulcrum7 publishes; some of it I don't. — which is sort of what I find in all groups.  So... I use what I like, discard what I don't, and thank God that He didn't clone us to think and behave identically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
4 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

They usually remind me of the sorts of people who are never happy unless they are complaining about something, ...

Seriously?! Just do a review of reader comments between F7 and the well known liberal site and compare the general level of dissatisfaction and general surliness of the two groups. It would almost beg for someone to do a qualitative/quantitative analysis for the "true" level of complaining.

Another thing I notice is that few will actually respond to an article for what it says, but would rather just complain that they are complainers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I agree with some of what Fulcrum7 publishes; some of it I don't. — 

They really are not part of a "vast right wing conspiracy!" Different people can write on different topics and some is interesting and some isn't. Don't like it, move along! There are writers there that I will not read because I tend to think they are over impressed with themselves and are seriously ethically challenged. But others write well thought out articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudywoofs (Pam)
2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

They really are not part of a "vast right wing conspiracy!" Different people can write on different topics and some is interesting and some isn't. Don't like it, move along! There are writers there that I will not read because I tend to think they are over impressed with themselves and are seriously ethically challenged. But others write well thought out articles.

Agreed.  F7 is no more of a conspiracy group than Spectrum is.  I think both use bombastic writing styles at times to make a point — which sometimes comes across as "mocking" — which, of course, would not set well with the "opposition" (whoever *they* are)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

There is both a liberal extreme in the church and a conservative extreme in the church. Folcrum7 tends to be one of these two ditches. Too often Spectrum publishes articles from the other extreme. I am equally scared of both camps, yet I also believe that both camps point out facts that it is important for us not to forget. These two extremes, on both points, rather than being outright wrong (although they are on a couple points here and there) they tend to do more of a dividing of truth between them, with the truth being a straight and narrow path between the two.

My biggest concern about Folcrum 7 is that they tend to want to pretend that these two ditches are the only two options. Since one is critical of Mrs. White and questions 1844 and that God can really change our lives, since they accept Mrs. White (when filtered through people like Elders Washburn and Wilkinson) and accept 1844 and the gospel changing our lives, they picture themselves as the only true group. They use scare tactics (such as in the book "With Cloak and Dagger" to try to scare people into their group.  I've had "historical Adventists" tell me that I do not exist. That there are only two choices; to either believe exactly like them, or to believe exactly like Des Ford. But there are different sub groups of Adventism that do not fit those two categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
On 1/18/2019 at 12:11 AM, Kevin H said:

there are different sub groups of Adventism that do not fit those two categories

I would submit that there are not discrete groups within Adventism, but a continuous 3 dimensional spectrum of groups that don't fit these extreme categories.  At least within the groups I know, most SDA's are reasonable people who don't seek to offend or judge other SDA's on their little nuances of belief.  Most (well - many) of us have our "pet" opinions on the details of various beliefs, but we tend not to argue about them with other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
54 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I would submit that there are not discrete groups within Adventism, but a continuous 3 dimensional spectrum of groups that don't fit these extreme categories.

Within the F7 website are almost 150 different writers who have summed up their thoughts on a particular topic and submitted them to F7. Other such site include Advindicate and AdventMessenger. There are a ton of other sites runs by different individuals as regular websites and/or blogs.

Of course, you have the sites like aToday and Spectrum. Plus, you likely have a lot of websites/blogs that are varying degrees of liberal.

You have quite a variety of viewpoints of those who consider themselves SDA. Then you have a lot of sites with varying degrees of not SDA but seem to be solely focused in criticizing the church in one way or another. These run all the way from the former SDA forum to the simply haters of the SDA church and/or haters of EGW.

FWIW, and sadly, even among those that claim to be SDA, there is a subtle to outright dislike and disregard for EGW. This includes those who are trying to alter her writings for their own political agendas. Sometimes one wishes that they could just get off the fence and say she is either a fake or a true messenger of God with a special message for his people at this time of this earth's history. I say this as I am getting well into the first of the Testimonies to the Church and as I read and compare to what I see happening in the church, … it is troubling. (Not that there were not already many things that were of concern before. :(  )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

Good post B/W, I agree with you. What concerns me is that there are also people (and yes I see the Fulcrum7 and similar groups as in this category) who are off the fence and say that she is a true messenger of God. The problem is that they do not accept her on her terms. They accept her first of all on the terms of the fundamentalists, and among this group are those who accept her only as filtered through people such as elders Washburn and Wilkinson and their agenda.

Mrs. White and Willie wrote a lot about what visions did and did not do for her. She wrote about these in things such as the reform dress, the ill fated testimony # 11, letters to Elder Haskell, and the letters between Mrs. White or Willie to people such as Washburn and Wilkinson and others from this subgroup. The Ellen White that Ellen White wanted us to follow is rejected. It is Ellen White as viewed first from a fundamentalist perspective, and going beyond the more moderate fundamentalism that Haskell had and which became main line Adventism, it is the Ellen White as filtered through people such as Washburn and Wilkinson and others who received sharp testimonies from Mrs. White and Willie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

I received a message asking about the "ill fated Testimony # 11" and was asked to reply in a message to not change the direction of the thread. I then came back here and was reading the other posts and I feel that the answer would fit in with this thread.

Once in Battle Creek, when James was on a long trip, doctors came to Mrs. White and asked about the things she saw in vision about our health work. Among the things she discussed was seeing a good sized building with towers. This lead to a huge fundraising campaign to raise money for this building. The testimony was published and spread around and work on the building was started. Loans were taken out to help as the pledges came in.

When James came home and found out what was happening he realized that the church was not yet financially able to finance this building. He ordered the building to be torn down and the materials sold off even at a loss, and to repay the loans.

Members were shocked in how can James rebel against a message from God.

Another issue was the reform dress. Mrs. White described what she saw. Members began latching on each and every detail, even measuring distance of the skirt from the ground, and Mrs. White was bombarded with letters asking for more detail and specifics trying to make the reform dress exactly perfect as the divine inspired message was commanding God's people to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
20 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

"Varying degrees of liberal"  Will we be getting some specific examples?

Articles from the first two are frequently seen here at Adventistan:
Spectrum Magazine
https://spectrummagazine.org

Adventist Today
https://atoday.org

Liberal or progressive, you pick your adjective!:

Adventists for Progress
An Adventism for Progressive Change
https://adventistsforprogress.com

Reinder Bruinsma
http://reinderbruinsma.com

Liberal Adventist Pastor
http://liberaladventist.blogspot.com

SJWs make it to the Adventist church (this site includes lots of links to other liberal Adventist blogs):
Adventists for Social Action
https://advactivism.wordpress.com

"Progressive Adventism" on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Adventism

Some liberal Adventists may object to this page:
What is a “Progressive” or a “Liberal” Seventh Day Adventist?
http://leavingsda.com/liberal-adventists/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

Thank you B/W. Yes, spectrum has usually been liberal, but had also been from time to time a place where moderates and  conservatives who are not "Historic Adventists" have been able to get submissions printed.

I have equal concern about the liberal sites and especially those influenced by Dr. Ford as I am for the so called "Historical Adventists" and those influenced by people like Washburn and Wilkinson. Both are two ditches that I am afraid of, I'm afraid of, I'm afraid of. And it scares me that the two ditches picture themselves as the viable solution to the other. One group down plays Mrs. White's inspiration, 1844, and the fact that the Gospel can really change our lives. The other group filters Mrs. White through people like Washburn and Wilkinson instead of accepting her on her terms, have a more legalistic approach to 1844, and sees the changes that the Gospel makes in us as a uniform list of does and don'ts one size fits all and a one size fits all that no one has ever reached before and will only be reached by the last generation and that God is waiting for this last generation to reach these does and don'ts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

One group down plays Mrs. White's inspiration, 1844, and the fact that the Gospel can really change our lives. The other group filters Mrs. White through people like Washburn and Wilkinson instead of accepting her on her terms, have a more legalistic approach to 1844, and sees the changes that the Gospel makes in us as a uniform list of does and don'ts one size fits all and a one size fits all that no one has ever reached before and will only be reached by the last generation and that God is waiting for this last generation to reach these does and don'ts.

I kind of prefer Mrs. White unfiltered! That includes compilations of her works by others. True, she may have written the comments, but it is sometimes difficult to tell the context. It is quite easy to use a sentence out of context even from Scripture. And of course, some people filter the Bible thru Mrs. White!

And how little people understand the "does and don'ts"! Checklists and rules can be good for some kinds of tasks, but I suspicion not for heaven. But that is a whole other ball of wax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
18 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I kind of prefer Mrs. White unfiltered! That includes compilations of her works by others. True, she may have written the comments, but it is sometimes difficult to tell the context. It is quite easy to use a sentence out of context even from Scripture. And of course, some people filter the Bible thru Mrs. White!

And how little people understand the "does and don'ts"! Checklists and rules can be good for some kinds of tasks, but I suspicion not for heaven. But that is a whole other ball of wax.

Careful with that statement or you would end up becoming one of Fulcrum7/Historic Adventist's villains yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
43 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

In many cases we are now seeing "Mrs White Unfiltered" works out to be about the same as "Mrs White Filtered."  Whenever anyone's writings are used in ways that even suggest they are somehow superior to scripture, its a case of sadly mistaken Adventist Identity.

By "Unfiltered", I mean they are untouched by anyone else messing with them such as comments out of context, those who are now engaged in rewriting to change genders to fit a new social agenda, books put out with themes thought up by the compiler and filled with out of context quotes, and other such misuse of the SOP.

Speaking of Mrs. White's writings being superior to the Bible, here is a scenario which represents that well. It is a true occurrence and the names are "changed" to protect the guilty!

Commenter: (A Bible text was quoted in a discussion and the text not really important)

Respondent: "Yes, but what does Mrs. White say?"

Knowing the "respondents" usual take on religious topics, further discussion became useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

Getting to some of the issues: The first issue is Fundamentalism. In America you had good people and you had bad people but both groups tended to believe in God and believe that the Bible was somehow his book and inspired. These were assumptions and as often happens with assumptions we don't have a very clear picture. Some churches were a bit looser and others a bit tighter in how they used the words of the Bible, but both groups took for granted the existence of God and that the Bible was his book. In the 1700s something that did not look like it would become an issue was started; pastors noticed while learning the languages that there were different styles of writings that would come together. Now I don't like the terms that they came up with, and today because of events that happened in the 1800s we have become prejudiced towards these terms and have had a whole war, but they called it higher and lower criticism. One was the study of how the final text of the Bible stands, the other looks at how it was edited together. They were originally seen as complementary tools.

Then there were some questions, especially when Darwin came up with evolution. Now instead of people basically assuming the existence of God and the Bible being inspired, people started to question God's existence and atheism started. People started to look for evolution everywhere and started interpreting everything by evolution.  People were starting to chop up and divide the different writing styles of higher criticism, and assigned different styles to follow human evolution, and they used this not as a tool to understand the text better but to say that the Bible was of purely human in origin and followed human evolution. They also began looking at all ancient writings and saw them all as completely fabricated stories that did not happen talking about people who did not exist, and of course this was applied to the Bible as well.

This became a crisis for people who did continue to believe in God and that the Bible was God's book. So like how the atheists/evolutionists began speculating and reinterpreting everything by their world view, so those who believed in God and the Bible began speculating and reinterpreting everything by their world view.  Believers began to ask "So what does inspiration actually mean?" and they developed the idea that since God is perfect, that his word has to be just as perfect. They began rejecting higher criticism saying "If God is perfect and all knowing, then his word must be equally perfect and came from the prophet's pen totally perfect. Since it came from the prophet's pen fully perfect and inerrant there could not have been any editing. No need to edit perfection. They also speculated that perfection prevented the idea of contradictions and any type of error.

Churches became confused and fell either into the camps of evolution or fundamentalism. It is amazing how God works even though errors. Just as this time was starting to develop a group of disappointed Millerites formed what was called the shut door theory which separated them from the rest of the Christian world. For what ever problems that the error of the shut door brought up, it did protect us from the falling of Babylon into either the evolution camp or the fundamentalist camp.

Now not all ministers or congregations fell. You would find a pastor here and there, or a Sunday school teacher here and there, or a congregation here and there that remained moderate. But these were the exception to the rule. Only the group who became Seventh-day Adventists was the only group who missed this.

One of the ministers who did not fall was trying to save the church by giving a balanced view. Sadly instead of saving the church he became hated by both groups. He finally lost his ministry when a woman lied about him claiming that they were having an affair. Now it was later proven to be a lie and the woman did not hide the fact that it was a lie. She said that she lied for God and the Bible. She knew that the views of inspiration this pastor was teaching was a direct attack on the views of the Fundamentalists and this woman saw an attack on Fundamentalism as an attack on God and the Bible and that God raised her up to destroy this man's ministry to defend God and the Bible. Now while one woman's lie brought an end to his ministry, there was another woman who's truth has made this man's ministry continue. A woman named Ellen G. White said that, except for how this minister saw inspiration as more of a subjective event and she changed it to make it a very definite objective event, she otherwise agreed with his view of inspiration and is writings are now found in the prefix of the Great Controversy and in the book Selected Messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

As the Adventists discovered their mistake about the shut door and began to reintegrate themselves into the Christian world, the aftermath of the split between the evolutionists and fundamentalists have baffled how we should respond.  W. W. Prescott read a book on Fundamentalism and became convinced that the Fundamentalists were right and began to teach Fundamentalism and his teaching had a huge impact on members especially Stephen Haskell. However when Mrs. White learned what Prescott was teaching, she asked him to stop teaching and to come to work for her, along with his friends A. G. Daniels and D. M. Canright. She began to give them assignments to do things to her writings that absolutely shocked these men. They believed she was inspired and that what God gave to her was totally perfect, so why would Mrs. White give them these assignments to research her message and make changes. Prescott and Daniels ended up giving up Fundamentalism (more or less). Canright fully embraced Fundamentalism and that lead to his giving up Mrs. White and Adventism. People like Haskell tried to balance between Mrs. White and Fundamentalism and he and Mrs. White would have very interesting conversations him trying to tell her how her inspiration worked and trying to convince her to become a fundamentalist. Her trying to convince him to give up fundamentalism. They were both frustrated that neither could convince the other to change their views, yet they remained very close friends. l

Two other groups that formed was a number of Adventists, such as Elder Spicer believed in two different types of inspiration, that the Bible was inspired the way the Fundamentalists said inspiration worked, but Mrs. White had a different type of inspiration that did allow for editing and errors and not being perfect. While there were others who like Haskell took a fundamentalist view of inspiration but would use her words to try to give teeth to their understandings of Adventism  and to use her words to force their views on the rest of the church.

Eventually Stephen Haskell's views won out and became mainline Adventism, and based on this we have come to the conclusion that indeed as Mrs. White told us, her writings were not infallible, it's just that she never made a mistake.  Among the sub group of people using Mrs. White to give teeth to force their views on the rest of the church became the so called "Historic Adventists" including the Fulcrum7 people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

The way I understand Mrs. White to have presented her view of inspiration from studying the above, Mrs. White's writings were for set purposes and she would copy anything that she found that she saw as explaining her specific messages.

The first was that she was to warn people of doing things that were hurting their relationship with God. She hated this task and had visions of cutting out garments and God needing to encourage her and to give her new scissors.

Along with this came her understanding that her ministry did NOT include doing exegesis. When she used the Bible she would use it in either drawing analogies between the text and what she was writing about, or simply using the words of scripture because the words described the situation well. If she did end up touching upon exegesis it was not for the sake of exegesis but that the exegesis fit the situation.  She saw it as OUR job to do exegesis. She appears to have been jealous and baffled. She would have loved to have done exegesis, she loved exegesis. She loved viewing the archaeological finds in the great museums in Europe when she was there, but sadly had to turn away from where she wanted to just spend more time, to go out and do her ministry. And she was baffled that people kept coming to her with questions of exegesis. she would tell them that her writings are not to be used to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of the daily in Daniel" and every time someone came to her with these questions that she would either tell them that was their job to find out, or she would ignore these questions. She saw her ministry as dealing with what she called "the minutia" (which was also her name for the applications of God's law that we mistakenly call the law of Moses.)

Second her ministry was focused in the development of our work. First to tell Millerites that the Millerite movement was indeed lead by God and to not give up their experience. The next step was to developed the church and then to move on into the health care and education work, and setting up our work in different parts of the world The restructuring of the Genera conference, and her last battle (and the one where she died and lost) the battle against how Fundamentalism was coming into the church. Her understanding of her inspiration was that they were not to answer questions of exegesis or history as in "what is the meaning of the daily in Daniel" but rather answer questions like how shall we evangelize a city?

Finally came God's reward to her for her faithfulness in the" minutia" She got to reveal to the world ideas that were a part of the culture of the ancient world and thus assumptions held by the Bible writers, but which have been lost over the centuries between the Bible and our day. The philosophy of the Great Controversy. Except for her precious few hours in  the museums of Europe, this was where she could have part of her longing to do exegesis partially filled. This was her joy and her crowning work.

Her use of writings were in two different ways. Some she would copy, like that hated pastor suggestion on how to still believe in God and accept the inspiration of the Bible but without becoming a fundamentalist that we now find in the prefix of Great Controversy and in Selected Messages. A second way she copied was more how her assistants would copy something to give a running narrative between one point she wanted to present and another point she wanted to present. And of course her crowning work we tend to find very little copying , what she had to say about the Great controversy, especially the greatest chapter that came from her pen "It is finished" in the Desire of Ages, and how that gem is set in the setting of the two chapters "Why was Sin Permitted" and "The Origin of Evil" and the supporting passages such as the chapter on Gethsemane, the little book confrontation and articles here and there dealing with the issues of the great controversy.  

Her critics miss this They point out the fact that she copied and question why should something inspired be copied (we now know that there was massive copying in the Bible). They point out that she would sometimes tell some people to do something then tell others or she herself practice something else. But she was addressing specific problems that these people had that was an issue for them or specific historical situations. Mrs. White warned against the circus, and at the time she wrote the circus in America was adult entertainment and a liar for thieves and pickpockets. Other ministers shared the same criticisms. This is what P. T. Barnum specifically worked on changing. She said things about the novel, fiction and amassing libraries. Now the words "novel" "Fiction" and massing libraries meant something else when she was writing about them. She was just one voice along with people who today we consider "novelists" and writers of "fiction" such as Nathaniel Hawthorn and Herman Melville who shared her same warnings against "novels" "fiction" and amassing libraries. No Hawthorn and Melville were not telling people that they should not buy their books (as we interpret Mrs. White from our culture). In addition the critic point out problems with her writings when compared to things such as science, history and exegesis.

100% of the time her critics are criticizing very fields and facts that she says we can find problems if they look for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...