Jump to content

Spirit of Prophecy Writings Coordinator


GHansen
 Share

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, DickOdenthal said:

I just posted an excerpt that Uriah Smith wrote to defend the Amalgamation statement

Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere, and this made sense to me (don't laugh), that amalgamation of species had to do with creating ( loose term) beings that were not natural creatures, such as mermaids, mermen, centaurs, satyrs. 

Man was highly advanced back then and perhaps knew how to perform surgeries to make these creatures . That is where I understand the reason they were believed in. Of course, they did not make it through the Flood, but the memory of them was passed down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 1:53 AM, GHansen said:

Please provide some references from her contemporaries defending her amalgamation views.

 

There is the Sabbath Herald of November 28, 1878 which says;

"Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, page 78, was referred to and • ridiculed by the Baptist minister. He said that what Sister White said about amalgamation of man and beast
was utterly impossible. I referred him to Johnson's New Cyclopedia, pp. 1040, 1042, 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. It is not likely that he will be profited' by what I referred him to; for he did not come to hear his discourse reviewed, although before the public I invited him to do so
."

There is zero doubt the Baptist Minister had accused Ellen White of claiming that man and beast had been hybridized because "ALLIED SPECIES" were capable, as a rule, of breeding and producing offspring and that the confused fruit of these unions would in turn start breeding among themselves resulting in this mongrel races sustaining themselves. Ellen's Apologist even quotes Lev 18: 23, 24 

"Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants".

Ellen's Apologists says he educated the Baptist Minister by referring him to an encyclopedia and Levitical text both of which discuss something that can only happen by a sex act. The Naturalists had long been claiming that particularly in Africa Negro's were closer to the Apes than white people were and were thus an "Allied Species". 

 

12 years before the above the Sabbath Herald of July 31, 1866, which says:

"OBJ. 37. The visions teach, says the objector, that the negro race is not human. We deny it. They do not so teach. Mark the language: " Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." This view was given ,for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood, that signal
manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation ; and the effect is still visible in certain " races of men." Mark, those excepting
the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men.", Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these :p|asses as races of men ; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above ? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of
the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm to tell just where the human ends, and the animal begins Can we suppose that, this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Bather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms? But,
says the objector, Paul says that " God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and they then add, " Which shall we believe, Paul or E. G. White ?" You need not disbelieve' E. G. White, in order to believe Paul; for there is no contradiction between them. Paul's language will apply to all classes of men who have any of the original Adamic blood in their veins ; and that there aro any who have not this, is not taught by the visions, nor claimed by any one. But for this text to
weigh anything in favor of the objector, be must take the ground that God made every particle of blood that exists in any human being. ' Is this so ? Then God made all the scrofulous, leprous, or syphilitic blood that courses in the the worst transgressor's veins! From any view: which leads to such a blasphemous conclusion, we prefer to be excused
."

I understand the contemporaries of Ellen White here to be defending her in that SDA's didn't say Blacks were not human or "MEN" - what they were arguing was that within SOME RACES of men was actual ANIMAL BLOOD, this animal blood was MIXED IN with the Adamic blood. The illustration is made that God didn't create syphilitic blood but man caused or created that problem by sexual sins - in the same way God did not create Ape or animal blood inside man - people did this by sexual choice or rape. 

"The Naturalists" the article refers to surmised that initially Orangutans and other Great Apes would abduct women and drag them deep into the jungle for long and brutal sexual sessions - if the girl survived this activity she would give birth to a hybrid ape/man or confused fruit. Eventually there were enough hybrids that whole cities of these ape-people existed and could sustain themselves by breeding.  It was believed that the Hottentot Tribe ( I think from the Cape area of Africa ) were resultant from an original ape rape. The Naturalists taught that a Hottentot women would sexually prostrate herself to an Ape because she preferred the Ape to a hybrid or pure man.

The Digger Indians were a different story as I couldn't find any mention of them by actual Naturalists. There was a circus circuit at the time that had what we today would call a freak show - these were mostly people with genetic or medical conditions that caused them to look radically different than the average person. There was a poor girl named "Julia Pantrana" 

Julia Pastrana: The Tragic Story of the Victorian Ape Woman: Hals Gylseth, Christopher, Toverud, Lars O.: 9780750933124: Amazon.com: Books

It's a sad but true story. Interesting to this discussion is how her handlers advertised her being resultant from her mother wondering into a mountainous region devoid of humans and being raped for days by an "unknown Ape species or perhaps by a Bear" the confused fruit born from this union was Julia Pastrana. I take it from this that many uneducated folks went to the circus, listened to the carnival barker tell the story about the "Victorian Ape Woman" - and perhaps paid a nickel to see Julia with their own eyes. Being uneducated, fed a line like that then seeing a person like Julia would "closed the deal". Its very possible that Ellen herself dropped a nickel into the pot as a young girl and witnessed something like this. 

See the source image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Theophilus said:

I read somewhere, and this made sense to me (don't laugh), that amalgamation of species had to do with creating ( loose term) beings that were not natural creatures, such as mermaids, mermen, centaurs, satyrs. 

Man was highly advanced back then and perhaps knew how to perform surgeries to make these creatures . That is where I understand the reason they were believed in. Of course, they did not make it through the Flood, but the memory of them was passed down.

 

Those things were from myths - I'm unaware of actual Naturalists affirming Amalgamation as it was understood that because Blacks were lower on "THE GREAT CHAIN OF BEING" they were close enough or "allied" with Apes so as to allow for impregnation. There is nothing I'm aware of in the historical record where a Naturalist asserted a man could have sex with a fish or a fish breeding a woman causing amalgamation / production of a merman / mermaid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

Those things were from myths - I'm unaware of actual Naturalists affirming Amalgamation as it was understood that because Blacks were lower on "THE GREAT CHAIN OF BEING" they were close enough or "allied" with Apes so as to allow for impregnation. There is nothing I'm aware of in the historical record where a Naturalist asserted a man could have sex with a fish or a fish breeding a woman causing amalgamation / production of a merman / mermaid. 

I know they are part of myths.  I thought it was cool but--->Not talking about sex. I am speaking of high surgical techniques that would put two species together--almost frankenstein-esque.

"There is nothing I'm aware of in the historical record where a Naturalist asserted a man could have sex with a fish or a fish breeding a woman causing amalgamation / production of a merman / mermaid."

That is really ickky and not at all what i was thinking or writing about. I brought up surgeries in my post-not sex. Yuk!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Theophilus said:

I know they are part of myths.  I thought it was cool but--->Not talking about sex. I am speaking of high surgical techniques that would put two species together--almost frankenstein-esque.

"There is nothing I'm aware of in the historical record where a Naturalist asserted a man could have sex with a fish or a fish breeding a woman causing amalgamation / production of a merman / mermaid."

That is really ickky and not at all what i was thinking or writing about. I brought up surgeries in my post-not sex. Yuk!

I see. 

I've not heard of high-tech surgical techniques that existed in antiquity. 

It does sound disturbing - Great Apes adducting young girls for their sexual pleasure and IF the woman survives the encounter she gives birth to confused fruit that is part mankind and part Ape. Unfortunately, MANY people believed this in the 1800's & Ellen White was one of them. Given it was such a common thought and believed by so many people its not accurate to say Ellen White was a nutjob for believing it - like everyone she was a product of her time and at that time hordes of uneducated people believed that apes could impregnate Negresses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the Amalgamation answer at the EGW Writings link and noticed the following things. 

The apologetic says amalgamation was used to describe the blending of metals and claims if Ellen meant what non-Adventists think Ellen would have used the term "cohabitation". I'm sure folks understand the preposterousness of suggesting that a woman sweeps and tends to the treehouse during the day while her male Ape lover forages for bananas and other food returning at dusk with the bounty it harvested, dinner is consumed to be followed by brutal fornication. I don't think so.

The above is ALIEN to any Naturalist I've read - what the Naturalists claimed is that the Apes would abduct (against their will) a Negress and pack them up into the upper canopy of the jungle, essentially rape them and if the girl survived the ordeal she would later stumble into the village and 9 months later produce fruit that was confused. 

For the EGW Writings suggestion to be true it would mean that:

  • The Baptist Minister referenced in the 1866 Sabbath Herald believed Ellen White to be saying an animal could impregnate a human & vise-versa.
  • The SDA Apologist defending Ellen White believed Ellen White believed an animal could impregnate a woman. 
  • The SDA Apologist defending Ellen White believed that the Johnson's New Cyclopedia supported Ellen's position that a woman could be successfully bred by an animal.

The 1866 Sabbath Herald that quotes Johnson' s Cyclopedia states that "ALLIED SPECICIES" are capable of pairing (breeding) and producing offspring and the apologist states, "JUST EXACTLY WHAT SISTER WHITE SAYS" (notice Ellen's apologist is contemporary to her). THIS is exactly what the Naturalists had been claiming for over 200 years. Oh, and James White was the president and Editor of that particular Sabbath Herald which means Ellen's own husband understood Ellen White in the same way the Baptist Minister did. 

I can tell you that Naturalists indeed claimed that there had been Ape hybridization in the Hottentot and Wild Bushman tribes. I openly admit I couldn't find any Naturalists claiming that Apes had bred Digger Indians but if we closely look at the Sabbath Herald the answer is given by the author of that statement. The author suggested it WAS POSSIBLE but not proven.

"But does anyone deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarcation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion." 

Below is a few pictures of what was in the Naturalist books available at the time. 

 

image.png

The below image is from an 1851 Book titled "THE RACES OF MEN" - care was taken to geometrically compare a European, Negro & Orangutan. 

 

image.png

 

In the 1874 Edition of "THE EVOLUTION OF MAN" it again is asserted that Blacks were more allied to the Great Apes than were Whites and thus were able to breed and produce offspring.

 

image.png

 

This shouldn't be a shock to anyone, this isn't saying that Ellen White was a racist or anything like that - these things were fairly common belief at the time and like each and everyone of us - we are all a product of the time we live in. I can appreciate how this looks in the context of "Spirit of Prophecy" but it is what it is. It simply means that she got this one wrong.

For an extensive list of Naturalist books and quotes of how Apes would breed African Women and produce confused fruit get the excellent book "IMAGES OF SAVAGES". This is not a religious book, its a book about how modern prejudice in western culture can be traced back to the ancient Greek and Roman era and up through today. There is a large section on "NATURALISTS" which the general public held in high regard in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many of the quotes are likely to graphic for this forum however they do easily establish what was being taught and what was generally believed by the uneducated in the 1800's. 

See the source image

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"I just read the Amalgamation answer at the EGW Writings link and noticed the following things." 

What the Naturalists believed may be interesting to you but that's what they believed, not what EGW believed or stated. She may well have been misunderstood by U. Smith and others. Again, not her problem although her editors could have prevented the confusion by inserting the word "of" as in the "amalgamation of man and of beast." The way it appears it does look like she was saying that men and beasts joined together through amalgamation. The larger context of what she wrote does indicate that the amalgamation she spoke of referred to the intermarriage of the children of Cain and the children of Seth.

The following explanation is the most plausible:

"We believe that the meaning of the key phrase in question is found by understanding it to read: “amalgamation of man and [of] beast.” Thus the passage would be speaking of the amalgamation of different races of mankind and the amalgamation of different races of animals. The grammatical construction and common usage permit us to understand “of” as being implied."

All the illustrations you provide from Naturalist partisans are  irrelevant to EGW. Good reason to believe that she meant that animals amalgamated with each other and humans amalgamated with each other. The anti-EGW crowd prefers to misinterpret her.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
41 minutes ago, GHansen said:

All the illustrations you provide from Naturalist partisans are  irrelevant to EGW. Good reason to believe that she meant that animals amalgamated with each other and humans amalgamated with each other. The anti-EGW crowd prefers to misinterpret her.

I would tend to believe that instead of what those that want to denigrate EGW want to believe!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I would tend to believe that instead of what those that want to denigrate EGW want to believe!!

its (the E.G.W Writings Apologetic) untenable - a nonstarter. Here's why.

"But if there was one sin above another which call for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the BASE CRIME OF AMALGAMATION OF MAN AND BEAST which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere". 

"Every species of ANIMAL which God had created were preserved in the ark. THE CONFUSED SPECIES [of animal] which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man AND beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, AND IN CERTAIN races of men." 

As I've already demonstrated here in the forum Ellen White believed that God (the Father only) had a body of FLESH, complete with all the organs, members and parts of a perfect man. This "pillar doctrine" was called "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD". Thus, when SDA's at the time of Ellen White stated that man was created in the image of God they didn't believe like the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. The SDA's believed that man actually looked like God, who was a tangible flesh, bone and blood hominid. 

Ellen White stated that the amalgamation of man and beast DEFACED THE IMAGE OF GOD. SDA believed man was in the physical appearance of God therefore the amalgamation of man and beast is what she said caused the defacing - Ellen, under her charism, stated that after the flood, IN CERTAIN RACES OF MEN, COULD BE SEEN AMALGAMATION. 

The ONLY races speculated to have been amalgamated with animals in the 17th, 18th & 19th centuries were BLACK. In the SDA Pioneer rubric two different animals breeding and producing offspring couldn't deface the image of God because God didn't look like an Orangutan, horse or an elephant. If an animal however COULD breed a woman and produce fruit that fruit indeed would qualify as defacing the image of God to any living SDA in the 1800's. 

 

(A)

James White, a White man with full Adamic Blood

See related image detail

Vs.

(B)

Orangutan with zero "Adamic Blood"

Image result for side profile orangutan

 

(C)

Black Woman with full Adamic Blood

See related image detail

B abducts C, and while C is in B's custody C is raped and bred

in 9 months C gives birth to 

(D)

Hottentot with some Adamic Blood and some animal Orangutan blood.

See related image detail

Real pictures of Hottentot tribal members can be seen on the internet but because many are inappropriate for the forum I'm only providing this artist's rendering. 

Like it or not Ellen stated that amalgamation could be seen within certain races of men - the folks who defended Ellen publicly in the Sabbath Herald omitted the White race and just happened to side with the Naturalists who stated that amalgamation could be observed within the Black races in the Hottentot and Wild Bushman tribes. Ellen could have easily written a clarification in the next Sabbath Herald, she could have straightened everyone very quickly but instead opted to sit on her duff and watch as Church Apologists defended her by appealing to Naturalists. 

I'm not seeing what the big deal is with admitting Ellen was simply wrong here - I'm not saying she was a racist because I don't believe she was - I don't believe she had any ill will toward what she believed to be man-apes. She was simply hedging her bets with what at that time were the rock stars of the era - the Naturalists. Get the Book images of savages, read it than read Ellen's amalgamation statements again and follow them up with the SDA Apologists who defended Ellen in the Sabbath Herald. You will see clearly then. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

ts (the E.G.W Writings Apologetic) untenable - a nonstarter. Here's why.

Gustave, By reading Spiritual Gifts (vol. 3, ch.7) and the Spirit of Prophecy  volume (vol. 1, ch.7) that deal with the flood, it becomes clearer that the defacing of God's image in man was caused by the amalgamation of the children of Seth and the children of Cain. Note the following:

"The descendants of Seth
were called the sons of God—the descendants of Cain, the sons of
men. As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became
corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence
of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the
sons of Cain in their idolatry."

You can see here that EGW uses different words to express the same idea as the amalgamation statement. She says the sons of God "mingled" with the sons of Cain and through intermarriage, their holy character  was lost. Here she uses the word "mingled" instead of "amalgamated."

I'd like to see your sources for your statement about White's views on the physicality of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, By reading Spiritual Gifts (vol. 3, ch.7) and the Spirit of Prophecy  volume (vol. 1, ch.7) that deal with the flood, it becomes clearer that the defacing of God's image in man was caused by the amalgamation of the children of Seth and the children of Cain. Note the following:

"The descendants of Seth
were called the sons of God—the descendants of Cain, the sons of
men. As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became
corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence
of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the
sons of Cain in their idolatry."

You can see here that EGW uses different words to express the same idea as the amalgamation statement. She says the sons of God "mingled" with the sons of Cain and through intermarriage, their holy character  was lost. Here she uses the word "mingled" instead of "amalgamated."

I'd like to see your sources for your statement about White's views on the physicality of God.

You're saying that amalgamation (in Ellen's understanding) was synonymous with a true believer getting married or shacking up with a non-believer and that this act in and of itself "defaced the image of God"? I just want to make sure I'm understanding you. 

Begs the question - which certain races did Ellen White see lost holy character, idolatry, etc.? 

I'll dig up the Personality of God stuff - with how well read you are I'm doubting you are unaware of this early Adventist bedrock teaching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gustave said:

You're saying that amalgamation (in Ellen's understanding) was synonymous with a true believer getting married or shacking up with a non-believer and that this act in and of itself "defaced the image of God"? I just want to make sure I'm understanding you. 

Begs the question - which certain races did Ellen White see lost holy character, idolatry, etc.? 

I'll dig up the Personality of God stuff - with how well read you are I'm doubting you are unaware of this early Adventist bedrock teaching. 

EGW wrote within a certain framework. In her view, the children of Seth did not feel God's curses as heavily as did the children of Cain, The children of Cain felt the curse more heavily in their "stature" and "nobleness of form" as well as their character [see SOP v. 1 ,Ch. 7, Par.1]. Naturally, when these groups intermarried, the children of Seth were defiled. The image of God i.e., physical and moral characteristics inherited through Seth were defaced. This is not some fantastic science fiction/horror show. It's the natural result of good people being corrupted by bad ones. It happens all the time. Some of the expressions White/her editors used are different than what people today might say but the ideas are the same. 

I'm unaware of the teachings regarding God's nature to which you refer, i.e.,  "As I've already demonstrated here in the forum Ellen White believed that God (the Father only) had a body of FLESH, complete with all the organs, members and parts of a perfect man. This "pillar doctrine" was called "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD"."  Sorry if I'm unaware of what you demonstrated or such a teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GHansen said:

EGW wrote within a certain framework. In her view, the children of Seth did not feel God's curses as heavily as did the children of Cain, The children of Cain felt the curse more heavily in their "stature" and "nobleness of form" as well as their character [see SOP v. 1 ,Ch. 7, Par.1]. Naturally, when these groups intermarried, the children of Seth were defiled. The image of God i.e., physical and moral characteristics inherited through Seth were defaced. This is not some fantastic science fiction/horror show. It's the natural result of good people being corrupted by bad ones. It happens all the time. Some of the expressions White/her editors used are different than what people today might say but the ideas are the same. 

I'm unaware of the teachings regarding God's nature to which you refer, i.e.,  "As I've already demonstrated here in the forum Ellen White believed that God (the Father only) had a body of FLESH, complete with all the organs, members and parts of a perfect man. This "pillar doctrine" was called "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD"."  Sorry if I'm unaware of what you demonstrated or such a teaching.

This honestly is sounding similar to "the mark of Cain" teaching the south was promulgating in the early 1850's claiming that the mark of Cain and curse of Ham was black skin. 

"Upon Ham was pronounced the doom of perpetual servitude—proclaimed with double emphasis, as it is twice repeated that he shall be the servant of Japheth and the servant of Shem. Accordingly, history records not a single example of any member of this group lifting itself, by any process of self-development, above the savage condition. From first to last their mental and moral characteristics, together with the guidance of Providence, have marked them for servitude; while their comparative advance in civilization and their participation in the blessings of salvation, have ever been suspended upon this decreed connexion [sic] with Japhet [sic] and with Shem".

 

Not to worry, I'll dig up the corpus of the SDA Personality of God Doctrine and go over what I know of it. I realize that the SDA Church has more or less moved away from this teaching but back when they were a militant anti-Trinitarian Church (while Ellen was alive) the P.O.G. was a big deal - it was literally the glue that held everything together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

This honestly is sounding similar to "the mark of Cain" teaching the south was promulgating in the early 1850's claiming that the mark of Cain and curse of Ham was black skin. 

Gustave, Some people are determined to demonstrate that White was a racist, a lunatic, whatever. The fact is that the amalgamation statements can be understood in a way that make complete sense, especially when the context is considered. The children of Seth were defiled through intercourse with the children of Cain.  The descendants of Cain [not Ham] upon whom the murderer's curse rested were worse off than the children of Seth, who were trying to serve God but were eventually defiled through amalgamation with the children of Cain. This motif appears throughout Scripture, one group defiling another, e.g., Israel at Midian, King Solomon, the days of Nehemiah. Nothing racist or contrary to science/common sense here.

There are many statements on the personality of God in White's writings. Many have to do with Kellogg's book--"Living Temple." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, Some people are determined to demonstrate that White was a racist, a lunatic, whatever. The fact is that the amalgamation statements can be understood in a way that make complete sense, especially when the context is considered. The children of Seth were defiled through intercourse with the children of Cain.  The descendants of Cain [not Ham] upon whom the murderer's curse rested were worse off than the children of Seth, who were trying to serve God but were eventually defiled through amalgamation with the children of Cain. This motif appears throughout Scripture, one group defiling another, e.g., Israel at Midian, King Solomon, the days of Nehemiah. Nothing racist or contrary to science/common sense here.

There are many statements on the personality of God in White's writings. Many have to do with Kellogg's book--"Living Temple." 

I'm not one who believes Ellen was a racist. I do believe she took material from others and passed it off as her own. If we could transport ourselves back to that time and take polls of what the general public believed we'd find that many people believed that certain peoples within Africa were resultant from Ape breeding. 

When you look at Ellen's statements on amalgamation you are left with the understanding she believed a beast could impregnate a woman. When you look at how the Sabbath Herald articulates how a Baptist Pastor and other individual took issue with Ellen's amalgamation statements you know beyond any doubt that they understood Ellen to be saying beasts had been breeding women. Finally when you read SDA's contemporary to Ellen that defended her amalgamation statements in the Sabbath Herald there is zero doubt that they understood the task at hand was to prove that indeed beasts could breed woman and had done so - to accomplish this they quoted Levitical texts about people / beast sex and naturalists affirming that there indeed had been interbreeding going on between Blacks and Apes. 

Certainly apologists the SDA Church put forth in the Sabbath Herald to defend Ellen White were aware of SOP Chapter 7 part 1 but none of that is used to defend Ellen's statements - instead the SDA apologists quote Naturalists well known for affirming that interbreeding was so common between Africans and Apes that when male Apes weren't abducting women - female Apes and other apes would catch the attention of a black man and "prostrate themselves" for servicing. I can appreciate how a devout member of a religion would take issue with bringing these kinds of points up - the optics are not good. 

As to the other topic,

The Personality of God Doctrine in the early SDA Church maintained that all other Churches had drank deep of the wine of Babylon and accepted the lie that God (which was understood to be the Father only) DIDN'T have a hominid body of flesh with members organ and parts - the same as a perfect man. 

The Sabbath Hearld excoriated the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists and others for maintaining that Father lacked a "Body". As soon as I have some time I'll start providing materials. The P.O.G. was in force until after the death of Ellen White. Its true that some of the statements pertaining to it were around the Kellogg issue - most of the work I did on this subject was prior to that. Kellogg became a Trinitarian and this definitely flew in the face of the P.O.G.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gustave said:

When you look at Ellen's statements on amalgamation you are left with the understanding she believed a beast could impregnate a woman. When you look at how the Sabbath Herald articulates how a Baptist Pastor and other individual took issue with Ellen's amalgamation statements you know beyond any doubt that they understood Ellen to be saying beasts had been breeding women. Finally when you read SDA's contemporary to Ellen that defended her amalgamation statements in the Sabbath Herald there is zero doubt that they understood the task at hand was to prove that indeed beasts could breed woman and had done so - to accomplish this they quoted Levitical texts about people / beast sex and naturalists affirming that there indeed had been interbreeding going on between Blacks and Apes. 

I'm not at all left with the impression that a beast could impregnate a woman. Not sure who the "you" in your remark pertains to but certainly not me. What others understood EGW to be saying is irrelevant. What does matter is her intended meaning. Please  note the following from Selected Messages book 1

"I know that many men take the testimonies
the Lord has given, and apply them as they suppose they should be
applied, picking out a sentence here and there, taking it from its
proper connection, and applying it according to their idea. Thus
poor souls become bewildered, when could they read in order all
that has been given, they would see the true application, and would
not become confused. Much that purports to be a message from
Sister White, serves the purpose of misrepresenting Sister White,
making her testify in favor of things that are not in accordance with
her mind or judgment." 

She is describing almost exactly what has been done with the amalgamation statements.  Spirit of Prophecy vol. 1 chapter 7 provides context indicating that the amalgamation to which she referred was the mingling of the children of Seth and the children of Cain. If you don't see that, there is nothing more that I can say. Interestingly, I heard the word "amalgamation" used in the TV series Downton Abbey. They were discussing the merger of 2 hospitals and referred to it as an "amalgamation." This fictional dialogue took place in the 1920s.

As for your claims about the importance of your version of the "personality of God" doctrine in early Adventism, the denomination didn't exist until 1863. I've read dozens of her books, volumes of her periodical articles and manuscript releases. I don't recall anything close to your claims about the importance of that teaching. EGW defined the "old landmarks" as follows: 9 lists a.) the 3 angels’ messages of Revelation 13; b.) the commandments of God; c.) the faith of Jesus; d.) the temple of God in heaven; e.) the Sabbath; f.) the nonimmortality of the wicked. “I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks.   Ellen G. White, Manuscript 13, 1889

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares” (Ms. 65, 1899, in Selected Messages, vol. 2, pg. 288).

“Those who profess to be followers of Christ . . . [and have] union with the world, the character of God’s people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim” (Review and Herald, Aug. 23, 1892).

 

Examples of EGW's use of the word "amalgamation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

Quote

GHansen:

I'm not at all left with the impression that a beast could impregnate a woman. Not sure who the "you" in your remark pertains to but certainly not me. What others understood EGW to be saying is irrelevant. 

 What I'm saying is that the people contemporary with Ellen White believed that was EXACTLY what she said - remember she was "THE PROPHET" who exercised the Spirit of Prophecy, and one would certainly think that the Holy Spirit wasn't the author of confusion, would they? 

The Baptist Minister believed Ellen meant that, the SDA Apologists who defended Ellen Publicly in the Sabbath Herald definitely thought that she said that - that's why they directed the Baptist Minister to Encyclopedias that claimed "Allied Species" could pair and produce offspring - that's why the SDA Apologists quoted Levitical texts describing Bestiality and quoted "Naturalists" who affirmed apes indeed mated with humans and in so doing produced "the monstrous races" like the Hottentots, Bushmen peoples and some of the North American Indian tribes. Below are some examples.

 

"One cannot say that man results from the sexual union of two human beings, IT BEING WELL KNOWN THAT MAN AND APE CAN PROCREATE TOGETHER" John Locke Book III Chapter 6 section 23

 

"I do not think that an Orang Outan husband would be a dishoner to a Hottentot female; for what are the Hottentots, they are a people certainly stupidand very brutal. In many respects they are more like beasts than man". Edward Long, history of Jamaica 1774 Vol 2 page 364

"Orangutans do not seem at all inferior in their intellectual faculties to many of the negro race; with some of whom it IS CREDIBLE THAT THEY HAVE THE MOST INTIMATE CONNEXION AND CONSANGUINITY. THE AMOROUS INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THEM MAY BE FREQUENT, THE NEGROS THEMSELVES BEAR TESTIMONY THAT SUCH INTERCOURSE ACTUALLY HAPPENS; AND IT IS CERTAIN THAT BOTH RACES AGREE PERFECTLY WELL IN LASCIVIOUSNESS OF DISPOSITION." Celebrated Naturalists Edward Long History of Jamaica 1774 volume 2 page 370

"One could presume that hairy savages are half-breeds of apes and women... How many negreses, surprised by libertine troop of satyrs, in the African forests, could have begotten half-breeds? How many of the female Jackos, wild Messalinas, have voluntarily prostituted themselves to the ardour of Africans. ONE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF LOVE GOES ON IN THESE ANCIENT FORESTS, WHERE THE HEAT OF THE CLIMATE, THE BRUTAL LIFE OF THE INHABITANTS, THE SOLITUDE AND THE DELIRIUM OF PASSION, WITHOUT LAW, RELIGION, MORALS, CAN LEAD TO DARING EVERTHING; AND THESE DEGRAGED BEINGS, THESE MONSTERS HALF-WAY BETWEEN HUMANS AND APES... WILL LONG REMAIN A MYSTERY TO US." VIREY 1826 Volume 2 pp 400-1 

"Not only solitary savages, but a whole nation, have been found without the use of speech. This is the case of the Ouran Outangs, that are found in the kingdom of Angola in Africa, and in several parts of Asia. They are exactly of the human form, walking erect, not upon all fours, like the savages that have been found in Europe; they use sticks for weapons; they live in society; they make huts of branches of trees AND THEY CARRRY OFF NEGRO GRLSL, WOHM THEY MAKE SLAVES OF, AND USE FOR BOTH WORK AND PLEASURE.... THEY ARE OF OUR SPECIES, AND THOUGH THEY HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS IN THE ARTS OF LIFE THEY HAVE NOT COME THE LENGTH OF LANGUAGE." On the origin and progress of language / Monboddo

"Their language is rather apishly than articulately sounded, WITH WHOM TIS THOUGHT THEY HAVE UNNATURAL MIXTURE, SO AS WHAT THE COMMENTATOR OBSERVED LONG SINCE THAT HTEY HAVE A VOICE TWIXT HUMANE AND BEAST, MAKES THE SUPPOSITION TO BE OF MORE CREDIT, THAT THEY HAVE BEASTLY COPULATION OR CONJUNCTURE. SO AS CONSIDERING THE RESEMBLANCE THEY BEAR WITH BABOONS, WHICH I COULD OBSERVE KEPT FREQUENT COMPANY WITH WOMEN, THEIR SPEECH..... RATHER AGREEITH BEASTS HEN MEN. NOW WHAT PHILOPOPHERS ALLEADGE CONCERNING THE FUNCTION OF THE SOUL, MAY BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THESE ANIMALS, SAYING, THAT THE SOUL OF MAN GRADUALLY RATHER THAN SPECIFICALLY DIFFERENCED FROM THE SOULS OF BEASTS. UPON WHICH THE SPANIARD OF LATE YEARS MADE IT THE SUBJECT OF THEIR DISPUTE. WHETHER THE INDIANS WERE OF DISCENT FROM ADAM, OR NO? OR WHETHER THEY WERE NOT RATHER AMIDDLE SPECIES OF MAN AND APE." Herbert 1665, p. 19 emphases in original

I found some rather eyebrow raising comments in the Sabbath Heard about Hottentots but will refrain from posting them here - anyone interested can simply do a search on the archive site and read them for themselves. There is zero doubt Ellen White meant mixing of MAN AND BEAST - you can determine this from comparing Ellen's two statements from MULTIPLE uses of the words "amalgamation of" in the SDA archives - there are more than enough examples to satisfy even the most ardent critic that Ellen said exactly what the Baptist Minister and SDA Apologists living at the same time said she said. 

Quote

GHansen:

s for your claims about the importance of your version of the "personality of God" doctrine in early Adventism, the denomination didn't exist until 1863. I've read dozens of her books, volumes of her periodical articles and manuscript releases. I don't recall anything close to your claims about the importance of that teaching.

 

Read The Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878 issue Volume 52 Number 10

Starting on the 1st page the article titled "The Personality of God" This is one of the most if not most anti-Trinitarian pieces anyone can find in the Sabbath Herald, Signs of the Times or any SDA publication. This article is years after the SDA Denomination formed. 

Now, I realize and appreciate that TODAY there are SDA members who don't agree with that article and would say Ellen White was WRONG or mistaken in her theology at that time, the SDA Church has changed, etc. I accept that. What I'm saying is that this Personality of God thing played 1st chair in SDA Theology while Ellen White was alive. 

 

Sabbath Herald, October 8, 1903, article title Personality of God

"OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from. the Spiritualist's, ,the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint
of any other " ist " or " ism," it makes but little or no difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists
it makes all the difference in the world. No man who is a Seventh-day Adventist can understandingly take that
position; neither can 'a Seventh-day Adventist 'hold that position for a moment. In it is involved a denial of the " Father
and the Son," the law of Moses, the prophets, the psalms, the holy angels, the personality of the devil, and all that is
according to sound doctrine
."

Quote

GHansen said:

I don't recall anything close to your claims about the importance of that teaching. EGW defined the "old landmarks" as follows: 9 lists a.) the 3 angels’ messages of Revelation 13; b.) the commandments of God; c.) the faith of Jesus; d.) the temple of God in heaven; e.) the Sabbath; f.) the nonimmortality of the wicked. “I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks.   Ellen G. White, Manuscript 13, 1889

 

Here,

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.” {E. G. White, Manuscript Release No.760, p. 9} 1905

In a nutshell what I've been saying for something like 20 years now is that the Personality of God Doctrine as articulated in SDA Publications between 1854 to slightly past the death of Ellen White is NOT COMPATIBLE with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

I think even PHKrause would confirm I've been bringing this up since the beginning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Gustave said:

What I'm saying is that the people contemporary with Ellen White believed that was EXACTLY what she said -

So what she wrote was misunderstood by others. Not unusual in her day or even now.

"As I've already demonstrated here in the forum Ellen White believed that God (the Father only) had a body of FLESH, complete with all the organs, members and parts of a perfect man. This "pillar doctrine" was called "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD".

This is what interests me, that EGW or early SDA believed that the Father had a body of flesh, complete with organs.

I was unaware of the statement that included the personality of God with  the pillars or landmarks. The statement you quoted was written in 1903, most likely referencing Kellogg's book, "Living Temple." The issue with "Living Temple" was pantheism.

We are discussing 2 separate issues here, amalgamation and the personality of God. The amalgamation statements are a non issue for me. What others believed she said or meant only indicates that her editors might have done a better job. I'd have to read "Living Temple" get up to speed on the personality of God issue; however, the issue with that book was pantheism, not whether God had a human body. That's what interested me, EGW statements affirming that the Father had a human body of flesh with organs, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GHansen said:

So what she wrote was misunderstood by others. Not unusual in her day or even now.

"As I've already demonstrated here in the forum Ellen White believed that God (the Father only) had a body of FLESH, complete with all the organs, members and parts of a perfect man. This "pillar doctrine" was called "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD".

This is what interests me, that EGW or early SDA believed that the Father had a body of flesh, complete with organs.

I was unaware of the statement that included the personality of God with  the pillars or landmarks. The statement you quoted was written in 1903, most likely referencing Kellogg's book, "Living Temple." The issue with "Living Temple" was pantheism.

We are discussing 2 separate issues here, amalgamation and the personality of God. The amalgamation statements are a non issue for me. What others believed she said or meant only indicates that her editors might have done a better job. I'd have to read "Living Temple" get up to speed on the personality of God issue; however, the issue with that book was pantheism, not whether God had a human body. That's what interested me, EGW statements affirming that the Father had a human body of flesh with organs, etc.

Let me know once you've read the August 29, 1878 Sabbath Herald. That's where we will start as far as Ellen's belief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen: 

I was unaware of the statement that included the personality of God with  the pillars or landmarks. The statement you quoted was written in 1903, most likely referencing Kellogg's book, "Living Temple." The issue with "Living Temple" was pantheism.

Kellogg had become to "believe in the Trinity" and that flew in the face of the Personality of God Doctrine. A rejection of the P.O.G. Doctrine was Pantheism because it denied God's Personality (material body), thus Trinitarianism was understood to be a form of Pantheism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Kellogg had become to "believe in the Trinity" and that flew in the face of the Personality of God Doctrine. A rejection of the P.O.G. Doctrine was Pantheism because it denied God's Personality (material body), thus Trinitarianism was understood to be a form of Pantheism. 

44 minutes ago, Gustave said:

 

That's absolutely false, Gustave.  Kellogg's issue was pantheism.  If you read the first chapter of Living Temple, it is very obvious what is intended by the term pantheism. It's God being manifested throughout nature, which is what Kellogg was saying in Living Temple. Probably the entire issue can be understood with a simple quote: image.png

Living Temple, page 28

God in nature, not outside of it. 

When you refer to the Sabbath Herald, do you mean the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GHansen said:

That's absolutely false, Gustave.  Kellog's issue was pantheism.  If you read the first chapter of Living Temple, it is very obvious what is intended by the term pantheism. It's God being manifested throughout nature, which is what Kellogg was saying in Living Temple. Probably the entire issue can be understood with a simple quote:

Living Temple, page 28

God in nature, not outside of it. 

I look forward to our conversation. Let me know once you've read that Sabbath Herald I've referenced above - we will get to Kellogg for sure and can have an exchange of ideas on what he did and didn't believe. The 1st thing we need to do is establish what the Personality of God doctrine was and what Ellen White said about it's importance as articulated by the SDA Pioneers. I think that's important to do. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...