Critics towards Ellen White (3)
PAGES:
"The children of Israel would have flesh meats, and said, as many now say, We shall die without meat. God gave rebellious Israel flesh, but His curse was with it. Thousands of them died while the meat they desired was between their teeth." - Ellen
See how radical she is?!
There are two parts of the bible that talks about that, Exodus and Numbers.
Let's start with Numbers:
She ignores that the Israelite said: "also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic" (Numbers 11:5).
And they have not said "we shall die without meat", but: "and the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting; and the children of Israel also wept on their part" (verse 4). That means they were lusting for the "good food" they had, and not meat exactly, but their life-style.
Her angry is so focused on the meat-eating that she ignored that the Israelite were also lusting for vegetables. God anger was not because they desired meat, but because they were ungrateful, God had feed them with a miraculous food and even then they complained! For real!
Imagine it for yourself, some beggar is dying of hunger, and you go to a baker and buy some bread and give to said beggar and he says "only a bread? Why don't you add some hamburger with cucumbers on it? I don't want bread! I remember that before i was a beggar i used to eat hamburger with cucumbers, onions, tomatoes and i would eat a melon after it, and you give me only bread?". It would be very disappointing for you, don't?!
Come on, using the Occam's Razor, what interpretation of this chapter makes more sense? Mine or Ellen's one?
If you consider the verse 4 and 5, then we can see here that is it not the flesh, she took the verse 4 "would that we were given flesh to eat" to affirm her bias. She ignored that what they were complaining was that in Egypt they were living "the good life", eating a full banquet, and now they are on the desert eating only this boring manna. They were freed from the Egyptians, then got hungry, ignored all that God made for them, because they lusted to their fancy banquets from the past.
We can see here it is not about meat, but because they got bored with ONLY manna:
"But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!" (verse 6).
It is pretty clear that the problem is because it was ONLY manna, and not about meat, could even have some melon and cucumber, but no, it is ONLY manna!
We can see here that the problem was not about the food, it is about the disrespect:
"Because you have rejected the Lord, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, "Why did we ever leave Egypt?"" - Numbers 11:20.
See? God is not mad about the food, but mad that because that even when God saved them from Egypt, they were desiring to be in Egypt from lust. They disrespected that God miraculously gave them food, which shows that they are safe and under the protection of God, and they were still arrogant to say they would rather be in Egypt, not because meat, but because meat, cucumbers, onions, leek, melons, garlic... And maybe not only that, but all the comfort they had in Egypt.
I see it more like this:
"Omg, i had such a good life in Egypt, eating some meat and melons, in the comfort of my home, resting is a bed... And now i'm on the desert eating manna and living like a nomad beggar in stupid tents."
Since i believe Adventists will cherry-pick verse 34: "because there they buried the people who had craved other food". It is prudent for me to remember "other food" is not only meat.
Now let's look at Exodus:
"The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.”" - Exodus 16:3
"Meat and ate all the food we wanted", very clear, it was not about meat, but "all the food we wanted", i don't need to repeat what i said about Numbers 11, Israelite people were lusting for the "good life" and the rich banquet they had, it is not about meat, but their ungratefulness, God saved then, and they would rather DIE in Egypt. Especially for something so silly that is getting bored of eating manna.
With the phrase "starve this entire assembly to death", it is not about meat, they were on the desert, where there is lack of food, the only food they got is manna. By their unfaithfulness, they were ungrateful and though they were going to die. It is not about meat, but how in Egypt they wouldn't be worrying about food, they had both meat AND all the food they wanted, and now they are worried about death (lack of faith). Maybe you would too if you were wandering "lost" in the desert and had no faith in God and the only food that you have eaten was some bread flocks from the sky, then remembering that in your house you could eat meat and melons.
At verse 4: "In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions". In this we can see that God knows it all and knew they would fail and made them bored of manna as a test.
Manna was a test of obedience, and not "God showing what food he wants people to eat".
There is nothing in the bible that confirms what Ellen said, she is taking this out of nowhere, of her own head, because she is a bitter vegetarian just like we see in modern days. I have heard (anecdotal) vegans and vegetarians that tried to throw on Christians face the "killing animals is bad, that is not Godly, because killing is bad and God is good", so it isn't far from Ellen's attitude.
Another example of how wrong she is, is that God have not complained about giving quail to be eaten at Exodus 16.
If God disliked so much that they eat meat, why would God offer quail for them? Or at least be like "i don't wanted you to eat quail, because i dislike people that eat meat, but whatever". Nah, God is totally careless about eating quail.
"Many who are now only half converted on the question of meat eating will go from God's people to walk no more with them." - Ellen
If you are not fully convinced, go to hell! Haha, ok, i'm being hyperbolic, not sure if that is what she meant with that, however, she truly said that even if one is in doubt, this one should be separated from "God's people", you can see how bitter she is about this topic, it is ludicrous! If Jesus ate meat, then, God's people should not walk with Jesus? For real...
If your kid (that is immature and prone to do mistakes) is disobedient, unfaithful and unholy, should have been better if they were not even born: words of a peaceful non-meat-eater.
https://answeringadventism.com/did-ellen-white-claim-god-hates-some-children/
"Some parents allow Satan to control their children, and their children are not restrained, but are allowed to have wicked tempers, to be passionate, selfish, and disobedient. Should they die, these children would not be taken to heaven. The parents’ course of action is determining the future welfare of their children. If they allow them to be disobedient and passionate, they are allowing Satan to take them in charge and work through them as shall please his satanic majesty; and these children, never educated to obedience and to lovely traits of character, will not be taken to heaven, for the same temper and disposition would be revealed in them." - Peaceful Ellen that eats foods that doesn't make her violent
Ellen white said that reading fiction destroys the spirituality and dwarf the intellect (but she hypocritically have read and made it herself):
https://nonegw.org/contra10.shtml
I literally jaw-dropped after reading this quote:
"Thousands are today in the insane asylum whose minds became unbalanced by novel reading" - Ellen
Ok, as i stated in the beginning of 'PAGE 1', i just read the bible, scientific articles and technical text, i'm not a fan of fiction and novel. However, this is me. I also have not told in that page that i'm against other types of text, especially fiction or novels, which i have not even mentioned. But, to be ignorant at the point of believing such texts makes people go to insane asylum, that is ludicrous, i really can't believe someone would have the audacity of saying such stuff. I believe this kind of text is alike art, and explore our fantasy and imaginative world, and i understand how this could in fact improve our mind and creativity.
In my taste, i'm a huge music lover, and i made hundreds of music myself, that is how i develop my artistic sense. And in fact i recommend that people have a sort of art to follow, be it visual art, music, dance, cinema, literature and etc... Even all types of art if someone really dedicate time for it, i don't have such time, i'm a very productive person and it is uncommon that i'm doing some passive activity. My texts are kind of a proof of it.
I'm talking too much to be honest, i just wanted to clarify my position about that and be clear about who i'm, and i think it is a general consensus that such quote is beyond unbelievable.
There is lot of evidences that Ellen was in fact a racist!
!!! NOTE !!!
I really don't wanted to clarify that i'm not racist at all, just in case if you think somehow that i might be. Since there is indeed literal racists in the world, maybe i should be clear that i'm not. I REALLY hate bringing politics in my texts, since i think politics are in fact a distraction, the time i'm thinking about politic would be better used to meditation and praying. I also think political conflict is in fact a hidden paganism, people that know me, and saw other articles from me, knows that i believe that almost the whole society and customs are hidden paganism.
And also because politics always brings the worse of people, even when having a common ground. Whenever i touch politics on any production i have, i feel very anxious, and it is very likely that i'm going to delete / destroy such production don't matter how factual and agreeable it is.
However, in this topic, i also need to be clear that i'm *not* woke at all. If you don't know what 'woke' means (as a slang), in simple terms, it is the type of people that find sociopolitical problems on every tiny detail and harshly fight against it.
I think i need to clarify that, so people understand that i'm not here claiming someone is racist at the same POV of certain types of individuals that are more radical in terms of race politics. In simple terms, i'm not the type of people that keep yelling on the streets for collectivism.
When i'm to consider Ellen's racism, i'm not talking from the POV of someone that find racism behind every bush and every wall.
https://nonsda.org/egw/egw62.shtml
https://nonsda.org/egw/critica.shtml
Let's begin with certain suspicious activity, i know people might call me "woke" for pointing these ones, especially that, i, myself, like to understand my adversaries mentalities, and i have PDFs that i disagree with (i have a lot of pagans PDFs). So, i'm going to leave that for the 'benefit of the doubt'.
But Ellen forbid the reading of the anti-slavery book Uncle Tom's Cabin with strong words. I can give the 'benefit of the doubt' here, because people can claim that her problem was about fiction books and not about it being an anti-slavery book.
I, myself, have never read this book, i'm not here to judge if the book is good, accurate, or whatever, and i don't care at all about this book, i don't need a book like that to perceive that racism is wrong. However, i wouldn't, in no way, prohibit someone from reading such book.
The problem is not the prohibition of said book, it is that it was found that she had literal racist fiction books herself. And so, she can't give two measures, right?! If she is to prohibit Uncle Tom's Cabin for being a fiction, then she should also prohibit herself from the racist books she had:
- The Clansman, by Thomas Dixon
- The Leopard's Spots, by Thomas Dixon
The link points a book called: "The Baron's Children, by Sarah Ann Myers"; however, i can't find information about this book or other things. I'm going to be honest i have not done a deep research. But who cares, she had two book from a KKK supporter called Thomas Dixon.
Ellen said:
"But if there was one sin above another which called 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 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."
Wasn't meat-eating the cause of flood?
Also, men can't "amalgamate" with other animals... So it is very likely that she is talking about other races.
Let's consider that Ellen had plagiarized works, and that:
"Samuel Cartwright wrote of the "amalgamation" of the Adamic race with "inferior races" which led to the corruption of those living before the flood."
At her time, Buckner Payne, had a thesis that: "negroes were soul-less beasts who did not descend from Adam". Take in mind he considered the negro a beast.
Now, it becomes a little more clear from where she took the word "amalgamation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation#Etymological_history
"Before the publication of Miscegenation, the words racial intermixing and amalgamation were used as general terms for ethnic and racial genetic mixing. Contemporary usage of the amalgamation metaphor, borrowed from metallurgy, was that of Ralph Waldo Emerson's private vision in 1845 of America as an ethnic and racial smelting-pot, a variation on the concept of the melting pot."
Here we can see that at the time of Ellen works, the word amalgamation was a word used for miscegenation.
Laws banning "race-mixing" were enforced in certain U.S. states until 1967 (but they were still on the books in some states until 2000), in Nazi Germany (the Nuremberg Laws) from 1935 until 1945, and in South Africa during the apartheid era (1949–1985). All of these laws primarily banned marriage between persons who were members of different racially or ethnically defined groups, which was termed "amalgamation" or "miscegenation" in the U.S..
In many U.S. states, interracial marriage was already illegal when the term miscegenation was coined in 1863. (Before that, it was called "amalgamation").
Here, more examples that amalgamation is about race:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sojourn_in_the_City_of_Amalgamation,_in_the_Year_of_Our_Lord,_19--
The novel criticizes abolitionists by describing them as endorsers of "amalgamation", or interracial marriage.
It is very unlikely that a word from the 1800 that is clearly used for miscegenation was not used with the same meaning in Ellen's work. Especially considering the "suspicious" books she had and her dislike of an abolitionist book.
Uriah Smith attempted to clarify the matter when he published his defense of her in 1868. He identified the amalgamated species as certain African and Indian tribes.
"These visions teach that the Negro race is not human. This charge they deny, but we will let the reader decide for himself. Here is what she says; 'Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species, and in certain races of men.'—Sp. Gifts. Vol. 3, p. 75. But what are we to understand by certain races of men? She has not informed us in her writings, but left us to fix the stigma of amalgamation where we may see fit. But the interpretation has come to light. She told it to her husband, and he made it known to Eld. Ingraham, and he divulged the secret to the writer, that Sister White had seen that God never made the Darkey." - Elders Snook and Brinkerhoff - SDA leaders ordained by James White in 1862.
Quotes:
Christian colored men will be called to the work. But for several reasons white men must be chosen as leaders.
The Colored People should not urge that they be placed on an equality with White People.
there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race (...) the light given me of the Lord was that this step should not be taken.
This video shows very clear sources that points that not only amalgamation is a race thing, but how Ellen is connected to the term at a race level:
Ellen is a prideful arrogant person:
Considering that the spirit of prophecy is from the Holy Spirit (as she stated herself), she considers herself as the same level of authority as the Bible.
She also considers everything she said is "one straight chain of truth". But in the end of "PAGE 1" and "PAGE 2", we already got around a lot of her lack of truth. So, which is which?
Considering she said that proud people wouldn't be saved, how can she be so proud of herself at the point of thinking that everything she said is "truth".
If you eat meat, not only you are "unworthy of heaven", you also insulted the Spirit of God if you deny Sister White. Blasphemy, the only unforgiving sin!
I could bet it is her vegetarian diet...
I have mixed feelings about the idea of Guardian Angel. There is nothing in the scriptures that says it. I wont say it have or not, but, one thing for sure is that occultists do believe in that.
One thing i might say, that, if she is a conspirator or not, Satan is very good in making people that aren't even conspirator to look very alike one. Because, once fooled in his lies and deception, in his illusion and etc, the further someone bend to said path, naturally, the thoughts and visions of said person aligns with Satan, and so, aligns with what conspirators do.
If you consider that they (SDA believers) sold proprieties to give money to the SDA effort. It makes it VERY suspicious to be honest...
By writing this article, i mentioned sometimes that she may be innocently fooled. It would be a chore to revisit back the things i said. And i'm not sure yet. But, if she ends up being a literal charlatan, then, this message here is a message of my opinions changing throughout my study of her.
That is pretty strange to be honest... Especially that she had a two million dollar mansion. I'm beginning to change my mind prettyyyy fast to be honest...
Especially if you consider some of her "visions" were plagiarized.
After researching more and more, i'm convinced that Ellen is purely a charlatan. I'm going to have to hunt down in my article things i said claiming that she was merely noob.
There is strong evidences of her charlatanism, especially that she have not thought twice before secretly eating meat. She wrote letters to family members, without any pint of care, that she have eaten meat and even asked for meat to them. Asked for people to sell things for the Adventists while she sold nothing and lived in a millionaire mansion, very likely eating meat and drinking vinegar (with alcohol).
For her to have enough knowledge of the bible to give a bible quote to her visions, that means she knew how to manipulate the bible concepts to fit her concepts, and that this was very likely pre-configured by her. She just needed an input for her outputs, the bible as basis for her ideas.
EXTERNAL RESOURCES:
After the things i talked about diet, i think about the things she talked about other issues that there are better people to address such stuff than me, like former SDAs that grew with great knowledge of her core principles, while i was not SDA and their concepts are a novelty to me. And so, in few time i had to gather knowledge about her and their concepts. And in few time i got already frustrated.
I'm not someone that get mad, and so, in fact, i got sad!
I even had a dream where i was studying her on a set of stair and worried that someone would caught me taking "stickers" off of the wall that represented her concepts.
I woke up wanting to write this article after this dream.
Wiki-like page about her:
https://www.nonsda.org/egw/index.html
https://www.nonegw.org/egw_secret_stash.shtml
https://www.nonegw.org/contra9.shtml
https://www.nonegw.org/contra6.shtml
I found this page online, so i can't say everything here is "correct", have some food for thought:
Note: Although i agree that we should save the Sabbath for God, i don't think about that in such an extreme levels, that is also something i criticized about jewish views of Sabbath.
Some of the altered teachings of Ellen White:
- she initially supported William Miller's date fixing of October 22, 1844
- while Miller admitted his mistake, she made no such admission of personal error - but instead gave the explanation that (in her vision) a heavenly hand had obscured the message accidentally
- she initially supported the "shut door" theory of the church, which holds that no salvation was possible after 1844
- after 1844 passed, and members began to realise that there was no salvation for their children born after 1844, she changed her view, but denied ever having held any other view than the revised "open door" theory
- she advised women on the "Reform dress code" given by God, but when it became burdensome to her personally, gave up wearing it herself (although others were admonished for their failure to comply) Testimonies for the Church, v 1, p 525.
- Ellen White taught that the keeping of the Sabbath would allow believers to receive the Seal of God. SDAs now believe that the Sabbath is the Seal of God, when the Bible clearly teaches that the Seal is the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30)
- Divisions occurred among believers about the keeping of the Sabbath after it was discovered that SDAs had kept the Sabbath from morning to six pm instead of evening to evening for nine years. A conference meeting failed to deliver unity among the believers on the issue, so Ellen White conveniently had a “vision” which would settle the matter once and for all, supporting Joseph Bates' view that Sabbath keeping was a sign of loyalty to God. White took it a step further, to make it a salvation issue.
"Sabbath is the separating wall between believers and unbelievers", Early Writings, p 85
"The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, with people receiving either the Mark of the Beast (Sunday worship) or the Seal of God." The Great Controversy, p 605.
- in more recent times, the church teaches that ". . . those rejecting the Sabbath will receive the mark of the beast." 27 Fundamentals of the SDA Church, p 167.
- Ellen White asked (apparently on behalf of church members) the angel in her next vision why they had messed up the Sabbath keeping times and kept it incorrectly all this time, but he replied that it wasn't for her to know why just yet.
Unbiblical teachings of Ellen White:
- she taught that vegetarianism was not only a healthy lifestyle choice, but that in the last days, those who ate meat and animal products would not be saved by Jesus at the second coming.
- she taught that sexual appetites could be controlled by diet and certain types of bed linen, A Solemn Appeal, pp 65-66.
- she taught that tea and coffee drinking were forbidden by God, again revealed in a "vision" A Solemn Appeal, p 257.
- she taught that saying and/or believing that one is saved whilst an imperfect Christian is sinful and incorrect, Signs of the Times, Feb 8, 1897 "No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God" The Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, June 17, 1890.
- Ellen White endorsed the teaching of "soul sleep" after 1844, as the church realised that the soul's translation to heaven at death presented a conflict with the Investigative Judgement doctrine. The Bible teaches that after death, the spirit of a person goes to be with the Lord. (II Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23)
- Ellen White taught that we would stand before God without a mediator (Jesus), to await the final judgement of our works The Great Controversy, p 495. Hebrews 7:25 clearly states that Christ will never cease His work as our mediator.
- Very good channel about Adventists:
https://answeringadventism.com/
In contrast to White’s teaching on the eternal destiny of those who do not know the Lord, the Bible teaches that hell is real, that it is eternal, and that in hell God’s wrath is poured out in conscious, everlasting punishment. John the Baptist spoke of Jesus, saying, “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12). Jesus himself spoke of hell saying, “if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire” and “these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Mark 9:43, Matthew 25:46)
TALKS:
That is an oversimplification. If i ask you do to a skate trick, and you fail, i can say "don't do that no more", but you may fail again.
The idea here is to attempt to not sin, or avoid a sin. This is cherry-picking, especially that i gave two examples that this is not the case.
Let's say a kid steal a candy, and you are his father, and you slap his hand and say "don't do that anymore", that doesn't mean your child will not do anything bad anymore, but that he is commanded to stop doing what is bad, he is being rebuked.
Ellen said:
"In the day of judgment the course of the man who has retained the frailty and imperfection of humanity will not be vindicated. For him there will be no place in heaven".
And before you say it is about certain sins, or whatever, she also said:
"The least deviation from its requirements, by neglect or willful transgression, is sin".
"“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” This command is a promise. The plan of salvation contemplates our complete recovery from the power of Satan."
"This is God's command, and no one should say, I can not do it. He should say instead, God requires me to be perfect".
"I saw that none could share the ‘refreshing’ (latter rain) unless they obtain the victory over every besetment, over pride, selfishness, love of the world, and over every wrong word and action".
"All who receive the seal must be without spot before God—candidates for heaven".
"Those who have not ceased to sin and who have not repented and sought pardon for their transgressions are not represented in this company".
With consideration of all that, she:
* She said wrong words (she used the MYTH that not even modern vegans says anymore that meat rot), and not only she used a myth, she also said it was in the stomach, so she got wrong even on the myth; In fact, meat is FULLY digested and vegetables are what rots;
* She said we could only eat meat after the flood, but Genesis 4:4 shows otherwise.
* She said Israelite had problem with God because meat, but ignore that in the same verse they also asked for Melons and that they problem is that they had ONLY manna;
And i could go on and on.
* She even said Michael is Jesus.
She said with such intensity about that, she even said that those who eat meat are "unworthy of heaven", that is also pride.
She also made a dress reform, and then surrendered it later, pretty selfish. And more...
She goes against "Colossians 2:20-23" lot of times with her rigorous and radical imposing. I also believe she goes against "Galatians 4:8-12".
So she is not saved in her own words. But that is not what i believe.
The more time passes, more SDA have to drift from Ellen.
There is a difference between resisting sin and being sinless...
The same way there is a difference between the resistance of metal between how much a metal can handle stress until it breaks.
Humble SDA members are always worried they are not perfect, because they are humble enough to perceive they are sinning, and by this, they keep worried their entire life about if they are going to reach salvation or not. This is crazy. Especially if they believe in the "soul sleep", so they have a time limit to put all that in practice.
Instead of being worried, be in peace, just like "Romans 5:1-5" said.