Prophetess of Health Reappears
Ronald L. Numbers talks about the new edition of his book on Ellen G. White, and the controversy surrounding its first publication 32 years ago.
Ron Numbers
More than 30 years after Ronald L. Numbers, one of the “founding fathers” of the Association of Adventist Forums, published Prophetess of Health, his controversial history on the health message of Ellen G. White, the book is being reprinted.
This new third edition features a new preface and two key documents that shed further light on Ellen White and her work.
Spectrum talks to historian of science Ron Numbers about the fuss kicked up in the Adventist Church and in his family when the book was first published, and how he thinks the new edition will be received.
Question: Why is Prophetess of Health being re-published after 32 years?
Answer: This third edition started out to be a 30th anniversary edition, but the publisher held it up because they are going to publish a new William Miller biography at the same time, and promote the books together.
This time around Prophetess of Health is being published by Eerdmans, which interestingly turned me down in the mid-70s when I was shopping for a publisher.
Now Eerdmans has a series of American religious biographies.
Two new appendices have been added to this edition: the first is transcripts of the trial of Elder Israel Dammon in 1845, and the second is an edited version of the 1919 Bible Conference – the parts that relate to Ellen White’s authority.
But back to your question, let me ask: Have you ever written a book?
You don’t want it to go out of print. Once you invest so much time, you are partial to seeing it circulate.
The book was out of print for several years, and I frequently got requests for it.
Question: How many books have you written altogether? How many copies have they sold?
Answer: Six, but if you include books I have edited, a couple of dozen.
I have no idea how many copies have been sold. My first book (which was published second) was Creation by Natural Law, and about 2,000 copies were sold. The Creationist has sold well, but Random House holds the rights and gets all the reports on numbers.
I think Harper & Row published either 5,000 or 7,500 copies of Prophetess of Health.
Spectrum inherited some of the remaindered copies of that book, to be used for promotional purposes.
Question: What led you to write Prophetess of Health?
Several factors converged about the same time.
I spent my first year out of graduate school teaching at Andrews University and came to know Bill Peterson, Don McAdams, Herold Weiss, and a few others who were interested in this stuff, which piqued my interest. My cousin Roy Branson was also there.
I went out to Loma Linda University after 15 months at Andrews because I was asked to teach at the medical school.
I was asked to design a course for medical students on science, medicine and Western thought from antiquity to the present. The class was two hours long.
These students had just got out of college, and the last thing they wanted was a remedial course on medical history. It was a disaster. Before I had even started on the first day, a student circulated a flyer to the class, petitioning to get rid of such a ridiculous requirement.
I decided if I had to teach there for another year, I at least had to make the subject more interesting. So I thought I would research the importance of the health message for the Adventist church. At first I was just going to prepare four lectures for my course.
But that was the beginning of the book.
Question: There was controversy between yourself and the White Estate about the book. What was the primary conflict?
Answer: The so-called conflict evolved over time. At first there was no problem. The White Estate was as open with me as anybody else – not particularly open, but not hostile either.
But after I had written several chapters, somebody leaked them. The White Estate saw that what I was writing was going to be a contextual study, not an apologetic one, and that scared Arthur White and some others. After that he went out of his way to make sure I didn’t get crucial material.
I was a historian – a young one, but still a historian – convinced that context was absolutely crucial, so I had a predilection to look at contemporary influences, and context, instead of just saying something came straight from God. I didn’t think it was appropriate for a historian to appeal to the supernatural. I didn’t care whether anyone else believed or not, but it was not appropriate for me. I started out with: How much can I explain without invoking God? Of course that got me into trouble in some quarters.
Early on I discovered some books in the Loma Linda library on health reform. Some books from John Harvey Kellogg’s library were kept locked in the librarian’s office and one had to get permission to inspect them.
In one of those books, I saw that Kellogg had made marginal notations in a distinctive – if not unique – handwriting. I couldn’t find anyone to tell me what kind of shorthand he was using, but it had some numbers. After a while (and this is why my Andrews experience was so important) I thought: I bet these pages refer to Ellen White’s writings. After a week or two of research, I found they matched an out-of-print book, I think it was called Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, from 1890. When I located the references, I found that the content of those passages from the (older) book belonging to John Harvey Kellogg and the Ellen White passages were the same.
That is called "double inspiration."
I thought: No one does this just once.
I was friends with Vern Carner in Loma Linda’s School of Religion, and he is the one who talked me into writing a book. I thought the Church wouldn’t publish it, and no one outside the Church would be interested, but Vern said he would “guarantee” to find me a good publisher.
He did.
But he screwed me at the same time, too.
He had made contact with Harpers about a book called The Roots of Adventism - which was my idea.
I suffered bitterly for a few days, but it all turned out okay, because he got the door open for my book on Ellen White.
The Church held up publication of the book for six months, while the White Estate assembled a team of researchers to check everything.
They went to New York to convince Harper & Row not to publish it, but told the editor not to show me any of their criticism, because it would annoy me.
The publisher saw no sense in that, and eventually a compromise was reached where Richard Schwarz of Andrews University and Ron Graybill came to Madison to take me through their line-by-line criticism. They were right, it did make me irritated.
The White Estate had thought they could destroy Harper’s confidence in the manuscript enough so they wouldn’t have to face me again.
As the three of us went through the book manuscript I adopted a rule of thumb: if I could convince one of them that I was correct and the point was valid, I would leave it in, but if both Schwarz and Graybill disagreed with me, I would take it out.
One upsetting thing was that Schwarz had written a response to the manuscript for the White Estate based on an early draft. After we combed through the manuscript, I made a lot of changes that the White Estate was asking for. But when Schwarz reviewed the book for Spectrum, he based his review on the early draft. I got no credit for all the changes I made.
One interesting note: I was in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins when Graybill was studying for his PhD. He used to come up every week and stay with me. He spent the rest of the week working at the White Estate.
When my book came out, the White Estate sent him to campmeetings and college campuses to denounce me.
The most memorable phrase he used about me was: “A wildly irresponsible historian.”
The White Estate’s initial response to my study was a set of looseleaf notebooks, which they then condensed into a printed document and distributed widely, including to Harper’s. The publisher got his copy of this abstract just as he was going to some lecture, where he sat next to the religion editor of Time magazine. Bored with the talk, they started looking at the White Estate’s statement. The upshot was that Time devoted its entire religion section to my book.
So the White Estate’s response really helped. I could not have paid for that kind of publicity.
Question: Your book also caused controversy after it was published. How were you viewed in the Church?
Answer: I was disappointed with the response within the Adventist Church. I was getting pretty positive responses outside.
A reviewer for The Journal of American History called me and asked whether the book had been authorized by the Adventist Church. To non-Adventists the book appeared so benign; they couldn’t see why there would be any hullabaloo over it.
But Adventists by and large ran for cover, including some of my friends, which I wasn’t too happy about.
I lost my job. In the late spring of 1974, the board at Loma Linda voted not to retain me. I was on leave at the time at Johns Hopkins University doing a fellowship in the history of medicine.
On July 4 the chair of the board Neal Wilson – who was also a family friend – called and said: I guess you know you won’t be back.
But eventually a deal was negotiated: if I would write a letter of resignation, I would get a year’s severance pay.
Some poor historian down the road will be confused by this, I think.
For the second (paperback) edition of the book, Jonathan Butler wrote a very thoughtful historiographical introduction about the reaction to the book.
Question: Your family has a long church history – your father was a minister, your uncle was an administrator in the General Conference and your grandfather had been president of the General Conference. How divisive was your book in your family?
Answer: One of my uncles, Roger Wilcox, was asked to head up a General Conference committee to handle me.
I had fairly well-known Adventist relatives on both sides of my family.
Glenn Coon was my uncle on my father’s side. He just assumed that I had paid a publisher in order to get the book published. He offered me $10,000 to co-author his next book, if I would abandon my book. He was weird, but my favorite uncle.
For several years my father would not be seen in public with me. A few people contacted him and asked how he could be a minister in good standing if he couldn’t control own family. He took early retirement – he was thoroughly embarrassed.
My father had been left in a terrible situation when my study came out. He knew that I wouldn’t lie, but he knew what I was saying couldn’t be true. So in traditional Adventist thinking, he believed Satan had somehow got control of my mind. It was not a warm relationship.
And then I remember Spectrum published a cluster of reviews. One was by my friend Fritz Guy, who ventured into psycho-biography, suggesting I had ventured into this as a reaction to the rigid religion of my father. That hurt my father. And it wasn’t true. We disagreed a lot, but we always had totally open communication. My father was getting it from both the conservatives and the liberals.
And my mother about that time was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, which of course some of the brethren attributed to the terrible experience of my leaving the church, or not accepting Ellen White. But the silver lining was that the experience of caring for my mother brought the family together – we forgot Ellen White and rallied around Mother.
Then Spectrum saved our relationship when Molleurus Couperus published transcripts of the 1919 Bible Conference that discussed the inspiration of Ellen White.
I had given my father a copy of Prophetess of Health, but I never saw it in the house.
But after the 1919 Bible Conference transcripts came out, I saw my book in the living room the next time I visited my parents’ house.
My father was so disappointed that church leaders had known about the questions surrounding Ellen White in the early 20th century, but had covered them up. It was the lack of courage two generations before that had made our family suffer.
My father passed away in 1983.
Question: Do you ever regret publishing the book?
Answer: No, I have no regrets.
Question: As you are a historian, what else can you tell us about your own history and relationship with the Seventh-day Adventist church?
Answer: I moved to Madison, Wisconsin in the fall of 1974, after losing my job at Loma Linda. My marriage was breaking up.
I thought maybe it would be good to attend the local church. I don’t know how orthodox I was then; I was largely motivated by a quest for historical continuity.
The principal of the junior academy in town had gone to my academy in Tennessee. He asked what I had been doing, and I told him I had been working on a book about Ellen White. He invited me to come and speak at the school. I said: No, I don’t think you would want that. He got scared, and talked to the local conference officials, who contacted the General Conference, which sent Robert Olson out to hold a series of meetings to expose the heresy in their midst.
I decided that if my presence was that disruptive, I wouldn’t have anything more to do with the Church.
Question: So you do not consider yourself an Adventist?
Answer: When Olson was here to hold the meetings, we met in the hallway. He said: Brother Numbers, do you believe that the investigative judgment began on October 22, 1844?
I said something flip like: I don’t know, and I don’t care.
He said: Then you are not really an Adventist.
He said it, so I thought then I may as well not act like one.
I don’t consider myself an Adventist, however I am still a member of the Loma Linda University Adventist church because I promised friends I would not voluntarily step down. They wanted to use me as a test case on failure to believe the spirit of prophecy.
It’s not that I never go into an Adventist church. My nephew is a minister, and I like to hear him speak.
But when I have to identify myself, I identify myself as an agnostic.
Question: What kind of reaction do you expect to get for the new edition of Prophetess of Health?
Answer: I really don’t know. I don’t expect much reaction from Adventists.
But the subject of Ellen White has made its way into American religious history. When the second edition (paperback) of Prophetess of Health came out, some people teaching American religious history used it.
Maybe some Adventist schools will use the book. I am a very bad judge of the current temperature of Adventism. Friends of mine tell me that what I said is now largely passé, but then I pick up some books that suggest nothing has happened historiographically since the 70s. My own feeling is that among Adventist academics the book has had a fair amount of influence, but that influence has not gone very deep, to the people in the pew. Maybe this is my chance to go to campmeetings!
I do expect Eerdmans to promote Prophetess of Health and the William Miller book together, as they are hoping to get a little synergy out of the two biographies. I am just happy to get it in print. Authors like to see their books in print.
Question: How long did it take you to write Prophetess of Health?
Answer: It took 15 months to write the book. Since my second year of teaching at Loma Linda had been reduced to just four lectures, I really had a year to write the book full time. I have never been as consumed as I was writing that book. I will never write another book as exhilarating and life-changing.
Question: You have written extensively on the conflict between religion and science. Do you consider that your primary work? How does Prophetess of Health fit in there?
Answer: A lot of non-Adventists wouldn’t even know that I “dabbled” in religious history.
I went through all the standard histories of religion in America in the period. Ellen White almost never appeared in anything. But after the mid-70s she became known. No one had written a scholarly book on her before my book was published. I had thought it would be hard to get published because there was no interest.
But by the time I was looking for a publisher, the fringes were becoming mainstream. People were interested in Mormons, Shakers and Adventists more than they were interested in Episcopalians and Baptists. So it came along at a good time historiographically. For years Prophetess of Health has been the only non-apologetic place to go for information about Ellen White.
Several acquaintances have talked about writing “the big biography.” Several Adventist historians have threatened or promised to write a biography, but all have fallen by the wayside.
I left so much out – I only focused on her work as health reformer.
Recently I met with several Adventist historians — Julius Nam, Terrie Aamodt, and Gary Land — about collaborating on a biographical project, where we would each focus on a different aspect of White’s career. It wasn’t my idea, but I remain interested in Ellen White.
Question: So what about your other work? How would you characterize yourself and your career?
Answer: I guess I would say I am a fairly decent redneck historian; a country historian from Southern Missionary College.
I am most interested in the history of science, and am currently president of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science.
Right now I am trying to finish an eight-volume Cambridge history of science. I am also writing a history of science in America, which is driving me crazy.
I have an edited book, called Galileo Goes To Jail and Other Myths in Science and Religion, coming out from Harvard University Press next year, which should attract some attention.
Question: This seems to be a good time to be publishing on science and religion. Look at Richard Dawkins.
Answer: I’m a flea compared to Dawkins. He sold something like a million copies before going into paperback?
No historian of Adventism is going to get rich or famous.
Ronald L. Number is a Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin.
Note: To mark the republication of Prophetess of Health, Spectrum also published a classic review of the book from a cluster of reviews originally published in 1977. You can also buy the new edition of Prophetess of Health from Amazon and support Spectrum with your purchase.
Search
- Bonnie Dwyer on Mt. Ellis on the Brink of Winning Big
- Donna Haerich on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- victor on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Andre Reis on Hate Speech?
- Your Friend on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Your Friend on Hate Speech?
- Donna Haerich on Hate Speech?
- Your Friend on Laughing in Church
- bevin on Hate Speech?
- David Read on Hate Speech?
Comments
Excellent interview! I recently read the 2nd edition of Prophetess of Health and was shocked, not by any of the research or findings, but by the controversy that had surrounded the publication of the book. I was born the year this book was originally published, so much of what Numbers reported was information that I was raised with. I was never raised with the idea that Ellen White was infallible or even that most of her writings applied to us today--I saw her as a figure of her time who certainly dabbled in revision if not outright plagiarism, even as defined by the standards of her time. Somehow, even with those impressions, I was still raised to respect her as an inspired woman who served an important role and quite impressively started many major world institutions. I'm not sure if I just have my parents to thank for that upbringing, or if Adventism swung to accept--even if not officially--much of what Numbers (and later others) would report about the complex contexual nuances of Ellen White's visions, writings, and doctrines.
With that perspective, I found Numbers' book a fascinating historical look at the roots of the Adventist church, one of its primary founders, and one of its classic "messages"--the health message. Reading the preface about how the book came to be and the aftermath that Numbers faced was the far more shocking and surprising reading experience for me (it reads like the screenplay for a thriller). I was very saddened to know how difficulty the experience of publishing this book was for Dr. Numbers, his family, and the official church (read: EGW Estate in particular). It's good to know this book is in print again. I hope it makes its way deeper "into the pews" and not just the academic hallways this time around.
For additional context, here are two more relatively recent interviews with Ron Numbers:
http://www.uwalumni.com/home/onwisconsin/archives/summer2006/faith_in_sc...
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/
as well as this link to a lecture (video) he delivered at U.C. Santa Barbara:
http://www.srhe.ucsb.edu/lectures/info/numbers.html
"Brother Numbers, do you believe that the investigative judgment began on October 22, 1944?"
Should that be "1844", or is there a joke I'm not getting?
http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/
Hi David--unless there's a joke that I don't get either, that should be 1844--it's corrected now.
Ron Numbers gave the second annual Richard Hammill Memorial Lecture- a review of which my friend Eva Pascal and I wrote for Adventist Today in 2001. It was good to hear from the man himself. Thanks for this excellent interview!
Interesting that the Sabbath School lessons for the first quarter 2009 are devoted exclusively to "The Prophetic Gift in Scripture and in Adventist History" by Gerhard Pfandl of BRI.
Jonathan
"I didn’t think it was appropriate for a historian to appeal to the supernatural."
Which would surely eliminate a lot, if not most, of the so-called histories of Christianity, if followed.
Ok. This is kinda weird, but Ron Numbers' picture totally reminds me of Salman Rushdie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_rushdie). The Adventist Rushdie. Sounds like a brave man, too. I suppose the GC never issued a fatwa against him, but it looks like the church managed to be pretty ruthless even without physical violence.
Happy Tuesday.
I've been told by some that what happened to people like Ron Numbers and his generation is a passe, even dead issue at this point in our denomination's history. Yet, here we have an interview with him that chronicles the painful details of the grief he went through surrounding the first publication of his work.
I've also been asked, what can WE do to begin to address the mess that has been created over EGW and her writings. Well...here's an opportunity! Since I believe WE includes the leadership and "official organs" of the church, as well as the rest of us at the grassroots, would our leadership be willing to pick up, publicize, and sell this new edition of "Prophetess of Health" in Adventist book stores (kind of like what they do with one of Cliff's books)? Would they be unafraid to let a non-apologetic work come off our shelves into the hands of members...a work that may rock the boat and upset the views of many "in the pews" concerning EGW and her writings? A work, however, that may bring more clarity and balance in the long run, concerning how she interfaced with her culture and times, and how that truly shaped her output?
I'm not under any illusion that this will make some huge, immediate difference concerning the dysfunctional use and abuse of EGW's writings. But, it would be a start. It would also be a symbolic gesture towards redressing the absolutely appalling behavior that Ron Numbers and those like him were subjected to.
Honestly, as I read this interview, I found myself wondering why people who were so convinced of the "truth" they professed and possessed, would make such herculian efforts to discredit, to cover-up, and to destroy influence and reputation. To me, such behavior springs from a group-think, cult-like mentality.
An official recognition and even marketing of this book by our denomination, would prove that maybe we...and I mean leadership included... have truly moved beyond such a dark chapter. Sadly, as I've stated elsewhere, I'm not holding my breath. But I can hope...
Thanks...
Frank
Excellent interview! Also an interesting scenerio, Frank. It would be nice to think that Adventism has progressed that far.
However, an interesting little experience may give an idea of just how little progress has been made. Ron Numbers presented at the Michiana Adventist Forum recently. Though the Forum is not sponsored by Andrews University, they have allowed the chapter's meetings to be held on campus. Ron's forum presentation was on a totally different topic than Ellen White.
During the week before his talk things were buzzing around Andrews. University board members expressed grave concerns of having Ron Numbers on campus. Conservative professors sent letters greatly disturbed by the idea of Ron Numbers speaking.
So what happened? The forum meeting was moved off campus. There was a great turnout, including a number of seminarians and there was a feeling in the atmosphere of ravenous wolves waiting to pounce. Numbers gave a good presentation, but I think the "wolves" were quite disappointed. One person spoke to me after the meeting and said "He didn't even say anything controversial."
By the way, that was the only local chapter meeting that we've taken off campus since restarting the chapter several years ago!
My take may seem rather puerile, simplistic and banal to those eager to be on the front of controversial issues and who wish to be always on the leading edge of the veracity of Adventist teachings. After 50 years (30 of those as a misionary in various countries and 7 as a district pastor) of serious Adventist fellowship and commitment,and a serious digger into Adventist doctrine, I've concluded that Adventism is the closest to religious truth that one can find. Thus if that's so, then I believe that it's not ethical or rational to go at it halfway--and leave EGW out or on the back burner, even if there may be some weaknesses there--since what she's left for the church has been so gigantic and directional and permanent, not to speak of her eschatological comments and enlargements, which history is bearing out, so that's why I'm into it full bore, at least until I find something better. I knew Ron numbers at old SMC, and we were good friends, and I consider to still be so--he's an intellectual, no doubt about it, and has done important research--but to be an agnostic is a bit strange--why would I dump Adventism just because I believed Ellen wasn't what she's claimed to be? And why would I dump God because parts (EGW) of adventism seem to be awry? Well, that's his problem, not mine, but right now if he were here I'd give him a big hug.
Sounds like love around him went cold, not that his faith changed. We need affirmation when our faith takes us into new places, especially when our sense is that God is the one leading us there. I find more stories of change and moving on in the Scriptures than ones of hunkering down. The tension between faith and history is similar to that between God's otherness and God with us. Perhaps love gives us courage to look at both without fear.
Lamar,
"...but to be an agnostic is a bit strange--why would I dump Adventism just because I believed Ellen wasn't what she's claimed to be? And why would I dump God because parts (EGW) of adventism seem to be awry?"
I question whether this is the only reason someone like Ron Numbers would become agnostic. Could it be that the "love that went cold" was the love of people in administrative power at the time that he first published this book? Could it be that their treatment of him helped contribute to his overall rejection of God? If those who claim to represent God's church and his love end up modeling anything but, what kind of picture does that give? And what kind of responce... even faith responce... might that bring from wounded parties?
I'm not saying that Ron didn't make and isn't responcible for his own decisions. I'm simply posing the possibility that the contributing factors to responces like his often have just as much to do with human relational failures as they do with doctrinal questioning.
It sometimes seems that we are slow to get this in Adventism, where we have traditionally placed a premium on propositional truth. But, how about relational?
Thanks...
Frank
Strange history: Abraham is called the Father of the Faithful for rejecting his gods and leaving his home because another god called him.
Saul of Tarsus is praised for turning his back on former religious belief and accepting and starting a new religion.
Martin Luther is praised for divesting himself of the Catholic religion and eventually beginning a new religion.
The SDA pioneers left their home religions and began a new religious movement, and for that they are honored.
And yet, what happens to such people today? It may be that like the saints, they are only posthumously recognized and honored.
Elaine said "what happens to such people today?" That's so true, why can't we now recognize them and give them the appreciation that they so deserve.
The 1919 Bible conference minutes show that the leadership of the SDA church knew the truth about Ellen White, but chose to bury that information in the basement of the GC. None of those leaders ever lived to see the day when that information would be shared with the church. They were prepared to keep quiet about it for the rest of their lives. No one was prepared to be “a whistle blower.”
When it looked like that Numbers was filling his lungs to blow the whistle, Arthur White went a step further in going “out of his way to make sure I (Ronald Numbers) didn’t get crucial material.” The GC tried a bribe of ten thousand dollars, and finally tried to manipulate the publishing house not to publish his book. After all of that “trying” on their part, he was fired!
Can we now say to Ronald Numbers, we are so sorry for what our church did to you, and I know you must be still dazed by the blow. We are glad that you enjoy going to church to hear your nephew preach. May God bless and guide you.
I am tired of reading about how our leaders have manipulated, black-listed and refused to deal honestly with those simply wanting to share the truth. It’s about time that our church leaders cry out before God and the world for forgiveness for the way that we have treated honest searchers for truth.
Clifford Goldstein has a blog in Adventist today about "what the GC has taught me (him) about grace"? Would someone from the GC like to respond to this blog to prove him right?
This is the 3rd or 4th time I've heard reference to the 1919 conference. Were can I get a full copy of it?
In this blog most of those who have been miss-(mal?)treated have been on the questioning and more (?)liberal side of issues. Most of what I've seen have been the way we treat the overlyzealous ultra-conservative questioners of our faith. It seems that any who would appear to challange the status-quo open themselves to being questioned and doubted themselves. If the love of Christ doesn't flow from us where will it come from.
With all that's going on, maybe we'll stop trying to be like all the rest and become a "movement" again. No HMS will not be speaking at campmeeting this year, this is not the church of yesteryear...we are a church, a group of people who hold these truths in common, who are looking for and (hopefully) hastening (if that's possible) the soon return of our Lord and Saviour. Good on ya Ron. I hope someday you, like my sister, will come back to find the joy of Jesus you once knew. Thanks for the post. Brother Michael (not to be confused with the erudite "Michael")
Ron Numbers made it plain that Ellen G. White was a child of her time. Her writings on health and healthful living, while not original nor of
Divine origin, were instructive and moved the concept of preventive medicine and personal hygiene forward in a significant manner being so closely interwoven with her views of redemptive theology.
Walter Rhea on the other hand, clearly demonstrated, with a little pique, that
Ellen G. White was reluctant, at best, in revealing her primary sources. His allegations were substantially recognized by scores of other serious scholars.
Alden Thompson has been among the most effective of the Ellen G. White apologists: finding in her writings a progressive assurance and joy. A progression few others have grasped. It only goes to prove that E.G.White has a plastic nose: anyone with a bias or cause can do a cut and paste collation of her writings and prove or disprove about anything. We speak of the Investigative Judgment or now the pre-Advent Judgment while the pioneers spoke of the Sanctuary Message. That message included a return emphasis upon Sanctification as a progression to a perfect final generation rather than “mere” (a term used by Editor Kenneth Wood in an editorial in April of 1978) Justification by Faith a la Luther et al. A theme of M.L. Andresean, Herbert Douglass, and the Review under the editorship of Ken wood et al.
Tom
Brother Michael: Regarding where to get a copy of the 1919 Bible conference minutes:
http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/dovenet/sda1919b.htm
Blessings,
Mike
There were also several Spectrum articles devoted to the 1919 Conf minutes along with the transcripts. Here's the link to that issue in the archives:
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/issue/vol_10_no_1_may_1979
Thank you Daneen for providing us the Spectrum link to the 1919 Bible conference. It is much more complete than the link that I found.
Oh here it goes again -- born into it Adventists kicking at the foundations of the faith; crying into their beers (or into their Red Books). Correction, it is the new Adventists who cried into their beers in bars before they discovered the nifty health message that has helped rebuild destroyed bodies. There seems to be a culture gap between the new selected-to-be Adventist versus the born-into-it Adventists. Again, I keep hearing that song, "You don't know what you've got until its gone." I am curious why so many born-into-its stick around to keep kicking and posting extensive Spectrum posts or write books rather than just leave. That's what they do in Sunday churches -- just leave. It's no big deal. Hassle over -- on to more productive things. We new Adventists like Ellen White. If anyone used a microscope on my life, I would not fare as well as her. She is to be admire for accomplishment in the face of high winds ;)
JoAnn
JoAnn
The thread you are expressing yourself on was presented to do two things. One to inform you and others who seem to have entered the Church less than 30 years ago and to test the waters on what time has done to Numbers and others of that time as well to the church. Of course we could leave--but one does not abandon family no matter how wrong they may be.
I have no burden to add to the weight of evidence on E.G. White and her apologists. The demograptics says it all.
There are some outstanding SDA pastors and churches. If you have found one you are blessed. But sincerely you should know your history or quit reading. Tom
JoAnn,
I am a convert from Adventism (moved from the Baptist Church in 1985), and my changed caused some pain to my wife (who joined me ten years later) and her family. I love the church, but I don't necessarily accept the entire party line, nor do I treat Ellen White's writings as having an autority on the par with scripture.
Your all-or-nothing attitude is reflected in the Adventist churches in this area of Appalachia, and it is driving many people away. Because of this attitude, my wife and I had to start a small house church in order to be able to worship on Sabbath within the Adventist tradition. Fortunately some Adventist churches in other areas take a more open attitude of what represents Adventistm.
Unfortunately I can not take your suggestion and return to a Sunday-keeping church bacause I believe that the seventh-day Sabbath has never been changed, and I believe that it is worth dying for.
No church is perfect because they are all made up of sinners who's minds have been dimmed because of sin. However, from my own understanding of the Bible, our basic teachings (but not all 28 Fundamental Beliefs) make the most sense. Let's admit these potential problams, and be open enough to the leading of the Holy Spirit to address them in a spirit of love.
Henry
JoAnn, your approach is much like the new congressperson who immediately wants to introduce bills and hasn't even figured the depth of the water but wants to swim with the sharks.
Adventism has a long history, and yours is recent, as you say. Before criticizing about which you know little, I suggest that you follow Tom's suggestion and read up a little on SDA history from both apologists and critics. Only in so doing will get a better and more complete picture. If you don't know where an institution has been, how can you be assured in following it?
One does not have to abandon the Sabbath when leaving the church. Sunday churches have split and split -- become Reformed Seventh-day Adventist, United Seventh-day Adventist, Community Seventh-day Adventist -- there are endless possibilities rather than maintaining a spirt -- as Elaine mentioned of "sharks." For example, recently the Christian Reformed Church was split into United Reformed Church and Christian Reformed Church based on the like or dislike of women's roles in the church. The URC (which broke off) continues as a productive, positive bible-searching force as does the CRC. They do not stand kicking at foundational principles under the guise of teaching new converts "truth about the past" which, by the way, is much, much longer than Adventism. They build on their beliefs in a positive way. Many people in each church are related to each other -- so they split from family due to their convictions. Does God honor positive convictions more than foundation kickers? That would be a questions I would like to ask God. I think these positive builders will be the strongest supporters of correct principles in the future crisis because they have developed strong characters of following convictions. We'll see if that guess it correct or not. So, I am still left with the question, "Why foundation kickers in Adventistism rather than positive spin off builders?" The man and woman who started the home church have the right idea -- follow their convictions in a positive way. Instead of morphing what is, create what isn't.
Me think the sharks are just little fishies. Try the real world for sharks.
JoAnn ;)
JoAnn,
As I understand the Bible, the idea of churches spltting over many issues, much of which are peripheral,is repugnant to God. I think of the prayer of Jesus to the Father in John 17 - especially in verses 20 and 21 where Jesus asks that we may all be one - not a bunch of different groups of believers refusing to pull together.
Yes, there are times that one (or a group) must pull away over some critical issues, but doing so is a very painful process. As far as our house church is concerned, we are trying to do all we can to act in cooperation with the larger Adventist body. Although the local (actually 25 miles away) Adventist congregation considers us not to be legitimate Adventists, we are in full fellowship with a large Adventist congregation which is outside of our geographical area, and our house church ministry has the full blessings of this congregation.
I pray for the day that the day will come when we can realize that there is a hierarchy of doctrines. First, the doctrines which define us as part of the Christian family. Second, doctrines which distinguish us from other Christians. This includes the seventh-day Sabbath, and the eager anticipation of Jesus' bodily return to claim His peopole (along with the state-of-the-dead and the ultimate destruction of the lost). Finally, there are more peripheral issues which should be open to individual interpretation (most of which have nothing to do with our salvation). The question is what is critical, and what is peripheral?
Actually I think the intellectual tension of varying understandings of the Bible within the Adventist community can be healthy, and a source of growth for all involved. I can think of nothing worse in being in a congregation where every one agrees on everything. It would be a stagnent group with no growth. Hey, the Adventist pioneers didn't agree on everything, but they found a small central core, and cooperated on that.
Henry
The interview with Ron Numbers points out that the SDA church has become an abusive, even persecuting, power. If it cannot come to terms and treat humanely and humbly women in the church, gays, and members who cannot always agree with every point of interpretation, it is well on the road to becoming like every other church that is not controlled by the spirit of Christ.
Peter, well said. There are many of us who choose not to belong to any institution that discriminates on the basis of sex, race, or differences of any kind. It is much worse for a church, which professes to follow Christ, to engage in such practices. How can it ask God's blessings while continuing such discrimination?
While 1844 is important in Adventist history, how does 1844 decide whether you are SDA or not? The 7th day Sabbath and the 7 days for creation are much more contemporary important issues for the church. I think 1844 may be relevant in the overall scheme of things but isnt something to lose sleep over and certainly not worth arguing about with anyone.
Somehow, in reading how Paul and Barnabas butted heads over John Mark, failed to come to agreement, and parted sharply, we've come to think that God watched and said "Alright! That's what I like to see! A little bit of backbone!"
God did outwork the incident for good, creating two teams where there'd been one (Paul/Silas; Barnabas/Mark) , but by no means can we interpret His transforming human folly as His endorsing human folly.
Division of the body contradicts God's message through Christ. Paul eventually learned that.
I need a new word for what I am saying, and here it is: family cannot be un-belonged. Even if I change my name, I still have a lotta genes in my pool, and they make me who I am. Any member of my family can block me out of potluck, but we remain bonded. Denial doesn't change it. Abuse doesn't change it. And I won't reject my genes while I yet have them.
Ah, this brings back memories. I worked in the Communication Department at the General Conference from 1975-79, during the flap over Numbers' book. One day I ran into Arthur White in the hallway, and I asked him about about it. Anyone who knew Arthur White will remember that he was a man whose emotions were very close to the surface. He started to tear up and, with moist eyes that spilled over, said, "We tried to save that boy...." Then he was so overcome he couldn't continue. The whole experience with Numbers brought to mind an earlier encounter my mother had with Arthur. In the early 1960s she was finishing her degree at Columbia Union College. In a religion class, she decided to write a paper about John Harvey Kellogg's break with Mrs. White and the church over pantheism and other issues. She visited Arthur to interview him at the White Estate. She remembered huge cardboard boxes full of correspondence and papers, sitting in the hallways. They were Fels Naptha boxes--an old soap product that even then was no longer manufactured. She could only think that perhaps they were used to pack up the papers from St. Helena during World War I to bring to Washington, and had never yet been sorted. She said White was reasonably forthcoming about his own reminiscences of Kellogg, but once when she reached to pick up an old yellowed manuscript he grabbed it out of her hand and put it in his desk. I can think only that Arthur felt he had a heritage to protect, and he went to great lengths to do so.
This afternoon I just finished reading "The Specter of Plagiarism Haunting Adventism" by Frederick G. Hoyt, Ph.D., emeritus professor of history at La Sierra University. It accompanied a presentation given at the San Diego Adventist Forum at La Mesa, CA. on Aug. 12, 2006, and accompanied a DVD of the "Red Books" presented at PUC several months ago.
For anyone wanting all the names involved with discovering the plagiarism issue, and the misfortune with the church that befell them, it is a very revealing study. The obvious deductions were Machiavellian: the ends justified the means; and there was a lot of justifyin' goin' on. This rationalization was considered necessary to protect a religious icon, we still are reaping the results.
Elaine,
Is Hoyt's study online? He was my favorite prof at La Sierra.
Honestly, as I read this interview, I found myself wondering why people who were so convinced of the "truth" they professed and possessed, would make such herculian efforts to discredit, to cover-up, and to destroy influence and reputation. To me, such behavior springs from a group-think, cult-like mentality.
Thanks...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 12 August 2008 at 4:16
I agree with you again Frank.
However since perceptions are always involved when we talk about people, the missing element in this is that it is still a one sided account. We are not likely to get the other side since there is no upside for anyone roling around in the mud doing a he said, she said thing decades old.
One thing I found interesting was Ron's current spiritual affiliations. It reminded me of Brinsmeads current status.
Stan, I don't know. You might check and see. Maybe if you ordered the DVD "Red Books" it might be included. Not sure, however.
Tapes and the booklet can be had from
San Diego Adventist Forum
P.O. Box 3148
La Mes, CA 91144-3148
Henry,
The pioneers had larger than a "small central core." I wish your church well and am glad that you and yours took that step. I have heard the "hierarchy" theory on LLBN by a "large" university pastor. Interesting way to develop a cafeteria style church. That's what the teachers' union does: one reads their statement of "beliefs" which includes core and enough attachments to be inclusive. Actions only include the core/attachments the powers that be wish to accomplish -- but it can never be said that their beliefs are not inclusive. Church beliefs patterned after the world's method of pleasing everyone? I most likely have a different definition of character and convictions.
I equate people agreeing with production, teamwork, and accomplishment as well as exciting ventures in moving the world. I equate people disagreeing with a truck spinning its wheels in mud. I preferred the productive teamwork when our high school accomplished a meeting of the minds. So, most likely I have a different definition of intelligence in action.
Ellen White has more to offer me and new members than Ron Numbers. Thirty years and he still hasn't moved on to more productive efforts? Is this money making tactics? These are the strangest patterns I have ever seen in human institutions. Why doesn't everyone state their piece, then move on? Very strange. Microscopes appear to be stuck on ourselves and dead people who cannot answer. I admire the lady for what she had to deal with while accomplishing much. So she wasn't perfect. Get over it Mr. Numbers, either are you. The cash cow is dead. May the dutiful lady rest in peace.
JoAnn
JoAnn: As a site editor, I'll remind you that you're welcome to disagree, but you must do so respectfully, and that respect extends to comments about Ron Numbers.
And, just a little information on republications--these are decisions made by publishers, not authors. The decision by the publishers to print a third edition shows that they feel there is still significant interest in scholarly work on Ellen White. This is actually a very positive sign for Adventists, as it shows that there is interest in the scholarly world beyond Adventism in Ellen White, the church, and the context of its founders.
Ron Numbers led the way in addressing EGW in a secular manner. He has matured as an historian. The interview here, with all its wonderful civility, merely hints at the angst of writing such a history.
Hi JoAnn: I was born an SDA and when I read Number's book I was shocked. In his book he documents how Ellen White visited health reform institutes before her health vision. He even documents that she took the health publications of these institutes back to her home. He said that the EG White estate agrees with all of the above, but that she put the books on a shelf and never read them until after her vision. Numbers basically leaves it up to the reader to make up his/her own mind. Mrs. White also claimed that the words she used in writing out the health reform vision were her own, but Numbers shows that she copied from those health journals of the times, and in each case, the published date of each journal quoted was before Ellen White's date of publication.
After reading all of that I naturally had 2 questions: (1) Was Ellen White dishonest? or (2) Did Ellen White suffer from some amnesia problem? Some Adventist medical doctors back in the late 1970s suggested the amnesia problem and said it was caused by the rock that hit her forehead when she was a teenager.
In the 1919 Bible conference minutes, Elder Daniels - the President of the General Conference of SDAs - states that he personally saw the secretaries of Ellen White in Australia copying from non SDA authors while writing the Desire of Ages.
Since the Desire of Ages is one of the most wonderful books next to the Bible, we Adventists need to broaden our concept of the "Spirit of Prophecy" to include Ellen White, her secretaries and even the authors from whom they copied. Also we should give credit where credit is deserved. That is, put footnotes in each chapter of Desire of Ages and document the sources. I got another shock when I visited Dr. Fred Veltman's Desire of Ages research office back in 1983 and his secretary showed me a "word for word" quote in Desire of Ages. It was my favorite quotation from Desire of Ages: "Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share." DA 25.2. Now to practice what I have just preached, the original source for this quote is: Robert Boyd, The World's Hope; or The Rock of Ages (1873), 381–382. (See http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/white/morgan.htm)
So as SDAs we are indebted to these other Christian authors as well as to Ellen White and her secretaries, and above all let us praise God for inspiring them all - that they point us to the Bible and to Jesus Christ - "the desire" and "the Rock" of "all ages."
"The cash cow is dead."
Judging from the continuing advertisments for her publications and promotion, it has been a cash cow for the EGW Estates, and as long as that continues, it will also continue to be a "cash cow."
And because a new editor can "copy and paste" her quotations in ever more books, all heavily promoted, it will also be a cash cow for those who choose that route.
I have narrowed my reading of Ellen White to mostly the post 1888 works. I am fully aware of the plagiarism and other inconsistencies. Yet, there is a profound spirituality in these books. I try to balance my negative rejections with positive affirmations. My guess is that a battered, yet much wiser and more mature Adventism, will emerge. All or nothing thinking is not helpful. We have to constantly sift through information to determine what is fact and what is fiction.
I read Ellen White's books in a devotional...but not authoritative sense. Then I try to think and do whatever makes sense...even if it is contrary to EGW and the SDA church. She decided to use all available resources and assistance to compose her books...and then give them a cloak of divine authority. She also took a whole-Bible approach...and she did not repudiate the Millerite/Early Writings thinking. She had a complex and important task to accomplish, and she did the best she could. I really think she meant the best, and that she was not seeking fame, fortune, and power. But she did things which are highly embarrassing to us today. And these writings have been horribly misused and over-used. This has ruined them for a lot of people. This may be why new converts have a much different and more positive view of EGW than seasoned veterans of countless controversies.
1919 would have been an excellent time for the official church hierarchy to begin to inform the church laity about the 'rest of the story'...rather than waiting for critics to discover skeleton-filled closets...and then attacking the critics. It is sad that people like Ford, Rea, Numbers, Brinsmead, etc. received such shabby treatment. I have a hunch that both critics and defenders have been somewhat insecure and stand-offish. Hard feelings and indelicate dealings are probably always going to be present when people break from the pack...but they should be minimized at all costs.
Oh well, I tried with this group to drag posters kicking and screaming into the present. Maybe people don't want to see or know that it is a new world in the Adventist Church with the new, incoming members. We like, we enjoy, we benefit, we value, we appreciate, we are so thankful for the insights, health principles, Ellen White, and kind old Adventists who welcome us with open arms. We love learning about God and the Bible in depth as only is offered in the Adventist church. I just don't understand why some are stuck on the past; critical yet remain attached -- like living non-integrated lives. No moving on to where beliefs meet practices; focus is on future; action is productive. And me not respectful? I entered this forum hoping to give a bit of insight how some posts are disrespectful to seekers reaching for the help Adventist doctrines/Ellen White give to repair distroyed lives. Maybe one of the only chances left in today's world. (No, it is not avaiable in 98% of Sunday churches.) No thought of the consequences of such chatter I consider disrespectful to seekers. If I have gotten through a few thoughts to a few minds which will help a few seekers not experience disrespect, I don't care what you call me. It is well worth the time, trouble, and mud coming my way. I definitely see things from a different view. Again, "you don't know what you have 'til it's gone."
JoAnn
Dear JoAnn,
I am glad that you expressed your thoughts because different perspectives are all good for us in our own growth.
I do want to take issue with your statement: "We love learning about God and the Bible in depth as only is offered in the Adventist church."
Seventh-day Adventists do not have a monopoly on learning about God and the Bible in depth. The Baptist Church I came from studies the Bible every bit as deeply, along as with many Presbyterians - especially the PCA and the EPC, along with many other Sunday-keeping churches. I disagree with many of their interpretations of the Bible, but I can't falt them lack of depth in Bible study. The only difference is that they don't use Ellen White's writings as a lens through which to interpret the Bible.
I wish you blessings in your own studies, and that you have a great Sabbath.
Shabbat Shalom,
Henry
Dear JoAnn,
your contribution to the topic - should I say : outcry ? - has deeply moved me. This forum is also to meet your ideas, hopes, feelings, you being uncertain, embarrassed, disturbed. You see for instance, I also could have written the very book Numbers wrote - just a decade earlier (he later on had written some more books) I only would have had more troubles in getting access to the quantity of his source material, but I had material by myself.
But with sdudying Medicine you just can ( can, if you really study !) stumble across this or that matter - and others can also - so at least I was prepared when they, doubting, stumbling, in uncertainity approached me because they had found the very same incongruities for themselves. Nowadays I repeatedly am confronted with issues also the earnest believers have access to by Googole. We then can talk about it honestly, even when I have to say that I just "do not know".
For quite some time I am in the Church board and I have a responsibility for all those I approved for baptism. And they have families, children I observe growing up, preteens and teens and adolescents - - with honest, yet quite uneasy questions. I just feel obliged to be authentical in my answers, even when I have to say "I do not know".
When I can say that so and so many others also have struggled with the very problem and recently the matter was discussed this already means relief, this already is an answer.
Happy Sabbath !
GSS
Hi Henry,
Are you recommending that we Adventists should use “Ellen White’s writings as a lens through which to interpret the Bible?”
My understanding is that she always admonished us to go to the Bible directly. Also what if we find in the Bible the opposite of what she taught? (For example, “Jesus went into the Most Holy Place for the first time in 1844.”compared with Hebrews chapter 9.)
Dear Henry, dear Mike,
did we not discuss Ronald Numbers "Prophetess of Health" , 3rd edition, and the authors very experience with publishing his book ? Bible interpretation with or without the "lens" should be in another blog.
Cheers, greetings GSS
Dear Henry, dear Mike,
did we not discuss Ronald Numbers "Prophetess of Health" , 3rd edition, and the authors very experience with publishing his book ? Bible interpretation with or without the "lens" should be in another blog.
Cheers, greetings GSS
Dear Gerhard,
The question I asked Henry is along the lines of the question Robert Olson asked Ron Numbers as detailed in this blog. “Brother Numbers, do you believe that the investigative judgment began on October 22, 1844?
I said something flip like: I don't know, and I don’t care.” This answer of Ronald Numbers depicted the attitude of the average student (excluding some theology majors) at PUC back in 1979. Olson and the White Estate were afraid that SDAs reading the book would have their faith in some SDA doctrines shaken. Were their fears justified? Is our faith based on EG White’s interpretations of the Bible or the Bible itself?
One must be reminded that Ron Numbers was first employed by the White Estate to rebut the rising tide of questions and inquiries about EGW's sources and her use or abuse of those sources.
I have been in attendance during one of Ron's tours in which his mission was to support the White Estate's agenda. I recall
telling Ron in the question and answer session that I could be awaken from a sound sleep and give EGW a better defense that he did over two days.
Weeks later, his book was published and the rest is history.
Tom
Tom, Are you perhaps thinking of Ron Graybill instead of Ron Numbers? (Sorry for my ignorance if it was Ron Numbers.)
After reading over this article and this article in particular, I am saddened by what I see, but thankful for how far I have grown
As a former Adventist, it amazes me the discussions that arise over these trivial issues. The answer has and always will be that Ellen White was not a prophet (I only hope she was delusional and not a purposeful fraud.) My only word of advice is to lift your heads out of the sand. Admitting that what I believed was wrong was very scary and humiliating, but I am free of the shackles that bound me.
Her health message was not enlightened for our time or even her time, maybe considered fringe but her message contains nothing original that wasn't explored in the literature up until that time.
Ron,
I have read and appreciate very much your book on the evolution of scientific creationism. I have not had the pleasure of reading your second edition to Prophetess of Health, though I have tried to ascertain what is new by hints in the press.
I must say that, as a historian, you have done a great service in showing the contemporary history of the origin of the Adventist health message. Because much of what she had written was similar to the health reformers of her day, Ellen White responded to questions about the chronology of her health reform vision as early as 1867. That she used her health vision as a litmus test for accepting and rejecting teachings of the day explains why some fifty years ago, Dr. Clive McCay, Ph.D. (not an SDA, as you know) was amazed by the balanced nature of her health teachings. His question "How would she know?" still haunts us today, and that question is reiterated in the results of Dr. Don S. McMahon's research in Acquired or Inspired? Exploring the Origins of the Adventist Lifestyle.
Comparing that which is similar without recognizing that which is unique overlooks the most important evidence of her inspiration.
The reader must be able to discriminate the good from the ludicrous. How about her health message regarding phrenology? Wig wearing? Corset wearing? Masturbation? Evils of eating eggs and cheese. Those are enough for starters.
Mike
He was introduced as Ron Numbers. He answered to Ron Numbers, he resembled the photos of Ron Numbers. In any case, the Georgia Cumberland Conference wasted their air fare on him, if he was scheduled to explain E.G.White to the elders and deacons of the Conference. Given his susequent writings and interviews, I wonder why he consented to the assignment. Tom
Does ANYONE see the wastefullness of this subject ?!?! I am so angry at myself for wasting the past 1/2 hr. reading all of this, when I should have been studying the Bible !
Am I the only one that see's that none of this is of ANY importance to our Salvation, & that this is just the kind of thing we are warned against in the last days to cause dirrision in the church & causes us to question our faith !?!?
Believe in Sr. White-don't believe in her-it doesn't matter. Only our belief & acceptance of Jesus Christ will save us. That may be too "simplistic" for you "brains" or Forum folk out there, but that is what I focus on. And no, I don't need a down dressing by any of you because I see the "simpler" side of life, as I too am a "brain", but can not stand all this infussing that should have been put to rest years ago.
If we would put 1/2 as much effort into soul winning & Bible study as has been put into this subject-ad nauseum!!!-what couln't we have accomplished ??!!
I am truely sorry for the problems Ron had & that he felt he had to leave the church over it, but I have never understood why he felt he had to write the book in the first place, or why the church & the EGW Estate felt they had to get so radical about it. I think it's time to let the past be the past & move on !! Like I said before, what does it have to do w/our salvation anyway, & it just causes hard & hurtfull feelings.
Sincerely, Your sister in Christ, Nanci
Agnostic...???
As an observer just strolling by this "online alfresco klatch" of SDA Church members discussing Prophetess of Health by Ron Numbers, I am most surprised by Ron's response to the
Question:
So you do not consider yourself an Adventist?
Answer:
When Olson was here to hold the meetings, we met in the hallway.
He said:
Brother Numbers, do you believe that the investigative judgment began on October 22, 1844?
I said something flip like: I don’t know, and I don’t care.
He said: Then you are not really an Adventist.
... I don’t consider myself an Adventist
... But when I have to identify myself, I identify myself as an agnostic.
_________________________
Ron, I also am not an Adventist... since Des Ford at PUC in 1982 and Glacier View ... but come on, Ron... an "agnostic"...?
With your Adventist heritage...? you take the wishy washy route of the... agnostic?
You are agnostic about what...?
... Are you agnostic about the INcarnation at-ONE-ment when Jesus, Emmanuel, "God is with Us" became one with his creation in an indissoluble "union"
... Are you agnostic about the efficacy of the cross of Jesus...
... Are you agnostic about the "mercy seat of the cross" where all of Adam's children were justified by the blood of Jesus... while we were still sinners?
... Are you agnostic about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead?
... Are you agnostic about the return of Jesus?
... Are you agnostic about your own resurrection from death?
... Are you agnostic about this earth being burned up with a great heat, and being renewed as our eternal "home base"?
... Are you agnostic about the reign of Jesus and our being with him "where he is"... FOREVER?
Just asking Ron...
I think that you will agree that these questions are supremely more important than if you believe if the investigative judgment "began" in 1844, right?
And one final question, Ron...
Are you agnostic about being part of the "called out" church...?
You know, the church that Peter was so emotional about when he told his OWN contemporaries, first with his voice and later codified in 1 Peter 2:9 and 11, you are "called out" as
... the "Chosen Race"
... a "Royal Priesthood"
... a "Holy Nation"
... a "People For God's Own Possession"
... "proclaim the excellencies of HIM who has called you out of darkness into HIS marvelous light"... and to
... "abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul"
Ron, are you agnostic about HIS marvelous light?
Just asking... Ron...
Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection
Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net
Nanci,
I agree, this article is not focussed on salvation, nor is the book. Does that make it wasteful? I don't think so. When I think of "living life abundantly," I do not think of cutting off access to historical research.
I own and have read the book, found it extremely interesting and enjoyable. Very well-researched and provides a colorful look into the health movement(s) of 19th century America, Ellen and her life. Ron Numbers takes a historical approach, sticking with facts, so I really don't understand how somebody, who would enjoy a biography about Susan B. Anthony or Sir Isaac Newton, could possibly complain. Biographies that include historical context increase knowledge, understanding and plus I thought that God wants us to stretch our brains.
I am aware that there is anger and hurt for some people in regards to the topic of Ellen (+ Ron Numbers) + The White Estate + the SDA church, but since I'm from a younger generation it just is not my experience at all, the hurt or the anger. I was happy when reading this historical biography by Ron Numbers! :)
I really enjoyed this interview because it shows the integrity, courage, and honesty of Ron Numbers. Pity the "brethern" of the Seventh Day Adventist church do not share those qualities. I hope, Ron, learns as I have that nothing is important but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ....everything else "doesn't matter!"
Margie Littell Ulrich
I am currently working on a project to do the very thing that Mike MacLennan has suggested--footnote Ellen White's sources in The Desire of Ages. But it doesn't stop here. It also shows what Ellen White source was used in the manuscript. (Marian Davis tells us she drew from articles, bound volumes, manuscripts, and letters to rewrite the earlier Spirit of Prophecy, vols. 2 and 3.)
BTW, it is significant that the near verbatim quotation that Mike cited is extremely rare. In our book, MORE THAN WORDS, Marcella Anderson King* and I point out that it is one of the closest and the longest near verbatim parallels in the book, though if you check Mike's reference, you will see that--even here--it has been adapted, as were the other five near verbatim sentences in this chapter. Interestingly, it turns out that Boyd adapted the quotation from John Cumming:
John Cumming, Prophetic Lectures(1853), p. 379: "Jesus was condemned for our sins, in which he had no share; we shall be justified by his righteousness, in which we have had no personal part whatever."
Robert Boyd, The World's Hope; or The Rock of Ages (1873), pp. 381, 382: "He was treated as we deserved, in order that we might be treated as he deserved. He came to earth and took our sins, that we might take his righteousness and go to heaven. He was condemned for our sins, in which he had no share, that we might be justified by his righteeousness, in which we had no share."
White (MS 24, 1888): "He was treated as we deserve to be treated. He came to our world and took our sins that we might take his righteousness."
White (RH 3-21-1893): "The world's Redeemer was treated as we deserve to be treated, in order that we might be treated as he deserved to be treated. He came to our world and took our sins upon his own divine soul, that we might receive his imputed righteousness. He was condemned for our sins, in which he had no share, that we might be justified by his righteousness, in which we had no share."
This was Ellen White's longest verbatim in all of DA, and it is an expanded paraphrase of 2 Cor. 5:21. Marian shortened Ellen White's adaptation for this opening chapter on the Incarnation.
* MORE THAN WORDS is available through Review & Herald. Marcella was Dr. Veltman's research assistant in the Life of Christ Research Project of the 1980s.
In todays WSJ "bookshelf" a book review was given by Megan Gurden on Susan Yeagar's book "The Hundred Year Diet."
What interested me and may have beed covered by Numbers in one of his books was this comment in the review.
---
"Ms. Yager explains, America's obsession with diet began long ago in New England, in the person of the Rev. Sylvester Graham. In the early 19th century, Graham was on a mission "to save souls from what he deemed the most serious problem of all: the evil torment of gluttony," a condition that, in his view, led to "sexual excess" and "violence."
Graham, nicknamed "the Peristaltic Persuader" in the press, felt that purity could be achieved by adhering to a diet free of meat, alcohol, coffee, tea, salt, pepper or spices. He was, we discover, "uncomfortable with the concept of yeast," which seemed to him alive. So to supplant leavened bread he invented the whole-wheat cracker that still bears his name, though there is not much resemblance between the Graham cracker in its current sugary form and the Spartan original.
In Graham's wake came John Harvey Kellogg, a Seventh Day Adventist, the director of Michigan's Battle Creek Sanitarium and the progenitor of the cornflake. Kellogg shared Graham's horror of sexual desire (and of caffeinated beverages) and, as Ms. Yager slyly notes, "was the first in a long line of physicians to write about nutrition with passion for, and limited knowledge of, the subject." Late in the 19th century, with Kellogg at the height of his influence, a diet treatise published two decades earlier in Britain suddenly caught on in the U.S. William Banting's "Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public" told how its author had lost weight by following what Ms. Yager explains was a sensible "high-protein, low-calorie, low-fat, modified carbohydrate plan." Americans seized on the Englishman's scheme with such zeal that, for decades afterward, dieting was known as "banting."
----
Graham preceded EGW in these views who held similar later passions. This means nothing except that we weren't the first to hold these "health views" if Gurdon reports properly. This is not my passion but I was not aware of Graham's preceding passion.
I have read in EGW where eating meat inflames the "passions."
All the more reason we old codgers need to eat more "chicken and beef." :~)
regards,
pat
Chicken and beef are probably much cheaper than Viagra and much less harmful.
As a life long SDA and with minister father we grew up hearing about many of EGWs virtues, especially about her health message being novel, ahead of her time,etc. Implicitely, we also learned to believe in her infallibility.
I carried this belief with me to med school and at this time started reading her writings dealing with health and scinece. Though i had some trouble fitting in some of her eschatalogical works with facts, i still fully trusted her inspiration based on what others had taught me about her. Then I came upon several health passages which shook my position and took me to explore deeper in her writings.
Evidence that her health message is not novel nor original did not surprise me by then, since i could hardly hold to the idea that God would inspire someone to say that tuberculosis is a hereditary disease (Selected Messages Book 2, Page 431,HR November 1, 1871). Interestingly enough Egbert Guernsey mentioned this idea in his 1857 book "Homoeopathic Domestic Practice".
Also her position supporting the Lamarckism, that acquired physical characteristics like wasp waists from corset use could be passed down genetically to offspring ( HR November 1, 1871), was impossible to accept.
How could God have inspired such mistaken ideas? Obviously it did not come from Him and must have been gathered from (erroneous) human sources. Further study into her health and science ideas show the same condition. Today I work in genetics and cannot in any way support the validity of EGWs "science" and "health" pronouncements.
To summarize my point (sorry, I sent in the text before finishing), can we just recognize that EGW is not infallible nor the original author of some her writings and still enjoy good counsel and advice from them?
Is it necessary to believe that she wrote everything under inspiration to benefit from them?
Hello! kbfekcb interesting kbfekcb site!
Very nice site!
Post new comment