from the smyrna book p. 214.


this "point" is a matter of interpretation or how one chooses to read it.

i had a choice of reading the whole book and checking each statement made or deciding on the basis of the false assertions so far to conclude the source not reliable. i chose the second.

Hi Teresa,

Yes of course God is in control. But He still permits chaos on the earth, even book changes. But Ellen White was never 'in control' of church matters. She was not a church leader or director. She was a prophet and a messenger. She consented when the GC shunted her off to Europe for two years, then Australia for nine. It was impossible for her to oversee the printing of her books from across America or from another continent.

From her many letters, and the Testimonies For the Church, we see a constant disobedience of her counsel. Very few obeyed the light which came from the prophet. It is no better today, when this light is only meant to help us. But many feel unfairly chastised and rebel against it.

Many believe that EGW was involved in church administration, but not so. She counseled, corrected and rebuked error, but she never ran the show.

She had harsher words for Fannie Bolton than Green Cochoa has just furnished. And still stronger for others who were in the printing work.

"I know that Elder [Uriah] Smith and Elder [G.I.] Butler and [J.H.] Morrison and [L.] Nicola have been doing a work in their blindness that they will not wish to meet in the judgment..." Letter 109, December 6, 1890.

but brother, none of that proves that her writings were altered. disregarded, yes. altered, no.

do you realize that the only ones who claim her writings were altered are the ones who ultimately say we shouldnt rely on them?

you may not know this but i am not a trinitarian. im not the typical anti-trinitarian, either. but just so you know i am just as much against the trinity as the next person. but i would prefer to make sure that i am speaking the absolute truth.

Yes Teresa, you are correct to make the clear distinction between alteration of her works, and disobedience and disregard for them.

Though I've not furnished much proof beyond two significant examples, I have come across it sufficiently often to see a real problem. Perhaps I should retrace & collect some examples, though it may not convince many until their own study shows it up.

In my proferred example of the four missing pages from the 1911 GC, I believe this to be a (most) glaring deletion.

Though I claim the writings have been altered, I do not disparage the prophet God sent, nor dismiss her words as do many. These words came from the Throne and her temperate, self-denying consistency proved that she had a connection with Heaven. Her purpose was to lead others to exalt and study the Word. In the strictest sense, her writings should not be relied upon until we can establish the same truths from the Bible. This was her own advice to us.

Of course I feel her words have been cheapened and misrepresented by misapplication over the decades. This can be in her reprinted books, compilations, church magazines or the Sabbath School quarterly.

If you've explored the Trinity issue, you must know there is misrepresentation. And yes, speaking the absolute truth is most preferable (In love). Here is an example of fraud found in the 2006 quarterly:

"As Christians we admit there are three Persons in the Godhead, but "they are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person." --Ellen G. White, The Ministry of Healing, p. 422" [Quarterly for Wednesday, March 29, 2006]

In the above example an Ellen White statement has been spliced into a sentence to change her express meaning. Here is the original:

"The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one." Ministry of Healing 422. (Also found in 8 Testimonies 269)

P.S. Teresa,

This example came from a hard copy of the quarterly. I'm not sure what the online version will show.

Gordon

I cannot imagine anyone reading the SOP books received with the stamp of approval from the White Estates and concluding anything contrary to the 28 fundamental beliefs.

I think any device which results in tearing down and destroying the message that Ellen White brings is being used, and this is just another one of them...

Mike, let your imagination stretch beyond the 27 or 28. Beyond the Imprimatur of the White Estate. Why do you consider them to be infallible?

Have you read the Story of Redemption? Admittedly a compilation of earlier works but a goldmine of truth. Try the first few chapters. Wouldn't pass muster at Andrews, but the words are inspired, much from vision.

please!! this is:"ellen whites writings altered"

not about the trinity, faults of the church, etc.

Teresa, it may well be that the latest publications of those articles cited by Smyrna's book have restored the original reading - there does appear to be one edition which changed it.

On the trinity or not the trinity...it's always been the "Godhead" for the three heavenly powers - trinity thinking doesn't allow for separate personalities, just "centres of consciousness" without form or divine body parts within a single, mystical substance of unknown but indivisible form...basically a mess I don't wish to get my head round!!...SDA trinity thinking is closer to what we ourselves used to believe, but rejects Jesus' divine literal Sonship before creation began, in "the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2), as well as the Spirit not proceeding from the Godhead of Father and Son, but existing alongside them as they each have, too, from all eternity all together.: this doesn't sound right, either but is more palatable than Nicea's nonsense - nonsense that led at the time to persecution of detractors and warfare against the rest: enforced just like Sunday observance, in the name of the newly assertive, united & official "Catholic faith"...

Do you recall www.theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk? It's got a look at the whole history - Nicea and ours, plus a good section affirming "only begotten" is an accurate translation, using Strong's Concordance.

Maki EGW look and sound trinitarian is the only real 'change' sought during her life by some who later supported that doctrine (Prescott, Daniels, FM Wilcox (the Review); not MC Wilcox of the Signs), let alone after her death, and to this day. Not sure how much the Seminary actually spects her writings or her authority, these days...