well, put it up and lets check it out. you do understand i cant go on anyones say-so without seeing it for myself.



no. those who want to disregard her writings claim they were altered, even forged. i know a person who wants to believe that kelloggs "the living temple" is not the pantheistic book ellen white claimed it to be.

guess how he does that?

I have never read anything from the White Estate that made me doubt the authenticity of the SOP. Everything I have read confirms the truth as it is in Jesus. Any altering that may have happened to the SOP has not in the least steared me away from the truths we (SDAs) hold near and dear.

Openly disparaging her writings is what her critics do, yes...

That the church today bases its trinitarian stance on her writings over a certain period of time, since 1890-98 onwards (of course), before which the church wasn't trinitarian, leaves the question of whether she was trinitarian, which we, you and I (at least, here), agree she wasn't. Editing her writings to the extent of changing their meaning would be an inside job done very quietly, and would also be disloyalty to the Testimony of Jesus.

I hope no-one inside the church has done that with the light we are blessed with on present truth, but, there is this rumour of damaging change. Getting online copies of evidence may well be difficult, but even that smyrna ministries site can email copies of their evidence, I'm sure.

An example of change to general church literature, affecting salvation teaching, is the 1949 edition of Bible Readings for the Home Circle, since which edition that book has omitted the words "sinful nature" from a section mentioning how God's Son became a man, and those words were there in earlier editions.

This is definitely not a trinity thread, but the suggestion is that the rumoured alterations to the SOP directly impact on the nature of the Godhed and how that nature impacts on salvation, so doctrines are brought into focus as one investigates what evidence one can get hold of. Should that evidence be an old hard copy, and the current online copy is not showing that change, doesn't mean that change wasn't once effected; just means someone wised up that everyone knew a change had been made, so reversed the action.

That change from "it" to "he" you reckon isn't in the online copy you looked at earlier: let's get the hard copy 'in' to have a look at!...I'll try to help in that.

For those who are so inclined, here is a full write-up on the issue of Mrs. White's stance on the Trinity / Godhead, and put out by the White Estate.

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/The-Trinity.pdf

Lest you think this article will present only the White Estate's perspective, be aware that the PDF file includes dozens of scans of the original printed materials, many dating before 1900, and some of the scans are of the original autographs, in Mrs. White's own handwriting. I only wish they were scanned at a higher resolution, but there is sufficient clarity, in most cases, to see how she used the words.

I would be comfortable in saying this article should be the definitive answer to any question regarding Mrs. White's stance on the Trinity / Godhead issue, and will likely lay to rest any questions regarding the White Estate's role in editing her manuscripts on this issue as well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green Cochoa,

If Ellen White had ever accepted the Trinity, she would have called all the Church to repent of their previous 50 year anti-Trinitarian record. But never a word on this. Not a peep. On the contrary she affirmed that the "truth..has stood firm...for more than half a century" 9T 70.

She came from Methodism (Trinitarian) and rejected it like all early SDA pioneers, to embrace the sanctuary message. She did not flip back to her Methodist roots. Prophets don't flip-flop. She left darkness and did not return.

Here's the striking difference between truth & error:

“The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church.” Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p.16

"The sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ’s work in behalf of men. It concerns every living soul upon the earth" -Great Controversy 488

The White Estate article defines their own bias, nothing more.

GC, somehow we cannot get away from this topic, in this thread which has to do with literary stewardship....

A quick word: Tim Poirier isn't biased, Gordon; he is misinformed and misleading about the issue altogether!

This excerpt - which is in context! - shows his and the church's misconception of the 'quarrel'
That there are three persons is not the issue, let alone ascribing deity to each. With a good knowledge of Sister White's statements on the Son of God's begotten Sonship, and the Holy Spirit's "different" personality to Father and Son, as their omnipresence and their infinite Spirit of the Godhead, which each of them personally possesses - though the Spirit is not independent of Father and Son, I may rebuke the White Estate: they are intellectually dishonest, as is the GC BRI, for presenting that anti-trinitarians don't consider the Holy Spirit to be a divine personality and person of the Godhead or Jesus the co-eternal Son of God.

It's shocking how little of their identities, the Son's and the Spirit's, we actually have read up on in SOP, but - given the misinformation published for us, we are, I believe, with excuse! There is wide spread confusion in the ranks about God's nature...and what we should do with the trinity teaching we espouse as a church, and why anyone actually complains about it, at all...!

The Son of God is not co-existent with the Father, but he is co-eternal, since he begotten of God, and the literal, physical Son (as seen in vision and revealed in the Bible to start with): this is ignored almost totally by the church, today, as a point of difference - they too busy accusing us of being heathen, which is terribly sad, and may be a dereliction of duty to defend the Adventist faith.

The Holy Spirit is altogether mystery, but is revealed in the Bible and spoken of by all our pioneers as fully divine, as much a person as God and Christ but not the same sort of person as them, and proceeding from them as the divine Spirit of their deity; thus, not personally independent of them, as they personally are of each other, and so on and so forth...

The rejection of the trinity doctrine in our midst doesn't reject 3 persons, but the orthodox and SDA trinity definition and thinking about how they are 3, and thus who they to each other.

and here we go again!!!

i wonder how many are going to be arguing trinity-antitrinity and the several other dabates in the church clear up to the second coming when theyll look up and go, uh-oh!

Distracting from letting Christ relate to us? Can do...I'm personally only after what and who he is to me, and that includes the testimony of Jesus...

I'm just slightly surprised this topic hasn't been made a private forum thread, but that's alright - as it is pertinent to the remnant faith.