The rejection of the Testimonies is alive and well kland. As is written: God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. {COL 84.4} I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. {14MR 3.1}

Oh that we would understand and proclaim the truth as it is in Jesus!

kland and APL,

Have you had your vitamin B12 levels checked recently? With veganism, the health effects on the mind and the accompanying impact to the diet and health as a result, become a self-perpetuating vicious cycle. A mind thus influenced frequently fails to grasp the statements of Mrs. White in their proper context, and I write this of a true concern for your salvation. God expects us to take care of our body temples, and when health is compromised, mental faculties are as well, including our judgment and discernment between right and wrong, truth and error. Insufficient B12 can cause loss of brain function that appears to cause loss of more than just memory. I have personally witnessed in several individuals the impact it had on understanding and reasoning ability, and the tendency for lack of B12 to push the individuals toward extreme views, of which veganism was only one.

I know this topic does not directly address veganism, but Mrs. White did, and she said we should not give up milk and eggs before God revealed it was time to do so. Many are rejecting her testimonies on this point, and it will eventually lead to rejection of more than this.

I recently witnessed with my own eyes the harmful impact of a vegan diet on a family with small children. One child was nearly the age of three, but still not talking. His hair, which should have been black, appeared reddish, and his belly was distended. His growth was stunted such that it appeared he should be barely a year old. He had all the signs of kwashiorkor--and this was NOT in a third-world country.

From the internet:

Kwashiorkor is a severe form of malnutrition, caused by a deficiency in dietary protein. The extreme lack of protein causes an osmotic imbalance in the gastro-intestinal system causing swelling of the gut diagnosed as an edema or retention of water.

Despite his condition, and that of the other child with severe problems as well, the parents brought out quote after quote from Mrs. White to support their imbalanced views which outlawed all forms of milk or eggs. Meanwhile, they rejected the clear statements from Mrs. White giving balance to those quotes, statements that say definitely we should not teach others to give up milk and eggs (they went about doing just that), and that we should not give them up prematurely.

Of course, milk and eggs provide easily digestible forms of protein, in addition to having other nutritive properties like B12 and sulfur. But the parents felt more righteous in eschewing all such animal products. Showing some of the imbalance in their thinking, the man of the house did no work. He spent his time studying and preparing to teach others about healthful living!

Any rejection of Mrs. White's testimonies will lead away from light and truth, happiness and health.

And some continue to ignore the signs of the times:

Eggs
Michael Greger M.D. · Last Updated on March 10, 2017

Despite the powerful egg industry’s best efforts to put a “healthy” spin on egg consumption, eggs contain high levels of cholesterol and may contain carcinogenic retroviruses, heterocyclic amines, toxic pollutants (such as arsenic, perfluorochemicals like PCB, phthalates, flame retardant chemicals, dioxins), and Salmonella (see here and here). Consuming just one egg per day may significantly shorten our lifespans, increase the levels of the cancer-promoting growth hormone IGF-1, and increase our risk of heart disease, kidney stones, stroke, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and some types of cancer (such as pancreatic, breast, and prostate).

Eating a plant-based diet may improve mood, lead to weight loss, lower the risk of cataracts, neurological diseases, food poisoning, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, help reverse rheumatoid arthritis, and may increase lifespan. This may be due in part to the arachidonic acid, cholesterol, sulfuric acid, choline, methionine, and sex hormones in eggs and the relative lack of antioxidant phytonutrients.

--

Kwashiorkor - this disease is from starvation, not just lack of protein. Most people indeed eat an excess of protein, not a lack. To suggest that a person cannot get adequate protein on a plant based diet is to misinform and worse, liable to cause harm, and anything that causes one to shortens life by using that which is not necessary for life is a violation of the 6th commandment, and there is no excuse for suggesting such as has been done in your post. Why reject what God has told us to do? The people everywhere should be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, so far as possible, and yet have their food wholesome and palatable. {MH 320.2}

Where do you get your protein?

Quite interesting, Green.

Kwashiorker = It is a form of malnutrition caused by a lack of protein in the diet.

That definition is from healthline.com. It surprised me as the symptoms are normally associated with starvation, but the root cause is actually lack of protein.

The family you saw must have really gone off the deep end as there are so many good sources of protein in a vegetarian diet that the removal of eggs and milk would not seem sufficient to me to cause this. A cup of cooked lentils, split peas, black beans, and many nuts, have the same amount, or more, of protein as a cup of chopped hard boiled eggs, and the amino acid scores of the protein say the proteins are very high quality proteins. For confirmation of this a good resource is nutritiondata.self.com. This is a great resource for diabetics, or anyone who chooses to research nutritional info, as it shows the glycemic load of all the foods the site covers as well as total carbs, fats--with types of fats in each food, proteins, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, overall nutritive value, and more.
I haven't given up eggs yet, but I do think commercial eggs are of such a low quality that we eat eggs from local people who raise their own chickens and feed them good quality seeds and grains. I don't know if you have compared the yolks of commercial eggs to those of a free range chicken, but the difference in color and texture is quite striking. The privately raised chickens who get to run around, not sit in a small cage all day and do nothing but be an egg manufacturing machine, lay a much higher quality, and healthier, egg than the commercial systems allow.

Good advice. Please follow it.

While this is the definition, the reality is that protein deficiency is most often association with starvation, and lack of adequate calories. WHO studies show that people getting adequate calories, usually get adequate protein. Isolated protein deficiency is rare. If one only ate potatoes, you would get adequate protein. See the quote below which shows that using just potatoes, malnourished children regained health. Green's example does not show the effects of lack of eggs, but the lack of total calories. Quote:

White potatoes are 10% protein with all of the essential amino acids provided in generous amounts.  These tubers have 2.5 grams of dietary fiber per potato.  That translates into 50 grams for an active man and 37 grams for an active woman.  Potatoes are very high in vitamin C, B vitamins, potassium and other minerals.  In animal experiments potatoes have been shown to have a particularly potent cholesterol-lowering effect.4 Feeding rats a potato-enriched diet for 3 weeks led to a 30% decrease in cholesterol and a 36% decrease in triglyceride levels.5

The potato even meets the needs of growing infants. Eleven Peruvian children, ages 8 months to 35 months, recovering from malnutrition, were fed diets where all of the protein and 75% of the calories came from potatoes.6,7 Their growth patterns were normal.  (Soybean-cottonseed oils and pure simple sugars provided some of the extra calories—neither of these sources—oil or sugar—contains protein, vitamins, or minerals.) 

People in New Guinea who live on diets consisting almost entirely of sweet potato tubers and leaves have cholesterol levels, on the average, of 108 mg/dl.8  Heart disease, obesity, inflammatory arthritis, colon cancer, and type-2 diabetes are unknown in these people on their sweet potato diet. 

5)  Robert L, Narcy A, Rock E, Demigne C, Mazur A, Remesy C.  Entire potato consumption improves lipid metabolism and antioxidant status in cholesterol-fed rat.  Eur J Nutr. 2006 Apr 3; [Epub ahead of print. 

6) Lopez de Romana G.  Fasting and postprandial plasma free amino acids of infants and children consuming exclusively potato protein. J Nutr. 1981 Oct;111(10):1766-71.

7) Lopez de Romana G, Graham GC, Madrid S, MacLean WC Jr.  Prolonged consumption of potato-based diets by infants and small children.  J Nutr. 1981 Aug;111(8):1430-6.

8) Luyken R. Nutrition studies in New Guinea.  Am J Clin Nutr. 1964; 14:13-27.

Just one quick thing to point out from your post. The New Guinea people are getting greens in their diets from the leaves. A green is pretty much a must for many greens have high levels of vitamin C and most greens are also high in fiber. And, they are most likely not farming land which has had the minerals leached out of it like most US-based farms have.

Sweet potato leaves score pretty high in completeness of nutrients. They, by themselves, score an 85 out of 100. So, to say just potatoes alone are a good enough source of food is misleading when a highly nutritious green is being consumed along with the sweet potato.

I would think that in a tropical region like New Guinea the natives also have access to native tropical fruits in their diet too. They wouldn't necessarily be raising the fruit themselves but living in a jungle would have access to them. Breadfruit is native there and it is a really good source of both magnesium and potassium as well has vitamin C, B6, thiamin, niacin, and pantothenic acid. So, I would say a person living in the wilds of New Guinea has access to a pretty good diet, and a diet that is pretty varied.

You only addressed the New Guinea people on sweet potatoes. Could you also comment on regular potatoes with the rats and the Peruvian infants?

Sure.


From what I can see the Peruvian infants received nutrients vital to their development in the soybean oils they received as soybean oil contains both the essential fatty acids, omega-3 and omega-6. I don't have enough info to comment on the simple sugars they received but simple sugars are almost always plant-based and sources often contain vital nutrients too, vs refined sugars from which all nutrition has been removed. So, it's once again misleading to say potatoes alone were enough to give these children normal growth and development.

I'm no expert in these areas but I am self-educated as I became a diabetic about 10 years ago due to an injury that left me unable to exercise so that I have gained weight, and I have a family history in which a lot of my predecessors have be diabetic too. After becoming diabetic I have studied foods and nutrition quite a bit. Still don't know as much as I would like to, but I learn daily.

WHO is not a source I really trust as they are as corrupt as the UN.

Gary,

It's good to see people with balanced views on this who have not rejected what Mrs. White says. She tells us plainly not to give up milk and eggs until God reveals that it is time. Seeing evidences of that time's approaching does not mean it is already here. Yes, we see all of nature becoming more toxic and diseased--including our beloved fruits and vegetables (GMO, pesticides, e-coli, etc.). But, with the increase of these poisons in our food, eggs may be becoming all the more vital, for Mrs. White said they have properties in them to counteract poisons.

Regarding the case of the family I mentioned, the child was getting plenty of calories. However, the child had food sensitivities that did not permit the free use of beans and nuts. Small children are not usually expected to eat large quantities of beans and nuts in any case. Grains provide insufficient lysine, an important amino acid. Thus, though living in America, the child, whose imbalanced parents refused to allow the use of milk or eggs that would have supplied the lack, developed kwashiorkor. Yes, it comes from a lack of protein, not calories as APL has suggested. The child was given plenty of calories, but in unsuitable forms. I watched the mother painstakingly prepare vegan meals for him, thinking it was for his best good. He had a strong appetite--as if he could never get enough to eat. Truly, he was starving--not for food, but for the right kind of food. In actual fact, the doctor handling the case had been forced to tell the mother to limit the amount of food the child could eat, for he did not have sufficient enzymes and/or ability to handle it--just as starving children in Africa cannot be given a large meal or they might die. Unfortunately, his mental capacities were already affected, and a loss in mental acuity has been incurred which will not be reversible. The baby may still have a chance.

After multiple discussions with the parents on the topic, several going late into the night and at times getting heated (another adult present actually wanted to turn them in to CPS over it), I left and did not see them again. In reports received recently, I have heard that they finally decided to accept their doctor's advice to allow their children some dairy products. Being very picky about it, they chose goat's milk. The children have both gained weight and made good progress since.

One more victory for God. If only people would listen to Mrs. White, there would be no need of such trials. God has given us sound counsel, and we ignore it at our peril.

As for them having "gone off the deep end," that is exactly what veganism is. It is the "deep end." Mrs. White uses the term "extremist" to refer to vegans, for the word "vegan" was not in use her day.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green,

Over the years I've seen a few too many "deep-enders". Once they get off the tracks it seems next to impossible to get them back on an even keel. It's like Ellen White says, once someone goes off on an extreme position their spiritual judgment is forever afterwards going to be questionable even if/when they recognize the error and come back to good spiritual judgment.

Green - why do you twist things? Yes, kwashiorkor is protein deficiency, but that is very hard to achieve if you are getting adequate calories. In a previous reply, you implied that several of us have brain damage from lack of B12, but you are the only one to acknowledged to have had B12 deficiency. My level is quite good, even above "normal".

EGW has given good counsel on diet, and it is good to take all the counsel and one can come to a healthy conclusion. Example: Grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables constitute the diet chosen for us by our Creator. These foods, prepared in as simple and natural a manner as possible, are the most healthful and nourishing. They impart a strength, a power of endurance, and a vigor of intellect that are not afforded by a more complex and stimulating diet. {MH 296.1}

Hm, did she forget about milk and eggs?

Nature's abundant supply of fruits, nuts, and grains is ample, and year by year the products of all lands are more generally distributed to all, by the increased facilities for transportation. As a result many articles of food which a few years ago were regarded as expensive luxuries are now within the reach of all as foods for everyday use. This is especially the case with dried and canned fruits. {MH 297.1}

Nuts and nut foods are coming largely into use to take the place of flesh meats. With nuts may be combined grains, fruits, and some roots, to make foods that are healthful and nourishing. Care should be taken, however, not to use too large a proportion of nuts. Those who realize ill effects from the use of nut foods may find the difficulty removed by attending to this precaution. It should be remembered, too, that some nuts are not so wholesome as others. Almonds are preferable to peanuts, but peanuts in limited quantities, used in connection with grains, are nourishing and digestible. {MH 298.1}

...

If milk is used, it should be thoroughly sterilized; with this precaution, there is less danger of contracting disease from its use. Butter is less harmful when eaten on cold bread than when used in cooking; but, as a rule, it is better to dispense with it altogether. Cheese is still more objectionable; it is wholly unfit for food. {MH 302.1}

IF milk is used? IF? And butter - best to dispense with it all together!

EGW is clear that fruit, grains, nuts and vegetables are the diet we should strive for In fact, the in the whole book, The Ministry of Healing, eggs and milk are not recommended except for a few weak individuals. Example: But in the case of persons whose blood-making organs are feeble,--especially if other foods to supply the needed elements cannot be obtained,--milk and eggs should not be wholly discarded. Great care should be taken, however, to obtain milk from healthy cows, and eggs from healthy fowls, that are well fed and well cared for; and the eggs should be so cooked as to be most easily digested. {MH 320.1}

The diet reform should be progressive. As disease in animals increases, the use of milk and eggs will become more and more unsafe. An effort should be made to supply their place with other things that are healthful and inexpensive. The people everywhere should be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, so far as possible, and yet have their food wholesome and palatable. {MH 320.2}

How many people know the health of the animals their milk and eggs come from? Not many! And Gary note what Green objects most strongly to: Teaching people to cook without mild of eggs!! He says no, do not give them up. He may not be able to, but are his health weaknesses the prescription for all people? Is teaching people to eat the diet that the Lord has chosen for us and extreme view Gary? Green thinks so. Am I rejecting the testimonies? If so, how so?

I will just say this, apl. You are presenting a one-sided view of what Ellen White says about milk, eggs, and butter. Read everything she says on the subject and you will have a more balanced point of view.

She says in several places that milk and eggs should not be discarded in situations where their exclusion would bring about harm. She also says that it is preferable to use milk and cream in cooking than to cook tasteless insipid food that the stomach will reject.

While I agree that the commercial egg and milk industries are creating atmospheres that produce unhealthy animals it is still possible to get healthy eggs and milk produced on small farms where the farmers are humane and care about their animals, and do not use lots of antibiotics and hormones to force their animals into greater production.

Locally we have several farms that graze their cows in open fields and and when they do feed them grain it is not tainted with antibiotics or hormones. The same with local egg producers who have enough chickens to enable them to sell a eggs as a small sideline. A person can go there and talk to them and see how they care for their animals. I have no fear of using products from these people at all. I am, however, leery of the commercially produced products.

Ellen White advocated sterilizing all milk too. Growing up we drank raw milk, and raw milk is available in our area. I've been to that farm and seen their production facilities and how closely they are regulated and have drank their milk as it helps, for some reason, with my allergies. Two summers ago there were a lot of forest fires in this area and the smoke was so bad it was hard to see a quarter of mile sometimes, and drinking that milk kept my sinuses clear all summer long. I would have had to live on antihistamines without it. I'll take raw milk over antihistamines any day of the week as in all the years we drank raw milk we never once got sick from it.

apl,

I will give you one quote that will show you the one-sidedness of your approach.



As you can see Ellen White's advice on what she based her advice to avoid the use of eggs, milk, and cream was because of the abuse of the animals by commercial producers. That has only increased since her day, but the small farmer who takes good care of his animals still produces a healthy usable product.

I have seen commercially produced eggs in which the yolk was broken inside the shell as it was so weak. Yet in the free range chickens the yolks are the same as they were when I was a kid. It's sometimes hard to break them when stirring the eggs with a fork for scrambled eggs. The color of the yolks is distinct too. The commercial eggs are a very pale yellow. The free range chicken produced egg yolk is almost orange in color, as they used to be.

The small farmer produced eggs and milk are still healthy. I have no doubt the time will come when they will not be, but that time hasn't come yet, at least not when you avoid the commercially produced products.

Gary - Do you object to what EGW wrote in 1905 in The Ministry of Healing? Do you object to my question about the knowledge of where you eggs come from? You would rather risk raw milk contrary to the words of EGW? Yes, I have read everything I could find on what she wrote and the direction she is pointing to a plant based diet. I will continue to do as she has instructed us to do and that is to teach HOW to do without meat, milk and eggs "as far as possible" and have wholesome palatable food. No where I have said you "must not" have I? If you can't do away with these items of food, DON'T.

You take things so far out of context it isn't funny. Ellen White wrote what she wrote about raw milk because of the risk of contamination during milking. There was not very much knowledge at that time about germs and viruses and how disease was spread. Today we know better, and so do the producers of raw milk. They milk their cows in what are basically germ free environments. Everything must be disinfected, including the cow, before the milking process can begin. Those farmers who use their own products aren't going to shortcut the process because they would be making themselves sick. The levels of cleanliness that raw milk producers must maintain by law is not easy to reach. It's a lot different than in Ellen White's day. It's similar to her advice on buying bicycles. In her day they were spending a large percentage of their income to buy a bicycle. That's why she said people shouldn't be purchasing them just to join a fad. Today bicycles are cheap. Do your kids have/did have bicycles?

Ellen White also wrote on the taking of medicines and how we should avoid drugs as much as possible. Now, which is better, to take antihistamines, probably 12 to 14 a day just to be able to breathe, which have known negative side effects, or take a slight risk of contaminated milk? To me the no-brainer is to take the small risk of contaminated milk.

That isn't ignoring what Ellen White wrote. It's making an educated decision on which is the lesser of two evils in a situation where I had to do one or the other because of allergies and air conditions which were far out of the norm.

My eggs come from people I know and know how they care for their hens and how and what they feed them. See, I do follow her advice.

Did you know that she said that some who were getting extreme in her day on the issue of milk, butter, and eggs were "health deformers", and that is a quote, rather than "health reformers"?

It's ironic how Ellen White says that you just completely ignore and then accuse others of misusing the SOP because they don't focus in on exactly the same quotes you do.

Lack of exercise leads to weight gain? Really? Interesting. How many calories do you burn walking 1 mile? Obesity is not a problem of under-exercise, though exercise is good for many reasons. I can get 50% patients off diabetic (type 2) medication in 30-60 days with a simple diet. Check out some of the links above on eggs and disease, including type 2 diabetes.

Diabetes and Eggs

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Type 2 diabetes…is becoming a world pandemic.” We know the consumption of eggs is related to the development of some other chronic diseases. What about diabetes? Researchers found a stepwise increase in risk the more and more eggs people ate. Eating just a single egg a week appeared to increase the odds of diabetes by 76%. Two eggs a week appeared to double the odds, and just a single egg a day tripled the odds. Three times greater risk of type 2 diabetes, one of the leading causes of death and amputations, blindness, and kidney failure.

This is not the first time a link between eggs and diabetes has been reported. In 2009, Harvard researchers found that a single egg a day or more was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes in men and women, and that finding has since also been confirmed in other populations—Asia in 2011, and Europe in 2012. And the “high” consumption of eggs associated with diabetes risk was less than one a day—though it appears you have to start early. Once you get into your 70s, avoiding eggs may not help.

Once we then have diabetes, eggs may hasten our death. Eating one egg a day or more appears to shorten anyone’s lifespan, but may double the all-cause mortality for those with diabetes. Not good news for the egg industry. From a transcript of a closed meeting I found through the Freedom of Information Act: “Given the rate at which obesity and incidence of type II diabetes is growing in the US, any association between dietary cholesterol and type II diabetes could be a ‘show stopper’ that could overshadow the positive attributes [of] eggs.”

L. Radzevivcienė, R. Ostrauskas...8):1437 - 1441.
U. Ericson, E. Sonestedt, B. Gullberg, S...6):1143 - 1153.
Z. Shi, B. Yuan, C. Zhang, M. Zhou, G. H...7(2):194 - 198.
L. Djoussé, A. Kamineni, T. L. Nelson, M...92(2):422 - 427
L. Djoussé, J. M. Gaziano. Egg consumpti...7(4):964 - 969.
L. Djoussé, J. M. Gaziano, J. E. Buring,...2(2):295 - 300.


Gary, there are those that have issue with trying to give up certain items of food. I'm not trying to convince you one way of the other. YOUR experience is not the same as someone else. Many children would benefit from avoiding milk because of mucus production it causes and the ear issue that ensue and have the opposite effect that you describe happens to you. YOUR experience of buying milk and eggs is not that of the general population which have NO IDEA the conditions of the animals from which it comes. Now what I have ignored that EGW said? None. Do you say she is too radical when she writes: The people everywhere should be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, so far as possible, and yet have their food wholesome and palatable. {MH 320.2} Or is she also out of context?

EGW's counsels on health are about the most controversial in Adventist circles. What is interesting is the non-Adventist population is seeing more light in her health message at the very time many Adventists are trying to circumvent it.

As to the discussion here --
It is true there are exceptions when some milk and eggs may be recommended, however, when looking at the subject for the majority, striving for a diet free of milk/eggs is definitely the road to take.

Green gave an example in favor of animal products--
Yet, that example was not concerning mainstream health, but rather of children who had an intolerance to some vegan foods that were high in protein. Of course if one is intolerant to beans and lentils, exceptions need to made to ensure a balance of amino acids.

However, I also know children who are intolerant to milk and milk products, so one can make the same type of case from the other side. I myself am somewhat allergic to milk. As a child I used to have very itchy rashes on my skin. No doctors knew why. But when I stopped using milk products my skin cleared completely and the rashes were gone! And back then we got our milk from a local farm.

Rather than focusing on the exceptions, and EGW's comments that in SOME cases milk and eggs should be considered, we should focus on
"people everywhere should be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, so far as possible, and yet have their food wholesome and palatable. {MH 320.2}

The counsel is to get away from milk and eggs as far as possible, not make the exceptions the rule.

Rather than milk and eggs being more healthy now than in her time, the opposite is true. The manipulation with drugs, hormones, and other "scientific" procedures of the animal food industry has NOT left us with healthier animals, but made animal food that much more unhealthy.

Here are a few quotes to the other side, which some here may already reject. Satan has many ways of getting us to reject the Testimonies, including deceiving us into thinking that we are actually more righteous for doing so.



The above was a testimony addressed to Dr. Kress in 1901 and later published in several volumes for everyone. The language is clear: "the doctrine of dispensing with [milk and eggs] should not be taught." She does not say merely that Dr. Kress should not be teaching this--but the statement would apply to anyone.

In that same year (1901), she wrote to all of the brethren in the Iowa Conference similarly, showing publicly the same message as it applied to the church membership at large.



To another individual she penned:



Clearly, both salt and milk were "nutritious" and desirable. Mrs. White expressly includes milk as part of an "unperverted appetite" (1890).



The most healthful diet, according to Mrs. White, includes milk or cream.

After all that she teaches about the benefits of milk, cream, and eggs; after her express words that we should not give them up too soon, but rather wait for God Himself to reveal that it is time to do so; after she expressly tells us not to teach others to dispense with them; after she expressly tells us that by giving them up too soon we will bring ourselves a time of trouble, and afflict ourselves with death--how can we still reject her counsels to enter a path of our own folly?

I ask everyone the same question: Has God told you to give them up? I do NOT ask if God has told you to teach others to give them up--we already know the answer to that one.

The answer I usually get is something like, "Well, all you have to do is look at how diseased the animals are becoming and how unsafe it is to use them now." Guess what? Animals were becoming diseased in Ellen White's day too. Many people sickened and died from poor sanitation. But she told people expressly that it was not yet time to give them up. When would it be time? When GOD revealed that it was. Has He? Or have people tried to run ahead of God, knowing that the time may come when this step is required, and thinking that they are somehow more righteous to take the step ahead of time?

God is not pleased when we try to run ahead of Him.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't have a problem with anything Ellen White says. And, this last post of yours was much more balanced the first ones were.

With my inability to exercise also came high levels of chronic pain accompanied by depression from being unable to pay bills, unable to work off stress in my normal ways which was always physical exercise (full court basketball, high level volleyball, hiking in the mountains, walking the golf courses which in my area were all on hilly terrain). The depression that chronic pain often brings with it was a double whammy. I'm of a personality that eats when depressed, not is unable to eat. So, my weight gain is greatly attributable to my inability to exercise. It caused a lot of issues for me.

When you are used to burning off 3,000 calories a day or so between work and play for your entire life going from that appetite to doing nothing but sitting in one spot is not an easy chore. Especially not when your entire life has just been turned upside down.

I too prefer a plant based diet. But, you have to remember that white sugar is plant based. You can eat a vegan diet and have an unhealthy diet.

So, I do allow for good eggs in my diet although I try to keep flesh food and milk out of it. (Unfortunately, living in Asia makes this almost impossible at this time)

That's a falsehood.

Green, who don't follow your own advice, jump at any opportunity to prescribe your diet for everyone else.

Green, have you considered that the example of the family you described going off the deep end is also an example of what Ellen White was saying about those who give up meat, eggs, and milk yet failed to supply in their place nourishing and healthful things, thus bringing the health reform into disrepute? Could that possibly be why she urges the people to be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, to supply the place of that which was discarded?

Nah. Instead, you make your diet a criterion for others to follow.

I didn't follow your train of logic here. Because sugar is plant based and/or you can eat an unhealthy vegan diet is the reason you eat eggs?

kland,

The "that which was discarded" was not, if you understand the context, milk and eggs. At least, that's not what she tells people to discard. You are doing exactly what Mrs. White says NOT to do--you are classing milk and eggs with flesh meat. It is the meat, the tea, the coffee, etc. which are to be "discarded."

Have you rejected her testimonies on this point? If you haven't rejected them, you won't be trying so hard to support a vegan diet--Mrs. White certainly does not. Here is what she says on this topic, and she makes clear what is to be discarded and what is not.



I know of vegans today who are dying because of it. A young man in his thirties died of brain cancer. A man in his forties died of cancer. These vegans had no resistance to the disease for lack of proper nutrition and stores of B12. If I had to fight cancer, I might very well become vegan until I had beaten it, then I would go back to the lacto-ovo-vegetarianism. During the fight, the animal products might advantage the cancer. But without their nutritional advantages prior to its onset, the body would entirely succumb to the cancer. This is the plain truth. Mrs. White was inspired to tell us that discarding milk and eggs too soon would "afflict" us with DEATH. I've seen it happen. There's no reason a young man in his thirties should die of cancer!

Mrs. White called vegans "extremists." In opposing the concept of veganism, she quotes the Bible verse that says "Let your moderation be known unto all men."



I would encourage people to do just that here on this forum, as well as out in the world in their daily lives. Instead of putting yourselves in God's place to advocate the extreme of discarding milk, cream, eggs, and butter; let your moderation be known unto all. To do otherwise is to reject the Testimonies we have been given.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It surprises me that milk and eggs are being pushed on an Adventist forum.

Personally I do not use milk or eggs in my cooking or eating, though still get some in bought foods that may contain some, or when partaking of food that may contain some dairy when eating elsewhere.

Milk and milk products have definitely shown themselves to be detrimental to my health and to the health of relatives. I could list a number of symptoms that appear when milk products are consumed -- it's a much better life without them.

What Green is doing is using Mrs. White's cautions to be careful when changing one's diet, into a campaign to get modern people to eat milk and eggs on a regular bases.

Remember EGW wrote 150 years ago, when she cautioned that the "time was not yet".

150 years ago people did not have the nutritional knowledge that is available today.
150 years ago people did not have the access to the wide variety of foods we have today.
150 years ago it was more difficult to get a balanced diet, as many people just ate what they had on their farms.

"The time is not yet" -- a sentence written 150 years ago, is used to try and prove that 150 years later her counsel to learn to cook without milk and eggs as far as possible is still not relevant?????

We aren't living in in the 1800's any more -- we are living in the 2017.

Ever wonder why the countries that drink the most milk also have the greatest numbers of people with osteoporosis, the weakening of bones -- broken hips, etc.
Contrary to popular propaganda which urges people to drink milk for strong bones -- milk leeches the calcium from your system.

Allergies -- milk and milk products is one food many are allergic to and don't even know why they have skin problems, gastric problems or even convulsions, sore joints and arthritis.


Here's a study

1.In observational studies both across countries and within single populations, higher dairy intake has been linked to increased risk of prostate cancer (cited in [2]).

2.Observational cohort studies have shown higher dairy intake is linked to higher ovarian cancer risk (cited in [2]).

3.Cow’s milk protein may play a role in triggering type 1 diabetes through a process called molecular mimicry[3].

4.Across countries, populations that consume more dairy have higher rates of multiple sclerosis[4].

5.In interventional animal experiments and human studies, dairy protein has been shown to increase IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1) levels. Increased levels of IGF-1 has now been implicated in several cancers[5].

6.In interventional animal experiments[6] and human experiments[7], dairy protein has been shown to promote increased cholesterol levels (in the human studies and animal studies) and atherosclerosis (in the animal studies).

7.The primary milk protein (casein) promotes cancer initiated by a carcinogen in experimental animal studies[8].

8.D-galactose (a component high in milk) has been found to be pro-inflammatory and actually is given to create animal models of aging[1].

9.Higher milk intake is linked to acne[9].

10.Milk intake has been implicated in constipation[10] and ear infections (cited in [2]).

11.Milk is perhaps the most common self-reported food allergen in the world[11].

12.Much of the world’s population cannot adequately digest milk due to lactose intolerance.

There is a wealth of indirect evidence of very serious possible harms of consuming dairy foods, and, on the flip side, the evidence that milk prevents fractures is scant.

As we look beyond the headlines, it is hard to think that we should continue to consume the lactation fluid that exists in nature to nourish and rapidly grow calves.

References
1. Michaelsson K, Wolk A, Langenskiold S, et al. Milk intake and risk of mortality and fractures in women and men: cohort studies. Bmj 2014;349:g6015.
2. Lanou AJ. Should dairy be recommended as part of a healthy vegetarian diet? Counterpoint. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2009;89:1638S-42S.
3. Dahl-Jorgensen K, Joner G, Hanssen KF. Relationship between cows’ milk consumption and incidence of IDDM in childhood. Diabetes Care 1991;14:1081-3.
4. Malosse D, Perron H, Sasco A, Seigneurin JM. Correlation between milk and dairy product consumption and multiple sclerosis prevalence: a worldwide study. Neuroepidemiology 1992;11:304-12.
5. Key TJ. Diet, insulin-like growth factor-1 and cancer risk. Proc Nutr Soc 2011:1-4.
6. Kritchevsky D. Dietary protein, cholesterol and atherosclerosis: a review of the early history. The Journal of nutrition 1995;125:589S-93S.
7. Gardner CD, Messina M, Kiazand A, Morris JL, Franke AA. Effect of two types of soy milk and dairy milk on plasma lipids in hypercholesterolemic adults: a randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 2007;26:669-77.
8. Youngman LD, Campbell TC. Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase positive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low protein diets: evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potential. Carcinogenesis 1992;13:1607-13.
9. Spencer EH, Ferdowsian HR, Barnard ND. Diet and acne: a review of the evidence. Int J Dermatol 2009;48:339-47.
10. Caffarelli C, Baldi F, Bendandi B, Calzone L, Marani M, Pasquinelli P. Cow’s milk protein allergy in children: a practical guide. Italian journal of pediatrics 2010;36:5.
11. Rona RJ, Keil T, Summers C, et al. The prevalence of food allergy: a meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:638-46.


Another source of information you might consider is
Health Concerns about Dairy Products Physicians Committee for Responsible Medician

I see. You imply that:

• Today, we have all the knowledge we need about nutrition.
• Today, we have access to more nutritive foods.
• Today, it is easy to get a balanced diet--from non-farm sources.

Dedication, I don't know who you are trying to persuade with such nonsense, but it won't fool me into rejecting Mrs. White's counsels. She has told us that when the time comes, God will reveal it.

I ask you: Has GOD revealed to you that it is now time to discard milk and eggs?

THAT is the important question which every vegan must answer.

As for me, I readily acknowledge that I am not smart enough to know when that time has come based on my own observations/opinions of the condition of the world. From my perspective, our fruits and vegetables today are less nutritious than in Mrs. White's day. No vegan source has yet been found for B12, and I know of no vegan source that even comes close to matching the levels of sulfur that can be found in eggs. By the way, are you aware she wrote many of her milk and egg statements in the 1900s? The last months of her life were sustained primarily by eggs--did you know this? She died in 1915, having used and advocated the use of milk and eggs to her dying day.

I will wait for God's signal. For myself, He has not yet given that signal. I cannot say whether or not He has given it to you or to others--that is the question you must answer for yourself. But I can say with certainty that Mrs. White's words on this subject are being rejected by many Adventists. Her prophetic words indicating that they would afflict themselves with death are all too frequently proven true in our present day.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, several years ago.
By health experience not only in my life, but also in the lives of family and friends, and also by bringing to my attention information.
Life is far better without those things!

Wonderful. Your situation, regardless of whether you feel God has given you the "time is now" message, and regardless of whether or not you continue to use milk and/or eggs, does not license you nor anyone else to tell others to give them up. We are told clearly in Mrs. White's writings that milk and eggs are important aspects of our nutrition that should not be given up until God has told us to. I personally believe that this may well be an individual revelation, not a corporate one. Some, lacking ability to obtain these from healthy animals, must give them up earlier than others who can still find good quality products. In my situation, I advise fellow missionaries here NOT to give them up for the simple reasons of impoverished nutrition in this area, a lack of availability of supplemental B12, and a highly toxic environment requiring more of the sulfur obtained in eggs.

Milk, aside from the casein which causes kidneys to excrete calcium, is often obtained from unhealthy animals that were given many mercury-containing vaccines. The mercury emerges in the milk, and Mrs. White tells us mercury causes rottenness in the bones and joints (osteoporosis). If you have your own cow, and you raise it without all the harmful vaccines, this would be less of an issue. Mrs. White never once alluded to milk being harmful to bones.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Another falsehood!
Letter 98, 1901
590. There is danger that in presenting the principles of health reform some will be in favor of bringing in changes that would be for the worse instead of for the better. Health reform must not be urged in a radical manner. As the situation now is, we cannot say that milk and eggs and butter should be entirely discarded. We must be careful to make no innovations, because under the influence of extreme teaching there are conscientious souls who will surely go to extremes. Their physical appearance will injure the cause of health reform; for few know how to properly supply the place of that which they discard. {CD 352.3}

Green, is there anything in that passage about meat?
Green, is she talking about knowing how to supply the place of that which was discarded, namely, "milk and eggs and butter"?
Green, when she talks of extremes, would you agree that she is talking about those who do NOT know how to supply the place of "milk and eggs and butter"?

As the situation was, over a century ago, it was not then time to be entirely discarded.

The diet reform should be progressive. As disease in animals increases, the use of milk and eggs will become more and more unsafe. An effort should be made to supply their place with other things that are healthful and inexpensive. The people everywhere should be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, so far as possible, and yet have their food wholesome and palatable. {CCh 225.4}

Green, is there anything in that passage about meat?
Green, is she talking about knowing how to supply the place of that which was discarded, namely, "milk and eggs" that is becoming more and more unsafe?

Green, ask yourself, what effort are you making?

583. The health food business is in need of means and of the active cooperation of our people, that it may accomplish the work it ought to do. Its purpose is to supply the people with food which will take the place of flesh meat, and also milk and butter, which, on account of the diseases of cattle, are becoming more and more objectionable.
[REPLACING WITH CREAM--586, 610] {CD 350.2}

Yes, it does mention meat here.
But Green, she is talking about supplying the people with food which will take the place of not only meat, but milk and butter.

In all parts of the world provision will be made to supply the place of milk and eggs. And the Lord will let us know when the time comes to give up these articles. He desires all to feel that they have a gracious heavenly Father who will instruct them in all things. The Lord will give dietetic art and skill to His people in all parts of the world, teaching them how to use for the sustenance of life the products of the earth.
[USE OF MILK IN BREADMAKING--496]
[USE OF MILK IN WHOLE-WHEAT ROLLS--503] {CD 359.3}

Green, is there anything in that passage about meat?
Green, is she talking about knowing how to supply the place of "milk and eggs" through dietetic art and skill to His people in all parts of the world?

There are other interests in Avondale closely associated with our school. Indeed, they are really a part of our educational work, and they also require help. The healthfood business is in need of means and of the active co-operation of our people, that it may accomplish the work it ought to do. Its purpose is to supply the people with food which will take the place of flesh-meat, and also milk and butter, which, on account of the diseases of cattle, are becoming more and more objectionable. {AUCR, January 1, 1900 par. 14}

Yes, it does mention meat here.
But Green, is she talking supplying the place of "milk and eggs" that is becoming more and more objectionable?

You are the only one here rejecting her testimonies.
(For your information, a vegan diet is not necessarily healthy. It would include sugar, alcohol, vinegar and other unhealthy things.)

Am I the one trying so hard to support a vegan diet? Or am I just refuting your errors which you are trying so hard to promote? Who brought this up, but you yourself, making your diet a criterion for others to follow.
Good advice. Why don't you yourself follow it.
Please!!!!

Green, is a diet of bread and milk healthy? Or is this an example of extremes?

Green, why does she emphasize "poor" here? Does that apply to everyone? Is anyone here on this forum urging poor people to eat a certain way (other than you)?

Green, are you saying all vegans die of brain cancer?
Or non-vegans don't die of brain cancer?
Just exactly what are you saying rather than running off at the mouth?

Do you know that or are you just making that conclusion up as you have the rest of the stuff, which has been shown to be falsehoods.

CONTRADICTION!!!
Look up a couple of paragraphs where you said, I know of vegans today who are dying because of it. A young man in his thirties died of brain cancer.

So if the diet you were eating led to cancer, you would stop the diet to cure the cancer and then return to the diet which led to cancer?

Green says that non-vegans in their 30's never die of cancer!

Green you keep talking about B12, but your recent examples do not say anything about B12. You just make that conclusion up. Ellen White says nothing about B12, but yet you imply she does.

Please show how much B12 comes from milk and eggs.

Not sure why.

It is a most difficult matter to unlearn the habits which have been indulged through life and have educated the appetite. The demon of intemperance is not easily conquered. It is of giant strength and hard to overcome.
{CG 408.3}

The first great evil was intemperance in eating and drinking. Men and women have made themselves slaves to appetite. They are intemperate in labor.
{CD 149.4}

To deny appetite requires decision of character. For want of this decision multitudes are ruined. Weak, pliable, easily led, many men and women fail utterly of becoming what God desires them to be. Those who are destitute of decision of character cannot make a success of the daily work of overcoming. The world is full of besotted, intemperate, weak-minded men and women, and how hard it is for them to become genuine Christians. {CD 165.2}

No, there is nothing in that passage about meat. However, a close look at the passage does not say what should be discarded either. In fact, it says that milk and eggs CANNOT be wholly discarded. So we must look for more information. In order to have some context, other statements are needed.

Consider the following.



Animal food, the food to be discarded, is explicitly linked to "meat" here.



Again, the food to be discarded is "meats," whereas milk and cream are permitted, i.e. not discarded.



Once again, milk is not discarded--that won't be discarded until God tells us it's time. In fact, this statement says it should NOT be "abolished from our tables." Of course, vegans do abolish it, thus either saying expressly that God has revealed the time, or that they have chosen to disregard Mrs. White's testimonies.



The flesh meat is NOT milk, eggs, nor butter, per this statement. Those represent separate categories. While flesh foods were to be discarded, the milk and eggs were not.



Again, we are not to tell people to discard milk and eggs. They are in a separate class from flesh meats. Meat, tea, and coffee should be discarded. "The time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet." When will that time come? When God reveals it. Has He?



kland, the liver can store B12 for up to a two-year supply in some individuals. For many, it stores about six-months' worth. If someone gets cancer having their stores already depleted, it is too late to get them built up by using the animal foods that can help to feed the cancer. When someone has cancer, it is necessary to starve out the cancer--even it might include some fasting. Now, suppose I am a thin wraith when the onset of cancer occurs--what stores will I hold in reserve with which to fight it? How can I reduce my caloric intake, including all sugars and animal products, if I do not have energy reserves? I cannot. So I must eat. And the fact of eating will feed the cancer too, just like it would feed a tapeworm.

If I learned I had worms, I might fast for awhile to starve them out. But this would only be possible if I had enough body fat in reserve to sustain myself during that time. It is disingenuous to presume that by eating I encouraged the worms in the first place. Worms can be contracted in many manners, especially in my part of the world, and it is simply not always possible to avoid them. (Be thankful you can eat things like fresh lettuce without fear where you live.)

Everyone will get exposed to cancer germs, regardless of his or her lifestyle. While it may be true that eating exposes one to more of the germs, it is also true that one needs to eat! And nutrition is important. If you are a vegan, you are not getting B12 without supplementation. Period. But you will need B12 to fight cancer when it romps into your life uninvited and unannounced. And you will find it rather late to then build your critical reserves to fight off the cancer. This is why Mrs. White says a vegan diet will afflict with death.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I would just like to point out something here. Butter is being castigated as unhealthy. Well, do you eat margarine? If so you are eating something that has an amazing process of creation. I think once you read the following link on how it is made you might stop using it. I see butter as far more healthy than margarine just because of how margarine is made. If a person has quit using both, good for them.

https://www.sott.net/article/277493-Do-you-really-know-how-margarine-is-made

That said, I use a lot of homemade cashew butter, and when I eat peanut butter it's Adams, the only brand I know of that still has as its only ingredients, peanuts and salt, and the peanut oil is not hydrolyzed.

I also eat some of the vegemeats, and they are not very healthy foods because of how they are made either. My dog simply cannot eat them as just small mounts of it give him a bad case of diarrhea. So if they upset a dog's digestive system that much think of what they do to ours.

There is a lot that goes into eating a healthy diet. It takes a lot of research to learn just how a lot of foods are made and how many chemicals are used in the process of creating them. Even veggies are not very healthy sometimes in this day and age. Look at all the serious cases of diseases that come from contaminated veggies, and all the serious chemicals used in raising them. The only way to really KNOW what you are eating these days is to raise it ALL yourself, but how many people are in a position to do that? To me it is just a case of make the best decisions you can by investigating as much as possible the source, and the rest is just trusting God to keep us healthy.

The other thing I watch is the alkaline/acid balance of foods. The typical diet has way too many acid producing foods. If the body goes acidic it's known as acidosis, and long term acidosis, even mild acidosis, is very a very unhealthy condition. It can cause severe health problems.

Neither butter nor margarine is healthy.

Use coconut oil-- it's a solid at room temperature, and has a host of health benefits, and it tastes good!

Green, if people FEEL they need some milk and eggs, that's up to them, however -- you are actively pushing the eating of milk and eggs as REQUIRED by EGW in her testimonies. Not to eat you've placed in the "rejecting her testimonies" category.

That is why your posts cause a lot of concern on this issue.

That is NOT what EGW was saying in her testimonies.
What she is saying is to move away from their use in careful steps and not urge sudden "giving up" upon people whom one knows would have a hard getting proper nutrition.

As far as people dying from cancer because they don't eat milk and eggs --
you may find one case of such, but beside that one are hundreds of cases of people getting cancer because they eat milk and eggs. You can find all kinds of scientific reports telling you that the risk of cancer climbs quite substantially for people who eat milk and eggs.


These are all statements you can find on health webpages:

"according to Harvard University researchers
In a study more than 1,000 men in the early stages of prostate cancer were followed for several years.
It found that if the men who ate two-and-a-half or more eggs per week they had twice the risk of their cancer progressing to areas such as the bones.

"They found that cow’s milk stimulated the growth of human prostate cancer cells in each of 14 separate experiments, producing an average increase in cancer growth rate of over 30%. In contrast, almond milk suppressed the growth of these cancer cells by over 30%.


"A leading scientist, who has been fighting breast cancer since 1987, says the disease is overwhelmingly linked to animal products.


"In a 1992 analysis of dietary habits, people who consumed just 1.5 eggs per week had nearly five times the risk for colon cancer, compared with those who consumed hardly any (fewer than 11 per year), according to the International Journal of Cancer. The World Health Organization analyzed data from 34 countries in 2003 and found that eating eggs is associated with death from colon and rectal cancers. And a 2011 study funded by the National Institutes of Health showed that eating eggs is linked to developing prostate cancer. By consuming 2.5 eggs per week, men increased their risk for a deadly form of prostate cancer by 81 percent, compared with men who consumed less than half an egg per week. Finally, even moderate egg consumption tripled the risk of developing bladder cancer, according to a 2005 study published in International Urology and Nephrology."



"“Women who ate one portion of full-fat dairy a day were 64 per cent more likely to die from any cause – not just breast cancer.” — Kaiser Permanente research centre study that analyzed the records of 1,500 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2000

Yes. It lessens your credibility as a moderator when you put glosses on the inspired counsel that can't be sustained and when you allow the topic of the thread to be compromised and used to advance unrelated personal views. I don't doubt your sincerity. Shalom Green.

Mark,

I post as do you--as a private individual. In no case should my views be considered to represent the views of the forum owner(s). Nor should my posts be construed as any more authoritative by virtue of my moderator status here. Furthermore, you may note that dedication and asygo are the designated moderators in this subforum, and not me. As for my own credibility, I care little. This topic is about Ellen White's credibility, and it seems to be fading here. That's disappointing.

Mrs. White was clear enough for those who choose to accept her writings. My point with this particular issue has been that many Adventists may unconsciously be rejecting Mrs. White while claiming to follow her. I see this as one aspect of the fulfillment of her prophecy that the testimonies would be rejected. As far as I am concerned, that point is valid and well within the domain of the thread title. That some of the discussion regarding the point strays from the topic I will not deny, though I will say I have tried in my own posts to keep that topic in view. I am sorry you feel I have compromised the topic. Perhaps a new one should be started addressing the health concerns themselves, whereas I have tried to focus on the fact that many are rejecting portions of Mrs. White's teachings.

Yes, I am entirely sincere in this. There is not the slightest degree of insincerity in my posts on this topic. I have sought to follow Mrs. White fully, diligently seeking the level of balance which she expressed in the totality of her writings. It is not safe to hone in on a single passage and attempt to follow it to the exclusion of other passages on the same topic. Doing this, ultimately, becomes a form of rejection of the Testimonies, just as many reject the Bible in part by willfully ignoring certain verses.

Some here reject Ellen White's compilations. Some reject the works published (at her behest) by the White Estate following her death. Some, even here, reject the Testimonies that were written to private individuals, saying that they were not meant for anyone else--though Mrs. White teaches us otherwise if we will but read and heed. ALL of these are forms of "Rejection of the Testimonies" which Mrs. White correctly foretold.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Dedication,

Your post misrepresents my position. I have not said what you claim. You have often misrepresented me in the past, and I do not wish to argue with you further. It profits nothing. But for the sake of clarity with others, like Mark Shipowick, who seem to have agreed with your misrepresentation, and/or not caught on to what I was actually saying after you misrepresented it, let me make something clear:

I HAVE NOT taught that people MUST eat milk or eggs according to Ellen White. What I have taught, is just what she herself taught--that people MUST NOT TEACH OTHERS to give up milk and eggs, and that milk and eggs, according to Mrs. White, were of nutritional benefit, part of the most healthful diet. Teach people to cook without them, yes--but she is clear that we are not to tell others their duty on this issue, nor to make our own diet a criterion for others. Sadly, some here are doing just that--and they twist my words to make it appear to be me instead of themselves.

People continue to reject her Testimonies on this issue. Sad.

By the way, I am not here to focus on scientific studies. God never told us to follow such. He gave us His instruction through the Testimonies. Let us not give up the Testimonies for a different standard.

Perhaps I am finished with this topic. I have said enough. Reject me--but please do not continue to reject Mrs. White!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, an example of what Dedication was talking about!

You did not even begin to look at that passage and off your running to some other one to support your views.

I do not know whether to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are merely being dishonest or if you have onset of type 3 diabetes.

Green, show who initiated that teaching. Instead you initiated it. So wouldn't that be you teaching others to eat milk and eggs.

People continue to believe Ellen White rather than personal opinions of Green which he cannot support, cannot even spend half a minute reading passages contrary.

Good advice. Please follow it.
Till you initiate it again on some off topic thread.

Well said. A good warning and admonition Brother.

I use a lot of coconut oil. It is a very good oil. Very healthy indeed. The MCTs it contains do some very good things to our bodies. All coconut products do the same thing for the same reasons.

I think, though, it needs to be said that butter isn't intrinsically unhealthy. Every quote I have ever read where Ellen White talks about the why of giving up butter, milk and eggs is related to the fear of these products coming from diseased animals, not that the products themselves are intrinsically unhealthy. She does, however, condemn cheese as being intrinsically unhealthy, not fit for food.

I see margarine as being intrinsically unhealthy, just like cheese, pork, etc....

Butter certainly cannot be classified an "health food".
From the book, The Ministry of Healing, chapter 23, Diet and Health:

If milk is used, it should be thoroughly sterilized; with this precaution, there is less danger of contracting disease from its use. Butter is less harmful when eaten on cold bread than when used in cooking; but, as a rule, it is better to dispense with it altogether. Cheese is still more objectionable; it is wholly unfit for food. {MH 302.1}

So - "as a rule", it is best to give up butter. That is clear not only from EGW.

When will you learn to get some balance to your points of view? Here is a statement from Ellen White that says exactly what I said above.



She also talks about people who do not get proper nutrition because they gave up milk, eggs, cream and butter without replacing the vital nutrients those foods contain in their diet. The very clear implication of such statements is that there are nutrients in milk, eggs, butter and cream that are required by the human body to remain healthy. Those nutrients are healthy or the body would not require them. The body cannot work correctly without them. So to say that butter is intrinsically unhealthy is an extremely one-sided point of view that rejects a portion of the health message.

Is butter a "health food"? No, of course not. But that does not mean it is intrinsically unhealthy either. If it was intrinsically unhealthy discarding it without replacing its vital nutrients in the diet would not, could not, be a cause of not getting the nutrition the body requires.

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse here, but this sounds a lot like urging one's own criteria for others to follow.

You know you can be easily disproved. All it would take is for one missionary in your situation to eat a non-animal diet and still maintain his nutrition and health. All it would take is for one to demonstrate that the available nutrition is not impoverished but can be found. And all it would take is for one to demonstrate that a source of sulfur (or any other detoxifying substance) can be found through other means than eggs.

You have yet to show how much B12 are in eggs, how many you would need to eat to get enough. Maybe, that's what the true situation is there, is that you only think you are getting enough to maintain brain health.

Source, please.

Gary, to me "so far as possible" means so far as possible ALL should: To make effort, to make it a goal, to strive towards.

What or how does the following reflect in your life?

It is a most difficult matter to unlearn the habits which have been indulged through life and have educated the appetite. The demon of intemperance is not easily conquered. It is of giant strength and hard to overcome.
{CG 408.3}

The first great evil was intemperance in eating and drinking. Men and women have made themselves slaves to appetite. They are intemperate in labor.
{CD 149.4}

To deny appetite requires decision of character. For want of this decision multitudes are ruined. Weak, pliable, easily led, many men and women fail utterly of becoming what God desires them to be. Those who are destitute of decision of character cannot make a success of the daily work of overcoming. The world is full of besotted, intemperate, weak-minded men and women, and how hard it is for them to become genuine Christians. {CD 165.2}

Sometimes I just have to laugh, because the alternative is not some place I want to go....

Do you have any idea how many people there are who have to make a decision between a couple of pairs of socks and something to eat? There are 10's of millions of people who completely dropped out of the labor force because they finally just gave up looking for work because jobs just don't exist. They aren't counted in the unemployment numbers because they are no longer registered with the state employment agencies as looking for work. The official unemployment numbers were doctored by the Obama administration 4 or 5 times, and every time they made a change the unemployment rate dropped. Just like magic.... No more people were working, but the unemployment rate dropped. My entire life up until half way through the Obama administration someone working less than 30 hours a week was not considered fully employed. Now? If you work 15-20 hours a week you are not counted on the unemployment roles. Who can survive on that? Who can afford to give up the nutrition found in eggs and milk on that kind of income as it is expensive to eat vegan food?

Ellen White would be telling those people get your milk and eggs from places you can trust, if you can find them, and if not, she would understand. She understood in her day that a lot of people just couldn't afford the increase in expenditure required to eat healthily. She said that those people would actually harm themselves by changing their diet. The same is true today, only people like you and apl cannot, or refuse to, understand that. I doubt either of you have ever been dirt poor. If you had you wouldn't be so extreme in your views because you would realize that there are people who simply cannot afford to eat the way you do.

Ever looked at the difference in nutrition between a plate of scrambled eggs and a plate of crumbled/scrambled tofu? Tofu is the loser by a wide margin.

I have been in the position millions of people are in today, and I sympathize with them. I know what it's like to have to make really hard choices because you don't have enough money to make good choices. You simply accuse of being a slave to appetite. What a jerk.

I think the difference here isn't a matter of condemning people who are unemployed and existing on whatever the food bank (or other charitable source) will give them, the issue is rather -- people who are not in such dire straights and have the resources to eat healthy, tend to use the exceptions EGW makes for those who are unable to obtain good food, as their excuse to continue eating foods that indeed we should learn to cook without.

The introductory post ( 03/22/17 03:06 ) on this egg/milk topic started out with a post telling us "Mrs. White said we should not give up milk and eggs before God revealed it was time to do so. Many are rejecting her testimonies on this point,"

The same person wrote (03/24/17 12:01 ) " Mrs. White tells us plainly not to give up milk and eggs until God reveals that it is time....As for them having "gone off the deep end," that is exactly what veganism is. It is the "deep end." Mrs. White uses the term "extremist" to refer to vegans"

That was the general message at the beginning of this conversation-- (notice the "we" and "us" references) which was clearly implying that anyone (like us) adopting a vegan or near vegan diet was "running ahead of God" and "rejecting EGW" and an "extremist" and courting death.

Later that poster back peddled, saying he didn't say that, he was just saying "don't teach others to be vegans", but the poles were already set.

Of course, when food is scarce one must do the best with what is available to them. There are people who live on food they find in the garbage bins. They do the best they can to stay alive.

However, when taking all EGW's writings in consideration, we ARE to teach people to learn to cook without milk and eggs as far as possible.
This "learning" is progressive.
Milk and eggs aren't cheap either. A person can cook a lot more meals using the same money to buy bags of dried beans, lentils, rice, and other grains, and if you have a garden out back with fresh greens and vegetables, one can live quite healthy without a large expenditure.

True, for some it is not possible, but how many use that for an excuse to just push the warnings and admonition that we should learn a different way of cooking, away, and happily eat a diet rich in milk, milk products, and eggs simply because that's how they like to eat and cook?

Poverty I know. Hard choices must be made. People can only do the best they can with what they have available. I believe in doing the best I can with my diet and hope to do better.

But, I believe dedication gave the best answer. When people make excuses based on the exceptions rather than the norm.

I don't have a single problem with what you just said at all. I feel the same way about things. I just abhor, though, the idea that we must be so hard headed about things that we cannot even acknowledge the truth about the nutrition available in those products and the why for abandoning them. Ellen White made it obvious that the only reason for abandoning dairy and egg products was because of the risk of disease coming from the animals that produced them.

When we refuse to even acknowledge that there is something really wrong. And when we make blanket judgments on others based upon our own financial position and the assumption that others must be in the same position it's even worse. That is what Ellen white called health deformers.

For some reason this post did not show up when I posted early this morning.

There is nothing I disagree with here either. There are people who use the exceptions Ellen White gave on a healthy diet to excuse doing what they have the resources to do. It is always that way with sin. Those who love it will always find an excuse for the behavior.

There are always those too, who will take things to extremes and go far beyond what we are advised to do. The couple in Green's example is the other extreme. They refused to do what was right for their child until permanent damage was done. Both those making excuses for their behavior when they could do better and those making excuses for the failure to listen to good advice are wrong. Both are making excuses for not doing what is right even though it is harmful in both cases.

The failure to condemn what happened in Green's case and the failure to acknowledge that there are those who must make hard decisions is wrong too. We lose absolutely nothing by acknowledging that there are many healthful nutrients in dairy products and eggs. We remain true to principle when we can say, yes, there is good in those products, however, there are problems with disease in the animals they come from when we buy them commercially. In doing so we will be saying the exact same things God has told us.

Ellen White said it was no denial of principle to eat eggs from fowl known to be healthy. She used milk and cream from cows known to be healthy long after she said we should move away from them. In doing so she did not deny the principles she taught.

I would also point out that having a garden is beyond the reach of many. Very few people who live in an apartment can grow one. Anyone who rents may be denied the ability to grow a garden too by their landlord. Finances determine almost all of this.

Gary, as Dedication pointed out, is that what anyone was talking about here? Are YOU in that position today? And if you had read previous posts, you would find that it was mentioned that it was for poor people. If you are not poor, you are not the exception. If you are poor and have access to supply the place of that which is given up, you are not the exception.

Hmmm...the Bible tells us that the amount of money you have or dont have is not what makes us "rich." I think Gary's points are well taken.

"the blessing of the Lord maketh rich; and He adds no sorrow unto it..." (Prov 10:22)

That should have read, "you would find that it was mentioned that it wasN'T for poor people".

This post is going to reference things posted a while ago.

I sometimes wonder at the people who claim to be so health-oriented that they look down on others. The claim was made that all a vegan need do is take a b12 tablet. Wrong. There are 3 types of b12 on the market as supplements. One is found nowhere but in chemical laboratories, and has as its foundation a cyanide molecule. Real healthy....

Of the other two only one form can be used by the body without other substances to help the liver transform it into something the body can use directly. Go do your research. You will find out I am absolutely correct, but yet you guys look down on me as being someone against health reform.

Also, many people cannot use b12 taken in tablet form for their digestive systems cannot absorb and use any form of b12, whether in eggs or dairy products or in the form of a supplement. They are a minority of the population, but still it is a significant problem.

It was also stated here that no one was saying the poor had eat vegan. That, as far as I am concerned, is a lie. I started out saying that Ellen White made exceptions and argument after argument was made against that. And, time after time, it was stated that "all" needed to abandon eggs and dairy. Those things were said by the same person who said nothing was said about the poor having to abandon eggs and dairy products.

Also, the anger over Green bringing up dairy and eggs and giving an example of people who had gone off the deep end is misplaced. He is the messenger of something you don't like to hear, but he is innocent of wrongdoing in saying what he did. The people you should be angry with are those who are so single-minded that they destroy the lives of their own children, and their own health, through their fanaticism. They are the ones you should hold in contempt and have a problem with. They are the kind that bring health reform into disrepute, as they are health deformers. If you cannot understand that you have as big a problem as they do.

This is quite true, and very well said. It is more often than not a big mistake to try to make generalized blanket rules that everyone "must" obey in regards to diet. It is an equally big mistake to pronounce someone's salvation as hinging on what they do or do not eat. That's not where God is at on the issue of diet and health reform. "Rejection of The Testimonies" cannot be proven by someone's apparent disregard of compilation books which are compiled mostly by someone other than Ellen White, and there are better ways to illustrate the health message; which, by the way is a very small part of "The Testimonies" in their entirety.

Wanderer,

I have been trying to leave the diet question alone in this thread, and address only the rejection of the testimonies. That said, you have provided ample fodder in your post--chaff, if you will. If you should be, by "The Testimonies," referring to all of Ellen White's writings, how can you hope to say only a small part relates to the health message? On the other hand, if you mean the nine volumes of the Testimonies for the Church, I have read all of them, and I beg to differ with you as to their relative contents. Health is a recurrent theme throughout, and Mrs. White intricately links it with salvation. It _IS_ a matter of salvation. On that point, Wanderer, you are simply dead wrong, and I pray souls are not led astray by such inaccuracies...to their eternal ruin. To set the record straight, allow me the privilege of presenting a few statements from the Testimonies themselves. I hope you do not reject these.


May I suggest this statement applies to folk here as well?

Let us not forget that diet has been a HUGE issue ever since the Garden of Eden. Jesus Himself fasted for 40 days in the wilderness, denying this "lust of the flesh" on our behalf.




The "subject of temperance" is directly mentioned in the nine volumes of The Testimonies for the Church in over a hundred records (paragraphs, usually) on the CD. Mrs. White speaks of many things pertinent to our salvation, including our manner of dress, our diet, our habits, and even our understanding. Naturally, everything she wrote had our eternal interests at heart.

"Our salvation depends on a knowledge of the truth contained in the Scriptures." {COL 111.3}

We will have to agree to disagree.

Posts dealing with this subject moved here.

And Green again pronounces someone's salvation as hinging on what they do or do not eat. And that not based upon Inspiration, but personal opinions...

I am very well aware of all of the quotes you have supplied, and much more. But we differ in our interpretation of same. I can personally name people who are dead now, victims of a "health message" gone astray. Perhaps, in discounting my expressed opinions, which I have not yet tried to defend, you are largely unaware of what I am talking about? Questions on diet are not to be made a "test" of a person's salvation. Can you atleast provide something from the Bible that would prove me wrong?

"Let your moderation be known to all men. The Lord is at hand." (Phil 4:5, MKJV)

Where do you get the idea that diet is not a "test" of salvation? Diet was the start of sin on earth. Jesus' 40-day fast was to conquer on this issue in our behalf. Would He have fasted for nearly six weeks before beginning His public ministry if it were not important? not a "test" of our salvation? Contrary to your apparent belief, diet is a very important factor in terms of our salvation. It is important because it relates to our health, and if our body is diseased or afflicted by an improper diet, our minds cannot comprehend spiritual things. Without understanding spiritual things, we may lose sight of them, and lose our way eternally.

As an extreme example: Consider the one who discovers that by using olive oil in place of margarine, depression can be avoided. Deciding that olive oil is too expensive, and ceasing to use it, might result in such a bout with depression as to make such a one suicidal. Suicide is, of course, not a good means of entering the pearly gates.

But diet does affect our spirits/moods. It does have a bearing on our spiritual sensitivities. It impacts other fleshly lusts. All of these are detailed in Ellen White's writings, which you claim to be so familiar with as to not need to see the passages reiterated here. Nevertheless, I will give you one that shows diet is important to salvation.

This thing re Olive oil is completely false. I know people who have believed and tried this to no avail. I noticed that you gave an "extreme example." In other words, your point is hypothetical, and not actually something in actual experience.

If you are trying to say that "it was about the food" for Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness, well thats just plain wrong too.

Instead of dismissing the quotes I gave above, and supplanting them with your own, it might be better to show how the quotes I gave are "wrong" so that we have something to go on here

Although I have no intention of joining this thread, I feel one must address error wherever found.

Health and diet ABSOLUTELY_IS_NOT a matter of salvation. That statement is wrong on so many levels it deserves a thread of its own.

The Apostle Paul:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--" Eph. 2:8

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" Gal. 1:8

Wanderer,

What makes you think I was dismissing the quotes you presented? Did I say I was? Did I comment upon them at all? All of the quotes you gave from the Bible and Ellen White supported what I have been saying. I had no problem with any of them, and I am certainly NOT "supplanting" them with the addition of the quotes I presented, as if Ellen White were supplanting herself! Do you know what "supplant" means?

For example, you quoted Philippians 4:5 in your earlier post. Mrs. White quotes that verse to support the use of milk and eggs in the diet. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.



Nadi,

Salvation comes by multiple agencies. Only God saves us, it is true, and it is true that no one saved will "deserve" it, therefore we can say we are saved by "grace." However, if all were saved ONLY by grace, why are not all saved? Why are some lost? Is God's grace NOT sufficient for them? The Bible says His grace is sufficient. Obviously, then, it takes more than just God and His grace to result in our salvation. The Bible quotes many things by which we are saved, including grace, hope, fear, baptism, Jesus' name, obedience, faith, confession and repentance, and more. In order to understand spiritual things, we must have mental acuity. If we allow our brains to become deadened by an inappropriate diet, we may very well lose our salvation.

It's possible people are simply talking past each other.

Is diet a test of salvation?
The debate is sort of running on the same lines as debates concerning -- is the Sabbath a test of salvation?
Is honesty and integrity a test of salvation?
Is worshipping God and having no other gods before Him, a test of salvation?

The answer depends on which aspect of salvation one is considering.

The scripture are clear concerning the source and means of salvation:
Nothing we do or try to do, or work hard doing, will ever pardon any of sins, nor can it obtain salvation for us.

Not the labour of my hands
Can fulfill Thy law's demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

So yes, "by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. It is not of works, lest anyone should boast" Eph. 2.8-9

But scripture does not stop there. The very next verse reads:

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them. Eph. 2:10

Paul is quite clear that a person who has been justified by the cleansing blood of Christ, has "crucified the flesh"

Gal. 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

When a person has accepted Christ as portrayed in Romans 6, their life is transformed by grace as well.
Roman 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Our seeking to do God's will is not the MEANS of salvation, it is the fruit of salvation.

So what is the test that shows we have actually accepted Christ into our lives?
The "test" isn't the means to salvation, the test is an indicator as to whether we really are following Christ as our Lord and Savior, or whether we have other "gods" -- like our belly.

Salvation comes only through Christ our Savior. There are no multiple agencies. There is only one way, and that is Christ.

Acts 2:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


They are lost because they rejected God's grace.

This may be the point of misunderstanding. As the sentences above seem to indicate you think of "grace" as just "one part" of salvation. No, grace is the sum total! Grace is not just forgiveness, though that is a BIG part of it. Grace includes much more -- it includes the drawing power from God, it includes the cross and forgiveness, it includes the whole process of regeneration of the human being by the power of the resurrection and Holy Spirit.

"Without Christ we can do NOTHING." Without His grace working in our lives, there is no regeneration, only dead works that avail nothing.

John 15:5 I am the vine, you [are] the branches: He that abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Our part is to respond to the call of grace, accept the grace, and live under the power of grace. We can accept or reject it.

Too many try to earn God's grace, without realizing it's all about God's grace. Accept Him, and as His child, filled with His grace, live for Him.

And yes, taking care of the gift of life and health by healthy eating brings glory to His name.


Below are some scriptures showing the power of grace.

Scared straight? Really? Who are you of? God? Does one obey in order to obtain salvation?

One does not obey because they are required to do so, for hat is not obedience.

One should start a new thread...

That statement goes against the teachings of Jesus, Paul's teachings, Christian beliefs, and Reformation theology. (But it is very Adventist. "We are saved by grace, and keeping the Sabbath, and diet, and dress, and...)

The questions asked in the above quote reveal a shocking shallowness of understanding on so many levels.

Blessings Nadi, could I ask a direct question? Is it possible for people, even professed Christians, to be lost?

My belief is...Absolutely.

While Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by grace, it also says through faith. And Acts 16:31 says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."

When one encounters Jesus, their only requirement is to believe. When they believe, they are saved by the grace of God. At this point God grants them faith, and begins a work of change in their heart. This change of heart leads to the fruits of the Spirit and ethical living as the believer grows in the knowledge of God and his will.

**DISCLAIMER**

Lest any of you read this and fly into a panic, this is not the sum total of my current theological understanding. I also recognize that the thoughts expressed above could require clarification, which I will be happy to do, providing one does not try to pull some asinine interpretation from them.

Nadi, do you believe fear has anything to do with the believing in Jesus?

The short answer is "NO" (with many caveats and disclaimers), therefore much depends on what is meant by "fear" and how that is applied. This could very easily become a lengthy discussion.

The point of Paul (to the Ephesians) and Peter (in Acts of the Apostles) was that, IN THEIR AGE, the two competing worldviews were:

1. Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God as in THE ONLY Divine Man ever who still lives.
2. Jesus of Nazareth was a crucified Jew, dead and buried, period.

Calvary was the nexus of those two competing ideas. "What do you see on the cross" was always the implicit question being asked of every individual being witnessed to. And so, the leap from the belief that #2 was true to the belief that #1 was true, required faith -- and that faith was rewarded by the grace of God unto salvation.

The argument over whether one should be circumcised, refrain from eating pork, look solemn on Saturdays while going to church, denounce anyone who didn't know who was the beast, believe in Ellen White ... all the things that have risen up among SDA to blur and blackout the purity of the GOSPEL (i.e. GOOD NEWS) -- all of it is just trivial.

Faith bears fruit in a loving character, sound mind and courage reflective of the Divine nature. And so we become the children of God and heirs of the promise of salvation in the age to come. Repeatedly, we are encouraged to rejoice because of that! We ought NOT to worry as SDA do as they wring their hands for ALL their uncountable sins in their imaginary investigative judgment: the huge hammer over their head.

///

Thanks Nadi.

The reason I ask is because I don't believe the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" is Biblical. I do believe John 14:15 is Biblical though. Love is a hard lesson to learn I believe and it takes this commitment to Christ to teach us.

I hope I was clear.

Nor do I. I believe the conditions for "staying saved" are the same as for "getting saved." That is, to believe.


Yes, it's in the Bible. However, this statement seems to be a classic example of the fact that it's not so important what it says as how one interprets what it says.