Thanks Phil

Anyone ever hear a pastor mention the details of Number 5:11-31 in a sermon in the last 10-50 years?
What are your favorite verses in Numbers?

What causes so much hostility to the law by most pastors in Christendom, who constantly say..Christ is the end of the law, we are not under law but grace, the law was our schoolmaster, all who rely on observing the law are under a curse, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.....???.

The law is an indictor of how authentic,genuine, and mature one's love, faith, grace enabling and relationship is with God and humans by born again /new creature /Christian claimers.

Some of the most heated polemics in Chrsitian chat rooms are between law pushers and law trashers.

Why do so many Christians hate the following verses??
Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Are there laws in heaven? Great question!

More questions for consideration ...
Did Adam and Eve prior to their fall, need to be told that they should not kill?
Did these same two individuals before their fall need to be told to not covet, to have no other gods than the GOD that created them and fellowshiped with them?

Proposition
When one knows no other way of acting or behaving does one need to be told how to act of behave in that way? I would suggest that if performance meets the criteria no retribution will follow, no performance modification will be engaged in.

Revelation relates several experiences of worship; the four and twenty elders and the redeemed included. These beings have witnessed the terrible results of sin, they have seen or experienced the extreme cost that demonstrated just how far sin would go if left unchecked. These beings, judging from the worship experiences described in Revelation, find their total and complete joy in serving and praising God for his goodness, love, mercy and salvation. They want no other way and hence have no need to worry about the LAW for their total being is dedicated to serving their Creator God.

Arnold Wallenkampf, in his book, The Apparent Delay, tells the story of a young girl who "had just given her life to Jesus. (p110) ... (she) said to her mother "From now on I am always going to do whatever I want to do."

"Not so, my dear," her mother responded instantly. "From now on you are to do just what God wants you to do."

"Yes," replied her daughter cheerfully. "From now on Jesus and I will want the same things."

And, as I figure it, this will be the scenario in the hereafter. The ransomed, the redeemed and the heavenly host will do whatever they want to do because their wants and Jesus' wants will be one and the same! Amazing transformation, amazing grace, wondrous love that saves the wretch like me and grants each of us the opportunity to eat of the tree of life in an earth made new!

I am disappointed (again).
I read the title of the lesson this week as 'God the Lawgiver' but what do I read/hear (on a variety of websites and in the study guide)? All about law. Law Law Law. Surely the purpose of this week's study is to focus on this particular characteristic of God - God as Lawgiver.

When I read the Bible, what does my reading about the law tell me about God?

It tells me about a Supreme Being - only such can make laws and devise a legal system that works.
It tells me about a Wise being - God's laws make sense - even to a sinner like me.
It tell me about a Perfect being - who can ever meet such standards?
It tells be about a Just being - the law is fair to all.
It tells me about a Loving being - the law shows me how to treat God and humankind in love.
It tells me about a God of feedom - to keep or ignore the law is my choice but God states the consequences.
It tells me about a Concerned God - who wants the best for me, for all of Creation
and much more beside....
It tell me about an Everlasting God - who made a system that will work for eternity

What does Scripture tell YOUabout God when you read about God the lawgiver?

Ephraim asked:
Are there laws in heaven?
The two "great Laws" as Jesus said.

This means Angels choose to do whatever they want, but they don't sin.
Because to "sin" is contrary to their nature.

But wait a minute, does this mean those saved will lose their freedom of choice after the end of the Devil?
NO!

I wonder why there is no possibility of a replay of one saved human or an Angel committing a sin. Your take?
What does "sin" do? It separates one from God; without God, there is no life. If a being were to choose to sin s/he would die, now. Why didn't satan die in the beginning? Because no one had separated themselves from God before. If God had left satan to reap the natural consequences of this separation the Universe would have misunderstood and thought that God had killed him. Then the Universe would have served God from fear, not Love.

Appreciate your thoughts their Michael J ...

You know, sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. Sometimes we can't appreciate the positive until it is expressed in the negative. Sometimes an argument is more forceful when the opposite thought is expressed and the listener/reader is left to interpret, by deduction, the real sentiment expressed. Sarcasm frequently operates in this manner.

To me, the law as expressed in Exodus 20 works like the safety fence around a swimming pool - it keeps us out of trouble when we don't cross the boundaries suggested by the Manufacturer. But still we want to operate in our own way and disregard the Manufacturers operating instructions!

Looking at what the law is not saying, ie the opposite of what it is saying, can give insights into God's character and His desires for his creation. Similarly, looking at the opposites of what the SS lesson describes can give insights into God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, and just why He is GOD, and not just a god.

Michael J,

"Surely the purpose of this week's study is to focus on this particular characteristic of God - God as Lawgiver."

And what is the purpose of focusing?

There really is no such a thing as "free will". We are what we are because we are born that way with no choice as to what our genetic makeup inteligence or anything else. We in effect play with the hand we are dealt and as everyne knows if you do not have a winning hand you loose no matter how skillfully you play.

Even for such a mundane thing as existence we don't have choice being merely the by product of someone else's lust or whatever.

Will sin arise in the new earth? well no because if the Scripture is correct we will not be like we are today.Paul says that the new resurected being will be as different from that which is buried here as the green sprout is different from the seed planted in the earth.And according to Jesus there will be neither man or female in heaven so the lust of the flesh which is behind most of our evil will be gone.

Satan's problem came from the fact that while he was the most perfect of angels he did not have the divinity that God had given Jesus when He had created Him. It was this wanting to be like the "Most High" that drove Lucifer to rebellion.

Ephraim,

I believe the redeemed will never want to sin again when they see the scars that Jesus carries for our sakes. When they see that they will have seen the true cost of sin and want nothing to do with that forevermore.

Abe,
I would say that we are all dealt a winning hand, but are each in a different game, and all can win. I might not be able to win in your game, but could win in the one in which I am playing. We are all different with different talents and weaknesses. But nature is not irresistible. Change is possible.
Of those with much, much will be required, etc.
I think it is the responsibility of the one who does not believe in free will to prove his point. The alternative, free will exists, appears the common sense position.

Here's an interesting quote:

The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the City to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes, they were noble, majestic and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place, I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, "We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth." Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the City. The fruit of both looked beautiful; but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, "None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat they would fall."

A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White. 1851; 2002 (22). n/a.

Seems to me that God's subjects have always and will always have the freedom to sin but will never again choose to knowing the heinous results thereof!

When addressing the Galatian church, Paul did not have to walk on eggs because they were entirely Gentile. Especially in chapters 3,4, Paul Said that the law had been a temporary expedient (from Sinai, 400 years after Abraham, to the cross) for the Jews but had never existed at all for Gentiles. He said the law WAS our schoolmaster. We pretend that he said the law IS our schoolmaster and flat-out reject his message.

In writing to the Romans, the eggs were there. He never said the law was still in effect or spoke favorably of observing it but he did speak favorably of the law itself. After all, the torah contained their history, and Paul had resigned himself to the fact that the Jewish Christians would never give it up.

Is the torah with its focus on various crimes a transcript of His character? The Bible doesn't say so.

If we can't accept the simple message of Galatians, we'll never understand Romans. Oh well, we'll always have the little red lawbooks.

Harry E.

The essay started with: >>God is extolled in Scripture as a lawgiver: “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; it is he who will save us.” Is. 33:12 NIV. <<
It sums up what I understand especially the OT to say in regards to God as judge and lawgiver: it is he who will save us. Our emphasis is all too often on a God who restricts and censors us.
Even in Num 5 (though - yes, some discussion is needed here) dare I say we find a redeeming lawgiver, including some due process rather than a "kill quickly" mentality. The "amen, amen" the woman is to say as she drinks from the cup is akin to Job's "I know that my redeemer lives".

The concept of God as LawGiver reflects the great importance that the ancients placed on the invention of civil law. In some cultures, the gods were seen as "above the law" or at least their lives were not controlled or even conditioned by human laws in any sense. But with the Sumerian kings, the new concept of covenant emerged, in which the king and subjects enter into a special relationship of obedience and protection. Bible writers framed Israel's relationship to their god in similar terms, with a code that reflected their brand of specialness (including the sabbath). In many cultures, Law was considered a gift of the gods, and so their narrative literature contained scenes in which God gives the Law to some human representative (such as Moses).

Thus the concept of God as Law Giver, in cultural terms, is a good example of accommodative theology. It is not a reflection of either God's character or of historical events in any absolute or original sense, but of what the Hebrews and others imagined their God to be like and what would make for a suitable human society.

For comparison, see
The "Laws of Manu" in Indian culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmṛt
Laws of Hammurabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_law
Plato's dialogue "Laws" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_(dialogue)

To Abe:

Your EGW bashing does nothing to augment your argument and suggests unwarranted bias...

First of all, she does preface what she says with "the Lord has given me a view...." Did you miss that?
Next, the scene is not "nonsense" but totally comprehensible, especially to her contemporaries who had read many similar scenes in evangelical 18th and 19th century books.
Again, what is the evidence here that she was "deranged"? Haven't you heard of "active imagination"? We have over a century of careful research (from Jung and others) on symbolic and archetypal imagery from the unconscious. Have you never had a dream of a faraway place, even a religious one?

Today EGW would not at all be given medication or institutionalized for such a fantasy. That's for people who exhibit signs of physical harm to themselves or others. Anyway, the last I looked, there is no category for "derangement" in the DSM. The sad and dangerous idea that people need to be medicated for creative imagination is a throw-back to other dark times, when artists, poets, writers, visionaries, inventors, were persecuted and institutionalized because people didn't like what they said or painted. Or, as I call it, hell.

I'm not here to defend EGW but to call for better writing and conversation, and fewer unsubstantiated rants.

We read the Ten Commandments as negatives. “Thou shalt not!” The Kingdom of Heaven is built upon ten positive precepts. The Law of God is an expression of the ethos of heaven.
I.“Thou shalt have not other gods before me.”. God’s Kingdom is a place free from conflicting loyalties.
II. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images”. God’s Kingdom is a place free from false concepts.
III. “Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” God’s Kingdom is a place free from vanity.
IV. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” God’s Kingdom is a place free from doubt. (The creative power is recognized and the Creator is worshiped.)
V. “Honour they father and they mother.” God’s Kingdom is a place free from alienation. We are family.
VI. “Thou shalt not kill.” God’s Kingdom is a place free from hate.
VII. “Thou shalt not commit adultery. God’s Kingdom is a place free from ruling passions.
VIII. “Thou shalt not steal.” God’s Kingdom is a place free to share.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness.” God’s Kingdom is a place in which each and all are free face the Truth without fear.
X. “ Thou shalt not covet” . God’s Kingdom is a place that is free from selfishness

The question what then should I do? Is to behave with the singlarity of the forgiven in gratitude and generosity as prevails in heaven. Tom Z

Abe
Yes, I agree with some of what you say, but your rant was not about her claim to be a prophet, but against her imagination and her mental state. And why are continuing to disrespect her, calling her writings "ramblings"? Are your writings any better? Do you know how hard it is to write for a living?

I don't care here what the church says or thinks. I'm for accurate, sensible, research and writing, and I'm hoping you'll think again.

TJG
I like your road story. We should focus on broad moral principles and derive our 'laws' from these. You could argue that laws are written for the benefit of the morally obtuse. On the one hand, they spell out for them how moral principles apply in our lives and, secondly, it warns the same people that there are consequences if they disregard them.

When it comes to the Bible, I'm not impressed with the Ten Commandments. They focus on a handful of absolutes embraced by all people, whatever culture or religion--absolutes that are so self-evident that only people with a social pathology need to have them spelled out. Since such people exist, such laws must be formulated.

But the Ten Commandments also have some serious flaws. First of all, it's a tribal law code. The first commandment mandates that only Yahweh is to be recognized as God. The fourth commandment mandates that the seventh-day of the week be set aside as a day of rest (worship not mentioned) to commemorate the tribe's creation account and the Exodus. These are ethnic, culture-specific mandates.

Secondly, the law code sanctions the social hierarchy of Antiquity, in which the most unfortunate were reduced to slavery. Both the 4th and the 10th commandment obliquely approves of slavery (and the very next chapter in Exodus, ch. 21, goes into detail about the laws about slavery.) It also approves of Antiquity's view of women as the property of men. The 10th commandment banning coveting, is really about respecting property rights. Thou shalt not try to get what belongs to another man, including his wife.

But the most serious weakness is what it leaves out: the rights that our society and all modern societies are built on. There is no equal rights commandment providing for the equal treatment of people regardless of religion, gender or sex. There is no democracy commandment, no freedom of religion and speech anywhere in the Ten Commandments. It's a tribal law code that came to us from Antiquity.

TG
"Jesus set up a new kingdom by removing “the road signs” of the old. Hands down, this is the hardest thing for a Seventh-day Adventist to understand."

I agree. The Jesus we meet in the four Gospels is not a casuist, who settles moral questions by researching case history, but by applying broad, moral principles to the situations of daily life. That is probably the main reason why a lot of people like myself, outside the Christian church, find much to admire about Jesus. We only wish more Christians would follow his example. You don't need nine volumes of red books or twice that number of Talmudic wisdom to know how to do the right thing. Scholars need reference works to do research, but living a moral life is not dependent on case history. Ms Manners, the etiquette guru, does not research fifty years of columns to settle a question; she simply applies the broad principles of etiquette to the matter at hand.

Casuistry turns people into moral cripples. Instead of leading a moral life, they conclude that what's not forbidden, is okay--when it's not okay at all. Real morality doesn't have loopholes. It's a tightly woven fabric.

Abe

The statements of Whites in vision are not descriptions of "in body experience" where she went somewhere but of what she "saw". She was aware of this herself from the 1840s. Maybe you can produce evidence otherwise, but the statement above certainly does not qualify as counter-evidence to my interpretation above.

We have many examples of this kind of visionary experience in Christian history, including many in American religious history, both men and women. There are a couple of cases where people made claims about actually traveling to other places. I think of the visions of Sor Maria de Agreda (1602-65) who claims to have traveled from Spain and met with the native peoples of America. She is credited with "bilocation" powers by many Catholics. She was not considered crazy at all by her contemporaries, who used her visions as information to locate Spanish missions.

In our time, we have fantasy, imaginative travel literature, theatre, movies, novels--all which take readers and viewers somewhere mentally. Do you ever read sci-fi? Would you call Isaac Asimov or Neal Stephenson crazy? Are all movie makers or movie-goers crazy?

Lighten up, my friend, before you back yourself into a dark corner with no imagination at all.

"In general, yes, I am aware of what you refer to, although I pretty much stick to the period before the Civil War in my research. During that time, crediting sources was a voluntary matter. That changed in the second half of the century as copyright laws came into play." - Graeme

Thanks Graeme for your response, here's mine:

"Although authors had been complaining about literary theft since ancient times, they had no recourse until 10 April 1710, when the world's first copyright act was passed in London: 'An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Author's or Purchasers of Such Copies,' known as the Statute of Anne."

"On April 15, 1789, David Ramsay of South Carolina, author of The History of the Revolution of South Carolina, petitioned Congress to protect that book and his next. The House voted to form a select committee, and Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina, Alexander White of Virginia, and Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut met to consider a course of action. On April 20, Tucker reported on the need for a copyright law, and on June 23, Huntington introduced an eleven-page bill: H.R. 10, from the first session of the first Congress. Echoing the language of the Constitution, he called it "A bill to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and inventions... in the second Congressional session the two kinds of intellectual property were split into two bills."

"…President George Washington devoted part of his first State of the Union Address on 8 January 1790 to the topic: 'There is nothing which can better deserve your patronage,' he told the Congress, 'than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.' The Congress agreed, and the new bill, 'A bill for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, books, and other writings, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned,' passed the House on 30 April and the Senate on 14 May. It was signed by Washington on 31 May 1790, and became America's first Federal copyright act. For the first time, authors and proprietors were given 'the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending' their works. 'The crime of literary theft' had actually become a crime…”

See (http://www.writing-world.com/rights/lynch.shtml)

"Congress amended that copyright law in 1831, extending the term of the writer’s copy rights to 28 years, renewable for another 14 years. Congress amended the copyright law again in 1870 and 1909, increasing the renewal term to 28 years. There were three international copyright conventions: the Berne Convention of 1886, the Pan American Convention in 1909 and the Geneva Convention of 1952."

"Ellen White was aware of the benefits of copyright to protect an author’s work. She copyrighted her books, even books in which she copied large amounts of material from other writers. For example, Ellen White copyrighted Sketches From the Life of Paul in 1883, which she copied large amounts from Life & Epistles of the Apostle Paul by Conybeare and Howson.”

"Ellen White’s husband, James White, knew it was ethical (to say the very least) to credit his sources. In 1875, James White published a book entitled Sketches of the Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller. In the first paragraph he states: 'Before us is a plain volume, the title page of which reads, Memoir of William Miller generally known as a Lecturer on the Prophecies and the Second Coming of Christ, by Sylvester Bliss, author of Analysis of Sacred Chronology, a brief Commentary on the Apocalypse, etc.' In the closing paragraphs of the introduction he states: 'In gathering material from this work, we have copied very largely from Mr. Bliss, especially from the correspondence and writings of Mr. Miller which are incorporated into his Memoir.'

See: (http://www.gospeloutreach.net/egwcopy.html)

Ellen chose not to follow her husband’s ethical example. Her violations of copyright law already in place took place after the death of her husband. The reality is that she had to make a living. Unfortunately, she did so by borrowing (aka "stealing") the words of other writers.

Now, a person can choose to believe: “Washington copyright lawyer concludes that Ellen White was not a plagiarist and her work did not constitute copyright infringement” as stated in the Review & Herald, September 17, 1981, but why? Your own common sense should tell you something is wrong with this picture. If you do not want to follow common sense, at least follow this:

“It is just as wrong to appropriate to one's self credit for productions written by another as to steal a horse. One who boldly signs his name to another's article, and allows it to appear in print as his own, is a thief of the darkest hue. Taking another's knowledge and parading it as one's own is a despicable thing to do… It is a crime punishable by law. It is as much of a disgrace, to say nothing of the sin, as to break into a neighbor's house and steal his goods. All who profess common decency, much less Christianity, should eschew all form of dishonesty.” 1917 Youth Instructor

Ellen White was dishonest. All arguments to the contrary go against the evidence and common sense. The bottom line is: the source of Ellen’s “inspiration” was other writers, not God. It took me a long time to accept this reality, but eventually I did.

Your thoughts?
tg

If readers wonder or not this discussion of EGW and her literary practices constitutes a hijacking of the SS lesson on God as Law Giver, I understand and apologize. On the other hand, we are smack in the center of the issue of divine Law and human codes of conduct, divine revelation and human motivation. Let him who has ears hear.

Probably not in the 19th century. Were short phrases copyrightable? Don't think so. Literary discourse still held second place to spoken discourse, and preachers had license to speak without giving sources in their sermons. (Maybe that's where all this problem starts,,,,?) The practice of "sampling" from other artists and writers was and is very widespread and considered a form of flattery. Beethoven took musical phrases from Mozart and Bach, Picasso borrowed ideas from Italian painters, and all writers steal a great deal from others whether they know it or not. Maybe Oscar Wilde said: "“Good writers borrow. Great writers steal.” We'd all have to stop talking at all if we checked on the sources of every phrase we used. On the other hand, giving credit or sourcing what you write makes you look smarter and generous. (Actually it was Mark Twain, I think.)

The question is not whether it was borrowed but whether it caused the originator a loss in income or prestige. ( No one has said that before, in just those words. I am so original! )

Today we have also trademark registration to protect the use of particular phrases and words. I own a few myself.

Frank7.....Yes, you are right. Maybe you are referring to Conybeare and Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (1851). This was an English book, and American publishers were not typically required to pay royalties for use of such works, and so American writers treated the issue lightly. International copyright laws took more than half a century to develop and come into force. By the later 19th C the standards expected of writers had changed, culminating in the Chace Act (1891). White, her assistants and her publishers began to run afoul because they lagged in consciousness of what was acceptable, and tried to get away with it.

To get a sense of just how complicated this issue was, take 5 minutes and read this:
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva74.html

In my view, the economic effect is the key issue, not the amount of copying.

Mark Twain (my writer hero, if you hadn't noticed) was prominent in obtaining copyright and royalty protection for American writers in Canada and other places.

Mark Twain is my hero too as an American author--he has been my favorite since my SDA pastor father introduced me to his writings as a child "Tom Sawyer", "Huckleberry Finn" as I think an antidote to his own upbringing in the south...sometimes I think if he'd known what else the man wrote, he would have not done so (thank G--d Wilson was not around to censor him), but Clemens himself never to my knowledge was acclaimed as a prophet. Of anything, nor would he have accepted/endorsed such an idea. IMHO he would have cringed at the idea. Ever read "Letters from the Earth"? Google will tell you all you need to know about this subject.

All I will admit to is that I am aware that publishing deals were different in the 1800's, not that EGW wasnt guilty of plagiarizing. The Book of Paul experience is a very good example. but unfortunately even mainstream SDA's dont/wont hear about this or believe it if they did. Too bad.

Graeme:

Thank you for your response. Before I begin, I would also like to acknowledge, as you did, that the comments on this blog should pertain to the SS Lesson, God as Lawgiver. Therefore, this discussion regarding Ellen White isn’t germane to the lesson. One could make the argument that it is, as you have done, “we are smack in the center of the issue of divine Law and human codes of conduct, divine revelation and human motivation. Let him who has ears hear,” but it’s only germane tangentially. So, if the website editor jumps in and tells us to get back on topic I’ll concede to his authority. Until then, let see where our discussion takes us.

I would like you to clarify your stance on Ellen White. You state: “I am not a defender of Ellen White, although I am a defender of accurate research and good writing.” Your comments thus far seem contrary to this statement. When Abe Thompson commented on Ellen’s “visions,” you came to her defense. When I commented on her lack of crediting her sources, you came once again to her defense. In light of your apparent efforts to defend her, could you please clarify why you say “I am not a defender of Ellen White?”

My position on Ellen White is simple: she was dishonest. The evidence is clear that she knew it was proper to credit her sources and she chose not to. As I demonstrated in my previous post, her husband, James White, knew that this was proper: “In gathering material from this work, we have copied very largely from Mr. Bliss, especially from the correspondence and writings of Mr. Miller which are incorporated into his Memoir.” Sketches of the Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller, by James White. I should seem strange to you that the husband of a prophet was more ethical, fair and honest than his wife the prophet, the one who claimed to speak for God. You are welcome to argue copyright laws, “fair use” and “common practice” until the cows come home to justify Ellen’s “habit,” but it does nothing to erase the fact that Ellen did not follow her husband’s example. If she did, it would diminish “the gift,” unless of course you think copying other writers is “a gift” from God.

If you look at Ellen’s literary output, you will notice that it rose exponentially after James’ death. Before this, her output was quite minimal. The truth is twofold: 1) James had control of his wife’s pen. In fact, he taught her how to write. He also chose what to publish and what not to. Also, when the Conference officials would “swoon” over her, he’d put a stop it -- “you’re going to ruin her” -- and bring her home. On the other hand, Ellen loved the attention. 2) After James died Ellen had to write to make a living, and write she did. She wrote on subjects she knew nothing about. The temptation to copy proved to be too much. She succumbed. (Read Ron Graybill). There was no inspiration to it.

You also write: “I think there is strong historical evidence that her writings were indeed inspired--BY HER VISIONS.” In the context of the normal understanding of the word “inspired,” this is a strange statement. I would appreciate some clarification here as well. As you must know, her visions became less and less frequent as she got older. She had most of her visions when she was young, and they were correspondingly childish (the “green cord,” angels with golden cards, people on other planets, etc.) Her age and reading material influenced the content of her “visions” as she got older. There is “strong historical evidence” for this fact. Your statement makes no sense. Please expand on it.

I’ll leave it here. I look forward to reading your response.

tg

Abe,

Did she know that she was copying from other sources and just adding the material to her writings? It's well known that some of her "visions of the night" were actually "copies made at night." Is this honesty? I don';t think so.

I think that every paragraph that is known to be copied from other sources without giving proper credit should be DELETED from her books. Simple and easy: every time someone finds a new text that was copied, delete it from the original. The final edition would be very interesting.

Is the Church (or the White Estate) willing to do this purging work? Or will they perpetuate this "foolishness?" Yes, I think she was dishonest in this sense. Does the church need to be dishonest as well? Why?

And as posted on another site - the basic questions remain: What is God like (his character) what is the nature of reality (law) and what are the consequences of violating reality.

If law is descriptive of the nature of reality - and if one acts, behaves contrary to the nature of reality - God really can only do two things - intervene in natural law (save us from our stupidity or ignorance) or merely let the consequences fall.

If God is life - to separate from life is death.

If God is love - he will take all measures necessary to rescue his children.

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Let's admit that the whole discussion of God as Law Giver is playing with metaphors. Classic case: the law (whose law, which version?) is a transcript (what is that?) of the divine character (what is that?)

It's clearly a metaphor, but one that doesn't say much. It is like saying that a work of art reflects the ideas/character/personality of the artist. Or, much more literally, God's moral values reduced to letters on a page. Notice the word "reduced".

But let me roll with it for a moment. One of the chief character-istics of God is "jealousy" (not "love" per se, which is a rare term in the Torah). This one is written right into the ten commandments, and is a core idea of monotheism.

Now explain to me and readers here how this works.

On all this EGW discussion, whats the point? It appears to me that this just shows how far we have strayed from being "people of the Book".
When we can't have a thoughtful discussion on the Word, from the Word, without a "lesser" text becoming the focus, to the detriment of the True Word. It lessens and cheapens the whole topic.

On this idea that the law is a transcript of Gods character...To a point, that can be said, but it is not a complete picture. When His character is more clearly revealed in "for God so loved", and "God was in Christ reconciling", and, "while we were still enemies Christ died for us", and so on. It is His exercise of Grace and mercy that reveals His character more fully.
There is NO mercy in the law, no grace, only condemnation, judgment, and death. And these are the character of a legal "system", not of the Judge. How The Judge deals with law breakers reveals His character.

There is the idea of mercy and grace in the law if one were to view the temple ritual as foreshadowing the substitution of Messiah for his people. Additionally, the most repeated and prevelant description of YHWH in the OT is "The Lord is gracious, merciful and patient...keeping hesed (covenant faithfulness)..." It is usually connected to God's mercy and forgiveness of sin. This is all part of the Torah. We don't usually read the Torah as narrative. We read it as a set of rules...usually ten...that we say reflects God's character, when in fact the entire Torah reveals much more.

Beyond this, it can only be seen in it's full light when it is seen embodied Jesus. "The Law/Torah (as the revelation and light of God) was given (as a gift) through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

Thanks...

Frank

Hi TLG

You are quite right to rap me on my mental knuckles as you wish, for not following the standard anti-EGW line of the last 30 or more years. What I publish will also upset some traditionalists. I'll take it from all sides. But you are not giving me any credit for my project at all. You are not even curious about it, except as it intercepts your own views.

For example, you say "How can someone accept that her “visions” came from God, and completely ignore her head injury and exposure to mercury as unrelated?" Who are you referring to? I never said her visions came from God, did I? You are in a different conversation, one that has been around for decades now. I am starting a new one.

I am not going over the same ground as Veltman, Graybill etc. but I am grateful for what they did. I have my own questions and they have to do with broader questions than those usually asked by SDAs. I am filling in blind spots in Ellen White studies and adventist history. We need a whole new way of thinking about all this, and my project is a fresh start--at least that is what others are saying. I will get to other people's questions and the inadequacy of their answers, but when the time is right.

George

I am adding new knowledge into the mix, but so far just from 1844 to 1861 or so, which leads to new questions. For example, I place the Whites and their work in the social and religious contexts of rural communities from Maine to Michigan. I consider economic, social, cultural and other factors usually not considered in denominational histories, and the testimonies in their literary contexts, among various evangelical literatures. Those who enjoy rigorous historical research, astute literary analysis and interdependent patterns of human sociality will be delighted, but those who want simple, black and white answers will be disappointed.

Aage

Yours is a moderate spin and has balance that others here should be envious of. (To test this, I usually delete the adjectives in someone's prose and see what is left.)

You state: "When James White in 1879 wrote that the greatest evidence of her inspiration was that nothing she wrote could be found in any other books, she didn't say a word." You might want to check JW's statement again.

Graeme
I rechecked the statement, and it's true James White does not say her originality was the primary evidence of her inspiration, but he comes close:

"She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do not contain such thoughts. And certainly, she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. THE CASE IS A CLEAR ONE. It evidently requires a hundred times the credulity to believe that Mrs. W. has learned these things of others, and has palmed them off as visions from God, that [sic] it does to believe that the Spirit of God has revealed them to her." (James White, Life Sketches, 1880, p. 328).

A clear case of myth-making and collusion in myth making.

>>> ... but those who want simple, black and white answers will be disappointed.

Since there are many people who prefer black and white answers instead on long and tortuous lectures, I am sure that I won't be the only one disappointed.

...it's true James White does not say her originality was the primary evidence of her inspiration, but he comes close:

"She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do not contain such thoughts. And certainly, she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. THE CASE IS A CLEAR ONE. It evidently requires a hundred times the credulity to believe that Mrs. W. has learned these things of others, and has palmed them off as visions from God, that [sic] it does to believe that the Spirit of God has revealed them to her." (James White, Life Sketches, 1880, p. 328).

*************

Close, Aage? I think you're being generous. Tantamount seems to be more precise.

Thanks...

Frank

I'm constantly challenged by those Christians who don't seem able to grasp the whole idea of Law as a
"good thing." I doubt very seriously if as a society we will ever vote to have all traffic lights removed (because they restrict freedom of locomotion) or remove guard rails from particularly steep mountain sides (good drivers don't need them!!!).

Somehow when it comes to God's Law, it's framed by many as a deterrent to freedom and thus must be either "nailed to the cross" or dissolved in the holy acids of grace. Whether we like it or not, God's Law is as immutable and eternal as He is. There are many stories of people found worshiping on the Sabbath who never heard of the "Ten Commandments" or of people who lived by Biblical principles who never read the Bible. So even if angels never heard of God's Law, it doesn't mean it didn't exist. That simply means that their devotion and love to God made reciting it, or having it written on stone unnecessary.

God's dramatic display on Mt. Sinai was simply to impress upon the dull senses of this group of ex-slaves His holiness, His disdain and repulsion for sin and His grand plan to redeem His fallen children. Thank you Holy Spirit for keeping our conscience malleable so we'll know when we're separating ourselves from our ONLY source of Life....and for giving us the presence of mind to run back to Him!

TJG

Sorry, no evidence of derangement in those quotes. Not according to any definition of derangement that I know. Are you a mental health specialist or psychiatrist? If so, I'll bow to your diagnosis.

I think people grasp for these simple, reductive explanations with White's gift because they don't how to contain or control or explain it. Same for myth-makers and hagiographers who idolize someone like Ellen and make her infallible in word or deed. These ad hominem arguments don't do it, however, because they are just short-cuts away from thinking seriously and historically about people with special talent. There are many better ways of describing and explaining visionary powers than "derangement".

Above I challenged "Abe" on the question of imaginative literatures, and he's not come back with an answer. I would say to you, aren't you aware that people can make many claims and attribute special powers to themselves without being deranged? Did you not see the Republican debates? It happens all the time. These people may be narcissistic, but not what you say.

BTW, it looks like we are using "active imagination" in different senses. I am not referring to AN active imagination, but A I in the Jungian sense. I am referring to the practice of accessing or intersecting different states of consciousness and following images and narrative s that occur there. Take a look at the wiki entry and see if it makes sense to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_imagination

Thanks to everyone above who hung in there as we debated a case in point of the general issue raised by Phil Brantley's essay. Ellen White and her ambiguous gifts is, for Adventists, just a recent case of the centuries-long controversy over the relationship between divine imperatives, religious communities, and revelatory experiences and writings. The same issues have been around forever regarding the Torah, the Qu'ran, the writings of James (Luther called it "an epistle of straw"), Paul himself, and the founders of countless sects, denominations and religious orders. Canon Law, as the will of God in the Catholic Church, developed over centuries as the urge to order everything eventually took over charismatic inspirations, as always happens in the long run. Calvin's "Institutes," written by a lawyer and theologian, coded the human-divine relationship in general legal terms and produced Calvinism and its orthodoxies, influencing law and religions for centuries. A century ago, when Freud wrote "Moses and Monotheism," he offered yet another take--anti-Calvinist, yet maybe not so-- on the relation between God, Law and Society.

Phil states "the law of God is greatly inclined toward justice." If justice is the touchstone, and Adventists took that idea seriously, then a new, more progressive Adventist theology written from that perspective would transform our understanding of almost everything. Instead of "being right," the focus would be on "establishing right" for all.

All this is to suggest that much deeper thinking about God as Lawgiver is available to us. That reflection should be contextual, comparative and critical, and in the interests of the oppressed and powerless.

...the level of superstition in colonial New England.

Abe...yes!!! We need to talk a lot about our Puritan roots, I think.

Sarah Vowell (This American Life), The Wordy Shipmates:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594489998/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

Bevin, regarding lack of iodine causing disease, I think you meant goiter. Rickets is caused by lack of vitamin D, calcium or phosphate.

Also, Bevin, I think you are straining at a gnat regarding tooth flossing. Ellen White was also, to my eyes, obese, but it's hard to argue that her teachings didn't land Adventists in the Blue Zone:

Researcher says California Adventists are Americas "Blue Zone"

The close-knit Adventist community in Southern California is one of four Blue Zones around the world where people's lives span a century in rates notably higher than the surrounding population. And, on average, Buettner concludes they live not only longer, but also healthier and happier lives.

"It's not coincidental that the way these people eat, interact with each other, shed stress, heal themselves, avoid disease, and view their world yield them more good years of life," Buettner writes, citing habits common among Adventists, such as the Sabbath rest and a plant-based diet.

"Adventists instinctively know that their health habits lead to longer, better lives, but I think they appreciated somebody from outside their community who'd done a survey of some of the best science out there, reaffirming what their religious leaders have been telling them for 150 years," Buettner told ANN following his recent visit to Loma Linda.

http://www.healthylifeinfo.com/healthlib/article.asp?file=vegetarian2008...

I'm not arguing that EGW was a "True Prophet," versus a "False Prophet," as I don't find these arguments interesting.

What I find interesting is that Adventists are in the Blue Zone for reasons that seem clear to them, but not so clear to some of the rest of us.