[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]FOUND THIS ON THE NET:
Ellen White went against her own counsels
In the 1850's both James and Ellen White made use of swine's flesh as food. Later they abandoned it.
"Dear Sister Curtis: - I felt sorry for you as I read your letter. I believe you to be in error. The Lord showed me two or three years since that the use of swine's flesh was no test. Dear sister, if it is your husband's wish to use swine's flesh you should be perfectly clear to use it." (EGW, letter to Str. Curtis, quoted in H.E. Carver, Mrs. E.G. White's Claims to Divine Inspiration Examined. Emphasis supplied.)
In 1858 Ellen White wrote a similar testimony,
"I saw that you had mistaken notions about afflicting your bodies, depriving yourselves ofnourishing food. Some have gone too far in the eating question. They have taken a rigid course, and lived so very plain that their health has suffered. I saw that God did not require any one to take a course of such rigid economy as to weaken or injure the temple of God. All this is outside of the word of God. If this is a duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh God will discover it to more than two or three. A fanatical spirit is with you. You are deceived." Testimony No. 5. Emphasis supplied.)
This is the original testimony. The second edition has been put into Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 206-7 - somewhat edited, with an "explanation" by James White. Here Ellen White says that swine's flesh is nourishing food, and that people who went against the use of it, were deceived and led by a fanatical spirit. (The testimony had to do with swine's flesh.)
Then we have the strange situation that God showed Ellen White in a vision that the use of swine's flesh was not a test, and that it was OK to eat it, in spite of what the Bible plainly says, that the swine is an unclean animal.
". . .And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase" (Deut. 14:8).
This plain command, written several thousand years ago, was no unknown matter.
Later, Ellen White writes testimonies - allegedly based on visions - that swine's flesh was unclean food, and that God did not sanction its use. First, God shows Ellen White in a "vision" that the use of swine's flesh is OK. Later, God shows her that it is wrong to make use of it. Meantime, the Bible was clear on that point.
James White wrote in 1850,
"Some of our good brethren have added 'swine's flesh' to the catalogue of things forbidden by the Holy Ghost, and the apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem. But we feel called upon to protest against such a course, as being contrary to the plain teaching of the holy scriptures. Shall we lay a greater 'burden' on the disciples than seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and the holy apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ? God forbid. Their decision, being right, settled the question with them, and was a cause of rejoicing among the churches, and it should forever settle the question with us." (The Present Truth Vol. 1., Nov., 1850. - No. 11., 'Swine's Flesh'. Emphasis supplied.)
James White wrote this in 1850. In 1858 both he and his wife wrote letters and testimonies echoing this article. James even claimed that to go against the use of swine's flesh, was contrary to Scripture.
On the back of this letter to Str. Curtis (quoted above), James White had jotted down,
"That you may know how we stand on this question, I would say that we have just put down a two hundred pound porker." (H.E. Carver, Mrs. E.G. White's Claims to Divine Inspiration Examined.)
Ann Lee (1736-84), who founded "the Shakers", received "visions" which she published as "Testimonies". She went strongly against the use of swine's flesh - and that several years before Ellen White came into the arena. All this was nothing new. At the very time James White "brought down a hundred pound porker", Ann Lee's testimony against the use of swine's flesh had been in existence for many years.
It then becomes clear that SDA's at that time did not dodge the use of fat porkers, and they had Ellen Whites "inspired testimonies" behind them to support this practice. But later she received equally "inspired testimonies", saying that God did not intend that people should eat swine's flesh, under any circumstances. (How to Live, chap. 1, p. 58 (1865).)
"You know that the use of swine's flesh is contrary to His express command, given not because He wished to especially show His authority, but because it would be injurious to those who should eat it." (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 96 (1868).)
Accordingly, Ellen White's statements where she "saw" that the use of swine's flesh was not wrong, comes into a strange light. Later editions of Ellen White's books have footnotes and appendices, trying to "explain" her many contradictory statements on health issues from that time. One common explanation is that Adventists got "progressive light" on health issues. But that doesn't explain away the fact that at the same time a substantial number of health reformers both wrote and lectured against the use of swine's flesh, and flesh meat in general, without pleading heavenly visions as basis for their teachings. Both Graham, Fowler, Wells, Jackson, Trall, Ann Lee and others warned against the use of swine's flesh, but God were obliged to give Seventh-Day Adventists "progressive light" and in addition contradict himself![/FONT]
Ellen White went against her own counsels
In the 1850's both James and Ellen White made use of swine's flesh as food. Later they abandoned it.
"Dear Sister Curtis: - I felt sorry for you as I read your letter. I believe you to be in error. The Lord showed me two or three years since that the use of swine's flesh was no test. Dear sister, if it is your husband's wish to use swine's flesh you should be perfectly clear to use it." (EGW, letter to Str. Curtis, quoted in H.E. Carver, Mrs. E.G. White's Claims to Divine Inspiration Examined. Emphasis supplied.)
In 1858 Ellen White wrote a similar testimony,
"I saw that you had mistaken notions about afflicting your bodies, depriving yourselves ofnourishing food. Some have gone too far in the eating question. They have taken a rigid course, and lived so very plain that their health has suffered. I saw that God did not require any one to take a course of such rigid economy as to weaken or injure the temple of God. All this is outside of the word of God. If this is a duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh God will discover it to more than two or three. A fanatical spirit is with you. You are deceived." Testimony No. 5. Emphasis supplied.)
This is the original testimony. The second edition has been put into Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 206-7 - somewhat edited, with an "explanation" by James White. Here Ellen White says that swine's flesh is nourishing food, and that people who went against the use of it, were deceived and led by a fanatical spirit. (The testimony had to do with swine's flesh.)
Then we have the strange situation that God showed Ellen White in a vision that the use of swine's flesh was not a test, and that it was OK to eat it, in spite of what the Bible plainly says, that the swine is an unclean animal.
". . .And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase" (Deut. 14:8).
This plain command, written several thousand years ago, was no unknown matter.
Later, Ellen White writes testimonies - allegedly based on visions - that swine's flesh was unclean food, and that God did not sanction its use. First, God shows Ellen White in a "vision" that the use of swine's flesh is OK. Later, God shows her that it is wrong to make use of it. Meantime, the Bible was clear on that point.
James White wrote in 1850,
"Some of our good brethren have added 'swine's flesh' to the catalogue of things forbidden by the Holy Ghost, and the apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem. But we feel called upon to protest against such a course, as being contrary to the plain teaching of the holy scriptures. Shall we lay a greater 'burden' on the disciples than seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and the holy apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ? God forbid. Their decision, being right, settled the question with them, and was a cause of rejoicing among the churches, and it should forever settle the question with us." (The Present Truth Vol. 1., Nov., 1850. - No. 11., 'Swine's Flesh'. Emphasis supplied.)
James White wrote this in 1850. In 1858 both he and his wife wrote letters and testimonies echoing this article. James even claimed that to go against the use of swine's flesh, was contrary to Scripture.
On the back of this letter to Str. Curtis (quoted above), James White had jotted down,
"That you may know how we stand on this question, I would say that we have just put down a two hundred pound porker." (H.E. Carver, Mrs. E.G. White's Claims to Divine Inspiration Examined.)
Ann Lee (1736-84), who founded "the Shakers", received "visions" which she published as "Testimonies". She went strongly against the use of swine's flesh - and that several years before Ellen White came into the arena. All this was nothing new. At the very time James White "brought down a hundred pound porker", Ann Lee's testimony against the use of swine's flesh had been in existence for many years.
It then becomes clear that SDA's at that time did not dodge the use of fat porkers, and they had Ellen Whites "inspired testimonies" behind them to support this practice. But later she received equally "inspired testimonies", saying that God did not intend that people should eat swine's flesh, under any circumstances. (How to Live, chap. 1, p. 58 (1865).)
"You know that the use of swine's flesh is contrary to His express command, given not because He wished to especially show His authority, but because it would be injurious to those who should eat it." (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 96 (1868).)
Accordingly, Ellen White's statements where she "saw" that the use of swine's flesh was not wrong, comes into a strange light. Later editions of Ellen White's books have footnotes and appendices, trying to "explain" her many contradictory statements on health issues from that time. One common explanation is that Adventists got "progressive light" on health issues. But that doesn't explain away the fact that at the same time a substantial number of health reformers both wrote and lectured against the use of swine's flesh, and flesh meat in general, without pleading heavenly visions as basis for their teachings. Both Graham, Fowler, Wells, Jackson, Trall, Ann Lee and others warned against the use of swine's flesh, but God were obliged to give Seventh-Day Adventists "progressive light" and in addition contradict himself![/FONT]
) that there is a lot of stuff in the vault of the white estate that is not published, and cannot be accessed by the 'outside world'. 
