Ellen White: Meat eating weakens moral powers

tall73 said:

I may have missed it in the church fathers, and am no expert on their writings, but I have not encountered them warning against sex with your spouse due to the draining of your "vital force." Perhaps you can point it out.

Certainly the Scriptures did not warn about this.

The Scriptures do warn against fornication, adultery, etc. But Proverbs does not warn against sex with your spouse:

Proverbs 5:15-23 15 Drink water from your own cistern,​

flowing water from your own well.​

16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,​

streams of water in the streets?​

17 Let them be for yourself alone,​

and not for strangers with you.​

18 Let your fountain be blessed,​

and rejoice in the wife of your youth,​

19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.​

Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;​

be intoxicated always in her love.​

20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman​

and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?​

21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD,​

and he ponders all his paths.​

22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him,​

and he is held fast in the cords of his sin.​

23 He dies for lack of discipline,​

and because of his great folly he is led astray.​

​

Paul acknowledges that some have a vocation of being single to serve the Lord. And he acknowledges abstaining by mutual consent for times of fasting and prayer.

But he also points out that those who do not have the gift of singleness, in light of the sexual immorality in the world, should each have their own spouse, and should render to each other the affection due the other. And they should not deprive one another.

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (NKJV)​

​

​

Click to expand...

This is correct, the early Church Fathers did not subscribe to EGW’s beliefs about sex within marriage.

tall73 said:

Getting back to the topic, Abraham also was not rebuked for eating meat, or serving it to the LORD:

Click to expand...

Looks like this is an old thread being resurrected....

I have read through many of the posts here and have a few thoughts.

• It may be a trap to consider the exact wording in the Bible to be the only factors to be considered. E.g. "The Bible doesn't say that I should avoid injecting methamphetamine, so you can't tell me to stop my favorite drug." I'm giving a ridiculous and exaggerated example to highlight extremes that someone foolish might take. The Bible contains some statements supporting having a party with alcohol (Deut 14:26), but common sense can help someone today to see that alcohol sometimes devastates lives, and needs to be considered with caution. Meat consumption in the Bible might be an entirely different situation that patrons of McDonald's experience. So there is an important role in using our God-given intellect to make wise choices.
  
  
• If one accepts E. White as a prophet, then one has to also consider that never before has there been the voluminous output of recorded advice. Agabus was a NT prophet who prophesied of Paul's imprisonment. And if we were to travel back in time and talk to him, he likely also had very definite views on how people should behave and dress and talk and eat. But none of that was written down. Prophets are not God's speakerphone. They receive instruction and messages, but they also have their own past beliefs etc mixed up in there. The prophet Samuel from the Old Testament acted like a circuit judge. If we had written record of everything he ever said or every decision that he made when trying civil cases, I expect it would be hard to understand.

Thus many of the posts that I read seemed to say, "The Bible never criticized meat, so White has no grounds to do so now." And with this line of thinking, God could never introduce a new teaching to humanity. And furthermore, it is easy to find this writing of White or that which seems silly because so MUCH was written. Some of this might be teaching from God that requires careful consideration, but some might be just her own good intentions resulting from influence from those around her.

Lastly, there were many posts about how a plant based diet was not healthy. Different situations and circumstances call for different diets. But in general, there is very good evidence that it can be part of a healthy lifestyle.

P.s. This was a good video by Mark Rober about meat substitutes -- and it also discussed the worldwide impact of meat diets.
KT

Gregory Thompson said:

Click to expand...

LOL! The vegan police were hilarious.

KT

Gregory Thompson said:

Click to expand...

Chicken isn't vegan?

RileyG said:

Chicken is an animal There are more chickens on earth than humans. For every human, there are about 3 chickens.

Click to expand...

I was quoting Todd Ingram from the movie clip

RileyG said:

For every human, there are about 3 chickens.

Click to expand...

Oh mine, we need to hurry to buy some!

trophy33 said:

Oh mine, we need to hurry to buy some!

Click to expand...

In New Zealand, there are roughly 4.5 sheep for every human.

prodromos said:

In New Zealand, there are roughly 4.5 sheep for every human.

Click to expand...

I have never eaten lamb meat, if I remember correctly. Only sheep yogurt and cheese. Pork and poultry is much more common, here.

trophy33 said:

I have never eaten lamb meat, if I remember correctly. Only sheep yogurt and cheese. Pork and poultry is much more common, here.

Click to expand...

Lamb is delicious. If you have the opportunity I highly recommend it. Mutton, on the other hand, which historically was fed to peasants and other poor folks, is another story.

tall73 said:

Over two years ago there was a thread looking at statements by Ellen White regarding the Israelite diet. This thread is a more focused part 2, looking at one aspect--the claim that meat eating weaken's moral powers.

Here are the statements:

The Signs of the Times, January 6, 1876, Art. A

God did not withhold meat from the Hebrews in the wilderness simply to show his authority, but for their good, that they might preserve physical and moral strength. He knew that the use of animal food strengthens the animal passions and enfeebles the intellect. He knew that the gratification of the appetite of the Hebrews for flesh-meats, would weaken their moral powers, and induce such an irritable disposition that the vast army would become insubordinate, that they would lose the high sense of their moral obligations, and refuse to be controlled by the wise laws of Jehovah. Violence and rebellion would exist among them, making it impossible for them to be a pure and happy people in the land of Canaan. God knew what was best for the children of Israel, therefore he deprived them in a great measure of flesh-meats. Satan tempted them to consider this unjust and cruel. He caused them to lust after forbidden things, because he saw that through the indulgence of perverted appetite they would become carnally-minded and could be easily brought to do his will; the lower organs would be strengthened, while the intellectual and moral powers would be weakened.​

Councils for the Church, 228

Upon their settlement in Canaan, the Israelites were permitted the use of animal food, but under careful restrictions which tended to lessen the evil results. The use of swine's flesh was prohibited, as also of other animals and of birds and fish whose flesh was pronounced unclean. Of the meats permitted, the eating of the fat and the blood was strictly forbidden. Only such animals could be used for food as were in good condition. No creature that was torn, that had died of itself, or from which the blood had not been carefully drained, could be used as food. By departing from the plan divinely appointed for their diet, the Israelites suffered great loss. They desired a flesh diet, and they reaped its results. They did not reach God's ideal of character or fulfill His purpose. -CCH 228​

As can be seen from the above, Ellen White indicated that eating meat reduced moral power among the Israelites. She indicated they departed from the plan appointed for their diet, and suffered loss, not reaching God's ideal of character or fulfilling His purpose.


However, these claims do not match up with Scripture

God indicated the Israelites may eat meat, according to the blessing of the Lord.

Deuteronomy 12:15 “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within all your gates, whatever your heart desires, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, of the gazelle and the deer alike.​

God said that if they were faithful He would bless the Israelites with grass so that the Israelites might eat the livestock and be filled.

Deuteronomy 11:15 And I will send grass in your fields for your livestock, that you may eat and be filled.’​

God required the Israelites to eat meat in the Passover.

Exodus 12:8 8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. (NKJV)​

God gave regular portions of the sacrifices to the priests.

Leviticus 7:31 And the priest shall burn the fat on the altar, but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. 32 Also the right thigh you shall give to the priest as a heave offering from the sacrifices of your peace offerings. 33 He among the sons of Aaron, who offers the blood of the peace offering and the fat, shall have the right thigh for his part. 34 For the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the heave offering I have taken from the children of Israel, from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons from the children of Israel by a statute forever.’ ”​

God outlined the peace offering which involved eating meat from the animal.

Leviticus 19:5 ‘And if you offer a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord, you shall offer it of your own free will. 6 It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the next day. And if any remains until the third day, it shall be burned in the fire.​

God provided Elijah meat.

1Ki 17:6 And the ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening, and he drank from the brook.​

Jesus provided fish to His disciples, and to the multitudes.

Joh 21:12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.​

Jesus ate the Passover, and had His disciples arrange for it, and eat it with Him.

Luke 22:14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer​

Jesus fed the multitude with fish.

Matthew 15:35 So He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. 36 And He took the seven loaves and the fish and gave thanks, broke them and gave them to His disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitude. 37 So they all ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets full of the fragments that were left.​

Jesus called a fish a good gift, which it would not be if it weakened moral powers.

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?​

It is unbiblical to claim that Jesus would give food to people that weakened their moral powers, and had "evil results."

Click to expand...

Wow!!!!

I did read some of Ms. Ellen White's books thirty or forty years ago and basically I was impressed.

At that time I could not leave the WWCG and join the SDA but I do thank you for these very interesting quotations from her.

tall73 said:

And I see no way to square them. It is a bit unclear if you are saying you are not trying to square them, because they are just her views mixed in, or if you are saying that it is different now than it was then.

The issue of it being different now than it was then doesn't address the main contention of the thread, which dealt with her characterization of God's will for Israel, and the Scriptures in regards to God's will for Israel. Those were both dealing with then, not now. So God's ability to introduce new teaching, or the best diet now, don't speak to the point that Ellen White said God intended something for Israel that was the opposite of what the Scriptures said.

Click to expand...

I don't know why I missed your reply before. I just stumbled back across this. I have largely lost the gist of this thread, and I don't want to take the time to go back through it all. So I apologize if I am off track.

I think what you are saying is that Ellen White was incorrectly teaching that meat was bad in her time (with her newly discovered health principles), and then applying that same understanding to the children of Israel. And that when God punished them with the quail in the desert, they should have known better than to eat meat -- because meat is immoral.

If that is what you are saying, then I would say that she was over zealous in applying health principles. Ultimately, any understanding or teaching we receive from others must be analyzed for truth. Finding examples of middle school teachers putting silly (and wrong) things on math tests is a fun internet past time. But even with their mistakes, it would be tragic to discount all the effort those professionals are doing to educate children to their best ability.

Best wishes,
Kevin

KevinT said:

I don't know why I missed your reply before. I just stumbled back across this. I have largely lost the gist of this thread, and I don't want to take the time to go back through it all. So I apologize if I am off track.

I think what you are saying is that Ellen White was incorrectly teaching that meat was bad in her time (with her newly discovered health principles), and then applying that same understanding to the children of Israel. And that when God punished them with the quail in the desert, they should have known better than to eat meat -- because meat is immoral.

If that is what you are saying, then I would say that she was over zealous in applying health principles. Ultimately, any understanding or teaching we receive from others must be analyzed for truth. Finding examples of middle school teachers putting silly (and wrong) things on math tests is a fun internet past time. But even with their mistakes, it would be tragic to discount all the effort those professionals are doing to educate children to their best ability.

Best wishes,
Kevin

Click to expand...

Indeed, discounting everything a person said based on their identity would be a logical fallacy (argumentum ad hominem) whereas conversely automatically accepting anything someone says based solely on their identity is leads to the logical fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority (interestingly, any television commercial featuring a celebrity spokesman who is a noted film star, for example, and not someone with particular technical expertise relevant to the product, constitutes an appeal to unqualified authority (unless perhaps the actor was acting in a role as a spokesman for some service of unique relevance to Thespians).

By the way, I want to say I greatly appreciate your friendly and relaxed style of dialogue with traditional Christians. You might not be aware of this, but I really have no problems with Adventists or Sabbatarians in general, except for a very small minority (who are not exclusively SDA but also include members of other denominations) who seem to regard it as a religious duty to aggressively criticize the Roman Catholic Church and all other traditional liturgical churches that worship on Sunday (even if the same church also worships on Saturday - Roman Catholic clergy and religious are required to worship on Saturday as well as Sunday and the RCC has the most worship services of any denomination, with my church, the Eastern Orthodox, along with the Oriental Orthodox), with Anglicans probably tied with the SDA for no. 3. Thus when we are accused of breaking the fourth commandment and of being somehow defective in our practice of Christianity, it is extremely hurtful, and I appreciate the fact that you have never made comments along those lines.

On the contrary I’ve found you to be responsive and responsible in discussion, and I recall one thread where you took the time to look up some theological concepts I mentioned that you were unfamiliar with, and to post what you had found, without bashing whatever it was I had mentioned as being vain philosophy or traditions of men or what have you, and I really greatly appreciated that.

God bless you!

I am a Seventh-day Adventist and despite all the names we are called, although I would be more concerned if we weren't called names, from my studies the SDA church lines up closest with the Scripture. I have read a few of EGW books but not an expert by any means, her works were enormous and I spend most of my time studying and reading Scriptures.

That said because I am not an expert I asked Chat how it viewed what is being discussed with her writings and how it compares to Scriptures. I used Chat CPT5.2

Yes — there is a way to reconcile the Bible texts you quoted with Ellen White’s statements, but it requires reading both in their own categories:

1. What God permitted/commanded in Israel’s covenant life, and
2. What God’s “ideal” was for character development and health, plus how appetite/lust affects moral/spiritual perception.

Below is a framework that (in my view) does the most justice to both the biblical data and what Ellen White is trying to argue.

---

1) The Bible clearly permits (and sometimes requires) meat​

You’re right that Scripture includes:

• Permission to eat meat (e.g., Deut 12:15).
• Commands tied to ritual/covenant practice (e.g., Passover in Ex 12:8; portions for priests; peace offerings that are eaten).
• Positive examples (Elijah fed meat; Jesus provides fish; etc.).

So the claim “God never allowed meat” is simply false.
But note: Ellen White actually admits permission in Canaan (“permitted… under careful restrictions”), so the real dispute is narrower:

If God permitted/commanded meat in multiple contexts, how can Ellen White say God’s plan/intent for Israel wasn’t a flesh diet and that it weakened moral powers?

Click to expand...

That’s the real knot.

---

2) “Ideal vs. permitted” is a biblical category, not just an EGW move​

The Bible itself often operates with a distinction between:

• God’s ideal (what best expresses His original design), and
• God’s concessions/permissions within a fallen context.

Classic examples:

• Divorce: permitted in Moses’ administration, but Jesus points back to creation ideal (Matt 19:8).
• Monarchy: Israel is given a king, but the narrative treats it as a concession with serious dangers (1 Sam 8).

So it’s not illegitimate, in principle, to say:

• “God allowed X” and
• “X is not God’s best / carries predictable moral-spiritual downsides.”

That doesn’t contradict permission. It argues about wisdom and trajectory, not merely legality.

---

3) The wilderness story (Numbers 11) is about lust, not merely nutrition​

Ellen White’s strongest “Israel in the wilderness” language lines up best with the spirit of Numbers 11:

• The issue isn’t that eating any meat is automatically sin.
• The issue is craving, murmuring, loss of gratitude, and appetite-driven rebellion.

In Numbers 11, Israel’s demand for flesh is portrayed as:

• a rejection of God’s provision (manna),
• a loss of trust,
• and a catalyst for community disorder.

So when Ellen White says the flesh lust “would weaken moral powers” and produce irritability/insubordination, that maps to what the narrative actually emphasizes: appetite-fueled discontent turning into spiritual revolt.
In other words, she’s not merely doing chemistry (“meat molecule → sin”); she’s doing moral psychology:

indulged appetite → strengthened sensuality/impulses → weaker self-control → social/religious breakdown.

Click to expand...

That’s at least compatible with the Numbers 11 storyline.

---

4) “Meat was commanded” doesn’t prove “meat has no moral downside”​

A key logical leap in the forum post is basically:

If God commanded it at times, then it cannot weaken moral powers or have “evil results.”

Click to expand...

But that doesn’t follow.
God can command or permit practices for covenant/ritual reasons even when the practice is not “optimal” in some other dimension. For example, OT sacrifices involve blood and death — commanded by God — yet Hebrews treats them as temporary pedagogical symbols, not the final moral ideal.
So it’s possible (conceptually) for:

• Passover lamb to be commanded for covenant symbolism,
  while also saying
• a flesh-centered appetite culture tends to coarsen spiritual perception.

Those aren’t mutually exclusive unless “weakens moral powers” is taken to mean “inherently sinful every time, no exceptions.” Ellen White’s own phrasing usually reads more like tendency / effect, not automatic damnation.

---

5) What does Ellen White mean by “departing from the plan”?​

If “the plan divinely appointed” means “God never allowed meat,” then yes, contradiction.
But there’s a more coherent reading that many Adventists use:

• The “plan” is the Edenic-style diet principle (plant-based as the ideal).
• After sin and in different historical conditions, God permits expansions (including animal food), often with restrictions, and often tied to circumstance.

That matches her “permitted… under careful restrictions” sentence.
So the statement becomes:

• Ideal: simpler diet fostering clarity, self-control, and sensitivity to God.
• Concession: meat allowed (especially under controls), but it tends to have downsides—especially when linked to indulgence, quantity, and appetite-rule.

You can agree or disagree with her health anthropology, but that reading removes the “flat contradiction” charge.

---

6) What about Jesus giving fish and calling it a “good gift”?​

Two points that keep this from being a knockout argument:

A) “Good gift” doesn’t mean “no potential harms if misused”​

Wine can be a gift in some texts, yet drunkenness is condemned. “Good” in Luke 11 is about a father not tricking a child with something harmful/treacherous in place of food — not a full nutritional/moral treatise.

B) Fish ≠ “flesh-meats” in the same way Ellen White often targets​

Historically (and in Adventist usage), “flesh-meats” language is frequently aimed at richer animal foods, indulgence patterns, and stimulative diet habits. Even if you think that distinction is overplayed, it explains why EGW could critique “flesh-meats” as a category while still acknowledging biblical fish consumption without treating Jesus as giving “moral poison.”

---

7) The sharpest remaining tension (where reconciliation is hardest)​

If someone reads Ellen White as asserting:

“God’s will for Israel at that time was: no meat at all, and any meat intrinsically damages moral powers”

Click to expand...

then the Bible texts you cited are very hard to harmonize with that.
But if her point is:

“God aimed to train Israel in self-control and spiritual perception; indulgent appetite for flesh (and the culture around it) would undermine that, and even when meat was permitted, it wasn’t the ideal and carried risks”

Click to expand...

then you can honestly say:

• the Bible permits/commands meat in specific covenant contexts, and
• Ellen White is warning about appetite-driven indulgence and its spiritual effects, especially highlighted in the wilderness lust narrative.

That’s the reconciliation route.

---

A simple “both/and” summary you can use​

• Bible: Meat is permitted (and sometimes required) in Israel’s covenant life; the problem is often craving, excess, and rebellion, not mere ingestion.
• Ellen White: God’s ideal was to cultivate highest moral/spiritual strength; appetite for flesh (especially as indulgence) tends to strengthen lower impulses and weaken self-control; Israel was permitted meat later with restrictions, but it wasn’t the best trajectory.