Ellen White: Meat eating weakens moral powers

The Liturgist · 2026-02-20T17:17:47-0600

KevinT said:
<blush> ...

Thank you for the kind words. I think you are exactly right that many regard it as a duty to warn everyone of the the importance of Saturday worship. I am ambivalent about this issue. I personally worship on Saturday, and think it is the correct day. But I also work daily with people from all different denominations and realize that we are all on different journeys with God, and if I am not careful I might turn someone away from Christ -- our one and only Author of Salvation.

I will likewise return the compliment. I have noticed on many different threads that you have a calm, reasoned and pleasant demeanor in your replies. You bring a lot of knowledge about Christian traditions that I know nothing about. And it is always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank you so much for this!

God bless and I wish you a wonderful weekend.

Kevin T

God bless you too, and I hope you have a fulfilling Sabbath. We’re in the part of year by the way where most Orthodox churches have not just Vespers but the divine liturgy on the Sabbath, throughout pre-Lent and Lent (which for us starts on Monday, except for those on the Gregorian Calendar, which among Eastern Orthodox consist only of the Finnish Orthodox and some of the Estonians, but among the Oriental Orthodox include all Armenians outside of Jerusalem (where all Orthodox use the Julian Calendar) and also the Indian Orthodox. The Sabbath has special signifigance for us as the day when Christ our God reposed in the tomb after remaking man in His image on the sixth day and before rising again on the first day.

bbbbbbb · 2026-02-20T17:46:37-0600

KevinT said:
I guess I would lump everything that destroys or harms us in the category of "sin". Others would limit the sin category to just those items that have been explicitly prohibited.

Best wishes,
Kevin

The difficulty is that many things have the possibility of benefiting us and of harming us. Take food, for example. Taken in moderation, food is necessary for good health. Taken in excess, it will kill us. Is food, therefore, sinful?

tall73 · 2026-02-20T21:31:37-0600

KevinT said:
Firstly, I thought that this reply by ChatGPT was very well reasoned and balance and it seemed great to me.

But then I wondered how it would have replied if it was asked to argue the exact opposite -- and I suspect it could also make a great and reasoned argument for that as well. So is ChatGPT two faced??

Any time you instruct to reconcile it is going to try to put the best face on it. But it has to summarize to do that, because if you put the statements side by side, there is no reconciling them

No AI will be used in this presentation:

SabbathBlessings said:
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?
That’s the real knot.

Now let's look at actual statements:

Did God deprive the Israelites in great measure of flesh meats?

Ellen White says:

God knew what was best for the children of Israel, therefore he deprived them in a great measure of flesh-meats.

Scripture says:

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.

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

Ellen White says that God deprived them in large measure of flesh meats, because God knew what would be best for them.

Scripture says they may eat meat, whatever their heart desires, according to the blessing of the Lord which He has given. He says they may eat as much meat as their heart desires.

Ellen White did not agree with Scripture.

Does God indicate that wanting to eat meat is lusting after forbidden and perverted things?

Ellen White Says:

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.

Scripture says:

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

Ellen White says satan caused them to lust after forbidden things, and to indulgence of perverted appetite.

Scripture says when you say let me eat meat, because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much as your heart desires. It does not characterize is as lusting, or indulgence of perverted appetite.

Ellen White did not agree with Scripture.

Does God say meat causes evil results? Does God command people to eat what causes evil results?

Ellen White says:

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.

Scripture says:

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?

James 1:13

13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. (NKJV)

2 Chronicles 31:4-10

4 Moreover he commanded the people who dwelt in Jerusalem to contribute support for the priests and the Levites, that they might devote themselves to the Law of the LORD.

5 As soon as the commandment was circulated, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits of grain and wine, oil and honey, and of all the produce of the field; and they brought in abundantly the tithe of everything. 6 And the children of Israel and Judah, who dwelt in the cities of Judah, brought the tithe of oxen and sheep; also the tithe of holy things which were consecrated to the LORD their God they laid in heaps.

7 In the third month they began laying them in heaps, and they finished in the seventh month. 8 And when Hezekiah and the leaders came and saw the heaps, they blessed the LORD and His people Israel. 9 Then Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites concerning the heaps. 10 And Azariah the chief priest, from the house of Zadok, answered him and said, “Since the people began to bring the offerings into the house of the LORD, we have had enough to eat and have plenty left, for the LORD has blessed His people; and what is left is this great abundance.” (NKJV)

Ellen White says that God allowed this food with "evil results" but merely lessened the "evil results"

Scripture says that God does not tempt anyone to do evil. God calls fish and eggs good gifts. Scripture says God commanded them to bring meat for the priests and Levites, the spiritual leaders, and that it was a blessing, not causing evil results.

Ellen White did not agree with Scripture.

SabbathBlessings said:
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.

These are false parallels.

Scripture says God hates divorce.

Malachi 2:16

16 “For the LORD God of Israel says

That He hates divorce,

For it covers one’s garment with violence,”

Says the LORD of hosts.

“Therefore take heed to your spirit,

That you do not deal treacherously.” (NKJV)

Scripture says they rejected God as their king by wanting the monarchy:

1 Samuel 10:17-19

17 Then Samuel called the people together to the LORD at Mizpah, 18 and said to the children of Israel, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of all kingdoms and from those who oppressed you.’ 19 But you have today rejected your God, who Himself saved you from all your adversities and your tribulations; and you have said to Him, ‘No, set a king over us!’ Now therefore, present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your clans.” (NKJV)

Scripture states these were against God's will, and to be avoided.

But regarding meat Scripture says God would send the grass so they may have more of it, 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 commands them to eat meat in His presence as part of their worship.

Deuteronomy 14:22 “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always.

SabbathBlessings said:
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.

Numbers 11:4-6

4 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said: “Who will give us meat to eat? 5 We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!” (NKJV)

The AI follows Ellen White in leaving out mention that the people wanted

cucumbers
melons
leeks
onions
garlic

Basically they wanted everything except what God gave them. They grumbled against the Lord who provided it. They grumbled against the One who delivered them from slavery, preserved them from the onslaught of the Egyptians, made them His treasured possession, and took care of them on the way.

Was the problem the fish, and that it weakens moral powers?

Apparently not, because Jesus, God in the flesh, ate fish, and gave it to His own Disciples:

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.

Luke 24:42-43

42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence. (NKJV)

Was Jesus causing his disciples to "lust after forbidden things", and engaging in the "indulgence of perverted appetite"? Was Jesus weakening their moral powers? Of course not!

SabbathBlessings said:
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.

Note the "its possible (conceptually)....."

Conceptually is all there is to the claim. Ellen White did not provide Scripture that said meat weakens moral powers.

And if the "tendency" and "effect" of repeated meat eating is weakening moral powers, then God would be weakening the spiritual leaders' moral powers when he commanded they be given meat as their regular portion:

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.’ ”

SabbathBlessings said:
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).

Tell me how these Scripture statements to Israel fit this "ideal" return to Edenic Veganism?

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

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.

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

SabbathBlessings said:
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.

Eating an egg and a fish are not "abuse". Jesus said they were a good gift--ie, in context, good food.

SabbathBlessings said:
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.”

This of course ignores the meat singled out in Numbers 11, which they were keen to have, apart from all the vegetable matter:

Numbers 11:4-6

4 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said: “Who will give us meat to eat? 5 We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!” (NKJV)

To summarize:

Ellen White says:

God knew what was best for the children of Israel, therefore he deprived them in a great measure of flesh-meats.

Scripture says:

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

Those are not the same. And you don't need AI to see that.

The Liturgist · 2026-02-20T22:45:55-0600

KevinT said:
Firstly, I thought that this reply by ChatGPT was very well reasoned and balance and it seemed great to me.

But then I wondered how it would have replied if it was asked to argue the exact opposite -- and I suspect it could also make a great and reasoned argument for that as well. So is ChatGPT two faced?? It seems that this seems to be the nature of life, that every issue can be looked at from different angles.

But thanks for the post, I enjoyed it.

Kevin

chatGPT attempts to satisfy the user - so output is biased based on user preferences. For this reason I advise people not to rely on it as an authoritative source on questions that pertain to any subjective, controversial or disputed issue (if even one of the terms included is subjective, answers can become divergent, since chatGPT is non-deterministic; the same exact input entered twice will produce different output.

There are use cases where chatGPT and other AIs are useful, such as code generation (provided you know what you’re doing as a programmer in general - it fails when it comes to seeing the big picture but is great for writing subroutines, and if one is coding in python it can, with a paid account, run that code internally and test it, provided you don’t need to call any external libraries and your function doesn’t take too long to run), Boolean logic, pattern recognition, data interpretation and so on, and some AIs such as chatGPT 4o (which has already been retired for most users and will be retired for Enterprise users like me on April 3rd, sadly), and Grok 4.1, are very entertaining.

SabbathBlessings · 2026-02-21T04:34:34-0600

KevinT said:
Firstly, I thought that this reply by ChatGPT was very well reasoned and balance and it seemed great to me.

But then I wondered how it would have replied if it was asked to argue the exact opposite -- and I suspect it could also make a great and reasoned argument for that as well. So is ChatGPT two faced?? It seems that this seems to be the nature of life, that every issue can be looked at from different angles.

But thanks for the post, I enjoyed it.

Kevin

There is an Adventist group called the Adventist Defense League that put together a YouTube video of ex-Adventists and other critics of the most common arguments they use with Ellen White. They went through each allegation and showed how they only isolate a quote and ignored all the other context she provided. I see some of these same tactics used here. She has a lot of writings so it’s easy to do and there are plenty of people who dedicate their life to teach against the Adventist church instead of teaching people about Christ. Considering the spiritual war we are in, many probably don’t even understand why they do it.

SabbathBlessings · 2026-02-21T05:19:28-0600

tall73 said:
Any time you instruct to reconcile it is going to try to put the best face on it. But it has to summarize to do that, because if you put the statements side by side, there is no reconciling them

No AI will be used in this presentation:

Now let's look at actual statements:

Did God deprive the Israelites in great measure of flesh meats?

Ellen White says:
God knew what was best for the children of Israel, therefore he deprived them in a great measure of flesh-meats.

Scripture says:
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.

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

Ellen White says that God deprived them in large measure of flesh meats, because God knew what would be best for them.

Scripture says they may eat meat, whatever their heart desires, according to the blessing of the Lord which He has given. He says they may eat as much meat as their heart desires.

Ellen White did not agree with Scripture.

Does God indicate that wanting to eat meat is lusting after forbidden and perverted things?

Ellen White Says:
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.

Scripture says:
Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

Ellen White says satan caused them to lust after forbidden things, and to indulgence of perverted appetite.

Scripture says when you say let me eat meat, because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much as your heart desires. It does not characterize is as lusting, or indulgence of perverted appetite.

Ellen White did not agree with Scripture.

Does God say meat causes evil results? Does God command people to eat what causes evil results?

Ellen White says:
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.

Scripture says:
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?

James 1:13
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. (NKJV)

2 Chronicles 31:4-10
4 Moreover he commanded the people who dwelt in Jerusalem to contribute support for the priests and the Levites, that they might devote themselves to the Law of the LORD.
5 As soon as the commandment was circulated, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits of grain and wine, oil and honey, and of all the produce of the field; and they brought in abundantly the tithe of everything. 6 And the children of Israel and Judah, who dwelt in the cities of Judah, brought the tithe of oxen and sheep; also the tithe of holy things which were consecrated to the LORD their God they laid in heaps.
7 In the third month they began laying them in heaps, and they finished in the seventh month. 8 And when Hezekiah and the leaders came and saw the heaps, they blessed the LORD and His people Israel. 9 Then Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites concerning the heaps. 10 And Azariah the chief priest, from the house of Zadok, answered him and said, “Since the people began to bring the offerings into the house of the LORD, we have had enough to eat and have plenty left, for the LORD has blessed His people; and what is left is this great abundance.” (NKJV)

Ellen White says that God allowed this food with "evil results" but merely lessened the "evil results"

Scripture says that God does not tempt anyone to do evil. God calls fish and eggs good gifts. Scripture says God commanded them to bring meat for the priests and Levites, the spiritual leaders, and that it was a blessing, not causing evil results.

Ellen White did not agree with Scripture.

These are false parallels.

Scripture says God hates divorce.

Malachi 2:16
16 “For the LORD God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
Says the LORD of hosts.
“Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.” (NKJV)

Scripture says they rejected God as their king by wanting the monarchy:

1 Samuel 10:17-19
17 Then Samuel called the people together to the LORD at Mizpah, 18 and said to the children of Israel, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of all kingdoms and from those who oppressed you.’ 19 But you have today rejected your God, who Himself saved you from all your adversities and your tribulations; and you have said to Him, ‘No, set a king over us!’ Now therefore, present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your clans.” (NKJV)

Scripture states these were against God's will, and to be avoided.

But regarding meat Scripture says God would send the grass so they may have more of it, 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 commands them to eat meat in His presence as part of their worship.

Deuteronomy 14:22 “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always.

Numbers 11:4-6
4 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said: “Who will give us meat to eat? 5 We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!” (NKJV)

The AI follows Ellen White in leaving out mention that the people wanted

cucumbers

melons

leeks

onions

garlic

Basically they wanted everything except what God gave them. They grumbled against the Lord who provided it. They grumbled against the One who delivered them from slavery, preserved them from the onslaught of the Egyptians, made them His treasured possession, and took care of them on the way.

Was the problem the fish, and that it weakens moral powers?

Apparently not, because Jesus, God in the flesh, ate fish, and gave it to His own Disciples:

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.

Luke 24:42-43
42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence. (NKJV)

Was Jesus causing his disciples to "lust after forbidden things", and engaging in the "indulgence of perverted appetite"? Was Jesus weakening their moral powers? Of course not!

Note the "its possible (conceptually)....."

Conceptually is all there is to the claim. Ellen White did not provide Scripture that said meat weakens moral powers.

And if the "tendency" and "effect" of repeated meat eating is weakening moral powers, then God would be weakening the spiritual leaders' moral powers when he commanded they be given meat as their regular portion:

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.’ ”

Tell me how these Scripture statements to Israel fit this "ideal" return to Edenic Veganism?

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

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.

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

Eating an egg and a fish are not "abuse". Jesus said they were a good gift--ie, in context, good food.

This of course ignores the meat singled out in Numbers 11, which they were keen to have, apart from all the vegetable matter:

Numbers 11:4-6

4 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said: “Who will give us meat to eat? 5 We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!” (NKJV)

To summarize:

Ellen White says:
God knew what was best for the children of Israel, therefore he deprived them in a great measure of flesh-meats.

Scripture says:
Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

Those are not the same. And you don't need AI to see that.

The “deprived them in a great measure of flesh-meats” statement is about the wilderness period, where manna was the regular provision and the craving episode in Numbers 11 ended in judgment. Deuteronomy 12 is explicitly about life in the land “when the Lord enlarges your border". Those aren’t the same setting. So putting Deut 12 next to a wilderness statement as if they describe the same situation isn't a fair comparison.

The Bible itself distinguishes between lawful eating and lustful craving. In Numbers 11 the issue wasn’t just fish, it was murmuring, ingratitude, and rejection of God’s provision. Deuteronomy 12 describes permitted meat within covenant boundaries. Those are different contexts.

Counsels for the Church

m.egwwritings.org

God gave our first parents the food He designed that the race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. There was to be no death in Eden. The fruit of the trees in the garden, was the food man’s wants required. God gave man no permission to eat animal food until after the flood. Everything had been destroyed upon which man could subsist, and therefore the Lord in their necessity gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals which he had taken with him into the ark. But animal food was not the most healthful article of food for man.

After the Flood the people ate largely of animal food. God saw that the ways of man were corrupt, and that he was disposed to exalt himself proudly against his Creator and to follow the inclinations of his own heart. And He permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives. Soon after the Flood the race began to rapidly decrease in size, and in length of years.

In choosing man’s food in Eden, the Lord showed what was the best diet; in the choice made for Israel He taught the same lesson. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt and undertook their training, that they might be a people for His own possession. Through them He desired to bless and teach the world. He provided them with the food best adapted for this purpose, not flesh, but manna, “the bread of heaven.” It was only because of their discontent and their murmuring for the fleshpots of Egypt that animal food was granted them, and this only for a short time. Its use brought disease and death to thousands. Yet the restriction to a non-flesh diet was never heartily accepted. It continued to be the cause of discontent and murmuring, open or secret, and it was not made permanent.

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. The Lord “gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.” Psalm 106:15. They valued the earthly above the spiritual, and the sacred pre-eminence which was His purpose for them they did not attain.

Those who eat flesh are but eating grains and vegetables at second hand; for the animal receives from these things the nutrition that produces growth. The life that was in the grains and vegetables passes into the eater. We receive it by eating the flesh of the animal. How much better to get it direct, by eating the food that God provided for our use!

Say what you want about the original diet and lifestyle of God but its been proven to live longer even today.

Here's a 3 minute video of even a Sunday pastor acknowledging

Loma Linda, California

The Seventh-day Adventist church in this sunny pocket of Southern California was founded in the 1840s. The church flourished through the 20th century –

www.bluezones.com

tall73 · 2026-02-21T05:48:38-0600

KevinT said:
<blush> ...

Thank you for the kind words. I think you are exactly right that many regard it as a duty to warn everyone of the the importance of Saturday worship. I am ambivalent about this issue. I personally worship on Saturday, and think it is the correct day. But I also work daily with people from all different denominations and realize that we are all on different journeys with God, and if I am not careful I might turn someone away from Christ -- our one and only Author of Salvation.

I agree with the compliments @The Liturgist made, and appreciate that you are willing to discuss. And certainly in settings where people may not be prepared to look at such issues it can make sense to choose when to engage on those topics. But there is no reason to feel ambivalent on the topic here where the purpose is to discuss, compare notes, etc.

And yes, it is even possible to learn and change your mind here, and I have done so a number of times over the years on various issues, whether related to Adventism or not, through comparing notes on Scripture here.

Please don't take my replies as hostile. They are not. I am simply speaking to the evidence as I see it.

tall73 · 2026-02-21T05:57:43-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
There is an Adventist group called the Adventist Defense League that put together a YouTube video of ex-Adventists and other critics of the most common arguments they use with Ellen White. They went through each allegation and showed how they only isolate a quote and ignored all the other context she provided. I see some of these same tactics used here.

You could easily remedy that by doing what neither she, nor you, nor the AI did. Bring in the context that matters. Go find all those Scripture texts that say that eating meat weakens morals, etc. to back up her claims.

SabbathBlessings said:
She has a lot of writings so it’s easy to do and there are plenty of people who dedicate their life to teach against the Adventist church instead of teaching people about Christ.

You know what people on Youtube do with the rest of their time, and that they do not talk to people about Christ? Are you sure that is what we find if we bring in "context" for those folks?

But please bring in any of her context you think would help. Please especially show us all the texts that actually say what she claims about meat weakening moral powers so we can compare them to the other Scripture being looked at here.

And if you don't, then there is no need to be concerned about missing context.

SabbathBlessings said:
Considering the spiritual war we are in, many probably don’t even understand why they do it.

Because it matters whether writings that are claimed to be inspired, and influence many, actually match up with Scripture.

KevinT · 2026-02-21T06:58:20-0600

tall73 said:
And yes, it is even possible to learn and change your mind here, and I have done so a number of times over the years on various issues, whether related to Adventism or not, through comparing notes on Scripture here.

Please don't take my replies as hostile. They are not. I am simply speaking to the evidence as I see it.

I don’t take your replies as hostile. I take them as passionate. There is some core issue that doesn’t set well with you, and you seem to be either trying to work that out for yourself. Or perhaps you are trying to help others come to the understanding you have.

I grew up in the SDA church, and as a kid when I heard the phrase “well, Ellen White says…“ it made me stop listening. Many people use her as an authoritarian figure with which to whip others into shape. If that was your experience, I can certainly understand you pushing back. Many people view her as an infallible speakerphone for God. And then, if she says something incorrect, it seems like the whole house of cards collapses down.

I read somewhere once that the students at the Loma Linda medical school wrote to her about her guidance against the use of medication’s. They wondered if if something as simple as potassium supplements were included in that list. And she got upset at them for pushing back on what she felt was guidance from God. To me, this scenario is a microcosm of her situation. Let’s accept for the sake of this discussion that an angel told her to not use medication‘s. (And by the way, I think every single medication that was in use in her time is something that would be malpractice to use today.) So she passes this message along. Then, when the situation changes, the advice doesn’t seem to apply anymore. So the medical students push back. And she interprets it as rejection of the Angel’s message. But she is caught in the middle and gets defensive.

I think the solution is to try to understand the positive, and set the negative elements aside. She spoke against using medication. That seems bad. Children have died due to withheld antibiotics. On the other hand, many patients that I interact with are spending obscene amounts of money on weight loss drugs such as Ozempic (list price is >$1,000 per month), when instead instead they would be much better better served to follow the dietary guidelines that just make common sense. So medication‘s can be viewed as a good thing, and they can be viewed as a bad thing.

I think I may have rambled off topic a bit too much. So I’ll close off here.

Best wishes
Kevin

tall73 · 2026-02-21T07:01:26-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
The “deprived them in a great measure of flesh-meats” statement is about the wilderness period, where manna was the regular provision and the craving episode in Numbers 11 ended in judgment.

Don't remove context from Ellen White's statement. Let's look at it :

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.

She says that it strengthens animal passions and enfeebles the intellect. Where does Scripture say that? Where does it say that is why God withheld meat from them? Where does it say God DID withhold meat from them? It was God that caused the Egyptians to be favorable to them in the first place when they left Egypt so they would have this livestock. It was God who anticipated them coming into the land and eating of the blessings He would provide and enlarge upon.

Did meat suddenly change once they reached the promised land, so that now they could eat as much as their hearts desired and it wouldn't have this effect? She introduces these claims about eating meat, and doesn't cite Scripture at all. And she lists the motives of God based on these characteristics, but doesn't cite Scripture for that either.

Yes, she relates this to the wilderness portion. But the statements about how they would eat meat in the land were given IN the wilderness, and stated as God's blessing, and the animals they were taking that would be increased were given by God before they entered the wilderness as a blessing. All of this non-meat-diet plan for them is made up.

And her statements regarding the wilderness are indeed at odds with the statement I posted, Because her statements are not just about the wilderness, but about the moral effect of eating meat. And neither she nor you have shown where this is given in Scripture, or said where God made this decision on this basis.

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.

This is of course all introduced narrative. God didn't give them herds and promise to enlarge them because wanting meat is a perverted appetite, and so they could lust after "forbidden" things. They were going through a wilderness that would not support the multitude and God provided for them. But He also provided the meat to take with them so they could have as much as their heart desired in the land. Notice, Ellen White certainly did not quote that Bible context.

SabbathBlessings said:
Deuteronomy 12 is explicitly about life in the land “when the Lord enlarges your border". Those aren’t the same setting. So putting Deut 12 next to a wilderness statement as if they describe the same situation isn't a fair comparison.

It was given to the people BEFORE He enlarged their border, promising they would have lots of meat. Which she takes to mean they shouldn't want meat, it is not best for them, it is not God's plan, etc.

Of course it is a fair comparison because she creates the narrative that God didn't want them to have meat in the first place, because of its weakening moral powers, which is not stated in the text, and then continues the claim in the land as well that it has evil results.

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.

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

She hasn't demonstrated the evil results. That is the missing context. The whole basis of her claims, in the wilderness, and in the land. She certainly has not demonstrated that the reason for the Israelites not reaching the ideal of character or fulfilling His purpose was because of meat.

SabbathBlessings said:
The Bible itself distinguishes between lawful eating and lustful craving.
In Numbers 11 the issue wasn’t just fish, it was murmuring, ingratitude, and rejection of God’s provision. Deuteronomy 12 describes permitted meat within covenant boundaries. Those are different contexts.

I already pointed out, both in response to you, and far earlier in the thread in response to a different poster, that the point wasn't meat. It was rejection of God's blessings of redemption, provision, leading, etc.. And I also noted that they wanted various vegetables too.

So if we both agree the issue wasn't the meat, why did Ellen white make the issue the meat? Why did she turn what was not about meat into a series of baseless claims about meat's impact on moral and spiritual wellbeing?

Now you added more of what she said. Let's look at it. And let's see if she adds the actual context that matters about how the Scriptures say animal food reduces moral power.

SabbathBlessings said:
After the Flood the people ate largely of animal food. God saw that the ways of man were corrupt, and that he was disposed to exalt himself proudly against his Creator and to follow the inclinations of his own heart. And He permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives. Soon after the Flood the race began to rapidly decrease in size, and in length of years.

This is certainly not looking at context! The people before the flood were so sinful he wiped out all but one family. How did they manage that with so much less meat eating?

Also, please show where Scriptures said it was the food that caused man to live shorter lives.

Also, please show how God gives meat to shorten sinful lives. Is that what Jesus was doing, shortening the lives of the disciples? Is that what God was doing shortening the lives of the high priest?

Did God intend to shorten the people's lives much more in the land when He said He would increase their livestock?

God must have REALLY wanted to shorten the people's lives in the land if He told them to eat as much as they wanted.

But of course that is ridiculous. Scripture didn't say any of what she is claiming.

SabbathBlessings said:
In choosing man’s food in Eden, the Lord showed what was the best diet; in the choice made for Israel He taught the same lesson. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt and undertook their training, that they might be a people for His own possession. Through them He desired to bless and teach the world. He provided them with the food best adapted for this purpose, not flesh, but manna, “the bread of heaven.”

Wait, why didn't he rain down the original Eden diet, instead of Mannah by this logic?

Mannah was not the "original" diet.

They were in the wilderness. He gave miraculously for them after redeeming them from slavery, and they failed to trust or show gratitude. That is the issue. If meat were the issue He wouldn't have given the animals to them, and promised more when they got to the land.

SabbathBlessings said:
Yet the restriction to a non-flesh diet was never heartily accepted. It continued to be the cause of discontent and murmuring, open or secret, and it was not made permanent.

It was not only never "heartily accepted", but it was never put forward.

He gave them the heards as they left Egypt
He told them in the wilderness His plans to increase the grass so they would have more heards to eat from
He told them in the land they would eat as much meat as their hearts desired.

SabbathBlessings said:
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.

She has not shown that meat caused these evil moral results. And neither have you.

SabbathBlessings said:
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. The Lord “gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.” Psalm 106:15. They valued the earthly above the spiritual, and the sacred pre-eminence which was His purpose for them they did not attain.

Now in the context we are past the entry into the land. The plan divinely appointed for their diet is spelled out pretty clearly before they ever entered the land:

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.

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

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

The context we are missing is the Scripture basis for Ellen White's claims that meat causes moral and spiritual weakness, and the explanation for why Ellen White's claims go against what God stated about the Israelites diet in the land.

SabbathBlessings said:
Say what you want about the original diet and lifestyle of God but its been proven to live longer even today.

Here's a 3 minute video of even a Sunday pastor acknowledging

Loma Linda, California

The Seventh-day Adventist church in this sunny pocket of Southern California was founded in the 1840s. The church flourished through the 20th century –

www.bluezones.com

We already had the part 1 thread where we looked at health claims. This thread is on the moral and spiritual impact, which Ellen White states, but shows no Scripture for at all. And her statements plainly do not match up with Scripture.

KevinT · 2026-02-21T07:07:01-0600

The Liturgist said:
chatGPT attempts to satisfy the user - so output is biased based on user preferences. For this reason I advise people not to rely on it as an authoritative source on questions that pertain to any subjective, controversial or disputed issue.

There is also the issue that even in a new conversation or thread, it will pick up elements from other conversations, and those will influence future output. For example, I like to debate with ChatGPT on topics of quantum mechanics. Then, and subsequent conversations, sometimes it will pull such themes as examples, so I know it has at least summarized that this is an area I am interested in. It probably knows that I am SDA, so will be more likely to flavor outputs along that line.

Having said that, I think one can look at the fact that it presents and evaluate them for truth. But I probably also need to be careful to think about what it is NOT saying. I have heard that one way of trying to avoid such an echo chamber is to ask it to strongman an argument against that position. To hear the other side.

KT

tall73 · 2026-02-21T07:18:01-0600

KevinT said:
I don’t take your replies as hostile. I take them as passionate. There is some core issue that doesn’t set well with you, and you seem to be either trying to work that out for yourself. Or perhaps you are trying to help others come to the understanding you have.

I grew up in the SDA church, and as a kid when I heard the phrase “well, Ellen White says…“ it made me stop listening. Many people use her as an authoritarian figure with which to whip others into shape. If that was your experience, I can certainly understand you pushing back.

I grew up in a family that didn't go to church at all. My dad was a former Catholic, and my mom a former Adventist. My grandparents took me to church at the Adventist church, but it was through my own reading of Scripture that I chose to go into Adventist ministry for years. I still agree with Adventists on some views.

My reaction is not to being raised with Ellen White. I was not. I wasn't even raised to know God at all except for when I was with my grandparents, and I am certainly grateful for them, and they were Adventists all their life.

I chose to read Ellen White. It wasn't forced on me.

KevinT said:
Many people view her as an infallible speakerphone for God. And then, if she says something incorrect, it seems like the whole house of cards collapses down.

I already quoted for you her claims about herself:

"In these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision -- the precious rays of light shining from the throne," is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books. I have been instructed in accordance with the Word in the precepts of the law of God. I have been instructed in selecting from the lessons of Christ. {RH, September 6, 1906 par. 1}

That is what is being tested, because that is what she claimed.

And I do not find that what she claims matches with Scripture.

KevinT said:
I read somewhere once that the students at the Loma Linda medical school wrote to her about her guidance against the use of medication’s. They wondered if if something as simple as potassium supplements were included in that list. And she got upset at them for pushing back on what she felt was guidance from God. To me, this scenario is a microcosm of her situation. Let’s accept for the sake of this discussion that an angel told her to not use medication‘s. (And by the way, I think every single medication that was in use in her time is something that would be malpractice to use today.) So she passes this message along. Then, when the situation changes, the advice doesn’t seem to apply anymore. So the medical students push back. And she interprets it as rejection of the Angel’s message. But she is caught in the middle and gets defensive.

Or let's look at statement she actually made about using Malaria medication, which she thought would be acceptable.

That is not an issue to me. I do not at all claim everything Ellen White wrote was wrong. In fact, when Ellen White matches Scripture I sometimes ask Adventists to read it. She got a lot right.

But that is not the claim. The claim is not that she got some things right, or that she was right but then things changed.

The claim is all that she was writing was inspired (in the books, testimonies, periodicals, etc. not her mundane letters which she also clarifies).

If it doesn't match up with Scripture, and if it says in some cases the opposite of Scripture, that is a false claim.

KevinT said:
I think the solution is to try to understand the positive, and set the negative elements aside. She spoke against using medication.

Except when she didn't

KevinT said:
That seems bad.

Not really. Some of the medicine she spoke against, as you noted, was not good at all.

KevinT said:
Children have died due to withheld antibiotics.

I had to quote Ellen White to get one of my church members to use medication that saved his life, so I am not looking at it from just one side. Her writings had nuance. Her writings were addressing many different situations. That is all fine. The question is a more basic one. Was it all inspired? And for that, the Scripture test is what matters.

KevinT said:
On the other hand, many patients that I interact with are spending obscene amounts of money on weight loss drugs such as Ozempic (list price is >$1,000 per month), when instead instead they would be much better better served to follow the dietary guidelines that just make common sense.

Yes, medications are not always good. We can talk about health guidelines in another thread. I have a number of opinions on that. But this is about meat and moral and spiritual impact, and Scripture testing of Ellen White's claims.

KevinT said:
So medication‘s can be viewed as a good thing, and they can be viewed as a bad thing.

I think I may have rambled off topic a bit too much. So I’ll close off here.

Best wishes
Kevin

It is fine to indicate that there was good and bad in Ellen White's writings. But we have to apply the Scripture test.

I do not find that she meets that test.

jamiec · 2026-02-21T07:20:10-0600

STM that Mrs White would have difficulty showing that vegetarians are notably more godly, virtuous, or intelligent that meat-eaters.

Though Rice Krispies (and other cereals) are something to be grateful for. But that was Kellogg’s idea.

SabbathBlessings · 2026-02-21T07:42:44-0600

"In these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision -- the precious rays of light shining from the throne," is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books. I have been instructed in accordance with the Word in the precepts of the law of God. I have been instructed in selecting from the lessons of Christ. {RH, September 6, 1906 par. 1}

Even what she stated to sum this thought up, was not included.

The statement which you quote from “Testimony,” No. 31, that “in these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne,” is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books. I have been instructed in accordance with the Word in the precepts of the law of God. I have been instructed in selecting from the lessons of Christ. Are not the positions taken in my writings in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, point it out to me.

She invites correction/identification of disharmony.

She said:

“The Testimonies were not given to take the place of the Bible… God has seen fit… to bring the minds of His people to His word, to give them a clearer understanding of it.”
“The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed.”

Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5

m.egwwritings.org

“Bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God… Let none be educated to look to Sister White, but to the mighty God…”

Ellen G. White® Estate: Ellen G. White's Understanding of How Her Writings Relate to Scripture

whiteestate.org

“The Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.”

Ellen G. White® Estate: Ellen G. White's Understanding of How Her Writings Relate to Scripture

whiteestate.org

Its why context is so important. While we may interpret her understanding of Scripture to be wrong, it doesn't mean it is. She never claimed infallibility, she always pointed to the one who is, God.

KevinT · 2026-02-21T07:47:27-0600

tall73 said:
I already quoted for you her claims about herself:

"In these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision -- the precious rays of light shining from the throne," is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books. I have been instructed in accordance with the Word in the precepts of the law of God. I have been instructed in selecting from the lessons of Christ. {RH, September 6, 1906 par. 1}

That is what is being tested, because that is what she claimed.

And I do not find that what she claims matches with Scripture.

Thank you for the clarification of your background.

Regarding the quote above, Ellen White was born in 1827 and died in 1915 at the age of 87. This post that you quoted was written in 1906, and at that time she was 78 yrs old. If I take this paragraph at face value, it seems that she is claiming infallibility. After all, if everything she wrote was from God, then how can it contain errors? When you push back on that, I certainly understand.

I would take this statement as one from a fallible human looking back at her life. She has dedicated her life to Christ and views everything through that lens. Like Paul stating in 2 Tim, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness." It Paul asserting that he has never made an error or was infallible? I don't think so.

I think you are right for demanding White's writings to subservient to scripture. And if you see contradiction there, then follow scripture! But I would recommend allowing for apparently new things to be introduced by God into the world. On this issue of meat, medical science has shown that a plant-based diet can be superior to a meat-based one. It was the original diet in the Garden of Eden and White is asserting that God gave her instructions to get people back to a plant-based diet. I wasn't there, I can't independently testify if she was making that up or if God really did speak to her. But on the points that she appeals to my reason and seems to be correct, I can agree. And if there is static or noise or distortion on the communication channel, I personally am going to overlook that.

Best wishes
Kevin

bbbbbbb · 2026-02-21T08:03:31-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
The “deprived them in a great measure of flesh-meats” statement is about the wilderness period, where manna was the regular provision and the craving episode in Numbers 11 ended in judgment. Deuteronomy 12 is explicitly about life in the land “when the Lord enlarges your border". Those aren’t the same setting. So putting Deut 12 next to a wilderness statement as if they describe the same situation isn't a fair comparison.

The Bible itself distinguishes between lawful eating and lustful craving. In Numbers 11 the issue wasn’t just fish, it was murmuring, ingratitude, and rejection of God’s provision. Deuteronomy 12 describes permitted meat within covenant boundaries. Those are different contexts.

Counsels for the Church

m.egwwritings.org

God gave our first parents the food He designed that the race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. There was to be no death in Eden. The fruit of the trees in the garden, was the food man’s wants required. God gave man no permission to eat animal food until after the flood. Everything had been destroyed upon which man could subsist, and therefore the Lord in their necessity gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals which he had taken with him into the ark. But animal food was not the most healthful article of food for man.

After the Flood the people ate largely of animal food. God saw that the ways of man were corrupt, and that he was disposed to exalt himself proudly against his Creator and to follow the inclinations of his own heart. And He permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives. Soon after the Flood the race began to rapidly decrease in size, and in length of years.

In choosing man’s food in Eden, the Lord showed what was the best diet; in the choice made for Israel He taught the same lesson. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt and undertook their training, that they might be a people for His own possession. Through them He desired to bless and teach the world. He provided them with the food best adapted for this purpose, not flesh, but manna, “the bread of heaven.” It was only because of their discontent and their murmuring for the fleshpots of Egypt that animal food was granted them, and this only for a short time. Its use brought disease and death to thousands. Yet the restriction to a non-flesh diet was never heartily accepted. It continued to be the cause of discontent and murmuring, open or secret, and it was not made permanent.

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. The Lord “gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.” Psalm 106:15. They valued the earthly above the spiritual, and the sacred pre-eminence which was His purpose for them they did not attain.

Those who eat flesh are but eating grains and vegetables at second hand; for the animal receives from these things the nutrition that produces growth. The life that was in the grains and vegetables passes into the eater. We receive it by eating the flesh of the animal. How much better to get it direct, by eating the food that God provided for our use!

Say what you want about the original diet and lifestyle of God but its been proven to live longer even today.

Here's a 3 minute video of even a Sunday pastor acknowledging

Loma Linda, California

The Seventh-day Adventist church in this sunny pocket of Southern California was founded in the 1840s. The church flourished through the 20th century –

www.bluezones.com

Your allegation "its been proven to live longer even today." is patently erroneous.

As an example, the Jains in India, who go to much greater lengths than the SDA to conform to the original diet and lifestyle of God, even to the point of complete nudity for their priests (as Adam and Eve lived) have a statistically lower life expectancy than any member of Western societies who do not adhere to their lifestyle.

SabbathBlessings · 2026-02-21T08:11:26-0600

KevinT said:
I don’t take your replies as hostile. I take them as passionate. There is some core issue that doesn’t set well with you, and you seem to be either trying to work that out for yourself. Or perhaps you are trying to help others come to the understanding you have.

I grew up in the SDA church, and as a kid when I heard the phrase “well, Ellen White says…“ it made me stop listening. Many people use her as an authoritarian figure with which to whip others into shape. If that was your experience, I can certainly understand you pushing back. Many people view her as an infallible speakerphone for God. And then, if she says something incorrect, it seems like the whole house of cards collapses down.

I read somewhere once that the students at the Loma Linda medical school wrote to her about her guidance against the use of medication’s. They wondered if if something as simple as potassium supplements were included in that list. And she got upset at them for pushing back on what she felt was guidance from God. To me, this scenario is a microcosm of her situation. Let’s accept for the sake of this discussion that an angel told her to not use medication‘s. (And by the way, I think every single medication that was in use in her time is something that would be malpractice to use today.) So she passes this message along. Then, when the situation changes, the advice doesn’t seem to apply anymore. So the medical students push back. And she interprets it as rejection of the Angel’s message. But she is caught in the middle and gets defensive.

I think the solution is to try to understand the positive, and set the negative elements aside. She spoke against using medication. That seems bad. Children have died due to withheld antibiotics. On the other hand, many patients that I interact with are spending obscene amounts of money on weight loss drugs such as Ozempic (list price is >$1,000 per month), when instead instead they would be much better better served to follow the dietary guidelines that just make common sense. So medication‘s can be viewed as a good thing, and they can be viewed as a bad thing.

I think I may have rambled off topic a bit too much. So I’ll close off here.

Best wishes
Kevin

Since we are sharing, I will say my grandmother had the most influence on me being an Adventist. My dad is also SDA. My grandmother walked the talk. To this day I have never met anyone like her. Everyone loved her, she was not judgmental to anyone, she adopted grown adults as her children because they didn't have families. When I would visit her, I would have to wait in line because there was always someone at her house visiting. I remember growing up seeing her face shine like I have never seen anyone else's in my life when she would read the Bible or an EGW book. She was always loving, always available, never judgmental. I left the Adventist church at a young age, didn't want anything to do with it, not that I didn't believe, but wanted to do my own thing. When I moved near her, I went to church just to spend time with her and I was so blessed that she went to Pastor Doug Batchelor's church and I found myself going even when she couldn't make it for various reasons. When she passed, no one wanted her EGW books, so I received her extensive collection, I felt like I received the greatest inheritance. The books that touched and transformed her life. There is no way I could read them in my lifetime, there are so many.

Happy Sabbath!

tall73 · 2026-02-21T08:38:52-0600

KevinT said:
I think you are right for demanding White's writings to subservient to scripture. And if you see contradiction there, then follow scripture!

That is what is being presented

KevinT said:
But I would recommend allowing for apparently new things to be introduced by God into the world. On this issue of meat, medical science has shown that a plant-based diet can be superior to a meat-based one.

The topic of this thread is whether meat causes moral and spiritual weakness.

If you wish to start a thread on the other topic, feel free. I might join in. I have a lot to say on that topic as someone who was a vegan for years, and about the literature.

KevinT said:
It was the original diet in the Garden of Eden and White is asserting that God gave her instructions to get people back to a plant-based diet.

The claims being examined are regarding the Israelites and their diet. We have God's words concerning that in Scripture. We have Ellen White's. They don't match up.

This is only one such issue.

I have no problem with anyone who does well on a vegetarian diet. Many do.

KevinT said:
I wasn't there, I can't independently testify if she was making that up or if God really did speak to her.

Nor are we looking at that there. We are looking at whether her statements about Scriptural times, people, passages, match what Scripture says.

They don't.

KevinT said:
But on the points that she appeals to my reason and seems to be correct, I can agree.

Then is your reason the standard?

KevinT said:
And if there is static or noise or distortion on the communication channel, I personally am going to overlook that.

If she contradicts Scripture, then the alleged communication channel is in question.

tall73 · 2026-02-21T08:55:32-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
Are not the positions taken in my writings in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, point it out to me.

If she invited being tested by Scripture, why do you object if people do? She is not here to discuss with anymore. We are still looking at the question.

SabbathBlessings said:
She invites correction/identification of disharmony.

She said:

“The Testimonies were not given to take the place of the Bible… God has seen fit… to bring the minds of His people to His word, to give them a clearer understanding of it.”
“The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed.”

Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5

m.egwwritings.org

“Bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God… Let none be educated to look to Sister White, but to the mighty God…”

Ellen G. White® Estate: Ellen G. White's Understanding of How Her Writings Relate to Scripture

whiteestate.org

“The Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.”

Ellen G. White® Estate: Ellen G. White's Understanding of How Her Writings Relate to Scripture

whiteestate.org

Its why context is so important. While we may interpret her understanding of Scripture to be wrong, it doesn't mean it is.

You haven't even begun to present the context that would show her to be correct on this point. Because that context would be the biblical support for all the claims she makes about the moral impact of meat eating. And it would have to be squared with the actual biblical statements.

And the context you brought to this statement shows only that there is nothing wrong with asking the question of whether her claim is true. She invited us to do so.

SabbathBlessings said:
She never claimed infallibility, she always pointed to the one who is, God.

You have moved the goalposts. I did not state she claimed infallibility.

I quoted what she claimed.

Her writings on the subject don't show that claim to be true. She does not match up with Scripture.

And you have not shown the Scriptures that would prove otherwise, or even attempted to explain why God would say eat as much meat as your heart desires if it was injurious to spiritual and moral health.

Did you ever wonder why Ellen White didn't include these statements in the biblical context?

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.

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.

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

tall73 · 2026-02-21T09:09:25-0600

KevinT said:
But on the points that she appeals to my reason and seems to be correct, I can agree. And if there is static or noise or distortion on the communication channel, I personally am going to overlook that.

She objected to this approach of you discerning what was good in her testimonies, and what was not:

Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 691
Do not by your criticisms take out all the force, all the point and power, from the Testimonies. Do not feel that you can dissect them to suit your own ideas, claiming that God has given you ability to discern what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom. If the Testimonies speak not according to the Word of God, reject them.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Ellen White: Meat eating weakens moral powers

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads

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

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

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

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

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