1888 the real issue that is not being discussed

[Adventist Dissident]

A list compiled in 1910 by Mrs. Evelyn Lewis-Reavis, she listed twenty-four living out of sixty-seven that attended that conference. Today in 1998 the youngest would be one hundred and forty-two years old. As you can see it is impossible for any of them to be alive today. Mrs. Reavis was a member of this conference.

LIST COMPILED BY MRS. *EVELYN LEWIS-REAVIS​

D---Died since 1910
Living Nov. 1910
D--Ellen G. White
D--G.W. Amadon
J.E. White
W.C. White
T.B. Lewis
Ogden Lewis
Lorinda Nordyke
Mary Smith-Abbey
May L. King
Asahel Smith
*Mrs. Evelyn L. Reavis
Anna L. Wilson
J.W. Bacheller
D--Arvilla D. Bacheller
Julia J. McDowell
Smith Kellogg
Albert Kellogg
Mrs. Emma Kellogg
Dr. J.H. Kellogg
Mrs. A.A.Dodge
Hannah Hastings
Seymour Bovee
Griffin Lewis
Laura Kellogg-Brackett
Mrs. Munsell-Marvin
Mrs. R.M. Kilgore
Mrs Lorinda Carpenter

Deceased
James White
Uriah Smith
Cyrenius Smith
Louisa Bovee
J. R. Lewis
Deborah Lyon
Mrs. J. R. Lewis
Sarah Belden
H. N. White
Dan R. Palmer
J.P. Kellogg
Mrs. J. P. Kellogg
Josiah-Hart
Leonard Eggleston
Cynthis Bacheller
Roxana R. Cornell
Clara Bonfoey
Jennie F. Rogers
A.A. Dodge
Richard Godsmark
Huldah Godsmark
David Hewitt
Mrs. D. Hewitt
Walter Grant
Nancy Grant
Jesse Dorcas
EliasGoodwin

Deceased
S. W. Rhodes
Henry Gardner
George Lamie
Martin Phillips
Hortense Lane-Hayes
Mary Kellogg
S. H. Lane
S.T. Belden
Carrie Grant
Samuel Warren
Mrs. S.B. Warren
Mrs. Cyrenius Smith
Jarvis Nunsell

 

[Sophia7]

This is a reminder to everyone to keep your posts on topic and avoid personal attacks. Address the issues, not the other posters; otherwise, this thread will be closed.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Then you must produce that letter. By merely saying it exists or quoting the hear-says does not help your case.

See DL you have a problem here. You have shifted the burden of proof on to me to disprove egw as a prophet. That burden is not mine. You and the others here that support Egw are saying that She is a true prophet. That burden is your's to prove not mine. I am stating why I don't believe EGW is a prophet and this is one of the reason. Why should I beleve otherwise.

That is were the letter comes in. It is "Lost", which causes great problems and does not actually help EGW it actually makes EGW look more guilty and more like a fales prophet.
That fact that existed has never been in question. what happened to it and what was in it is.The reason why it looks suspcious is that we have her other writing from that peroid and this one goes missing?? the one that could disprove her as a prophet. that looks fishy.

 

[Sophia7]

According to the quotes that I posted earlier, EGW herself acknowledged that she had told J. H. Waggoner not to make his views public. Here are a few of the relevant quotes:

MR No. 731 - The Law in Galatians
​

The "Added Law."--I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [cir. 1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. . . . {9MR 215.1}

I have not read Elder [G.I.] Butler's pamphlet or any articles written by any of our writers and do not mean to. But I did see years ago that Elder [J.H.] Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. The matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind yet. I cannot grasp the matter, and for this reason I am fully convinced that presenting it has been not only untimely, but deleterious.--Letter 37, 1887, pp. 1,2. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 215.2}

Cautions Regarding Differences of Opinion on the Law in Galatians.--

-216- {9MR 215.3}

I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 216.1}(To G. I. Butler and Uriah Smith, April 5, 1887.) {9MR 216.3}
​

She didn't dispute the existence of such a testimony; she just claimed that she couldn't remember specifically what she had told him--whether it was that he was wrong (she clearly stated that she had been shown that) about the law in Galatians or whether it was just that he should not make his views public at the time and risk disunity.

Either way, it would be a problem for her because in the former scenario, she would have opposed J. H. Waggoner's theological views because she thought that God had shown her that they were incorrect, but later when his son, E. J. Waggoner, taught the same thing, she supported him, thus calling into question the validity of what she claimed to have been shown by God previously.

On the other hand, if his views were correct and if what she had told him was just that he shouldn't publish his views for the sake of church unity, then the problem is that she knowingly allowed the church to remain in error on the question for at least 30 years (and the effects of this controversy are still prevalent in the church today) and then finally took a stand on the side of Waggoner in 1888, being willing to risk division then.

 

[OntheDL]

According to the quotes that I posted earlier, EGW herself acknowledged that she had told J. H. Waggoner not to make his views public. Here are a few of the relevant quotes:

MR No. 731 - The Law in Galatians​

​

The "Added Law."--I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [cir. 1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. . . . {9MR 215.1}​

I have not read Elder [G.I.] Butler's pamphlet or any articles written by any of our writers and do not mean to. But I did see years ago that Elder [J.H.] Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. The matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind yet. I cannot grasp the matter, and for this reason I am fully convinced that presenting it has been not only untimely, but deleterious.--Letter 37, 1887, pp. 1,2. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 215.2}​

Cautions Regarding Differences of Opinion on the Law in Galatians.--​

-216- {9MR 215.3}​

I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 216.1}(To G. I. Butler and Uriah Smith, April 5, 1887.) {9MR 216.3}​

​

She didn't dispute the existence of such a testimony; she just claimed that she couldn't remember specifically what she had told him--whether it was that he was wrong (she clearly stated that she had been shown that) about the law in Galatians or whether it was just that he should not make his views public at the time and risk disunity.

Either way, it would be a problem for her because in the former scenario, she would have opposed J. H. Waggoner's theological views because she thought that God had shown her that they were incorrect, but later when his son, E. J. Waggoner, taught the same thing, she supported him, thus calling into question the validity of what she claimed to have been shown by God previously.

On the other hand, if his views were correct and if what she had told him was just that he shouldn't publish his views for the sake of church unity, then the problem is that she knowingly allowed the church to remain in error on the question for at least 30 years (and the effects of this controversy are still prevalent in the church today) and then finally took a stand on the side of Waggoner in 1888, being willing to risk division then.

I read these quotes. It seems to me that she was simply restating what others claimed what she said. It's supported by her asking for the supposed article to surface to support their claim.

Even if she did make those statements, I'd like to see what the original 'righteousness by faith' message. The AT Jones and EJ Waggoner's RBF message was but a jumping board of introducing the faith alone variance: not necessary to keep the law and eventual conclusion of the abolishment of 7th day sabbath.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I read these quotes. It seems to me that she was simply restating what others claimed what she said. It's supported by her asking for the supposed article to surface to support their claim.

,

I'd like to see what the original 'righteousness by faith' message

. me too. i've ave contact dale ratzlaff and made him aware of the situation. I figure if any on will want to expose egw it would be him. and he might be movitated to put J.H. waggoners book online for people to see and read for themselfves.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

From 1888 to Apostasy- the case of A.T. Jones. by Geroge Knight , page 24 (right from the denomination)

"The Genreal Conferences forces, led by Butler and Smith, felt quite confident in the view point because thy beleved that Adventist pioneers had settled the issue once and for all back in 1854. Before that time, many Adventists-including James White, J.N. Andrews, and Joseph Bates - had helt that the law in Galations was the Ten Commandments. The question came to a head in 1854 when J.H. Waggoner had published the Law of God: and Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, which took the ten commandments view on the law in Galatians. Stephen Pierce, who argued the law in Galatians "was the law system including the cermonial law, " Had publically challenged J.H. Waggoner's postion. Pierce won the participants in th ediscussion-including James and Ellen White_over to his view point. Smith went so far as to claim that Mrs. White ha had a vision on the tiopic and had written to J.H. Waggoner that the law in Galatians was the cermonial rather then the Moral law. While Smith could never document his claim, it is a historical fact that after the conference James White removed Waggoner's book from the market. for the next 32 years the chruch harmonioulsy taught that the law in Galatian was the cerominal Law. "

So what do we have.
1. pioneers agree correctly that the Law in galatains is the 10 commandments, which is correct.
2. J.H. Waggoner publishing a book stating so, that is removed from the market.
3. Ellen white her self endorsed the Cermonial Law system.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

ON FEBRUARY 18 188, Mrs. white wrote an important letter Jones and E.J. waggoner. She pointed out the she had been looking for the testimony she had written to J.H. Waggoner in 1854, but could not find it. she recalled she had written "to him m that I had been shown his position in regard to the law system was incorrect." but that she could not recall exactly what was incorrect about it, since the matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind. Of one thing, how ever, she was sure: that Seventh-day Adventist should present a united doctrinal front to the public. the varisous postions on the law in Galatians "are not vital points," and no one should make them an issue. It upset her to see leading denominatial papers in contention with one another. (Knight page 25)

So what do we have.
1. She remembered writing a testiomny that she cannot find it
2. she was not sure of the exact contents, but did not deny it existance.
3. She thought the issues were "not vital points"

Question: How is the means of bringing conviction and conversion not a vital point???

 

[Adventist Dissident]

(Knight page 27)

In her letter to Butler and Smith, Mrs. White once again refered to the lost testimony to J.H. Waggoner, she points out that the counsel may not have been on doctrine at all "It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas promient at the time, for there is a danger of disunion."

Butler and Smith disagreed with her recollection, holding that Ellen White had seen in vision that J.H. waggoner had been wrong theologically. Thus, as they understood it, the law in Galatians issused posed a double threat. After all, smith would point out in 1892. if the law in galations is o nly the moral law, "it overthroughs the testimonies and the Sabbath." Smith letter helps us see why the issue seemed so threating: if he and Butler were wrong, he believed that two of Adventism's great doctrinal pillars would crumble-the sabbath and the gift of prophecy through Ellen White."

What do we have
1. EGW a second time refereing to the "lost" testimony
2. Butler and Smith remember that she was shown in vision that J.H. Waggoner was theologically wrong.
3. Smith and Butler understood it to be a double threat
a. to "over through the testiominies
b. over through the sabbath.
4. Smith believed that the prophetic ministery would crumble if she changed her postion.

Question: isn't the bible standard of 2 or 3 wittnesses being fullfilled here twice,
a. EGW twice referes to the testimony (establishes existance)
b. Smith and Butler remember it as a correction of theology (establishes content.), thus establishing contradiction.

For EGW
1. avoid disunion. - the millerite movement was in transistion at this time and there was a lot of division there were different branches of Millerism, "shut door", "life and death", "evenglical" and others. these stament about there being division at that time is correct. A question then comes up as to the nature of EGW's memory. Why could she remember 1 fact but not another?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

what is the response to this?