• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Borrowing inspiration?

StormyOne

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
5,424
47
65
Alabama
✟5,866.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Kudos to my friend Kevin for mentioning this name..... read on....
The Reverend Sylvester Graham (July 5, 1794 – September 11, 1851) was an American dietary reformer. He was born in Suffield, Connecticut, and was ordained in 1826 as a Presbyterian minister. He entered Amherst College in 1823 but did not graduate. He was an early advocate of dietary reform in the United States and was most notable for his emphasis on vegetarianism and the temperance movement, as well as dietary habits....


Now what would make Bro. Graham the focal point of this particular thread? Google his name and read about his life and views.... but this tidbit jumped off the page as it were:
Sylvester Graham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does any of this sound familiar yet? Like maybe some required reading somewhere, maybe like some messages for young people???? A little more...
Sylvester Graham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could there be a connection? This may tie up a few loose ends:

Porn Flakes - John Harvey Kellogg, Sylvester Graham

Was Graham inspired to write what he did? When Sis White gave instructions to duplicate what was seen in Dansville, and to repeat much of what Graham said about masturbation what are we to make of that? How much was inspired and how much was the prevailing views at that time?

Thoughts?
 

ricker

Regular Member
Feb 25, 2007
2,430
71
65
Minnesota
✟27,344.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Interesting. It is quite obvious to an unbiased person that some of what Mrs. White wrote was heavily influenced by the time period she lived in, and is not to be taken seriously now.

(I say this as a person who has not studied EGW extensively, but what I remember reading in her books in Adventist schools.)
 
Upvote 0

Sophia7

Tall73's Wife
Site Supporter
Sep 24, 2005
12,364
456
✟84,145.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

It's obvious that EGW was influenced by the health reformers of her time, but she claimed that her counsels came directly from God, so the Adventist Church can't officially cast off anything that she was wrong about as long as they cling to her as a messenger of God. So people often look for "principles" in her writings and ignore the specifics, like the prohibitions against cheese, condiments, etc., and her warnings against exciting "animal passions," even in marriage. The Adventist health message really was largely an anti-masturbation, anti-sex campaign.

Her statements on health confused me as an Adventist because I didn't know what to do with them. While I was growing up, my family ignored most of what she wrote, other than the prohibitions against unclean meats. My dad used to look down on people who followed a strict EGW diet plan. Then I went to an Adventist college and encountered people who were much more conservative than I was and who looked down on me if I ate meat. When hubby was a pastor, we were in a very traditional Adventist environment, but even there I saw a lot of inconsistencies in applying EGW's writings. And her statements on "animal passions" are completely bizarre. I read some Adventist books and explanations at the White Estate site that tried to make sense of them, but I couldn't agree with them. She was just wrong in her attitude toward sex, and I feel bad for all the people who have followed her instructions and damaged or destroyed their marriages as a result. I used to ignore the things that I didn't agree with, but eventually I realized that I couldn't continue picking and choosing and still consider her a prophet.

I also think it's interesting that although many Adventists insist that none of their doctrines originated with Ellen White--that all of them came about because of Bible study and that EGW's visions only confirmed the results of their study of Scripture--on the issue of clean and unclean meats, that is untrue. That teaching was not as well-developed in EGW's day as it is today, but the prohibition against eating pork was a direct result of EGW's health-reform vision of 1863. The biblical arguments that Adventists use today regarding clean and unclean meats were formulated later. I read an interesting article on that topic called "The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats" by Ron Graybill.

After reading that article, I thought that perhaps Adventists should have stuck with James White's original statement (before his wife's vision): "We do not, by any means, believe that the Bible teaches that its [pork] proper use, in the gospel dispensation, is sinful." Or perhaps they should have taken to heart Uriah Smith's 1883 comment that "if we take the position that that law is still binding, we must accept it all, and then we shall have more on our hands than we can easily dispose of." But EGW had visions about the law, too, of course.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!
May 3, 2007
3,602
79
✟26,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm not very passionate about the subject of Mrs. White's borrowing, but I do notice that "the health message" seems to result in varying types of fruit (pardon the pun).

For certain SDAs, the fruits might be:
1. An overall rejection of Mrs. White's specific advise on health and an adoption only of general principles of health that are widely accepted in scientific circles.
2. A focus on eating a healthy diet that does not lead to an unbalanced obsession.
3. A focus on the importance of a balance of activities, including exercise.
4. A healthy view of sexuality that generally excludes the advise of Mrs. White.
5. A healthy view of all items that humans consume, understanding that in most cases moderation is more beneficial and sustainable that an absolute prohibition.
For certain other SDAs, the fruits might be:
1. An unhealthy view of food and eating.
2. An unhealthy view of human sexuality, both within marriage (think "marital excess") and outside of marriage (think "self abuse").
3. An overall unbalanced view of the role of healthful living within the context of other important life activities and choices.
4. An unhealthy obligation to completely abstain from certain items in order to make God happy or to maintain a social position within the denomination.
5. A conclusion that if they are alive when Christ returns -- and if they are truly ready for his return or "safe to save" -- they will not be eating meat.
Because I love SDAs, I hope that they are leaning more to the former group of fruits and less to the latter group of fruits.

BFA
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0