Ellen White vs. the Bible--A Test Case--Married Sexual Practice

cesty

Philippians 4:19
Jul 29, 2008
730
68
Visit site
✟8,825.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
tall73 said:
Paul never states in the text that moderation is good. He just says that you should not withhold, etc.
Indeed, Paul didn't come right out in the text and say, "sex in moderation is good"; however, the absence of such a statement isn't proof that he wouldn't have agreed with the thought of it.

I see moderation implied in the words: “Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer…” (1 Corinthians 7:5a NKJV)

By the way, I could think of a number of other reasons to justify taking a break from having sex, which Paul didn’t mention. What about making a living (dedicating time for physical work), or doing household chores, or going to church, or reading the Scriptures, or raising children, or bathing, or getting dressed, or eating meals, etc…?

The way this is written, it sounds as if all these people are doing is having sex and dedicating certain periods of time to prayer.

There's just too much missing from the text to assume Paul wouldn’t agree with the idea that married people should have sex in moderation.

tall73 said:
However, he says more than just that. He indicates that even times when they agree to stop so they may dedicate themselves to prayer this should be short. In other words, Paul sees this as regular activity with only a limited time exception to the rule.
Again, does married life only consist of having sex and dedicating limited periods of time to prayer?

To assume that what is included in the NT concerning Paul’s writings, constitutes the whole of his teachings/thoughts on such subjects, is not a wise way to look at the writings of Paul. I’m sure he had a lot more to say than what is written in the NT in regards to the subject matter he wrote about.

tall73 said:
She indicated that there were some Godly people who were going to hell because they had sex too much. Is that at all like what Paul said?
Where did Ellen White say godly people are going to go to hell for having too much sex?

Are you sure she was actually talking about "godly people"?

tall73 said:
”Let the Christian wife refrain, both in word and act, from exciting the animal passions of her husband. Many have no strength at all to waste in this direction.”
It would be helpful to know where this quote was taken from. I would like to read it in context.

tall73 said:
”For some she did indeed think they should not have sex, because it was wasting their vital energy.”
So she didn’t give this counsel to all, but to some? Do you know the reason why she only gave this counsel to some? Who was she speaking of when she said this? What is the context behind her statement?

tall73 said:
”Let God-fearing men and women awake to their duty. Many professing Christianity are suffering with paralysis of nerve and brain because of their intemperance in this direction. Rottennessis in the bones and marrow of many who are regarded as good men, who pray and weep, and who stand in high places, but whose polluted carcasses will never pass the portals of the heavenly city. Oh! that I could take all understand their obligations to God to preserve the mental and physical organism in the best condition to render perfect service to God. {SA 177.1}”
What is the context behind this thought? Who was she referring to? And why would she use the expression “professing Christianity”? Could it be that these people had other issues, and that this was just one among many?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, Paul didn't come right out in the text and say, "sex in moderation is good"; however, the absence of such a statement isn't proof that he wouldn't have agreed with the thought of it.

I see moderation implied in the words: “Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer…” (1 Corinthians 7:5a NKJV)

If he is giving advice on sexual frequency wouldn't he warn against something that would keep them from heaven?

And again, you see moderation in the EXCEPTION, not the rule.

The best you can say about this text is that it doesn't address your subject, moderation to avoid health and spiritual problems. But him not addressing it here is itself an issue if it is true. He addresses many other things in regard to sex and marriage in the chapter and gives them practical advice on all of them. Why would he not mention something so important?


By the way, I could think of a number of other reasons to justify taking a break from having sex, which Paul didn’t mention. What about making a living (dedicating time for physical work), or doing household chores, or going to church, or reading the Scriptures, or raising children, or bathing, or getting dressed, or eating meals, etc…?

The way this is written, it sounds as if all these people are doing is having sex and dedicating certain periods of time to prayer.
Hardly. It is saying they shouldn't have long periods without sex. The only one saying 24/7 is Lysimachus.

The arousal pattern and refractory period and sleep would prevent 24/7, but that is just a ludicrous thought that he is using because he wants to detract from the view published by the whites of twice a month being on the edge of two much.


You have not yet addressed the volume that the Whites put out that specified frequency. Are you going to?



There's just too much missing from the text to assume Paul wouldn’t agree with the idea that married people should have sex in moderation.


Again, does married life only consist of having sex and dedicating limited periods of time to prayer?

To assume that what is included in the NT concerning Paul’s writings, constitutes the whole of his teachings/thoughts on such subjects, is not a wise way to look at the writings of Paul. I’m sure he had a lot more to say than what is written in the NT in regards to the subject matter he wrote about.
But what he would write in addition would not contradict what he said before. When the Whites put out a book that indicates sex more than twice per month is dangerous, that is different than what Paul said.



Where did Ellen White say godly people are going to go to hell for having too much sex?

Are you sure she was actually talking about "godly people"?


It would be helpful to know where this quote was taken from. I would like to read it in context.


So she didn’t give this counsel to all, but to some? Do you know the reason why she only gave this counsel to some? Who was she speaking of when she said this? What is the context behind her statement?


What is the context behind this thought? Who was she referring to? And why would she use the expression “professing Christianity”? Could it be that these people had other issues, and that this was just one among many?
The references to each quote are given at the beginning of the thread, or in the last case, right where you quoted it. You may read the whole thing.


Let God-fearing men and women awake to their duty. Many professing Christianity are suffering with paralysis of nerve and brain because of their intemperance in this direction. Rottennessis in the bones and marrow of many who are regarded as good men, who pray and weep, and who stand in high places, but whose polluted carcasses will never pass the portals of the heavenly city. Oh! that I could make all understand their obligations to God to preserve the mental and physical organism in the best condition to render perfect service to God. {SA 177.1}

They pray, they weep, they hold positions in the church. But she says they have this secret sin of too much sex.

It is the depletion of vital force that pollutes them and keeps them from heaven.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cesty

Philippians 4:19
Jul 29, 2008
730
68
Visit site
✟8,825.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have not yet addressed the volume that the Whites put out that specified frequency. Are you going to?
I was working on a response to you, but I feel impressed to walk away from this discussion. I do want to say a few things before I go, however.

As you know, I don’t agree with everything Ellen White wrote. But just because I don't agree with all that she said, that doesn't mean I disregard her as having been a godly woman; nor do I feel I need to expose her errors. Let God be the Judge.

Who is without fault? Are you a perfect man? How would you feel if someone trashed you in a public forum because they discovered you made a few mistakes during your life as a Christian? I don't think you would like that at all. But that is precisely what you're doing here, to a woman who had a genuine love for Jesus.

I just don't understand what your intentions are in all of this. You may say you're trying to warn others, but all I see you doing is throwing stones at a woman who is not even alive to defend herself. Is that really an honorable way to behave? I could be wrong, but it's as though you have hatred in your heart for her. Have you asked God what He wants you to do in all of this? Have you asked Him if it's His will for you to smear a godly woman for making a few mistakes, to publicly shame her?

Where is Christ's love in all of this? Wouldn’t you accomplish more by emphasizing His love? How do threads like this honor God? It's just a bunch of stone-throwing. It does more harm than good. You want to make a difference? Follow Christ's example of love.

Take care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was working on a response to you, but I feel impressed to walk away from this discussion. I do want to say a few things before I go, however.

As you know, I don’t agree with everything Ellen White wrote. But just because I don't agree with all that she said, that doesn't mean I disregard her as having been a godly woman; nor do I feel I need to expose her errors. Let God be the Judge.

Who is without fault? Are you a perfect man? How would you feel if someone trashed you in a public forum because they discovered you made a few mistakes during your life as a Christian? I don't think you would like that at all. But that is precisely what you're doing here, to a woman who had a genuine love for Jesus.

I just don't understand what your intentions are in all of this. You may say you're trying to warn others, but all I see you doing is throwing stones at a woman who is not even alive to defend herself. Is that really an honorable way to behave? I could be wrong, but it's as though you have hatred in your heart for her. Have you asked God what He wants you to do in all of this? Have you asked Him if it's His will for you to smear a godly woman for making a few mistakes, to publicly shame her?

Where is Christ's love in all of this? Wouldn’t you accomplish more by emphasizing His love? How do threads like this honor God? It's just a bunch of stone-throwing. It does more harm than good. You want to make a difference? Follow Christ's example of love.

Take care.



Cesty, you need not participate if you don't want to. However, in this forum right now we have a thread that is urging that the Adventist church is the true church, partly on the basis of Ellen White being a prophet.

Now should that assertion be tested or not? Is that something people need to decide on or not? If she really is a prophet, then they had best be believing what she says. And if she is not then they should know that too.

Ellen White is not just a godly lady who has now passed away. She claimed to be more than a prophet and that her writings should be accepted as from God.

If a person could not compare a prophet to the Scriptures, how would you ever test a prophet?

It is not enough to say let God be the judge when Ellen White herself states that her writings are from God and that to reject them is to reject the words of God.

Now, to answer your question, am I perfect? Far from it. Would I like to be personally attacked in forums? No. However, I do think people have the right to critique the positions I take on forums. The same holds true for Ellen White. She claims to speak for God. Why should we not discuss whether that is true or not?

As to you saying I hate her, and want to smear her, etc. I never knew her as a person. So why would I hate her? And for years I tried to live by the things she wrote. One way or another Ellen White had a big influence on me.

But I cannot agree with all of what she says now. If was just some other theologian, that would not matter. But she does not claim just to be a theologian.

To me Ellen White's teaching is a topic for discussion precisely because she has a huge influence on peoples lives.
This is not about smearing or hate. It is about questions that effect the daily lives of tens of millions of people who are in the Adventist church, and who are looking into the Adventist church. It impacts their diet, their view of salvation, their view of prophecy, and frankly nearly every area of life, as she wrote on a massive number of topics.

As a pastor the members of my congregation asked me about her advice. It was not just academic for me, and it is not for them.

Now if Ellen White is not a prophet and she has placed requirements that God never set on people, do you think it is unloving to examine those teachings in light of the Bible?

On the other hand, if her advice is true, then people need to know that too.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where is Christ's love in all of this? Wouldn’t you accomplish more by emphasizing His love? How do threads like this honor God? It's just a bunch of stone-throwing. It does more harm than good. You want to make a difference? Follow Christ's example of love.

Take care.

Is it unloving to evaluate whether someone who claims to be a prophet is a prophet?
 
Upvote 0

cesty

Philippians 4:19
Jul 29, 2008
730
68
Visit site
✟8,825.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is it unloving to evaluate whether someone who claims to be a prophet is a prophet?

No. But is that really what this is all about? Did you post this thread with the intent to evaluate or to condemn? In all of your responses thus far, you have given me the impression that you can't be wrong, that it's not possible that you could be taking things out of context. Therefore, it appears that you have already made up your mind. You aren't seeking answers; instead, you are throwing stones.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. But is that really what this is all about? Did you post this thread with the intent to evaluate or to condemn? In all of your responses thus far, you have given me the impression that you can't be wrong, that it's not possible that you could be taking things out of context. Therefore, it appears that you have already made up your mind. You aren't seeking answers; instead, you are throwing stones.


No, I am not trying to figure out what I think on it through this thread. You recall the ones years ago where I was doing that. But this thread is discussing conclusions I have come to. And that is still a valid discussion, because the question is still being answered by others.

I have already evaluated her writings on this particular topic and for my own part am convinced that she does not agree with the Bible. Why would it be wrong to discuss the conclusion I came to with others? Don't they have to weigh the same evidence and make the same decisions, one way or the other? When I was Adventist and argued the other way was I being unloving? I have urged my position, just as others have urged theirs. That doesn't mean I am beyond being wrong by any means. But these are the positions I have come to, on questions others deal with as well.


Now Lysimichas has also participated in this thread, and has so far said I should not ask him for biblical evidence, that he believes it by faith, etc.

Now which of the approaches indicates that there is less likely hood of changing one's mind?

I stated my evidence for why I see it the way I do. He stated that he accepts it by faith, stated he did not want me to ask him for evidence.

I have in fact changed my views radically before. Has he?

So if you think I am incapable of changing my views, that is simply not true. But I am raising these questions because I have given thought to them and would like others to as well, who also have to face the claims made by the Adventist church, in this very forum.

I am stating the conclusions I have come to and the reasons I came to those conclusions.

Now I can see also where you are coming from. Personally I think it is good that you still view her as Godly, whether you can agree with all her statements or not. I personally don't think Ellen White intentionally deceived people, etc. I know some formers who do think that.

And I actually think over the course of her life her views changed towards more moderate ones.

So I would not disagree with you that I believe she really was trying to follow God.

However, that doesn't free us from looking at what she claimed as a prophet or coming to conclusions on her claim.

Now on a more personal level, many times over the last 5 years or so I have gotten to the point where I didn't want to discuss Adventist theology at all. I have a new church I attend, we are getting more active in outreach and church work there, and enjoy it. So why think about the past if I no longer agree with it?

My wife was surprised that I even revisited this thread because I usually won't discuss Adventist issues much anymore, though she still seems to discuss them more online with friends.

But then every once in a while when I see folks in here referencing Ellen White as a sign that the Adventist church is the remnant, I feel I should put out there what my thoughts are on those claims, and the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another evidence that Ellen White endorsed very long periods without sex is the terms she uses to show the scope of the problem.


Many have no strength at all to waste in this direction.


A miserable existence is entailed upon so large a class that death to them would be preferable to life

Many professing Christianity are suffering with paralysis of nerve and brain because of their intemperance in this direction

Very few feel it to be a religious duty to govern their passions. They have united themselves in marriage to the object of their choice, and therefore reason that marriage sanctifies the indulgence of the baser passions.

Ellen White clearly indicates this is a wide spread problem. "Very few" feel it a duty to govern their passions

She sees most people as having this problem.


But then how does this fit with the defense made that she is only referring to people who are overdoing sex? In her time were all but a few people having sex all the time?

That sounds highly unlikely. That is not even the case in today's society which is much more bombarded by sexual references.

In the Durex World Sex Survey of 2010 (guess they needed the market analysis for product sales figures), they found that only 4 percent of people reported having sex daily.

So even today the number of people who would have such high sexual frequency as to drive them to health and moral problems is very few.

Yet she says it is "very few" who do not have the problem of too much sex. She is clearly using a different measure of too much sex than we think of.

It is made clear why she takes this view when you read the material the Whites put out with her statements on the subject. A lot of people are exceeding as often as the moon quarters. Therefore it would be an epidemic if you take that view.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Isn't it more reasonable to say, something like, 3 or 4 times a week? That's what Ellen White is talking about....where people take things to excess, and overdo good things.


Many have no strength at all to waste in this direction.


A miserable existence is entailed upon so large a class that death to them would be preferable to life

Many professing Christianity are suffering with paralysis of nerve and brain because of their intemperance in this direction

Very few feel it to be a religious duty to govern their passions. They have united themselves in marriage to the object of their choice, and therefore reason that marriage sanctifies the indulgence of the baser passions.

She sees the scope of the problem as quite large. So is it your contention that there were huge numbers of people in Ellen White's day who were having sex every day?

That is not the case now.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In all of your responses thus far, you have given me the impression that you can't be wrong, that it's not possible that you could be taking things out of context.

You have brought up the issue of context several times. If you go to this very Adventist link, you will find a copy of the book put out by the Whites, with her statements on the subject, and other statements they included. Then you can see everything in the context which they published it and judge for yourself.

But to say that I COULD be taking things out of context, without looking at the context, is not helpful to the discussion.


http://www.sdadefend.com/Believe-Prophet/Solemn/SolemnAppeaL.pdf
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
tall73,

It would be helpful to this discussion if you would answer the following question with a simple "yes" or "no": Are you saying that you believe Paul taught that there is no such thing as intemperance with sex in marriage?


no.


I do not think Paul ever addressed the idea of too much sex in marriage.

And you have missed the whole point apparently.

Paul did say that they should not go for long times without having sex.

Ellen White urges the opposite.

It was Lysimichas who said I was pushing for sex all the time, 24/7, and that is simply not true.

What I was saying was that Paul said they should not withold, and if they do it should be for prayer but not for long. In other words, don't let a long time go between sex.

The Whites on the other hand put out information saying as often as the moon quarters, and that some should not waste any energy at all on it. Those are different thoughts.

Also Mr's White encourages the wife to divert her husband's attention, where as Paul talks about both meeting each others needs.


Now perhaps if you are going to keep participating you could answer some questions.

Do you think a huge number of people in her day were having sex all the time and were worn out? Because she speaks as though this were an epidemic and only a few were not engaging in marital excess

That doesn't make sense if we are talking about sex once a day or more, because not that many do that even today, and likely did not then.

It does make sense if we are talking about more often than the moon quarters because the vast majority does that. And that is the info the Whites put out in their book on the subject when talking about marital excess.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Would you agree that temperance with sex in marriage is a good thing?


That all depends on how you indicate temperance. I think if one person has a much stronger drive than the other then yes, temperance may be called for on the part of that spouse. And yet most couples find a way to make it work.

I also think, as Paul relates. that there may be times where the couple wants to take a break from such things to dedicate themselves to God.

However, Paul notes this should not be for a long period.




Now, would you agree with the notion put forth in the White's book that sex more often than the moon quarters is dangerous?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another indication of Ellen White's views on sexual frequency is seen in the following statement:

Very many women submit to become slaves to lustful passion. They do not possess their bodies in sanctification and honor. The wife does not retain the dignity and self-respect she possessed previous to marriage. This holy institution should have preserved and increased her womanly respect and holy dignity. Her chaste, dignified, godlike womanhood, has been consumed upon the altar of base passion. It has been sacrificed to please her husband. She soon loses respect for her husband, who does not regard the laws to which the brute creation yields obedience.

EGW, Solemn Appeal.




Here the comparison is to human and animal sexual practice.

Animals tend to mate only when the female is ready for reproduction. Ellen White indicates that some men do not follow this practice.

Notice the parallels to the following selections from the book of fellow Adventist Kellog, "Plain Facts for Old and Young"



Kellog is here quoting other authorities of the day. For more info check out the full text at project Gutenberg.

The Sexual Function in Lower Animals. -- Then if we wish to ascertain, with certainty, the true function of the reproductive organs in man, we must pursue the course above indicated; in other words, study the function of reproduction in lower animals.




"The ovaries, as well as the eggs which they contain, undergo, at particular seasons, a periodical development, or increase in growth. . . . At the approach of the generative season, in all the lower animals, a certain number of the eggs, which were previously in an imperfect and inactive condition, begin to increase in size, and become somewhat altered in structure."
"In most fish and reptiles, as well as in birds, this regular process of maturation and discharge of eggs takes place but once in a year. In different species of quadrupeds, it may take place annually, semi-annually, bi-monthly, or even monthly; but in every instance, it recurs at regular intervals, and exhibits accordingly, in a marked degree, the periodic character which we have seen to belong to most of the other vital phenomena."



A Lesson from Instinct. -- "It is a remarkable fact, in this connection, that the female of these animals will allow the approaches of the male only during and immediately after the oestral period; that is, just when the egg is recently discharged, and ready for impregnation. At other times, when sexual intercourse would be necessarily fruitless, the instinct of the animal leads her to avoid it; and the concourse of the sexes is accordingly made to correspond in time with the maturity of the egg and its aptitude for fecundation."





The law of periodicity, as it affects the sexual activity of males of the human species, is indicated in the following remarks by the same author:

"The same correspondence between the periods of sexual excitement in the male and female, is visible in many of the animals [higher mammals], as well as in fish and reptiles. This is the case in most species which produce young but once a year, and at a fixed period, as the deer and the wild hog. In other species, on the contrary, such as the dog, the rabbit, the guinea-pig, etc., where several broods of young are produced during the year, or where, as in the human subject, the generative epochs of the female recur at short intervals, so that the particular period of impregnation is comparatively indefinite, the generative apparatus of the male is almost always in a state of full development, and is excited to action at particular periods, apparently by some influence derived from the condition of the female."a


Summary of Important Facts. -- The facts presented in the foregoing quotations from Dr. Dalton may be summarized as follows: --
1. The sexual function is for the purpose of producing new individuals to take the place of those who die, and thus preserve the species from becoming extinct.
2. In the animal kingdom generally, the reproductive function is necessarily a periodical act, dependent upon the development of the reproductive organs of both the male and the female at stated periods.
3. In those exceptional cases in which the organs of the male are in a state of constant development, sexual congress occurs, in lower animals, only at those times when the periodical development occurs in the female.
4. Fecundation of the female element can only take place about the time of periodical development in the female.
5. The desire for sexual congress naturally exists in the female only at or immediately after the time of periodical development.
6. The constant development of the sexual organs in human males is a condition common to all animals in which development occurs in the female at short intervals, and is a provision of nature to secure a fruitful union when the female is in readiness, but not an indication for constant or frequent use.
7. The time of sexual congress is always determined by the condition and desires of the female.
A Hint from Nature. -- An additional fact, as stated by physiologists, is that, under normal conditions, the human female experiences sexual desire immediately after menstruation more than at any other time. It has, indeed, been claimed that at this period only does she experience the true sexual instinct, unless it is abnormally excited by disease or otherwise.


From these facts the following conclusions must evidently be drawn: --
1. The fact that in all animals but the human species the act can be performed only when reproduction is possible, proves that in the animal kingdom in general the sole object of the function is reproduction. Whether man is an exception, must be determined from other considerations.
2. The fact that the males of other animals besides man, in which the sexual organs are in a state of constant development, do not exercise those organs except for the purpose of reproduction, is proof of the position that the constant development in man is not a warrant for their constant use.
3. The general law that the reproductive act is performed only when desired by the female, is sufficient ground for supposing that such should be the case with the human species also.



It is but fair to say that there is a wide diversity of opinion among medical men on this subject. A very few hold that the sexual act should never be indulged except for the purpose of reproduction, and then only at periods when reproduction will be possible. Others, while equally opposed to the excesses, the effects of which have been described, limit indulgence to the number of months in the year. Read, reflect, weigh well the matter, then fix upon a plan of action, and, if it be in accordance with the dictates of better judgment, do not swerve from it.
If the suggestion made near the outset of these remarks, in comparing the reproductive function in man and animals—viz., that the seasons of sexual approach should be governed by the inclination of the female—were conscientiously followed, it would undoubtedly do away with at least three-fourths of the excesses which have been under consideration.


The thrust of Kellog's quotes is that female animals only feel need or allow sex during the time when they are capable of reproduction.

It also references the belief that human females are only really excited during this time of fertility.

It draws from the habits of animals that the only time for sex should be when the female desires it.

This is quite different than Paul's advice that both should meet the needs of each other.

1Co 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1Co 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
1Co 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another quote that indicates people who indulge corrupt passions are lowered beneath the brute creation:


Some men and women professing godliness debase their own bodies through the indulgence of the corrupt passions, which lowers them beneath the brute creation. They abuse the powers God has given them to be preserved in sanctification and honor. Health and life are sacrificed upon the altar of base passion. Solemn Appeal

 
Upvote 0

cesty

Philippians 4:19
Jul 29, 2008
730
68
Visit site
✟8,825.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That all depends on how you indicate temperance. I think if one person has a much stronger drive than the other then yes, temperance may be called for on the part of that spouse. And yet most couples find a way to make it work.

I also think, as Paul relates. that there may be times where the couple wants to take a break from such things to dedicate themselves to God.

However, Paul notes this should not be for a long period.

So what you seem to be saying then, is that you agree with Ellen White that excessive sex in marriage is a bad thing. However, you don't agree with the way she dealt with it. Am I correct?

Here's what I think happened. Certain people were likely going to extremes in having sex, so much, that it resulted in causing apparent physical problems. Instead of simply telling these people to slow down, a remedy was prescribed that was equally extreme, in that it placed severe limitations on those who would have sex.

No doubt, the remedy/counsel was impractical in some ways. Nevertheless, showing temperance towards sex in marriage is good counsel. And for some, depending on their age, it would be best not to have sex at all. I've heard stories of men having heart attacks as a result of having sex, because of their age. Of course, if they already have problems with high blood pressure, that could pose a problem as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Has anyone considered the possibility that Ellen's views on sex had been contaminated...
...By her belief that Anthropoid Apes had been mating with wemon of color in the interior of Africa?
...Ellen uses "brute creation" and other such animalistic terms when she speaks of sex.

This is the same language the Naturalists of her day and long prior to it....
...Used to describe supposed male ape / african female hybrids in the jungles of Africa.
...I just find it ironic that Ellen writes in such a similar way about sex as did the biggot Naturalists.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So what you seem to be saying then, is that you agree with Ellen White that excessive sex in marriage is a bad thing. However, you don't agree with the way she dealt with it. Am I correct?

Not really.

If a couple wants to have sex frequently, I don't see anything that makes that bad.

Like anything else (video games, TV, etc) if they do it constantly and it interferes with life that is a problem. However, there are natural barriers to that which are not present in tv, etc. Barring drug use the refractory period slows you down.


Here's what I think happened. Certain people were likely going to extremes in having sex, so much, that it resulted in causing apparent physical problems. Instead of simply telling these people to slow down, a remedy was prescribed that was equally extreme, in that it placed severe limitations on those who would have sex.
That simply doesn't fit what she says. She says only a very few DIDN'T have the problem.

What you seem to want to resist is that her definition of excess is something we wouldn't consider excess.

I have presented several evidences of this. But the other side has not presented any evidence that she thought "3-4" times per week was alright.

No doubt, the remedy/counsel was impractical in some ways. Nevertheless, showing temperance towards sex in marriage is good counsel. And for some, depending on their age, it would be best not to have sex at all. I've heard stories of men having heart attacks as a result of having sex, because of their age. Of course, if they already have problems with high blood pressure, that could pose a problem as well.
The factor she noted was not age but how much sexual release they had already had because they had already depleted too much "vital engergy".

You have not dealt with this concept of vital energy either.


Cesty, is there some reason you don't want to answer the questions put to you, but keep asking questions of me?


Why would the Whites put out a book saying as often as the moon quarters if they did not agree with that?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cesty

Philippians 4:19
Jul 29, 2008
730
68
Visit site
✟8,825.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not really.

If a couple wants to have sex frequently, I don't see anything that makes that bad.

"frequently" is not the same as "excessively"

"frequently" could be a few times a week, while "excessively" could be a few times a day

Listen, I just want a simple yes or no answer from you. Do you believe couples should practice temperance with sex in marriage?

tall73 said:
That simply doesn't fit what she says. She says only a very few DIDN'T have the problem.

That's fine, but it doesn't negate the validity of my thought.

tall73 said:
What you seem to want to resist is that her definition of excess is something we wouldn't consider excess.

I'm not trying to resist anything. I'm simply trying to be more understanding and considerate of the other side, without allowing some personal bias to interfere with my judgment.

tall73 said:
The factor she noted was not age but how much sexual release they had already had because they had already depleted too much "vital engergy".

Can you provide solid proof that age didn't play a role in anything she said on this matter? If not, how can you be so sure age had nothing to do with anything she said on the subject?

tall73 said:
Cesty, is there some reason you don't want to answer the questions put to you, but keep asking questions of me?

I have answered your questions as best as I could with the limited information available to me.

tall73 said:
Why would the Whites put out a book saying as often as the moon quarters if they did not agree with that?

Could it be possible they were not aware of it? Do you think they sat down and read everything, page by page, that was published through their publishing company? But let's suppose they were aware of it, that would simply mean they agreed with an extreme position, that they made a mistake.

People make mistakes. I don't know why you feel the need to keep emphasizing this mistake. Why can't you simply admit that even when it comes to sex in marriage, temperance is good, and simply agree that the manner that this issue was dealt with was impractical, and even extreme.

It seems to me that all you want to do is focus on what was extreme, while not showing any compassion towards a person who made a mistake in judgment.

By the way, which is worse, telling people not to have marital sex excessively, or telling them to marry in order to suffice their need to have sex?

"I say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 MKJV)

This counsel that Paul gave, was it given to him directly from God, or was it based on his own judgment?

You could try to maneuver around it all you want, but it is what it is. Paul encouraged people to remain as he was (unmarried), but encouraged those who had lack of self-control to marry in order to suffice their need for sex.

That's not to say Paul devalued the sanctity of marriage. I'm simply pointing out that a statement like this could lead a person to believe Paul had a wrong concept of why people should marry. I'm sure if you could sit down with him and ask him about this, he would have a lot more to say, to clear the matter up for anyone who might be confused about his saying.

Don't you think the same could be said about Ellen White? Could it be possible that you are not fully understanding what she said, and her reasons for saying it? Perhaps if she were alive today, she would be able to clarify things, and you might end up having an entirely different opinion about her. It could also be possible that she would have admitted that she made a mistake in adopting an extreme view on the matter.

It seems to me that you are looking for perfection in a fallible human-being. And unless you find perfection, you will continue to emphasize that person's mistakes.

I'm not trying to be Ellen White's apologist here; I'm simply trying to be a peacemaker. I hope that you would come to see that at some point.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0