icedragon's response to Jim Lamore

[Adventist Dissident]

Canright was the one who started the plagiarism claim. On the one hand, one would expect him to be quite qualified since he took over a book that was earlier written by Moses Hull, added a few more chapters and had that published as his. But, when he was at Healdsburg he made various statements that were false and when called on denied that he even said them!

Do you have any proof for that. that is a serious accusation. Back that up with some evidence. Please

 

[djconklin]

How does the book of Enoch have any reliability on a levitical rite?

This rite in connection with Azazel's goat is unique to the Hebrew ritual of the Day of Atonement. When the goats had been first selected by Divine lot, one had been designated "For Yahweh," and the other "For Azazel." Since Yahweh is a personal name for the Deity, many Bible students consider that Azazel must also be a personal name, but for a being who stands in opposition to God. Others have suggested that Azazel may mean "sending away," while still others propose that it suggests a locality to which he was dispatched. Gesenius (Hebrew Lexicon) observed perceptively that neither an action, nor a region can ever form a natural contrast with Yahweh, only a person can. Azazel must, therefore, be the name of a character whose life and purposes are the opposite of God's.

Further, the preposition "for" (lamed as a prefix) used with both goats, must be given the same force in each case. If it describes a relationship with a Person called Yahweh, it must also indicate a relationship with a person called Azazel. Almost a century ago Carl Frederich Keil affirmed: "The view that Azazel is the designation of an evil spirit dwelling in the wilderness (Spencer, Rosenmuler, Gesenius) is now almost universally acknowledged" (Manual of Biblical Archaeology, II, 44). No valid evidence has appeared during the intervening years to cast a doubt on this conclusion.

Another reason to identify Azazel with the devil was the defilement which the goat which represented him caused to the one who conducted him to the wilderness (Lev 16:26). Sin-offerings did not defile, they cleansed (Lev 17:11). Azazel's living goat, laden with Israel's guilt, therefore could not be a sin-offering, for without the shedding of its blood it could bring about no remission of sin. Azazel's goat played a role after, and only after, Israel's guilt had been removed from the Tabernacle and the people of Israel by the blood of Yahweh's goat.

The punctuation of the King James Version has occasionally given rise to the notion that Azazel's goat performed a part in this "atonement" (Lev 16:10). But may I translate this passage literally? It seems clear that it is written in the form of a chiasm:

Lord's goat (dead) -- Aaron shall cause-to-be-near the goat upon which came the lot for Yahweh, and he shall-make-it-to-be- a-sin-offering.

Azazel's goat (alive) -- But the goat on which came the lot for Azazel, He shall-make to-stand- alive before the face of Yahweh.

Lord's goat (dead) -- So as to [LXX] make-atonement with him;

Azazel's goat (alive) -- and to let him go for Azazel into the wilderness.

Atonement requires a vicarious death and cleansing blood. But Azazel's goat was not slain, and consequently supplied no blood. No atonement could possibly be made through him. The rites connected with Azazel's goat point to occurrences in the experience of the devil.

Thank you--that's a keeper!

Here's the link to Jewish Encyclopedia on Azazel:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2203&letter=A

At wiki I found this "Azazel is mentioned in John Milton's Paradise Lost as a fallen angel and Lucifer's standard bearer, described as "a cherub tall.""

This site http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010714.htm says that the scapegoat is a symbol for Satan.

 

[djconklin]

Do you have any proof for that. that is a serious accusation. Back that up with some evidence. Please

Which part didn't you know about?

I thought it was fairly common knowledge that Canright started the claim.

As for the Healdburg deal, email the White Estate (like I did) and get a copy of the articles.

 

[djconklin]

Canright on Ellen G. White: http://www.ellenwhitedefend.com/canright-test.htm#ELLEN%20G.%20WHITE%20AND%20THE%20VISIONS

and on doubt: http://www.ellenwhitedefend.com/canright-test.htm#To Those in Doubting Castle

 

[djconklin]

It is commonly claimed (without any foundational evidence being presented) that EGW suffered mental "problems" that "resulted in her "visions."

Here's one response:

"
Nervous disorder
Prominent among the charges of Ellen White’s critics are variations on the theme that her visions resulted from some type of nervous disorder stemming from the injury she suffered as a girl. Hysteria, epilepsy, and schizophrenia are most frequently mentioned. The stories built around these charges have seemed plausible enough to cause a number of persons, who have not taken occasion to investigate the manner of the giving of visions and the life and work of Mrs. White for themselves, to accept and propagate them. In this connection there are two facts to be kept in mind: (1) No scientific evidence is given to support the charges, and (2) the whole ministry of Mrs. White and the body of her writings belie the charges:
1. No scientific evidence. When we say that no scientific evidence is given to support the charges, we mean that an investigation of the so-called evidence quickly reveals that it is unsound. Generally, the evidence consists of the testimony of one or another, or all, of three physicians who claimed to know much about Ellen White’s physical condition and her visions. Added to these are statements drawn from medical books, which seem to describe some of the physical phenomena accompanying Ellen White’s visions.
The three physicians usually quoted are Drs. W. J. Fairfield, William Russell, and J. H. Kellogg. A study of the facts in the case as they are presented in detail by F. D. Nichol, indicates that in none of these instances is acceptable scientific evidence given. It is shown that Dr. Fairfield had no opportunity to examine Mrs. White during a vision; in fact, he does not claim to have done so. He established a medical institution rivaling the Battle Creek Sanitarium, became critical of others connected with that institution, and tried to cause trouble for them. There is no evidence that Dr. Russell ever saw Mrs. White in vision, or that she was a patient of his at any time, and he makes no such claim. No real evidence is presented. In fact, in 1871 Russell repented of his attitude toward James and Ellen White, and he wrote them a letter of confession, which was published in the Review and Herald, April 25, 1871. However, this is unmentioned by critics today.
Dr. Kellogg’s case differs from that of the other men. For many years he was closely associated with Mrs. White and had abundant opportunity to know of her general physical condition as well as her condition when in vision. But what was Dr. Kellogg’s attitude during the years he was associated with Mrs. White? Through these years he repeatedly expressed his conviction that her visions were from God. These expressions appear in published works as well as in letters. It was not until Mrs. White spoke against some of his views and policies that he turned against her, expressed doubts as to the origin of her messages, and refused to accept them. Whatever the factors involved in his reasons for rejection, they were strictly nonmedical.
Weaknesses similar to those appearing in the testimony of the three physicians are seen also in the testimony presented from medical books. The statements quoted may be authentic and authoritative ones, but they are applied to Ellen White, not by a qualified physician, but by a critic. There is nothing scientific in an unqualified person’s reading in medical books the symptoms of diseases concerning which the most skilled diagnosticians sometimes differ widely, and from such reading attempting to diagnose a case.
2. The types of disorders of which some critics feel symptoms appeared in Ellen White’s experience are types that affect the whole personality and experience. They are disorders for which medical help has been found only in comparatively recent years. Therefore, if Mrs. White were afflicted with any of these diseases, she would have to be regarded as an untreated case, subject to the progressive ravages of the disease. But the most careful study of her life and writings fails to give the slightest hint of such effects. The comment of the editor of the New York Independent, in 1915, previously quoted, "She lived the life and did the work of a worthy prophetess"—gives a clue to the regard in which Mrs. White was held. Another writer of a biographical sketch showed his attitude in these words: "Mrs. White is a woman of singularly well-balanced mental organization. Benevolence, spirituality, conscientiousness, and ideally are the predominating traits. Her personal qualities are such as to win for her the warmest friendship of all with whom she comes in contact, and to inspire them with the utmost confidence in her sincerity… Notwithstanding her many years of public labor, she has retained all the simplicity and honesty which characterized her early life."—American Biographical History of Eminent and Self-Made Men, Michigan volume, page 108 (1878).
The best way to deal with problems regarding Ellen White’s physical and mental condition is to become well acquainted with the story of her life and the product of her pen. Her writings reveal clarity of thinking, consistency of treatment, unity of thought, depth of insight, and unique aptness of expression that are signs of a well organized mind and a consistent Christian outlook."

from

Ellen G. White:
Critics and Criticism
By
T. Housel Jemison

found online at http://www.ellenwhitedefend.com/ellen_g._white_critics_and_criticism.htm​

 

[OntheDL]

Thank you--that's a keeper!

Here's the link to Jewish Encyclopedia on Azazel:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2203&letter=A

At wiki I found this "Azazel is mentioned in John Milton's Paradise Lost as a fallen angel and Lucifer's standard bearer, described as "a cherub tall.""

This site http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010714.htm says that the scapegoat is a symbol for Satan.

Yeah, there is a church of Azazel that openly worship the devil. A casual search on Azazel reveals most hits relate to demonology.

 

[djconklin]

That is the same thing that Crosier, the guy who made it up, said after he abondned the theroy.

Wow, that's a pretty serious charge! Could you please supply the sources that say that?

 

[Loveaboveall]

Ice,

I was hoping that you would focus more on what she wrote than accusations about her personally or her family. Was she human? Was her husband human? Did they sin? of course the answer is yes to all of these. I am not familiar with many of these books you quote but I am familiar with her writings. I have not, as of yet, found anything to disprove that she recieved light from heaven.

To me, when people have to resort to attacking someone's personal character instead of looking at the body of what they have said or written then I don't put too much stock into what they say, especially when the person cannot respond to the attacks.

I am not saying you have done this but you have read many books that apparently have focused on EGW the person and not her writings.

Maybe you can answer this question for me. Where do these authors get their sources and how do they verify them?

One last thing, Don't forget what Jesus says in matt 5:11, "Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

I take it as a sign that she truly was a prophet of God when men "say all manner of evil" against her. You only attack a person's character when you can't refute what they are saying. Isn't that what the Jewish leaders did to Jesus? They claimed He was devil possessed didn't they? They accused Him of blasphemy and of sinning because He hung out with the wrong crowd. Which one of the prophets was cut in half-- wasn't it Isaiah? It is rough to be a prophet from God because most of the time the people will not want to hear what you have to say and would rather condemn you and try to prove you are not of God than listen to what God has to say to you.

All of this, I am referring to those who have written books about her not specifically to you. I just wish everyone could take what she says and critique that and stay away from the personal attacks. Even when talking with people of other faith, invariably the focus always goes to EGW instead proving to me why they do not believe the way I do from the Bible.

Why can't we study the Bible and come to conclusions based upon that. Most people will use other sources whether it be a commentary or concordance or other books to help them in their understanding because, lets face it not all of us are scholars in Hebrew and Greek. So, what is wrong with using EGW in helping them to understand scripture not replace it. If you don't agree with it than don't use it. That doesn't make you a heretic but at the same time, does that mean you reject everything she says? Think about that for a second? Whether you like it or not the health message is something that science is proving to be correct. This is something unfortunately even the most traditional of Adventists are not following and it is the easiest of her messages to prove beyond any doubt! Which brings me to one more thing. What about all the things she writes that harmonize with what you believe? What about the times such as the health message that would be very, very, difficult for her to have come up with without divine intervention. What do you do with that stuff?

Just some things to think about,

Happy Sabbath-- Grace and Peace to you all

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Ice,

I was hoping that you would focus more on what she wrote than accusations about her personally or her family. Was she human? Was her husband human? Did they sin? of course the answer is yes to all of these. I am not familiar with many of these books you quote but I am familiar with her writings. I have not, as of yet, found anything to disprove that she recieved light from heaven.

To me, when people have to resort to attacking someone's personal character instead of looking at the body of what they have said or written then I don't put too much stock into what they say, especially when the person cannot respond to the attacks.

I am not saying you have done this but you have read many books that apparently have focused on EGW the person and not her writings.

Maybe you can answer this question for me. Where do these authors get their sources and how do they verify them?

One last thing, Don't forget what Jesus says in matt 5:11, "Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

I take it as a sign that she truly was a prophet of God when men "say all manner of evil" against her. You only attack a person's character when you can't refute what they are saying. Isn't that what the Jewish leaders did to Jesus? They claimed He was devil possessed didn't they? They accused Him of blasphemy and of sinning because He hung out with the wrong crowd. Which one of the prophets was cut in half-- wasn't it Isaiah? It is rough to be a prophet from God because most of the time the people will not want to hear what you have to say and would rather condemn you and try to prove you are not of God than listen to what God has to say to you.

All of this, I am referring to those who have written books about her not specifically to you. I just wish everyone could take what she says and critique that and stay away from the personal attacks. Even when talking with people of other faith, invariably the focus always goes to EGW instead proving to me why they do not believe the way I do from the Bible.

Why can't we study the Bible and come to conclusions based upon that. Most people will use other sources whether it be a commentary or concordance or other books to help them in their understanding because, lets face it not all of us are scholars in Hebrew and Greek. So, what is wrong with using EGW in helping them to understand scripture not replace it. If you don't agree with it than don't use it. That doesn't make you a heretic but at the same time, does that mean you reject everything she says? Think about that for a second? Whether you like it or not the health message is something that science is proving to be correct. This is something unfortunately even the most traditional of Adventists are not following and it is the easiest of her messages to prove beyond any doubt! Which brings me to one more thing. What about all the things she writes that harmonize with what you believe? What about the times such as the health message that would be very, very, difficult for her to have come up with without divine intervention. What do you do with that stuff?

Just some things to think about,

Happy Sabbath-- Grace and Peace to you all

LAA, what specifically is the problem you have with what I said. you said I attacked her I did not. What are you trying to do by writing this? It just seems to be rambling.
you stated that you don't like people attacking peoples character, but then impunie my motives. Second I do not think that the claim to prophetic authority and character are things that can be seprated. The trustworthiness of a person is driectly linked to the crediblity of their message.

As far as the source material and it's reliablity. i resent this accusation given that the sources I read are SDA authors. If you can't trust the reliablity of your own denomination what dose that say about the denomination? At some point you either have to do all the research yourself or trust someone. I am in the middle of doing the research myself I have not blindly followed anyone.

The fact that people say evil aginst you is not the sign of a true prophet. your appeals to emotions and sentiment are just sicking.

As far as the body of work, If it were just christian work that would be fine, but she claims to have prophetic authority. that put her in another catagory all togheter and is subject to review. Jesus told us throught John to" Test the Spirtis to see if they be of God, for many false prophets have gone out in the world. " have you done this in obediance to Jesus. Probally not.

 

[tall73]

Tall wrote
Actually I find that a very easy one to read and have seen it used quite often. It is easier then white backgrounds too. Of course I also write my pages on one long page so it is easy to highlight it and paste in a word processor.

Yup, that was the first thing I did actually!

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Canright on Ellen G. White:

http://www.ellenwhitedefend.com/canright-test.htm#ELLEN%20G.%20WHITE%20AND%20THE%20VISIONS

and on doubt: http://www.ellenwhitedefend.com/canright-test.htm#To Those in Doubting Castle

This is canwright offical statment about SDAism and EGW . This will cover the statments in the above link. Usually those that defend EGW against Canwrights attacks usually take statment out of context. Canwright made statments for EGW when he was working for sda chruch. He later changed his mind. He details his personal journey from the time he joined till the time he left. You will find it facinating. He is not the person he is made out to be. I am almost inclined to ask you to remove your link for honesty sake, it is such a gross distortion and misuse of facts. If you won't then I encourage people to compare the 2 different presentations and judged for yourself which is the most hones t and realistic.


http://www.ex-sda.com/experience-DMC.htm

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Wow, that's a pretty serious charge! Could you please supply the sources that say that?

Here are some of Croiser own statments and a link to the article
http://www.ellenwhite.org/refute2.htm

Crozier on the Shut Door: "One thing shown in the Article of 1846 was that the types yield no excuse for the theory that the door of mercy was shut on the 10th day of the 7th month, or that it ever will shut. That theory was an awful blunder; yet it was solemnly published at the time, and has been fanatically adhered to 58 years, and supported by pretended divinely inspired visions and made the corner stone of one of the strongest Adventist sects..."
(Daily Messenger, "Biography of Owen Russell Loomis Crozier, Canadaigua, N.Y., Nov. 22, 1923)

Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1, 1887 Elder D.M. Canright:
I kept the seventh day nearly a year, about 1848. In 1846 I explained the idea of the sanctuary in an article in an extra number of the Day Star, Cincinnati, O. The object of that article was to support the theory that the door of mercy was shut, a theory which I, and nearly all Adventists who had adopted William Miller's views, held from 1844 to 1848. Yes, I know that Ellen G. Harmon - now Mrs. White - held that shut-door theory at that time.
Truly yours,
O.R.L. Crozier

Ellen White on Crozier: "The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was His will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint."
--Word to the "Little Flock,", 1847

 

[tall73]

He also gave up the Sabbath.

From a letter by James White, Port Gibson, New York, August 26, 1848, to Brother Hastings, quoted in Knights 1844 and the Rise of Sabbatarian Adventistm: Reproductions of original historical documents


As for O.R.L. Crosier we have not seen him. We have no desire to see him. He has given up the Sabbath and does not expect the Lord until 1877. Poor soul, he is shut up in gross darkness.

In other words

A. he didn't accept the Sabbath.

B. he didn't agree with their time reckoning.

In the same letter James spoke on his own preaching on the parable of the virgins, and that the bretheren were strong on the Sabbath and the shut door.

 

[NightEternal]

___

 

[tall73]

That does not sound like a very Christian thing to say.

I think the problem, which icedragon101 pointed out, was not that Crosier lost faith in the doctrine and abandoned it. It's his claim that it was all made up to save face from the Great Disappointment.

If that is a true assertion (and they really did not have any reason to lie did they?) and Crosier and Edson did indeed fabricate the whole thing, then there are some huge, severe implications for our church today...

I don't think it says they made it up as such, but that it was a "theory" which could be taken to go against the idea that it was a vision.

Then again, this was Crozier, not Edson, who actually claimed to have the vision.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

That does not sound like a very Christian thing to say.

I think the problem, which icedragon101 pointed out, was not that Crosier lost faith in the doctrine and abandoned it. It's his claim that it was all made up to save face from the Great Disappointment.

you got it. that and to justify the shut door theroy.

If that is a true assertion (and they really did not have any reason to lie did they?) and Crosier and Edson did indeed fabricate the whole thing, then there are some huge, severe implications for our church today...

you are right it does have huge implicantions for the chruch and a good reason to bury it. Edson had the vision or the idea in the cornfield. Crosier studied it out. link on crosier is the actual document that appered in the newspaper.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

here is another Croiser article

http://www.ex-sda.com/crosier_b.htm

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Yet another document by crosier and his view


http://truthorfables.com/Crosier_Renounces_Shut_Door.htm

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Another link for croiser

http://truthorfables.com/Crosier_Letter_to_Canright.htm

 

[Loveaboveall]

LAA, what specifically is the problem you have with what I said. you said I attacked her I did not. What are you trying to do by writing this? It just seems to be rambling.
you stated that you don't like people attacking peoples character, but then impunie my motives. Second I do not think that the claim to prophetic authority and character are things that can be seprated. The trustworthiness of a person is driectly linked to the crediblity of their message.

As far as the source material and it's reliablity. i resent this accusation given that the sources I read are SDA authors. If you can't trust the reliablity of your own denomination what dose that say about the denomination? At some point you either have to do all the research yourself or trust someone. I am in the middle of doing the research myself I have not blindly followed anyone.

The fact that people say evil aginst you is not the sign of a true prophet. your appeals to emotions and sentiment are just sicking.

As far as the body of work, If it were just christian work that would be fine, but she claims to have prophetic authority. that put her in another catagory all togheter and is subject to review. Jesus told us throught John to" Test the Spirtis to see if they be of God, for many false prophets have gone out in the world. " have you done this in obediance to Jesus. Probally not.

I said several times in my "rant" that I was not indicating that you, yourself were making any attacks but that of many of the authors that write about her.

So, how do you judge a prophet in regards to their fruit? Must they remain sinless? Should we throw out Peter because He fell victim to peer pressure? Honest question, What are the fruits we are to judge a prophet by? Is it there works, or their message, or both? If you judge their works how much sin is too much?

Again, I apologize if you took what I said as a personal attack. It was not. I am just frustrated with all the character assasination attempts on Mrs. White.