Hey again Icedragon,
First of all, let me say that I don't come to forums often because it tends to be a haven for arguments galore and I hope that we can conclude our particular conversation here as Christian friends who simply disagree. So far so good......
Okay, while I DO appreciate your desire to be nice and not relegate her work to that of Satan, the truth is more important than my feelings. My point was that you seemed to have been trying to maintain a position which ultimately is impossible to sustain. All will find this out as they continue to debate it one way or the other. Good Christian people do not lie to those around them about visions from God. That totally rules out that option for her if she did, indeed lie.
I wasn't assuming that the burden of proof for what she is was on you, but rather wanted you to take a position one way or the other. You needn't prove anything to me, nor I to you. But we do, if we are going to dialogue about this, both need to make our positions clear, do we not? And again, my point was that your double position was not an option when it comes to prophets. Now it seems that you have clarified it a bit and indeed do feel that she was a total fraud. That makes more sense. It is more consistent.
Now regarding her "predictions that did not come true" which of those are you referring to? I have seen lists and I've seen explanations for those lists, and in the end they are easily answered. The biggest one cited is where she said that some who were alive in her day would be alive when Jesus returns. Is this really proof that she was a false prophet? Paul would, under this same "test" fail, for he plainly stated (twice) that he and others would be alive when Jesus returned (1 Thess. 4:15,17). And we can see examples that correlate with EGW's predictions in other places in the Bible as well. Are you referring to the "buildings in Chicago" issue with Kellogg? Again, that was answered (decades ago) if you are interested (no, I wasn't around back then, but there were others answering the critics, you know
)
Have you considered things she said in the health field that HAVE come true and been proven since she said them? Again, either coincidence or the devil helped her (or she is a true prophet). Interesting that she chose the good and left out the foolishness that was being taught in the medical circles in those days.
You said:
the following are your options what to consider about her "supernatural" manifestations.
Here are the options for you to consider
1. She was of the Devil and a deciever.
Fair enough. I reject this one.
2. She was Called of God and was who she claimed to be.
This option makes the most sense to me, brother. I'll take this one.
3. She was Sick and had healt problems do to nerology.
Now this would be okay if we are just dealing with her saying she had visions, by my question dealt with the SUPERNATURAL events. A sick person can't hold her breath for as long as she did, neither can they hold up a Bible for as long as she did. There are other things I can list if you are interested, but these two things are sufficient to disprove the "sick in the head" theory. I will therefore reject this one.
4. She was minpulated by James and found herself in a postion that was not of her choosing and tried to make the best of it.
Again, James would have had a hard time manipulating her into what I described above. In fact, he couldn't do it if his life depended on it. And it would take more than trying to make the best of it as her brain cells began screaming out for oxygen. I will thus reject this option as well.
5. she honestly thought she was someone but was wrong. she would not be the first.
Thinking that you are someone does not produce supernatural events, so I will rule this out as well.
So after examining all 5 options, we see that only two of them are possible. Those two are the same two that I started my post with -- that she is either of God or the devil (and it will always come back to that choice, too).
You later said that I implied that we "need the investigative judgment to overcome sin" and if you took that from my post, I apologize for my lack of clarity.
You are DEAD RIGHT that we don't "need" the Investigative Judgment to be going on during our lives to overcome sin, otherwise no Bible character could have ever overcome it, and they did. My point was not that one needs the Investigative Judgment or Ellen White's writings to overcome sin. My question was if you believed another gospel. Why did I ask this? Not as a Red Herring, but rather to see if perhaps your belief in another gospel could have tainted your view of EGW and the IJ. In my studies of this I have found that most critics do not pull their arguments out of the blue. Walter Rea did not wake up one day and say "Hey, Ellen White is a fraud!" Neither did Des Ford open his Bible and say "Wow, we've been wrong about Daniel 8:14!" No, as you study the theology of these gentlemen you see that they fell into a half gospel of once-saved-always-saved and thus they saw a need to get rid of the IJ, which disproves that gospel and also EGW, who supports the IJ. Ford takes the position of EGW being a good, Christian woman that "God used" but who was wrong about 1844. Again, this is an impossible position and I believe Ford knows it. But bless his heart, he doesn't want to cross that line. The Holy Spirit is still striving with Ford and he may yet come back into the light. He is on many prayer lists, I can assure you. The Holy Spirit is also striving with you as you have said that you really didn't want to reject her. Please pray about this.
Regarding the Shut Door issue, your points are all well taken, but have been around for years. They are nothing new, and it is these that I referred to (among others) that had been answered "decades ago."
For info on the Shut Door consider the following articles (please actually do this and don't just brush it off, for you seem like a studious fellow who is willing to look into things; it will benefit you greatly)
Go to WhiteEstate dot org and then /books/mol/Appendix%20E.html#Appendix%20E
This is from Herbert Douglass. Next same website, but after the dot org (also from Douglass):
/books/egwhc/EGWHCc13.html#sth0
Now read /books/mol/Chapt44.html#The%20Shut%20DoorA%20Case%20Study (from the same domain)
Now this is from the book by Nichols, which I'm sure you have read (man, I hope so, since it does answer so many of these things):
/books/egwhc/EGWHCc13.html#c13 (again, same domain).
There is more info out there discussing the Shut Door, if you (or any others) are interested.
You also mentioned Crosier backing down from his position re: the Sanctuary. Why would his actions cast doubt on Ellen White? So he recanted. So did Peter when he said he would never deny Christ. Do you not think that Satan was busy trying to get Crosier and other early Adventists (Canright, etc.) to turn against their fellow believers?
Many of the critics of Ellen White seem to have found "secrets that have been covered up" by the church, EGW Estate, etc. and they border on conspiracy theories akin to the whole Illuminati/Masons/Trilateral Commission fiasco. I said "akin to" and not "a part of" -- they remind me of them. The whole makeup is the same. The scenario is always that those who have studied, but who have not dug quite as deeply as the conspiracy theorists themselves, are in blind ignorance to the "real picture." This sort of thing in the "government conspiracy" circles normally leads to folks not paying taxes and being suspicious of the Rockefellers and Masonic Temples, as well as the triangles on our currency and the LTF officers at Ruby Ridge and Waco. They are "in the know" while all of the rest of us are just sheep, manipulated by the govt. The logic is, of course, that the govt buries the evidence and that is why it is not well known. With the SDA church critics it is the all-powerful mother church who has figured out a way to cover up all sorts of historical and EGW-related problems so that the blind fools in the church will continue paying their tithes and believing the ongoing lie. The BIBLE is the judge in this and it supports both the teachings of EGW and the Investigative Judgment. All of the anecdotes about Crosier or Canright or Kellogg will never change that fact. If Ellen White was a prophet and the IJ is biblical, then even if EVERY LAST ADVENTIST on the planet rejected them, would that make them any LESS true? One need only to look at Noah and the world's rejection of him to answer that question.
You see, the reaction of Ellen White's contemporaries does not diminish her gift in the least. It doesn't matter that Jones may have had issues. It doesn't matter if A.G. Daniels had issues. It wouldn't have even mattered if James White himself was not only a stubborn old codger who was mean spirited, but if he also ran off with Fanny Bolton, established a pig and tobacco farm and founded the Atheist Society of America. NONE of that would have mattered, my friend. What WOULD have mattered is if Ellen White lied about her visions and if her writings contradicted the Word, Law, and Will of God. Neither of these were the case. So speculation about all of her contemporaries is not what is important, nor was it ever important.
I have no desire to compel you to proclaim EGW as a true prophet. I'm just giving you (and the others on this board) some things go consider. That's all. You seem quite intelligent and I hope that my points are well taken. I tried to make them semi- lighthearted so that you would know that I hold no ill will against you. There are too many "supporters" of EGW who fight every critic tooth and nail and reveal a wrong spirit. This is the devil's goal. I'll have no part of it.
So let's keep the conversation going as two brothers in Christ, shall we?
God bless you, my friend, and I look forward to hearing your reply.
Friend123