To: Smith, Brother; Amadon, Brother

Greenville, Michigan

April 23, 1869

Portions of this letter are published in 5MR 164-168; 2Bio 267-268.

Dear Brethren Smith and Amadon:

I will write to you a faint expression of my feelings at this time as I review the past. Lt3-1869.1

At the camp meeting at Wright, the Lord was with His people. There solemn pledges were made by the brethren of Battle Creek that they would stand by us, and not permit burdens to come upon us. My husband has been so ready to receive any manifestation of confidence and love from those in Battle Creek, and to blot out of his memory the things which transpired in the past (which were cruelly wrong upon the part of those from whom we ought to expect better things), that he was ready to believe all things and to hope all things. With his heart all cheered and softened by the bright view he had of the future, he consented to locate in Battle Creek, and thus comply with the earnest invitation of his brethren and sisters. He fully believed that the lessons of the past had not been learned in vain. Lt3-1869.2

I was reluctant to locate in Battle Creek. I had, as it were, fled to Greenville for quietude of mind and freedom from the harassing trials brought upon us unnecessarily by those who should have stood by us. I had never felt the least dissatisfaction with my home at Greenville. I needed a good copyist, and help that could do my sewing and save me from embarrassment in that line. The Lord blessed us in coming to this place. Lt3-1869.3

I pled with my husband not to comply with the wishes of our brethren in regard to locating in Battle Creek until we should have clear light from God that it was His will that we should move from this place. My husband urged that our trials in Battle Creek were over, and that we could in the hands of God be a blessing to the Office, Institute and church. Lt3-1869.4

The article by Eugene Prewitt can be read in its entirety here:
http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2017/1/3/a-zeal-not-according-to-knowledge

Now Eugene Prewitt is a teacher with name recognition among Seventh-day Adventists, especially those who are usually classified “Conservative”, of whom I consider myself to be. I’m very appreciate of most independent Adventist ministries, and am thankful for Ouachita Hills College, where he used to be Bible teacher for many years.

I met him at the 2010 GC Session in Atlanta, and showed him the original 1858 Great Controversy book that I’ve been trying to spread in various countries around the world. He asked why, and knowing that he knows the book well, showed him the quote: “He who is the father of lies, blinds and deceives the world by sending his angels forth to speak for the apostles, and make it appear that they contradict what they wrote when on earth, which was dictated by the Holy Ghost.” He immediately told me that I was mistaken if I believed the Bible was dictated by the Holy Ghost, which stunned me, and was was even more stunned as he became animated in denouncing the position that the Bible is the words of God.

In the fall of 2016, he wrote an article for Fulcrum7 quoting the Bible several times. I made a comment that it was strange he was quoting the Bible, when he doesn’t believe the words in it are from God. He took umbrage to that, at a level that shocked me, as an entire article basically consigning me to hell was published by Gerry Wagoner of Fulcrum7 on January 3, 2017.

Four points were made in his article supposedly showing where I was in error:
1. He says I make too many comments
2. He says I’m a commandment-breaker for saying Ellen White’s books have been changed
3. He thinks I’m in error for believing the words in the Bible (and SOP) are from God
4. He says I’ve become a negative person

Regarding numbers 1 and 4, these are of course just his point of view – ad hominem attacks. That is fine, but sad. I wish I would be MORE active in spreading the truth for these last days, and am happy to be seen in the same category as Elijah, John the Baptist, and Ellen White as being a “negative person”. Those who call for repentance will always be a “negative person” to those who wish to believe they are alright as they are.

Number 2 is the basis for his argument that I’m a “commandment breaker”, and thus on my way to hell. But this is extremely easy to refute, as all you have to do is to get books with Ellen White’s name on the cover, and then start comparing. One of the clearest examples is to check the first chapter of the 1858 Great Controversy with the equivalent chapter in Early Writings (first printed in 1882). Before you do tho, please read paragraph 5 of the Preface in Early Writings. It says: “… no changes from the original work have been made in the present edition, except the occasional employment of a new word, or a change in the construction of a sentence, to better express the idea, and no portion of the work has been omitted. No shadow of change has been made in any idea or sentiment of the original work, and the verbal changes have been made under the author’s own eye, and with her full approval.”

How does that mesh with what we see when we actually compare them?
http://great-controversy-movie.com/dannywinters/great-controversy-early-writings.html
It looks like only around 70% of that first chapter is the same!

But some may say: “Well, Ellen White approved it, so it’s OK”. No way. She wrote in {Ms188-1907} regarding the subject of changing her writings: “They come to me, those that are copying my writings, and say, Now here is the better revised words, and I think I will put that in. Don’t you change one word, not a word. The revised edition we do not need at all. We have got the word that Christ has spoken Himself and given us. And dont you in my writings change a word for any revised edition. There will be revised editions, plenty of them, just before the close of this earths history, and I want all my workers to understand, and I have got quite a number of them. I want them to understand that they are never to take the revised word, and put it in the place of the plain, simple words just as they are. They think they are improving them, but how do they know but that they may switch off on an idea, and give it less importance than Christ means them to have.”
So no one is to change the words she wrote, as they are Christ’s words, and there will be revisions near the end of time. hmmmmm. Maybe that is where we are today?

Two more examples of changes to the books: “Sister Davis has just called my attention to an article printed in the Youth’s Instructor of May 31, 1894. The question asked is, Did I design to have this sentence just as it appeared in the Instructor? I am surprised to see it just as it appears–“A meat diet is not the most wholesome of diets, and yet I would take the position that meat should not be discarded by everyone.” I cannot explain why this appears just as it does.” … “I would desire that the sentence should be modified by changing the not–“yet I would not take the position that meat be wholly discarded by everyone,” for instance, by those dying of consumption.” MR v.14.

Also, as printed in the 1992 book “Christ Triumphant”: “Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men and women who fear God, who realize that they are humans only, not God. They should be people who will rule under God and for Him.” But in the original Manuscript 163 (1902): “Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men who fear God, who realize that they are men only, not God. They should be men who will rule under God and for Him.” (see
http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/4/16/the-insertion-of-gender-inclusive-language-in-recent-ellen-white-compilations
for more information on how the E.G.White Estate is actively promoting changing the books to make them “gender-inclusive”.

Number 3: In refuting charge #2, we have covered a bit the most important point in this whole issue:
ARE THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE AND SOP FROM GOD, OR NOT?

I’m convinced the standard SDA position that only the ideas are from God, and not the words themselves, is the worst error ever received by God’s remnant church. This error will make us stumble on our way to the New Jerusalem, because it makes a path of slippery sand for our feet, instead of the unchanging rock.

My parents were both SDA, and my mother, especially, was a diligent student of the Bible and SOP. We called the Bible the “Word of God”, which no doubt many of us SDAs do. It wasn’t until my late 40s that I found out many of my fellow SDAs claim to believe in the “Word of God”, but not the “words of God”! That type of semantic antic is straightened out by Jesus himself when he says in Matthew 4:4: “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Of course Jesus is quoting what is written in Deuteronomy 8:3. Now according to those who believe only the ideas in the Bible and SOP are from God, Jesus is telling Satan that Moses’ words have more authority than Satan’s??? Even after Moses came under the dominion of Satan for a while???! That is the logical end of this damnable doctrine that is pleasing to Satan. No, of course not, Jesus is quoting God’s words, and showing that they have more authority than Satan’s words. Practically all Christians used to believe this, so it is very strange to see how God’s last church in the end time has thrown out God’s words, and replaced them with only “God’s ideas”.

John 12:48-50 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

So Jesus himself says that he speaks the words from God, and that what he spoke was from God, and that the word that he spoke is what shall judge us in the last day. Really, is there any SDA, or any other Christian for that matter, who doesn’t know that the Bible is the rule book that will judge us in the last day? Six times in the Bible it says: “words of God”. “Words of the Lord” is used 19 times. “My words” and “your words” are used to refer to God’s words multiple times too.

John 14:23 “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” Doesn’t this speak directly to our time today – to Laodicea? Where is the Lord in Revelation 3:20? Isn’t he outside the door, desiring to come in? He tells Laodicea (SDA Church) how to let him in – to “Keep my words”.

Many believers in the doctrine that the words are not inspired base their belief on one quote from Selected Messages vol.1: “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired.” The preface to the 1888 Great Controversy also says: “The truths revealed are all “given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words of men.” But with at least 7 different instances in the SOP of the phrase “inspired words”, and over 100 instances of “words of God”;
3RH 1887-7-19; inspired words
10RH 1915-7-22; inspired words
Steps to Christ p.108; inspired words
Home Missionary 1892-9-1; inspired words
Paulson Collection p.138; inspired words
YI 1895-7-18; inspired words
1888 Materials; words inspired of God
we can easily see that these 2 statement purported to be from Ellen White, are in fact, spurious. Just the name should be a caution flag: “Selected Messages”. Of course a preface to a book is also dubious.

Broadside #2 1849: “I saw that in striking against the visions, they did not strike against the worm, the feeble instrument that God spoke through, but against the Holy Ghost. I saw it was a small thing to speak against the instrument, but it was dangerous to slight the words of God.”

As noted above, not everything with Ellen White’s name on the cover is from her pen. MR4 1883 says regarding how a certain Mr. Curtis twisted her writings: “I am not responsible for all that has been printed as coming from me.” She writes in Testimonies for the Church #11 regarding people twisting what she wrote on the dress reform: “I protest against the perversions of my private conversations on this subject, and ask that what I have written and published be regarded as my settled position.” So even things like Manuscript Releases should not be held on the same level as her published works, let alone Selected Messages or the Preface of any book.

The E.G.White Estate has an article describing how many changes to the 1888 Great Controversy, to come up with the 1911 Great Controversy, were first proposed by W.W.Prescott: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/GC-Prescott.html Supposedly Ellen White approved the changes, but, as seen above, Ellen White didn’t approve the change of even “one word” that God had given her. Elder Prescott wrote Willie White in 1915: “It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorized books and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people and our average ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use our books as sufficient authority in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things which we know to be untrue…. The way your mother’s writings have been handled and the false impressions concerning them, which is still fostered among the people, have brought great perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to deception, though probably not intentional, has been practiced in making some of her books,”

So how did the changes that we actually see in the books get there if Ellen White didn’t do or approve them herself? In the case of the 1911 Great Controversy, we see that Willie White, who didn’t believe the words his mother wrote were from God, was instrumental in approving the changes.

But perhaps the worst offender was the man who became the publishing director and chief editor of the SOP after James White’s death – Uriah Smith. He did not believe the words Ellen White wrote were from God, and even went as far as to leave out some Testimonies directed to him when he had them edited down to the 9 volume set we have today. He was the chief of 5 men in 1883 who publicly stated in the Review

“33. WHEREAS, MANY OF THESE TESTIMONIES WERE WRITTEN UNDER THE MOST UNFAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WRITER BEING TOO HEAVILY PRESSED WITH ANXIETY AND LABOR TO DEVOTE CRITICAL THOUGHT TO THE GRAMMATICAL PERFECTION OF THE WRITINGS, AND THEY WERE PRINTED IN SUCH HASTE AS TO ALLOW THESE IMPERFECTIONS TO PASS UNCORRECTED; AND,
“WHEREAS, WE BELIEVE THE LIGHT GIVEN BY GOD TO HIS SERVANTS IS BY THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE MIND, THUS IMPARTING THE THOUGHTS, AND NOT (EXCEPT IN RARE CASES) THE VERY WORDS IN WHICH THE IDEAS SHOULD BE EXPRESSED; THEREFORE,
“RESOLVED, THAT IN THE REPUBLICATION OF THESE VOLUMES, SUCH VERBAL CHANGES BE MADE AS TO REMOVE THE ABOVE-NAMED IMPERFECTIONS, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, WITHOUT IN ANY MEASURE CHANGING THE THOUGHT; AND FURTHER,
“34. RESOLVED, THAT THIS BODY APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF FIVE TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE REPUBLICATION OF THESE VOLUMES ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE PREAMBLES AND RESOLUTIONS.”–REVIEW AND HERALD, NOV. 27, 1883. “THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE REPUBLICATION OF THE TESTIMONIES PROVIDED FOR IN THE THIRTY-FOURTH RESOLUTION WAS ANNOUNCED AS FOLLOWS, THE CHAIR HAVING BEEN EMPOWERED TO SELECT FOUR PERSONS BESIDES HIMSELF FOR THIS PURPOSE: W. C. WHITE, URIAH SMITH, J. H. WAGGONER, S. N. HASKELL, GEORGE I. BUTLER.”– IBID.”

How bad was Uriah Smith? Ellen White said it was this bad: “I had no rest in spirit in the house of Brother Uriah. I have left the house saying to myself, It is a godless house. I have seen no less than four evil angels controlling members of the family. {Letter3-1869}”.

Interestingly, in Testimony For The Church, No. 13 Ellen White related a vision where she was in Battle Creek, and saw people she knew marching up to her house: “The scene was changed. The appearance now presented was like a Catholic procession. One of the company bore in his hand a cross. Another had a reed. And as they neared the house, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times, “This house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order.” Terror seized me, and I ran through the house, out of the north door, and found myself in the midst of a company some of whom I knew, but I dared not speak a word with them for fear of being betrayed.” What do you think were the “goods” Ellen White had? There is only one reasonable explanation – her books.

In conclusion, we have established that the words in the Bible and SOP are from God, and that Ellen White specifically did not approve the changes to her books. However, it is easy to see actual discrepancies between the books today, and, considering the background of how people close to the heart of the work were being controlled by Satan, and openly stating that they were going to “remove the imperfections”, we can understand clearly that Satan’s hand is involved in these things.

I call on all fellow Adventists to heed the words of God. And especially Br. Eugene Prewitt and Gerry Wagoner, I forgive both of you, and ask you to repent, and resolve to follow all the words of God too, and ingest them as did Jeremiah in chapter 15 verse 16 “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.” 🙂

In an attempt to help God’s people see the seriousness of the situation, and to call for repentance, I’ve done several things like post many articles and comments and make videos calling for that repentance.

The following is a parody of the “Official Statements Guidelines Abortion” by our Seventh-day Adventist Church available here: https://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/guidelines/article/go/-/abortion/ written by Doug Yowell.

1)Private property is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms private stewardship and requires respect for those things accumulated. However, decisions about private property must be made in the context of a fallen world. Stealing is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus, private property must not be thoughtlessly taken. Stealing should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

2) Stealing is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning theft. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving, caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

3) In practical, tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express it’s commitment to the value of privately owned property. These ways should include: (a)strengthening family relationships, (b)educating every person concerning Christian principles of property management, (c)emphasizing responsibility of all for family budgeting, (d)calling all to be responsible for the consequences of spending behaviors that are inconsistent with Christian principles, (e)creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with stealing, (f)offering support and assistance to those who choose to steal in order to feed their families, and (g)encouraging and assisting both parents to participate responsibly in insuring the financial and dietary needs of their children. The church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that may lead to stealing and to care for those suffering the consequences of individual decisions on this issue.

4)The church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Stealing for reasons of economic stability, product selection, or personal gain is not condoned by the church. People, at times, however, may face exceptional circumstances that present moral dilemmas, such as significant health threats to the lives of the family providers, excessive tax liabilities, employer fraud, loss of financial investments, rejection of unemployment or disability benefits, future budgetary capability carefully diagnosed by a certified accountant, loss of total assets from actions of other’s criminal behavior. The final decision whether or not to steal should be made by the individual family provider after appropriate consultation.

5)Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of individual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and it’s laws. They make their choices according to Scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempts to coerce people to steal or not to steal should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

6)Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to stealing should not be required to participate in the process or encouragement of stealing.

According to its constitution, “The centrist focus of the Society places it against all forms of theological extremism, avoiding theological liberalism and legalistic or literalistic interpretations of the Scriptures.”

To denigrate the “literalistic interpretation of the Scriptures” is to denigrate the Scriptures themselves, and of course the Holy Spirit who gave those Scriptures.

The inspired writers did not testify to falsehoods, fearing that the pages of Sacred History would be clouded by the record of human frailties and faults. The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves. They penned the literal truth, and stern, forbidding facts are revealed for reasons that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend.

By Ellen White in Testimony for the Church, Number 26.
.

I saw it was a small thing to speak against the instrument, but it was dangerous to slight the words of God.

By Ellen White in Broadside #2.

“Dr. Ganoune Diop is Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. Before his election in July 2015 at the 60th General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, he served as the church’s liaison to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, and as its representative within the international community of civic and political leaders.

Dr. Diop’s passion for God has led him to extensive theological, philosophical, and literary studies. Dr. Diop has a Masters in Exégèses and Theology from Collonges, France, a Masters degree in Philiology from the University of Paris, and a PhD in Old Testament Studies from Andrews University. He is currently a PhD candidate in New Testament Studies. Most recently he was honored with a Doctorate Honoris Causa, granted for his contributions to developing a global culture of human rights and respect for human dignity.”

Well, that doesn’t sound too bad on the surface, but on the Southern Adventist University website, it says of him:

“Ganoune Diop—Ph.D., Professor of Religion, Oakwood College B.A. and M.A., Saleve University; Diploma, Maitrise en Philologie et Histoire de L’Orient Ancien, Institut Catholique De Paris; Ph.D., Andrews University.”

http://southern.catalog.acalog.com/content.php?catoid=2&navoid=14

That is very problematic for me for 2 reasons:
1. Someone is not telling the truth. The “University of Paris”, and “Catholic University of Paris” are 2 separate institutions. The University of Paris is famous for training many popes over the centuries, and, well, the other one speaks for itself.

2. We are directly told by the Spirit of Prophecy for our SDA pastors and workers to not get their training from worldly institutions. But here we have them being promoted to the top ranks of the SDA Church! Why are we so blind? And the field of Philology: “includes the study of texts and their history. It includes elements of textual criticism”. Granted, what Br. Diop studied may not have been this particular type of Philology. But it is very, very worrying, as we are told directly that all “higher criticism” is working against God.

I watched the whole thing on this Sabbath and Day of Trumpets. The first part had me crying in several places, as it is a powerful presentation of how tenuous, or fragile, the beginnings of the Advent movement had. William Miller, Joshua Himes, Joseph Bates, the Harmon family, they are all shown in a very realistic manner, and the events speak closely to anyone who is interested in the beginnings of the SDA faith.

I decided to sleep on the first half overnight, right after the Great Disappointment. I was very excited, thinking how I would be happy to help promote this movie. To be truthful, I did have very minor odd feelings with the depiction of the Great Disappointment, as Ellen was just standing all alone in a field for hours, but that was extremely minor compared to the amazingly good story of William Miller and the Advent movement up to the Great Disappointment.

The next day I eagerly looked forward to watching the last half. It is mostly about the prophetic gift of Ellen White, and her and her husband’s work to build up the church. Somehow tho, the feeling was different. The whole spirit of the second half seemed odd, and not according to the excellent spirit of the first half. Many things in the last half were not according to the historical record, either. It seemed somehow “Hollywoodized”, with no Holy Spirit giving guidance.

The last 7 minutes are credits, and at 2:21:11 it says: “Its (SDA Church) core mission, as captured in the prophetic message of Revelation 14:6-12, is to proclaim the good news of God’s love and forgiveness as revealed in Jesus Christ and to tell the world of His Promised soon return.” This is just wrong. The core mission of the SDA church is to give the Three Angels’ Messages. Of course that includes the promised return of Jesus. The 3rd Angel’s Message especially is all about warning us to keep the Sabbath to give glory to God and escape the wrath to come.

I started looking for more info on the movie on Youtube, and saw a video by Adrian Ebens. Now I disagree with him on his anti-Godhead doctrine, but he had a sermon directly on this movie, and showed how some of the workers in this movie had connection with demon possession in other movies they’ve worked in.

Sadly, the casting for the film makes me think that this film should be rejected outright. Tommie-Amber Pirie, who plays Ellen White, has starred in: “How to plan an orgy in a small town”. She also played the part of a possessed woman in a different movie called “Bitten”. OK, maybe playing the part of Ellen White caused her to repent? Well, since she played Ellen, she has top billing in a movie called: “Clusterxxxx”. The last four letters are very vulgar. No wonder the last half of the movie, largely featuring Ellen, James, and Bates, is discomforting to watch.

Timothy Paul Coderre, who plays Joseph Bates, starred in “Rulers of Darkness”, which is about a “terrifying entity in the woods.”

Also, Aaron Hartzler, who did the screenplay for this movie, “is an actor and writer, known for Gay Propaganda (2002).” According to the description for that short movie, it basically does what the title says – spread the gay culture.

I watched the entire movie. While the first part is fantastic, and true to history, the last part has a different spirit. Perhaps the fact that several of the stars (like the woman who plays Ellen) have appeared in Satanic possession movies, has introduced an evil spirit into this film?

I recommend everyone thinking of watching this movie to BEWARE! Perhaps small snippets could be used to good effect, and God could bless, but I really don’t think the movie as a whole is giving glory to God.

As NAD has turned more and more leftward in the past 50 years, it is no wonder that their works often get featured in Huffington Post, which is the standard-bearer for leftist thought.

While the Adventist Review is a little more circumspect, editors/moderators there have a definite left slant to things, so often they remove comments that offend them.

On July 15, 2016, I read this article, and saw a truthful comment by an “Evelyn” that had surprisingly been allowed:

Seems too many of our pastors are too learned to preach the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy . Much of the sermons are more story telling than (milk) than the soul searching messages that we need to prepare us to stand in these days of the investigative judgement. And to make it worse the few who sound the warnings are marginalized , refused hiring and denied speaking engagements by the very leaders who feel sympathy for “racist acts”.

I replied to her:

Your post is powerful, Evelyn!
Seems to me, that our SDA leaders have focused on the dreaded “Religious Right” for so long, that they don’t realize they have been almost totally bamboozled by the “Irreligious Left”.

which got removed.

My takeaway is that our church really is in bed deep with the Irreligious Left, and likes that to be kept quiet.

“We are not addressing here such peripheral discrepancies in the inspired writings as how many of Jacob’s family came to Egypt (see Gen. 46:27; Acts 7:14) or exactly which bell tolled to signal the start of the St. Bartholomew Massacre (see Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years, 1905-1915, pp. 330-331).”

I’ve had someone else who is generally seen as a strong “conservative” pastor tell me gravely that since Genesis says 70 people went to Egypt, and 75 are mentioned in Acts, that there is an obvious error in one of the places. That floored me, as I’m not used to conservative pastors asserting that there are errors in God’s word, so told him that the Bible was not only written for us in the 21st century, but for those of all ages. There are several possibilities to explain this seeming discrepancy, such as how they counted “going down to Egypt” had changed, or how they counted slaves in the family had changed, or maybe how they counted those still in the wombs of their mothers when traveling down to Egypt etc.

Anytime anyone gets up and asserts that there are errors in the Bible, they are doing the work of Satan. In this instance, if they believe that one of these places is in error, how can they say with certainty that BOTH places are not in error? Maybe the verses before and after it are in error? Maybe the whole Bible is in error? Once you roll the ball into Satan’s camp, how do you get it out again?

Kevin Paulson also quoted Selected Messages vol.1, p. 19-21, which is again, the exact same place the other conservative pastor quoted me around 10 years ago. In it, it says:

“It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired.”

This, however, is contrary to all the Bible and most other writings with Ellen White’s name on the cover. I believe that coming from “Selected Messages”, the title alone should be enough to warn people that the contents may be massaged. She has told us to only take her published writings as her settled position, which is also another reason to not take what is in Selected Messages as her settled position (since it is not her published writings).

In contrast, Testimonies to the Church vol. 5 says:

“But it is Satan’s work to pervert the investigative powers of the mind. A certain pride is mingled with the consideration of Bible truth, so that men feel defeated and impatient if they cannot explain every portion of Scripture to their satisfaction. It is too humiliating to them to acknowledge that they do not understand the inspired words. They are unwilling to wait patiently until God shall see fit to reveal the truth to them. They feel that their unaided human wisdom is sufficient to enable them to comprehend the Scripture; and failing to do this, they virtually deny its authority. It is true that many theories and doctrines popularly supposed to be the teaching of the Bible have no foundation in Scripture and, indeed, are contrary to the whole tenor of inspiration. These things have been a cause of doubt and perplexity to many minds. They are not, however, chargeable to God’s word, but to man’s perversion of it. But the difficulties in the Bible do not reflect upon the wisdom of God; they will not cause the ruin of any who would not have been destroyed if no such difficulties had existed. Had there been no mysteries in the Bible for them to question, the same minds would, through their own lack of spiritual discernment, have found cause of stumbling in the plainest utterances of God.”

Likewise a SDA pastor came rolling by in his Accord. As the light turned red, he stopped in front of the woman. When he saw her, he considered how the placard holders were trying to take away her civil right to do something that the country had declared lawful. He lowered his window to tell the protesters that they were doing a bad thing by trying to force their religious views onto others. Satisfied that he had done his duty to God, he raised the window and drove off as the light had changed.

But a certain Catholic, one of the protesters, came to where the woman was, and when he saw her, he had compassion on her. He went to her and gave her a pamphlet showing how the baby is forming in her womb, and how there are many alternatives to having it aborted. She, teary-eyed, asked him if she could go to the care center mentioned in the pamphlet. So he gently put her in his Aspire, took her to the care center, and gave a hundred dollars to the lady in charge, telling her that whatever was needed for the woman to have her baby delivered safely, and then help for raising or adopting, he would take care of it when he came back.

http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story3553-robert-folkenberg-former-adventist-church-president-dead-at-74

That article is telling a falsehood by making it appear that Mr. Folkenberg “resigned”, when in fact, he was forced out of his office for severe financial irregularites pointed out by GC chief auditor David Dennis and others.

Well, since AR will not allow my posts regarding the truth of the matter, I will post here. Robert Folkenberg was forced out of office because of financial irregularities, and probably even something so bad that it would have made newspaper headline scandal pages all over the country if it had been brought out in public. It did reach several newspapers as it was.

David Dennis, the chief auditor of the General Conference, a personal family friend, was kicked out for exposing Folkenberg’s shenanigans.

Here are some articles by Vance Ferrell regarding this issue:

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-E-F/Folkenberg-853.pdf

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-E-F/Folkenberg-858.pdf

“Tuesday, January 26, 1999
You will recall that 85% of an $8 million promissory note turned over to Robert Folkenberg, president of the General Conference, by James Moore, a Sacramento-based land developer, was supposed to have been issued by him to a California-based Catholic organization, Vicariatus Urbis Foundation (VUF), in which Moore was involved. An additional 15% was to be assigned to Sharing International of Tennessee (SIT).
Moore later discovered that Folkenberg had not carried out either transfer. The 85% was unaccounted for, and the 15% had been given to the bankruptcy estate of someone named Robert Dolan. These omissions had occurred without informing Moore. In other words, according to him, he had been robbed of 100% of the $8 million promissory note. This loss is the basis of Moore’s lawsuit. He wants to recover that money.
We have learned more about Sharing International of Tennessee (SIT), the nonprofit charitable organization which Folkenberg was involved in.”

So basically Folkenberg tried to steal 8 million dollars.

Here is more info on the case:

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-E-F/Folk-time.pdf

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-E-F/Folkenberg-Fall.pdf

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-E-F/Folk-Paulson879.pdf

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-D/Dennis-Canola1008.pdf

But the best resource on what all happened is the book “Fatal Accounts” that David Dennis actually wrote himself. The most disgraceful thing is how someone who supposedly leads God’s remnant people stoops to slander and spreading lies to viciously smear someone for doing their job for the church. I pray that David Dennis will forgive for what was done to him, and remember that even Jesus was murdered in the house of his friends.

http://advmca.org/articles/Dennis_Fatal_Accounts_6-28-10

Both of those goals were met in this study, but somehow, even though the leading SDA theologians of the day (LeRoy Froom and M.L. Andreasen) were on the committee, and seemed to agree with the results, and even though this study took several years and quite a lot of money to produce, it was never released in a normal way to the church, but basically just shelved.

Be that as it may, what I have found available on the internet is a treasure trove of info for figuring out for yourself how to calculate the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), and of course all the Feasts of the Lord, each year.

Most of them are in PDF format, with one in RTF, and one written by myself in TXT. I recommend that they be read in the order below. If you just want to dive right into the technical details, please go to Report Part V.
www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/Letter_of_Conveyance.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/The_1844_Millerite_Time_Problem.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/Brief_review_of_the_new_views_regarding_Millerite_chronology.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/Jewish_Feast_Cycle_(1843_and_1844).pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/RC_Report_Part_I.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/RC_Report_Part_II.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/RC_Report_Part_III.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/RC_Report_Part_IV.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/RC_Report_Part_V.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/RC_Report_Part_V-april27-31ad.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/RC_Report_Part_VI.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/How_The_Millerites_Chose_Oct_date.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/Courageous_action_of_Millerites_on_Jewish_Calendar_problem.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/calculating-october-22-1844.rtf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/Research_Committee_Final_Report.pdf

www.great-controversy-movie.com/blog/articles/grace-amadon/grace-amadon-collection-notes.txt

No, I’m not agreeing with all of these. I do agree strongly that the pope being invited to address the US House and Senate is a very significant event fulfilling prophecy. Will there be natural or manmade disasters or financial calamaties happen in this time frame too? I don’t know.

Certainly it is a good time to be aware tho.

Here is a video I made on the subject:

HOWEVER, the date of the Day of Atonement this year is October 23. No Seventh-day Adventist should ever fall for the idea that it is in September this year. We know that October 22, 1844 was the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) for that year, as that is the exact day that the 2300 day prophecy finished, and Jesus stepped into the Most Holy Place to start working there. To arrive at that date, you MUST start the new year with the first new moon (whether conjunction or sliver is a different matter) AFTER the Spring Equinox. There is no way the currently accepted method among most Hebrew Roots people and Statute keeping SDAs of starting the new year with the first FULL MOON after the Spring Equinox could possibly arrive at a date of October 22.

Here is a short quote from Ellen White’s diary of 1859 regarding the question of voting:

[Battle Creek,] Sunday, March 6, 1859
Had an interview with Martha Byington. Cut out a dress. We were perplexed; took it all to pieces and made it over. Spent the afternoon with [Mary] Loughborough; attended meeting in the eve. Had quite a free, interesting meeting. After it was time to close, the subject of voting was considered and dwelt upon. James first talked, then Brother Andrews talked and it was thought by them best to give their influence in favor of right and against wrong. They think it right to vote in favor of temperance men being in office in our city, instead of—by their silence—running the risk of having men of non-temperance put in office. Brother Hewitt told his experience of a few days, and is settled that it is right to cast his vote. Brother Hart talked well.

Brother Lyon opposed. No other objected to voting, but Brother Kellogg begins to feel that it is right. Pleasant feelings exist among all the brethren. Oh, that they may all act in the fear of God. Men of intemperance have been in the office today, in a flattering manner expressing their approbation of the course of Sabbathkeepers in not voting, and expressing hope that they will stick to their course and, like the Quakers, not cast their vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time and he has a work upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is my prayer.

[Battle Creek,] Monday, March 7, 1859
It is rainy today. It looks very gloomy without, but if the Sun of righteousness shines in my heart all is well and no outward appearance and gloom can make me sad. Today the votes are cast for town officers.