Ellen White’s Afterlife: Author Interview with George R. Knight

(Frankmer7) #103

It is very telling that you are stuck in the OT in all your examples. In fact, the whole NT points beyond all the OT prophets to Jesus. He, and the eternal gospel, are above and beyond any examples you give… including what EGW wrote. She gives no new insight into the gospel, and in fact presents a muddied up picture of it in places.

He is central to Christian faith and life, not her or her writings. Millions of Christians can access him and his Spirit fully without her. They do. Everyday. Just as Paul wrote there is no difference, God is the one God of Jew and Gentle, we can also say he is the one God of the Adventist and all other Christians. Even those, astonishingly, who have not gone through the circumcision of EGW’S writings. Lol!


(Cfowler) #104

What quote are you referring to?

(Nathan Robinson) #105

I read Knight’s book, and I admire what he is attempting to do - defending EGW while correcting over-blown claims about her authority. BUT . . . is this even possible? I would love to somehow preserve EGW. I read her in past days and was blessed.

Attempts by SDA historians to do apologetics on EGW stike me more as attempts at making excuses. The line about EGW not being a slave to her sources, but being their master seems to be the most egregious example. That reasoning is bollocks, and is only acceptable if you presuppose that EGW was above the law, either because God was forcing her to do what she did, or she did it with God’s blessing (thus making God unethical?).

This is old ground.

Mormons ran into a similar crisis when the papyrus Joseph Smith claimed to have translated to produce the “Book of Moses” was found at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Turns out it was a common funerary text. Joseph Smith just made the whole thing up, even adding his own drawings to the papyrus. Yet, in spite of this clear evidence, faith in Smith and his translation persist. Why? Because apologists search heaven and hell looking for excuses.

Truly, Smith was the master of his sources, not their slave!

(Steve Mga) #106

To ALL –
I would suggest we study 1 Corinthians 14. Subject: “Prophecy”.
According to Paul, a person who prophesies is NOT a future telling person.
A PROPHET according to Paul’s definition is one who “edifies, exhorts,
comforts, counsels.”
Perhaps IF WE would look at Ellen White in this particular position we
would be better served by what she has to say.

What do you think???

(Ikswezdyr) #107

I can still remember it–“the want of the world is the want of men that are as [faithful,honest??} as the needle to the pole.” I don’t have time to look it up word for word, but I think you will recognize it from the above words.

(Johnny Carson) #108

“Men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole.”

Many years ago I learned and sang this quote put to music and conducted by Wayne Hooper during a Men’s Chorus event in Portland, Oregon.

(Ikswezdyr) #109

Thank you for remembering. Didn’t know they put these quotes to music.

(Cfowler) #110

Yes, I know the one you are referring to. I think the original quote is from Southern Home Journal ~ March 1869. It seems to have been a quote going around at that time. I think this was a borrowed quote by EGW/or one of her writers.

Here are a couple of links:



It appears that EGW’s quote first appeared in 1871.

If you find out more info, let us know.

(Cfowler) #111

But, what about this part?

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

1 Cor 14:29-32

(Frankmer7) #112

It was borrowed by her, Carol. So Billy Graham is now borrowing from a borrower. Lol!


(Steve Mga) #113

That quotation found its way into the book Education printed in 1903.
Apparently it had a VERY LOOOONG life.

(Johnny Carson) #114

Or maybe BG was borrowing from the original source? The reason I suggest this is because there always seems to be this Adventist need, desire, or hunger of associations, of honorable mention, or being noticed by the greater Christian world, sort of like the forgotten step child wanting attention from the parents. So yes, of course he was quoting EGW, right? :wink:

(Cfowler) #115

I thought that too. Maybe he borrowed it from some other source. Even if it came from her writings, we know that her writings (much of them), came from other Christian authors.

I’ve noticed that too, John. Why the need for recognition from the “Babylonians”? :thinking: :wink: :grinning:

(Frankmer7) #116

The desire to not have the pejorative association with the cults is what may drive it, Carol. The desire for legitimacy goes hand in hand with it, I think.


(Cfowler) #117

I think you’re right. Wanting to be accepted, all the while teaching that they (other Protestants) are the daughters of the harlot, and the Adventists are the remnant. Duplicitous much?

(Steve Mga) #118

John, Frank –
If Ellen and the Review Editors of her time could find that quotation,
surely the Billy Graham Team could have found it also.
Everyone using the same source material.

(Sam Geli) #119

niteguy2Steve Mga said:
“The 1888 Great Controversy was revised. Actually I believe there was one more after that prior to Ellen’s death.”

The official EGW estate website says this:

"Is The Great Controversy Missing a Chapter?"
_ ----White Estate Vault Feature _
Readers comparing the Spanish edition of The Great Controversy to the English original may be surprised to learn that the Spanish version contains an additional chapter—chapter 13. The origin of this chapter is explained in The Later Elmshaven Years, [vol. 6 of the Ellen G. White Biography series,] p. 377, as follows:
As the work of the church was broadening to take in many countries and many languages, steps were taken to translate the new book so that the peoples of many tongues might read. One of the first was the Spanish, undertaken almost immediately…
_This chapter was compiled by C. C. Crisler and H. H. Hall, and was inserted in this book with the approval of the author.–Page 252. _
Consequently, there has never been any missing chapter from The Great Controversy. This non-Ellen White material has always been available in the Spanish edition, and it was never intended by her to be a part of the original English edition."

This statement raises the following questions for me.

  1. The Chapter 13 in Spanish is historically interesting and gives a good context for understanding politics and policies of the Catholic church in Spain. Why is this chapter not included officially and translated in English? The church is now almost one third in number of members who speak Spanish and this chapter about how the inner workings of reform impacted Catholicism should be of interest to all of us. Where is the original English translation of this Chapter 13?
  2. Why was this chapter “…never intended by her (E.G. White) to be a part of the original English edition.”?
  3. Is a work of “collaboration” to be considered as inspired as the rest of the book?

Did Ellen G. White include in this important Spanish book material that she understood and believed in to be relevant and helpful for Spanish speaking believers? If she “collaborated” with others in including this chapter what do we define as “collaboration” and what is the rationale, boundaries and application of this practice.

(Steve Mga) #120

Thanks. THAT was new information. All I knew about was the Original and the
2 revisions. The last around 1911 or so.
Reason I knew about them was I heard older, long term members discuss that
there was negative feelings toward the 1911 revision. Felt the earlier one was
“the True” Great Controversy.
That’s what happens as a kid when one just listens to Adults and keeps their
mouths shut. Learn a lot of things. See a lot of things. Maybe question a lot
of things, but don’t ask.

(Carolyn Wesner) #121

All those letters were incorporated into 9 volumes which became known at “The Testimonies” - private letters which became applicable to everyone. In 1919 A. G. Daniels was asked point-blank if he believed “The Testimonies”. I have been asked point blank in 2019 if I believe “The Testimonies”. I think it was and still is denominational-employment suicide to answer with “No”. EGW came to believe her own publicity and talked of “The Testimonies” as though they had a life of their own, apart from herself as the letter writer (I’m sorry not to provide the reference for this, but I no longer have these books in my home). In traditional/conservative SDA circles, belief in The Testimonies is still THE test of faith.

(Carolyn Wesner) #122

From this past quarter’s SS lessons, I would say most definitely that prophecy IS the dominant influence/power in the SDA denomination, with the church specifically indicated as the central figure. Not that I agree with that…kind of leaves out Jesus.